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 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | → | Archive 10 |
I have taken the best parts of CEBR's last version and, after inserting some wikilinks, better phrasing and other minor edits, I believe that we have got a variant good enough for inclusion into the article:
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Federative Republic of Brazil | |||
---|---|---|---|
The Federative Republic of Brazil is considered by a number of analysts and academics a potential superpower of the 21st Century. [1] [2]
In a lecture entitled Brazil as an Emerging World Power, [3] presented at the Mario Einaudi Center for International Studies, Leslie Elliot Armijo has said that "Brazil will soon rise as Latin America’s first superpower". Armijo states that "Brazil keeps solidifying itself as leader of its region by launching a series of integration projects", adding also that "as an international actor, Brazil has also taken a larger share of world politics by incrementing its already strong presence in economic initiatives, such as the International Finance Facility and the G20", asserting that "Brazil’s rising prominence derives from its solid democratic rule and its strong economy" and concluding that "Soon, we’ll have two superpowers in the Western Hemisphere" [4] [5]
Mac Magolis states in his Newsweek article How Brazil Became a Superpower, the Crafty Superpower [6] that "Brazil is asserting itself as never before, but in a way that is markedly different from other big global players", adding that Lula is presiding "over a crafty superpower unlike any other emerging giant". Magolis argues that Brazil has "also become a more assertive voice for the emerging markets in international affairs", citing its involvement in the formation of the G5 and the BRIC meetings. In another article [7], Magolis points out that "Brazil is blessed with vast resources" and lists " timber, fresh water, gold... iron ore", stating also that Brazil's reserves of the last two resources are the largest of the world. He also states that while most of the world is running out of arable land, "Brazil has more than 70 million hectares still to plow". Magolis also documents how "the economy has accelerated without overheating", comparing it's growth with that of the other BRIC countries in a favourable light, stating that "no emerging nation has moved earlier or more intelligently than Brazil to head off the cancer of inflation". Another factor that is listed is that "While the booms in China and India are driven by poor peasants [going from the countryside to the cities]", Brazil has "85 percent of the country's 190 million people [living] in cities".
Marek Swierczynski, a journalist specializing in defense questions, in his Atlantic Community article [8] calls Brazil the "potential superpower of the South" and argues that it "may be on its way out of the western camp and can speed up the creation of the world’s new order". He points out that Brazil "has teamed up with Russia, to develop state of the art jet fighters and space launchers, a move to boost its defence capabilities and to match the country's power with its size". Elizabeth Reavey, a research associate from the Council on Hemispheric Affairs, claims in the title of her article [9] that While the US Looks Eastward Brazil Is Emerging as a Nuclear Superpower. While describing the importance of the ongoing development of nuclear technology in the country, she calls Brazil an emerging superpower, with a "potential to have a China-like, booming economy, increased nuclear capabilities, a growing self-confidence in its own power and an ability to make its own way".
Brazil is often called an economic superpower, either present or future, and many experts and journalists compare Brazil with the other potential superpowers of BRIC group. Jonathan Power from Transnational Foundation for Peace and Future Research claims in his article Brazil is becoming an economic and political superpower that "Brazil has a head start on India and China", saying that it has been positively developing for over 100 years and adding that "between 1960 and 1980 Brazil doubled its per capita income". [10] Michael Skapinker argues in his Financial Times article [11] that the recently found large oil reserves "present the intriguing prospect of Brazil becoming a major oil exporter" while deriving most of its own electricity from renewable sources and powering many of its cars with sugar cane ethanol. He also asserts that, unlike China, Brazil has no sharp ethnic conflicts and is a multi-party democracy. In the Economist article called Brazil, an economic superpower, and now oil too [12] it is asserted that "Brazil enjoyed Chinese rates of growth in the third quarter of the 20th century". In another article [13] Brazil is considered to be a much richer country than China and India, and it is asserted that "its economy grew by an average of 7% a year from 1940 to 1980". Yet another Economist article [14] argues that Brazil could overtake both Britain and France to become the world's fifth-largest economy sometime in the next decade after 2014, rather sooner than Goldman Sachs had envisaged. Furthermore, it is claimed that "in some ways, Brazil outclasses the other BRICs": unlike China, it has a democratic system of government, unlike India, it has no insurgents, ethnic or religious conflicts, and no hostile neighbours, and unlike Russia, exports more than oil and arms and "treats foreign investors with respect". The article comes to conclusion that "when it comes to smart social policy and boosting consumption at home, the developing world has much more to learn from Brazil than from China", and that "Brazil suddenly seems to have made an entrance onto the world stage", citing the recent decision for Rio de Janeiro to host the 2016 Olympics, as well as Brazil's hosting of the 2014 FIFA World Cup. This is a basis for foreign investment pouring into the country, along with falling poverty, "swelling lower-middle class", "strong political institutions" and "reform and democratic consensus-building".
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
This is it. Perhaps, the last two paragraphs could be reduced, as they don't discuss the superpowerdom that directly, however, I believe, that some statements from The Economist and Financial Times should be included anyway, as they obviously put Brazil in the same class as China, India and Russia. I vote for inclusion of Brazil section into the article in the proposed form and subsequent editing right there, and if there would be no strong counter-arguments, the inclusion soon will be made. Greyhood ( talk) 17:53, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Greyhood in his discussion with Nirvana, and would like also to point out that Nirvana's posture seems a little bit status quo-ish. Nirvana, you may have the personal opinion that Brazil don't belong in here, but you can't deny that it ought to be here according to the rules, it is much better sourced than much of the other superpowers in the article. You already made several excuses to prevent Brazil from being added, your latest excuse was that it lacked reliable sources, what is your excuse now?
"Overall most scholars do not perceive Brazil as a future superpower" You don't know scholars enough to say it.
"I want to point out the following things. We have at least two scholars mentioned for now: Leslie Elliott Armijo directly states that Brazil is a potential superpower, while Jonathan Power directly puts Brazil into the same category as China and India. In fact, now we have better material on Brazil than on Russia, and not so far worse than on India. I am pretty sure that more expert views can be found, but we have enough for the start, and placing the section right into the article would attract more editors to expand it, make it more neutral and find better sources."
Indeed.
"::: I've checked the sources and I think that the only sources worth keeping are [9] and [10]. The rest are either media sources, without an expert's opinion, or don't don't bring up Brazil's superpowerstatus at all."
Indeed those two you mentioned are top notch, but the media sources should be kept, they are good and even if we assume that they are not worth as much as the two you mentioned, they are still worthy, even if in a supportive role, mate.
"I've checked the two sources he referred to and they seem pretty inadequate. One is from a "foundation" of little repute, and another is a media source from a college newspaper."
If you checked it with good faith you'd probably have noticed that:
The newspaper is from Cornell University and don't expose its opinion, it reports a lecture by Leslie Elliot Armijo, the political science professor at Portland State University, titled “Brazil as an Emerging World Power?” at the Mario Einaudi Center for International Studies.
The article in the site of the foundation is by Jonathan Power, who is certainly qualified: "Columnist, film-maker and writer. M.Sc in economics, trained as a geographer and agricultural economist. For the first ten years after graduate school community work in slum neighborhoods in Chicago and London. Worked for Martin Luther King 1966-1967. For 30 years a journalist, of which 17 as columnist for the International Herald Tribune 1974-1991; he has been a regular guest columnist in New York Times and Encounter.
Silver Medal at the Venice Film Festival 1972 for "It's Ours Whatever They Say". Author of several books on economic development, world hunger and on Amnesty International and human rights issues.
Consultant to numerous international organizations and editorial adviser on the Independent Commission on Disarmament and Security chaired by Olof Palme.
Now the author of a weekly column appearing in 41 papers around the world - all featured since 1997 at the TFF Forum, just click!
He is a regular contributor to the opinion page of the International Herald Tribune and Prospect Magazine and he is also working on a new book, '"Conundrum", a foreign correspondent's look at twelve of the world's most difficult to answer questions.
Follow this link to read about - and order - Jonathan Power's book written for the 40th Anniversary of Amnesty International: "Like Water on Stone - The Story of Amnesty International".
Power is a regular contributor to the opinion page of the International Herald Tribune and to Prospect Magazine. He became a TFF Associate in 1991."
"I am of the opinion we need less not more powers if we are to actually consider which states have reasonable potential to be a superpower."
In other words, your opinion is Status quo-ish. The point is that editors are not supposed to let their personal opinion have influence over the article and that wikipedia ought to present points of views from reliable sources, not your opinion, if you want to make a list that reflects your opinion, make it in your user page or in a blog, mate. CEBR ( talk) 05:01, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
":CEBR, I think perhaps I was misinterpreted. I am not against Brazil as a superpower and have no bias against it. My position is just that some serious academic work has to back up its potential if we are to list it. As I have stated journalists often crank out articles about how China, Russia or even many other smaller stakes are superpowers when the academic consensus is that they are not. If you can find some scholarly work on Brazil as a potential superpower, I would encourage you to add it to the section. Nirvana888 ( talk) 15:29, 16 November 2009 (UTC)"
Then, fellow, Brazil already counts with your support, look at the qualification of Leslie Elliot Armijo (who said things such as "Brazil will soon rise as Latin America’s first superpower" and "Soon, we’ll have two superpowers in the Western Hemisphere" in her lecture about Brazil): http://www.mindspring.com/~leslie.armijo/ http://www.sfu.ca/las/news/LeslieElliotArmijo.html
Excellent source, fellow, I also think that it can be added. Thank you. CEBR ( talk) 16:50, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Federative Republic of Brazil | |||
---|---|---|---|
The Federative Republic of Brazil is considered by a number of analysts and academics a potential superpower of the 21st Century. [15] [16]
In a lecture entitled Brazil as an Emerging World Power, [17] presented at the Mario Einaudi Center for International Studies, Leslie Elliot Armijo has said that "Brazil will soon rise as Latin America’s first superpower". Armijo states that "Brazil keeps solidifying itself as leader of its region by launching a series of integration projects", adding also that "as an international actor, Brazil has also taken a larger share of world politics by incrementing its already strong presence in economic initiatives, such as the International Finance Facility and the G20", asserting that "Brazil’s rising prominence derives from its solid democratic rule and its strong economy" and concluding that "Soon, we’ll have two superpowers in the Western Hemisphere" [18] [19]
In 2009 the Brookings Institution published a book called Brazil as an Economic Superpower? [20], coedited by Leonardo Martinez-Diaz and Lael Brainard, fellows in the Brookings and directors of its Global Economy and Development Program. In the announcement of the conference devoted to Brazil and this book, the Brookings Press calls Brazil "a geopolitical and economic emerging power". [21] In the summary of the conference it was concluded that "in the past decade, Brazil’s role in the world economy has changed in important ways" and that Brazil "occupies key niches in global energy, agriculture, service and some high-technology markets". However, it was noted that "Latin America’s largest nation still struggles with endemic inequality issues and deep-seated ambivalence toward global economic integration". [22]
Marek Swierczynski, a journalist and defense analyst, in his Atlantic Community article [23] calls Brazil the "potential superpower of the South" and argues that it "may be on its way out of the western camp and can speed up the creation of the world’s new order". He points out that Brazil "has teamed up with Russia, to develop state of the art jet fighters and space launchers, a move to boost its defence capabilities and to match the country's power with its size". Elizabeth Reavey, a research associate from the Council on Hemispheric Affairs, claims in the title of her article that While the US Looks Eastward Brazil Is Emerging as a Nuclear Superpower [24]. Describing the importance of the ongoing development of nuclear technology in the country, she calls Brazil an emerging superpower, with a "potential to have a China-like, booming economy, increased nuclear capabilities, a growing self-confidence in its own power and an ability to make its own way".
Brazil is often called an economic superpower, either present or future, and many experts and journalists compare Brazil with the other potential superpowers of BRIC group. Jonathan Power from Transnational Foundation for Peace and Future Research claims in his article Brazil is becoming an economic and political superpower that "Brazil has a head start on India and China", saying that it has been positively developing for over 100 years and adding that "between 1960 and 1980 Brazil doubled its per capita income". [25] Mac Magolis states in his Newsweek article How Brazil Became a Superpower, the Crafty Superpower [26] that "Brazil is asserting itself as never before, but in a way that is markedly different from other big global players", adding that Lula is presiding "over a crafty superpower unlike any other emerging giant". In another article [27], Magolis points out that "Brazil is blessed with vast resources" and spare arable land. He compares Brazil with the other BRIC countries in a favourable light, stating that "While the booms in China and India are driven by poor peasants [going from the countryside to the cities]", Brazil has "85 percent of the country's 190 million people [living] in cities". Michael Skapinker, the Financial Times editor, argues in his article called Brazil is the 21st century power to watch [28] that the recently found large oil reserves "present the intriguing prospect of Brazil becoming a major oil exporter" while deriving most of its own electricity from renewable sources and powering many of its cars with sugar cane ethanol. He also asserts that, unlike China, Brazil has no sharp ethnic conflicts and is a multi-party democracy. The Economist article called Brazil, an economic superpower, and now oil too [29] shares Skapinker's view. This article and a number of other Economist articles [30] [31] state that "Brazil enjoyed Chinese rates of growth in the third quarter of the 20th century", "an average of 7% a year from 1940 to 1980", and that "in some ways, Brazil outclasses the other BRICs": unlike China, it has a democratic system of government, unlike India, it has no insurgents, ethnic or religious conflicts, and no hostile neighbours, and unlike Russia, exports more than oil and arms. The authors from the Economist conclude that "Brazil suddenly seems to have made an entrance onto the world stage", citing also the recent decision for Rio de Janeiro to host the 2016 Olympics, as well as Brazil's hosting of the 2014 FIFA World Cup.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Let's make a sum of the proposed section and the discussion above:
Awaiting your comments. Greyhood ( talk) 20:51, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for doing this summary, fellow, really very nice of you. Seems to me that everyone, except maybe Nirvana, recognizes that Brazil meets the criteria of Wikipedia to be added to this article. Let us add it to the article, then, fellows? CEBR ( talk) 13:27, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
"Just to appease us, do that"
lol, appease you? O.o
As in "let's sacrifice a goat to appease the Gods"? lol
":Hold your horses. I don't think that Brazil is ready to be included in the article yet. First of all, no sources should be included unless they express the opinion of, atleast, one expert or analyst (journalists doesn't belong in this category). This rule applies to all the other sections, which is why a big part of Russia's section was removed, so it's only right that it should apply to Brazil's aswell."
Me, Greyhood and the rules of Wikipedia are opposed to you about this. Media sources are very acceptable according to Wikipedia criteria. But, lets make it simple now, let's put the new version by Greyhood in the article. We have all the time in the World to make changes later.
By the way, it keeps amazing me how the first source about China is a media source, CNN and you say nothing about it.
Greyhood, you're doing a great job! Thank you! :)
So, with this new version by Greyhood shall we finally add it?
Cheers, fellows CEBR ( talk) 02:27, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
So, guys, I wait for some other strong arguments against the inclusion of Brazil. If you won't find them in a span of a day or less, I recommend CEBR to include Brazil section in the present form, or will do it myself. Greyhood ( talk) 14:12, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
So, fellows, any objections to adding Greyhood's excellent work to the article? CEBR ( talk) 23:54, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
[18] - Only mentions the word superpower in the title, which has been a no no for a long time back ( look through the archives )
[19] - non-academic media source
[20] - doesn't mention the word superpower
[21] - doesn't mention the word superpower
[22] - Only mentions the word superpower in the title
[23] - doesn't mention the word superpower
[24] - doesn't mention the word superpower
My personal opinion is that if Brazil is to be included these sources must be handled in an appropriate way (removal). And, PLEASE, would you be polite enough to at least wait for my response before you take action. I have, again, some important things to do, so post your response, but if I don't answer today or tomorrow don't take that as if I don't have anything to say, okey? Swedish pirate ( talk) 18:05, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Excellent job, Greyhood! The Brazil section is really good! Thank you! ;)
"As for the comparison of Brazil and Japan, Brazil has obviously far more resources and more promising demography than Japan, so it has far greater potential for the development of economy."
Indeed, I agree.
Swedish Pirate, there is absolutely no reason for deleting the entire Brazil section now.
So, let's not remove Brazil's section from now on, fellows, let's work to improve it along with the ones of Russia, India, EU and China. Okay?
CEBR ( talk) 22:26, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi, fellow!
Indeed, I guess there is consensus, but maybe Swedish Pirate will just delete the section again (which would be a pain in the backside), let's wait and see...
I'll follow your advices, mate.
I'll try to find more sources. Not only about Brazil, about Russia and India too. CEBR ( talk) 03:55, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Brazil is not a superpower yet. You compare India, China with Brazil. It's not how much poor people or Sports contribution that shows a country as superpower. It's dominance and effect on World. China is certainly World effecting country. India too got dominance and say in South-asia and Afgan and other countries. Just my thoughts.. But i dont think brazil's yet ready to be added. it's emerging Power.. True, But, it's not Potential Superpower yet, when other countries are running way ahead forward. As someone said Earlier here somewhere, If Brazil is added .. why isn't Japan, Mexico? you can't disagree Japan is a Powerful country. As i say, I dont think just a no. of poor people or some statments by scholars in some interviews claim one country to be a superpower. Brazil is good.. but a superpower .. not yet.
[Initial thoughts]
Brazil has been rejected many times.. yet again someone adds it in..and then again there's a serial of long discussions.. Just one Question.. If Brazil ..then why not Japan? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.95.29.220 ( talk) 05:36, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
I'd say Brazil has as much shot at being a superpower as Germany or France do. I mean their economy and military are already so far ahead of Brazil that why are we not talking about them instead? I have yet to hear anyone even attempt to discuss Brazil as a world superpower and so this is completely misleading. But hey, we're hear to talk about potential superpowers am I right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.33.84.13 ( talk) 04:38, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
A number of experts cited in the article and a large number of journalists have already been speaking about Brazil potential superpowerdom for some time. Brazil has much more resources than France or Germany and much better demograghy than them (more population and faster population growth), that means better perspectives for Brazil in the future. Also, France and Germany are parts of EU which is deemed to be a superpower. Greyhood ( talk) 12:52, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
I fully support it's inclusion into articles as a potential superpower, however, I am dismayed at the information presented. Nowhere does the article give any hint to what may hamper Brazil's ascendancy to superpower status. I'd say there are more problems preventing Brazil from ever being a superpower. So we need to add information on why Brazil may not be a superpower. Because right now, the way the articles are worded, anyone reading this page and not knowing anything about the world would think Brazil is the only country that will become a superpower because of the way the article about it is written. And we all know that of the countries on the page, Brazil is probably last at becoming a superpower. I'd say it's China, EU, Russia, India and then Brazil. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.33.84.13 ( talk) 04:32, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Okey, my suggestion is that we leave it as it is for now, I'll see if I can find some more sources on the Russian superpower-status. The problem is that there aren't that many sources talking about Russia as a superpower anymore, but I'll see what i can find. Swedish pirate ( talk) 16:06, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
"*Parag Khanna's views on Russia's demography contradict the existing reality. I understand that Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth, which is hard to define sometimes; however that doesn't mean that we should not include the verifiable counter-arguments to the verifiable false statements. Greyhood ( talk) 15:50, 14 November 2009 (UTC)"
It would be indeed fair to find and mention a source that oposes Parag Khanna's point of view to balance the article, make it neutral. CEBR ( talk) 02:06, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
I made some research, and indeed it seems like Russia's population is growing now for the first time in 15 years. In my opinion, we ought to find a good source documenting this and add it to the article to counterbalance Parag Khanna's point of view. CEBR ( talk) 16:57, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Indeed, either I'm counting it wrong or Parag Khanna is mathematically wrong regarding that comparison with Turkey by 2025. There is also that point that it doesn't need to be true to be added if the source is reliable, but, is it really necessary to add it? In my point of view, no, thus, I agree with you, Greyhood, better not include it at all. CEBR ( talk) 13:21, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
There seems to be a misunderstanding about the term superpower here. A superpower wields almost hegemonic influence. The inclusion of BRIC countries here like Russia, India or Brazil indicates that the term superpower is confused with the term great power. Brazil, India, or Russia have no perspective of becoming a superpower in the next 20 years. Rather these countries can achieve or maintain a great power/ regional power status. The only serious candidates are China and the EU (with all its great power member states). The article right now is based to much on unreliable references and on boosterism. all the best Lear 21 ( talk) 17:15, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Greyhood is right. CEBR ( talk) 19:35, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
No, Zhonghuo, there are many areas in which China is not superior to the other BRICs, such as the ones pointed out by Greyhood.
"And finally, it's all very interesting, but if we continue such speculations we'll turn this page into forum, which is not what we should do."
Indeed, you're right, this is not the place for this. CEBR ( talk) 01:57, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Bambuway, Brazil is extremely well sourced, and there is no Original Research about Brazil in this article. CEBR ( talk) 17:52, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
What do people think about the source quoting Leslie Elliot Armijo? In my view, its not exactly of high quality. Cornell Sun is a college paper and does not have much repute. Secondly, the article refers to a lecture given not an academic paper. Perhaps someone could replace it with an academic work by the Armijo that elaborates on how Brazil is a potential superpower. Nirvana888 ( talk) 02:26, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
The source quoting Leslie Elliot Armijo is reliable according to the rules of Wikipedia, it is from one of the best universities of the World.
A lecture is academic, thus it is valid.
Yes, Greyhood, there are some papers of her's available on the web. CEBR ( talk) 08:10, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Shouldn't the main articles on the potential superpowers be ordered according to likeliness and ability to become a superpower, rather than alphabetically? I mean it's not like there is any major debate on the ranking, and the order the countries are referred to in the introductory paragraph is pretty much correct. 79.65.109.76 ( talk) 16:15, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Well, the problem with it is that we, editors of Wikipedia, can't express our opinions, we are supposed to portray academic opinions, so we can't order it according to our opinions, thus we need to order it in the standard of ordering: alphabetically. CEBR ( talk) 08:02, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Iran has become a nation that masters nuclear technology, that is able to launch its own satellite into space, that is able to build its own weapons, that is able to build is own navy warships, and so on. Isn't Iran already a superpower? -- tequendamia ( talk) 11:43, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Grain (kg per captia per year): India 158, Africa: 146 Veg. (kg per captia per year): India 68, Africa: 54 Eggs (kg per captia per year): India 1, Africa: 2 Fish (kg per captia per year): India: 6, Africa: 9 Fruit (kg per captia per year): India: 37, Africa: 52 Meat (kg per captia per year): India: 5, Africa: 15
Heat (kcal, per captia per day): India: 2472, Africa: 2436 Protein (gram per day per captia): India: 58, Africa: 61 Fat (gram per day per captia): India: 53, Africa: 49
Source:FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS http://faostat.fao.org/site/610/DesktopDefault.aspx?PageID=610#ancor
Almost 50% India children suffer from malnutrition, percentage-wise it is EVEN higher than that of even Sub-Saharan Africa.
Source: The United Nations International Children's Fund: http://www.unicef.org/india/children_2356.htm
I recommend you people to remove countries like India, Brasil and perhaps Russia as well here.
In all fairness, what makes countries such as India/Brasil/Russia get more potential of becoming a superpower over countries like Japan, Britain, France, Germany, Italy, etc? well, Russia, at least, still get a pile of soviet-era nukes, but India and Brazil? does malnutrition or football make one superpower?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.96.242.164 ( talk) 12:10, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
At the moment, the bar of being a potential superpower here is so low to the degree that I can easily add a dozen or more countries as potential superpowers here.
Citing a newspaper or some books doesn't count, since these articles/books have not been peer-reviewed, and people, espeically in the absence of some quality control like peer-reviewing, like to abuse the word "superpower" to seek attention, hence there are so many "energy superpower", "culture superpower", "soft superpower", "regional superpower" or "knowledge superpower" in the world laterly.
I think we should increase the bar a bit higher, how about this: to be listed here, one need provide at least two or more peer-reviewed academic journal papers written by scholars where claim the country's superpower potential, and the academic journal papers should be published no earlier than 2000?
And by superpower we must make it clear, it should be superpower in the strictest sense, not half-ass "superpower" like soft, energy, regional, culture or knowledge "superpowers".
Superpower is not big power or great power or regional power, superpower supposed to be some power that far outclass any other "lesser" powers both economily and militarily, it supposed to be "Dominating".
Lets admit that, the only countries listed here that has a reasonable potential to be a superpower in the foreseeable future is China, and to a lesser degree, EU, if they can finally agree on something and work together (unlikely).
So either change the title of the article to "potential great powers", or remove countries like Brasil, India and Russia, the article at the moment looks like a joke. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.68.211.85 ( talk) 21:06, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Well, if citing a source is the only qualification needed to be listed here, then even african union can be listed as a potential superpower since I can cite many sources mentioning its potential superpower status, for instance: http://www.africanexecutive.com/modules/magazine/articles.php?article=506
I agree with the first editor. It is nonsense to claim a 21century future with more than 3 superpowers. Brazil does not even have the economy (GDP) of France or Italy, where is the potential of a superpower here? Same goes for India, the largest third world country with no technology no economic heft or political influence beyond its borders, again, where is the potential? The only 3 entities staying or becoming superinfluential powers within the next 2 decades are the US, the EU (incl all its member states) and China.
The article here is highly volatile, it wildly speculates and is obviously (partly) enhanced by patriotic enthusiasm. The references are very poor. At least in the case of Brazil or India, which are not even considered complete great powers. Because the superpower term involves a very dominating nature it can only be applied on very few countries, the article here seems rather to point at potential Great Powers. Becoming a superpower (in a multilateral world) would mean to dominate the others. Even in 30 years, which is superspeculative, it is unlikely in any scenario that the EU, US or then China are surpassed by some other actors.
Get real, IND and BRA show not even a potential. These 2 countries should be removed ASAP. Russia too.
http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/?id=39538 About the author: "John Feffer is the co-director of Foreign Policy In Focus at the Institute for Policy Studies, writes its regular World Beat column, and co-directs its Balkans Project."
So I guess Turkey should be included in this already-a-joke article to make it looks more entertaining, or perhaps, we should not just stick the full-of-holes "rules" here and applying some common sense to remove jokes like India, brasil, etc, to make this article looks more sane than it is now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.96.242.164 ( talk) 12:25, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Another article about Turkey [33] shows why it should be added to the page. Its a better superpower candidate that any other country on the current page. I also agree that India and especially Brazil [34] should be removed; Brazil has been a non-starter "potential superpower" for 200 years running. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.206.36.159 ( talk) 01:01, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Turkey is a strong power, top 20 economically and probably top 10 militarily. It could reclaim the glory days of Ottoman Empire (huge huge huge empire btw), but that would require going against the Western orbital sphere. Turkey has potential, probably more so than Brazil, but maybe less than India (in my opinion, not even a contender as of yet). Phead128 ( talk) 05:32, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
And how exactly is Turkey supposed to "reclaim the glory of the Ottoman empire"? Well, if it makes an alliance with Iran and if resoure-rich states as Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan join it, this could be a promising alliance (but will be in no way a second Ottoman empire). But there is too much "if". Besides, it is doubtful that even such an alliance is likely to become a superpower. Scheludko ( talk) 08:35, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
It is a key factory to Brazil becoming as a future superpower. How can this artical not mention it. http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Americas/2010/0317/Rio-protests-Sharing-Brazil-s-oil-revenues-will-hurt-2016-Olympics —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.84.172.200 ( talk) 04:24, 11 May 2010 (UTC) http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1842949,00.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.84.172.200 ( talk) 04:19, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
wtf are you talking about Comics? Your sentence makes no sense. Most everything in wikipedia is single sourced, why is my source not good enough to get the oil discovery mentioned?
Ohhh, ok thanks Sijo Ripa. I didn't know that OR was an acronym which is why the sentence confused me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.84.172.200 ( talk) 21:15, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
If there are a lot of mistakes in the definition of superpower in wiki how can this article to be right? 65.199.220.1 ( talk) 10:06, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Country | Population | GDP total | GDP per capita | Military expenditure | Mil. expend. per capita |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Brazil | 193,219,000 | 1,574,039 | 8,220 | 27,124,000,000 | 140 |
Canada | 34,255,000 | 1,336,427 | 39,669 | 20,564,000,000 | 600 |
China | 1,338,630,000 | 4,908,982 | 3,678 | 98,800,000,000 | 73 |
European Union [36] | 500,900,000 | 16,447,259 | 32,900 | 322,931,000,000 | 644 |
India | 1,183,373,000 | 1,235,975 | 1,031 | 36,600,000,000 | 30 |
Russia | 141,927,297 | 1,229,227 | 8,694 | 61,000,000,000 | 429 |
United States | 309,730,000 | 14,256,275 | 46,381 | 663,255,000,000 | 2141 |
A new comparison table has appeared, to cut my point short, keeping or deleting this table? What is its value?
G.R. Allison (
talk)
19:59, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
--Gniniv ( talk) 04:51, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
The table should not be used because it relies on unrealistic probabilities such as the indefinite 10% GDP growth of China and 8% for India. As it stands now the Chinese econamy has entered a severe stage of overheating and efforts to combat this and increase growth further has caused several market bubbles that are now in danger of bursting and will cause the Chinese GDP to contrast sharply as it's markets corrects itself. Further the Yuan is currently devalued ( a very sensitive issue to America, Japan, South Korea, and PRC) meaning that it's currency is in danger of hyper inflation as soon as it becomes exportable if it is not fixed. It may be realistic to suggest the Chinese GDP will be on part with the United States, but such a vast overstating is not possible for any realistic scenario.
The point of all that is simply assuming the 10% annual growth of GDP will last for another 40 years is wholly unrealistic as there are to many factors to consider. The most one can do is 5-10 years and even that has proved to be unreliable in the past. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.181.114.227 ( talk) 01:18, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Japan is already a great power with the worlds third largest GDP, it would take very little for it to become a competing superpower. A shift in foreign policy which is more interventionist and a WMD program are the only two needed changes, so it is definitively a potential superpower. 99.236.221.124 ( talk) 06:49, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Not a Forum--Gniniv ( talk) 07:54, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Article 9 of the Japanese constitution prevents it from meeting the militarily requirements to become a candidate. It's economic ability in having the 2nd largest econamy in the world meet the requirements for potential, but it lacks the same political ability the United States has. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.181.114.227 ( talk) 01:03, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Laurence C. Smith in his book "World in 2050" suggests that Canada will be superpower because it is rich with natural resources. Datastat ( talk) 10:30, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
(1) Global warming will free up previously inaccessible deposits of oil, gas, water and other natural resources at a time when they are becoming increasingly scarce everywhere else in the world. (2) Canada’s oil resources will be second only to Saudi Arabia’s and economically invaluable, since wind, solar and hydrogen technologies still won’t be able to meet the world’s energy needs. (3) Canada’s population will increase by more than 30%, a growth rate rivalling India’s. (4) Toronto, Montreal, Ottawa, Calgary, Edmonton and Vancouver will significantly increase in size and global prominence. (5) Canada’s crop production will likely increase, one of the few places on Earth where this will occur. (6) The “northern rim countries” (NORCS), including Canada, will constitute the world’s fourth-largest economy, with highly-coveted reserves of fresh water, which can be sold or transported to other regions. (7) The opening of new shipping lanes in the Arctic during the summer will make the 500-year-old dream of a direct trade route between the Far East and the Atlantic a reality. (8) Canada’s northern aboriginal communities will benefit economically. Link; Telegram, Toronto Sun. Datastat ( talk) 16:16, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
I haven't been too active lately, but I have noticed we've had one knowledgeable person adding uncited vandalism into the lead of this article. Although I'd love to agree with this person, the implications of the phrase are incorrect. Now, this person has added this phrase going on almost three times that I've seen and this is the second time I've reverted it. I doubt this comes under that wikipedia policy relating to three reversals, but I do think that perhaps an increase on the protection of this article may be in order. It is an accepted fact that this article deals with touchy issues; it would probably be best that measures are taken to prevent unnecessary additions such as this series of recent ones. Comics ( talk) 12:19, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
In this article people used part of lines or sentences of books to show the opposit of what they support as also their title tell to readers.Stopping this vandal culture the article will change a lot...totally.Like for Mc Cormick and Reid books abaout EU for istance..they support EU as superpower in a clear way (check tiltes of their books) but who wrote changed the things ..in the way of giving a low lprofile of EU.Us propaganda ..then will arrive the guy the writes ..i'm from UK or similar and defend the article..but i won't ever trust him because also a stupid understand that this article is written in maligne faith for propaganda.If others hate EU or are envious of EU (and change in the virtual the reality) is good for EU...—Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.60.116.172 ( talk • contribs)
http://www.cceia.org/resources/transcripts/5077.html
Try to explan this.2 articles "Superpower" and "Potential superpowers" to be thrown in the basket with rubbish. 151.60.116.172 ( talk) 20:18, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
http://us.macmillan.com/theeuropeansuperpower
http://www.garnertedarmstrong.org/Mark_Wordfroms/EUsuper1/eusuper1-13.shtml
http://www.cer.org.uk/articles/leonard_irish_times_18feb05.html
http://www.globeurope.com/standpoint/quiet-superpower
http://www.thetrumpet.com/?q=7102.5628.0.0
I can stay here for days...tons books written by main academics and also common newspaper today support EU definetely as superpower. 151.60.116.172 ( talk) 20:35, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
I just show that the 2 articles are old and to throw away.I think you dislke studies and truth.These 2 article are dead articles today.Rest in your old point and you don't miss ignorance and hateful propaganda.You 're alwatys answering making me understand that you want to leave the status quo and i've no time to lose with you.Anyway people that told me about Wiki ignorance were true.The problem is to Wiki and to you that are in it.All the books and articles i set here and all the other ones that i could set are more than all the bla bla bla or than the huge mistakes in the 2 aricles.Byebye. 151.60.116.172 ( talk) 20:43, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
The titles of these books or articles are sufficient to understand that the 2 Wiki articles are full of mistakes..Mc Cormick,Reid or Lenard (which are three main ones of the subject) are telling the opposite of what is written in your articles.I trust more them or other sources than you....the is something wrong in your articles.More than one person has this mood...the majority may be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.60.116.172 ( talk) 20:56, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
John McCormick believes that the EU has already achieved superpower status, based on the size and global reach of its economy and on its global political influence...
You are denying evidence. The problem is that Reid and Lenard are with Mc Cormick..and they agree on the fact that EU is the suoperpower..on the contrary a i can find tons of books that define Usa a non supeprower written by main cademics.These 2 sarticles are full of mistaskes..a lot of mistakes and these authors books are more than these 2 articles for importance. You must consider the sense of their whole books (that is expressed also in the titles) and not using a sentence to write what you like.This isn't culture..this is another thing..I go to sleep ..but not in the ignorance. 151.60.116.172 ( talk) 21:18, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
As noted above, I've blocked the IP address range used by EU 100% ( talk · contribs). Editors with long memories may recall that EU 100% was a disruptive editor who appeared to suffer from WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and WP:COMPETENCE issues. I believe these problems are evident in EU 100%'s latest posts (as 151.60.116.172 ( talk · contribs)) above. One of the claims made by EU 100% on this IP's talk page was that This article in many other languages (like also the article " Superpower") is totally different..and people don't read only english version $..just to start.. With that in mind, I've just checked the French, German, Italian and Spanish Wikipedias. Here's what they have to say about the EU's status as a superpower:
All articles translated by Google's Chrome browser, so I'd imagine that similar translations would be available from translate.google.com. All bolding was added by me.
In summary: all four Wikipedias, covering four major langauges, say the same as the English Wikipedia: The United States is currently the only superpower, and the European Union has the potential to become a superpower as this century continues. EU 100%, I hope that you'll stop selectively reading articles and references. Everyone else: next time an IP editor in the 151.6.*.* range appears and starts being disruptive - let me know. I'll reinstate the range-block. TFOWR 12:25, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi, just wondered whether the comparison list might look a bit less odd if the Average column would be removed. It does strike me as a bit arbitrary, what with it merging totally different areas such as land mass and military spending. I doubt that a plain average of the measurable factors listed in the other columns could really be a scientifically sound indicator of a nation's actual power. Ondundozonananandana ( talk) 14:32, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
If the E.U. is on here, then why isn't the Commonwealth of Nations? They have a far more established system of government, have a standing Military procedure independent of NATO, and share a Political Figurehead (Queen Elizabeth the III).
At least add a comparison of the British Empire and the Soviet Union when they were still superpowers at the end of WWII for comparison to potential superpowers rather than putting big country's with great potential for growth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.201.33.16 ( talk) 04:19, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Shoul tables be included ? I say yes Datastat ( talk) 11:17, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Countries | Share of world nominal GDP (%) |
Share of world military spending (%) |
Share of world population (%) |
Share of world landmass (%) |
Average share (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Brazil | 3.3 | 1.7 | 2.8 | 5.6 | 3.4 |
China | 9.3 | 6.6 | 19.5 | 6.2 | 10.4 |
Canada | 2.3 | 1.3 | 0.5 | 6.7 | 2.7 |
European Union | 26.0 | 18.0 | 7.2 | 2.9 | 13.5 |
India | 2.3 | 2.4 | 17.3 | 1.9 | 6.0 |
Russia | 2.4 | 3.5 | 2.1 | 10.9 | 4.7 |
United States | 23.6 | 43.0 | 4.5 | 6.1 | 19.3 |
Together | 69.2 | 76.5 | 53.9 | 40.3 | 60.0 |
Country | Population | GDP total | GDP per capita | Military expenditure | Mil. expend. per capita |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Brazil | 193,219,000 | 1,574,039 | 8,220 | 27,124,000,000 | 140 |
Canada | 34,255,000 | 1,336,427 | 39,669 | 20,564,000,000 | 600 |
China | 1,338,630,000 | 4,908,982 | 3,678 | 98,800,000,000 | 73 |
European Union [37] | 500,900,000 | 16,447,259 | 32,900 | 322,931,000,000 | 644 |
India | 1,183,373,000 | 1,235,975 | 1,031 | 36,600,000,000 | 30 |
Russia | 141,927,297 | 1,229,227 | 8,694 | 61,000,000,000 | 429 |
United States | 309,730,000 | 14,256,275 | 46,381 | 663,255,000,000 | 2141 |
Agree with Comics and Nirvana. Perhaps, I wouldn't object to some comparison tables in principle, but not in the proposed form.
If any such tables are inserted to the article, some introduction should be made that explains how the parameters in the tables correspond to Superpower#Characteristics. As far as I can see, the proposed tables also lack any information on natural resources, food supplies and nuclear capacity. GreyHood Talk 12:02, 19 October 2010 (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 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | → | Archive 10 |
I have taken the best parts of CEBR's last version and, after inserting some wikilinks, better phrasing and other minor edits, I believe that we have got a variant good enough for inclusion into the article:
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Federative Republic of Brazil | |||
---|---|---|---|
The Federative Republic of Brazil is considered by a number of analysts and academics a potential superpower of the 21st Century. [1] [2]
In a lecture entitled Brazil as an Emerging World Power, [3] presented at the Mario Einaudi Center for International Studies, Leslie Elliot Armijo has said that "Brazil will soon rise as Latin America’s first superpower". Armijo states that "Brazil keeps solidifying itself as leader of its region by launching a series of integration projects", adding also that "as an international actor, Brazil has also taken a larger share of world politics by incrementing its already strong presence in economic initiatives, such as the International Finance Facility and the G20", asserting that "Brazil’s rising prominence derives from its solid democratic rule and its strong economy" and concluding that "Soon, we’ll have two superpowers in the Western Hemisphere" [4] [5]
Mac Magolis states in his Newsweek article How Brazil Became a Superpower, the Crafty Superpower [6] that "Brazil is asserting itself as never before, but in a way that is markedly different from other big global players", adding that Lula is presiding "over a crafty superpower unlike any other emerging giant". Magolis argues that Brazil has "also become a more assertive voice for the emerging markets in international affairs", citing its involvement in the formation of the G5 and the BRIC meetings. In another article [7], Magolis points out that "Brazil is blessed with vast resources" and lists " timber, fresh water, gold... iron ore", stating also that Brazil's reserves of the last two resources are the largest of the world. He also states that while most of the world is running out of arable land, "Brazil has more than 70 million hectares still to plow". Magolis also documents how "the economy has accelerated without overheating", comparing it's growth with that of the other BRIC countries in a favourable light, stating that "no emerging nation has moved earlier or more intelligently than Brazil to head off the cancer of inflation". Another factor that is listed is that "While the booms in China and India are driven by poor peasants [going from the countryside to the cities]", Brazil has "85 percent of the country's 190 million people [living] in cities".
Marek Swierczynski, a journalist specializing in defense questions, in his Atlantic Community article [8] calls Brazil the "potential superpower of the South" and argues that it "may be on its way out of the western camp and can speed up the creation of the world’s new order". He points out that Brazil "has teamed up with Russia, to develop state of the art jet fighters and space launchers, a move to boost its defence capabilities and to match the country's power with its size". Elizabeth Reavey, a research associate from the Council on Hemispheric Affairs, claims in the title of her article [9] that While the US Looks Eastward Brazil Is Emerging as a Nuclear Superpower. While describing the importance of the ongoing development of nuclear technology in the country, she calls Brazil an emerging superpower, with a "potential to have a China-like, booming economy, increased nuclear capabilities, a growing self-confidence in its own power and an ability to make its own way".
Brazil is often called an economic superpower, either present or future, and many experts and journalists compare Brazil with the other potential superpowers of BRIC group. Jonathan Power from Transnational Foundation for Peace and Future Research claims in his article Brazil is becoming an economic and political superpower that "Brazil has a head start on India and China", saying that it has been positively developing for over 100 years and adding that "between 1960 and 1980 Brazil doubled its per capita income". [10] Michael Skapinker argues in his Financial Times article [11] that the recently found large oil reserves "present the intriguing prospect of Brazil becoming a major oil exporter" while deriving most of its own electricity from renewable sources and powering many of its cars with sugar cane ethanol. He also asserts that, unlike China, Brazil has no sharp ethnic conflicts and is a multi-party democracy. In the Economist article called Brazil, an economic superpower, and now oil too [12] it is asserted that "Brazil enjoyed Chinese rates of growth in the third quarter of the 20th century". In another article [13] Brazil is considered to be a much richer country than China and India, and it is asserted that "its economy grew by an average of 7% a year from 1940 to 1980". Yet another Economist article [14] argues that Brazil could overtake both Britain and France to become the world's fifth-largest economy sometime in the next decade after 2014, rather sooner than Goldman Sachs had envisaged. Furthermore, it is claimed that "in some ways, Brazil outclasses the other BRICs": unlike China, it has a democratic system of government, unlike India, it has no insurgents, ethnic or religious conflicts, and no hostile neighbours, and unlike Russia, exports more than oil and arms and "treats foreign investors with respect". The article comes to conclusion that "when it comes to smart social policy and boosting consumption at home, the developing world has much more to learn from Brazil than from China", and that "Brazil suddenly seems to have made an entrance onto the world stage", citing the recent decision for Rio de Janeiro to host the 2016 Olympics, as well as Brazil's hosting of the 2014 FIFA World Cup. This is a basis for foreign investment pouring into the country, along with falling poverty, "swelling lower-middle class", "strong political institutions" and "reform and democratic consensus-building".
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
This is it. Perhaps, the last two paragraphs could be reduced, as they don't discuss the superpowerdom that directly, however, I believe, that some statements from The Economist and Financial Times should be included anyway, as they obviously put Brazil in the same class as China, India and Russia. I vote for inclusion of Brazil section into the article in the proposed form and subsequent editing right there, and if there would be no strong counter-arguments, the inclusion soon will be made. Greyhood ( talk) 17:53, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Greyhood in his discussion with Nirvana, and would like also to point out that Nirvana's posture seems a little bit status quo-ish. Nirvana, you may have the personal opinion that Brazil don't belong in here, but you can't deny that it ought to be here according to the rules, it is much better sourced than much of the other superpowers in the article. You already made several excuses to prevent Brazil from being added, your latest excuse was that it lacked reliable sources, what is your excuse now?
"Overall most scholars do not perceive Brazil as a future superpower" You don't know scholars enough to say it.
"I want to point out the following things. We have at least two scholars mentioned for now: Leslie Elliott Armijo directly states that Brazil is a potential superpower, while Jonathan Power directly puts Brazil into the same category as China and India. In fact, now we have better material on Brazil than on Russia, and not so far worse than on India. I am pretty sure that more expert views can be found, but we have enough for the start, and placing the section right into the article would attract more editors to expand it, make it more neutral and find better sources."
Indeed.
"::: I've checked the sources and I think that the only sources worth keeping are [9] and [10]. The rest are either media sources, without an expert's opinion, or don't don't bring up Brazil's superpowerstatus at all."
Indeed those two you mentioned are top notch, but the media sources should be kept, they are good and even if we assume that they are not worth as much as the two you mentioned, they are still worthy, even if in a supportive role, mate.
"I've checked the two sources he referred to and they seem pretty inadequate. One is from a "foundation" of little repute, and another is a media source from a college newspaper."
If you checked it with good faith you'd probably have noticed that:
The newspaper is from Cornell University and don't expose its opinion, it reports a lecture by Leslie Elliot Armijo, the political science professor at Portland State University, titled “Brazil as an Emerging World Power?” at the Mario Einaudi Center for International Studies.
The article in the site of the foundation is by Jonathan Power, who is certainly qualified: "Columnist, film-maker and writer. M.Sc in economics, trained as a geographer and agricultural economist. For the first ten years after graduate school community work in slum neighborhoods in Chicago and London. Worked for Martin Luther King 1966-1967. For 30 years a journalist, of which 17 as columnist for the International Herald Tribune 1974-1991; he has been a regular guest columnist in New York Times and Encounter.
Silver Medal at the Venice Film Festival 1972 for "It's Ours Whatever They Say". Author of several books on economic development, world hunger and on Amnesty International and human rights issues.
Consultant to numerous international organizations and editorial adviser on the Independent Commission on Disarmament and Security chaired by Olof Palme.
Now the author of a weekly column appearing in 41 papers around the world - all featured since 1997 at the TFF Forum, just click!
He is a regular contributor to the opinion page of the International Herald Tribune and Prospect Magazine and he is also working on a new book, '"Conundrum", a foreign correspondent's look at twelve of the world's most difficult to answer questions.
Follow this link to read about - and order - Jonathan Power's book written for the 40th Anniversary of Amnesty International: "Like Water on Stone - The Story of Amnesty International".
Power is a regular contributor to the opinion page of the International Herald Tribune and to Prospect Magazine. He became a TFF Associate in 1991."
"I am of the opinion we need less not more powers if we are to actually consider which states have reasonable potential to be a superpower."
In other words, your opinion is Status quo-ish. The point is that editors are not supposed to let their personal opinion have influence over the article and that wikipedia ought to present points of views from reliable sources, not your opinion, if you want to make a list that reflects your opinion, make it in your user page or in a blog, mate. CEBR ( talk) 05:01, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
":CEBR, I think perhaps I was misinterpreted. I am not against Brazil as a superpower and have no bias against it. My position is just that some serious academic work has to back up its potential if we are to list it. As I have stated journalists often crank out articles about how China, Russia or even many other smaller stakes are superpowers when the academic consensus is that they are not. If you can find some scholarly work on Brazil as a potential superpower, I would encourage you to add it to the section. Nirvana888 ( talk) 15:29, 16 November 2009 (UTC)"
Then, fellow, Brazil already counts with your support, look at the qualification of Leslie Elliot Armijo (who said things such as "Brazil will soon rise as Latin America’s first superpower" and "Soon, we’ll have two superpowers in the Western Hemisphere" in her lecture about Brazil): http://www.mindspring.com/~leslie.armijo/ http://www.sfu.ca/las/news/LeslieElliotArmijo.html
Excellent source, fellow, I also think that it can be added. Thank you. CEBR ( talk) 16:50, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Federative Republic of Brazil | |||
---|---|---|---|
The Federative Republic of Brazil is considered by a number of analysts and academics a potential superpower of the 21st Century. [15] [16]
In a lecture entitled Brazil as an Emerging World Power, [17] presented at the Mario Einaudi Center for International Studies, Leslie Elliot Armijo has said that "Brazil will soon rise as Latin America’s first superpower". Armijo states that "Brazil keeps solidifying itself as leader of its region by launching a series of integration projects", adding also that "as an international actor, Brazil has also taken a larger share of world politics by incrementing its already strong presence in economic initiatives, such as the International Finance Facility and the G20", asserting that "Brazil’s rising prominence derives from its solid democratic rule and its strong economy" and concluding that "Soon, we’ll have two superpowers in the Western Hemisphere" [18] [19]
In 2009 the Brookings Institution published a book called Brazil as an Economic Superpower? [20], coedited by Leonardo Martinez-Diaz and Lael Brainard, fellows in the Brookings and directors of its Global Economy and Development Program. In the announcement of the conference devoted to Brazil and this book, the Brookings Press calls Brazil "a geopolitical and economic emerging power". [21] In the summary of the conference it was concluded that "in the past decade, Brazil’s role in the world economy has changed in important ways" and that Brazil "occupies key niches in global energy, agriculture, service and some high-technology markets". However, it was noted that "Latin America’s largest nation still struggles with endemic inequality issues and deep-seated ambivalence toward global economic integration". [22]
Marek Swierczynski, a journalist and defense analyst, in his Atlantic Community article [23] calls Brazil the "potential superpower of the South" and argues that it "may be on its way out of the western camp and can speed up the creation of the world’s new order". He points out that Brazil "has teamed up with Russia, to develop state of the art jet fighters and space launchers, a move to boost its defence capabilities and to match the country's power with its size". Elizabeth Reavey, a research associate from the Council on Hemispheric Affairs, claims in the title of her article that While the US Looks Eastward Brazil Is Emerging as a Nuclear Superpower [24]. Describing the importance of the ongoing development of nuclear technology in the country, she calls Brazil an emerging superpower, with a "potential to have a China-like, booming economy, increased nuclear capabilities, a growing self-confidence in its own power and an ability to make its own way".
Brazil is often called an economic superpower, either present or future, and many experts and journalists compare Brazil with the other potential superpowers of BRIC group. Jonathan Power from Transnational Foundation for Peace and Future Research claims in his article Brazil is becoming an economic and political superpower that "Brazil has a head start on India and China", saying that it has been positively developing for over 100 years and adding that "between 1960 and 1980 Brazil doubled its per capita income". [25] Mac Magolis states in his Newsweek article How Brazil Became a Superpower, the Crafty Superpower [26] that "Brazil is asserting itself as never before, but in a way that is markedly different from other big global players", adding that Lula is presiding "over a crafty superpower unlike any other emerging giant". In another article [27], Magolis points out that "Brazil is blessed with vast resources" and spare arable land. He compares Brazil with the other BRIC countries in a favourable light, stating that "While the booms in China and India are driven by poor peasants [going from the countryside to the cities]", Brazil has "85 percent of the country's 190 million people [living] in cities". Michael Skapinker, the Financial Times editor, argues in his article called Brazil is the 21st century power to watch [28] that the recently found large oil reserves "present the intriguing prospect of Brazil becoming a major oil exporter" while deriving most of its own electricity from renewable sources and powering many of its cars with sugar cane ethanol. He also asserts that, unlike China, Brazil has no sharp ethnic conflicts and is a multi-party democracy. The Economist article called Brazil, an economic superpower, and now oil too [29] shares Skapinker's view. This article and a number of other Economist articles [30] [31] state that "Brazil enjoyed Chinese rates of growth in the third quarter of the 20th century", "an average of 7% a year from 1940 to 1980", and that "in some ways, Brazil outclasses the other BRICs": unlike China, it has a democratic system of government, unlike India, it has no insurgents, ethnic or religious conflicts, and no hostile neighbours, and unlike Russia, exports more than oil and arms. The authors from the Economist conclude that "Brazil suddenly seems to have made an entrance onto the world stage", citing also the recent decision for Rio de Janeiro to host the 2016 Olympics, as well as Brazil's hosting of the 2014 FIFA World Cup.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Let's make a sum of the proposed section and the discussion above:
Awaiting your comments. Greyhood ( talk) 20:51, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for doing this summary, fellow, really very nice of you. Seems to me that everyone, except maybe Nirvana, recognizes that Brazil meets the criteria of Wikipedia to be added to this article. Let us add it to the article, then, fellows? CEBR ( talk) 13:27, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
"Just to appease us, do that"
lol, appease you? O.o
As in "let's sacrifice a goat to appease the Gods"? lol
":Hold your horses. I don't think that Brazil is ready to be included in the article yet. First of all, no sources should be included unless they express the opinion of, atleast, one expert or analyst (journalists doesn't belong in this category). This rule applies to all the other sections, which is why a big part of Russia's section was removed, so it's only right that it should apply to Brazil's aswell."
Me, Greyhood and the rules of Wikipedia are opposed to you about this. Media sources are very acceptable according to Wikipedia criteria. But, lets make it simple now, let's put the new version by Greyhood in the article. We have all the time in the World to make changes later.
By the way, it keeps amazing me how the first source about China is a media source, CNN and you say nothing about it.
Greyhood, you're doing a great job! Thank you! :)
So, with this new version by Greyhood shall we finally add it?
Cheers, fellows CEBR ( talk) 02:27, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
So, guys, I wait for some other strong arguments against the inclusion of Brazil. If you won't find them in a span of a day or less, I recommend CEBR to include Brazil section in the present form, or will do it myself. Greyhood ( talk) 14:12, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
So, fellows, any objections to adding Greyhood's excellent work to the article? CEBR ( talk) 23:54, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
[18] - Only mentions the word superpower in the title, which has been a no no for a long time back ( look through the archives )
[19] - non-academic media source
[20] - doesn't mention the word superpower
[21] - doesn't mention the word superpower
[22] - Only mentions the word superpower in the title
[23] - doesn't mention the word superpower
[24] - doesn't mention the word superpower
My personal opinion is that if Brazil is to be included these sources must be handled in an appropriate way (removal). And, PLEASE, would you be polite enough to at least wait for my response before you take action. I have, again, some important things to do, so post your response, but if I don't answer today or tomorrow don't take that as if I don't have anything to say, okey? Swedish pirate ( talk) 18:05, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Excellent job, Greyhood! The Brazil section is really good! Thank you! ;)
"As for the comparison of Brazil and Japan, Brazil has obviously far more resources and more promising demography than Japan, so it has far greater potential for the development of economy."
Indeed, I agree.
Swedish Pirate, there is absolutely no reason for deleting the entire Brazil section now.
So, let's not remove Brazil's section from now on, fellows, let's work to improve it along with the ones of Russia, India, EU and China. Okay?
CEBR ( talk) 22:26, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi, fellow!
Indeed, I guess there is consensus, but maybe Swedish Pirate will just delete the section again (which would be a pain in the backside), let's wait and see...
I'll follow your advices, mate.
I'll try to find more sources. Not only about Brazil, about Russia and India too. CEBR ( talk) 03:55, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Brazil is not a superpower yet. You compare India, China with Brazil. It's not how much poor people or Sports contribution that shows a country as superpower. It's dominance and effect on World. China is certainly World effecting country. India too got dominance and say in South-asia and Afgan and other countries. Just my thoughts.. But i dont think brazil's yet ready to be added. it's emerging Power.. True, But, it's not Potential Superpower yet, when other countries are running way ahead forward. As someone said Earlier here somewhere, If Brazil is added .. why isn't Japan, Mexico? you can't disagree Japan is a Powerful country. As i say, I dont think just a no. of poor people or some statments by scholars in some interviews claim one country to be a superpower. Brazil is good.. but a superpower .. not yet.
[Initial thoughts]
Brazil has been rejected many times.. yet again someone adds it in..and then again there's a serial of long discussions.. Just one Question.. If Brazil ..then why not Japan? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.95.29.220 ( talk) 05:36, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
I'd say Brazil has as much shot at being a superpower as Germany or France do. I mean their economy and military are already so far ahead of Brazil that why are we not talking about them instead? I have yet to hear anyone even attempt to discuss Brazil as a world superpower and so this is completely misleading. But hey, we're hear to talk about potential superpowers am I right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.33.84.13 ( talk) 04:38, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
A number of experts cited in the article and a large number of journalists have already been speaking about Brazil potential superpowerdom for some time. Brazil has much more resources than France or Germany and much better demograghy than them (more population and faster population growth), that means better perspectives for Brazil in the future. Also, France and Germany are parts of EU which is deemed to be a superpower. Greyhood ( talk) 12:52, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
I fully support it's inclusion into articles as a potential superpower, however, I am dismayed at the information presented. Nowhere does the article give any hint to what may hamper Brazil's ascendancy to superpower status. I'd say there are more problems preventing Brazil from ever being a superpower. So we need to add information on why Brazil may not be a superpower. Because right now, the way the articles are worded, anyone reading this page and not knowing anything about the world would think Brazil is the only country that will become a superpower because of the way the article about it is written. And we all know that of the countries on the page, Brazil is probably last at becoming a superpower. I'd say it's China, EU, Russia, India and then Brazil. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.33.84.13 ( talk) 04:32, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Okey, my suggestion is that we leave it as it is for now, I'll see if I can find some more sources on the Russian superpower-status. The problem is that there aren't that many sources talking about Russia as a superpower anymore, but I'll see what i can find. Swedish pirate ( talk) 16:06, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
"*Parag Khanna's views on Russia's demography contradict the existing reality. I understand that Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth, which is hard to define sometimes; however that doesn't mean that we should not include the verifiable counter-arguments to the verifiable false statements. Greyhood ( talk) 15:50, 14 November 2009 (UTC)"
It would be indeed fair to find and mention a source that oposes Parag Khanna's point of view to balance the article, make it neutral. CEBR ( talk) 02:06, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
I made some research, and indeed it seems like Russia's population is growing now for the first time in 15 years. In my opinion, we ought to find a good source documenting this and add it to the article to counterbalance Parag Khanna's point of view. CEBR ( talk) 16:57, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Indeed, either I'm counting it wrong or Parag Khanna is mathematically wrong regarding that comparison with Turkey by 2025. There is also that point that it doesn't need to be true to be added if the source is reliable, but, is it really necessary to add it? In my point of view, no, thus, I agree with you, Greyhood, better not include it at all. CEBR ( talk) 13:21, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
There seems to be a misunderstanding about the term superpower here. A superpower wields almost hegemonic influence. The inclusion of BRIC countries here like Russia, India or Brazil indicates that the term superpower is confused with the term great power. Brazil, India, or Russia have no perspective of becoming a superpower in the next 20 years. Rather these countries can achieve or maintain a great power/ regional power status. The only serious candidates are China and the EU (with all its great power member states). The article right now is based to much on unreliable references and on boosterism. all the best Lear 21 ( talk) 17:15, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Greyhood is right. CEBR ( talk) 19:35, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
No, Zhonghuo, there are many areas in which China is not superior to the other BRICs, such as the ones pointed out by Greyhood.
"And finally, it's all very interesting, but if we continue such speculations we'll turn this page into forum, which is not what we should do."
Indeed, you're right, this is not the place for this. CEBR ( talk) 01:57, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Bambuway, Brazil is extremely well sourced, and there is no Original Research about Brazil in this article. CEBR ( talk) 17:52, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
What do people think about the source quoting Leslie Elliot Armijo? In my view, its not exactly of high quality. Cornell Sun is a college paper and does not have much repute. Secondly, the article refers to a lecture given not an academic paper. Perhaps someone could replace it with an academic work by the Armijo that elaborates on how Brazil is a potential superpower. Nirvana888 ( talk) 02:26, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
The source quoting Leslie Elliot Armijo is reliable according to the rules of Wikipedia, it is from one of the best universities of the World.
A lecture is academic, thus it is valid.
Yes, Greyhood, there are some papers of her's available on the web. CEBR ( talk) 08:10, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Shouldn't the main articles on the potential superpowers be ordered according to likeliness and ability to become a superpower, rather than alphabetically? I mean it's not like there is any major debate on the ranking, and the order the countries are referred to in the introductory paragraph is pretty much correct. 79.65.109.76 ( talk) 16:15, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Well, the problem with it is that we, editors of Wikipedia, can't express our opinions, we are supposed to portray academic opinions, so we can't order it according to our opinions, thus we need to order it in the standard of ordering: alphabetically. CEBR ( talk) 08:02, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Iran has become a nation that masters nuclear technology, that is able to launch its own satellite into space, that is able to build its own weapons, that is able to build is own navy warships, and so on. Isn't Iran already a superpower? -- tequendamia ( talk) 11:43, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Grain (kg per captia per year): India 158, Africa: 146 Veg. (kg per captia per year): India 68, Africa: 54 Eggs (kg per captia per year): India 1, Africa: 2 Fish (kg per captia per year): India: 6, Africa: 9 Fruit (kg per captia per year): India: 37, Africa: 52 Meat (kg per captia per year): India: 5, Africa: 15
Heat (kcal, per captia per day): India: 2472, Africa: 2436 Protein (gram per day per captia): India: 58, Africa: 61 Fat (gram per day per captia): India: 53, Africa: 49
Source:FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS http://faostat.fao.org/site/610/DesktopDefault.aspx?PageID=610#ancor
Almost 50% India children suffer from malnutrition, percentage-wise it is EVEN higher than that of even Sub-Saharan Africa.
Source: The United Nations International Children's Fund: http://www.unicef.org/india/children_2356.htm
I recommend you people to remove countries like India, Brasil and perhaps Russia as well here.
In all fairness, what makes countries such as India/Brasil/Russia get more potential of becoming a superpower over countries like Japan, Britain, France, Germany, Italy, etc? well, Russia, at least, still get a pile of soviet-era nukes, but India and Brazil? does malnutrition or football make one superpower?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.96.242.164 ( talk) 12:10, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
At the moment, the bar of being a potential superpower here is so low to the degree that I can easily add a dozen or more countries as potential superpowers here.
Citing a newspaper or some books doesn't count, since these articles/books have not been peer-reviewed, and people, espeically in the absence of some quality control like peer-reviewing, like to abuse the word "superpower" to seek attention, hence there are so many "energy superpower", "culture superpower", "soft superpower", "regional superpower" or "knowledge superpower" in the world laterly.
I think we should increase the bar a bit higher, how about this: to be listed here, one need provide at least two or more peer-reviewed academic journal papers written by scholars where claim the country's superpower potential, and the academic journal papers should be published no earlier than 2000?
And by superpower we must make it clear, it should be superpower in the strictest sense, not half-ass "superpower" like soft, energy, regional, culture or knowledge "superpowers".
Superpower is not big power or great power or regional power, superpower supposed to be some power that far outclass any other "lesser" powers both economily and militarily, it supposed to be "Dominating".
Lets admit that, the only countries listed here that has a reasonable potential to be a superpower in the foreseeable future is China, and to a lesser degree, EU, if they can finally agree on something and work together (unlikely).
So either change the title of the article to "potential great powers", or remove countries like Brasil, India and Russia, the article at the moment looks like a joke. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.68.211.85 ( talk) 21:06, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Well, if citing a source is the only qualification needed to be listed here, then even african union can be listed as a potential superpower since I can cite many sources mentioning its potential superpower status, for instance: http://www.africanexecutive.com/modules/magazine/articles.php?article=506
I agree with the first editor. It is nonsense to claim a 21century future with more than 3 superpowers. Brazil does not even have the economy (GDP) of France or Italy, where is the potential of a superpower here? Same goes for India, the largest third world country with no technology no economic heft or political influence beyond its borders, again, where is the potential? The only 3 entities staying or becoming superinfluential powers within the next 2 decades are the US, the EU (incl all its member states) and China.
The article here is highly volatile, it wildly speculates and is obviously (partly) enhanced by patriotic enthusiasm. The references are very poor. At least in the case of Brazil or India, which are not even considered complete great powers. Because the superpower term involves a very dominating nature it can only be applied on very few countries, the article here seems rather to point at potential Great Powers. Becoming a superpower (in a multilateral world) would mean to dominate the others. Even in 30 years, which is superspeculative, it is unlikely in any scenario that the EU, US or then China are surpassed by some other actors.
Get real, IND and BRA show not even a potential. These 2 countries should be removed ASAP. Russia too.
http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/?id=39538 About the author: "John Feffer is the co-director of Foreign Policy In Focus at the Institute for Policy Studies, writes its regular World Beat column, and co-directs its Balkans Project."
So I guess Turkey should be included in this already-a-joke article to make it looks more entertaining, or perhaps, we should not just stick the full-of-holes "rules" here and applying some common sense to remove jokes like India, brasil, etc, to make this article looks more sane than it is now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.96.242.164 ( talk) 12:25, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Another article about Turkey [33] shows why it should be added to the page. Its a better superpower candidate that any other country on the current page. I also agree that India and especially Brazil [34] should be removed; Brazil has been a non-starter "potential superpower" for 200 years running. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.206.36.159 ( talk) 01:01, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Turkey is a strong power, top 20 economically and probably top 10 militarily. It could reclaim the glory days of Ottoman Empire (huge huge huge empire btw), but that would require going against the Western orbital sphere. Turkey has potential, probably more so than Brazil, but maybe less than India (in my opinion, not even a contender as of yet). Phead128 ( talk) 05:32, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
And how exactly is Turkey supposed to "reclaim the glory of the Ottoman empire"? Well, if it makes an alliance with Iran and if resoure-rich states as Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan join it, this could be a promising alliance (but will be in no way a second Ottoman empire). But there is too much "if". Besides, it is doubtful that even such an alliance is likely to become a superpower. Scheludko ( talk) 08:35, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
It is a key factory to Brazil becoming as a future superpower. How can this artical not mention it. http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Americas/2010/0317/Rio-protests-Sharing-Brazil-s-oil-revenues-will-hurt-2016-Olympics —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.84.172.200 ( talk) 04:24, 11 May 2010 (UTC) http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1842949,00.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.84.172.200 ( talk) 04:19, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
wtf are you talking about Comics? Your sentence makes no sense. Most everything in wikipedia is single sourced, why is my source not good enough to get the oil discovery mentioned?
Ohhh, ok thanks Sijo Ripa. I didn't know that OR was an acronym which is why the sentence confused me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.84.172.200 ( talk) 21:15, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
If there are a lot of mistakes in the definition of superpower in wiki how can this article to be right? 65.199.220.1 ( talk) 10:06, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Country | Population | GDP total | GDP per capita | Military expenditure | Mil. expend. per capita |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Brazil | 193,219,000 | 1,574,039 | 8,220 | 27,124,000,000 | 140 |
Canada | 34,255,000 | 1,336,427 | 39,669 | 20,564,000,000 | 600 |
China | 1,338,630,000 | 4,908,982 | 3,678 | 98,800,000,000 | 73 |
European Union [36] | 500,900,000 | 16,447,259 | 32,900 | 322,931,000,000 | 644 |
India | 1,183,373,000 | 1,235,975 | 1,031 | 36,600,000,000 | 30 |
Russia | 141,927,297 | 1,229,227 | 8,694 | 61,000,000,000 | 429 |
United States | 309,730,000 | 14,256,275 | 46,381 | 663,255,000,000 | 2141 |
A new comparison table has appeared, to cut my point short, keeping or deleting this table? What is its value?
G.R. Allison (
talk)
19:59, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
--Gniniv ( talk) 04:51, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
The table should not be used because it relies on unrealistic probabilities such as the indefinite 10% GDP growth of China and 8% for India. As it stands now the Chinese econamy has entered a severe stage of overheating and efforts to combat this and increase growth further has caused several market bubbles that are now in danger of bursting and will cause the Chinese GDP to contrast sharply as it's markets corrects itself. Further the Yuan is currently devalued ( a very sensitive issue to America, Japan, South Korea, and PRC) meaning that it's currency is in danger of hyper inflation as soon as it becomes exportable if it is not fixed. It may be realistic to suggest the Chinese GDP will be on part with the United States, but such a vast overstating is not possible for any realistic scenario.
The point of all that is simply assuming the 10% annual growth of GDP will last for another 40 years is wholly unrealistic as there are to many factors to consider. The most one can do is 5-10 years and even that has proved to be unreliable in the past. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.181.114.227 ( talk) 01:18, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Japan is already a great power with the worlds third largest GDP, it would take very little for it to become a competing superpower. A shift in foreign policy which is more interventionist and a WMD program are the only two needed changes, so it is definitively a potential superpower. 99.236.221.124 ( talk) 06:49, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Not a Forum--Gniniv ( talk) 07:54, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Article 9 of the Japanese constitution prevents it from meeting the militarily requirements to become a candidate. It's economic ability in having the 2nd largest econamy in the world meet the requirements for potential, but it lacks the same political ability the United States has. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.181.114.227 ( talk) 01:03, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Laurence C. Smith in his book "World in 2050" suggests that Canada will be superpower because it is rich with natural resources. Datastat ( talk) 10:30, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
(1) Global warming will free up previously inaccessible deposits of oil, gas, water and other natural resources at a time when they are becoming increasingly scarce everywhere else in the world. (2) Canada’s oil resources will be second only to Saudi Arabia’s and economically invaluable, since wind, solar and hydrogen technologies still won’t be able to meet the world’s energy needs. (3) Canada’s population will increase by more than 30%, a growth rate rivalling India’s. (4) Toronto, Montreal, Ottawa, Calgary, Edmonton and Vancouver will significantly increase in size and global prominence. (5) Canada’s crop production will likely increase, one of the few places on Earth where this will occur. (6) The “northern rim countries” (NORCS), including Canada, will constitute the world’s fourth-largest economy, with highly-coveted reserves of fresh water, which can be sold or transported to other regions. (7) The opening of new shipping lanes in the Arctic during the summer will make the 500-year-old dream of a direct trade route between the Far East and the Atlantic a reality. (8) Canada’s northern aboriginal communities will benefit economically. Link; Telegram, Toronto Sun. Datastat ( talk) 16:16, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
I haven't been too active lately, but I have noticed we've had one knowledgeable person adding uncited vandalism into the lead of this article. Although I'd love to agree with this person, the implications of the phrase are incorrect. Now, this person has added this phrase going on almost three times that I've seen and this is the second time I've reverted it. I doubt this comes under that wikipedia policy relating to three reversals, but I do think that perhaps an increase on the protection of this article may be in order. It is an accepted fact that this article deals with touchy issues; it would probably be best that measures are taken to prevent unnecessary additions such as this series of recent ones. Comics ( talk) 12:19, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
In this article people used part of lines or sentences of books to show the opposit of what they support as also their title tell to readers.Stopping this vandal culture the article will change a lot...totally.Like for Mc Cormick and Reid books abaout EU for istance..they support EU as superpower in a clear way (check tiltes of their books) but who wrote changed the things ..in the way of giving a low lprofile of EU.Us propaganda ..then will arrive the guy the writes ..i'm from UK or similar and defend the article..but i won't ever trust him because also a stupid understand that this article is written in maligne faith for propaganda.If others hate EU or are envious of EU (and change in the virtual the reality) is good for EU...—Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.60.116.172 ( talk • contribs)
http://www.cceia.org/resources/transcripts/5077.html
Try to explan this.2 articles "Superpower" and "Potential superpowers" to be thrown in the basket with rubbish. 151.60.116.172 ( talk) 20:18, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
http://us.macmillan.com/theeuropeansuperpower
http://www.garnertedarmstrong.org/Mark_Wordfroms/EUsuper1/eusuper1-13.shtml
http://www.cer.org.uk/articles/leonard_irish_times_18feb05.html
http://www.globeurope.com/standpoint/quiet-superpower
http://www.thetrumpet.com/?q=7102.5628.0.0
I can stay here for days...tons books written by main academics and also common newspaper today support EU definetely as superpower. 151.60.116.172 ( talk) 20:35, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
I just show that the 2 articles are old and to throw away.I think you dislke studies and truth.These 2 article are dead articles today.Rest in your old point and you don't miss ignorance and hateful propaganda.You 're alwatys answering making me understand that you want to leave the status quo and i've no time to lose with you.Anyway people that told me about Wiki ignorance were true.The problem is to Wiki and to you that are in it.All the books and articles i set here and all the other ones that i could set are more than all the bla bla bla or than the huge mistakes in the 2 aricles.Byebye. 151.60.116.172 ( talk) 20:43, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
The titles of these books or articles are sufficient to understand that the 2 Wiki articles are full of mistakes..Mc Cormick,Reid or Lenard (which are three main ones of the subject) are telling the opposite of what is written in your articles.I trust more them or other sources than you....the is something wrong in your articles.More than one person has this mood...the majority may be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.60.116.172 ( talk) 20:56, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
John McCormick believes that the EU has already achieved superpower status, based on the size and global reach of its economy and on its global political influence...
You are denying evidence. The problem is that Reid and Lenard are with Mc Cormick..and they agree on the fact that EU is the suoperpower..on the contrary a i can find tons of books that define Usa a non supeprower written by main cademics.These 2 sarticles are full of mistaskes..a lot of mistakes and these authors books are more than these 2 articles for importance. You must consider the sense of their whole books (that is expressed also in the titles) and not using a sentence to write what you like.This isn't culture..this is another thing..I go to sleep ..but not in the ignorance. 151.60.116.172 ( talk) 21:18, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
As noted above, I've blocked the IP address range used by EU 100% ( talk · contribs). Editors with long memories may recall that EU 100% was a disruptive editor who appeared to suffer from WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and WP:COMPETENCE issues. I believe these problems are evident in EU 100%'s latest posts (as 151.60.116.172 ( talk · contribs)) above. One of the claims made by EU 100% on this IP's talk page was that This article in many other languages (like also the article " Superpower") is totally different..and people don't read only english version $..just to start.. With that in mind, I've just checked the French, German, Italian and Spanish Wikipedias. Here's what they have to say about the EU's status as a superpower:
All articles translated by Google's Chrome browser, so I'd imagine that similar translations would be available from translate.google.com. All bolding was added by me.
In summary: all four Wikipedias, covering four major langauges, say the same as the English Wikipedia: The United States is currently the only superpower, and the European Union has the potential to become a superpower as this century continues. EU 100%, I hope that you'll stop selectively reading articles and references. Everyone else: next time an IP editor in the 151.6.*.* range appears and starts being disruptive - let me know. I'll reinstate the range-block. TFOWR 12:25, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi, just wondered whether the comparison list might look a bit less odd if the Average column would be removed. It does strike me as a bit arbitrary, what with it merging totally different areas such as land mass and military spending. I doubt that a plain average of the measurable factors listed in the other columns could really be a scientifically sound indicator of a nation's actual power. Ondundozonananandana ( talk) 14:32, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
If the E.U. is on here, then why isn't the Commonwealth of Nations? They have a far more established system of government, have a standing Military procedure independent of NATO, and share a Political Figurehead (Queen Elizabeth the III).
At least add a comparison of the British Empire and the Soviet Union when they were still superpowers at the end of WWII for comparison to potential superpowers rather than putting big country's with great potential for growth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.201.33.16 ( talk) 04:19, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Shoul tables be included ? I say yes Datastat ( talk) 11:17, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Countries | Share of world nominal GDP (%) |
Share of world military spending (%) |
Share of world population (%) |
Share of world landmass (%) |
Average share (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Brazil | 3.3 | 1.7 | 2.8 | 5.6 | 3.4 |
China | 9.3 | 6.6 | 19.5 | 6.2 | 10.4 |
Canada | 2.3 | 1.3 | 0.5 | 6.7 | 2.7 |
European Union | 26.0 | 18.0 | 7.2 | 2.9 | 13.5 |
India | 2.3 | 2.4 | 17.3 | 1.9 | 6.0 |
Russia | 2.4 | 3.5 | 2.1 | 10.9 | 4.7 |
United States | 23.6 | 43.0 | 4.5 | 6.1 | 19.3 |
Together | 69.2 | 76.5 | 53.9 | 40.3 | 60.0 |
Country | Population | GDP total | GDP per capita | Military expenditure | Mil. expend. per capita |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Brazil | 193,219,000 | 1,574,039 | 8,220 | 27,124,000,000 | 140 |
Canada | 34,255,000 | 1,336,427 | 39,669 | 20,564,000,000 | 600 |
China | 1,338,630,000 | 4,908,982 | 3,678 | 98,800,000,000 | 73 |
European Union [37] | 500,900,000 | 16,447,259 | 32,900 | 322,931,000,000 | 644 |
India | 1,183,373,000 | 1,235,975 | 1,031 | 36,600,000,000 | 30 |
Russia | 141,927,297 | 1,229,227 | 8,694 | 61,000,000,000 | 429 |
United States | 309,730,000 | 14,256,275 | 46,381 | 663,255,000,000 | 2141 |
Agree with Comics and Nirvana. Perhaps, I wouldn't object to some comparison tables in principle, but not in the proposed form.
If any such tables are inserted to the article, some introduction should be made that explains how the parameters in the tables correspond to Superpower#Characteristics. As far as I can see, the proposed tables also lack any information on natural resources, food supplies and nuclear capacity. GreyHood Talk 12:02, 19 October 2010 (UTC)