Talk:Potential great powers

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

↓    Skip to table of contents    ↓

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Potential great powers article.
Article policies
This article is related to the WikiProject Power in international relations, an effort to improve, organise and standardise Wikipedia's articles in the area of Power in international relations and Geopolitics. For guidelines and a participants list see the project page. You can discuss the project at its talk page.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.

Contents


[edit] Potential great powers

Just to drag over a comment from the potential superpower page, the infoboxes are rather arbitrary and unsourced.Somedumbyankee (talk) 19:45, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

The introduction needs to be expanded. The infoboxes' content is based in the article sources. Felipe C.S ( talk ) 20:00, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
I guess I don't follow. Why is Brazil a cultural superpower? Are there a substantial number of people learning Portuguese? Do samba records routinely break international sales records? Do you find a lot of restaurants serving Feijoada overseas? The US is considered a "cultural" superpower because English is a very popular language to learn in Asia (the Japanese have to take it, with dubious results, Michael Jackson had to run to Bahrain to find a place where people wouldn't recognize him on sight, and there was a Starbucks in the Forbidden City until the Chinese just couldn't handle it anymore.
Who is asserting the superpower status in the infobox? The editor. That's original synthesis, and is very subject to POV. There are no standards we can apply neutrally. GDP, HDI, PPP, and such can be reported as comparable numbers, and we can report cited opinions, but the bars in the infobox shouldn't be just arbitrarily applied because some art reviewer is impressed.Somedumbyankee (talk) 01:20, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Brazil is an influential country in music and mainly in sports. Brazilians have developed some famous sports around the world, Brazil has undertaken the organization of large-scale sporting events, the worldwide famous Soccer team and much more. This is the main pilar of Brazil's cultural influence. Felipe C.S ( talk ) 01:55, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
The issue is that we are debating our POV, not cited sources. The point is that the decision to name any country a superpower in various areas is, in general, very POV dependent. Since a specific source can't be cited, I would argue that it is synthesis. It's not that it's false, it's simply that the evidence has not been provided to make a definitive claim. Calling it a "great power" or "regional power" is equally unsupportable, because there are no accepted standards. Read WP:NOR, specifically WP:SYN.Somedumbyankee (talk) 08:15, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
It might be a good idea to use bars for things we can sources numbers for and check boxes for things we can only source qualitative judgements on.Zebulin (talk) 03:02, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Good idea Zebulin. Until then, I've changed the power boxes for Brazil as follows: Economic - Superpower (per sources); Political, Military and Energy - Great power (per sources); and Cultural - Regional power (Brazil's cultural "reach" and influence can be felt at a regional scale throughout Latin America, in music, sports, television, language, etc - and not beyond that). Seems more resonable, right? Limongi (talk) 14:36, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Brazil is an Energy superpower (Agricultural superpower, Oil superpower, Biofuels superpower, Ethanol superpower... per sources). Felipe C.S ( talk ) 16:23, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mexico

World map for the year 2007, shaded by GDP (PPP) per capita. Source: IMF.
World map for the year 2007, shaded by GDP (PPP) per capita. Source: IMF.
World map showing countries above and below the world average GDP (PPP) per capita. Source: CIA World Factbook.
World map showing countries above and below the world average GDP (PPP) per capita. Source: CIA World Factbook.
Life Expectancy 2007
Life Expectancy 2007

Section violates WP:NOT (crystal balling), WP:OR, WP:V. Basic premise is not sourced, nor are any of the various statistics. Entire article little more than duplicate material from Mexico and its associated articles. No notable neutral source has been provided for describing Mexico as an emerging great power. As it stands, this section is one person's OR. Felipe C.S ( talk ) 17:18, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

As we know, some countries were removed from the potential superpower article, which is fine none of these countries are at the same level as Russia, China and the E.U. coming back to this article, Mexico is sourced as well as Brazil and India, they all have been recognized as greatpowers/worldpowers not to mention that Mexico has way better life standards that Brazil or India and to be honest you can barely be a worldpower with the levels of poverty that those 2 countries have, anyways Joao Felipe is ignoring the fact and keep removing Mexico from the article, sometimes without even an explanation, regards. Supaman89 (talk) 17:23, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Where are the sources? Can you show, please? Sources like this. Felipe C.S ( talk ) 17:28, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

If instead of reverting Mexico you red it you would see them, I'm not going to follow your game here. BTW, don't even try to put Brazil or India on the same life standards than Mexico because it's obviously absurd. Supaman89 (talk) 17:47, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Let's go, show statistics with sources. Why Brazil don't have the same life standards of Mexico? I'm waiting. Where are the sources that said Mexico is a potential great power? Lalagun4 (A probable Mexican newspaper in Spanish)? Felipe C.S ( talk ) 17:56, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
I just put some maps to help you understand. Supaman89 (talk) 18:06, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Most this article is "our country is cool" not "this is how we manipulate the world." It's not a question of HDI (rural China is a disaster), it's a question of power.Somedumbyankee (talk) 18:09, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Good Somedumbyankee. I ask sources for Mexico great power status. Felipe C.S ( talk ) 18:18, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

His comments was towards you not me, as I said Brazil and India have terrible indicators, and I just showed them to you, regarding the sources, I did put them but don't care either like you're the owener of the article or something like that, smref[1][2][3].Supaman89 (talk) 18:25, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Only two? IPS and Lalagun4 are unacceptable news organizations. Post credible sources (in English) such as the "The Washington Post", "The Times of London", "The Associated Press", "The Economist", "The Guardian", "Reuters", "BBC"... Felipe C.S ( talk ) 18:33, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
I won't google it right now, but just so you know the European Union also named it an emerging world power, is that reliable enough for you? Supaman89 (talk) 18:39, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
European Union? Where? Or you post the sources or Mexico is removed. Felipe C.S ( talk ) 18:42, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
As I said you do not own the article, I've showed you Mexico has way better indicators than India or Brazil, it has sources, and you're not going to remove it just because you don't the idea of having it here. Supaman89 (talk) 18:49, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Italy has way better indicators than India, Brazil or Mexico; but it is not a Great power or Potential great power. China has way worse indiactors than Brazil or Mexico; but it is a Great power. Post references that Mexico is an emerging great power, not a GDP per capita above world average. Felipe C.S ( talk ) 18:53, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
The sources were to show that Mexico also fill the emerging power category, and the indicators were just to prove that it is hard to be an efective power with the levels of poverty that Brazil and India have. Supaman89 (talk) 18:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Social indicators don't affect anything. A Great power has made by Economic power, and mainly by Political and Military POWER. Norway has the best social indicators in the world, but it's not a superpower. Felipe C.S ( talk ) 19:02, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of Mexico

  • Support Removal - I agree with Felipe C.S. Mexico has no potential as a great power - that's why there aren't any sources in that direction. I think it should be removed from the article.Limongi (talk) 18:59, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Removal - Felipe C.S ( talk ) 19:09, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

You guys are BRAZILIANS ofcourse you want Brazil to be alone in the article, it is sourced you can not ignore the sources and other facts presented just because you don't like it, that's like removing China from the potential superpower articles just because I don't like it, right? Supaman89 (talk) 19:11, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

And you are Mexican, what's wrong? Igonore the sources? What sources? No source posted by you clearly shows that Mexico is considered a potential major power. I have researched and I'm not found nothing. Brazil and India are cited by some News Agencies such as "Associated Press", "Reuters", "The Ecomist", and much more... Mexico does not. Social indicators don't show the capacity of a country to become a power, seeing the example of several developed countries. In my opinion, the only nationalist here is you, who do not support Brazil with a greatest potential than Mexico. Felipe C.S ( talk ) 19:29, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Let's stay calm, people. I agree that Brazil is overstated here, but I also agree that Mexico is dubious. Many countries in the world could or would make an argument (Australia, Iran, etc...) because there are no guidelines or rules for what constitutes a great power, much less a potential great power. While we can't put the rules in the article (WP:NOR), we can try and aim for a consensus on what the limit is to merit coverage in the article.

This will not be the last time that someone wants to include their country on the list.Somedumbyankee (talk) 19:42, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

To define the criteria of a world power, use the logic. The world has five great powers: China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States. (countries with permanent seats on the United Nations Security Council). Japan and Germany, are not political, military or energy powers, but are considered great powers for their large economies. Brazil and India are the two emerging powers according to various studies. The four countries that has no veto power in the Security Council, but are related to the great power status, form the G4. The group of nations seeking a permanent seat on the Council (Perhaps along with an African country like South Africa). This is the logic, these 10 countries are likely to be the powers of the 21st century. Felipe C.S ( talk ) 20:01, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Some of these considerations for inclusion on the Security Council. Reform of the United Nations Security Council gives a list of the members considered. This is probably a key criterion to consider or reject inclusion on this list. Other nations could be considered if they specifically rejected the role of the security council or otherwise did not want to be included. Brazil's persistent participation as an elected member of that council is also good support for its inclusion here and should be explicitly addressed in the article.Somedumbyankee (talk) 20:44, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Removal - Mexico has no potential for being a globally influential great power. There are no professional sources (BBC, NY Times, Reuters, Washington Post) that claim Mexico as a potential great power --Hobie Hunter (talk) 20:12, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Article Issues

  • It is written in a style that screams POV. For example, "s a result, Brazil has invested heavily in sub-Saharan Africa as to both set an example to its fellow South American nations and reap the economic benefits of a diversified economy." (emphasis mine). This sounds like the article is trying to sell you a bar of soap.
Y Done Removed. Felipe C.S
That specific line is, yes, but it doesn't address the problem that the entire article is rife with similar phrases. "Brazil is finally punching its weight with a booming economy and stronger global leadership." "It (India) claims one of the largest workforce of engineers, doctors and other key professionals, all comfortable with English." etc...Somedumbyankee (talk) 02:36, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

( talk ) 19:14, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

  • It often gives an objective ranking and a subjective description that don't line up. Brazil's HDI at 70th is in the lower 50%, but it's listed as "high."
Brazil is part of the "High Development Index" group. (See List of countries by Human Development Index).
  • There have been discussions of creating a "hard copy" of wikipedia using only the lead sections, and this section is too short. See WP:LEAD
  • Many things are cited, but some of the supporting cites are rather dubious and WP:UNDUE applies. Just because it's cited doesn't mean it's true. Just because the government says it's interested in getting involved doesn't make any promise that the next administration will do the same.
  • infoboxes blah (see above)
  • The article doesn't really explicitly address what it means to be a great power. Most of the article is redundant with what's already been said about the countries in their main articles, picked over for the positives (and negatives in some sections). There are a few good cites, for example the Cordeiro quote, which are clearly appropriate. Most of it is just rehash that could just be a redirect to the economy section of the main article for the country.

(For clarity, I'm picking on Brazil because it's at the top of the article, not because I think that section is any better or any worse than the rest.) Somedumbyankee (talk) 19:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

So what are you suggesting mate? the deletion of the article? I think this article is being mostly used by Brazilians to promote their country (Limongi, Joao Felipe, etc.). Supaman89 (talk) 19:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
I vote for instant deletion on principle, this is a favorites list, not information. There are too many countries to choose from and say "Why weren't THEY included?" (France, Venezuela, Chad, Liechtenstein, etc. etc.), the basic premise is flawed (from the ill-fated potential superpowers page, no definition of status of superpower) and this is merely a lowering of the bar from superpower to great power (terms which lack real definitions in the world at large) so it's a compounding of the problem with the parent page. Hypatea (talk) 01:31, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree that this article is so rich with pitfalls that it's highly unlikely to ever meet quality standards. WP:CRYSTAL has enough caveats to make the underlying concept not automatically deleted (the policy allows well referenced predictions from reliable sources). NPOV and balance are going to be very hard to find when the primary people who are interested are justifiably proud of their respective countries and want to put them in a positive light.Somedumbyankee (talk) 01:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I oppose the deletion of the article. Any country could be included in this article, provided they have references to show that it is a potential great power. The current countries on the article (Brazil and India) have sources of credibility. If the article "Potential superpowers" was approved by the community [1], "Potential great powers" should be maintained. Felipe C.S ( talk ) 02:49, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
It would be a pity to toss it simply because so much work has gone into it. The question is: can this article be salvaged into something that meets WP:NPOV? Who do we use to evaluate neutrality of statements? People talking about their own countries are generally biased, especially when it comes to their international presence if they haven't traveled out of the country/region much. For example, many Americans simply cannot comprehend why anyone would dislike the USA. They must hate freedom or something, right?Somedumbyankee (talk) 07:19, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I honestly don't see a problem as the article is completely sourced (330 references). Who edits the United States article? Americans, right? Maybe that's why I don't see any mention as to Poverty in the United States on that article, even though 15% of the population (45 million people) is living below the poverty line. Should we delete it then? Or how about deleting the Potential Superpowers? - It can also be considered WP:CRYSTAL.Limongi (talk) 13:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
This article is not "people talking about their own countries are generally biased". This article is sourced with credible sources of international media. In the case of India section, the text needs to be reduced and organized. Felipe C.S ( talk ) 17:47, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
There's an expression, Cherry picking, that comes to mind. Just because you can find sources doesn't mean that it's a balanced presentation. WP:SYN specifically addresses gathering source material to make a point. There is a balanced presentation possible, but it'd be nice to have some Aussies writing the Brazil article and some South Africans writing the India article (totally random examples). That isn't going to happen, I know, but it's very hard to be objective about yourself. I'll admit that I'm biased, considering that the country I'm in has a lot at stake in the process.Somedumbyankee (talk) 16:50, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Many of the parts of the Brazil section are very similar to this. It screams nationalism. This is a place to state facts, not try to sell off the greatness of a country. As with the potential superpower article, this article is biased, nationalistic, unorganized, filled with unnessicary details. And, like the potential superpower article, it needs to be deleted. I was blind to this before, but I have realized it now. This is a encyclopedia, not a place for debate on potential superpower/great powers. I'm sure there are some fine forums where you guys can debate this, but here is not the place. User: Saruman20 (talk) 22: 36 19 May 2008 —Preceding comment was added at 22:36, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] This article need to be removed

This article need to be removed since it did not provide a single credible source providing information on Potential great powers. The infobox with details are provided by the User and it represents his viewpoints rather than reality. Chanakyathegreat (talk) 02:57, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

The Associated Press, The Washington Post, The Guardian, The Economist, The Independent, Reuters, BBC, Encarta are not crebile? The infobox is based on the sources. Read the references before... Felipe C.S ( talk ) 16:12, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Brazil
> Economic superpower (The Economist)
> Political regional power (The Associated Press)
> Militar great power (Global Fire Power)
> Energy superpower (The Economist)
> Cultural regional power (The Independent)
Felipe C.S ( talk ) 16:20, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
It's based on sources, but it is the reader's interpretation of a source. It's an original synthesis. Read WP:SYN. I've deleted the boxes from the potential superpowers article and barring any substantial objection I'll do the same here. The Global Fire Power site shows no methods and ranks Brazil as a higher military power than the UK? They have more warm bodies, but that's not worth that much in modern warfare (q.v. force multiplication). I'd be dubious of it as a reliable source. It also doesn't explicitly call it a Great Power, which is the word I'm looking for that justifies inclusion in the table as non-synthetic.
The article from the Independent is really talking more about how weak Portugal has become. It is indirect evidence of Brazil's cultural clout, but saying that means it's a "regional power" is total synthesis.Somedumbyankee (talk) 16:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Done, I've removed the boxes. Felipe C.S ( talk ) 19:30, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] India as a potential superpower

With all due respect to Brazil, India is clearly a potential superpower while Brazil is a potential great power. A summary of points in favor of India:

Clearly, India has some critical advantages over other potential superpowers. While the idea of India already being a great power does not strike instantly, fact remains, it is a great power. Because of relatively high poverty in India it might not seem a great power, but its influence in the Indian Ocean region is rivaled by none and its global influence too has risen dramatically. Being the only recognized nuclear power after the P5 countries too also adds to India's advantage over Germany, Japan and Brazil. Germany and Japan are developed economies with little scope of growth economically and perhaps politically. To end, the very fact that India's economy will overtake United States' economy by 2050 makes it a candidate of a potential superpower unlike Brazil. I hope there are no further issues in this regard -AI009 (talk) 07:13, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

It has the resources, but does it have (or do authoritative sources say it will have) the political will and influence to intervene in completely foreign affairs? That's the second part of power politics, and it's poorly covered in both "potential" articles. To establish that it currently *is* a great power would require establishing that it does have a substantial influence on world politics. Influence in the Non-Aligned Movement would be a class A exhibit for this and deserves more than a mention. The Commonwealth is really more an expression of British cultural influence, but any examples where India has "over-ruled" the British in their own organization would be great to include. What WTO policies has India initiated/blocked/substantially modified? Have the Indians dicated terms to the Russians in arms deals? Have the Indians dictated terms to the Americans on nuclear power? The greater challenge is: can this be set up in such a way without violating WP:SYN, WP:PEACOCK, and WP:CRYSTAL?Somedumbyankee (talk) 20:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

India's political influence is great. It extends all over the world. India's influence is different from the U.S way of influencing things. Look at the U.S which is the sole superpower and their influence on Iran and Venezuela. Chanakyathegreat (talk) 04:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] India is repeated in both articles

How can it be that India is repeated in both articles Potential Superpowers and here, India is a potential superpower and is already mentioned in the other article therefore I don't see why it has to be here as well, it's like if we also included all the other potential superpowers (China, Russia, etc.) in this article, it's just double the same information. Supaman89 (talk) 00:42, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

the premise of both articles is that they (ostensibly) are reporting the predictions of qualified sources. All it takes for India to appear in both articles is for one source to view India as a newly emerging great power on it's way to superpower status while another may merely predict that India will soon be recognised as a great power. There is absolutely no need for the sources to agree between or even within the articles and there is not even any need to explain any such 'discrepancy'. On the contrary given the nature of how the article is supposed to be able to avoid violating WP:NOTCRYSTAL only by reporting on the sourced predictions rather than assuming them or making predictions of it's own it is essential that we *not* attempt to explain away any apparent conflicts in sourced predictions. On the other hand this does mean that if a source makes no specific reference to India ever functioning as a great power but only predicts it will become a superpower then such a source should not appear here because we can't be sure the source is really saying that India will ever function as a great power. They might be assuming that India will only begin to heft it's geopolitical weight at the superpower level and will maintain a lower diplomatic profile in the interim. Rather than make assumptions on the part of a such a source we should only use it for a superpower article and only use sources that specifically predict India will be a great power here.Zebulin (talk) 05:08, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I think I got you, but according to that, I'm sure we can also find sources stating China or Russia as "Greatpowers" not "Superpowers" so would that mean that we'd also had to include them here? I think it's just doubling the information, if India is a potential superpower then it's obvious that it's also a greatpower, etc. and it doesn't have to be in this article as well, just as China or Russia aren't here either, cheers.Supaman89 (talk) 21:29, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

India should be removed from this page. Ijanderson977 (talk) 12:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mexico, Canada, Japan, Indonesia and South Africa

Shouldn't they be on this page. Ijanderson977 (talk) 12:57, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I presented proves for the inclusion of Mexico but aparently some people didn't care, so I just gave up, regarding the other countries, I don't know they'd have to be sourced. Supaman89 (talk) 16:21, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Do we really need this article?

Do we really need this article just to talk about one country? I think it would be like creating an article called "Robotics Superpowers" just to talk about Japan, I mean we already have a Potential Superpowers article, if we keep on going like this we'll end up with "potential normal powers", "potential big powers", etc. Supaman89 (talk) 16:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Copy - Paste?

Has all the sections of this article just been copied and pasted from the Brazil article? Taifarious1 05:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)