Talk:Potential superpower/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

New changes by IP 117.228.160.110

IP 117.228.160.110 and his range (117.233.96.83, 117.233.124.161 etc) introduced controversial changes, in favor of China [1]. The changes mainly affect the main table with main graphic, where he labeled China as (Only extant) "Emerging superpower". Given, that there are sources describing, for example, the European Union also as Potential superpower and "Emerging superpower", this edition breaks the rules of the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Verifiability (disputed sources) and propably Wikipedia:No original research (synthesis and conclusions by IP based on source).

His changes have been undone. He is restore own version without any description of changes and no discuss page. This is a textbook example of a destructive act on Wikipedia.

These changes are very disputed, there has been no discussion about it, no consensus (per Wikipedia:Consensus), source of questionable quality, probability broke all three Wikipedia:Core content policies!!!... also the IP broke the Wikipedia:CYCLE (new changes -> if revert = must to be consensus). I have opened a discussion where the IP has to prove that its changes are not destructive, if there be consensus, changes can be made in article. Until then, I resore the Wikipedia:Stable version. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 09:01, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

• Dear @Intforce:, other users and IP 117....(with a variable address). I don't see any point in discussing on the user's page like [2][3]. This topic in talk page I created on 22 December 2021. There was time for discussion, no one replied. My opinion: initially, I was against the changes made by IP 117... however, after analyzing the subject, I noticed the potential of superpower of Russia and Brazil is no longer growing, nothing is changing per last years. The importance of the European Union and China has grown, therefore, I would be able to agree with IP's opinion - to divide countries: EU and China as emerging superpowers and India, Brasil as potencial superpowers. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 16:46, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Any proposed change needs to come along with duly weighted reliable sources. As far as I can see, most recent edits are based on personal analysis, which has no place on Wikipedia. intforce (talk) 17:20, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
    • Not really, there are enough reliable sources to support the designation of the EU and China as emerging superpower. Sources can be found in the main article (Potential superpower), and for European Union also in separate article of European Union as an emerging superpower. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 17:27, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

I also agree that his changes (anonymous IP) are disruptive. But the Brexit could thwart the EU being a potential superpower, as it is sourced. I would leave it as it is (summary since the 90's). Jirka.h23 (talk) 14:58, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

I've previously mentioned while editing that since China is ahead than Russia, India, & Brazil, as US, the sole superpower is engaged in adversarial relation with China (competition is between the equals), besides China has surpassed US in GDP (PPP), in Navy size, as well as some other parameters, plus China is becoming alternative to US in great power politics, it should be classified differently from other 3 countries. Secondly I mentioned in talk pages of Sub-Tropical Man & IntForce that I don't find it necessary to create account, I edit directly, since IP address issue. Thirdly I suspect that users Intforce & Jirka belong to countries with negative perception of China, so in guise of wikipedia rules, you have undoing my edits, with IntForce even erasing my addition of McKinsey report, deleting citations provided by me, as well as I remember Intforce accidentally attacking user Fijipedia for my edits as well. I believe Wikipedia is platform of sharing information, not personal biases (I belong to country with one of the highest negative perceptions of China). I think we should analyse the subject in depth & then make proper edits. Regards. P.S. Subtropical Man, thanks for agreeing to my assessment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.233.79.115 (talk) 11:45, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

It doesn't matter where you are from (India, Czechia or Germany). As Intforce said, any proposed change needs to come along with duly weighted reliable sources. China has too low HDI and GDP (PPP) per capita compared to US, EU or Russia, even Russia has a stronger army (PIR). Anyway, this is article about potential superpowers, not "emerging powers", we are not here to judge which country is more potential superpower. Such changes disrupt the whole structure of the article.Jirka.h23 (talk) 14:03, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

NYT opinion piece

@LVTW2: Lets discuss your edit before you restore it. See WP:BRD.

First of all, your source is an opinion piece and we can't use an opinion piece for a controversial subject like this. See WP:RSOPINION.

Krugman himself is anti-Russian at it seems given his history of opinion pieces on NYT itself.[4] I don't think we should rely on this source. Shankargb (talk) 14:55, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

@Shankargb: The real issue here is that all perceptions in the text regarding Russia as a potential superpower candicate are mostly what you called "opinion pieces". Would you gonna tell me that some advocating opinions from certain politicians such as Hugo Chavez or Benjamin Netanyahu are more "impartial" or "trustworthy" sources than the opinion from a Nobel prize laureate as academic Paul Krugman? lol You made a really "convincing" point for judging which one is so-called "opinion piece" and which is not, by your own opinion as well. LVTW2 (talk) 16:41, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

This article shouldn't exist as it's inherently unencyclopedic. However, if we are using opinion pieces throughout the article, then I am with LVTW2 that the removal of Krugman is unjustified and should be restored. Bommbass (talk) 18:24, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

@LVTW2: I missed opinions by others. I am fine with restoring your edits. Shankargb (talk) 16:32, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Opinion article

I am shocked that this article has no maintenance banners or even exists as an article at all. It reads like a soapbox where political scientists argue against each other what a "superpower" even is or if "X" or "X" will ever occur. Not to mention that several of the sources are very old, and there is significant citation overkill basically everywhere. It is a given that this article needs to acknowledge its unclean citation style, its need to be updated, and its significant usage of political opinions as "sources" CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 15:49, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Oh, and plenty of original research CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 15:51, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

On 28 March, Ghostman Gendruwo removed the maintenance banners without explanation. I have reinstated them. intforce (talk) 12:32, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

GHI rank out of 136?

Chirica21C, re your update:[5] Note that although GHI undertook assessment for a total of 136 countries, it had sound data for the purpose for only 121 countries; the official website also acknowledges that "For 15 countries, individual scores could not be calculated and ranks could not be determined owing to lack of data." The secondary sources, which are plentiful (e.g. [6]), mention a count of 121 for the same reason and our numbers should align with them too. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 19:24, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

I have changed it to 121, but please use secondary sources (which almost always abound) for whatever you add on Wikipedia articles from now on. Construing data from primary sources may otherwise be deemed original research . MBlaze Lightning (talk) 19:39, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

The current situation still violates WP:OR, more specifically WP:SYNTH. The sources don't talk about India's potential superpower status. It's not up to us to link data points (in this case: the GHI) to advance a position (in this case: a contrary view about this country's superpower potential). UlyssorZebra (talk) 21:54, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Correct. I have removed the contentious material. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 21:11, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't reckon that's the case, folks. Scholars do dwell on the various socio-economic issues that plague India in the context of its superpower potential and entertain the notion that they stand to encumber its progress. Here's a Times of India article, albeit an old one, that dwells on the Hunger index in context of India's superpower ambitions. So as far as I am concerned, it should be duly mentioned; but because I may not have the time to engage any further, I intend to bequeath the matter to your good judgement. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 07:10, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

If a (quality, non-outdated) source does mention the GHI in the context of India's potential superpower status, then it's ok to include. The now-removed source however didn't do that. UlyssorZebra (talk) 18:13, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Article is of very low quality

Why the tags are appropriate:

• Many sources don't even use the word superpower. It's Wikipedia editors that have used and combined these sources to advance the view that these countries are potential superpowers. This is original research (see WP:SYNTH - a part of WP:OR).
• Many sources are outdated - they don't take into account major world events that reasonably impact earlier predictions, or have made predictions by a target year that has since passed.
• There's widespread use of seemingly random low-quality sources: e.g., random opinion pieces don't belong in an encyclopedia. The basis should be grounded analysis, academic research, etc.
• The randomness of these sources also constitutes undue weight. It doesn't seem there's a majority view among reliable sources that all these countries are potential superpowers. For some countries, it rather seems a very small minority view.

The article requires a major rewrite. It's likely even more appropriate to delete several countries or even the full article as these issues may prove unresolvable. UlyssorZebra (talk) 08:56, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Vague hand-waves won't fly. You need to cite which source is causing the problem for you.

The article as it stands today is same as what it was when it was made WP:GA.

Your argument is more of WP:JUSTDONTLIKE than any valid explanation for throwing spurious tags, "original research", "more citations}}", which actually requires failed verification or mass number of unsourced statements. But this is not the article you are looking for.

In place of demanding others, you are allowed to do it yourself. Shankargb (talk) 19:51, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

The tags were explained in-depth on the talk page by previous editors. While those discussions have been archived in the meantime, the issues haven't been resolved. I admit it's unreasonable to expect editors to peruse the archives though. I do believe my previous explanation, while succinct, is a fair summary of the article. It's quite intensive to list every issue in detail, but it's fair to ask for a few examples. Let's take the first half of Russia's section:

• The first source about Russia's resources (the Kobarik one) is a dead link (so needs to be fixed), so I can't judge it. The other two sources about Russia's resources don't use the word(s) "(potential) superpower", so they shouldn't be used to advance the context or claim of Russia's potential as a superpower (see WP:SYNTH).
• The Rosefield source made a prediction by the year 2010 which didn't happen, so that's clearly an outdated source (which is used multiple times in the section). The "New York Times" article links to a Georgian (country) news website forum (=a dead link, so needs to be fixed) so I can't judge the original source. The Countersurgents opinion piece seems "random" (undue weight) - the author nor the publisher (website) seem particularly notable, so why are they used?
• The opinions of Chavez and Nethanyahu seem random/fringe and given undue weight - both seem (one-time?) complimentary remarks made in the context of diplomacy respectively 14 and 9 years ago, not objective in-depth analyses made by experts. So rather weak sources.
• RIA Novosti is a Russian state-owned news agency, widely known to be unreliable, so can't be used.
• Kinzer and Fleischer's opinion pieces may be the only usable sources. They may be valid to include, but by themselves, they (i.e. two potentially random opinion pieces) are not sufficient to support the section.

The "fix-it-yourself" here in the example of Russia (there's a similar situation for the rest of the article) would be the removal of almost all of the text in the section - seeing the state of the currently used sources - which is likely the right outcome. However, I believe that would just lead to an edit war, so I prefer, like others have done, to highlight the issues in a constructive way (and warn the reader about the state of the article). UlyssorZebra (talk) 19:14, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

So far your problems seems to be with the quality of sources because enough time has lapsed. This issue has been already addressed with the existing tags which talk about updating the article. Nevertheless, I will be resolving some of your concerns in a couple of days. Shankargb (talk) 00:14, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Just a message to say that I haven't re-added the tags as a courtesy to give you time to address the concerns across the article (Russia was just an example). If the issues aren't addressed, I'll re-add the tags. If you need more supporting examples, I'll provide these. UlyssorZebra (talk) 21:25, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Your tagging does not make sense. Don't add them back. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 14:20, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Based on the current article, the tagging makes fully sense though - as already proven in the examples above, and I can provide more examples. I don't think your reply is constructive. Please remember that no one owns the page. I am happy to have a conversation and give you and others time to address the issues. However, if they are not addressed, I'll re-add the tags. UlyssorZebra (talk) 20:58, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

As all concerns listed are still unaddressed and more than reasonable time has passed, the OR-tag has been restored. Once issues are resolved, it can be removed, but not before. UlyssorZebra (talk) 03:48, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Japan's source issues (mainly violations of WP:SYNTH/OR)

More examples of issues with the sources, now specifically to the Japan ones:

• Zakaria's source doesn't talk about Japan (misattribution)
• The "pop culture superpower" sources use the word "superpower" in a very different way, so these sources cannot be used in this context
• The End of Globalization source doesn't say anything directly linked to Japan's (historical) potential superpower status or Japan having lost superpower potential (it's OR to reframe the content of this source to a conversation about superpower status or to infer that this was the author's intention) (=violation of WP:SYNTH)
• Same for The Stars and Stripes source
• Same for The Diplomat's source
• Same for The Economist's source
• Same for the aging population source
• Same for the deflation & lost decade source

So, for the Japan section, only one source is actually usable/valid: the 1988 Time's one. UlyssorZebra (talk) 16:56, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

add Brazil

Removed Brazil? This is a bullshit, Brazil has all the reasons to be a emerging superpower, it is a superpower in the south park of the american continent, it used to be one of the top ten world economies, has 210+ million population. It has a powerful military in the regional area AND will Lead G20 this year and host it next year as well as UN's Security Council. Probably the first step to become a permanent seat as it contributed the most of the G4 to sending troops. 2400:2651:302:8300:543A:BD76:4845:F9D6 (talk) 11:35, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

brazil under former potential superpower category

since it most likely can no longer achieve it like japan? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noob251 (talk • contribs) 13:30, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

This is bull from someone who clearly doesn’t like Brazil. 2400:2651:302:8300:543A:BD76:4845:F9D6 (talk) 11:36, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Brazil and Indonesia

Why aren't Brazil and Indonesia included in the list while the European Union is included? Purely based on size, population, quantity of natural resources, and GDP forecast, Brazil and Indonesia are worth mentioning as potential superpowers. The European Union is not a country, if we want to include it, it should be placed under the name United States of Europe (a proposed sovereign country) instead.

However, if we start to include proposed countries, then we probably should also include the likes of the United States of Africa, ASEAN, the East African Federation, the United Turkic States and the Arab world etc. 2001:8003:9008:1301:34F3:D83B:96B5:D29 (talk) 05:01, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

The European Union is way more integrated than most other political organizations you mentioned. It has its own parliament and single currency, something ASEAN doesn’t. The EU is also an official G20 member, giving it credibility to be mentioned as a potential superpower.

I do agree Brazil and Indonesia are also potential superpowers! Pyruvate (talk) 09:37, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

I have a different opinion about Brazil and Indonesia. Brazil and Indonesia have a poor economy, appropriately 10th and 17th places. Military power / military expenditures is also weak, both - appropriately 17th and 30th places. Indonesia also has a small area. The population outnumbered Russia, but Russia has the second largest military power, the largest natural resource, and a major political role in many countries. At the moment, there are no any serious arguments for such states Brazil and Indonesia to be real potential superpower. Let's not forget that Japan is surpassing these two countries in almost every field and Japan is not a potential superpower right now, so. Also, to be called potential superpower, country must to be of great political importance in the world and Brazil and Indonesia are just... two countries like others, nothing more. There are many countries with large populations or highly classified economically like Japan, South Korea, Australia, Mexico, so. Brazil and Indonesia as regional/continental power - ok, but not as world potencial superpower. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 16:41, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

so does China and India. This is bull and you know it. Being world economy doesn’t mean jack.

Also Japan declining population, weak military power because is self defenses NOT real military. Plus the economy is into shambles.

and FYI, this year Brasil got the presidency of the UN Defense Council and will host next year's G20 and also for the first time became leader of the group. This will mean that it's first step for my country. 2400:2651:302:8300:543A:BD76:4845:F9D6 (talk) 11:39, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. 2400:2651:302:8300:543A:BD76:4845:F9D6 (talk) 11:39, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Brazil to be included on the superpowers lists

Brazil is a superpower, why is European Union included and not Brazil, while Brazil is richer and stronger than EU, These editors that don’t want to add Brazil as superpower, these are Brazil haters, they dislike Brazil, they don’t even see that Brazil is the world’s future.

Brazil is ruling the world, an economic and scientific superpower, Add Brazil!

Brazil is a potential superpower due to its role in the world.

Brazil is already a potential superpower, add Brazil on the map. Saintsupermario (talk) 18:25, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

The above 4 unsourced, hardly argued claims do not show good faith editing. If you are serious with this provide reliable sources, an intelligible string of arguments and a single post before we can consider this idea. Arnoutf (talk) 18:35, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

This has been widely discussed before (see archive). There are no academic sources for Brazil being a potential superpower, it has numerous domestic issues (crime or inequality), low HDI, low military power (the weakest India has twice the Power Index rating than Brazil),1 and given the long economic stagnation, I don't think it belongs here. It is not not even considered a Great power. Jirka.h23 (talk) 08:56, 6 September 2023 (UTC)