Talk:Potential superpower/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Let's add Brazil?

In this list are cited three of the BRICs, but is lacking Brazil. Not to mention that the other Wikipedias Brazil is Elaboration.
Eduardo Sellan, September 1, 2009, at 4:47 pm.

The other countries has sources specifically calling them a superpower or potential superpower and articles that talk about it. The User Swedish Pirate along with the archives will explain more. I'm going to remove it for now as it has no sources at all. Please bring reliable sources that don't focus on synthesis and OR, and get consensus. YOu can't just go saying "Hey, the RIC is there, we should add the B." Plus, before adding more countries, there shoudl be an emphasis on how experts define potential superpowers and past things of predictions, instead of focusing on the countries. If you can bring reliable sources and show them to Swedish Pirate whos the main editor of the page, then I'm sure Brazil will be added 65.29.15.134 (talk) 01:40, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Swedish Pirate asked me to show sources. I found this interview with Jim O'Neil of Época Magazine (in Portuguese):

[1]
Eduardo Sellan, September 5, 2009, at 5:32 pm.

Map error

Why is Brazil & Japan highlighted on the map when they are not listed in the article? -- Phoenix (talk) 07:14, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I've corrected the map, thanks for that. G. R. Allison (talk) 12:43, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Semi-Protection

Can we put this article under an IP editor block? What seem to be Brazil/India fanboys, keep editing this to favour their home nation. G. R. Allison (talk) 12:41, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I think we should do that. Though I think the editor who first added Brazil recently was a registered user. 65.29.15.134 (talk) 20:34, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Still, how do we go about doing that? G. R. Allison (talk) 06:19, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

If there's still a desire for semi-protection (preventing IPs and new registered editors from editing) then I'm up for requesting it. Thoughts? Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 17:04, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I was just thinking about it! I'm thinking no though, we've only had problems from two IPs, one has backed off and if the other -.79 comes back I agree with your reasoning which means consesus is against them, so if we let them know then just go for a block if that doesn't work. RaseaC (talk) 17:08, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Cool. To be honest I'm just a bit annoyed about being labeled an "EU-fanatic" - I'm a New Zealander, and NZ historically has plenty of reasons to dislike the EU (Britain joining left the Kiwi economy in a mess). I'll drink some tea, calm down, and continue editing ;-) Thanks for your voice of calm! Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 17:10, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Believe me, it's only a voice of calm, both IPs took to my talk but i think it's calming down now, the quote I was moaning about has been integrated to my liking now so I guess it's up to you guys to continue with your issues! Bear in mind that both IPs are on level 4 so a block wouldn't be too hard. Enjoy your tea! RaseaC (talk) 17:14, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Can we please do something about "67.173.77.79" I've had to revert his/her edits to that of TFOWR. G. R. Allison (talk) 17:16, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

There's WP:3RR/WP:AN3, but I couldn't say for certain that 67.173.77.79 has necessarily reverted the same thing more than 3 times. They're certainly being disruptive, and ignoring consensus, so some form of dispute resolution could be useful...? Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 17:20, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

We can do lots of things, and we've discussed a few above but at the moment we're going to leave it. If he vandalises again (even adding deleted content) he'll be reported and probably blocked from editing. Thanks for your help but can I suggest using appropriate templates when warning vandals. If you use a template then certain software programmes will automatically use the next most severe and also know when to ask for a block. Regards, RaseaC (talk) 17:23, 5 September 2009 (UTC).

OK, I've reported him for disruptive editing. RaseaC (talk) 17:27, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Phew, thanks for that - the IP is taking a short break from editing and I can relax ;-) Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 17:33, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

TFOWR and CaesaR...most of your comments are about turning off contributors. Who gets to turn YOU off? For those of us who aren't interested in your edits, how do we complain about YOU and get YOU blocked? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasoncward (talk • contribs) 20:55, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

It's really easy actually:

1. Go to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism
2. Click on 'edit' by User-reported
3. Copy and past the text under 'registered users' to the bottom of the list
4. Replace 'username' with 'RaseaC' (in my case)
5. Click 'save page'

Then an administrator will come, check me out (edit summary, priviliges, warnings etc) and decide whether or not to block me. Simple! (ofcourse if you're as cool as me you have a magical program that lets you do all that with one click, but that's only if you're special!) RaseaC (talk) 21:03, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

• You don't get editors "turned off" because you aren't interested in their edits. If editors don't follow policy, or are being disruptive (ignoring consensus, or blanking their talk pages instead of responding to good faith enquiries, for example), you do, however, have options. WP:DR is a good place to start. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 21:42, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Strangely TWINKLE desn't seem to work [loads of errors] when you request for Page Protection.. And how do you have India fanboys adding India, it's already there and part of the map. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 06:58, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Suggest Editing Restraint

The very existence of this article is dubious - it's nothing but a hypothetical opinion piece promulgated primarily by those with a desire to promote their favorite country/entity, or by those with an axe to grind against the USA. Why not articles on who is the potential next world cup winner or next lottery winner? Also, "consensus" means nothing when the available editors are all of one unified opinion and campaign objective(namely that xxx should be a superpower).

May I suggest the fans (the Brazilians, Allison, RaseaC, TFOWR, Swedish Pirate, etc...) write as much as they want about how great their favorite country/entity/trading bloc is and allow disagreeing points of view virtually unedited (minor grammar or cite enhancements ok) because it is PAINFULLY OBVIOUS "undesirable" opinions are being systematically eliminated in the guise of Wiki rules simply because certain fans who patrol this article constantly can't stand contrary, but valid and correctly cited, sources and opinions. Jasoncward (talk) 17:49, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I personally have no interest in the article, I'm just here to ensure there's no vandalism, disruptive editing and that appropriate rules are adhered too. I can honestly say I do not know what the opinions are that I'm editing, just that I'm editing them in the name of 'wiki rules'. RaseaC (talk) 17:52, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

If you personally have no interest in this artcile, why are your edits adding content "pro-EU-Superpower", adding cites to promote this POV and deleting cites/quotes opposing it?...You are makig a documented effort to promote one idea and quiet another, ostensibly to promote the rules of Wiki...and why are you NOT simply editing or enhancing the cites/quotes to meet wiki standards that argue against EU Superpowerdom instead of deleting them Jasoncward (talk) 18:04, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

...and may I suggest (a) a little good faith and (b) that you familiarise yourself with this talk page before making unfounded allegations against other editors? I am not European, not a "fan" of the EU, and elsewhere on this very page have been engaged in "debate" (and I use the term loosely...) with one "EU100%" who regards me as a stooge of "Usa". A lack of civility towards other editors doesn't help your case (which, ironically, I happen to agree with - the existence of this page is dubious). Comment on content, not editors. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 17:57, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

...some valid points you make, but my primary point is that pedantic adherance to "wiki rules" is decidedly applied in a one-sided fashion in this article and deters from the value of wiki as neutral. It is more important to encourage the imperfect exploration of all sides of an issue more or less equally than it is to hide behind obscure rules of wiki that only serve to promote one POV and a political objective . Jasoncward (talk) 18:04, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

That's all well and good, but easier said that done when editors refuse to engage except by reverting, and our attempts to discuss matters on their talk pages result in them simply blanking their talk pages. There are point of view partisans of both hues, and unfortunately the pro-policy/consensus, anti-POV editors inevitably get labelled as contra-partisans by them. It's amusing in a way - on this page I've been labelled anti-EU and now pro-EU - but unfortunately the best solution is to follow policy and ignore the partisans. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 18:10, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to group all your replies together, I'm pretty smart,

The biggest part of the problem is that you THINK you are pretty smart, but thanks for the self-serving and irrelevant comment about yourself nonetheless. Jasoncward (talk) 21:02, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I can figure it out. I have done three things on this page today, one was to provide citations (wikify) a sentence, one was to wikify a quote and the other was to counter-act the behaviour of a disruptive editor. Obviosuly the latter will make it look as if I have an agenda, assuming the disruptive editor is only editing one side of the agenda himself. RaseaC (talk) 18:08, 5 September 2009

and why did you decide to help the pro-EU-superpower argument by adding citations to bolster that case if you are neutral? Why did you not also add cites or wikify quotes against the EU being a superpower, instead of simply deleting cited quotes by those who point out there are other opinions in this matter? - since, afterall, you are smart and purely neutral (your words) in the editing?

I'm glad you asked (only because vandalism is slow at the moment and I'm a bit bored). I did originally delete the quote, but then after some discussion decided it would be less stressful to add citations instead. Also, I added citations to a line deleted by an IP because it flashed up on my Huggle, I reverted it, he argued, I provided a citation. You see, all in the name of Wikifying, not, unfortunately, politics! RaseaC (talk) 21:09, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Jason for your rather arrogant and if I may say ridiculous attack on our characters and thank you for my inclusion in the coveted list of "fans".

You are welcome! Jasoncward (talk) 21:46, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

However, I would like to know why any of this is helpful?

In a perfect world for some, some would get to delete all content with which they disagree and categorize as "unhelpful" or "non-constructive" anything they don't like, which embarasses them, or worst of all, tends to show that the EU is not a superpower. (BTW, I have never deleted whole blocks of contributions - only made additions - I don't seek to quiet those with whom I disagree). For the moment wiki is keeping its well earned reputation as the home for college kids and the unemployed, but the movement is on for professional editing when thankfully these tiresome arguments will not be needed.Jasoncward (talk) 21:46, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Especially considering many editors are simply reverting non-constructive and rather irrelevant IP edits?

There is no requirement that one register with wiki in order to edit wiki, nor should there be. The "non construtive" and "rather irrelevant" edits weren't edits so much as they were additional content you didn't like - "non construttive" is simply your categorization of well cited sources from major academics and foreign policy experts who disagree that the EU is or will become a superpower - but they are VERY constructive in advancing the argument that the EU is not a superpower.Jasoncward (talk) 21:46, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Simply, I agree with RaseaC and TFOWR on this. Also let's consider you yourself have had edit warnings in the past for what you claim people here are doing. G. R. Allison (talk) 21:16, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

This article was created by people who want to advance a political idea - namely that [insert entity] is a superpower and that the USA can and should not be allowed to have sole right to this term for all the reasons listed. Warnings from partisans are compliments to objective thinking.Jasoncward (talk) 21:46, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

What about this peace offering: me and the others who want to join me will compose and edit the portion arguing against EU superpowerdom, making it roughly equal in space to the pro-superpowerdom arguments. You would in our agreement not delete content unless you can convince us that the sources are invalid (not reputable), but if the sources are good, you would agree to accept the content they propose arguing against EU superpowerdom? Likewise, me and those who think like me will not touch in any way your arguments for EU suerpower status... I think its clear which are pro-EU and which are against the EU superpower idea...we can each write our bit and get some "neutral" party to check or edit for wiki standards?Jasoncward (talk) 21:48, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

That's not how WP works. We have articles and people edit them according to the rules (reliable sources, NPOV) etc. IF that route is followed we wouldn't even need an undo button, but because people add unsourced POV material we do,

I've reviewed most of your edits on this article and almost all your delettions were SOURCED material arguing against the EU becoming a superpower. No explanation was given.

from time to time, have to delete other people's additions. So unfortunately we won't be going ahead with your idea. Thanks, RaseaC (talk) 21:50, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

despite your monumental delusions of grandeur, "we" are allowed to edit wiki in whatever method we like without your ideas controlling the rest of us, including finding a consensus between opposing parties as or before we publish.Jasoncward (talk) 22:14, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Also, I cannot stress enough how little I care about this argument. I do not know what side my editing leans towards, I couldn't care, I have no interest in knowing. Believe what you want, but the truth is I DON'T GIVE A FUCK. Thanks, RaseaC (talk) 21:54, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

You REPEATEDLY re-inserted a comment claiming the EU had the most important languages on earth, even though it was deleted for being uncited. THEN, you re-inserted the comment again even though it was deleted for citing a fake source that also did not mention all the most important languages on earth were found in Europe. FINALLY, to prove your neutrality, you went out to the net, did a google search and neutrally found a cite on your own that advances the argument that the EU is a superpower. The number of deletions of very well sourced arguments against the EU being a superpower you made is so high it is impossible that you are neutral.Jasoncward (talk) 22:14, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Please reply completely at the end of my comment, it makes understanding you a lot easier. If no information was given as to why I deleted a contribution then it was most likely automatically flagged as vandalism or disruptive, such as an IP continually adding or deleting the same thing, which isn't allowed under the 3RR. You're absolutely right - please do edit WP, that is the whole point, in fact the collaborative nature of the project is what makes it wikipedia! However, just like every other editor you have to provide sources and abide by concensus, because those are the rules that the community adheres to, if you don't like the rules then argue them, that's the whole point. Also, you can ignore them (I do quite a lot) but you have to be prepared to properly argue your reasoning, not just go into edit wars. Talk pages are here for a reason! The comment you are referring was originally deleted by me, and then I went on to provide a source for it. I'm not sure where the edit came from, I was just wikifying it. RaseaC (talk) 22:29, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I reverted rather dubious edits from this pre-financial crisis source "http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/ambroseevans_pritchard/2819359/US-will-retake-economic-superpower-crown.html" an opinion/comment section on a newspaper, is that a proper source? Also the points attributed to the reference seem extrapolated based on some ones interpretation of what the source says. Are we not supposed to discuss any modification to the article here rather than just do it? If points were discussed and simply factual rather than an editors opinion then you can put all the against-EU superpowerdom text you need. Will you please stop assuming we're all Europhiles. I happened to vote UKIP on June 4th. G. R. Allison (talk) 06:40, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm bowing out of this discussion now, the troll/sock-puppet/banned IP is clearly not interested in playing by the rules and can't be bothered to try and understand the policies/principles behind wikipedia so there really can't be a constructive conversation here, it's just wasting all our time. RaseaC (talk) 11:52, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, there's a little too much WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT to assume good faith (block for socking notwithstanding). I'm chalking this up to straightforward trolling, and will follow WP:DENY/WP:RBI henceforth. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 11:56, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Good call people, I'm bowing out now also. G. R. Allison (talk) 14:04, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Edit Dicussion

I was recently asked to go to the discussion board by User:RaseaC to discuss some of the recent edits. I'm not quite sure what there is to discuss, but since I've directed so many people to the discussion board over the years, I feel obligated to go here too if someone asks me. Well anyway, to sum it up:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/ambroseevans_pritchard/2819359/US-will-retake-economic-superpower-crown.html

Doesn't even mention the EU. but instead mentions the much wider Europe, which could be anything from Iceland to Russia.

Since the [your words] "much wider Europe" obviously encompasses the smaller EU, if the "much wider" Europe is not a Superpower, then obviously the EU is not as well since it is smaller and less powerful. Jasoncward (talk) 21:14, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

The article doesn't say that the EU, or Europe for that matter, won't be, or can't be, a superpower. The article simply says that the US might be economically better off in the future than Europe will. By the way, Id'd just like to take the opportunity to explain my 'superpower-word' - policy. You see, go to the history-section and look at how the page looked around June 2008( [2] ). The page back then was full of OR and sources where the word superpower wasn't even used, or was only used in the title, the information of the sources was, while accurate, most of the time off-topic. Now read Archive 1, 2 and 3 and you'll see that people were unhappy how some users had filled the page with sources that were off subject, or where the user had used an article that wasn't directly discussing the nation's rise to, or lack of rise to, superpower-status. To counter this the editors decided to only use sources which directly discussed a nation's superpower-status. That's why I'm kind a picky when it comes to that. Swedish pirate (talk) 20:44, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Only mentions the word superpower in the title (it has been more or less a requirement for sources of this article to mention the word superpower at least a few times in the actual text of the source, look through the archive). You can probably understand the reason for this.

Disagree strongly - the proponents of the idea that the EU is a superpower, such as yourself (see, for example, your talk page) are trying to expand the definition of the term "superpower" and therefore repeat it and throw it around more frequently than those who believe there is only one superpower (America) and who only use the term "superpower" in articles about America. In other words, if the EU is not a superpower, many sources will not mention the EU in any discussion about superpowers and this fact alone is valid evidence as to why the EU is not a superpower. This article's main point is that in 2020 there will still be only one superpower - the USA- therefore the EU will NOT be a superpower. Even if this is not spelled out explicitly, the argument that there is only one superpower (without mentioning other "potential" powers) and giving reasons why is just as valid as explaining all the reasons why the EU will not be a superpower.Jasoncward (talk) 21:14, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

First of all, you know nothing about me, so don't pretend that you do and don't try to put me into your, in lack of a better word, "stereotypical" view of "EU-proponents". If you've seen my homepage, then you've also seen that I'm a "proponent" of the US' superpowerdom as well as the EU's (the reason for the two more EU-textboxes and the introduction is that I'm more interested in the EU since I'm a citizen of it and that its decisions influence me, personally, far more than the US' does; do you find the fact that my interest over the EU is above my interest of the US so strange?). Second, your conclusion that since the source says that the US will remain the sole superpower - and because of that the EU can't be a superpower - applies not only to the EU, but to China, India and Russia aswell. To me it seems that it's more likely that you have some kind of grudge towards the EU then that we are some kind of "EU-fans", especially since you specifically decided to put this useless argument in the EU's section. P. S. ; The argument is useless because, as it applies to all the unions/countries on the page, the point of the source (that the US will remain the world's superpower) is useless/superfluous in contrast to the purpose of this page - which is to discuss expert's take on potential or emerging superpowers. You could have it in the introduction that some believe that the US will remain the sole superpower in the future, but that seems quite narrowminded aswell to assume that the US will always be a superpower and that it will never change, especially considering what happened to the Soviet Union. Swedish pirate (talk) 20:44, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

http://www.watchingamerica.com/lefigaro000043.html

Doesn't mention the EU either and the source doesn't state that the EU's demography is a reason why it can't be a superpower. The source talks more about the US' superpower-status.

Again, your asking those who don't agree with you to prove a negative - obviously those who share your EU superpower beliefs are much more often going to mention the word "superpower" in relation to the EU than sources who do NOT consider the EU a superpower.Jasoncward (talk) 21:14, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

The same argument can be applied to the US' superpower-status aswell. I mean just because more academics have said that the US is a superpower then those who haven't doesn't mean that it is one, right? It's just because the academics that don't believe the US to be a superpower don't use the word superpower with the US. So these academics who are "in-the-superpower-closet" are good evidence against the US' superpowerdom, right? (sarcasm, in case you don't understand)

"I mean, obviously those who share your US superpower beliefs are much more often going to mention the word "superpower" in relation to the US than sources who do NOT consider the US a superpower". Swedish pirate (talk) 20:44, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

http://ec.europa.eu/employment_social/news/2005/mar/demog_gp_en.html

Doesn't mention the word superpower - doesn't say that the EU's demography is a hindrance for being a potential superpower.

This is of course the EU itself cited as a source that EU's demographics are presenting an unsurmountable economic problem - if you can't make the connection that this argues against super-power status I think you are being overly obtuse in rejecting any source that doesn't spell out the world superpower.Jasoncward (talk) 21:14, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

See earlier explanation.Swedish pirate (talk) 20:44, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

http://uscpublicdiplomacy.com/index.php/newsroom/specialreports_detail/the_european_union_a_quiet_superpower_or_a_relic_of_the_past/

I take it you refer to the first column under "The constitutional impasse and the future of the Union" - section. Well, if you go to the link provided you see that the authour never says anything about the EU's superpower-status. Swedish pirate (talk) 17:18, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Copyedit

I've copyedited the article and for made the EU section less long winded, while retaining its arguments. If you have any concerns, please list them here. Overall, I must say I am unimpressed by how one section is much longer than the rest and suggest we keep the article focused on the point (why a country is a potential superpower) and try not add any superfluous commentary.Poliphile (talk) 13:44, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Well I've said all along that sources must be reliable and should be vetted for this article to be of good quality. Academic sources from international relations experts are preferred. Sources from popular media are often inaccurate, sensationalistic, and/or lacking of knowledge on the requisites of a true superpower. Some of the article seems to be based on flimsy evidence. For example, the Russia section. Maybe sometime I will review this page and vet each source individually or we could do it together. Nirvana888 (talk) 15:36, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I think you've done things to both improve and deteriorate the quality of the article. For example, you've taken Alexander Stubb out of the article completely. He's an experianced politician and his opinion is just as valid as any other's. Second; while I do believe that it would look esthetically better with a sother EU section, the thing now is that opinions, which used to be in different columns, gets blurred together, which may confuse the readers. For example; the opinion of Robert J. Guttman is now in the same column as that of Andrew Reding's, which makes it appear as if the two opinions are somehow related, while they have nothing to do with each other. Swedish pirate (talk) 16:10, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey, sorry about the Alexander Stubb part. It somehow was got removed by accident and I've restored it. Regarding the other combined opinions. I group them since they both support EU superpower potential and on their own they were just a few lines and not really paragraphs in their own right. I can separate then again if you still feel it looks better that way. Poliphile (talk) 16:38, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

No, it's okey. That's the way it is in the other sections, so why not for the EU. Swedish pirate (talk) 17:00, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Russia

Would someone like to rewrite the Russia section? There is currently a lot of OR from media reports or GDP statistics which do not infer superpower status or the lack thereof and thus does not belong in this article. Nirvana888 (talk) 03:01, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Brasilia has great potential It is hosting WC and Olympics! RIO 2016 will be fantastic i am thrilled to pieces why is india listed here but not brasil. india is not and will not be capable for hosting olympics for many many decades. olympics village would be slum village in indic. josé with love&pride 02:52, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Some Articles about Brazil

Some articles about Brazil to be used to advocate the inclusion of Brazil in this article and to be used as sources:

(Notice that a good amount of these articles are from extremely reliable and respectable sources.) (Most links are to articles in english, a few are for articles in french and portuguese.)

http://www.newsweek.com/id/194604 http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11052873 http://www.international.gc.ca/canadexport/articles/386110.aspx?lang=fra http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/71dacf5e-bd10-11de-a7ec-00144feab49a.html?nclick_check=1 http://www.bbc.co.uk/portuguese/reporterbbc/story/2008/07/080708_brasilft.shtml http://momento24.com/en/2009/09/18/lula-brazil-will-become-a-super-power-in-the-next-ten-years/ http://www.brazzilmag.com/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=11176 http://www.1913intel.com/2008/01/13/brazil-the-super-power/ http://www.transnational.org/SAJT/forum/power/2006/06.03_Brazil_Superpower.html http://www.southernaffairs.org/2008/03/historiography-iii-brazilian-hegemony.html http://www1.folha.uol.com.br/folha/bbc/ult272u640405.shtml http://www.defence.pk/forums/economy-development/13377-not-china-india-but-brazil-leads-bric-into-superpower-status-oil.html http://whitmanpioneer.com/op-ed/2007/10/25/the-forgotten-bric-why-brazil-might-be-the-next-world-superpower/ http://www.brookings.edu/events/2008/0428_brazil_economics.aspx http://www.fride.org/publication/415/brazil-in-south-america-from-indifference-to-hegemony http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all~content=a792852309 http://vlex.com/vid/brazil-superpower-understanding-67159129 http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1596848,00.html http://en.mercopress.com/2009/09/07/brazil-has-the-knowledge-to-build-an-atomic-bomb http://dsp-psd.tpsgc.gc.ca/Collection/E12-9-24-10F.pdf http://www.etaiwannews.com/etn/news_content.php?id=1075755&lang=eng_news&cate_img=83.jpg&cate_rss=news_Politics http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/nov2007/db20071115_045316.htm?campaign_id=rss_eu http://english.people.com.cn/200703/15/eng20070315_357821.html http://www.tierramerica.net/2004/1030/iarticulo.shtml http://dsp-psd.pwgsc.gc.ca/Collection/E12-9-24-10E.pdf http://www-03.ibm.com/innovation/us/growth/brazil/newbrazil.shtml http://revistaepoca.globo.com/Revista/Epoca/0,,ERT73916-15223-73916-3934,00.html http://www.priceminister.com/offer/buy/68119458/Realites-N-340-Bresil-Sur-Le-Chemin-De-La-Superpuissance-Revue.html http://cubantriangle.blogspot.com/2008/01/brazils-superpower-move.html

CEBR (talk) 17:47, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

India

I know that we've done some of these countries to death *coughcoughBrazilcoughcough* but I think I've found some more information on another semi-controversial inclusion in the article, India. I was doing a bit of research recently into India's potential as a superpower and found a book on Google Books:

[3]

[4]

The second one also discusses the role that China might play. I haven't read the entirety of these, I admit, but I felt that it might be interesting to pass these through. The second one appears to be introducing the element of the growing global communications network, in particular the internet. Let's see what everybody else thinks of these =)

Comics (talk) 23:16, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

• THE EUROPEAN UNION NOT IS A COUNTRY AND THE INDIA/SOUTH ASIA IS A BIGGGGGGGGGGGGGARBAGE..!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.71.7.152 (talk) 22:20, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• • Thankyou for your rather strong opinion, however personal opinions aren't really allowed to hold sway over the contents of the article. Rather, a strong opinion backed with strong sources is what can change the article. As it is, India is listed because there are reliable enough sources that speculate on it's rise - books I've read online about the EU state 'it is not a country, but it is a unique power'. Comics (talk) 22:42, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

They're great, really. They would make a great contribution to the article. Feel free to add them whenever you wish, or if you don't want to add them yourself, I could do it. Swedish pirate (talk) 09:00, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

'Kay, thanks Swedish ^^ I'll add them later maybe, read through them and take out some of the good bits that are relevant. This is how we make the article better - consensus. Comics (talk) 10:55, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm beginning the process now - it may be slow, but I intend to do it in a way so that we can really use these sources as best we can. Just one thing I'd like to know - the source on China and India, should I just add them to the India section and compare it to China from there, or introduce it into the China section too? Comics (talk) 09:46, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

You can add it to wherever you think the material is most appropriate. Regarding the sources, books are often considered high-quality sources, however we have to make sure that whatever material is added directly infers true superpower status. Some books have tended to hype up the term and attribute it to any state that is "rising". So we should be careful with adding any quotation that contains the word superpower. This is mainly why we prefer academic sources from acknowledged IR experts. Nirvana888 (talk) 13:18, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

India - and not Japan, UK, France and Germany

I know that that the latter three are members of the EU which is listed, but how come none of them get a mention of as a potental superpower where as India does. The United Kingdom, and France are perminant members of the UN secutiry council and all four are amongst the highest economy's - Ecluding the USA and China (which are 1st and 3rd) we have the 2nd, the 4th the 5th and the 6th largest world economy's where India is the 12th, which has economy of less than half of the UK which is in 6th having a population over 15 times lower. France and the UK are both NPT Nuclear Weapon States where as india is a Non-NPT Nuclear Weapon States. Japan, the UK, France and Germany all have far more significant roles in world poltics than India and all four are already Great Powers which India is not? How does India qualify as a Potential Superpower when it doesn't even qualify as a Great Power. Should/Could the 3 Great powers of the EU not have a section below the EU area, noting there high economies in there own right as separate country's, there powerful military, there seats on the UN secrutiy council and there general infulance on world afears, and then perhaps another area for Japan. These four countys all qualify far more than inda and it would not be difficult to find sources that suggests this. Alexsau1991 (talk) 21:37, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Well I think the main issue is that the article written with the assumption that there is only one superpower at the moment, and that it's the US. Because of this, any country mentioned as a "potential superpower" has to be, by definition, a "rising power". In my opinion, were the EU to become fully integrated with its foreign and military policies, it would come pretty close to being a superpower already. But the individual countries you've mentioned do not appear to have good prospects of becoming much more powerful on the world stage than they are now. India, on the other hand, is widely expected to grow rapidly both economically and militarily to better match its massive population. That is the difference, in my opinion. Yes those countries are powerful, but they are not growing in importance. Therefore they do not appear to be future superpower candidates. TastyCakes (talk) 21:46, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

You mention that India does not qualify as a Great Power - well, depending on your resource it does. Me and Deavenger had Great Power Politics checked out a few months back - it's a reliable enough source, but we need to use the academic stuff that it suggests. Now, GPP lists India and Brazil as Great Powers already. Please, let us not go into the whole thing about Brazil and India now having to be included on the Great Power page - it's just one source, and I've read other sources which say that competition in their respective regions prevents them from having the global outlook required of a Great Power. Also, if you compare Japan, the UK, Germany and France with the other countries that are on the rise, you might notice something. Japan has a population comparable to Russia I believe, third largest economy in the world - but it is predicted to have a decreasing population and hasn't been seriously considered since the '90s. Germany, the UK and France have populations about half the size of Russia's, far less geographic size, and are actually going to be superseded as economic powers according to most projections - whereas India is predicted to become economically even larger. As Tasty Cakes said, India is in a position to properly equate their military and economic power to match the potential of their population. Germany, the UK, France and Japan have already done this. They've reached the height of their potential, and unless a fully integrated and powerful British Empire returns, the UK isn't going to become a superpower again too soon. Cheers ^-^ Comics (talk) 09:27, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Alexsau, you may have a point that India is not generally acknowledged as a great power yet and that the UK, France, Germany and Japan are. However, this article is about superpower status not great power status. It is highly improbably that the four great powers in question will attain superpower status in the foreseeable future. India's potential is clearly long-term and will have to overcome enormous challenges in order to reach its potential. This means that it will quite likely have to reach great power status before potentially emerging as a superpower in the future. To sum it up, while the UK, France, Germany and Japan can be considered at present more powerful than India, they cannot realistically reach superpower status in the foreseeable future and thus should not be included in this article. Nirvana888 (talk) 13:26, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

EU and India

I'm sorry if it seems like I'm suddenly just intruding here, but I just wanted to talk about two things. I was just editing the India section to begin the implementation of one of the two sources I asked everyone to look at (see above), when I noticed that nearly every paragraph in the India section begins by saying '[insert person's name here] says that...'. Although I tried to avoid it with the paragraph that I introduced, I couldn't find a better way to phrase it. I just wanted to point out that this reads as repetitive and mechanical, and wanted to know if there might be a way to make it flow a bit better.

Also as I was going through the page, I noticed that the EU section is almost twice as large as each other section. At first I thought that this might be due to the amount of possible sources - but we did have a larger China section at one point, so it's not as if there isn't enough information for the other sections. I also thought that it might be because there is more speculation - but I'm sure that China is on a similar level of speculation. So I just wanted to know if this theory is the one that's correct - is it because of the unique nature of the EU? The reason I'm asking is because, although speculation on such a unique entity does require space, it does look as though more attention is being given to the EU and we might want to avoid that. I apologise if I'm just reading too deep into things. Comics (talk) 11:01, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey Comics, thanks for your contributions. Like at the other types of power status articles within the scope of PIIR (e.g. great power), we have to use sources that directly infer the type of power of interest, in this case here: potential superpower status. We have a high preference for academic sources from IR literature (e.g. journals and books from reputed presses). The paragraph you added on seems to refer to India as a an "Internet superpower" which does not equate superpower status in the traditional sense (i.e. capable of projecting dominating power and influence anywhere in the world). Thus, I don't think its an appropriate source.

I would have to agree with the EU section being a bit too long compared to the other sections. Ideally, all the sections should be approximately the same length. Feel free to add more to the other sections to try to balance them out. If you have any questions, don't hesitate at all to leave a message. Nirvana888 (talk) 13:10, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

M'kay Nirvana - I did say in the edit note that people could edit the wording of that section I added. I wasn't too sure if I'd done it properly ^^; they way that I read the source implied that India was planning on using the Internet as a way to improve the way that it managed it's affairs, and using it as a way to gain overall superpower status.

I was just checking though ^-^ Comics (talk) 05:30, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Lisbon is now ratified

This treaty is designed to streamline the process of the EU. I'm just wondering - when might reliable speculation on the consequences of this ratification be known? Is the ratification of Lisbon something that works for the EU's superpower potential, or against it? Does the treaty do nothing for it except make things slightly easier? These are all relevant questions I feel, considering that on December 1 the treaty is supposed to take effect. Comics (talk) 06:45, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I guess we'll have to wait and see. Swedish pirate (talk) 14:31, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Wait and see it shall be, then. Comics (talk) 06:06, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Brazil

Why isn't Brazil talked about being a potential superpower?

Over recent years Brazil has started to emerge as a potential super power in the world’s economic market. Unlike many other developing nations, Brazil is not solely reliant upon growth in tourism to achieve economic growth. As a nation rich in oil reserves and bio fuels, maximising the full potential of the country’s economy can produce incredible financial wealth.

Reforms in the government over the past five years have assisted the expansion of the Brazilian economy, enabling the nation to experience a turn-around in several sectors. Wages have increased along with employment opportunities, assisting with the emergence of a middle class society. Increased disposable incomes and a reduction in interest rates have generated an internal demand for property.

Presently positioned as the largest economy in South America, the continued development and expansion could potentially enable Brazil with one of the largest economies in the world. The Brazilian government is also focussing on the growth of the tourist market and all areas of foreign investment, including within the real estate sector.

Strong Rental Yield and Capital Growth Potential

Over the past few years the Brazilian real estate market has been aimed at attracting foreign investors, excellent gains have been obtained. In key areas of interest such as Natal in the north-east, growth of around 20% per annum has not been unusual. The lack of restrictions to non-resident buyers and the growth of the tourist market have assisted with the expansion and demand of the sector.

Prices continue to rise as demand increases and development of infrastructure in the region expands to accommodate the influx of buyers. Resort style projects located in idyllic settings, convenient to reach and with a strong appeal towards holiday makers have attracted buy-to-let clients for the rental potential.

Initial development of the region has enabled land prices to be available at their lowest, allowing for the strongest possible growth potential. The convenience of improved flight connections from major cities around the world, connecting with Brazilian tourist hotspots, has helped with the growing interest in the destination for holiday makers. Demand for self catering accommodation is on the increase worldwide, improving the potential gains from short term rental properties.

Exceptional Emerging Market

The attraction of Brazil’s real estate market has developed over the relatively short amount of time the market has been open to foreign buyers. Continuous interest in the property market from North American and European investors has assisted in the steady growth of real estate and tourism in the north-east of the country.

High quality developments in a stunning location have been increasing in prices along with the growth of the market. Although property prices are growing as the market expands, Brazil continues to present exceptionally low priced real estate opportunities. Excellent capital returns and yield potential can be generated from Brazil’s emerging market as interest continues to expand.

Buyers have been entering the market for short, medium and long term opportunities, along with lifestyle purchases and retirement homes. The buy-to-let market has been one of the most sought after sectors of Brazil’s investment market, taking advantage of holiday maker’s strong demands for self catering property. Brazil’s emerging property market is also set to boom in line with the huge domestic demand, having developed from government reforms to enable continued future growth.

Government Encouragement towards Real Estate and Foreign Investment

For many years interest rates on mortgage in Brazil were at 25%, amongst the highest in the world. The government initiatives to reform the real estate market, creating accessibility to the domestic market and permitting foreign buyers to easily access the sector, has proven to be extremely successful. A dramatic drop in interest rates to around 11%, combined with an expectation for the rates to drop further, has enabled a new confidence in the government’s active interest in reforming the real estate market for both local and foreign buyers.

New infrastructure throughout the north-east of Brazil has enabled improved accessibility to the area. Expansions of airports, new bridges and highways are being carried out, benefitting all who live in or visit the areas. Considering the few years that Brazil has permitted foreign property investment without restrictions, the sector has developed at an incredible pace. The attraction of the Brazilian real estate market has proved its staying power for strong continuous demand and future growth.

Returns on investment have been exceptional from the varied ranges of opportunities available. Early entry to the market is providing the best returns with the steady growth and demand, expected to boom further with the opening of the mortgage market to foreign buyers. The government focus on the housing market, infrastructure reforms and tourism has been long overdue. The success of the reforms for economic growth has created immediate and long term benefits to the Brazilian community.

Strong Tourist Growth and Expansion of Infrastructure

It is easy to see the attraction of Brazil as a sought after holiday destination, especially with the continued easing of access to the newly developed holiday resort locations. Natal, located along the north-east Atlantic coast features a year round destination with a tropical climate. Around 8 hours flight from Europe and North America, visitors are likely to spend longer than a few days in the area, creating improved potential to the buy-to-let rental market.

Considered one of the safest areas of the country to visit, Natal and the surrounding areas feature some of the best beaches in South America, with a superb climate. Accessible by direct flights from several major cities such as London, Barcelona and Lisbon amongst others, the new international airport in Natal has been designed to cope with the predicted exceptional growth of the region’s tourist and foreign investment markets.

Price increases in property have been growing directly in line with the demands of the tourist market. This growth has been assisted through government reforms and initiative towards increasing awareness and expansion of the tourist sector. All of the incentives developed for the growth of the tourism sector and attracting foreign investment, have been very successful in creating an exciting and attractive new investment market.

Continued interest, growth and demand of Brazil’s real estate market have not slowed, leading development companies to maintain construction to meet the strong demands. The growing internal market provides additional incentives to buyers, allowing for further exit strategies and continued interest in the market. The stunning natural attractions of the vibrant location are expected to continue drawing visitors from around the world. Following the release of the Goldman Sachs BRIC report, a new fascination in Brazil began to emerge. As confidence in the market has not waned over time, ever increasing numbers of investors are keen to experience the market for themselves —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.52.18.56 (talk) 18:55, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Personally I don't think the tenth largest economy in the world with the 12th largest defence budget can really be considered a potential superpower especially considering such irrelevant armed forces, Brazil has no programmes under way in terms of large military procurement or any large growth in its economy. Quite simply, Brazil isn't a great power let alone potential superpower. G. R. Allison (talk) 21:57, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

The same applies to India. It is according to one scholar "completely third world" and has one of the poorest populations in the world with problems like chronic hunger. It tested a nuclear weapon in 1998 illegally and obtained a "pariah" status in the world. Future doesn't look any better with an exploding population. It also only has the 12th largest economy in the world quite a bit smaller than Brazil not even int he top ten like Brasilia not to mention extremely low per capita economy. and talk of military, india is pretty much irrelavent no one cares about it except for pakistan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.52.18.56 (talk) 18:55, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

What are you talking about? The Indians have a large scale military purchasing programme. Also I didn't add India or control who does. The simple fact is changes must be discussed here and the consensus I assume is that Brazil has too few sources citing it as any sort of potential superpower. G. R. Allison (talk) 10:38, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

We do not have to settle the issue here. I would say that if noteworthy citations can be found calling Brazil a superpower, or projecting it to be one in the future, then it should be included.118.165.204.133 (talk) 02:13, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify, Brazil has a large scale military purchasing programme and has the technology and know-how necessary to build atomic bombs, some sources about this: http://en.mercopress.com/2009/09/07/brazil-has-the-knowledge-to-build-an-atomic-bomb / http://kuku.sawf.org/Articles/59935.aspx / http://www.kbismarck.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=1840 / http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-64257614.html / http://en.rian.ru/world/20090907/156053023.html / http://www.coha.org/embraer-brazilian-military-industry-becoming-a-global-arms-merchant/ http://www1.folha.uol.com.br/folha/brasil/ult96u635420.shtml / http://www.naval.com.br/blog/2009/09/13/a-nova-geopolitica-na-america-do-sul-e-o-peamb/

There are mumerous sources regarding Brazil's potential to become a superpower, they can be seen in the list I posted at the bottom of this page.

Really, the fact that Brazil isn't added in this article is a real flaw, it is clear that it ought to be here.

I highly recommend the reading of the articles about Brazil's current situation and potential I posted at the bottom of this page.

CEBR (talk) 18:04, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Nuclear know how was never in question, could you link me to something showing this "large scale military purchasing programme"? Also... forums are not proper sources. G. R. Allison (talk) 19:07, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

If I posted a link to a forum, it was only one, if you look at the links I provided you'll see that Brazil has a aircraft carrier and that it plans to buy others, you'll see that Brazil has bought 50 war helicopters and some nuclear submarines from France, you'll see that Brazil is currently in the process of buying many top-notch jets and etc. As a plus, I'd like to point out that the brazilian builder of aircrafts, Embraer, is a World class aircraft maker, extremely superior to its chinese and indian counterparts, it exports militar and commercial aircrafts for many countries. (http://www.embraer.com.br/english/content/home/) CEBR (talk) 03:51, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

So, it is obvious that Brazil have to be added to this article, maybe one of you fellows would like to do it, if not, I'll do it myself, everything one needs to use as source is at the articles I posted in this discussion page, the articles of the Financial Times and of the Newsweek are particularly excellent, by the way. CEBR (talk) 14:42, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

1. No it is not obvious and unless consensus is reached it shall not be added. However my issue it with your military claims. 2. An aircraft carrier that is by most counts, obsolete. Operating A4 Skyhawks. 3. The nuclear submarines are nowhere near, please do not lie. They are diesel-electric. 4. Brazil only spends around 23 billion on its military. 5. The 50, EC 725 Super Cougars are long-range tactical transports not a "war helicopter" as you claim.

Brazil's budget goes on 2 new SSKs supplementing the 4 T209, on the improved Barroso corvette programme, and that's about it. If more budget were available, Broadsword ex RN frigates would be updated (1 is already in reserve, another will soon follow if no budget), and the Sao Paulo ex-Foch carrier would be armed (plans include Aspide NG SAMs). Yes, Brazil buys new submarines, acquires used frigates, and attempts to build corvettes and patrol boats. But the submarines claim a large percentage of their capital budgets, and rightly so. Its shipbuilding projects are delayed considerably by a lack of proper funding, it seems it takes a decade or more to build a small surface warship. While Brazil has an old aircraft carrier, its airwing comes up lacking.a Its ir force is a F-5 Freedom Fighter air force, not useful on a carrier. In the future they might get some older French Etendards for the old carrier. Brazil is a large developing nation, still with lots of poverty among the masses. Their army thereby gets the first priority for funding, and rightly so, the air force and navy are second. If the Brazilian Navy could acquire useful second hand submarines in great shape, they would. Since they can't, the bulk of the navy's purchasing power is used to buy new submarines. The government acquires a suitable small number of used frigates when they become available from larger navies. BRAZIL HAS A FRANKLY INEFFECTIVE MILITARY. G. R. Allison (talk) 18:11, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm brazilian and I don't really see Brazil as a potential superpower, as many other countries that are not listed: UK, France, Germany, Japan, etc. However, I do see Brazil as a potential GREAT power. Brazil is believed to surprass UK and France in GDP PPP in the next 10 years and is the biggest influence in Latin America, and is also beginning to influence African countries as well. It's true that brazilian military is not so strong, but the country exerts power more by diplomatics acts, and not by force like some other countries. But I guess having a huge military is part of the criteria and Brazil doesn't meet it, so okay for not including it. .What bugs me is the inclusion of India I have nothing against India, but I don't really see them as a potential SUPERPOWER, I would rather consider them a GREAT power, for they are in a simillar condition of Brazil. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.82.134.159 (talk) 21:22, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, it is more than proved that Brazil is considered a potential superpower by important sources, such as the Finantial Times. So, even if some people here in wikipedia don't agree with it, it doesn't make it less real. I have excellent sources regarding Brazil as a potential superpower, do you have reliable sources that claim that it is not a potential superpower?

So, to the military side... "An aircraft carrier that is by most counts, obsolete." sources? "The nuclear submarines are nowhere near, please do not lie. They are diesel-electric." You are wrong. Can you present sources which claim that Brazil is not in the process of getting a nucler submarine? "Brazil only spends around 23 billion on its military." Brazil has been through a military dictactorship until approximately the mid 1980's, and after the military dictactorship ended the Republic neglected the military budget for some time, but now it has started to grow again and the plan is to keep it growing. There is money to spend in it and now it is being spent. "The 50, EC 725 Super Cougars are long-range tactical transports not a "war helicopter" as you claim." lol, they're used at war, so they can be considered war helicopters, military transportation is very important at war.

"Brazil is a large developing nation, still with lots of poverty among the masses." Much less poverty than in India and China, by the way.

"Brazil is believed to surpass UK and France in GDP PPP in the next 10 years" Actually, Brazil is believed to surpass both France and the UK in both GDP PPP and GDP Nominal in considerably less than 10 years. CEBR (talk) 14:03, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

"do you have reliable sources that claim that it is not a potential superpower?" As per WP:Burden of Proof principles, it is your responsibility to provide adequate sources. Also... the Scorpénes are indeed diesel-electric and the Brazilian carrier is frankly ancient and is barely ever put to sea. Transport helicopters are not combat/war helicopters regardless of where they are used. I never claimed Brazil is not in the process of procuring the subs I simply stated it does not have them. The Sao Paulo is modern in your opinion? That is hilarious. If you can provide me reputable sources stating many consider it to be a potential superpower, you can include it. G. R. Allison (talk) 17:46, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

"the Scorpènes are indeed diesel-electric" I'm not talking about the Scorpénes Brazil bought, I'm talking about the partnership with France to build nuclear submarines for Brazil. "and the Brazilian carrier is frankly ancient and is barely ever put to sea." It is ancient but it was revitalized and modernized from 2005 to 2008. Why would Brazil put it to sea without the need of doing so currently?

"The Sao Paulo is modern in your opinion? That is hilarious." It may not be the most modern aircraft carrier of the World, but it doesn't make it useless.

"Transport helicopters are not combat/war helicopters regardless of where they are used." They may not be combat helicopters, but they can certainly be called war helicopters since they are used at war.

"I never claimed Brazil is not in the process of procuring the subs I simply stated it does not have them." what subs especifically?

""do you have reliable sources that claim that it is not a potential superpower?" As per WP:Burden of Proof principles, it is your responsibility to provide adequate sources." And I did present adequate sources, so, unless you have reliable sources to contradict the ones I've presented Brazil ought to be added to the article.

"If you can provide me reputable sources stating many consider it to be a potential superpower, you can include it."

My sources, again:

http://www.newsweek.com/id/194604 http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11052873 http://www.international.gc.ca/canadexport/articles/386110.aspx?lang=fra http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/71dacf5e-bd10-11de-a7ec-00144feab49a.html?nclick_check=1 http://www.bbc.co.uk/portuguese/reporterbbc/story/2008/07/080708_brasilft.shtml http://momento24.com/en/2009/09/18/lula-brazil-will-become-a-super-power-in-the-next-ten-years/ http://www.brazzilmag.com/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=11176 http://www.1913intel.com/2008/01/13/brazil-the-super-power/ http://www.transnational.org/SAJT/forum/power/2006/06.03_Brazil_Superpower.html http://www.southernaffairs.org/2008/03/historiography-iii-brazilian-hegemony.html http://www1.folha.uol.com.br/folha/bbc/ult272u640405.shtml http://www.defence.pk/forums/economy-development/13377-not-china-india-but-brazil-leads-bric-into-superpower-status-oil.html http://whitmanpioneer.com/op-ed/2007/10/25/the-forgotten-bric-why-brazil-might-be-the-next-world-superpower/ http://www.brookings.edu/events/2008/0428_brazil_economics.aspx http://www.fride.org/publication/415/brazil-in-south-america-from-indifference-to-hegemony http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all~content=a792852309 http://vlex.com/vid/brazil-superpower-understanding-67159129 http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1596848,00.html http://en.mercopress.com/2009/09/07/brazil-has-the-knowledge-to-build-an-atomic-bomb http://dsp-psd.tpsgc.gc.ca/Collection/E12-9-24-10F.pdf http://www.etaiwannews.com/etn/news_content.php?id=1075755&lang=eng_news&cate_img=83.jpg&cate_rss=news_Politics http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/nov2007/db20071115_045316.htm?campaign_id=rss_eu http://english.people.com.cn/200703/15/eng20070315_357821.html http://www.tierramerica.net/2004/1030/iarticulo.shtml http://dsp-psd.pwgsc.gc.ca/Collection/E12-9-24-10E.pdf http://www-03.ibm.com/innovation/us/growth/brazil/newbrazil.shtml http://revistaepoca.globo.com/Revista/Epoca/0,,ERT73916-15223-73916-3934,00.html http://www.priceminister.com/offer/buy/68119458/Realites-N-340-Bresil-Sur-Le-Chemin-De-La-Superpuissance-Revue.html http://cubantriangle.blogspot.com/2008/01/brazils-superpower-move.html

More than enough, eh?

201.51.122.179 (talk) 19:41, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Please do not use blogs or forums as sources as I said previously, most of they sources do express your point but none are academic in origin as far as I can see. You create such a section with my backing if you don't use the sources that are forums and blogs and you have at least one reputable academic source. G. R. Allison (talk) 21:59, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I guess there is a little bit of misconceptions here. A superpower is a country that influences the whole world....and Brazil doesn't (and nor does India, by the way). Brazil is truly a potential great power, but is yet far from being reagarded as a superpower. The only superpower in the world right now is the USA, and the ones with the most potential are: EU, China and maybe Russia.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.82.134.159 (talk) 01:47, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Well I tend to agree with you. Scholars have pointed out that Brazil and India are potential great powers this century. The latter probably has more potential than the former, but one should always keep in mind when looking at history, how hard it is to accurately predict the future and that potential does not always get realized. Russia is a former superpower and current great power that is unlikely to come close to regaining its superpower status for the foreseeable future due to major intractable socioeconomic problems. Even the most likely challengers for superpower status - China and the EU - are more of mid-term scenarios that many IR experts believe could happen in 20 or so years. Nirvana888 (talk) 04:18, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

"Please do not use blogs or forums as sources as I said previously" If you look at the links you'll see that very few of them are blogs, even if you disconsider the ones that are blogs, there are still many sources.

"most of they sources do express your point but none are academic in origin as far as I can see." A good amount of them is academic enough, such as the ones from the Finantial Times [Brazil is the 21st century power to watch] http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/71dacf5e-bd10-11de-a7ec-00144feab49a.html?nclick_check=1, The Economist [Brazil, an economic superpower, and now oil too] http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11052873 and Newsweek [How Brazil Became a Superpower, The Crafty Superpower]http://www.newsweek.com/id/194604.

"I guess there is a little bit of misconceptions here. A superpower is a country that influences the whole world....and Brazil doesn't (and nor does India, by the way).Brazil is truly a potential great power, but is yet far from being reagarded as a superpower." No one is saying that these countries are superpowers, what is being said is that they'll potentially become superpowers during the XXI century.

"The only superpower in the world right now is the USA, and the ones with the most potential are: EU, China and maybe Russia...." This is your personal opinion, but it is not much of a fact.

":Well I tend to agree with you. Scholars have pointed out that Brazil and India are potential great powers this century." Actually they are being pointed as potential superpowers in this century.

CEBR (talk) 17:45, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

So, I've spent a few hours and added Brazil with a carefully done article, notice that I've done it without logging in my account 'cause I forgot to log it in, comments and discussions about it are always welcome, just remember to be polite and fair, cheers. CEBR (talk) 17:19, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

When I added Brazil I accidentaly broke the alphabetical order of the article, I edited the article to correct this mistake I made. CEBR (talk) 17:37, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

You forgot to update the pic.Greyhood (talk) 17:58, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Updated the pic and the article. If someone, for instance, thinks Brazil ought not to be portrayed in this article, discuss about it in here, don't go deleting my work for it is sourced.CEBR (talk) 23:07, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Brazil

Note: In development.

Federative Republic of Brazil

The Federative Republic of Brazil is considered by analysts and academics a potential superpower of the 21st Century. According to the World Bank, Brazil is the 8th largest economy of the World by GDP Nominal, the second largest BRIC economy, after China, and the BRIC with the second largest GDP Per Capita, both Nominal and PPP, after Russia. The Brazilian government estimates that the economy grew up to 10 percent in the 3rd trimester of 2009 in comparison to the 3rd trimester of 2008.

Leslie Elliot Armijo has said in a lecture at the Mario Einaudi Center for International Studies entitled "Brazil as an Emerging World Power" that "Brazil will soon rise as Latin America’s first superpower", furthermore Armijo asserts 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"

Mac Magolis asserts in his article "How Brazil Became a Superpower, the Crafty Superpower" 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 asserts 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, Magolis asserts that "Brazil is blessed with vast resources" and lists "timber, fresh water, gold...iron ore", stating also that Brazil's reserves of the last 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 BRICs 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".

In the article "Brazil, an economic superpower, and now oil too" it is asserted that "Brazil enjoyed Chinese rates of growth in the third quarter of the 20th century", a time when it was almost as poor as China. Another assertion is that "Brazil has conquered inflation" while also opening "a protected economy to the world", with progress in reducing social problems such as poverty and inequality.

In another article 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". It is also pointed out that "Brazil enjoys several advantages over the other three [BRICs]" including, a smaller "divide between city and countryside" than India or China, it's multi-party democracy and freedom of expression which "helps it to negotiate social change, unlike China and Russia". Another point put forward in Brazil's favour is that it doesn't possesses the agressive nationalism that "grips the other three [BRICs] from time to time".

It is asserted in another article 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 envisaged, and that, according to PricewaterhouseCoopers, São Paulo will be the fifth-wealthiest city of the World by 2025. Furthermore, it is asserted that "in some ways, Brazil outclasses the other BRICs", emphasising that, 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 also asserts that "Indeed, 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 and Brazil's hosting of the 2014 football World Cup. It is also documented that "foreign investment is pouring in" due to falling poverty and a "swelling lower-middle class", and that Brazil "has established some strong political institutions" being added that Brazil's "take-off is all the more admirable because it has been achieved through reform and democratic consensus-building".

In a fourth article by The Economist it is stated that Brazil has "the world’s largest freshwater supplies [and]... tropical forests", a land so fertile that in some places farmers manage three harvests annually and "huge mineral and hydrocarbon wealth".

John Briscoe of the World Bank has said that he “can easily see Brazil's detractors looking back in 20 years' time and saying: 'we called that one wrong".

Parag Khanna states that "Alongside India and South Africa, Brazil has led the charge in global trade negotiations"

Michael Skapinker asserts in an article that the large oil reserves recently found "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. It is also asserted that, "Unlike China", Brazil has no sharp ethnic conflicts and is a multi-party democracy.

Skapinker points out in another article that the largest Stock Exchange of Brazil, BM&F Bovespa, "is worth more than the New York Stock Exchange, Nasdaq and London Stock Exchange combined".

Jonathan Power asserts that "Brazil has a head start on India and China", saying that it has been developing for over 100 years and adding that "Between 1960 and 1980 Brazil doubled its per capita income".

Flavio S. Campos, in his article "BRIC Starts with B" for the Harvard Crimson talks about the changes and reforms Brazil has gone and is going through, stating that "Brazil's institutional modernization process remains strong".

Discussions regarding the previous version:

I've pasted User:CEBR's Brazil section here. Most of this is OR and thus inappropriate but maybe some of it can be salvaged. It would be good if other people could comment on this. Nirvana888 (talk) 01:27, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I've changed what you posted in here, included all the things I made, including the new map.

The things I made are definately not OR, they are very well sourced. As far as I can see they are completely appropriate, the onus to prove otherwise is of those who disagree, because they are sourced. Of course I agree to discuss it here, and will pay very close attention to observations and accept changes in the cases in which I stand corrected.

The only thing in which I disagree with you is in undoing it from the article and discussing it here first, it ought to be at the article and gradually be discussed, updated and corrected if necessary, for it is sourced, and thus it has sustentation enough to be at the article. CheersCEBR (talk) 03:42, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

It looks very well sourced, but is it possible that it's oversourced? It's almost as long as our EU section - but what we have for China (for example) is very concise and relevant. Maybe shrink it down to the most un-OR part of that, and perhaps focus on discussing other things as well. You mention that Brazil's poverty rate is lower than China and India - I'm just being cynical here, and correct me if I'm wrong, but I think Australia's is as well? Maybe also New Zealand's, Canada's... I think the point I'm making is that, unless you can explain what relevance lack of poverty has to it becoming a superpower, it's just another awesome thing about the country that it can wave around. Comics (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:14, 12 November 2009 (UTC).

Nirvana888, I won't undo your undoing of my editing in the article now to avoid pointless editing war, but bear in mind that I've got what is needed to defend the maintenance of my editing there over your undoing, also bear in mind that since you undone it, you ought to explain detailedly why you've done so. Cheers CEBR (talk) 06:13, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, the fact that the part of the article about the European Union (which, as you pointed out, is the biggest part of the article) and Brazil is bigger than the part about China, India and Russia may not mean that there are too much being said about EU and Brazil, and that their parts are outsourced, it may instead mean that there are too few things being said about China, India and Russia.

Yes, Australia's, New Zealand's, Canada's and etc poverty rates are smaller than China and India, but these countries are not BRICs, they are developed countries. A smaller poverty rate is indeed relevant in here, it means, among many other things, that Brazil will need to spend much less money than China and India in social policies, money that will obviously be used in other important areas, for example, infrastructure and military, see my point, fellow? Do you think it is necessary to insert this kind of point in this part of the article? I didn't add it before 'cause I thought it was obvious. Cheers CEBR (talk) 05:59, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Remember that the sources have to directly mention the word superpower for them to be acceptable, and they have to show exactly why the country is a potential superpower. For example, the fact that 'São Paulo hosts the best university of the World out of the United States, England, Japan, Taiwan and Canada according to Webometrics, the University of São Paulo' has absolutely NOTHING to do with Brazil's superpower-status. Before we can even consider putting Brazil in the article, we have to do a serious clean-up of the entire thing. Because, as it is now, the entire section is full of such 'facts', completely irrelevant to Brazil's superpower-status. Also notice that newspapers make poor sources in this article, unless they are written by, or atleast include, an expert on the field. Journalist X believing Brazil will make it into superpower-status is VERY unreliable at best. Swedish pirate (talk) 08:06, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

":Remember that the sources have to directly mention the word superpower for them to be acceptable, and they have to show exactly why the country is a potential superpower.´"

Many of my sources do this and you know it! such as: http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11052873 The Economist: Brazil, an economic superpower, and now oil too, http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/71dacf5e-bd10-11de-a7ec-00144feab49a.html?nclick_check=1 Financial Times: Brazil is the 21st century power to watch, http://www.newsweek.com/id/194604 Newsweek: How Brazil Became a Superpower, The Crafty Superpower Read before you say it!

Yes, some of your sources do, many others don't. That's what I meant when I said that it has to be cleaned up before it can, possibly, be included. By the way, Id'd just like to take the opportunity to explain the 'superpower-word' - policy, just so you understand. You see, go to the history-section and look at how the page looked around June 2008( [5] ). The page back then was full of OR and sources where the word superpower wasn't even used, or was only used in the title, the information of the sources was, while accurate, most of the time off-topic. Now read Archive 1, 2 and especially 3 and you'll see that people were unpleased by how some users had filled the page with sources that were off subject, or where the user had used an article that wasn't directly discussing the nation's rise to, or lack of rise to, superpower-status. To counter this the editors decided to only use sources which directly discussed a nation's superpower-status. That's why I'm kind a picky when it comes to that. Swedish pirate (talk) 15:03, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

"For example, the fact that 'São Paulo hosts the best university of the World out of the United States, England, Japan, Taiwan and Canada according to Webometrics, the University of São Paulo' has absolutely NOTHING to do with Brazil's superpower-status. Before we can even consider putting Brazil in the article, we have to do a serious clean-up of the entire thing. Because, as it is now, the entire section is full of such 'facts', completely irrelevant to Brazil's superpower-status."

Of course it does have something to do with the countries potential! The fact about the University of São Paulo, for example, means that the country is graduating extremely skilled people who can fuel innovation and etc!

Quite frankly, no it doesn't! Let's face it, Brazil doesn't have the most educated workforce in the world, or the most innovative, even though they have a couple of great universities. And , even if they did, the primary reason why it doesn't belong in this article is because no expert says that Brazil will be a superpower because 'the University of São Paulo' is a great university. The only person who thinks that is you. That's your conclusion, not the source's, which makes it Original Research. Swedish pirate (talk) 15:03, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

"Also notice that newspapers make poor sources in this article, unless they are written by, or atleast include, an expert on the field. Journalist X believing Brazil will make it into superpower-status is VERY unreliable at best."

No, reliable newspapers such as The Economist and The Financial Times have a high level and are completely acceptable as sources in wikipedia, for sure what is published at them is worth much more than your opinion. You can't discredit them just because you don't agree with what they say.

Yes, they are acceptable sources for most wikipedia articles, and they are here too, but only if they report, or include, an expert's or analyst's take on, for example, Brazil's superpower-status. Take " http://www.newsweek.com/id/194604 ", the newspapers-article you presented before, for example. The article mentions the word superpower only twice; once in the title and once in the text. Both times it was written into the article by the journalist. It wasn't an expressed opinion by an expert or analyst, just the journalist trying to make the article interesting enough to sell. That's an example of an unreliable "newspapers-source". Swedish pirate (talk) 15:03, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

BTW, sources that says that a country is an "energy superpower", "agricultural superpower" or "knowledge superpower" etc. doesn't belong in this article either. See previous talk-pages. Swedish pirate (talk) 15:03, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

BTW, the cover of this week's The Economist is about Brazil -> Brazil takes off: http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14845197 Getting it together at last: http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14829485 Breaking the habit: http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14829509

CEBR (talk) 03:24, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I made a large update to the text, it is even more ready to be added to the article than it was before...Cheers CEBR (talk) 11:01, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

CEBR, you should rewrite your section in a manner of other sections here, with every paragraph starting like this:

• Mac Margolis, the correspondent of Newsweek, argues that ...
• Jonathan Power of Transnational Foundation for Peace and Future Research argues that ...

Remove all your material except provided by the experts or authors from reputable newspapers and research institutions; the additional material, that suitably and directly illustrates the expert views, also may not be removed. I support the inclusion of Brazil into this article, however it must be done in appropriate way. Greyhood (talk) 18:10, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Swedish has done a good job explain the policies set forth at PIIR. One needs to provide authoritative, academic IR literature supporting a state's case for being a potential superpower as in all articles in the project. Media sources can often be sensationalistic and factually wrong when discussing power status. Nirvana888 (talk) 22:38, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

That may work ("Mac Margolis, the correspondent of Newsweek, argues that ..."), Greyhood, I'll make some modifications and post here for feedback.

"Swedish has done a good job explain the policies set forth at PIIR. One needs to provide authoritative, academic IR literature supporting a state's case for being a potential superpower as in all articles in the project. Media sources can often be sensationalistic and factually wrong when discussing power status."

Of course media sources are acceptable. The Potential Superpower article itself contradicts this point of yours, as it counts with many sources from media sources, such as The Saint Petersburg Times http://www.times.spb.ru/index.php?action_id=2&story_id=23554, The Journal of Turkish Weekly http://www.turkishweekly.net/news/11977/-eu-will-be-super-power-with-turkey-.html, CNN http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/12/12/russia.oil/index.html, Global Atlanta http://stories.globalatlanta.com/2008stories/016337.html, The Irish Times http://www.cer.org.uk/articles/leonard_irish_times_18feb05.html, The Guardian http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2006/jun/15/comment.china, Newsweek http://www.newsweek.com/id/47261, BBC http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/4020973.stm and New York Times http://www.paragkhanna.com/2008/01/waving_goodbye_to_hegemony.html

CEBR (talk) 23:46, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

But are the people that it's quoting recognised as experts in the field of International relations? If that's the case, then they are reliable sources. If it's simply another journalist going 'China's a superpower' or something else akin to propaganda, then we're not going to accept it. Comics (talk) 00:11, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, they are, but, by the way, quotes from Wikipedia rules:

"Wikipedia articles should cover all major and significant-minority views that have been published by reliable sources."

"Material from mainstream news organizations is welcomed, particularly the high-quality end of the market."

"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true."

CEBR (talk) 04:22, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

With these articles we are aiming for expert opinions, not just quotes that can be verified. If I found the Daily Telegraph saying that Australia was going to be a superpower, should I add it here? Um, no. Propaganda nonsense. And with a term like 'superpower' making everyone go 'omg we're so cool', of course newspapers are going to throw the term around and make people feel special. The BRIMCKs can be verified - they are from an economist who is knowledgeable. China is so damn obvious it'd be stupid not to put it on, but we still need reliable and expert opinions. We're being very selective here with what we put in, and Brazil is not going to be a superpower any time soon. Unlike the EU or China, or even Russia and India if they get their act together. Comics (talk) 05:52, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

":With these articles we are aiming for expert opinions, not just quotes that can be verified."

Wikipedia has rules and you have to respect them.

"If I found the Daily Telegraph saying that Australia was going to be a superpower, should I add it here? Um, no. Propaganda nonsense. And with a term like 'superpower' making everyone go 'omg we're so cool', of course newspapers are going to throw the term around and make people feel special."

My sources aren't Brazilian sources and have no reason to do propaganda saying that Brazil will be a superpower, my sources are international and good sources such as the Economist, the Financial Times and Newsweek saying it.

"The BRIMCKs can be verified - they are from an economist who is knowledgeable."

Although I don't agree with the BRIMCKs, if the BRIMCKs are being considered potential superpowers by this economist who is knowledgeable they can be added in this article according to the rules of Wikipedia. Remember: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." "Wikipedia articles should cover all major and significant-minority views that have been published by reliable sources."

"China is so damn obvious it'd be stupid not to put it on, but we still need reliable and expert opinions. We're being very selective here with what we put in, and Brazil is not going to be a superpower any time soon. Unlike the EU or China, or even Russia and India if they get their act together."

Your personal opinion about this really doesn't matter.

"We're being very selective here with what we put in, and Brazil is not going to be a superpower any time soon."

You have no right and authority to set standards here, the rules are the ones from Wikipedia and you have to respect them.

CEBR (talk) 06:31, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

The rules for Wikipedia govern what content we put in, yes. However, something you seem to be completely disregarding is the authority of the Wikiproject. The wikiproject decides what sources are more useful, and we've already had this article accused of crystal-balling - I'm sure if you're as versed in wiki-protocol as you say you are, you'll know what that means. We're treading very carefully. That section you have written may include good points - however, lots of it is irrelevant and it doesn't flow with the established standard set for the article. We are going for the experts - regardless of the magazine, if you can prove that the person involved is actually considered to be an expert in political analysis, then you can add them. The BRIMCK's are, I believe, supposed to represent the next G8 - therefore meaning the superpowers and great powers. The Economist may be reliable - but is it really reliable with regards to predicting rising powers? Economically, maybe. But that is more for the BRIC article than here. Unless you can closely relate rising economic power with superpower potential, then it isn't relevant. I added something very interesting too recently - the prospect that India might use the internet to streamline various processes internally, allowing it to function more efficiently and improve it's economy. That got deleted. I really loved that little section I added - it was like my little baby. Just like this Brazil section appears to be yours. What I'm getting at here is this - there are people on this project who have worked on this project longer than you or I, and they've said 'stop'. Listen to them. Look at their arguments and take them onboard. At the moment you're trying to create your own Brazil section - don't do that. Work with the team to contruct a good article.

God, I wish Deavenger's proposal for a 'Rising Articles' page had actually happened. That would make life so much easier here... how about you do that? Wait for that article to come about, or work with me to try and create it on a userpage or something. We create and construct it off the encyclopedia proper and then use that content to create an article. You up for that? We can put the Brazil section on there - but please just listen to the likes of Swedish and Nirvana. Comics (talk) 07:48, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

"The rules for Wikipedia govern what content we put in, yes. However, something you seem to be completely disregarding is the authority of the Wikiproject."

The Wikiprojects, as parts of Wikipedia, cannot contradict the basic rules of Wikipedia.

"and we've already had this article accused of crystal-balling - I'm sure if you're as versed in wiki-protocol as you say you are, you'll know what that means. We're treading very carefully."

No problem with treading it carefully, the problem is treading it imparcially and shaping it accordingly to your own opinion.

"The BRIMCK's are, I believe, supposed to represent the next G8 - therefore meaning the superpowers and great powers."

Well, according to the rules, the author would have to directly call all of them superpowers for them to be in the Potential Superpower article.

"The Economist may be reliable - but is it really reliable with regards to predicting rising powers? Economically, maybe."

Well, it fulfils the criteria of Wikipedia, and that is all that is really needed.

"I added something very interesting too recently - the prospect that India might use the internet to streamline various processes internally, allowing it to function more efficiently and improve it's economy. That got deleted. I really loved that little section I added - it was like my little baby. Just like this Brazil section appears to be yours."

Well, you're wrong about this section I wrote being like my little baby, actually, I'm writing a new section about Brazil, in the same style as the other sections of the article, citing sources directly and being more objective, as Greyhood suggested.

Although I personally don't agree with it, I find your rejections of my last section style and lack of objectiveness totally acceptable and respectful of the rules of Wikipedia. What I do not find acceptable is your lack of consideration for the rules of Wikipedia, its like you think you run the joint.

"What I'm getting at here is this - there are people on this project who have worked on this project longer than you or I, and they've said 'stop'. Listen to them. Look at their arguments and take them onboard. At the moment you're trying to create your own Brazil section - don't do that. Work with the team to contruct a good article.

I'll surely listen to them gladly as soon as they start behaving according to the Wikipedia rules, like Greyhood did. I'm trying to create a Brazil section because it seems that if I leave it up to you guys it won't be done, because you are putting your personal opinions ahead of the rules, but if you decide to change your mind, I'd sincerely like to work in a section for Brazil along with you.

"God, I wish Deavenger's proposal for a 'Rising Articles' page had actually happened. That would make life so much easier here... how about you do that? Wait for that article to come about, or work with me to try and create it on a userpage or something. We create and construct it off the encyclopedia proper and then use that content to create an article. You up for that? We can put the Brazil section on there - but please just listen to the likes of Swedish and Nirvana."

I would do it if it was fair, but since it is not fair, I won't, thank you for the proposal anyway, fellow.

Here's a small part of the new section I'm doing, following Greyhood's suggestion:

Mac Magolis asserts in his article called "How Brazil Became a Superpower, the Crafty Superpower" at Newsweek that "After decades of false steps, Brazil has become a solid free-market democracy, a rare island of stability in a region of turmoil and governed by the rule of law instead of the whims of autocrats. Now Brazil is asserting itself as never before, but in a way that is markedly different from other big global players. Over the past decade, Brazil has emerged as a unique regional powerhouse. Relying on the cover of America's security umbrella, and a hemisphere with no credible enemies, Brazil has been free to leverage its vast economic size advantage within South America to befriend, sway or co-opt neighbors, while managing to contain its most troublesome regional rival, Venezuela. Lula presides over a crafty superpower unlike any other emerging giant."

Cheers, CEBR (talk) 09:19, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

That last section is becoming better, but maybe change it to this (with greater emphasis on emerging superpower potential and less on regional powerhouse):

Mac Magolis asserts in his article 'How Brazil Became a Superpower, the Crafty Superpower' 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".

That is the sort of problem you have - you were also quoting large chunks as opposed to paraphrasing. Comics (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:26, 14 November 2009 (UTC).

I see your point, how about this:

The Federative Republic of Brazil is considered by analysts and academics a potential superpower of the XXI Century. According to the World Bank, Brazil is the 8th largest economy of the World by GDP Nominal, the second largest BRIC economy, after China, and the BRIC with the second largest GDP Per Capita, both Nominal and PPP, after Russia. The Brazilian government estimates that the economy grew up to 10 percent in the 3rd trimester of 2009 in comparison to the 3rd trimester of 2008.

Mac Magolis asserts in his article "How Brazil Became a Superpower, the Crafty Superpower" 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", furthermore, Magolis asserts that "The Brazilians have also become a more assertive voice for the emerging markets in international affairs. They rallied the major developing nations to challenge the rich world's agricultural subsidies, forming a group now known as the G5. At Brasília's prodding, the ambassadors of Brazil, China, India and Russia now meet monthly in Washington to coordinate a common BRIC policy strategy, often to counter U.S. positions. Pushing its "south-south" agenda, the Lula government has opened 35 embassies since taking office in 2003, most of them in Africa and the Caribbean. Brazil also leads a widely acclaimed peacekeeping mission in Haiti, one of the hemisphere's biggest basket cases."

What do you think about it?

Do you think the part after the ", furthermore" is unecessary?

Thank you for your help, Cheers CEBR (talk) 09:37, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I think you should take a look at this - Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." (from Wikipedia:What "Ignore all rules" means) - "(obvously) "Ignore all rules" does not mean that every action is justifiable. It is neither a trump card nor a carte blanche. A rule-ignorer must justify how their actions improve the encyclopedia if challenged. Actually, everyone should be able to do that at all times. In cases of conflict, what counts as an improvement is decided by consensus." Assuming that you will challenge me on this, my reason to "ignore" this rule is because the ultimate end is just horrible. Look at the links I provided before, and you'll see how biased the article used to be and that the editors weren't happy about it. If we can't reach an agreement, then the consensus will have to decide. Swedish pirate (talk) 09:56, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

""Ignore all rules" does not stop you from pointing out a rule to someone who has broken it". As you said yourself: "Ignore all rules" does not mean that every action is justifiable. It is neither a trump card nor a carte blanche."

I won't challenge you regarding your use of "Ignore all rules" regarding the old text I wrote, although I don't find it biased, I agree with you regarding its lack of objectiveness.

Well, as I said before, I do recognize your right to not agree with the first article I did, and did recognize that since the other editors weren't happy, it would be a good idea to do a new one. Therefore I am doing a new one. Your help and feedback about it is welcome, if you wish to do so.

CEBR (talk) 11:21, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, my apologies, I didn't realise you recognized that. My Bad. Sure, I'll take a look at it. Swedish pirate (talk) 10:42, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok, fellow...Thank you.

CEBR (talk) 10:47, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay, let's see this version:

The Federative Republic of Brazil is considered by analysts and academics as having the potential to be a superpower in the 21st century. According to the World Bank, Brazil is the 8th largest economy of the World by GDP Nominal, the second largest BRIC economy, after China, and the BRIC with the second largest GDP Per Capita, both Nominal and PPP, after Russia.

Mac Magolis asserts in his article "How Brazil Became a Superpower, the Crafty Superpower" 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", furthermore, Magolis asserts that Brazil has "also become a more assertive voice for the emerging markets in international affairs", citing as examples their inclusion in high-profile groups such as the G5 and the BRIC economies. He also points out Brazil's recent opening of 35 embassies in 2003, with a large portion of these being in Africa and the Carribean.

First off, some of that information was unnecessary waffle - you still need to condense it down to the core facts. Not everyone wants to read about how much potential Brazil has - we have to streamline it and make it as concise as possible. That's one problem I have with the current EU section - I do feel that it has slightly too much info there. Secondly, you linked to the economist - but it referred to Brazil as an 'Economic Superpower'. I admit, I can't be bothered to go and read it at the moment, but every source /has/ to be about the country becoming a Superpower, not a specialist superpower. Try and convince me otherwise and you can have the source. Also, avoid Roman numerals ^-^ other than that, we /may/ have something to work with. Maybe. If not, I'll create a userpage for Rising Powers or something and we can put it there. I'm seriously considering doing that, too. My personal opinion though - I think Brazil has more potential to be a great power than a superpower. If we get a good enough section together though, up it goes. Comics (talk) 11:26, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

What about this new version above?

The Federative Republic of Brazil is considered by analysts and academics a potential superpower of the 21st Century. According to the World Bank, Brazil is the 8th largest economy of the World by GDP Nominal, the second largest BRIC economy, after China, and the BRIC with the second largest GDP Per Capita, both Nominal and PPP, after Russia. The Brazilian government estimates that the economy grew up to 10 percent in the 3rd trimester of 2009 in comparison to the 3rd trimester of 2008.

Mac Magolis asserts in his article "How Brazil Became a Superpower, the Crafty Superpower" 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", furthermore, Magolis asserts that "The Brazilians have also become a more assertive voice for the emerging markets in international affairs. They rallied the major developing nations to challenge the rich world's agricultural subsidies, forming a group now known as the G5. At Brasília's prodding, the ambassadors of Brazil, China, India and Russia now meet monthly in Washington to coordinate a common BRIC policy strategy". In another article, called "Brazil Surges Ahead with Commodities Wealth, Weathering the Storm" at Newsweek, Magolis asserts that "Brazil is blessed with vast resources, including timber, fresh water, gold and the world's largest cache of iron ore. Farms stretch from horizon to horizon, and while most of the world is running out of arable land, Brazil has more than 70 million hectares still to plow.", furthermore, Magolis asserts that "the economy has accelerated without overheating. There are other major emerging markets that are growing faster, but India and Russia both have double-digit inflation while China is just shy of that dangerous threshold. No emerging nation has moved earlier or more intelligently than Brazil to head off the cancer of inflation" and that "While the booms in China and India are driven by poor peasants fleeing farms for factories in the city, Brazil's demographic revolution started decades ago; 85 percent of the country's 190 million people now live in cities."

"That's one problem I have with the current EU section - I do feel that it has slightly too much info there."

I can gladly help you with it if you want me to, fellow.

"Secondly, you linked to the economist - but it referred to Brazil as an 'Economic Superpower'. I admit, I can't be bothered to go and read it at the moment, but every source /has/ to be about the country becoming a Superpower, not a specialist superpower. Try and convince me otherwise and you can have the source.

Well, let's discuss the economist source when we end discussing the Mac Magolis-Newsweek sources.

"Also, avoid Roman numerals ^-^"

ok :)

CEBR (talk) 11:53, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

You're too big a fan of simply quoting. You really need to work on paraphrasing.

Mac Magolis asserts in his article "How Brazil Became a Superpower, the Crafty Superpower" 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 asserts that Brazil has "also become a more assertive voice for the emerging markets in international affairs", citing it's involvement in the G5 and the BRIC economies.

In another article, Magolis asserts that "Brazil is blessed with vast resources" and lists "timber, fresh water, gold and... iron ore", stating that the last is also the world's largest stockpile(maybe find a better word). 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 BRICs 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 the large urban population of Brazil, that "China and India are driven by poor peasants", however Brazil has "85 percent of the country's 190 million people [living in] in cities".

I think that is looking slightly tidier Comics (talk) 12:08, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

You're right, your new version is indeed so much better.

What about this version:

The Federative Republic of Brazil is considered by analysts and academics a potential superpower of the 21st Century. According to the World Bank, Brazil is the 8th largest economy of the World by GDP Nominal, the second largest BRIC economy, after China, and the BRIC with the second largest GDP Per Capita, both Nominal and PPP, after Russia. The Brazilian government estimates that the economy grew up to 10 percent in the 3rd trimester of 2009 in comparison to the 3rd trimester of 2008.

Mac Magolis asserts in his article "How Brazil Became a Superpower, the Crafty Superpower" 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 asserts 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, Magolis asserts that "Brazil is blessed with vast resources" and lists "timber, fresh water, gold...iron ore", stating also that Brazil's reserves of the last 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 BRICs 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".

Michael Skapinker, in his article "Brazil is the 21st-century power to watch" for the Financial Times asserts 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 hydro energy and powering many of its cars with sugar cane ethanol" and also that "Unlike China, Brazil has no sharp ethnic conflicts and is a multi-party democracy".

At another article, Skapinker states that "As for financial services, the [Brazilian] BM&FBovespa ex-change is worth more than the New York Stock Exchange, Nasdaq and London Stock Exchange combined".

what do you think about it? CEBR (talk) 13:52, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I still think that we should be more critical when it comes to our choices of media sources. I don't have time right now, but I'll try to go through all the sources individually later. Swedish pirate (talk) 13:48, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Swedish, but what we have is slightly workable. I've put it up here: [6] so that we can keep the information ^-^ I'm thinking of making it a history of rising powers though. Comics (talk) 21:16, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, it should be worked in the potential superpowers discussion page as it is being considered to be added in its article, the Rising powers page up there should be used only in other cases such as South Korea, Mexico and etc.

If you guys think this page in here is getting too big we should put the current page in the archives as the first five were put.

By the way, sources used in other parts of the article are from the press also, such as CNN for China.

The Federative Republic of Brazil is considered by analysts and academics a potential superpower of the 21st Century. According to the World Bank, Brazil is the 8th largest economy of the World by GDP Nominal, the second largest BRIC economy, after China, and the BRIC with the second largest GDP Per Capita, both Nominal and PPP, after Russia. The Brazilian government estimates that the economy grew up to 10 percent in the 3rd trimester of 2009 in comparison to the 3rd trimester of 2008.

Leslie Elliot Armijo has said in a lecture at the Mario Einaudi Center for International Studies entitled "Brazil as an Emerging World Power" that "Brazil will soon rise as Latin America’s first superpower", furthermore Armijo asserts 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"

Mac Magolis asserts in his article "How Brazil Became a Superpower, the Crafty Superpower" 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 asserts 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, Magolis asserts that "Brazil is blessed with vast resources" and lists "timber, fresh water, gold...iron ore", stating also that Brazil's reserves of the last 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 BRICs 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".

In the article "Brazil, an economic superpower, and now oil too" by The Economist it is asserted that "Brazil enjoyed Chinese rates of growth in the third quarter of the 20th century. That was when it was almost as poor as China", it is also asserted that "Brazil has conquered inflation, opened a protected economy to the world and begun to tackle its social problems. Poverty and inequality are falling steadily."

In another article by The Economist, it is pointed out that "Brazil is a much richer country than China or India. Its economy grew by an average of 7% a year from 1940 to 1980, the result of the meeting between capital and a vast labour force that sucked people into cities", it is also pointed out that "Brazil enjoys several advantages over the other three [BRICs]." saying that "First, the divide between city and countryside is not as threatening as it is in India and China. Second, it has an entrenched multi-party democracy coupled with freedom of expression that helps it to negotiate social change, unlike China and Russia. Third, it exhibits none of the aggressive nationalism that grips the other three from time to time", John Briscoe of the World bank is quoted in the article as saying “I can easily see Brazil's detractors looking back in 20 years' time and saying: 'we called that one wrong".

In the article "Brazil takes off" by The Economist, it is asserted that "sometime in the decade after 2014—rather sooner than Goldman Sachs envisaged—Brazil is likely to become the world’s fifth-largest economy, overtaking Britain and France", adding that "By 2025 São Paulo will be its fifth-wealthiest city, according to PwC, a consultancy". Furthermore in the article, it is asserted that "in some ways, Brazil outclasses the other BRICs. Unlike China, it is a democracy. Unlike India, it has no insurgents, no ethnic and religious conflicts nor hostile neighbours. Unlike Russia, it exports more than oil and arms, and treats foreign investors with respect", and that "Indeed, 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", adding also that "Brazil suddenly seems to have made an entrance onto the world stage. Its arrival was symbolically marked last month by the award of the 2016 Olympics to Rio de Janeiro; two years earlier, Brazil will host football’s World Cup."

Still at the article "Brazil takes off", it is documented that "Foreign investment is pouring in, attracted by a market boosted by falling poverty and a swelling lower-middle class", and states that "The country has established some strong political institutions". At the end of the article it is stated that "the country’s course seems to be set. Its take-off is all the more admirable because it has been achieved through reform and democratic consensus-building. If only China could say the same".

In the article "Getting it together at last", by The Economist, it is stated that "[Brazil] has the world’s largest freshwater supplies, the largest tropical forests, land so fertile that in some places farmers manage three harvests a year, and huge mineral and hydrocarbon wealth"

What do you think about this new version of the text?

Notice the high qualification of Leslie Elliot Armijo

CEBR (talk) 02:00, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

My counter-argument to that though is that as a potential superpower, Brazil is a rising power ^-^ and also, I intend the article to have sections discussing the individual BRIMCK's, the Attali 11, the Next 11 etc. Also the unification of Italy and Germany, the rise of the Roman Republic, and the rise of both a unified Britain and the US. Also, Brazil is recieving some controversy here. Comics (talk) 05:20, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, it is supposed to receive controversy in here, it is a discussion page.

And my counter-argument is that the absence of this session about Brazil here will delay Brazil inclusion in the article and editors who are not aware of the talks about this text we are doing here will not be aware of it by coming to this page in here. As a plus, it is only fair that Brazil's inclusion be discussed here as the inclusion of other countries was and rather unecessary to move it anywhere else. :)

Don't get me wrong, you can do whatever you want in your page, fellow, I don't see a problem with it, I find it quite nice, actually, but the proper place to discuss Brazil's inclusion in the Potential Superpower Article and writting a Brazil section is here and there is no reason for not being so.

Just out of curiosity, why are you so eager to transfer Brazil discussion up to there?

I'm still looking forward to your feedback regarding the latest version of the text, mate.

Cheers, CEBR (talk) 05:30, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm eager to get it over to there for two reasons: one, this discussion is becoming a bit long. I know you suggested perhaps archiving some more of the talk page, which could work. Secondly, if we had an article only about Rising Powers it gives us a bit more to work with, and also means that we can discuss other countries that may not fall under 'Potential Superpower' or even 'Potential Great Power', but are rising in their global influence.

It is asserted that "Brazil enjoyed Chinese rates of growth in the third quarter of the 20th century", a time when it was in a similar economic position to China. Another assertion is that "Brazil has conquered inflation" while also opening "a protected economy to the world", with progress being taken in reducing such social problesm as poverty and inequality.

Brazil is also considered to be in an economically more secure position than either India or China, with "its economy [growing] by an average of 7% a year from 1940 to 1980". It is also pointed out that "Brazil enjoys several advantages over the other three [BRICs]" including a smaller "divide between city and countryside" than India or China, it's multi-party democracy and freedom of expression "helps it to negotiate social change, unlike China and Russia". Another point put forward in Brazil's favour is a less agressive nationalism, unlike that which "grips the other three from time to time".

John Briscoe of the World Bank has said that he “can easily see Brazil's detractors looking back in 20 years' time and saying: 'we called that one wrong".

Brazil could also overtake both Britain and France to become the world's fifth-largest economy by 2014 - sooner than Goldman Sach's predicion. Furthermore it is asserted that "in some ways, Brazil outclasses the other BRICs", emphasising it's democratic system of government, lack of insurgents, and no ethnic or religious conflicts with neighbours, while also exporting greater amounts of oil and weaponry and "treats foreign investors with respect".

The example that Brazil sets is considered greater than that of 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 and Brazil's hosting of the 2014 football World Cup.

It is documented that "foreign investment is pouring in" due to Brazil experiencing falling poverty and a "swelling lower-middle class", and states that Brazil "has established some strong political institutions". It is also stated that "the country’s course seems to be set", commenting that it's achieving of this through democratic consensus is "admirable".

The same sources also state that Brazil "has the world’s largest freshwater supplies [and]... tropical forests", with soil fertile enough for three harvests annually and "huge mineral and hydrocarbon wealth".

There ^-^ my thoughts. Comics (talk) 05:57, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

":I'm eager to get it over to there for two reasons: one, this discussion is becoming a bit long. I know you suggested perhaps archiving some more of the talk page, which could work."

Yes, definately could work ^-^

"Secondly, if we had an article only about Rising Powers it gives us a bit more to work with, and also means that we can discuss other countries that may not fall under 'Potential Superpower' or even 'Potential Great Power', but are rising in their global influence."

Well, I see your point, but it really wouldn't be fair due to the reasons I mentioned previously. As a plus, people would always go to this article and add suggestions such as Mexico in here and it wouldn't be fair to move their suggestions.

Regarding your thoughts, I pretty much like them :D, I'll work to add them to the main text and will post here for feedback. CEBR (talk) 06:31, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I think though that Deavenger, when he was still here, was hoping a Rising Powers article would replace the Potential Superpowers article though. It could allow for a wider context. And you do that there. Comics (talk) 06:37, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Change this article here from potential superpowers to rising powers could work very well indeed. CEBR (talk) 06:54, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

That sort of slow change could take time. And it might be good to start it off fully-fledged. Comics (talk) 06:56, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

That term is too ambiguous IMO, it doesn't fit well with the other power articles either. G. R. Allison (talk) 07:41, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Well then sir, what would you suggest as a way to make the term less ambiguous and fit better with the other articles? Comics (talk) 07:50, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

New version:

The Federative Republic of Brazil is considered by analysts and academics a potential superpower of the 21st Century. According to the World Bank, Brazil is the 8th largest economy of the World by GDP Nominal, the second largest BRIC economy, after China, and the BRIC with the second largest GDP Per Capita, both Nominal and PPP, after Russia. The Brazilian government estimates that the economy grew up to 10 percent in the 3rd trimester of 2009 in comparison to the 3rd trimester of 2008.

Leslie Elliot Armijo has said in a lecture at the Mario Einaudi Center for International Studies entitled "Brazil as an Emerging World Power" that "Brazil will soon rise as Latin America’s first superpower", furthermore Armijo asserts 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"

Mac Magolis asserts in his article "How Brazil Became a Superpower, the Crafty Superpower" 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 asserts 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, Magolis asserts that "Brazil is blessed with vast resources" and lists "timber, fresh water, gold...iron ore", stating also that Brazil's reserves of the last 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 BRICs 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".

In the article "Brazil, an economic superpower, and now oil too" it is asserted that "Brazil enjoyed Chinese rates of growth in the third quarter of the 20th century", a time when it was almost as poor as China. Another assertion is that "Brazil has conquered inflation" while also opening "a protected economy to the world", with progress in reducing social problems such as poverty and inequality.

In another article 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". It is also pointed out that "Brazil enjoys several advantages over the other three [BRICs]" including, a smaller "divide between city and countryside" than India or China, it's multi-party democracy and freedom of expression which "helps it to negotiate social change, unlike China and Russia". Another point put forward in Brazil's favour is that it doesn't possesses the agressive nationalism that "grips the other three [BRICs] from time to time".

It is asserted in another article 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 envisaged, and that, according to PricewaterhouseCoopers, São Paulo will be the fifth-wealthiest city of the World by 2025. Furthermore, it is asserted that "in some ways, Brazil outclasses the other BRICs", emphasising that, 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 also asserts that "Indeed, 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 and Brazil's hosting of the 2014 football World Cup. It is also documented that "foreign investment is pouring in" due to falling poverty and a "swelling lower-middle class", and that Brazil "has established some strong political institutions" being added that Brazil's "take-off is all the more admirable because it has been achieved through reform and democratic consensus-building".

In a fourth article by The Economist it is stated that Brazil has "the world’s largest freshwater supplies [and]... tropical forests", a land so fertile that in some places farmers manage three harvests annually and "huge mineral and hydrocarbon wealth".

John Briscoe of the World Bank has said that he “can easily see Brazil's detractors looking back in 20 years' time and saying: 'we called that one wrong".

Parag Khanna, in his article "Waving Goodbye to Hegemony" for the New York Times Magazine, states that ""Alongside India and South Africa, Brazil has led the charge in global trade negotiations"

What do you think about it? CEBR (talk) 08:06, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay, we're going good with paraphrasing - now either just link to the source and don't say where it's from or simply say who was writing it ^-^ Comics (talk) 08:14, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

^-^

The new version contains few parts in which this: "just link to the source and don't say where it's from or simply say who was writing it" is not done for some reasons.

The Federative Republic of Brazil is considered by analysts and academics a potential superpower of the 21st Century. According to the World Bank, Brazil is the 8th largest economy of the World by GDP Nominal, the second largest BRIC economy, after China, and the BRIC with the second largest GDP Per Capita, both Nominal and PPP, after Russia. The Brazilian government estimates that the economy grew up to 10 percent in the 3rd trimester of 2009 in comparison to the 3rd trimester of 2008.

Leslie Elliot Armijo has said in a lecture at the Mario Einaudi Center for International Studies entitled "Brazil as an Emerging World Power" that "Brazil will soon rise as Latin America’s first superpower", furthermore Armijo asserts 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"

Mac Magolis asserts in his article "How Brazil Became a Superpower, the Crafty Superpower" 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 asserts 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, Magolis asserts that "Brazil is blessed with vast resources" and lists "timber, fresh water, gold...iron ore", stating also that Brazil's reserves of the last 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 BRICs 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".

In the article "Brazil, an economic superpower, and now oil too" it is asserted that "Brazil enjoyed Chinese rates of growth in the third quarter of the 20th century", a time when it was almost as poor as China. Another assertion is that "Brazil has conquered inflation" while also opening "a protected economy to the world", with progress in reducing social problems such as poverty and inequality.

In another article 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". It is also pointed out that "Brazil enjoys several advantages over the other three [BRICs]" including, a smaller "divide between city and countryside" than India or China, it's multi-party democracy and freedom of expression which "helps it to negotiate social change, unlike China and Russia". Another point put forward in Brazil's favour is that it doesn't possesses the agressive nationalism that "grips the other three [BRICs] from time to time".

It is asserted in another article 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 envisaged, and that, according to PricewaterhouseCoopers, São Paulo will be the fifth-wealthiest city of the World by 2025. Furthermore, it is asserted that "in some ways, Brazil outclasses the other BRICs", emphasising that, 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 also asserts that "Indeed, 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 and Brazil's hosting of the 2014 football World Cup. It is also documented that "foreign investment is pouring in" due to falling poverty and a "swelling lower-middle class", and that Brazil "has established some strong political institutions" being added that Brazil's "take-off is all the more admirable because it has been achieved through reform and democratic consensus-building".

In a fourth article by The Economist it is stated that Brazil has "the world’s largest freshwater supplies [and]... tropical forests", a land so fertile that in some places farmers manage three harvests annually and "huge mineral and hydrocarbon wealth".

John Briscoe of the World Bank has said that he “can easily see Brazil's detractors looking back in 20 years' time and saying: 'we called that one wrong".

Parag Khanna states that "Alongside India and South Africa, Brazil has led the charge in global trade negotiations"

Michael Skapinker asserts in an article that the large oil reserves recently found "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. It is also asserted that, "Unlike China", Brazil has no sharp ethnic conflicts and is a multi-party democracy.

Skapinker points out in another article that the largest Stock Exchange of Brazil, BM&F Bovespa, "is worth more than the New York Stock Exchange, Nasdaq and London Stock Exchange combined".

Jonathan Power asserts that "Brazil has a head start on India and China", saying that it has been developing for over 100 years and adding that "Between 1960 and 1980 Brazil doubled its per capita income".

Flavio S. Campos, in his article "BRIC Starts with B" for the Harvard Crimson talks about the changes and reforms Brazil has gone and is going through, stating that "Brazil's institutional modernization process remains strong".

Do you find it good? CEBR (talk) 08:38, 15 November 2009 (UTC)