The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
Potential superpower was one of the Social sciences and society good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Power in international relations, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Power in international relationsWikipedia:WikiProject Power in international relationsTemplate:WikiProject Power in international relationsPower in international relations articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Europe, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to European topics of a cross-border nature on Wikipedia.EuropeWikipedia:WikiProject EuropeTemplate:WikiProject EuropeEurope articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brazil, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Brazil and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BrazilWikipedia:WikiProject BrazilTemplate:WikiProject BrazilBrazil articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Japan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Japan-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project, participate in relevant discussions, and see lists of open tasks. Current time in Japan: 13:07, November 25, 2024 (JST, Reiwa 6) (Refresh)JapanWikipedia:WikiProject JapanTemplate:WikiProject JapanJapan-related articles
This page has archives. Sections older than 100 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 6 sections are present.
add Brazil as a superpower
why Brazil is not mentioned and Japan mentioned!? Since Brazil is stronger than Japan, Brazil has more territory than Japan, Brazil has more people than Japan, Brazil has space army while Japan does not, Brazil is more globally ruling the world than Japan, add Brazil on the lists. Morisfoint (talk) 06:36, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Morisfoint, can you please provide links to high quality reliable independent sources that describe Brazil as a potential superpower? Reliable sources are like gold on Wikipedia, while the personal opinions of individual editors lack any value. Cullen328 (talk) 06:49, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your first source, Morisfoint, is a speculative 12 year old report on 60 Minutes that has a question mark in its title. That report never comes to the conclusion that Brazil actually is a potential superpower. Higher quality and more recent sources should be readily available. Your second is a Tata blog, and blogs are not reliable sources. Your third is a book by Hermann Rupold. He is an author who has published books about various countries calling them superpowers. His publisher is Expertengruppe Verlag, which publishes coloring books for children, books about popular dog breeds, and books about fringe topics like "The Power of Breathing Exercises" and a fringe book about the pineal gland, which the cover falsely calls the "third eye". Google Scholar does not have a single link in the academic literature to Ruppold and his work. For a topic of this nature, we are looking for things like books written by academics with training in foreign affairs published by respected university presses or peer reviewed articles published in academic journals. Cullen328 (talk) 07:37, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Found some related sources from academic university’s
All three of these are decent sources, Morisfoint, but for what? A quick look suggests that all three are discussing Brazil's emergence (or non-emergence) as a major "power" (and not as a "superpower"). -- Hoary (talk) 07:51, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Morisfoint, these are higher quality sources. The first source calls Brazil a intermediate state and regional power. The second source calls Brazil an emerging global power. The third calls Brazil a New Regional Power in the World Economy. It seems that none of these call Brazil a "potential superpower" Cullen328 (talk) 07:58, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Brazil is an emerging superpower that’s correct, Brazil is going to save the world. There is a statistic that Brazil is stronger than Japan, but Brazil is not mentioned here on the page, while Japan is mentioned, atleast an admin can put Brazil superpower draft to the main page of this arcticle. Morisfoint (talk) 08:32, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Morisfoint, Japan isn't merely mentioned in the article, it's actually discussed there. That's because Japan's potential has been discussed in reliable sources (which, as it happens, have largely concluded by denying the potential). However admirable their patriotism may be, editors' display of patriotism will not advance their arguments here. -- Hoary (talk) 12:12, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Even if there would be some sources that consider Brazil a potential superpower, it would be a fringe view, and hence we would be giving undue weight to that viewpoint. A more productive conversation is likely about the removal of Russia from this article. There are plenty of high-quality sources from the past 1.5 years that explicitly no longer consider Russia to have superpower potential, seen its long-term economic stagnation, its accelerating demographic trends, its military setbacks and its loss of influence and allies. UlyssorZebra (talk) 11:42, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I just want to note that brazil doesnt actually seem to be materially stronger than japan. Japan has the third highest GDP and brazil has the tenth. Both armies have roughly similar active personel and armor, brazil has significantly more reservists and japan has a significantly stronger air force and navy. They both have growing soft power but japan is a significantly larger cultural exporter. Both have strong gangs, but https://www.transparency.org/en/countries/japan is significantly less corrupt than https://www.transparency.org/en/countries/brazil, and the gangs tend to be much less of a threat to internal stability. Both countries are US major non-NATO allies. To be clear, I think Brazil qualifies as a potential superpower, but Ive gotten sick of people making this flawed comparison. Thanks for reading this ramble Googleguy007 (talk) 13:58, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that Brazil was on this article, it passed from that for not being cited a single time on the article. This says everything you need to know about Wokepedia and its biases which are laughable. Even the discussions to remove Brazil from the articles were removed, sounds interesting how things are done here like people have a short memory or something like similar. It was on the main map of potential superpowers. The facts are that it is a BRICS countries, it is by far the strongest country in the Southern Hemisphere and Latin America (militarily and economically), it has a clearly strong voice in the global stage... a proof of that were the intrigues with Biden and other global leaders over Lula's "different" views on some of the wars that were created since the Democratic goverment was elected in the US (strange considering that Biden was a supporter of him, not that it would make any difference). It is commonly cited as a mediator of the Russo-Ukranian war, together with China... when Bolsonaro was in power its global importance was even higher (way more people know Bolsonaro than Lula). Brazil actually is way more important now than when it was on this article, and it is not in it now. That's a funny to say the least. However, if we here have to find a source for all these known facts and whoever who puts all of that together and makes the obvious conclusion... let be it. I encourage editors to do that, i am not paid to be patient about how things are overly slow, almost 'bureaucratic' and biased here. Please, people with time: search for more of the plentiful articles on Brazil's potential rise as a superpower. Some of the cited above are just a fringe of what you can see everywhere from the international media. 2804:389:C038:A8B8:0:2F:30B1:CA01 (talk) 00:11, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
a few fast corrections (since on mobile devices it is faster to correct it without editing the post): something similar*, Democrat goverment*, article* (instead of articles), fact*, for* (instead of to) and some proofs* 2804:389:C038:A8B8:0:2F:30B1:CA01 (talk) 00:16, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
a few fast corrections (since on mobile devices it is faster to correct it without editing the post): something similar*, Democrat government*, article* (instead of 'articles'), fact*, for* (instead of 'to') and some proofs* 2804:389:C038:A8B8:0:2F:30B1:CA01 (talk) 00:17, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Removal of Undue Weight template
Hi,
I've gone through the entire article and removed swathes of content that I believe made the article incoherent and little more than "I saw article that says my country great, adding" ad nauseum. I've reduced every section down to simply the most pertinent items of discussion, removed Japan (as it's a "former potential" so not worth mentioning at this point), and adjusted the lead to include a definition of what a superpower even is.
There's not a valid reason why this section was removed, as Japan was clearly reported in the media as a potential superpower. The argument that this was a long time ago is irrelevant, as Wikipedia articles shouldn't only cover recent events and developments. Not having a section about Japan's former status as a potential superpower clearly ignores history. Maxeto0910 (talk) 13:48, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The argument that this was a long time ago is irrelevant, as Wikipedia articles shouldn't only cover recent events and developments.
It is relevant as this is an article about those countries currently considered to be potential superpowers. Japan was only briefly considered to be a potential superpower in the late 1980s and hasn't been considered to be a potential superpower since.
Only listing those countries currently frequently discussed academically as fitting the term "potential superpower" isn't an example of recentism, but correctly curating the article's contents to match its subject. The case would be different if this was instead an article called "list of all countries to have been considered potential superpowers". Rambling Rambler (talk) 20:25, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"It is relevant as this is an article about those countries currently considered to be potential superpowers."
Who says that? It is neither made clear from the article title that this article is limited to a certain time frame nor that it is limited to those countries considered current potential superpowers.
"Only listing those countries currently frequently discussed academically as fitting the term "potential superpower" isn't an example of recentism, but correctly curating the article's contents to match its subject. The case would be different if this was instead an article called "list of all countries to have been considered potential superpowers"."
It seems like you fundamentally misunderstand what a Wikipedia article is supposed to cover. The exact opposite is the case. This article isn't called "Current potential superpower", but simply "Potential superpower", and Wikipedia articles are supposed to provide an overview of its subject over the course of time, except it is made clear from the article title that its scope is limited to a certain time frame. Therefore, the article in its current state would have to be renamed "Current potential superpower". If it is supposed to be a general article about potential superpowers, it shouldn't ignore historical aspects as well.— Maxeto0910 (talk) 19:40, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Barjimoa and Maxeto0910. There is merit of Japan's inclusion. Perhaps we can include it under a new sub-heading like "Former potential superpowers" or something else like that. This article isn't solely dedicated to current superpowers so there is no exclusion criteria which would give the grounds to omit Japan. The only issue is, if we include past potential superpowers like Japan, where would we draw the line? A lot of other entities from the history books could qualify to be represented as well. Therefore, it will be important to develop a very clear inclusion criteria (for example, we could state: "Potential superpowers from XY date to XX date listed below"). Just an idea :) Cheers, Archives908 (talk) 20:29, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The term superpower is generally only used post 1945 (i.e. after WWII) which would limit inclusion of e.g. Spanish and Ottoman empires.
Of course the problem with including countries considered a potential superpower in the past will pose a very heavy requirement on reliable sources.
But if that gets sorted out in a good way, adding a section on "Countries considered potential superpowers in the past" of which Japan would be a subsection (even if it is the only one) would in my view add a broader view to the current article. I would not favour to re-add Japan at the same hierarchical level section as the other countries on its own though, as it is not currently considered an economic and even less a political or military major global player. Arnoutf (talk) 21:24, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not fundamentally misunderstanding the purpose of a Wikipedia article at all @Maxeto0910. The focus of the article is quite clear from the opening line of the lead.
"A potential superpower is a state or other polity that is speculated to be or have the potential to become a superpower."
The language used quite demonstrably orients the article's focus as being on the present, here and now, which therefore disqualifies Japan from being included. It is not currently speculated to be a superpower, nor is it considered to have the potential to become one. It is merely a country that decades ago there was a brief period in which it had been considered but is no longer considered.
By the logic that we should include it because historically it was considered to be a potential superpower then we should still be listing the United Kingdom simply because it was for some time in the 20th century considered by some to be a superpower akin to the US or USSR.
If you wish to change the nature of the article from its current one to being a list of all countries to have ever been subject to serious academic speculation as superpowers that would be a different article and would require a discussion accordingly. Rambling Rambler (talk) 15:38, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"The language used quite demonstrably orients the article's focus as being on the present, here and now, which therefore disqualifies Japan from being included."
Sorry, but this argument is quite a bit ridiculous. No one is denying that Japan has lost its status as a potential superpower a long time ago, but, as I explained and justified, Wikipedia articles are generally always supposed to provide a historical overview of its article subject as well, which is why Japan absolutely has to be included as it has clearly been considered a potential superpower. If we were to apply your logic that history should be completely ignored simply because things don't qualify anymore as something they used to, then Wikipedia would be fairly empty, and information about historical events would be confined to dedicated "History of …" articles only.
"By the logic that we should include it because historically it was considered to be a potential superpower then we should still be listing the United Kingdom simply because it was for some time in the 20th century considered by some to be a superpower akin to the US or USSR."
No, because the UK wasn't reported in the the media as a potential superpower, but simply as a great power (which is also why it is described as such in the history section of the article "Great power"). The concept of a superpower is a relatively modern concept in history first applied in 1944 to the United States, United Kingdom and Soviet Union (see lead section of the article "Superpower"), and the concept of a potential superpower is an even newer one, with Japan being one of the first, if not the first country to which this concept has been applied.—- Maxeto0910 (talk) 16:22, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, because the UK wasn't reported in the the media as a potential superpower, but simply as a great power (which is also why it is described as such in the history section of the article "Great power"). The concept of a superpower is a relatively modern concept in history first applied in 1944 to the United States, United Kingdom and Soviet Union (see lead section of the article "Superpower")
Right here you've literally just contradicted yourself. The UK was speculated to be a superpower during/following WWII. Ergo it would also be on this list by your definition of what the article should be.
If we were to apply your logic that history should be completely ignored simply because things don't qualify anymore as something they used to, then Wikipedia would be fairly empty.
No it very much wouldn't, because most Wikipedia articles are not speculative. This article, the way it's currently formed as, is on a speculative subject and is therefore subject to change in ways others aren't. Here no one is speculating Japan is a superpower. If you want to turn this into an article that documents all countries that have ever been speculated to have potential to be a superpower that instead would require a move to a different heading and the relevant discussion. Rambling Rambler (talk) 16:37, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Right here you've literally just contradicted yourself. The UK was speculated to be a superpower during/following WWII. Ergo it would also be on this list by your definition of what the article should be."
No, there's just a significant difference between a superpower and a potential superpower. The UK was indeed described by some academics as a superpower after WW2, but no one described it as a potential superpower (a concept arguably first applied to Japan), which is why the UK doesn't belong here, but to the article "Superpower" (and, surprise, the UK is dealt with in the article "Superpower").
"No it very much wouldn't, because most Wikipedia articles are not speculative. This article, the way it's currently formed as, is on a speculative subject and is therefore subject to change in ways others aren't."
And again, it seems to me like you misunderstand what Wikipedia is supposed to be. Wikipedia is not a space for speculations at all. Wikipedia merely reflects what academics say (or said), and Japan was considered as a potential superpower by historians, scholars and economists at that time, which is why it belongs to this article.—-
Again, read the first line of the article "speculated to be a superpower". So your statement "the UK was indeed described by some academics as a superpower after WW2" very much is an example of some academics speculating it to be a superpower, so under your definition would warrant inclusion.
Wikipedia is not a space for speculations at all. Wikipedia merely reflects what academics say (or said)
Yes, but this article is about academic speculation as I described, so is about current academic discussion and not that of the past.
Again, if you want to change the purpose of the article to be about all countries to have ever been considered to be potential superpowers according to significant academic discussion, then I suggest you make a proposed move to a more suitable article title and therefore purpose and have the resulting discussion. Rambling Rambler (talk) 17:05, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"So your statement "the UK was indeed described by some academics as a superpower after WW2" very much is an example of some academics speculating it to be a superpower
No, because those academics back then didn't say "I speculate the UK to be (or become) a superpower" (which indeed would qualify the UK as a potential superpower and would warrant inclusion here), but explicitly "I consider the UK a superpower". That's the small but subtle difference which separates a (former) superpower from a (former) potential superpower; when enough historians, scholars and academics clearly consider a country (not just speculate it to be or become) something (e.g., a superpower), then it goes down in history like this. That's why the UK was considered a superpower for a brief time after WW2, but has never been considered a potential superpower, which is just not the same.
The problem here is that you are looking at it from a meta perspective, but since Wikipedia only reflects what experts said, we have to limit ourselves to exactly that and must not read anything into it, no matter how conclusive it may seem from today's point of view. Therefore, in order to ensure that, we should treat the term "potential superpower" purely as a designation by academics applied to certain countries over time (arguably starting with Japan), instead of a country that could perhaps qualify as a country which may attain superpower status in an indefinite period of time (because we interpret the statements of academics at that time as saying that), which would in fact be pure speculation on the part of Wikipedia authors.—-
That's why the UK was considered a superpower for a brief time after WW2, but has never been considered a potential superpower, which is just not the same.
Except that's not the case. The example of the UK is still relatively lesser in academia than the US or USSR, meaning it's not necessarily a consensus argument and we are limited to "some experts speculate/consider the UK to have been a superpower" which is non-definitive enough for it to fit in an article about all polities to have been speculated to be or have been a superpower.
And as shown in the mother article for Superpower, the term is now being used retroactively to describe earlier empires from classical history, so if we used the rather loose argument of "well Japan was once considered a potential superpower based on a handful of sources" then by that same standard we'll also be including the Roman Empire given that, with the term "superpower" relatively poorly defined, historians now like to describe ancient empires as the "superpower of their day".
To be honest, after having tried to seriously cull down this article for reasons you yourself have mentioned at the end there, I'm still in half a mind it should be deleted entirely given that it's got the problem of being "I found x number of claimed experts/publications saying my country is/was superpower, it should be on list" which just gives the problem of endless creep it had prior to the cut down.
You don't seem to have understood my core message, as we're apparently still talking about two completely different concepts here. When you refer to a potential superpower, you mean any country where there was disagreement among scholars as to whether they should have been described as a superpower at a given period of time or not. This conception is of course very problematic for various reasons we both already explained. When I refer to a potential superpower, I mean countries which were explicitly labelled as a "potential superpower" in the first place. The term "potential superpower" was arguably first used in reference to Japan, which is why it is self-evident that we cannot include any older countries or empires before that in this article. Apparently, User:Barjimoa already understood what I meant the same day I opened this thread.—-Maxeto0910 (talk) 03:04, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Future of Article
In relation to the above discussion, in the interests of moving forward to a resolution, I believe there are three options on the table:
Option A: Leave article in its current form as those with current academic discussion of superpower potential. This comes with the benefit of being shorter while providing detail for candidate countries but leaves a lot of potential for "content creep" that needs to be kept in check.
Option B: Introduce new section on historical polities that have been discussed being potential superpowers but no longer exist/are considered superpowers (along with moving the article to a new title accordingly). Would resolve the issues around Japan but any cut off for countries that could be considered would be arbitrary and hard to justify (i.e. "why not insert historical empire here).
Option C: Remove the discussion around candidate countries, reduce to simply a short section on what a potential superpower is, and merge into Superpower article. Probably the most drastic option but means no content creep issue and avoids the problem of "my country is big, I want on list".
I'll start off. I'd go with Option A as my preferred option but despite discussion above I don't have a problem with Option B if that was subject to consensus, but I would personally view it as dependent on a move to a suitable new article title to articulate the change in format as crucial. Both have drawbacks but would be I think defendable if done right. Rambling Rambler (talk) 01:15, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest an Option D: Having countries which are currently explicitly described or have in the past been explicitly described as a "potential superpower" in the first place; see my last comment in the previous thread for details. This would effectively remove all vagueness, arbitrary requirements for inclusion and room for speculation, and therefore seems to be the most stringent option, and Japan would be the only country to add to this article which I know of.—-Maxeto0910 (talk) 03:41, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option B: Wikipedia articles do not have to reflect only the current situation of any topic, and typically provide a historical overview. And I don't see any benefit in having shorter articles. Dimadick (talk) 10:52, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option B has my preference. I do not think the article needs to be renamed, but the introduction has to be changed a bit (mainly the last lines). To avoid the 'please add my favorite Persian, Roman, Ottoman, Mongol, Spanish, Inca' empire discussion we might want to make explicit that the term superpower was first used after WWII and that there are hence no contemporary sources for any empires pre-1945 that use the term superpower. All 3 options are fine with me. I do not understand how option D is different from option B. Arnoutf (talk) 12:29, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Restore to status quo before your removal of the Japan section. Rambling Rambler: you did not obtain consensus before removing the Japan section, and as far as I can see, multiple editors oppose your changes while none support them. The article should be restored to its earlier state. intforce (talk) 15:45, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the Japan section because, like every other section prior to my edits, it was a mess that had become WP:INDISCRIMINATE where despite supposedly being a section about a country not considered a potential superpower it was instead trying argue how in fact it is a superpower candidate. If you read the above discussions there are actually multiple viewpoints on ifand how Japan should be included. Consensus was not reached on both those points, and WP:ONUS requires consensus be established for inclusion (not removal), which has yet to be established. Rambling Rambler (talk) 18:08, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Restore to status quo- I also support this. The section was very well sourced, and, while not mandatory, it would probably have been wise to propose your suggestion(s) on talk first. Per WP:BRD, your "Bold" edit appears to have been reverted/restored by Ashwinragu, yet you persistently restored your preferred version of the article- in contradiction to the guidelines of BRD. I think the most logical course of action would be to restore the last stable version of the article (which would also hopefully stop further edit warring) until a final resolution has been agreed to here. Archives908 (talk) 02:32, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Archives908 as above, the section while sourced was WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Despite supposedly being about former consideration of Japan's superpower status (which was in the 1980s-1990s) it was instead talking about current media reporting regarding the popularity of anime/manga, a statement about its technological innovation that is sourced with an ad for Tokyo University, and changes to deployment rules for the JSDF from the 2010s, none of which factor into the actual topic of discussion.
Per WP:ONUS, consensus must be established for inclusion, and disputed content shouldn't be included until discussion over what to potentially re-introduce is over. The edits made by the user in question happened during said discussion.
As per WP:BRD, "BRD is never a reason for reverting. Unless the reversion is supported by policies, guidelines or common sense, the reversion is not part of BRD cycle.". During attempted discussion with the user in question they didn't cite any of these things, so given discussion was going on here there was no reason to revert (during which they explicitly said "besides, you and me talking back and forth will not build consensus") so their repeated attempts to revert didn't speak of being interested in any attempt to better fit a Japan section if at all. Rambling Rambler (talk) 18:18, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That does not give either of you a free pass to WP:EDITWAR.
In regards to the content, I support Option D as proposed by Maxeto0910. IMO, there is no need for a title change and certainly no need to overcomplicate this. Establishing some clarification on the inclusion criteria and some minor tweaks if Japan were to be re-included is ample enough. In regards to this debate, I am not vested enough in it to continue so please no more pings! Good luck everyone. Archives908 (talk) 19:52, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let's discuss the proposal to work towards a future consensus as proposed by Rambling Rambler in this thread. Whether we have to go back to a previous situation or work from the current situation is not the topic here.
In my view option B (which I support) does justice to the fact that Japan was considered potential superpower, but also does justice to the fact that this is no longer the case (which was not sufficiently clear in the old situation). Arnoutf (talk) 18:27, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Rambling Rambler B. And whoever doesn't wants more discussions is encouraging oversimplifications, laziness and lack of depth and context here. Brazil, for example, was on the article and now there is no single mention on it. The article can change and twist 180° and you cannot even find the discussions that simply decided that. There's much to be done here, and i am not talking about this bad article, i am mentioning Wikipedia as a whole. 2804:389:C2B5:7FDD:7942:78B1:A0A4:B04E (talk) 00:54, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Result & Implementation
I think this has been left open long enough at this point, think it's clear Option B would be preferable. I'm therefore proposing that a reduced Japan section that only deals with superpower speculation and that's it be included under a section called "Formerly Considered", and a move of the article to the title of "List of polities considered potential superpowers" given that better defines the purpose of the article. If no objection I'll look to implement this in a few days time.Rambling Rambler (talk) 14:36, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds fair (update - 26 feb ... to restructure the Japan part... but the suggestion to change the title move it - was never part of the 3 proposed actions above (except for your comment) and was not discussed in depth by all). To avoid editing-conflict I would strongly urge you to start with the previous section on Japan which does provide a lot of the arguments from the past. (PS I agree that the recent addition of Germany was not substantiated by good sourcing and more original synthesis than anything else - so support removal of that). Arnoutf (talk) 15:13, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's fine as it is but just without the stuff about today in there. There was a weird tone before of how it was written like it was currently a potential superpower which was just odd. Rambling Rambler (talk) 15:18, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
? This thread is not about a move so I don't understand above comment. The discussion is instead about how to organise the structure of the current article in relation to the placement/inclusion of Japan. Arnoutf (talk) 21:14, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah sorry missed that. Read to quickly assuming the focus was on the three proposed direction (A, B, and C) as listed at the top, and only elements brought up by multiple editors (not only Rambling Rambler who casually mentioned a move idea) would be taken forward. I updated my initial response.
I stick to my suggestion that it seems fair to restructure the Japan part. But moving the article title seems weird to me indeed (and I would oppose that), as a list is generally just that, a list with extremely limited discussion. This article provide in depth discussion of the idea of potential superpower and each candidate so really not a list at all. Also in my view a article subjected to fierce discussion like this one should have move discussion following Wikipedia:Requested moves which was definitely not implemented here. Arnoutf (talk) 13:17, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If people would prefer a formal discussion I'm happy to have that as a second aspect separate to it. My only concern is that both the title and lead currently confuse the issue in how the article is focused on the present. Under the title "potential superpower" Japan doesn't really fit in because it's not a potential superpower. If we want to formalise that it covers those formerly considered potential superpowers, then I don't see how that really makes sense without moving the article to a new title that is more time-neutral (i.e. doesn't imply the present tense). Rambling Rambler (talk) 16:38, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If Japan is going to be re-added, it can go under a subsection with a title of "Former potential superpower" or something else similar. Based on the above thread, none of the involved editors seem to want to change the name of the article. It doesn't have to be that complicated folks. Archives908 (talk) 17:37, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Currently, only the United States fulfills the criteria to be considered a superpower"
The reference given for this statement is quite old (2008), and regarding China's recent rise, it's not that clear anymore that the United States really is the world's only superpower.
I think it would be more neutral and accurate to write that the U.S. is the only largely uncontested superpower, as there are more and more academics and media outlets which consider China an established superpower (see the Superpower article).-- Maxeto0910 (talk) 16:15, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
much of the data in the comparison category for various superpower candidates appears to be outdated-- for instance, America's nominal gdp is now approaching 28 trillion USD, while it's recorded as 22 trillion in the figures. 129.79.197.94 (talk) 16:27, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
.svg){kind=small}
