Jump to content

Talk:BRICS

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Split proposed

[edit]

I think there should be a new article of its own dedicated specially for the reception, debate over, criticism to BRICS. Discuss. Lan Pee (talk) 05:22, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at WP:SPLIT, this article isn't large enough that this is a concern. For now, anything related to the aspects that you mentioned can be added to the article itself, IMO. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:18, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes! I really hate Russia, even this article should split into multiple articles. MYSKaoi (talk) 11:15, 26 October 2024 (UTC) — MYSKaoi (talk · contribs) is currently under sockpuppet investigation. Happily888 (talk) 01:20, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Once this section grows larger, maybe. At its current size I don't believe it should be split yet, however as more information is added it could definitely become its own article. Tylermack999 (talk) 14:25, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Lan Pee Do you have any links that can be put in the section on Reception? EldenMacdonald (talk) 13:26, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The foremost geopolitical rival

[edit]

The BRICS countries are considered the foremost geopolitical rival to the G7 bloc in the lead. Could not be found in the article body and unsourced. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 13:19, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't make any sense in its paragraph either, eg. The New Development Bank is noted in the body to be in the same space as the International Monetary Fund, not the G7. CMD (talk) 13:43, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's easily sourced. M.Bitton (talk) 14:01, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@M.Bitton: I have not been able to source it, would you be so good? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:46, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Horse Eye's Back: "at present, the BRICS bloc stands as the foremost geopolitical rival to the G7"[1] (there are others if needs be). M.Bitton (talk) 19:50, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't work, we need something that supports the universal "are considered" not just an example of someone considering them to be so. That also looks suspiciously like our wording, which predates that article's publication... Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:55, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"The BRICS group is considered the foremost geopolitical rival to the G7 bloc" [2]
"an assembly of countries (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) considered to be the foremost geopolitical rival to the G7 bloc of leading advanced economies." [3]
This is from a very quick search. M.Bitton (talk) 19:57, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be finding sources which copied wikipedia. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:59, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you prove it? M.Bitton (talk) 20:00, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Our lead: "The BRICS countries are considered the foremost geopolitical rival to the G7 bloc comprising the leading advanced economies, implementing competing initiatives such as the New Development Bank, the BRICS Contingent Reserve Arrangement, the BRICS pay, the BRICS Joint Statistical Publication[15] and the BRICS basket reserve currency." That South African article: "The BRICS group is considered the foremost geopolitical rival to the G7 bloc of leading advanced economies. The BRICS group has introduced (in some instances weighed) rival initiatives that include the New Development Bank, the Contingent Reserve Arrangement, the BRICS payment system, the BRICS Joint Statistical Publication and the BRICS basket reserve currency." And no I don't need to prove anything... But a supporting source will need to be from before that information was on wikipedia, thats how its always worked (its how we avoid citogenesis). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:05, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're picking one article, while I provided three, including a scholarly one that describes it as the "the foremost geopolitical rival to the G7". M.Bitton (talk) 20:08, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All three were published after that text was on this page. There is no way around finding a source which predates the text, we have plenty of examples of citogenesis in the academic literature. I would also note that all three are so close that if they didn't postdate the text we would be removing it immediately on COPYVIVO grounds. You have not done so, so you agree with me. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:11, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have no horse in this race. I only responded because I thought I was being helpful (the sources are, like I previously said, easily found. The editors are free to treat them however they wish). M.Bitton (talk) 20:26, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a horse here either, I only responded because I could not find any sources which actually qualified for sourcing it (sources published after it can't be used to source it). If it was easy one of us would have been able to do it by now, but neither you or I have been able to... Therefore not easy Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:28, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Going further, Combined, the BRICS members encompass about 30% of the world's land surface and so on right in the lead. So what? Since when we keep "interesting facts" chapter in the lead? ManyAreasExpert (talk) 15:10, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@CmsrNgubane, please don't add unsourced content. And don't remove maintenance templates [4]. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 12:11, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mt.FijiBoiz, you changed To some[vague], the grouping evolved into a geopolitical bloc, removing "To some" and removing the source [5] . What are your sources? ManyAreasExpert (talk) 20:04, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[citation needed]

[edit]

Where's the citation/source for the "official languages" in the infobox? 2600:8800:2C09:3200:38AE:3E2B:5569:AD49 (talk) 07:59, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Findings from the Multiple Central Bank Digital Currency Bridge (mBridge) Pilot and Next Steps

[edit]

[6] Amane Ojakasa Summary The Bank of Thailand (BOT), announced that the BOT together with the Hong Kong Monetary Authority (HKMA), the Central Bank of the United Arab Emirates (CBUAE), the Digital Currency Institute of the People’s Bank of China (PBCDCI) The mBridge platform demonstrated the enhanced efficiency of cross-border transactions using multi-currency CBDC compared to the current system by eliminating the correspondent banking network, resulting in (1) a substantial decrease in cross-border transfer times from 3-5 days to several seconds, (2) enabling direct peer-to-peer linkages between participating banks which can potentially lower the cost of cross-border transactions. Furthermore, the platform can also (3) reduce settlement risk and (4) support the use of local currencies in international payments (talk) 10:52, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To some in the West

[edit]

@EldenMacdonald, regarding your edits [7] . Tthe source BRICS Expansion, the G20, and the Future of World Order | Carnegie Endowment for International Peace still regards the sentence BRICS institutions are considered an alternative to institutions such as those led by nations of the G7 bloc as To some in the West.

Here are some other expert overviews -
The BRICS Still Don’t Matter by Jim O'Neill - Project Syndicate
A Fork in the Road? The Kazan Summit of the BRICS
Why the BRICS Summit in Kazan should be a Wake-up Call for the EU - Egmont Institute ManyAreasExpert (talk) 12:48, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that "To some in the West[vague]" could be just changed to "some commentators" and more sentences and references added accordingly. Just skimming through the references shows that this could get more space in the article itself. "Reception" could be a place to put it. I will read the above references listed. EldenMacdonald (talk) 14:25, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm saying that we should report per what sources report and if source says "Some in the West" then this article should, too, until more wide opinion set is presented. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 14:54, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox edit request

[edit]

In the infobox, for the upcoming members the text states "New Members will be Join on 1st January 2025 officially.", which is both awkwardly put and has unnecessary capitalization ("Members" and "Join" should be "members" and "join"). I propose this to be changed to "New members that will officially join on 1st January 2025:", where the changes are:

  • Lowercase "members" and "join", no need to capitalize.
  • Change "will be Join" to "that will join", to fix awkward grammar.
  • Move "officially" from the end of the sentence to between "will" and "join", for better flow.
  • Change period (".") to colon (":"), since it is followed by the list of upcoming members.

i.e.:

−
New Members will be Join on 1st January 2025 officially.
+
New on 1st January 2025

176.62.44.123 (talk) 09:42, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Article on Lock Down

[edit]

BRICS is often presented as a geopolitical and economic alliance of emerging economies—Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa—aimed at countering Western-dominated systems like the G7. However, its structure and financial mechanisms have also created opportunities for illicit activities and corruption, particularly benefiting authoritarian states like Russia and China.

Key Realities and Criminal Utility:

Circumventing Sanctions:

Russia, heavily sanctioned by Western nations, uses BRICS as a tool to establish alternative trade and financial networks, bypassing restrictions on dollar-based transactions. The promotion of local currency trade within BRICS (e.g., the Chinese yuan or Russian ruble) weakens the effectiveness of Western sanctions, facilitating the flow of funds for potentially illicit purposes.

Lack of Transparency in Financial Institutions:

The New Development Bank (NDB), established by BRICS, lacks the rigorous oversight and transparency standards of institutions like the IMF or World Bank. This has created opportunities for money laundering, embezzlement, and financing questionable projects in member and partner countries. Russian and Chinese influence within the NDB has raised concerns about its use to fund projects with geopolitical motives, potentially masking criminal activity under the guise of development.

Weaponization of Trade and Finance:

Russia and China, key BRICS members, are known for leveraging state-owned enterprises and trade agreements for geopolitical purposes. These mechanisms can serve as conduits for corrupt practices, including bribery, kickbacks, and resource smuggling. The use of barter trade or non-dollar transactions within BRICS facilitates the illicit trade of sanctioned goods, such as Russian oil and arms.

Shielding Corrupt Practices:

BRICS nations, particularly Russia and South Africa, have faced domestic and international accusations of systemic corruption. The grouping provides a platform to legitimize financial transactions and trade relationships that may otherwise attract scrutiny from Western regulatory bodies. South Africa’s inclusion in BRICS has been criticized for offering a veneer of legitimacy while its political elites have faced numerous corruption scandals, including those involving state capture.

Facilitating Illicit Technology Transfers:

BRICS collaboration on technology, particularly between Russia and China, has been criticized for enabling the transfer of sensitive technologies, some of which may bypass international export controls and find use in military or espionage contexts.

Global South’s Role in Illicit Economies:

BRICS' outreach to the Global South, particularly in Africa and Latin America, has created pathways for facilitating illegal mining, resource exploitation, and trade in conflict minerals under less scrutiny than through traditional Western-led systems.

Conclusion:

While BRICS is framed as a cooperative alternative to Western institutions, its structure and lack of transparency have made it a useful tool for circumventing international regulations, enabling corruption, and shielding illicit activities. Russia, in particular, has exploited BRICS to bypass sanctions and sustain economic and political operations despite Western isolation.

Why these edits are "heavy lifting":

Wikipedia, while celebrated as a free and open encyclopedia, faces significant criticism for systemic biases that allow antisemitic narratives, agents of despotic regimes, and ideologically motivated contributors, including those with socialist leanings, to dominate its content. Certain editor groups, particularly those sympathetic to authoritarian regimes or anti-Western ideologies, exert significant influence over politically sensitive articles, often manipulating language and framing to subtly promote their agendas. Topics such as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict or historical antisemitism frequently become battlegrounds where contributors downplay antisemitic actions or whitewash state-sponsored propaganda, making it nearly impossible for individuals to introduce alternative, well-sourced content. Wikipedia’s policies, such as its neutral point of view (NPOV) and reliable sources requirements, are often weaponized to present false equivalencies or exclude dissenting perspectives. Additionally, agents or sympathizers of regimes like Russia, China, and Iran exploit Wikipedia’s decentralized structure to whitewash human rights abuses, spread disinformation, and marginalize critical voices, often coordinating off-platform and using bureaucratic processes to maintain control. Editors who challenge these entrenched biases face reversion of their changes, endless debates on talk pages, and selective enforcement of rules, further entrenching problematic narratives. While Wikipedia’s open-edit model is revolutionary, its vulnerabilities have enabled antisemitic contributors, authoritarian actors, and politically naive "useful idiots" to dominate sensitive topics, leaving well-intentioned attempts at correction feeling futile due to entrenched editor groups and systemic obstacles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.185.77.31 (talk) 14:50, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sources? ManyAreasExpert (talk) 14:52, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The source is Wikipedia itself - Criticism of Wikipedia. 14.2.207.148 (talk) 01:49, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-western or non-western

[edit]

@Amigao: with regard to this edit, you wrote in the edit summary "per WP:LINKCLARITY". How about I remove the link and restore "non-western" instead. EldenMacdonald (talk) 06:42, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It does not look like the Foreign Policy article cited would support that wording. - Amigao (talk) 15:43, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nigeria joins

[edit]

Nigeria has been accepted into BRICS here. 14.2.207.148 (talk) 01:47, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Trump mistake

[edit]
  • Fact check: Trump made more than 20 false claims in his Inauguration Day remarks, CNN, Mon January 20, 2025: "Spain and BRICS: Trump falsely claimed in the Oval Office that Spain is a member of the international organization known as BRICS, telling a reporter, “They’re a BRICS nation, Spain. You know what a BRICS nation is? You’ll figure it out.” Spain is not a member of BRICS; the “S” is for South Africa, which joined the group previously known as BRIC — Brazil, Russia, India and China — in 2010."

80.29.73.40 (discusión) 11:06 21 ene 2025 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.29.73.40 (talk)

Donald Trump including Spain among BRICS

[edit]

I believe it would be worth it to mention that Donald Trump mistakenly included Spain among the BRICS countries, after one question made by a journalist (https://www.20minutos.es/noticia/5674396/0/urgente-eeuu-otan-trump-critica-que-aportacion-espana-otan-es-muy-baja/). I would edit the article myself but it seems it's blocked. 2001:720:1014:21:0:0:A:A (talk) 11:35, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Geopolitical and geoeconomic

[edit]

@ManyAreasExpert: With regard to this edit of yours the quote in the citation you removed uses the words 'geopolitically' and 'geoeconomically'. EldenMacdonald (talk) 10:09, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

the quote in the citation you removed uses the words 'geopolitically' and 'geoeconomically'
... but it uses these with different meaning then what was in the article, right? ManyAreasExpert (talk) 10:22, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@ManyAreasExpert: Ok, understood. EldenMacdonald (talk) 10:36, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings @EldenMacdonald and all, there is a new book with detailed analysis on the subject, The Palgrave Handbook on China-Europe-Africa Relations | SpringerLink and it's available via The Wikipedia Library, good luck. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 16:28, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@ManyAreasExpert Thanks for the reference. Once I make the minimum number of edits I should get access to the library. EldenMacdonald (talk) 16:53, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ManyAreasExpert ping again i don't think the last one worked EldenMacdonald (talk) 10:11, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A multipolar[4] grouping

[edit]

and formed a multipolar[1] grouping is not in source right? ManyAreasExpert (talk) 17:38, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The same goes with representing nearly half[2] of the world's population - no, it's not "representing" population. Also, the linked research talks about climate and health, not about political representations. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 10:12, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@ManyAreasExpert Just want to say that I added the citation for "nearly half". I can't find the edit but that line previously said something like half the world. So when I thought that it was a good table for population statistics I added it. Even after going through so many references, I haven't found one that talks about the population aspect concretely. I think that mainly is because all the new references don't include Indonesia, or include Saudi, or add partners etc.EldenMacdonald (talk) 13:18, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Even after going through so many references, I haven't found one that talks about the population aspect concretely
The source was talking about forty something % of the population, but was not saying that BRICS "represents" them. Even more, the source was not politics-oriented paper, nor its authors. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 15:42, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@ManyAreasExpert Just to clarify, I didn't add the word "represent". As far as I can tell, it was added by @Daniel chp in this edit.
Does anyone have a good reference for the population apart from the one already used in the statistics section? EldenMacdonald (talk) 05:37, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Even the current reference in the statistics section for population includes Saudi and doesn't have Indonesia. EldenMacdonald (talk) 13:29, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Gallagher, Adam; Cheatham, Andrew (17 October 2024). "What's Driving a Bigger BRICS and What Does it Mean for the U.S.?". United States Institute of Peace. Retrieved 2025-01-15.
  2. ^ Kurian, Oommen C.; Sarkar, Debosmita; Suri, Shoba (13 January 2025). "The Role of BRICS Leadership in Forging Climate and Health Strategies for a One-Health World". Observer Research Foundation. Retrieved 2025-01-20.

multipolar

[edit]

Diannaa removed the multipolar quote in the reference with this edit.EldenMacdonald (talk) 13:47, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 22 February 2025

[edit]

Reformat citation in beginning of summary. EarthGamerTheFirst (talk) 14:46, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. M.Bitton (talk) 13:03, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

@Sayurasem With respect to this edit of yours, how about adding the line to the end of the second paragraph of the introduction? EldenMacdonald (talk) 13:42, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable references?

[edit]

Are these two references (ref1, ref2) reliable enough to use in the "Reception#Brazil" section? EldenMacdonald (talk) 13:20, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Huge number of refrences explaining nothing

[edit]

Many of the cited references are merely opinions or wishfull thinking. Serious academics analyses and journalists opinons are mixed sensessly. The article badly needs an academic cleanup ignoring completely Wikipedia rules and recommendations. 178.221.157.162 (talk) 18:52, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:BRICS&oldid=1278318132"