Talk:BRIC

message: I say no.  They are different terms with different meanings and have been in use in mutually exclusive ways at different times.  It is appropriate to refer to the other terms in each article or to consider them disambiguations of a higher level article on country grouping for various purposes.
71.110.202.44 (talk) 20:46, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe BRIC and BRICS should be merged, but the G5 are related but not the same. Viller the Great (talk) 05:50, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Whether to merge BRIC, BRICS, G5 articles 

message: The articles are fine by themselves. People will be more confused if they are merged together.
:I believe BRIC and BRICS should be merged, but the G5 are related but not the same. Viller the Great (talk) 05:50, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: No

message: I don't have time to edit this myself at the moment. I just want to highlight that the text about Goldman Sachs in the Thesis chapter is doubled. The bit starting from "Goldman Sachs argues that the economic..." is esentially copied at "Goldman Sachs has argued that..." in section 5 of the same chapter. Skrofler (talk) 09:14, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thesis has too much text 

message: Merely a query over the projected GDP tables for 2025 & 2050: Australia features as the 14th largest economy by nominal GDP in 2008, yet fails to feature in the top 22 in both 2025 and 2050.  I am curious what the basis of the reasoning behind this is.  Even if Australia was to maintain the same nominal GDP from 2008 into 2025, which is unlikely in that it would more likely grow, it would still feature as number 19 (?) in the 2025 nominal GDP table ahead of Bangladesh.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.185.248.131 (talk) 03:51, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Projected GDP (nominal) 2025 and 2050 

message: The article says that the term BRIC was first coined by Goldman Sachs in 2001. However, the article links to the report of 2003. Is it a misprint or the term did really appear in 2001 but in a different document? GS website also does not provide anything earlier than 2003..  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Acvec (talk • contribs) 19:08, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The year of concept birth (moved from top of page) 

message: I type in brick trying to get information on bricks as in the building product and it goes to this very obscure subject  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.45.110.206 (talk) 22:46, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should "brick" rederect from here? 

message: The caption reads top 5 countries in terms of GDP Nominal by 2050.
However the data lists Mexico as number 5 by 2050 over Russia which is placed 6th.
Micro360 (talk) 22:24, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  GDP Nominal Graph Issue 

message: This sentence is stated in the article in three different places. I have removed the two first ones. The last one, found in the Mexico sub-entry -- where it is more fitting -- is still there.189.118.199.29 (talk) 00:17, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: "they decided to exclude initially because they looked..."

message: There are plausible reasons for modifying the navbox templates at the bottom of the page at BRIC.  An opportunity for discussion needs to be part of any process which precedes change. Three arguable improvements are:
A. Combining two of the current navboxes at the bottom of the page?
:* template name should be —Template:BRIC?  
:* new template would be similar to —Template:Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation
:* this would mean removing  —Template:BRIC countries?
:* this would mean removing  —Template:BRIC summits?
B. Deleting the current leaders navbox? 
:This is a poor subject for a navbox because leaders change irregularly over time.  The functional utility of this navbox is not greater or better than one which only shows member nations.
:* this would mean removing  —Template:Current BRIC Leaders?
C. Perhaps decision-making may be helped by comparing an array of similar groups and templates?  
:*21 in group> Template:APEC? 
:*Template:Current APEC Leaders?
:
:*18 in groupp> Template:G-15 nations?
:*Template:Group of 15 Leaders?
:
:*8 in group> Template:D8 nations?
: 
:*4 in group>Template:BRIC countries?
:*Template:Current BRIC Leaders?
:*Template:BRIC summits?
:
:*3 in group>Template:Trilateral meeting?
:*2 in group> Template:G-3?
:
:*No navboxes yet> G77•G33•G24•G10•G5
:
*20 in group> Template:G20?
*Template:Current G20 Leaders?
*Template:G-20 leaders' summits?
:
:
*9 in group> Template:G8 nations?
*Template:Current G8 Leaders?
*Template:G8-Foreign?
*Template:G8-Finance?
*Template:G8-Defense?
*Template:G8-Justice?
*Template:G8-Interior?
*Template:G8 summits?
What is the best next step for this article? for similar articles? --Tenmei (talk) 23:52, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Navbox consensus

message: Mexico, Indonesia and South Korea are countries included in the Next Eleven report, also by Goldman Sachs. There is hardly any description of these countries in the next eleven article. Since this is an article on BRIC countries, the rest should be moved to the 'Next Eleven' article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mathaiman (talk • contribs) 17:04, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is mexico, indonesia and south korea listed here? 

message: Extreme vandalism over this article by anonimous brazilian partisan who are in several places trying to bring to top its country in every ranking.
kardrak (talk) 19:15, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not the place to request protection; the  template is only for requesting edits to already- protected articles. To request protection, please see WP:RFPP. However, please note that reverting repeatedly and without discussion is not an appropriate way to solve a content dispute. Intelligentsium 00:35, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request of Protection 

message: Whoever is trying to transform this page from a BRIC page into a BRICI page, STOP. There is no such thing as BRICI. If you want to coin that term, you will be the first to do so.. so please go and make a new article if you are desperate for a BRICI article. Please stop tampering with this one.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.155.85.201 (talk) 22:46, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Indonesia, or whoever else has not officially joined BRICS. Viller the Great (talk) 05:50, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS BRICI 

message: Someone should take the time to make this BRIC + S since South Africa was recently added to the group. 
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/MA04Ad02.html 
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/indepth/2011-01/02/c_13674385.htm  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.108.175.37 (talk) 13:18, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone should update it to include South Africa. It should be BRICS, not BRIC. 72.81.233.159 (talk) 17:10, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: BRIC became BRICS today. I have updated the article technically the whole body. However I think the title of the article has to be changed. Only the title of the remains to be changed. The name of the article is BRIC. This should be changed to BRICS as S has been officially instated into the abbreviation and is know by it. Someone should ask an administrator to change the title of the article itself only from BRIC to BRICS. This is the only one remaining outstanding change.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.178.169.150 (talk) 14:22, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe so too, so therefore BRIC and BRICS should be merged. Viller the Great (talk) 05:50, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  BRICS 

message: Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.nanothailand.org/investing/why-should-you-invest-in-brics. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you.  VernoWhitney (talk) 20:44, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright problem removed 

message: Is there any possible reason to include:
:In 2011, the BRIC countries all abstained from the United Nations security council vote that authorized military intervention in Libya. However, South Africa (the newest member of an expanded BRICS) did vote in favour.  Arthur Rubin  (talk) 22:58, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is about BRIC, do you want to make a wp article called BRICS/BASIC countries?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.119.128.35 (talk • contribs) 23:27, March 30, 2011  Special:Contributions/99.119.128.35  99.190.84.131 (talk) 05:47, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That's irrelevant.  The first sentence also has no reason to be in the article.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 09:56, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  BRIC block voting at United Nations 

message: Jorge 2701, we had already discussed this on your talk page one month ago. Why remove the relevant information that BM&FBovespa, Brazil's stock exchange operator, is the third largest in the world by market value? Isn't this a relevant show of economic importance from a BRIC company (and the whole country), and appropriate to the Marketing section? Missionary (talk) 19:02, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  BOVESPA stock exchange size 

message: Goldman Sachs and the author of the report is mentioned so many times (sometimes unnecessarily) that the current article is becoming quite confusing. 
The editors are requested to split this page into two different wikipedia topics - one, that analyzes and discusses the Goldman Sachs report which coined the term, and the other on the the formation and trends of BRIC the politico-economic organization.
Also, the current report only includes praise and criticism from a western point of view (and mostly based on the Goldman Sachs report). In the interest of neutrality, please analyze the newspaper reports on BRIC from the newspapers of these four countries (Brazil, Russia, China, India) for a better perspective on the political plus and minuses of this grouping.  117.205.84.62 (talk) 14:16, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Goldman Sachs BRIC report vs BRIC, the organization 

message: See Talk:BRICS/draft for version I couldn't check in. 67.100.125.92 (talk) 19:26, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: *Your draft seems about right. It should be clearly noted in the lead paragraph that BRICS is a political organization and that its name derived from original Goldman Sachs' financial thesis called BRIC. We all agree that BRIC and BRICS are separate things. However, we do need to move back BRICS to BRIC because the move contains all the article history of BRIC. Then we start a new BRICS article. I'm requesting the move right now. AlexCovarrubias ( Talk? ) 04:41, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

text: *Yes, it looks like a good start.  The intro/history section is slightly confusing, though, with the mention of Jim O'Neill coining the term and his surprise at SA's inclusion, but no previous mention of him or what he has to do with the topic.  (A reader unfamiliar with the topic might think that he coined the BRICS term, and not be able to find further info on the topic, because other than the link to the BRIC article (which is only through clicking on the BRIC name in a different section) there is no specific mention of Goldman Sachs and the theories they published.  I think there should be at least a single statement to that effect, with a  direct.  It could also be qualified with the statement that none of the member countries have referred to the Goldman Sachs reports as contributing to their decision to form a trade bloc.  Perhaps "Theoretical Base" (should be concise, though) and "History" could be two different sections? — Gk sa (talk) 13:16, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. BRIC is part of the history of BRICS, and having two separate articles will confuse people. BRIC was expanded to included South Africa. Viller the Great (talk) 05:50, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attempted to split [[BRIC]] from [[BRICS]] 

message: Other countries do not form trade alliances to deny the US its rightful place as the arbiter and dictator of nations. Removed flagged text implying as much. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 03:54, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uh, ... no. 

message: BRIC is an economic term/accronym and a financial thesis by Goldam Sachs' Jim O'Neil. BRIC countries now united in a political organization and included South Africa, creating the BRICS. It was wrong to move BRIC to BRICS since the two accronyms are about different subjects.
One article should talk about the financial thesis as BRIC originally was intended to. BRICS should be about the meetings, treaties, accords, summits and common policies developed by Brazin, Russia, India, China and South Africa.
We had to start a "new" article at BRIC, but that is not right because we've lost all the article history. I will request a move back to BRIC, and then we should create a new article from scratch about the political organization here at BRICS. AlexCovarrubias ( Talk? ) 02:06, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. BRIC is part of the history of BRICS, and having two separate articles will confuse people. BRIC was expanded to included South Africa. Viller the Great (talk) 05:50, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  It was wrong to move BRIC to BRICS 

message: Please move BRICS to BRIC (w/ history + talk) and BRIC to BRICS (w/ history + talk).  A second move was done and it was improperly done it seems.Curb Chain (talk) 09:52, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: page move requests should be made at Wikipedia:Requested moves. Crazymonkey1123 (Jacob) T/S 04:50, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: See Above For Reasons

message: I believe that in this article we must leave the names of the countries with flag for ease of reading, i mean, many people see the flag and recognize what country are we talking about at least in the statistics section, is not a nationalistic pride. Please comment --Jorge 2701 (talk) 04:43, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:ICONDECORATION disagrees Gnevin (talk) 19:05, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I see your point - but does it really mean no flag icons anywhere in the article?  As far as I've seen, flag icons see some fairly regular use on WP. — Gk sa (talk) 22:29, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It depends on how they are used.  One view is flagcruft.  Gnevin links a good article.Curb Chain (talk) 07:47, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flags icons 

message: For the (coming) BRICS article, should the map not be of a different type?  The Robinson projection, while a compromise projection, is still a very poor illustration of the countries involved in comparison to each other.  How about a map that is Equal-area? — Gk sa (talk) 14:15, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map 

message: This article says that by 2050, North Korea's GDP will be 1,982 billion and its GDP per capita $70,000, in stark contrast to the 40 billion and 1,900 today. That would require a (correct me if I'm wrong) 4,955 percent growth rate for GDP (even higher if the figures for 2050 North Korea's GDP are nominal and not PPP). Even though the source is reliable, I found this extremely hard to believe. Snakespeaker (talk) 01:42, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps the source assumes a no-sanctions scenario (surely Kim Jong Il will not live until 2050?), which would revolutionise the North Korean economy?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gk sa (talk • contribs) 14:29, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  North Korea's GDP? 

message: I have no issue using , but the current state is better than using .Curb Chain (talk) 07:53, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  {{tl|flagcountry}} vs. {{tl|flagicon}} 

message: *  Russia and BRICS from the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Can an admin please add this to the external links section. Thanks --Russavia I'm chanting as we speak 04:32, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Not knowing anything about the subject, or able to understand Russian, could someone else confirm that this is an appropriate and relevant link to add before this is done please. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 09:09, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: As an editor who edits on foreign relations of Russia, I can confirm that it is relevant to the subject. I wouldn't be wasting my time if it weren't. --Russavia I'm chanting as we speak 09:24, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not doubting you, but just asking for a second opinion. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 09:29, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request 

message: # --Tenmei (talk) 23:00, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Support

message: # Our readers are able to read and they have no problem decoding letters to extract meanings of simple and well-known country names like "Brazil". Adding the flag icons makes the resource look trashy and sub-literate. --John (talk) 00:16, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Oppose

message: I was asked a while ago by Tenmei to close this as an uninvolved party. It appears the consensus is not to use flagicons in the table. I am aware that some of the comments misunderstood the proposal, but the majority still appears to favour not adding the flags. Nightw 12:13, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Copied over from talk page of forked BRIC page. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:24, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Closing poll

message: BRIC is an acronym of a financial thesis created by Goldman Sachs' Jim O'Neil. BRIC countries have since then grouped in a political movement that now includes South Africa, named BRICS. This article should be dedicated exclusively to the financial thesis. BRICS article will talk about the political group, their treaties, accords, summits and whatever political stuff.
BRICS article was created by moving BRIC, which was not right. So I've added the last good version without South Africa. South Africa was "included" in the political group, not in the financial group that this article represents. AlexCovarrubias ( Talk? ) 01:12, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. BRIC is part of the history of BRICS, and having two separate articles will confuse people. BRIC was expanded to included South Africa. The other language Wikipedias have them together, not separate. I would like to see a merger. Viller the Great (talk) 05:50, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  BRIC is not the same as BRICS, please help mantain the article 

message: The original article was about BRIC, the financial accronym and economical thesis created by Goldman Sach's Jim O'Neil. It contained all the financial information needed.
In April 13 2011 it was forked and moved to BRICS, starting a new article because this organization decided to include South Africa (that's why the "S" was added). This was wrong because BRIC and BRICS are completely different terms. BRIC is simply a term, while BRICS is a political organization on its own.
Now that BRICS was restored to BRIC and the article history has been recovered (yay!), we can start a real BRICS article. It doesn't have to repeat the same information, remember BRICS is a political organization. 
I have restored the article as it was previous to the move. Please help to improve it and correct whatever is wrong. AlexCovarrubias ( Talk? ) 17:12, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It would have been much better had you NOT done this: we can take out irrelevant information.  Now I have to dig through the dirt literally and literally start from scratch since all the improvements have been lost.Curb Chain (talk) 06:19, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: But the improvements you talk about were about BRICS not BRIC, so we only have to add back whatever was relevant in the previous version. AlexCovarrubias ( Talk? ) 15:27, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

text: For BRICS, I like the draft that was created at Talk:BRIC/draft - I think we should start from there.  (Yes, I'm posting it here, because there is currently no talk page for BRICS.)  If so, we should avoid ccreating a new BRICS article until the draft has been moved.  Who agrees? — Gk sa (talk) 08:54, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. It is a great way to start BRICS. AlexCovarrubias ( Talk? ) 08:58, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I've made a small start to updating the draft - it refers to the Beijing meeting as still in the future. Hopefully we can sort out both articles' schizophrenia soon. Roger (talk) 11:04, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason we have all this huge mess of history is because this same draft you are talking about was proposed here: Talk:BRIC#Attempted_to_split_BRIC_from_BRICS.  Gk sa, you know this.  There has been at least 2 editors who have judged these two articles as content forks.  We are back at square one.  Please please do not request moves or move anything until you sort this out.  It will give huge headaches if we have to go through a flurry of double (redundant) moves.Curb Chain (talk) 10:18, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I understood, the consensus was that the original BRIC article belongs at BRIC, and only has some relation to BRICS as a formalised grouping.  I understood the consensus to be that BRICS deserves its own article and that South Africa should not be covered in BRIC except for stating O'Neill's opinion on SA, perhaps.  (As it is now, finally).  None of the editors who raised the issue of content forks responded on subsequent comments stating reasons why it is not the same as a content fork - which creates the impression that the issue was resolved and consensus was reached.  The entire point of posting here first and asking for agreement, is take make sure that that consensus exists, however, and for that reason, I would not request a move until consensus is confirmed.  Please note that I am NOT saying that the draft should be located at BRIC, but rather at BRICS, which is currently a redirect.  Are you saying that South Africa should not be included anywhere in a BRIC/BRICS article? — Gk sa (talk) 12:31, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: South Africa is a whole different matter and no, I am not saying that.  But I am saying that, long story short, the draft and the article at the time are not much different from each other, which is what those content fork claimants claimed, and I can see where they are coming from.Curb Chain (talk) 00:27, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. BRIC is part of the history of BRICS, and having two separate articles will confuse people. BRIC was expanded to included South Africa. The other language Wikipedias have them together, not separate. I would like to see a merger. Viller the Great (talk) 05:50, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  IMPORTANT: About moving back BRICS to BRIC 

message: I think it's time to create a real article about the political organization BRICS. Now that the content fork has been resolved we can work together to create a new article about this. Please note that BRICS is a political organization, different from the Goldam Sachs accronym BRIC.
I believe the new article should have:
*An infobox about the member countries
*Information about each BRICS summit (this is very important)
*Brief history about how South Africa was included (as this was an important political step)
*Avoid too much information about economics (remember the previous BRICS article was basically an exact copy of BRIC, which was regarded as a forking)
*Treaties or agreements the BRICS countries have reached so far
So what do you think? Please let me know what you think and help to create this new article. AlexCovarrubias ( Talk? ) 19:27, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I highly support this move, as this addresses contentforking.  Feel free to draft one.Curb Chain (talk) 07:41, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

text: Ok it seems nobody is interested in creating this article! Incredible, then one must assume that moving BRIC to BRICS was indeed a content fringe... AlexCovarrubias ( Talk? ) 06:03, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok I've written the first sentence. Roger (talk) 09:28, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time to start a real BRICS article 

message: An image used in this article, File:Mumbai night pic.jpeg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
* If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 16:51, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Mumbai night pic.jpeg Nominated for speedy Deletion

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
* If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant 
This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 20:45, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: File:CIUDAD MEXICO, DF.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests April 2012 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant 
This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 22:02, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: File:MoscowHighRiseNight.jpg Nominated for Deletion

message: https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:HXQQdIX_yv4J:www.theasset.nl/8761/111208-Goldman-Sachs-Global-Economics-Paper-208.pdf?v%3D0+brics+10+years+projections&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESgthhqgu3duAV14lW0G9DuPubtiirriyS1-tsR1AIkhSy2tEErUwaFH_K3ECIw2NZWbO-7Opu_-a-eIsmJgOiv0ugCWfY7ms9H9TqFgBMBW0KAuLxz2E1ObHH0C6Ije7c-H6p2O&sig=AHIEtbQTt-iIMGUFLx1zWuhdHLcZ-Lp3ZQ
Why does this page continue to use the 2007 projections when Goldman Sachs released new 2011 BRIC and Next Eleven projections?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Futurist110 (talk • contribs) 22:16, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: New 2050 GDP Projections by Goldman Sachs

message: LOOK I apologize in advance for kicking this dead horse again, I realize it is getting mushy and is not resulting in anything, but... BRICS AND BRIC involve different financial institution's terms, fine but in the end 4/5 parts of BRICS should already have the same info in BRIC, should these two not be merged into BRIC(S) the S in brackets as often used to denote the new incumbent, this way we could latch the extra info on, even if you don't want to merge them per say, you could just have BRIC(S) as the page with a section at the bottom that talks about South Africa in a somewhat segregated (no offence intended in reference to the term segregation and south africa) part of the article that talks about why it's included, what financial institutes see as challenges and potential, etc. etc. etc., it seems inefficient to have two articles when a vast majority of the coverage is the same SandeepSinghToor (talk) 10:24, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree the articles should be merged. -- Beland (talk) 12:56, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Previously BRIC was coined by Jim O'Neill as acronym of 4 countries which are all deemed to be at a similar stage of newly advanced economic development, but in 2009 the leaders of BRIC countries made the first summit and in 2010 BRIC became a formal institution. South Africa began efforts to join the BRIC grouping and on December 24, 2010 South Africa is invited to join BRICS. The aim of BRIC is establishment of an equitable, democratic and multi polar world order, but later BRIC became a political organization, moreover after South Africa joined BRICS. Jim O'Neill, told the summit that South Africa, at a population of under 50 million people, was just too small an economy to join the BRIC ranks. I think it is better to maintain two articles and not merge into one article, because BRIC and BRICS have different background. BRIC article can be focused to maintain economic development among BRIC countries and BRICS article can be focused to others among BRICS countries.Gsarwa (talk) 11:31, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  BRICS and BRIC 

message: There are various outdated/false stats.
For example, India's 2.3 Trillion$ GDP stands at no.7 as of 2015, not no.10. Brazil and Russia fall below. Per capita incomes arent right either.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.62.246.245 (talk) 07:12, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I've tag the article as being out of date. If you have the information and time please correct/update it. Jonpatterns (talk) 23:08, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  The page is not being maintained 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on BRIC. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121220205747/http://www.sipa.columbia.edu/news_events/announcements/BRICLab04132011.html to http://www.sipa.columbia.edu/news_events/announcements/BRICLab04132011.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080227020712/http://www2.goldmansachs.com/hkchina/insight/research/pdf/BRICs_3_12-1-05.pdf to http://www2.goldmansachs.com/hkchina/insight/research/pdf/BRICs_3_12-1-05.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070928014125/http://www.correiodamanha.pt/noticia.asp?id=219132&idselect=9&idCanal=9&p=200 to http://www.correiodamanha.pt/noticia.asp?id=219132&idselect=9&idCanal=9&p=200
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080303082901/http://business-standard.com:80/common/storypage_c.php?leftnm=10&autono=282049 to http://business-standard.com/common/storypage_c.php?leftnm=10&autono=282049
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:13, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on BRIC. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110708073058/http://mobile.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=2065100&sid=a7CGZv5B2Guo to http://mobile.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=2065100&sid=a7CGZv5B2Guo
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070927043929/http://www.cnhuaye.com/steel/en/news_2.asp?id=67 to http://www.cnhuaye.com/steel/en/news_2.asp?id=67
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110408051939/http://www.ploughshares.ca:80/libraries/monitor/monj98a.html to http://www.ploughshares.ca/libraries/monitor/monj98a.html
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070927033005/http://www.companynewsgroup.com/communique.asp?co_id=118223 to http://www.companynewsgroup.com/communique.asp?co_id=118223
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:42, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on BRIC. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111203044446/http://www2.goldmansachs.com:80/our-thinking/brics/brics-and-beyond-book-pdfs/brics-full-book.pdf to http://www.goldmansachs.com/our-thinking/brics/brics-and-beyond-book-pdfs/brics-full-book.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080911041502/http://www.chicagogsb.edu/alumni/clubs/pakistan/docs/next11dream-march%20%2707-goldmansachs.pdf to http://www.chicagogsb.edu/alumni/clubs/pakistan/docs/next11dream-march%20%2707-goldmansachs.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:25, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on BRIC. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110708093113/http://bricnation.com/?p=24 to http://bricnation.com/?p=24
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121027151417/http://www.investordaily.com/cps/rde/xchg/id/style/801.htm?rdeCOQ=SID-3F579BCE-819F182C to http://www.investordaily.com/cps/rde/xchg/id/style/801.htm?rdeCOQ=SID-3F579BCE-819F182C
*Added  tag to http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2007/2/23/apworld/20070223082158&sec=apworld
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100508172054/http://canadianeuropean.com:80/yahoo_site_admin/assets/docs/FONDS_DASIE-PACIFIQUE_REVUE_AF_APR_09.95131642.pdf to http://www.canadianeuropean.com/yahoo_site_admin/assets/docs/FONDS_DASIE-PACIFIQUE_REVUE_AF_APR_09.95131642.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110604112956/http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/holnus/001200906081851.htm to http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/holnus/001200906081851.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:34, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on BRIC. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=%2F2007%2F2%2F23%2Fapworld%2F20070223082158&sec=apworld
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.canadianeuropean.com/yahoo_site_admin/assets/docs/FONDS_DASIE-PACIFIQUE_REVUE_AF_APR_09.95131642.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110314200831/http://www.turkishweekly.net/op-ed/2799/forecasting-the-future-the-brics-and-the-china-model.html to http://www.turkishweekly.net/op-ed/2799/forecasting-the-future-the-brics-and-the-china-model.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110917182931/http://www.turkishweekly.net/op-ed/2852/infrastructure-investments-in-an-age-of-austerity-the-pension-and-sovereign-funds-perspective.html to http://www.turkishweekly.net/op-ed/2852/infrastructure-investments-in-an-age-of-austerity-the-pension-and-sovereign-funds-perspective.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140424205724/http://mws.polis.cam.ac.uk/crp/ to http://mws.polis.cam.ac.uk/crp/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:29, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on BRIC. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140809230248/http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/news/2013/12/04/brazil-economy-experiences-first-contraction-since-200/ to http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/news/2013/12/04/brazil-economy-experiences-first-contraction-since-200/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:54, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on BRIC. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110708233332/http://www.dasinvestment.com/fileadmin/images/pictures/0809_Global_Econ_Paper_No__204_Final.pdf to http://www.dasinvestment.com/fileadmin/images/pictures/0809_Global_Econ_Paper_No__204_Final.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081007011711/http://www.russoft.org/docs/?doc=1094 to http://www.russoft.org/docs/?doc=1094
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:08, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: As a name of bloc of nations, the two terms are generally refering to one thing. The difference of the two terms can be explained in a few lines. Will.L.T. (talk) 09:26, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggest to merge BRIC and BRICS