Talk:BRICS

Merge proposal
I propose merging BRIC into BRICS. As it stands, the BRIC article is a smaller duplicated version of the BRICS article. The only difference between the two articles is that the latter article includes South Africa to the grouping. The addition of this one country can be explained within one article. We do not need two separate articles. The existence of multiple articles on virtually the same topic leads to worse article quality and dilutes the efforts of editors. Thenightaway (talk) 12:23, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * That is a good proposal. The change in title can be explained within the article. Neither article is large enough that the merge would create a size problem. Burrobert (talk) 12:33, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The talk page of BRIC, specifically from 2011-2015, reveals that many discussions were had that determined that the wishes of editors at the time was to maintain BRIC as a separate article dealing about the economic theory by Goldman Sachs, separate and distinct from the international organization. Understanding the article as this shows that BRIC really has nothing to do with the international organization we know now but rather the economic theory that the organization took its name from. I do not support a merge because a lot of that information has no place in this article and is way too in-depth. That being said, I think it should be discussed whether to keep the information in BRIC at all or if it should be retitled as BRIC (economic theory) in order to maintain a distinction. Yeoutie (talk) 16:24, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Editor Burrobert, you state that "Neither article is large enough that the merge would create a size problem". Both articles are 80k in size each, they are each oversize now per WP:SIZERULE. Some sort of consolidation is appropriate, possibly with a few articles on this topic and removing duplication. Possibly one article on "History of BRICS" (i.e. what is now the BRIC article), one article on BRICS as it is, and one article on its support institutions (i.e. New Development Bank and other initiatives). There may be other approaches. 182.239.152.216 (talk) 05:42, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
 * BRICS: Prose size (text only): 17 kB (2801 words) "readable prose size"
 * BRIC: Prose size (text only): 28 kB (4615 words) "readable prose size"
 * Policy advice on readable prose size is contained at WP:Article_size. Articles with a readable prose size < 50 kB are fine. Burrobert (talk) 09:20, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
 * If you are sure that these numbers are correct, then I fully support the initiative. 182.239.152.216 (talk) 04:21, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I didn't do the counts myself. They come from the prose size gadget. Burrobert (talk) 10:01, 18 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose for the good reasons given by Yeoutie above. The original acronym was BRIC and this was a pun on brick in a discussion of investment strategy.  BRICS is now a rather different thing.  As the acronym doesn't work any more, I expect that the organisation will change its name but they can't even agree on that.  "BRICS Plus" seems to be the current Chinese suggestion and so the title of the BRICS article is not stable. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:18, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
 * This is no longer the discussion of editors in 2011-2015, this is a discussion for 2023-4. Times change, and so does the opinion of editors. I cannot see a reason why WP would support two articles on what is in fact the one organisation. What you expect to happen is better expressed over on WP:PREDICT. 182.239.148.125 (talk) 04:51, 2 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Agreed El819 (talk) 16:39, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * (that it should be merged) El819 (talk) 23:40, 6 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose the two articles seem to be good on their own, as one of them is about the "thesis" of Goldman Sachs and the other is about the intergovernmental organization. Natg 19 (talk) 02:04, 6 January 2024 (UTC)


 * It Makes sense to Merge BRIC and BRICS into One Article as the only name change is it adds (S)outh Africa to BRIC, making the name BRICS 135.23.143.48 (talk) 01:49, 11 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose We have both G7 and G8, why not keep both BRIC and BRICS too? 2001:8003:9100:2C01:B4A5:A908:5BED:21A3 (talk) 00:58, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The transition from BRIC to BRICS(+) represents an evolutionary process in the group's history. Unlike the G7/G8 analogy, where G8 essentially superseded G7, BRICS represents a broader expansion and inclusivity in membership. Merging the articles would allow for a more comprehensive examination of this evolutionary process.
 * Maintaining separate articles for BRIC and BRICS may lead to duplication of content and confusion for readers. By consolidating the information into a single article, Wikipedia can ensure consistency in coverage and provide a more streamlined reading experience. Pedro H.V. Santos (talk) 09:36, 20 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose There are two different concepts here, the theory and the organisation. I think it makes sense to keep both separate. The opening in the lede of BRIC links to BRICS in a very clear way. Sargdub (talk) 00:14, 9 March 2024 (UTC)


 * I agree, the BRIC article should be merged because it was not a predecessor organization but just its old name  Daisytheduck (talk) 23:30, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The BRIC specific to the article in question and the BRIC that became BRICS are two different subjects. One is inspired by the other but are not the same thing. The equivalent would be like merging Europe, European Economic Community and European Union into one article. DA1 (talk) 12:42, 22 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Agreed The proposal is a good idea. BRIC should be MERGED to BRICS because it is the most current article. The notable contexts under BRIC should be be moved to BRICS general with modifications. Fugabus (talk) 17:57, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Support
 * Even Goldman Sachs admits that BRIC and BRICS are the same thing:
 * By the middle of the decade, numerous BRICs-themed mutual funds, ETFs and indexes were created to track this distinct group of emerging economies. The first annual BRIC Summit took place in 2009 in Yekaterinburg, Russia, bringing together leaders of the BRIC countries to discuss policy issues and common challenges. The following year, the group voted to invite South Africa to join, cementing the acronym BRICS. - Goldman Sachs | Commemorates 150 Year History - With GS Research Report, "BRICs" Are Born
 * On top of that, the article name should be changed to BRICS+, as new new countries are joining the organization.
 * Most of the contents of the BRIC article could be organized under the "History" Section. The other contents could be easily accommodated in new sections. Pedro H.V. Santos (talk) 09:25, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Your highlighted quote doesn't match what you're saying. The "acronym BRICS" being cemented doesn't make the BRIC concept and BRICS organization one and the same. The concept of BRIC is independent from the organization. India could withdraw from the organization and the concept of BRIC would still be its own theory and grouping. DA1 (talk) 12:42, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * While I understand your perspective, it's important to recognize that the BRICS+ organization is fundamentally based on the BRIC concept. The inclusion of South Africa in the BRICS grouping can be seen as a natural evolution of the original economic criteria set forth by Goldman Sachs.
 * After the initial Goldman Sachs reports, most economic analysis and research had already included South Africa in its scope, as evidenced by reports such as the BRICS Investment Report (unctad.org). This suggests that BRICS is not merely an organization separate from the BRIC concept, but rather, it represents the expansion and adaptation of the original acronym to reflect changing economic realities.
 * Additionally, the acknowledgment of South Africa's inclusion by key figures like Goldman Sachs and O'Neil contradicts your point that the concept of BRIC is entirely independent from the BRICS organization.
 * Furthermore, it's worth noting that even the BRIC concept itself is not set in stone. The Proposed inclusions section mentions several instances of proposed inclusions to the acronym, such as Mexico and South Korea (BRIMCK) or Arab countries (BRICA). This fluidity demonstrates that the BRIC framework has evolved over time to incorporate new economic realities and potential partnerships.
 * Therefore, while there may be distinctions between the original BRIC concept and the BRICS organization, they are closely interconnected, with BRICS representing a natural progression and expansion of the original acronym to reflect the changing dynamics of the global economy.
 * Regards, Pedro H.V. Santos (talk) 13:05, 24 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose For multiple reasons:
 * 1. BRICS is an organization. BRIC is a theoretical concept and grouping that predates BRICS and its former incarnation by the name of BRIC. The subject of each article is inherently different.
 * 2. A member state, say India, could withdraw from BRICS but it would still be part of the BRIC theoretical grouping.
 * 3. The organization of BRICS could admit other states, such as South Africa and later Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, etc, but they are not part of the theoretical BRIC grouping that concept is about. The purpose behind BRIC is distinct from that of the organization BRICS. DA1 (talk) 17:35, 23 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose It is pretty evident from the articles themselves (which are accurate in) that BRIC is a concept, admittedly somewhat outdated, in the context of the global economy, and BRICS is an entity that is governed and defined as an organization - one that is increasingly featured these days as more countries contemplate membership. I would go further and argue that even in a hypothetical situation in which South Africa was originally a part of the concept as BRICS (instead of BRIC), after the formation of BRICS organization in 2009, that organization after a certain preiod of time would have justified a separate article on its own e.g. BRICS (intergovernmental organization). IdentityCrisis (talk) 03:35, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment From the above, it seems clear that there is support for different articles on the theory and on the actual grouping. If that is a possible consensus, BRIC needs to be tightened up to reflect this as it strays into the duplication mentioned. This can probably be easily solved by merging only the History and Proposed inclusions from there to here. After that, there is question of the primary topic of "BRIC" which has also been raised above, but that is secondary to the content aligning with the views here. CMD (talk) 07:28, 6 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose in agreement to @Natg 19, @Andrew Davidson, @IdentityCrisis. We should also consider the fact that the article will grow in size and in the very near future, the need for splitting will rise. So, is it worth the effort even if it seems feasible to some at the moment? NO. --BeLucky (talk) 12:02, 26 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose. My position mostly is the same of IdentityCrisis.  Invading Invader  (userpage, talk) 12:45, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The two terms are different and requires separate articles so as to avoid confusion.138.75.38.143 (talk) 14:22, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Should this article be renamed to BRICS+?
Considering it has grown beyond the 5 member states, it seems reasonable to rename it BRICS+.

216.165.212.4 (talk) 23:08, 18 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Yes, BRICS+ seems very appropriate. As of the morning of February 1, 2024, this article lists 9 nations in BRICS. But many authoritative news organizations announced on 1/31/2024 and 2/1/2024 that Saudi Arabia has now officially joined BRICS. So the "+" would accommodate any number of countries, and the abbreviation BRICS only highlights five of them. 64.185.61.127 (talk) 13:55, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
 * No, it's not what sources use — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 13:59, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
 * What do you mean? The official website says it is called BRICS+.
 * Link: https://www.brics-plus.com/ 2001:8003:9100:2C01:B4A5:A908:5BED:21A3 (talk) 00:56, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Yes, the new organisation is called BRICS+. 2001:8003:9100:2C01:B4A5:A908:5BED:21A3 (talk) 00:49, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support BRICS+ (or BRICS Plus) is already being used in scientific literature - brics plus - Google Scholar Pedro H.V. Santos (talk) 09:13, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose Apparently you forgot to check brics - Google Scholar — DaxServer (t·m·e·c) 07:51, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * support brics, brics+, 'brics plus' is commonly used across all sources and it makes practical sense Jetsettokaiba (talk) 04:01, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Support There are news and universities using the term BRICS+ with plus sign. Could this be mentioned in the article? I guess it's not official yet.   . Web-julio (talk) 17:30, 23 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose "BRICS+' is not the official name. M.Bitton (talk) 17:35, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Discussion continues at Requested move 23 June 2024. Kindly add any further comments there.. BeLucky (talk) 12:10, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Saudi arabia also added on 2 jan 2024
Saudi arabia added on 2 jan 2024 Deepak200520 (talk) 12:36, 17 February 2024 (UTC)


 * No, it didn't, see the article body — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 12:43, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @DaxServer Have you read ? Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 08:41, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Please see the Reuters reference in the article. — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 17:16, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @DaxServer So, you think the guancha.cn is unreliable?! Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 04:31, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I have no clue what that website is. You can reach out to our editors at WP:RSN to determine the reliability — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 08:00, 22 February 2024 (UTC)


 * The Reuters article is based on a comment to Reuters by "an unnamed Saudi Official", which is hardly a statement by the Royal Saudi Government. How about Bloomberg: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-01-31/brics-gets-boost-as-saudi-arabia-joins-group-of-emerging-nations 14.2.196.234 (talk) 23:47, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry no. Reuters reported they haven't — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 08:59, 24 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Sorry, triple yes. The BBC says the Saudis are in. The Japan Times says the Saudis are in. Bloomberg reports that the chair of BRICS - South Africa - says they are in. Reuters reports that an unnamed source says they are not. Who is the more reliable source - the Foreign Minister of South Africa or an "unnamed source". Can we at least pretend that we are being impartial regarding this article? 14.2.196.234 (talk) 07:29, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Reuters report is the latest reporting on the issue and thus invalidates other reports that you quoted — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 09:21, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
 * BTW, the BBC quotes Reuters' report from Jan 31 but did not consider the following report  because the BBC updated their article at Feb 1 13:59 GMT while the Reuters report was published at 16:48 GMT. Japan Times is a Reuters syndication from Jan 3. — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 09:30, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
 * You have yet to explain how an unnamed source allegedly talking to Reuters takes precedence over a statement by the South African Foreign Minister. It hardly meets WP:RELIABLE - we don't use content provided by unnamed sources anywhere else on the encyclopedia. 182.239.146.143 (talk) 03:19, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Try reading Source protection — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 18:04, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I would love to recall for a re-judge for reliability of Reurters, @DaxServer Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 04:48, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:RSN is thatway — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 08:30, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @DaxServer Note that you have pinged at zhwiki due to the same Reuters source, where the same Reuters source cited by zhwiki is described as "Saudi Arabia confirmed to officially participant in the BRICS (沙特阿拉伯确认正式加入金砖)" Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 04:12, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Liuxinyu970226 I don't speak the said language — DaxServer (t·m·e·c) 08:36, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Also it's "you have been pinged" or "I have pinged you" but not "you have pinged" — DaxServer (t·m·e·c) 09:10, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Why on earth a swath of sources and the majority opinion on this discussion thread is being overruled by one stubborn editor?
 * Can we overrule him already? Hes wrong and therefore is making the article misinformation seeing as Saudi Arabia IS in BRICS. 190.210.75.136 (talk) 00:01, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * He's not wrong. Saudi Arabia has not officially joined BRICS yet. Bloomberg said 4 days ago that Saudi Arabia is "studying" the idea of joining. Business Insider, on the same day, described Saudi Arabia as a "potential BRICS candidate". They will probably become an official member, but they have not yet, unless you've read something that I haven't. Philomathes2357 (talk) 01:39, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * So every news agency is wrong, south African leader is wrong, every video on YouTube reporting on this is wrong, everyone is saying the same thing but they're all wrong and they're all just letting us believe something that never happened... why? Are you saying Saudi Arabia, BRICS and the whole universe of news agencies are all conspiring to not come out and clarify saudia Arabia's actual position? The entire world is repeating this supposedly false information being propelled and they're like "nah, let's not correct them", is that what you're saying?
 * idk how this websites hierarchy system works, but can we just override it already? This is bonkers. It's like we're giving ears to a delusional conspiracy plant that's trying to gaslight all of us (and Wikipedia readers) into something everyone knows not to be true? he's whole theory lies on one unsourced unbacked Reuters story that's now being repropagated... Isn't that how fake news work? 201.216.219.251 (talk) 02:22, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Saudi Arabia did agree to join BRICS, and that was widely reported at the time. But then, Saudi Arabia took a step back and said that they would like to think things through in more detail before officially joining. So, their membership is in a state of limbo. It's a bit confusing, which is why some news outlets and YouTube videos say that Saudi Arabia has joined, without addressing the nuance. They will probably join at some point in the near future, especially if the "petroyuan" is adopted, which is currently being discussed, but that remains to be seen. Philomathes2357 (talk) 03:36, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Relevance of China sovereignty note
Is there really a good reason for the note about China's sovereignty? I don't think it's particularly relevant to China's membership of BRICS and it's only used in the members table, nowhere else. Can it just be removed? Voltaic181 (he/him) (talk) 18:04, 11 April 2024 (UTC)


 * I agree - while theoretically truthful, this seems too tangential to the article and table in question. I can see it being merged into note [c] though, with a brief mention of total claimed area vs controlled area. IdentityCrisis (talk) 03:45, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 May 2024
Memebers newly included in BRICS include saudi arabia not mentioned here. Sejalchaturvedi (talk) 11:36, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. we mention that Saudi Arabia has been invited to join but has not apparently accepted yet. Need a source to support if they've joined Cannolis (talk) 11:45, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 May 2024
Saudi Arabia has joined BRICS. Source -. Add that too. 2409:4073:495:B3E8:5450:46BA:D773:38D7 (talk) 14:42, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: It didn't. Please see the sections above — DaxServer (t·m·e·c) 15:01, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @DaxServer Have you ever read ? Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 05:29, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 June 2024
72.39.200.116 (talk) 02:29, 21 June 2024 (UTC) Thailand has now joined BRICS 72.39.200.116 (talk) 02:29, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.   [[User:CanonNi ]]  (talk • contribs) 02:31, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 23 June 2024

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. The week-long discussion saw a very strong consensus not to move. (closed by non-admin page mover) — kashmīrī  TALK  21:28, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

BRICS → BRICS+ – See Talk:BRICS. Web-julio (talk) 17:38, 23 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I started an official voting per . Web-julio (talk) 19:10, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * neutral - I don't really care either way I just wanted to chime in ;P.
 * thanks Daisytheduck (talk) 07:22, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * maybe a redirect do be a good compromise Daisytheduck (talk) 06:44, 28 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose: What is the basis of using BRICS+? By my count, BRICS is still the common name used in most news and scholarly sources and I don't see anything about the organization adopting this name. Yeoutie (talk) 22:28, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: WikiProject Brazil, WikiProject Russia, WikiProject Organizations, WikiProject Trade, WikiProject China, WikiProject Economics, WikiProject International relations, Noticeboard for India-related topics, WikiProject Brazil/Government and Laws of Brazil task force, WikiProject Politics, and WikiProject South Africa have been notified of this discussion. RodRabelo7 (talk) 00:35, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose: BRICS is still the common name and the organization's official name. Also some evidence from Google Scholar:
 * 408,000 results for "BRICS"
 * 916 results for "BRICS Plus"
 * 202 results for "BRICS+"
 *   [[User:CanonNi ]]  (talk • contribs) 01:19, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose: It is called BRICS. - Altenmann >talk 01:23, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: WikiProject Egypt, WikiProject Ethiopia, WikiProject United Arab Emirates, WikiProject Iran, and WikiProject Globalization have been notified of this discussion. Web-julio (talk) 01:26, 24 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose, not a common name. Ratnahastin  (talk) 02:21, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose nothing has changed to indicate the term is now the new common name — DaxServer (t·m·e·c) 07:52, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose, by far not a common name. RodRabelo7 (talk) 04:25, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose, the official name is the common name. M.Bitton (talk) 22:46, 25 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose: It's not the official name as used by the organization/group. And also not some popular media acronym. This addition of '+' in the end is seems to be inspired by/similar of the LGBTQ+/LGBTQ move requests but there also it wasn't adopted: LGBT Requested_move_28_May_2022 and LGBT Requested_move_14_February_2018. --BeLucky (talk) 11:47, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose: official name is BRICS, BRICS+ is a term used by some journalists. 138.75.48.240 (talk) 06:46, 30 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Note: WikiProject Saudi Arabia has been notified of this discussion. Web-julio (talk) 17:20, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Saudi Arabia is part of BRICS
Information needs to be updated to include Saudi Arabia. It is a full member of BRICS. 122.150.166.109 (talk) 02:46, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Info can be found here, amongst other sources: https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/saudi-state-tv-says-kingdom-officially-begins-membership-brics-bloc-2024-01-02/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.150.166.139 (talk) 02:54, 26 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Will add. Web-julio (talk) 17:19, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

"The most recent BRICS leaders' summit took place virtually on 23 June 2022 hosted by China."
What about the one in South Africa last year? If needed, I can amend this. SirShaunIV (talk) 16:45, 16 July 2024 (UTC)