Talk:Great power/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Great power. 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://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761590309/Great_Powers.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160211162346/http://www.hcss.nl/reports/why-are-pivot-states-so-pivotal-the-role-of-pivot-states-in-regional-and-global-security/150/ to http://www.hcss.nl/reports/why-are-pivot-states-so-pivotal-the-role-of-pivot-states-in-regional-and-global-security/150/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:22, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Ottoman Empire

Did the Ottoman Empire really qualify as a Great Power between 1815 and 1900, because it certainly wasn't treated like one. It was excluded from the major conferences attended by Britain, France, Russia, Prussia (Germany), Austria (Austria-Hungary) and Italy after unification. It had a miniscule economy significantly smaller than Argentina or even Canada and Australia by the start of the 20th Century, it had little to no industrial base, a significantly smaller population and was not only overwhelmingly illiterate, but significantly poorer than their average Brit, Frenchman, German, Italian, American, Japanese, Austrian or even Russian counterpart. It was left out o the Great Power alliance system. As for it's armed forces? It had little to no air power. It had a small, poorly trained, poorly led Navy that in the Italo-Turkish war failed to even graze an Italian vessel in any of their Naval engagements let alone kill or wound their sailors. It had an army of varying quality. Many times their soldiers showed great bravery, but they still mobilized less men than any major power in World War 1, fought battles with less intensity... certainly than the ones being fought on the Western Front, the Eastern Front or even the Italian Front. And were completely dependent on foreign equipment. They couldn't build their own ships, planes, artillery etcetera.Redbird 41 (talk) 21:25, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

I fully share your opinion (see my subsection above). Postion of Ottoman Empire is sourced by one book, but nobody was able to provide exact page... Pavlor (talk) 06:08, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Yeah. The World Wars were industrial wars. Britain, France, Germany, Russia, the United States, Austria-Hungary, Italy and Japan were all capable of producing there own artillery, submarines, battleships, planes, tanks and other weapons en masse. The Ottoman Empire would be the only one on the list that was completely dependent on foreign powers for equipment. The Ottoman Empire was certainly a Great Power at one point, but between the Napoleonic Wars and World War 1, I don't think it was. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redbird 41 (talk • contribs) 16:33, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Listing Ottoman Empire as Great Power between 1815 - 1900 and in the same period (or at least from victory over Mexico in 1848 on) not listing United States as Great Power is, at least, ridiculous. Furthermore, the chart with Ottoman Empire listing as Great Power between 1815 - 1900 is not even consistent with the article itself, which claims The Congress of Vienna consisted of five main powers: the Austrian Empire, France, Prussia, Russia, and the United Kingdom. These five primary participants constituted the original great powers as we know the term today. Other powers, such as Spain, Portugal, and Sweden, which was a great power during the 17th century, were consulted on certain specific issues, but they were not full participants. Of the five original great powers recognised at the Congress of Vienna, only France and the United Kingdom have maintained that status continuously to the present day, although France was defeated in the Franco-Prussian War and occupied during World War II. and The Eight-Nation Alliance was a belligerent alliance of eight nations against the Boxer Rebellion in China. It formed in 1900 and consisted of the five Congress powers plus Italy, Japan, and the United States, representing the great powers at the beginning of 20th century. Yes, Ottoman Empire was a great power before 1815 such as Spain that is also not listed among great powers after 1815. Ottoman Empire was not officially recognized as Great Power at Congress of Vienna in 1815 nor was a member of The Eight-Nation Alliance in 1900. Ottoman Empire was a participant at Congress of Berlin in 1878, but only due to their participation in the Russo-Turkish War (1877–1878) and at this congress itself played distinctly different role in comparison with other six participants considered to be great powers.

Sources claiming Ottoman Empire was NOT Great power in the 19th century: , , , Lucullus19 (talk) 08:39, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Feel free to do neccessary changes - it seems there is consensus not to include the Ottoman Empire among great powers of the late 19th century. Pavlor (talk) 19:05, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

The Ottoman Empire was a former superpower just like the Spanish and Portugese empires, these empires were once the dominating force in the world but declined after the 16th century. They never managed to fully industrialize because of their Catholic and Islamic backgrounds. Industrialization was a common process in countries that had enjoyed reform and rejected the church, examples of these countries are: Germany, France, Great Britain and Japan (Russia began to industrialize after the October Revolution). I agree that the Ottoman Empire should not be listed because they were called the sick man of Europe in the 19th century. I never understood why it was listed as a Great Power anyway. Redman19 (talk) 19:19, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

What about the Ataturk era? 84.241.202.166 (talk) 21:27, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Ataturks Turkey came close but it went down after his death. Not even a middle power in my opinion. Redman19 (talk)

I disagree, Turkey IS a middle power since they have a sphere of influence in the Middle East which makes them a regional power. 77.166.30.3 (talk) 11:55, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

@Redman19: Catholic church influence was strong in Austria-Hungary until its dissolution, but it was still highly industrialized country. Cultural/religious background may be important, but certainly isn´t paramount. Pavlor (talk) 05:43, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

It wasn't that highly industrialized, at least not like the German Empire. Redman19 (talk) 06:35, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

However, certainly more than Italy or Japan. Comparable to mainland France in heavy industry output. Pavlor (talk) 06:42, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't think they were more industrialized than Japan, Japans transformation is unparalleled in world history, they managed to fully industrialize in just three decades. Redman19 (talk) 08:11, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Do not forget Japan was a feudal country before the Meiji Restoration, it is after all an Asian country. Asians were viewed as inferior in that era, so Japans transformation and status as a major power should not be underestimated. Redman19 (talk) 08:15, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

See our own article about Economy of Austria-Hungary and even more about various sections of industry in the main Austria-Hungary article (with references to various books). Austria-Hungary had powerful economy, but was crippled by inept political system and continuous national strife. Pavlor (talk) 09:10, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

One blow to "Great Power" Britain

So, it turns out that the British had to run away with their nominee from the International Court of Justice after an eyeball to eyeball confrontation with India. For the first time in history, the ICJ will be without a British judge. Ominous signs for "Great Power" like United Kingdom? Who knows? It's almost like a "Great Power" like Britain is unable to hold its own on the international stage versus a tiny "regional power" like India. On the good side, the British still have this Wikipedia page. Good for them.

Empire of Brazil

Brazil should be included 2A02:A44E:A90C:1:15E5:E56B:5F8:1B14 (talk) 19:10, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Then provide strong source supporting Empire of Brazil as Great Power in 19th century. Pavlor (talk) 05:45, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

The Empire of Brazil never held Great Power status. 77.166.30.3 (talk) 11:53, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Brazil is an emerging power but still has a role of middle power in global affairs. AlfaRocket (talk) 13:38, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Great power. 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://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761590309/Great_Powers.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161011200310/http://www.hcss.nl/reports/download/150/2483/ to http://www.hcss.nl/reports/download/150/2483/
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.eurasia-rivista.org/italia-150-anos-de-uma-pequena-grande-potencia/7478

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:27, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Cite error

I noticed a cite error in the reference list, someone should take a look. Redman19 (talk) 08:16, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Great power. 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/20130415232842/http://books.sipri.org/product_info?c_product_id=458 to http://books.sipri.org/product_info?c_product_id=458

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:23, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Italy? Seriously?

Italy as a "great power" and even mentioned as an "economic powerhouse". Amazingly, India's claim is shown to be a lot weaker than that of Italy. Let's do a quick comparison:

Who has the bigger economy? India

Who has nuclear weapons? India

Who has a space program? India

Who has a larger population? India

Who has a larger land area? India

Oops... but India does have one massive drawback:

Who has whiter skin? Italy...

Congratulations Italy on being an "economic powerhouse". At least somewhere on God's green earth, someone thinks so... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.3.29.252 (talk) 15:58, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Italy was undisputed great power until WW2. Today status is more problematic and most scholars rate Italy as middle power (all this is written in the article). In fact, this article treats Italy and India the same - both show features of great power, but lack in other aspects. Both countries have similar nominal GDP (Italy much higher GDP/capita), both countries have technological capacity to produce nuclear weapons (India is nuclear weapons state, India participates only in NATO sharing) and both countries have space program (don´t forget ESA). I bet India will become next recognised great power in few decades, but it will be hard task with so much social problems (eg. poverty). Pavlor (talk) 23:06, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I am sure there are lots of scholars out there who consider Italy an "economic powerhouse". Good that the article managed to find them. This sentence should be framed in gold and used in Ripley's Believe it or not :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.194.20.62 (talk) 05:11, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

I am sooo thrilled. People have so many references proving that Italy is an "economic powerhouse" and "great power". Hopefully Greece, Portugal and Spain will be added to the list so that all the PIGS countries can feel great about themselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.194.13.212 (talk) 13:28, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

STOP with your Hate against Italy! it seems that you have several prejudices against Italy. as well you aren't Indian. and I'm speechless of your lack of knowledge of the term " Economic Powerhouse". since two days that you trying to delete Italy . Educate yourself and Look at the Export and to the Global Trade , Italy is a leading Exporting country , as well Italy have the Third Gold reserve of the World, as well Italy have almost 10 trillion of Dollars of National wealth , as well the Financial wealth of Italy is the seventh of the world and the International Monetary Fund have give the Seventh Veto Power to Italy ( it means that Italy is Powerful!, Don't try to say that Italy is like Spain or Greece!, in this section , all people that write on the page are smart, The only exception is you!) . as well Italy have one of the Largest National Spaces Agencies of the world, as well Italy is a Nuclear Sharing country of the NATO , the Italian planes (Panavia Tornado) train with H- Bombs (B61) How to deploy in a case of war. Your lack of knowledge Is embarrassing. Both India and Italy deserve the Status of Great powers. -- LuigiPortaro29 (talk)21:17, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

I have no prejudices against Italy dude. Nuclear sharing... ROFL! Don't get so angry. A Wikipedia page doesn't decide what a great power is. We brown Indians know that white Europeans are very insecure people, clinging quite desperately to their place in the world. Nuclear Sharing... ROFL! I guess India should be included as a "Great Power" from 1858-1945 as it was "sharing" in the British Empire. Not just Italy, NO European country deserves to be listed as a "Great power" as of today. Because the most fundamental thing a great power must have is SOVEREIGNTY. And European countries are mere vassals in the American Empire. So, not Britain, not France, not Germany, not Italy. Because the status of "great power" cannot be applied to non-sovereign entities that are mere vassal states. I am sure Europeans have created comforting illusions of sovereignty thanks to their benevolent American masters, but reality is reality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.192.106.162 (talk) 13:38, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, if you have some ideas for article improvement, go ahead. Note bold statements like disputed sovereign status of European countries should be referenced by strong reliable source... Pavlor (talk) 14:42, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

I see your  hate  against European Countries Especially  of those of the Big four ( France, Germany, Italy and UK).And I am not surprised, after so many years of English domination, there is always someone who is resentful. Here in the Talk page we Talk with moderation, But you still laughing like a child of 1 year  . all sources that I cited Before are REAL . You must not to laugh to real Things, why is the Reason to laugh at  Sharing Nuclear Programs?, are you ok?. that helps also for have a Strong voice in Global choices. , for example Look at the countries that Partecipate in the "Syrian peace process",  USA/ Big Four (or NATO QUINT), Russia and China  partecipate ( all these countries have H Bombs  or Sharing Programs)  also in the Group partecipate  others regional players.  so you don't need to laugh at all. India have nuclear bombs and have an economy  that is Fast Growing as well and with the time will have more Power in the IMF,UN and the Global trade, as well with time India will Have a great national wealth.  And I think it's the right thing, for years or centuries and millenniums, that the Indian people also wants their slice in the Global Choices.--LuigiPortaro29 (talk) 16:25, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Why would I hate Europeans man? I understand rather the resentment of being a PIGS country that has always been the joke of both Europe and the world. Listen, America has a federal set up. The Federal Govt controls defense, foreign affairs while the states have a high level of independence in regulating their internal affairs. They have extended this model in setting up the American Empire in Europe. European countries are allowed to decide their internal affairs (for the most part) while foreign affairs and defense are under control of the United States government. Yeah, they politely call it a "sharing agreement". It's nothing new. All Empires have done it. In fact, there were as many as 550 Indian "sovereign" states within the British Empire. All of them were technically equals of the British Emperor and had signed "treaties of friendship" with the British monarch. Did you know all those "sovereign" Indian kings had promised to contribute soldiers to the British Emperor out of "free will" and "friendship"? Those are like your NATO "sharing agreements". Doesn't mean India wasn't under the British Empire and it doesn't mean that European countries are not today under the American Empire. You are "sharing" power with your American masters under roughly the same terms as every emperor from Alexander onwards has offered to his vassal states. Get it now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.139.128.17 (talk) 11:17, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Last time I checked we had no such "unequal" treaties with the US... I must remind you this talk page is for discussion about improvement of the article, not general talk. Pavlor (talk) 12:17, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

well my friend, you started here the Discussion talking about the inclusion of Italy, and After to showing you with Facts what means the term of Millenia Sterio " Economic Powerhouse" , you still talking about things without sense, Here we aren't talking about Portugal, Ireland, Greece and Spain. since you talked about PIGS term, I remember you even if those Countries have financial problems , they still are in the Developed world,Their inhabitants no starve of food like in other third world countries. and as you started the discussion talking about Italy I refresh you what is Italy . Italy is one of the cradle of Western culture, Italy is the center of religion of the Roman Catholic Church, the Renaissance was born in Italy, The alphabet that we use all here is Latin, Italy is famous for its Classical music such as Verdi, Vivaldi or Rossini, Opera, Piano, Violin, Concert all these things are Born in Italy . and also for Important inventions as the Battery, the Radio, the First Telephone, , the Nuclear reactor etc. Italy also is well known thanks to Ferrari of the F1, also for the Fashion and living style , etc. and as Trump said yesterday and not only him also Obama, Bush And others "Italy is a great player in the international scene", Trump yesterday in conference with Italian Prime Minister said : Italy is the second nation for military contributions and Training in Iraq and Afghanistan. Italians are well trained as one of the best in the world, and this are not my words, this are words Of Trump (Yesterday), Obama (October 2016) and others. So my Friend we need to agree that You must Stop with your hate against EU Countries. I have Respect for India and I believe that India is an emerging Power and deserve the Status of Great power too.--LuigiPortaro29 (talk) 23:16, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Italy was a great power during WWII, however during the Italian unification Italy lacked industrialization. 2A02:A44E:A90C:1:15E5:E56B:5F8:1B14 (talk) 19:08, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Italy was a joke during WWII and before WWI. They had a weaker army than the Germans during WWII, no proper tanks, aircrafts nor commanders and personnel. They lost a war against the people they wanted to colonize in Africa. To me they were the weakest of the Geat Powers in the 19th century. 84.241.202.166 (talk)

Japan being an Asian country was much more stronger than Italy from 1888 to 1945. Italy was def the biggest joke of the GP. 84.241.202.166 (talk)

White Europeans are insecure? you think Germans are insecure? I admire German history, culture and their contributions to science and technology. If India was that smart, they would have established a welfare state by now, the Germans managed to do that in 1871, cut the crap pal, it seems that you have a serious inferiority complex. Redman19 (talk) 21:00, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

if we start to discussing with a tone of a child of the Kindergarten, then we can become in this section the notebook of a Child , I talk in Base of there comments of one person here Which are out of place. Here we're discussing about Italy and India and we have agreed or "Still talking" that Both countries are great, it is Stupid to talk about Japan or Italy or about the Italian campaign in Africa of the WWII. LuigiPortaro29 (talk)07:48, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

There's a huge literature, since the Italian unification to the present day, that regards Italy as the "Least of the great powers". So it's kinda borderline, but remember there's no definite list of Great powers (some don't even see France or Germany as great powers).

Italy was seen as the sixth great power by Austria, Prussia, France, the UK and Russia after its unification. Italy enjoyed industrialization, even though it was limited to the North (mainly the industrial triangle Milan-Genoa-Turin). It was part of the alliance of the eight great powers that supressed the Boxer Rebellion along with the five powers of the Congress of Vienna + the US + Japan. And since 1882 it was part of the Triple Alliance with Germany and Austria.

Because of its victory in the Alpine front, Italy was recognized as a principal allied power during the Versaille conference and was then included among the permanent members of the League of Nations.

Between the two wars Italy formed a pretty vast Empire, annexing Ethiopia into Italian East Africa along with Somalia and Eritrea + merging the colonies of Libya into one + some territories close to Italy that the nationalists wanted. All of that with no opposition from the League of Nations, because the League was ineffective against Great powers.

Then Italy was among the three recognized great powers of the Axis, you may argue it was the weakest of the three, but still a great power. After WWII, Italy lost most of its colonial Empire but that would have happened anyway since decolonization was about to come.

Since WWII to present day Italy has constantly been the third power of continental Europe (wheter you look at the GDP, exports, population, national wealth, contribution to international security, contact groups) and that has granted Italy a seat in various organizations (a founding member of the EU, part of the Nuclear sharing program, the G7, Quint, etc etc). So interestingly Italy has mantained that very status with different means, more appropriate for a globalized unipolar/bipolar world. Barjimoa (talk) 11:03, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

India and Italy are both great nations, it is true that Italy has more National wealth and gold, but India have 1,300 m. of persons!. AlfaRocket (talk) 13:39, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

I have made these equation. if India has 110-120 nuclear Bombs of 60 kilotons and Italy has 70-90 H bombs of 170 Kilotons for share and eventually use it in case of war. for Kilotons Italy is more powerful, Im using the Bombs of each with more Kilotons.

Italy 11,900-15,300 Kilotons THE DOUBLE than India! India 6,600-7,200 Kilotons!. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.74.18.81 (talk) 10:21, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Countries with more money( GDP nominal 2018 + National wealth- data 2017).

US 113,763,000 trillions China 42,120,000 Japan 28,742,000 Germany 17,6444.000 UK 16,733.000 France 15,739,000 Italy 12,903.000 Canada 9,167,000 Australia 8,809,000 South Korea 8,186,000 India 7.637.000 Spain 6,265,000

Removing Britain

What about removing Britain from great power list. After Brexit, Britain is in a steep dive, from a gradual decline. The recent report of it not even able to get support at U.N, makes one wonder whether Britain do have any power left. Deltadive (talk) 01:12, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

This would require plenty of high quality sources to show that opinion about great power status of UK changed among the scholars... Pavlor (talk) 06:05, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

change great current powers map

please, change the map of the current great powers...in the current map, there isn't Italy(considered a great power) and there aren't great economic emergent powers(Brazil and India)...please enter this maphttps://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/d/df/20140217003455!Great_Powers_Map.png Enter either this, or a map that includes,in addition to the great conventional powers (uk, usa, france, russia, china), the great economic power (germany and japan and the last of the great powers, italy ... which however always great power is) and the 2 superpowers emerging (Brazil and India)

I am inabile to do this due technical problem, thank you so much — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.34.106.102 (talk) 16:22, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Removing Turkey

So a while back, we had Turkey on the list with good reason and actual SOURCES. Can somebody explain why we removed it? If not I will come back with two dozen sources all ready to be put in the timeline with Turkey too. between 1800 and 1900 it was a world power. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgepodros (talk • contribs) 19:45, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

The Ottoman Empire shrank dramatically in the 19th century. It was known as the "Sick Man of Europe" and lost most of its wars. The period 1878-1923 in particular was catastrophic, and it ceased to exist. The Republic of Turkey is not and was never a great power. Khirurg (talk) 16:56, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

I don´t think you will find any good source supporting the Ottoman Empire as a great power in the 19th century. Pavlor (talk) 17:15, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Status of talk page

As I scroll through the talk page I do not see a single discussion that isn't tainted by the influence of Sock puppets. It might be best if the talk page is blanked and any discussions that anyone wants to continue start over to remove the sockpuppet influence. I don't think they need to be archived, the discussions shouldn't be used in the future for reference as they don't mean anything. Anyone have any concerns with just removing all the conversations on this talk page? ~ GB fan 14:29, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Fell free to blank the talk page. It is (mostly) me discussing with socks. I don´t think other two real editors involved (LuigiPortaro29, Adamgerber80) would object, but I can´t of course speak for them. As far as I´m concerned, only interesting part is my brief research in recent scholarly sources about great powers, which I can repost for future use. This page is attracting socks (my country is greater than yours...), I´m not sure even new discussion would lead to a clear consensus (we can´t base new consensus on 2:1 stance of three editors). I tried to invite people from wiki-projects at the top of this talk page - with next to no success in this regard. Pavlor (talk) 16:25, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

I have removed all the discussions that are tainted by sockpuppets. I have left the sources for discussion inserted by Pavlor. If anyone objects please revert. ~ GB fan 17:51, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Sources for discussion

After nearly two weeks of research, I selected the following sources (published 2015-2017; one from 2011 for an historical perspective) with content related to "great power" status. There seems to be consensus on superpower status of the US and above of other powers status of China, with UNSC5+Germany and Japan mentioned among great powers. Status of India and Brazil is more problematic (some consider them great powers, some don´t). Again, feel free to propose other journals we could use for this discussion.

My summaries and selected citations:

• Friedner Parrat, Charlotta (2017). "On the Evolution of Primary Institutions of International Society". International Studies Quarterly. 61 (3): 623–630. doi:10.1093/isq/sqx039.

Author reviews, criticizes, and adjusts the theory of the English School of international relations to systemize how the practice-based primary institutions of international society relate to treaty-based secondary institutions contained in international organizations. (p. 623)

Exclusive reasoning (would to be great power needs recognition of its peers): "For would-be permanent members of the Security Council, they can hardly become “real” great powers without being acknowledged as such by securing a permanent seat at the council. This applies even for those states that participate in the primary institution of great power management in other arenas (for instance, under the auspices of the G7)." (p. 629)

• Brooks, Stephen G.; Wohlforth, William C. (2016). "The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers in the Twenty-first Century: China's Rise and the Fate of America's Global Position". International Security. 40 (3): 7–53. doi:10.1162/ISEC_a_00225. (open access)

"We find that the United States will long remain the world’s sole superpower, but that China’s economic ascent is a major change that deserves the intense focus it has attracted. It has put China in a class by itself, one that the polarity concept cannot capture: greater than other major powers such as Germany, Japan, and Russia but nowhere near a peer of the United States." (p. 9)

(tables using different power criteria also mention Britain, France, India a Brazíl)

Tables:

Defense Expenditures (US, China, Japan, Germany, Russia, France, Britain, India, Brazil; p. 17)

military capacity (Command of the Commons: US, China, France, Russia, Britain, India; p. 20)

technological capacity

Technological Inputs: US, China, Japan, Germany, Russia, France, Britain, India, Brazil; p. 23

Technological Output and Influence Indicators: US, China, Japan, Germany, France, Britain; p. 25

Economic capacity

Economic Indicators for the Major Powers: US, China, Japan, Germany, Russia, France, Britain, India, Brazil; p. 27

Real Historical Gross Domestic Product, 1969–2014: US, EU, China; p. 28

• Gilley, Bruce (2016). "Conclusion: Delusions of grandeur in the Goldilocks Zone". International Journal: Canada's Journal of Global Policy Analysis. 71 (4): 651–658. doi:10.1177/0020702016684859.

Scholarly essay summarizing (quite bluntly) content of special issue about "middle powers"

Superpowers: US, China; Great powers: India, Japan, Germany, Russia, Britain, France "For illustrative purposes, Table 1 uses International Monetary Fund estimates of economic size to rank countries, with the additional use of United Nations Security Council (UNSC) stints since 1946 to make rank decisions at the margins. (p. 652, table on p. 653)

Delusions of status grandeur: "Any country that is rising in power, or whose middle power status is coupled with regional great power status, tends to be uncomfortable with the middle power label. Indeed, a key indicator that a country is a middle power is when its foreign policy analysts start braying against the middle power label and playing Synonymy Bingo: filling out their game cards with an ever-proliferating set of concepts that say everything except ‘‘middle’’: hinge power, principal power, positional power, rising power, bridge power, central state, model power, global governor." (p. 652, 654)

• Fareedi, Gazala (2017). "Book Review: Bharat Karnad, Why India is Not a Great Power (Yet)Why India is Not a Great Power (Yet) by Karnad Bharat. New Delhi, India: Oxford University Press, 2015. 552pp., £34.99 (h/b), ISBN 9780199459223". Political Studies Review. 15 (4): 624–625. doi:10.1177/1478929917716892.

Book review only (I had no access to the original book). Summarizes discussion about (non)great-power status of India: "The author goes on to provide an in-depth analysis of what plagues the Indian system and is restricting its ascent. He locates the problems in the lack of a national vision or will of the political class, the over bureaucratised system of governance and the weaknesses of the existing defence system which is linked to an under-emphasis on hard power and an overemphasis on soft power." (p. 624)

• MacDonald, Paul K.; Parent, Joseph M. (2011). "Graceful Decline? The Surprising Success of Great Power Retrenchment". International Security. 35 (4): 7–44. doi:10.1162/ISEC_a_00034.

About pre-2001 great powers: "We measure relative power by examining a country’s share of gross domestic product (GDP) among the great powers since 1870—the period for which we have reliable data.46"; footnote 46: "Our data come from Angus Maddison, Monitoring the World Economy, 1820–1992 (Paris: Development Center of the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development, 1995); and Angus Maddison, Contours of the World Economy, 1–2030 AD: Essays in Macro-Economic History (New York: Oxford University Press, 2007). We use a slightly different coding of what constitutes a great power than the Correlates of War. Speciªcally, we consider the following countries to be great powers: Austria 1870–1918; China 1950–2001; France 1870–1940, 1945–2001; Germany 1870–1918, 1925–1945, 1955–2001; Italy 1870–1943; Japan 1870–1945, 1952–2001; Russia/Soviet Union 1870–1917, 1922–2001; United Kingdom 1870–2001; and United States 1870–2001." (p. 22-23)

• Lee, Sang-Hwan (2015). "Global and regional orders in the 21st century in terms of multi-layered power transition theory: The cases of US–China and China–Japan relations". International Area Studies Review. 18 (3): 266–279. doi:10.1177/2233865915600397.

"A hegemonic struggle between the US and China characterizes today’s global political system. Not too long ago, at the end of 20th century, the world order was unipolar with the US as a hegemon within a multipolar structure with great powers such as the US, China and Russia in the security domain, and the US, Germany and Japan in the economy domain. It looked like a period of Pax America. The current world order, in contrast, could be described as a G2 structure within a G20 structure, which includes the G8 and regional powers. It can be regarded as a new bipolar structure – the US and China – within a multipolar structure." (p. 266-267) Pavlor (talk) 09:09, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

G’day Pavlor. Thank you for your research, I certainly haven’t gone to quite the same lengths as yourself, however, I would point to the pertinence of the less material-power-centric literature on global status. One article pointed out “that great power status did not derive automatically from a state’s capabilities, but rather was conferred through recognition”^1.. To grossly paraphrase, he argues that disconnects about power status between states result from differences in the way they self-evaluate and consider the status. Therefore, in the interest of maintaining neutrality and productive discussion (or as close to as you can get with a topic like this) perhaps the argument around classification of great power status should sit firmly in the basket of What do they do or try to do? and What do others allow them to do?. In short, constructively, a power is only great if it is treated as a great power. I’m curious of your thoughts?

1. Freedman, Joshua (2015). “Status insecurity and temporality in world politics”. European Journal of International Relations. 22 (4): 797-822. doi: 10.1177/1354066115603781 BlurryOne (talk) 04:39, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your input (I will for sure read this nice looking article). This is certainly one of the topics covered in RS - eg. article by Charlotta Friedner Parrat I listed above somewhat shares this "exclusive" reasoning. There are powers nobody disputes (US, China), or are usualy recognized as such (Russia, UK, France, Germany, Japan). Main problem is the blurry space between "great" and "middle" powers (Italy, Brazil, India etc.). Great power status of such countries has support in some RS, but is disputed in many other high quality sources. I´m inclined rather to the more "exclusive" view, which - in my POV - has better support in sources. So we are in agreement here. Pavlor (talk) 06:23, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

It seems all so cloudy. Russian economy is really insignificant like Japanese military and may be German one too. Italy and India can't be compared to Brazil. They overtake many countries considered great power in too common places and not really "academic studies". Best reports and more balanced are from studies centres (more academics there, not only a point of view or a puzzle of partial points of view).95.246.184.171 (talk) 14:49, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Defining Great Powers

A large problem with this topic is obviously the vague definition of what a great power is, which is and should be a large focus area in the article. However, the three subsections that define the characteristics, particularly Power Dimensions and Spatial Dimensions. Power Dimensions mostly is defined through two similar archaic definitions, that a great power is a nation that could defend itself (through primarily military might) against any other nation. This definition doesn't seem fitting in atomic age, where atomic powers can fully annihilate each other in mutually assured destruction. By that definition, no nation today can be a great power, as no nation can sufficiently defend themselves. This section also contains a quote from Leopold von Ranke, which is more or less the same as the previously state Duroselle's definition. The only information it adds is on the great power status of Prussia, which isn't what the section is about. Then there is Spatial Dimension subsection. Here the section focuses on the distinction between a regional and great power, defining it that great powers are nations that can exert influence on a global scale. In the worldview of the 19th century(I can provide sources for this if needed), historians and political theorists were heavily Eurocentric. However, by modern view of what a global scale means, nations like Austria-Hungary could be seen as a regional power, as they would not have influence outside of Europe. It should therefore be made clear that this definition is either based in the worldview of the historical period or not applicable to historical great powers. Theodore Schultz Iversdale (talk) 09:44, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

If you have RSs concerning definitions, please provide them, that would certainly help any discussion. As of Austria-Hungary, it was one of major world economies with economic projection over the globe (eg. military/industry deliveries to lesser powers), in rare cases Austria-Hungary demonstrated even hard power (eg. Eight-Nation Alliance). Sure, reluctance to act outside of the traditional spheres of influence is hardly appealing for a great power status, but economy and military might would place Austria-Hungary as a great power even by today standards. Pavlor (talk) 10:21, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

I admit that Austria-Hungary may have been a poor example, and so this part of the definition still stands. In regards to the power dimensions section, I suggest removing the more precise definitions defined by von Ranke and Duroselle. Instead, the Power Dimensions section should probably contain a more vague definition similar to that contained on WorldAtlas, or recognise opposing opinions to this definition. If needed, a lovely paper concerning the defining of great powers can be seen here. I hope this clarifies my original message.Theodore Schultz Iversdale (talk) 10:13, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

I see your point, but we can´t replace Ranke (as a historical example) or Duroselle (renowned historian of international relations) by second-rate (or even no-name) historians or even our own opinion (OR). Ideal sources would be papers by undisputed experts in the area of international relations (or history of international relations) published in high quality journals, or books by these authors considered authoritative in this field of study (reviews in high quality journals may help here). I don´t think any of your sources satisfies such a requirement. Pavlor (talk) 10:42, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

I can follow you here, but what I'm saying isn't that the Duroselle quote should be removed. I admit that the articles are less respected sources, and that the views of Duroselle definitely should be respected here. However, as the section stands now, they are the only definition presented, and thus the only opinion represented. By only presenting one view, even the view of a highly respected historian such as Duroselle, we are not properly representing the field. I admit that the article I found was not perfect as a source, but it still shows that it the definition presented is not the definitive definition among scholars and experts. I will also add that the paper was written by Jon Rynn, a quite respected economist and modern social philosopher. The Power Dimensions section should include take this into consideration and point out countering opinions to properly represent the fact that there isn't consensus on the definition proposed by Ranke and Duroselle.Theodore Schultz Iversdale (talk) 09:06, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Brief research in Web of Science and Scopus doesn´t show Jon Rynn is a much cited author (well, h-index 0 on Web of Science...). In fact, long dead Duroselle (with corpus of his work before 1979 and in French language) has higher h-index in these databases. Certainly not a good sign - looks like close to "no-name" author I mentioned in my post above. Pavlor (talk) 10:28, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

That's quite peculiar, as I seem to be able to find quite a lot about him. However, the databases are probably more accurate than anything I've found, so that source can be scrapped.Theodore Schultz Iversdale (talk) 11:18, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

If I could weigh in... Presently it reads quite clearly that these criteria are very subjective and implies that the 'characteristics' presented are just one - albeit prevalent - perspective. So, I wouldn't be concerned about presenting one, very important and widely accepted, perspective. That said, I do find this section somewhat problematic. Perhaps it is just the examples used or the way I am reading this but I if I go to an article on Great powers, scroll down to characteristics I would expect to see contemporary theories related to contemporary issues. As for RSs, I'm sure a bit of scratching around Mearsheimer's work or Jack Levy's work might amplify the existing sources, but make the page a little more useful in contemporary issues. After all, we have a 'history' section to talk about the great powers of 1914. I'm curious about your thoughts on this? Cheers, BlurryOne (talk) 05:40, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

@BlurryOne: Mearsheimer's views may be not universally acceepted, but his perspective would certainly improve this article (after all, it is mentioned in the further reading section). Good source. Any idea how to use it? Pavlor (talk) 05:23, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

To me it's useless. Changing or adding does not necessarily mean improving the article. The author has too many limits and criticisms. I just read Superpower article where China seems very boosted in presentation. Same for Russia.33Hudsonbay33 (talk) 09:07, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

@Pavlor: Unsure presently but I've the book coming in the mail, because that's all the motivation I need for a new purchase. @33Hudsonbay33: Classifying scales of power in international affairs will always be problematic and at least a little arbitrary. Hence why many of the talk pages for these are significantly longer than the articles themselves. I do agree that there are issues but I think it is down to being a little less specific (which might make it less politically sensitive as well) and more theoretical. Tricky - but useless? I disagree. Cheers, BlurryOne (talk) 12:07, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

I doubt your source as well as many recent sources. Many are low level and ridiculous. There is a lot of ignorance on the subject and a lot of appearing in the books of every part that often conceal the true reality. Same thing in history. Repeating, adding, removing and in any case changing is not a guarantee of quality. I disagree with your disagree.

At certain levels things change very slowly, certainly not in months or a few decades.

Continuously changing reduces credibility and the quality of this kind of articles. Better to follow lines. Perhaps today also on the web for culture there is too much democracy. 33Hudsonbay33 (talk) 06:05, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Is this a joke? Sources presented by BlurryOne are certainly far above average level. I must admit, it is somewhat hard to understand, what you wrote. Pavlor (talk) 06:19, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Why should i joke and you to be serious? Have you something showing that the book is really at a good level (universally recognized , i doubt totally)? Today academics like readers from all over the world are too low. Sometimes i think there should be 2 different views, 1 from eastern people and 1 western people. The ways to read reality are too different. Today many academics or editors are from too different countries and they value the countries with too diffent eyes. For instance many eastern people know less capitalist economy because they had (or have) comunism for too long time. Different standard of living and different ways to see world. Poverty many times is linked to nationalism. I'm sorry, but it's so. So books, academics and other aspects are really difficult to read and realize in the same way. Really difficult, mostly impossible.33Hudsonbay33 (talk) 02:25, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Well, Mearsheimer has h-index 17 and 2454 citations on Web of Science. Once you provide source from author on a similar level, we may talk. Pavlor (talk) 07:26, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Your aggressive words are sufficient to describe your level and your world. A supposed short period named globalization can't really globalize minding and having. Eastern world is still a dictatorship.

We also put the books (there are tonnes of good level books about it) where China and Russia are reported as poor and backward dictatorships. Standards for great powers are different, very different. Some are like China and Russia have black/white screen.

Many academics accuse them of inventing economic numbers. These countries seem to live the economy like the Olympics to appear. Really sufficient to desrcribe you. About source nothing changed, same low average level. Same for many many authors. I'm born free . I write when i think is right, this my answer to aggressive and negative editing.33Hudsonbay33 (talk) 10:14, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

In any case, feel free to provide sources for discussion. However, I recommend to read WP:RS first. Pavlor (talk) 05:29, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

You tell me obvious things, which i don't see done or partially done. Perhaps the best source is the Atlas. The rest are not exciting things.33Hudsonbay33 (talk) 09:32, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Is the list of great powers at the bottom of the page accurate today?

Brazil, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and India are both candidates for great power status. I heard somewhere that some consider Italy to have lost it. I was wondering what others think. 96.252.62.48 (talk) 20:48, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

What other editors think is of no importance for this article. We need high quality reliable sources to back-up any claim (by high-quality I mean papers in top peer-reviewed journals or books from renowned experts in this field, not some think-tank opinion pieces or mere news). My search in sources so far doesn´t support inclusion of countries you mentioned and status of Italy is indeed dubious (which is discussed in the article). All sources I read consider US and China as Great powers, most of them also UK, France, Russia, Germany and Japan. Inclusion of other countries (Brazil, India, Italy) is rather rare. Pavlor (talk) 05:17, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

With strange timing, a Greek IP arrives with a strange list and opens a strange paragraph trying to dwell on an empty discourse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 33Hudsonbay33 (talk • contribs) 09:00, 10 April 2019 (UTC) The clichés based on limited studies are widespread. The clichés do not mean a sufficient level of academic preparation. You can find plenty of medium power definitions for all the states mentioned as great powers except for the US and China. This just to clarify your position is not entirely clear. The Atlas of these is the only acceptable posting. The others are rubbish or almost. Better to stop being in a blind alley. Your opinions have long been known. Better not waste any more time.33Hudsonbay33 (talk) 08:39, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Atlas you mentioned certainly is not that kind of source we are looking for. Even among reliable sources, there is some hierarchy (eg. paper in high quality journal is above news item on CNN for this article - as relative strength of sources is of course topic dependent). Note linked article on worldatlas.com looks like rephrased shortened copy of this very Wikipedia article (so, no way this is a RS...). Pavlor (talk) 09:18, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

I notice everything. May be your name is from east (sounding like Pavel). Even the strange timing and the strange question of the Greek.33Hudsonbay33 (talk) 10:07, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Sweden? Seriously?

This piece names Sweden as a super power. I can't say if it's serious or just rethorical for the situation at hand.

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/sweden-new-superpower-megan-penhoet

\\ Working from home (talk) 07:50, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Not a reliable source... Pavlor (talk) 08:35, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Table of Great Powers: India, Italy and others...

About the table "Great Powers by time": -Older versions of this article only show Italy as a Great Power after WW1 until WW2. -Also, recent changes added India to the table as a Great Power on 2010 and 2020. - I also remember a very old version of this article that shows Ottoman Empire and Qing Empire.

My point here is how is the actual consensus about those 3 topics for the majority of editors? Thank you. B777-300ER (talk) 21:05, 17 January 2020

Even on sources 1 to 3, there's no sustainability for Italy and India claims to be current Great Powers. B777-300ER (talk) 23:18, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

That table is Template:List of great powers by date with its own talk page and discussion (dead-locked). I (and most high quality reliable sources) share your opinion about Italy and India. I would rather not mix the Ottoman Empire and Qing Empire among post 1815 Great Powers. Core issue here is, the template in question is independent on this very article, so it is easier for some editors to push their POV regardless of sources. Pavlor (talk) 06:40, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree with @Pavlor:and B777-300ER with Italy. I don't know about India because even though India is still a poor country in many aspects, it is also potential great power due to its huge population. But since there is consensus that Italy is by no means a great power in 2020, can anyone delete Italy for 2020? James343e (talk) 21:38, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Powers in the table...

I see after Italy and India, our poor table has a new regular: Brazil. It is obvious anyone editing the template doesn´t care about discussions on this talk page (or even the talk page of the template itself...). I don´t think this table - in its current state - adds any value to this article. Removal would be a best course of action. In the meantime, I will tag respective section. Pavlor (talk) 15:24, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

@Vcardozobr:. Pavlor (talk) 23:25, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

The table is well based on great sources from diplomats, experts and institutes around the world. Today, the biggest political actors are: US, China, Russia, UK and France, plus India, Germany, Brazil, Japan and Italy. The world of 1945 no longer represents the current world where new powers have emerged, and they have drastically changed the global balance of power. This is called globalization, and the only thing we can do is accept and move on.

I will put it bluntly, sources supporting inclusion of Italy, India and Brazil are cherry-picked and of low quality. High quality sources (respected peer reviewed journals) see them mostly as "not yet" great powers. See archive 15 for list of higher quality sources to the topic (definition of a great power). I will repeat myself: There are powers nobody disputes (US, China), or are usually recognized as such (Russia, UK, France, Germany, Japan). Main problem is the blurry space between "great" and "middle" powers (Italy, Brazil, India etc.). Great power status of such countries has support in some RS, but is disputed in many other high quality sources. Pavlor (talk) 06:10, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

India and Brazil are the main candidates with Germany and Japan to be made permanent members of the Security Council, they form the G4, and are formally supported by Russia, France and the UK, and several countries around the world. They are economic, agricultural and natural resources powers, they produce their own nuclear submarines, frigates, conventional submarines, fighters and armaments, the same with Italy, if that doesn't mean being a great power... I propose to keep these countries on the table, the sources are from highly qualified diplomats and world-renowned institutes, and the countries are members of P5 and G4, plus Italy. Recognized as the countries of a future Security Council. Vcardozobr (talk) 12:07, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

If these countries were members of the Security Council, nobody would dispute their great power status. In brief, I don´t share your assessment of sources you provided. High quality sources - not our love for some country - is the judge here (again, I recommend to read short review of several sources from the last 5 years in the archive 15 of this talk page). Pavlor (talk) 14:28, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

I totally agree with @Pavlor:. I support deleting Italy due to weak references. The references for Italy are compeltely unreliable, it says "references for Italy in 2020" and includes 7 references, yet none of them is from 2020. It is highly debatable that Italy is a supposed global power nowadays, and not other countries close to its status like Spain. Italy is much closer to Spain than to France/Germany in terms of economic and global power. Either we include both Italy and Spain, or I see no reason to include Italy in 2020. The current undisputable/clear great powers of the EU are the UK, Germany and France.

Pavlor, since there seems to be consensus that the sources for Italy are outdated, unreliable and disputable/controversial, can you delete Italy from the table? Thanks.James343e (talk) 21:31, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi@Pavlor: I think the best solution for now it is the removal of the table. I would rather not mix the pages, they are different pages with its own talk page and discussion. maintaining neutrality and productive discussion of classification of great power here is big job!.LuigiPortaro29 (talk) 06:49, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Yeah! This template is used only in two articles (this one and "List of modern great powers" - with its own share of faery tales... Romania!). It is obvious main source of contention here is a status of powers after 1945, so maybe a solution could be to trim the table (leaving only entries up to 1945) and add new states only with broader consensus. I will add a note to the template talk page about this discussion. Pavlor (talk) 08:50, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

I think the template is useful but should only be looking at dates or time periods that academics have reached consensus. The addition of 2010 & more problematic 2020 to the list has made this template rather unstable. The article should never have countries listed as of today. Academics can only know by looking in the past who were great powers so 2020 would be impossible to know. The sources for Brazil and India in 2010 & today talk about the BRICS countries and how they have the potential to be Great Powers. That does not mean nor does it say that they are great powers, only that they will most likely be in the future. So from the sources given nothing has changed since around 2000.

Also, can I point out that this template has become rather ugly as of late. A revision to one that is visually more refined like what I just shared would be better aesthetically going forth. So I was Bold and removed 2010 & 2020 for the reasons cited above and fixed its presentation. As for the ottoman empire I will have to read through the sources and I'll post what I found below. I am open one way or the other, I have schematism that it was seen as a great power back then for the reasons mentioned above, but I am open to it being included if there are high-quality sources saying it is. 51.7.116.245 (talk) 13:11, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

This table is good for historical factuality, but the 21st century powers need to be updated. There are major superpowers recognized by everyone (i.e. the United States and China), and there are the "Great Powers" such as Germany, Japan, Russia, France, and the U.K. I would classify Italy (along with Brazil and India) as an "Emerging Power", a country that isn't globally dominant, but still has enough influence to be respected on the global stage. While obviously not dominant now, the Ottoman Empire was a large power, and perhaps should be shown as such from 1815 until 1919. SwensonJ (talk) 19:51, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Reviewing what the cited sources for the Ottoman Empire as a Great Power in 1815 & 1880 said:

• 1815

1. Macedonia and the Macedonians: A History
   1. on page 51 : It talks about how the Ottoman Empire "gained great power and wealth" in the region. Notice it is in lower case and it does not mean "Great Power" as in a member of the club of Great Powers, but as in it had regional strength.
   2. On page 59 (cited) : it says "At the beginning of the nineteenth century, the Ottoman Empire was still a great power.” I do not believe they were talking about is being a Great Power (with capital letters) but as it being a regional power. I do not believe this backs up the claim
2. The Balkans Since 1453 –
   1. on page 204 : it talks about how in 1815 the ottoman empire was a great power in the near east, suggesting it was a regional power.
   2. on pages 319-320 it talks about how the UK in the 1840’s refused to let the Suez canal fall under the control of another great power so it ensured the integrity of the Ottoman Empire.
   3. on page 215 (cited) : The says “From the purely territorial viewpoint the Ottoman Empire in the early nineteenth century was still a great world power. One of the largest states in Europe, it also sprawled over vast areas … this facade of empire was impressive but substance behind the façade was very different.” It then has a sentence about how it was in decline and then I cannot read the next page. To me this is talking about how it looked like one through its size but was not one, though the next page should give clarity. From the other sources I cited inside this book I believe it was not saying it was a Great Power at the time.
3. Islam in History: Ideas, People, and Events in the Middle East
   1. on page 150 (cited) : it says “which in the nineteenth century meant the Ottoman Empire, the last surviving Muslim great power.” It is a Muslim great power, another regional power then.

• 1880

1. Conversion and Apostasy in the Late Ottoman Empire
   1. on page 24-25 : "Although I firmly believe that the fate of the Ottoman state was ultimately decided by the Ottomans themselves, we cannot deny that they operated under severe constraints, the main constraint being the claim of the Great powers to be the protectors of the Christians in the Ottoman Empire." This says that the Ottoman Empire was not a part of the Great Powers.
   2. on page 67 (cited) : “In the geographical area spanning much of what is now the Balkans and the Middle East, on one side stood the "Club of Great Powers", imbued with the ideas of the "White Man's Burden" and the "mission civilisatrice", and on the other the Ottoman empire, the only non-Christian Great Power in the region.” It appears to show that the Ottoman Empire was not seen by other nations as a Great Power at the time. Again it appears to be talking about it being a great regional power.
2. A History of Ukraine: The Land and Its Peoples
   1. on page 491 (cited) : “By the end of the nineteenth century, Europe’s great powers included Great Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Russia, and Austria-Hungary. Another power was the Ottoman Empire … Each of the great powers was afraid that its rivals would take advantage of the weakened Ottoman state, and therefore all were willing to come to the aid , at least diplomatically, of the proverbial "sick man of Europe." The cited page goes go a long way to prove that the Ottoman Empire was not a Great power. Not a good source to back this claim up.
3. Islam in History: Ideas, People, and Events in the Middle East (again)
   1. on page 150 (cited again) : it says “which in the nineteenth century meant the Ottoman Empire, the last surviving Muslim great power.” It is a Muslim great power, another regional power then.

From the sources cited I do not believe they back up the claim raised that the Ottoman Empire was seen then or now as a Great Power during these time periods. I am unsure if it was seen as such earlier but my guess would be it was. Nonetheless, the authors whose work has been cited all appear to contradict the claim that they have been used as evidence for. I am open to be proven incorrect, though I do believe other sources would be needed. 51.7.116.245 (talk) 14:06, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Pavlor, maybe we should just remove the table completely. After all, there is not really a consensus on what countries are exactly great powers as the article says. Whoever made that table found the sources for those countries, but I have the suspicion that it can be expanded or even reduced to just a few countries (like US, Russia, China) depending on the source one finds. One source claiming France as great power perhaps does not include Germany and vice-versa. For Italy the term "least of the great powers" has been used to describe it, that can count as great power or not depending on the source. "Emerging superpower" or "new great power" has been used to describe India, that can count as great power or not depending on the source. Same with Brazil, I guess. IMHO we should just remove the table completely. Otherwise there isn't much we can do. It's always going to be a problem. No academic encyclopedia gives a list of the great powers, as if one can make a list of such things. It's a term variably used, there isn't much of a consensus to have an actual definitive list.Barjimoa (talk) 12:16, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Keep the table. Historians largely agree on the matter with various lists that include or drop a few marginal cases. Fact is historians and their textbooks use the term all the time and Wiki users are well served. It is not Wikipedia's job to announce the "real" listing or to erase all this work. Rjensen (talk) 12:32, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

In what form? Ending with 1945? Or 2000? Or even later? What powers include then? Even dubious ones like Italy and (name your favourite regional power here...)? Should we continue to use this template (which may anynone rewrite without changing a single bit in the article itself), or should we create our own table for this very article? (note this template is used only in two articles) Pavlor (talk) 12:59, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Rjensen, the table is good. Just make sure that those sources are reliable. I think up to the year 2000 works. An emerging great power is not a great power, it is a potential one. So they should not be included. As for Italy, please go through the sources cited as I did above and review what they say. If it isn't from a reliable academic source or if the source does not back up the claims then please remove it. It also does not matter how many pages use that template, that is not an argument for its exclusion. It is harder for people who do not know Wikipedia to edit templates, so using one is a good way to try and reduce edit wars, even though they can still occur. 51.7.116.182 (talk) 18:54, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

I have both this article and that template in my watchlist and I can assure you both have their fair share of edit-warring. This is the very reason I started this discussion. Pavlor (talk) 04:18, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

I did say that it's a good way to try and reduce edit wars, even though they can still occur. Looking over the edit history of the page and the template it appears that this was an edit war on the main article that got brought into the template. If you question the validity of the inclusion of a country during a time period cited, then look at the sources. I read through the cited books on the Ottoman Empire as I was genuinely curious what they said and reported my findings above. 51.7.116.182 (talk) 04:44, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Italy c.2000

I noticed you brought up objections to Italy being included for the year 2000. Would you be willing to do the same for the sources on Italy to see if they are indeed correct for the cited year and of academic quality? If they pass both then I am unsure what objection you'd have. If they don't agree that Italy was a great power around the year 2000 then they should be removed. If you question the academic weight from the sources used, then I think that is a discussion that should be had. 51.7.116.182 (talk) 04:44, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

I mentioned this topic earlier in the discussion. In archive 15, you may find my brief research of recent academic sources concerning the Great power topic (that was during a sock-puppet-infested 2010+ Great powers discussion). Inclusion of Italy is carefully cherry-picked. There are some sources claiming Italy is a Great power, but for most high quality sources Italy lost Great power status during WW2. Pavlor (talk) 05:01, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

I looked through it but I did not see a discussion that goes through the Italian sources. I believe I must have missed them and I apologise for that. Can you bring those findings here so we can have a discussion? You say that some do support its inclusion, but you do not believe they are high-quality sources. I hope that my analysts of the Ottoman Sources might help end that topic, let's figure out the Italian one then. 51.7.116.182 (talk) 14:38, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

First , we should do not mix pages. that topic belongs to the Template:List of great powers by date

Second, Wikipedia is not about the truth, but about reporting what reliable sources say. Wikipedia's job as well is not to announce the "real" listing powers. note that all High sources are nothing when comes to diplomacy between countries. every Academic have its own opinion; I have also Doubts if Japan is a great power, Recognition is stronger than capabilities. and as for Italy the problems started when Italy was added in the year 2010 not the year 2000.LuigiPortaro29 (talk) 17:46, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

We have no other choice than to discuss this issue on one place. The table (template) is meaningless without this very article (it is used only in ONE other article). Note I posted link to this discussion on the template talk page, so watchers/interested parties may be aware of it. Pavlor (talk) 04:23, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

I will restate, it does not matter how many pages use a template. The number of pages that use a template is not a reason to remove a template. As was stated above by LuigiPortaro29, Wikipedia reports what reliable sources say. One's personal opinion should not come into play, only what the evidence shows. I am fully open to either side on this argument about Italy in 2000. Facts and evidence provided should decide it's inclusion or exclusion. Make your case one way or the other about it and let us see what the evidence provided shows. We should also verify if they are indeed from reliable academic sources that can be trusted. 51.7.116.182 (talk) 00:23, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

I don´t think you got my point (my English language skills are rather limited). That template and this article are inseparately intertwined - in its current state, the template exists only to allow changes independent on the consensus in this article. That is why it makes sense to have a centralized discussion about its form and place in our article. As of your request, I recommend to (re)read what I wrote in archive 15 ([1] direct link for your convenience). Most important part: Italy is mentioned only once (as a Great power until 1943...). Pavlor (talk) 04:30, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

You might want to re-check the cited sources for Italy in 2000 as none that you commented on in the link were listed in the current citations. Please can you talk about the ones currently cited? Unless they are pertinent to your argument against the current sources cited for Italy in 2000 and if that's the case please state why here so we can discuss that. Thanks. 51.7.116.182 (talk) 05:18, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

First, sources I listed are of higher quality, 2) sources in the table (only first three are really useable) are a prime example of cherry-picking (you may find similar sources mentioning India or Brazil). The core issue here is due weight: you may find few somewhat good sources supporting inclusion of several countries in the blury space between "middle" and "great" powers, but most high quality sources would not call these countries "Great powers". This was the very reason for my brief research of recent scholarship in this area of study: to see broader consensus. Pavlor (talk) 06:01, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

I went through the trouble of reviewing all sources cited for the Ottoman Empire and posted my findings above. Can you do the same for Italy? I'd rather not do that again. If you believe they are of undue weight then please let's talk about that. 51.7.116.182 (talk) 12:40, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

I fear I´m not able to express myself good enough. In the first three sources (first 3 references for Italy), Italy is mentioned among Great powers and these are OK sources. My point is: much more sources keep quiet about Italy or openly dismiss its great power status after 1943. So - in my POV based on brief research of recent scholarly sources - there seems to be quite broad consensus Italy is not among the great powers. Clear now? Pavlor (talk) 13:33, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Ok, so you believe the sources are good, but you do not believe there is academic consensus for Italy in the year 2000. Ok, I'm not sure what we should do if that's the case. If the sources are good and from (as I stated earlier) "reliable academic sources" then while it goes against what I would personally expect, I would lean towards Italy being included. If I understand correctly, your argument is that the sources do not show academic consensus. I was going to ask if you could provide other "reliable academic sources" that directly talk about Italy in the year 2000 and say it is not a great power. But that would be quite hard and I am unsure what it would accomplish but to show that Italy is/was disputed. Maybe it can be shown as disputed on the table if that is so? 51.7.116.182 (talk) 21:51, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Proposing to move and continue the above discussion to Template:List of great powers by date. I think I possess very good sources and arguments for the version I chose except for Italy. Regards Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 15:07, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

This discussion was announced on the template talk page, better to continue one centralized discussion on one place than jumping from one talk page to another (and back). Others may disagree of course. Pavlor (talk) 15:32, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Understand that, though still, template dispute and tag was supposed to take place on template itself and not a page where it's being used. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 03:50, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Pavlor Further on topic, we have sufficient sources for countries I've placed for 2010s and 20s. US, Russia, China, India, France, UK, Japan and Germany though I'm still ambiguous about Italy. And there are no other countries than these with significant coverage in sources.

• Sufficient sources suggest that Ottoman empire was still a significant power in early 19th century.
• There hasn't been much coverage of Italy for 2010s but there is no source or event either suggesting it's decline either. Same for 2000s.
• In case of United Kingdom, sufficient sources cover it's decline with emerging new sources as well. We may review it for 2020s but later.
• I chose to restore Republic of India and not Brazil (India was earlier there as well) for the sufficient sources. Index rankings at CINC and closed gap of economic and military power has led to depletion of ambiguous status and more mentions in RS. Reliable sources suggest Brazil to be a potential great power and India as a potential superpower while it's status as a great power is having widespread coverage with disputes.
• Except for United States, Russia and China all other countries have sources suggesting their ambiguous status.
  • Germany and Japan for their strong economies but limited strategic capabilities and low growth.
  • India for a large and still expanding economy and strategic capabilities with weapons of mass destruction and expanding clout. But still poor socio economic conditions and more focus on regional politics (and more of coverage as a regional power).
  • UK and France for their sizable economies and strategic capabilities but declining power.

The major 3 (US, Russia and PRC), have more of their coverage as superpowers. And as great powers we see being covered are all significant powers throughout timeline, we can't cover only benevolent powers. For example, British empire will become probably only single one in 1910s and 1920s. Sources there are already in article. I hereby support the version I restored for template. Regards Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 05:47, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

If you read our discussion above (and older discussions on this very talkpage), there is no strong consesnsus in high quality reliable sources for inclusion of Italy, India or Brazil. As of India, I fear your summary above is close to original research (it is much easier to find high quality sources stating India is NOT a great power than otherwise). As of the Ottoman Empire, it is not usually bundled with "European Great Powers" (same for Qing China) in the sources, so more elaborate discussion about non-European powers may be needed. There is also a question, where (when) to end the table, even 2010 is way too recent for a rigorous scholarly evaluation. Myself, I would end it in 2000. Pavlor (talk) 06:41, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

I have been well around through your discussions earlier and that's why chose to state so and recommend you to be through sources for India and Ottoman to have an overview. The sources cited throughout stating "India is NOT a great power" are about India's "posturing" essentially and not materialistic power what easily can be deemed as an opinion piece and even those are older publications. Plenty of sources there, mostly recent ones though as well to contradict them regarding India's posturing (not my OR) and that's why India is in 2010s and not 2000s. Citing those of 90s and 2000s against existing ones would be obsolete. I still agree with you that India's status is still ambiguous as compared to contemporary great powers with at least relative limited coverage, though by far most prevalent among all "candidates" here and repeated comparisons with contemporary great powers (be them confirming and non confirming). As for timeline to end table, I would recommend to keep 2010s as it's recent past, is supposed to be covered with available sources to reflect positions just era which passed away. We may later update according sources which emerge further. For 2020s, must be removed for a couple of years. It might have coverage in middle of next decade while sources emerging for now may be used for further updating 2010s. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 07:29, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

There are entire books explaining status of India: eg. Bharat Karnad, Why India Is Not a Great Power (Yet), New Delhi : Oxford University Press, 2015. (note I read only a review in "Political Studies Review" journal) Removing India would mean entries for 2000 and 2010 are the same (well, why not). Maybe in few years there will be a scholarly consensus India was already a great power back in 2010, but there is no such consensus as of now. Pavlor (talk) 08:15, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

I support the removal of the table from the article, its an extremely subjective thing to quantify a 'great power' (especially in recent history) and the constant debate about what eras should be listed, who to include, what sources are reliable, etc. (as demonstrated on this talk page) is not worth the time and effort to support a questionable minimum value template. Leotext (talk) 22:20, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

I like the table and suggest that you keep it, but perhaps add the caveat (already included in the main Great Power page) that the term "great power" is more than a little subjective. The references include numerous mentions of Italy being listed as a great power, and so to my mind that is enough to show that Italy is in the conversation, which is all such a table can hope to do. If you like, you can add this quote from Kenneth Waltz (1979, p. 131): "Any ranking [of great powers] at times involves difficulties of comparison and uncertainties about where to draw the lines. Historically, despite the difficulties, one finds general agreement about who the great powers of a period are, with occasional doubt about marginal cases." Regarding India, my use of the term is that great powers are less than superpowers, and so certainly using the term for a nuclear power with the population and other resources to become a superpower by the end of the century is entirely reasonable. I would also agree with others who have said that India is a much less questionable addition to the table than Italy...although I would also point out that nobody is questioning Russia's inclusion on the list, and its GDP is somewhat less than Italy's (I would also refer to John Mearsheimer's description of economy and population as the main factors of his "latent power" concept; see chapter 2 of Tragedy of Great Power Politics). (I hope I'm using this right; apologies if not. Came here for a source for an article I'm writing on the difference between superpower and great power (I know...I tell my students not to use Wikipedia as a source :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Defenestrator12 (talk • contribs) 08:15, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Crimea

Now there are a lot of stuff circulating around Crimea. People don't fathom that the populous of the peninsula have indeed voted to join Russia but was categorized as illegal by the Ukrainian Government. The same issue happened with Kurdistan and it seems there's too much biased politics involved. I'm not picking a side, I'm looking at both sides to analyze the situation here. Crimea is for the most part disputed and I suggest we add it on the map as maybe a lightly shaded area or full on blue due to the occupation and annexation of the land. It would make it more consistent of a map but I need some ideas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SCPdude629 (talk • contribs) 04:11, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

In-article view of that map is so small that Crimea is not even visible (it is hard to see it even in fullscreen). The annexation of Crimea is not internationally recognized, maintaining status quo ante looks like only sensible choice - unless there is a strong consensus among reliable sources to paint Crimea in other color than Ukraine proper. Pavlor (talk) 05:29, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Agree with Parlor. Also, using another shade of blue is out of the questions, since there are already two blue shades with different meanings. A third shade would have to be explained, which would be to give undue weight to a "problem" without any relevance to the article's scope. --T*U (talk) 05:48, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Removal of Italy and Inclusion of India

I see a lot of discussion has taken places time and again regarding the removal of Italy and the inclusion of India. What are we still waiting for? Its unfathomable that in 2021 India is not mentioned as a great power throughout this article in the same manner than even Italy is. In many places in this article it references India as an "emerging" power even though they fulfil most criteria or place higher in many categories than some of the other great powers mentioned here. i.e India has the 4th strongest military, 5th largest GDP, etc. Imperial HRH2 (talk) 11:40, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Note this template lists Great Powers only up to 2000 as there was no consensus for newer entries. Place of Italy even in this list is indeed dubious (most reliable sources do not consider Italy as a Great Power after 1943). Pavlor (talk) 12:37, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I know that. After the WW2, Italy lost her great status but there seems a certain user in here going by Luigi who provides smaller cherry-picked sources to maintain the claim. Why are we not doing anything about it? Is pleasing one guy on here more important than what is factually correct? Imperial HRH2 (talk) 10:09, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

factually correct is to observe what source says and not what we want to see, note that Wikipedia is not about the "true list" but on what reliable sources say. I'm not against the exclusion of Italy,in fact Italy status for academics is is/ was disputed. as we know most of users that have objections are sock puppets, I have myself involved with some users protecting this page with user Pavlor 2 years ago. as for the list until the year 2000. in my own opinion India should be included, I have some reliable sources that claim that India is a great power.LuigiPortaro29 (talk) 11:00, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Germany in 1939

Why germany is not listed as a great power in 1939? It's even more ridiculous given that in this table, italy is considered a great power in 1939 but not Germany... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snarcky1996 (talk • contribs) 16:10, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Again

about this [2] :@Dan Wang

First- remove arbitrarily reliable sources is not a good choice.

Second- there's two different pages : great power -and great powers by date with their respective Talk pages.

Third- the term "should" is most a POV- this country I like more the other no and so on.

Fourth- most people that are against the Italian inclusion are/ were sock puppets and Consequently they were blocked. if you see the past archives theres no concensus- so one more time your arguements fails when you say about consensus.

Fifth- Wikipedia is not a reliable source, Wikipedia is not about the "true list" but on what reliable sources say.

Sixth- As I said repeatedly inclusion of Italy is always a problem some sources are against while others are in favor. I'm not against Italy inclusion but that needs to be talked and fair. another case that I would like to adress is Japan which is a middle power in the security diplomacy. Note that "usually" great powers posses a large ecomony, that don't means that a big economy is a great power. and about India a nuclear power is clearly more important than Brazil which now posses the economy size of "Spain".LuigiPortaro29 (talk) 11:22, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

I support exclusion of Italy, India or Brazil (for 1945 and 2000). Most reliable sources do not consider these states as Great Powers (see my reasearch into this issue during past edit-war in the archives). Peculiarities of their status are discussed in the article. However, edit-warring editors are mostly interested in the template and map(s) - so they can show their favourite middle/regional/minor power as an equal among other Great Powers. Pavlor (talk) 12:13, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

It's always going to be a problem to decide where to draw the line, and i feel like this has been discussed many times.

1.Regarding Italy...there is the term "least of the great powers" attached to Italy by scholars. The literature using this concept puts Italy among the great powers. Admiteddly, it is a peculiar status. But it would be a logical problem to call it the "least of the great powers" and then exclude it from the group of the great powers.

2.India and Brazil are called "potential superpowers", "rising great powers" (or similar terms) in several publications by authors, journalists etc; wheter this implies great power status (or not) is debated and debatable. Also, one should note that this debate concerns India much more than Brazil.

3.Some sources only consider the P5 members to be great powers. Some sources only consider the US to be a great power. Some sources describe all "regional powers" as "great powers". Etc etc. Unfortunately, this is no hard science; as i already said, for me the table should just be removed completely.

Barjimoa (talk) 21:39, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Yeah! Removing table/template = problem solved once and for all (at least until the next edit-war concerning other "important" part of this article). Pavlor (talk) 05:01, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

I propose we remove the 2000 column then. The last time there was true consensus about who the great powers were was in the aftermath of WW2, and everything since then has been mired in confusion due to recency (one could argue that it’s only with the benefit of hindsight that one can accurately assess who the great powers of a period were). Dan Wang (talk) 23:57, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

@User:Dan Wang as we see we habe at least here a talk about to remove the column. that means that all the column should be deleted , there's no consensus to remove Italy neither in the page great power by date as I see. please refrain in what you do.--LuigiPortaro29 (talk) 22:00, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

I have nothing against Italy, but at this point we need to treat the table as ending at 1945, and only if the editors of this page can collectively arrive at consensus on which countries to include (India, Italy, Brazil, etc.) should we add a new column for a more recent year. @Pavlor previously mentioned his support for that reducing the table (if not removing it altogether) in order to avoid this controversy. Meanwhile, I don't think there's anybody else here who supports your point of view on this matter. Dan Wang (talk) 22:11, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Limiting that unfortunate table to 1945 would at least end the never-ending edit-warring over it (until someone includes other powers/years again...). If we reach this consensus, later years/powers should be added only once new consensus is formed. Note there is also a map of post 1990 Great Powers reflecting the "original" consensus (thus excluding Italy), if there is a consensus not include graphics for years after 1945, this one should be probably removed as well. Pavlor (talk) 05:16, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

It is difficult , I don't agree with the deletion of the 2000 colummn, and only because some editors are against the Italian inclusion. And of course this will not end the eternal discussion and warring actitude. note that I support the inclusion of India for example. Note - We need to remember that Wikipedia is not about the true list or about user Believes, but on what Reliable sources say. @Dan Wang so Please be careful next time. as @Barjimoa and @Pavlor say ..It is better to remove the complete Template if there no consensus. at this point is better to let the Template in its own Page -Template. Note that this Template is only used in only two pages.--LuigiPortaro29 (talk) 10:20, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Academic experts are the only people to have this debate. We should only report what they say and nothing else. We should limit it to a time in the past that academics would have a good consensus over and the year 2000 seems like a good date that academics would have used. Maybe it should say 1999 to try and make people realise it isn't today? If newer sources are talking about today or dates past 2000 (or 9/11) they should be ignored to keep the discussion academic. Maybe we should have a link to Emerging powers under the template and a comment about dates past 2000 and academic consensus?--51.7.116.157 (talk) 02:17, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

I didn't hear anything back, so I tried what I mentioned above. Please let me know if it works or not. I think this might stop people from trying to add potential current powers in as they will see it's a table for powers known about in the past.--51.7.116.157 (talk) 22:53, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

I reverted back as your change has no consensus. I think solution of LuigiPortaro29 is the best: remove that unfortunate table once and for all. Pavlor (talk) 05:08, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Can we try it? I think that this will help keep the table focused and remove the objections. We should also check and make sure that the sources for Italy agree that it was a great power by the end of the 20th century and is not talking about current-day Italy.--51.7.116.157 (talk) 18:37, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

I see some talk about the last year listed in the template. I can see 3 options:

1. I do believe that the change to 1999 will help resolve this issue as I explained above.
2. Another good date would be 1993, as that was after the fall of the Soviet Union and there are many scholarly works about the great powers around this time period. It will also allow us to acknowledge the change of great power status from the Republic of China to the Peoples Republic of China (in 1971) & the Soviet Union to Russia.
3. Go with what others have suggested and stop after 1945 and only add dates upon consensus of date and sources.

I do believe that this table is useful and should be kept, though I do agree that there needs to be a better solution than what has occurred in the past. I think that listing the last date as 1999 does help, but willing to listen to other changes to the date on the template.--51.7.116.157 (talk) 19:52, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

1999 solves nothing, there will be yet again never-ending edit warring over inclusion of various powers (Italy, India etc.). 1993 is even more arbitrary date than 1999/2000. There probably is not much dispute about 1945 powers, but I don´t think that alone would end POV-pushing for additional dates/powers. After watching years of edit warring over this very table, I´m more inclined to remove it and finaly end the disruption of this article. Pavlor (talk) 05:07, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

The dates 1993 & 1999 are about significant dates in history around the Great Powers and something that should be easy to source around those relevant dates. I do hope that my edit won't be taken poorly as I am trying to be bold and to make the suggestion from earlier a reality and to have the table go until 1945. I also listed the table in a relevant position within the article and mentioned it goes up until the rise of the superpowers. --51.7.116.157 (talk) 12:54, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

• @51.7.116.157: you're not being bold you're edit warring. I'm fully aware that it takes more than one editor to edit war, but you are edit warring against multiple editors. Please self revert and initiate a Request for comment to determine consensus for your version of the article. Tiderolls 13:26, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Oh goodness I was not trying to edit war. I thought I was trying to help implement different options and see if that would help resolve this issue. I do agree that people like to put in this or that nation without any scholarly works agreeing on such. So something needs to be fixed.

I will say that I do think that it should go to either after the fall of the soviet union or the end of the 20th century as it would show the changes with China and Russia as I pointed out previously and they are historical time periods that would make it easier to find sources that reference those dates. Also putting the table before it talks about emerging powers might help a lot to mitigate edit wars. So can we try this edit I implemented earlier?

If not, I thought that at the very least having the table through to the rise of the Superpowers and placed appropriately on the page would help as there seems to be more agreement with editors here to that date.

So would it be ok to at least see if it does what I hope it will, either the Fall/1999 (as I think will be the most successful) or 1945 as it is now?

If people do believe that it really needs to be reverted and a request for comment posted, I will do so. I just don't think it needs to be elevated to that level as we could just work with it and see if changing the table and the placement in the article would help.--51.7.116.157 (talk) 22:41, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Prodedurally, you should never change to your favourite version, if your previous attempts were reverted. That is edit-warring. Although I have no problem with the 1945 cutoff date (well, I would prefer removing the table altogether), there must be prior consensus before any contentious change. Pavlor (talk) 06:33, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

I was trying different edits and not just reverting to see if that would work so I didn't see it that way at the time. I do think the edit I made here (with the table going through 1999) to be the best solution, but I do think that something is better than nothing.--51.7.116.157 (talk) 21:10, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

If the new map will be as stable as your "consensus" template version (you did not gain consensus for your change in the first place and now you joined an edit-war over your prefered revision), better to not have a map at all. Pavlor (talk) 05:04, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

I really am trying to help, why am I being accused of an edit war? Really I am honestly asking. It's like when someone accuses you of doing something bad when you didn't. Please let me understand as I don't know if this is because I'm an IP user or not? The person made an edit, I reverted, the person said that they did not believe me that it was for a good reason (I think reverted it because they thought it was vandalism). I provided evidence that the page has been modified to reflect this change then it still got reverted. I feel like I am the only one assuming good faith from others 😔 This change was suggested by Dan Wang and you even agreed that this change would be fine. It was the only thing that everyone could agree to. It also seemed to work, nothing happened. People were no longer adding in their own preferred version. I just think the user assumes if it's an IP user doing it that they must have bad intentions; when I do not.--51.7.116.157 (talk) 14:09, 23 August 2021 (UTC)