Talk:Great power/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Expanding the Russian section

It seems to small compared to the other sections. Possible expansion?

-G

Original research

Following the AFD vote which led to the deletion of the emerging superpowers articles, I've tagged the Great Powers section with an original research notice. We need to go through the text and makes sure that we are not synthesizing source material to argue for or against the status of a country as a great power. Each country designated as a great power must simply have sources, named and attributed in the text, explaining who designated them as a great power and why and during what time period. Remember, there is no academic consensus on when certain countries were great powers, for what reasons, and for what time periods. As such we must not present these countries as beyond discussion--all aspects of their great power status (or lack of status) are debated and continue to be debated. We must represent that debate, not justify the country's designation one way or the other. As such, these sections need a strict reworking representing only arguments from attributed sources.—Perceval 04:08, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I truly fail to see your reasoning. I think the article reflects the debate and subjective nature of the concept quite well. Would you mind pointing out any specific examples so I at least know what it is you suspect of being OR. Best Regards, Signature^brendel 07:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Perceval's concerns—his suggested modus operandi was certainly uppermost in my mind during the recent rewrite. We certainly don't want this to turn into the Major power page reborn. I've been rather away from this page over the past fortnight or so, but looking at the 'Great powers' section, I notice that some of these have been considerably expanded by other editors. I noted this trend in earlier comments above, but it seems to have picked up pace fairly recently. I would be happy for us to go through these sections again, reviewing content, removing OR synthesii (word?).

First and foremost though, the actual list of Great powers is not OR. What we do with these countries, and how they are laid out etc is the question. I think that the current layout is satisfactory, but I'm more than happy to review it.

Xdamr^talk 17:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Rewrite example

Brendel, here is the difference between an WP:OR presentation and a presentation that meets WP:V. The current presentation states for example,

From the accession of the Archduke of Austria to the Holy Roman Emperorship in 1452, the Habsburgs were at the centre of great power politics until their demise in 1918.

It includes a citation to an author certainly, but the author is not attributed in the text. Some of the following reasons for Austria's great power status are from the same author, some are from other authors. The text presents Austria's great power status as being beyond debate--i.e. it was a great power from date XYZ to date ABC--whereas Austria's great power status is certainly debated, and the length/period of its great power status is not uniformly agreed upon. Moreover, the various sources (three that I count) are synthesized together to support the position, rather than attributing different arguments to different authors in the text. How to refactor these sections to avoid OR can be achieved in the following way:

Historian Art Vandelay names Austria as one of Europe's five great powers during the period XYZ-ABC. He cites their formidable military expenditures, which rivaled those of ??? country, their vast territorial holdings, their strategic marriages during this time, and the size of their army which exceeded that of ***. International relations theorist H.P. Pennypacker, on the other hand, believes that a distinction between regional and global great powers is necessary, and while a number of European countries were globally relevant due to their naval strength, Austria could only be counted as a regional great power, as it lacked a navy. Historian Joe Davola says that Austria was a great power, but asserts that it was for a briefer period, from ABC-XYZ years, due to the following reasons, blah blah blah etc etc etc."

See how in the second example the arguments are clearly attributed to each author in the text, so that the reader knows whose theory they're reading? The way the sections are currently presented, the reader is essentially reading The Wikipedia Theory as to Austria's great power status, rather than reading competing expert theories summarized side by side. The former is OR, the latter is verifiable. This is the change that needs to occur.—Perceval 18:28, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes I see. That is the way I cite theories in my social class articles as I acutally agree with you that authors ought to be cited in the text. Now that I see what you consider OR (though I am still doubtful whether or not neglecting to mention an author is really OR), I'm assuming that the way to fix this article is also the way to fix the emerging superpowers text. Thanks for giving some concrete suggestions. Signature^brendel 18:42, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Yep. People need to be reading a summary of the "state of the debate", not a collection of facts that Wikipedians assembled. Applies in both cases. It's certainly doable, and I think the editors of these articles are up to it. And the articles will be 100% better for it.—Perceval 18:49, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't feel that the section can be marked "OR/unverified" in good faith, even in its current state—the 115 inline references cover a lot of ground. Still, I don't object to the changes you want to make here; I have argued for similar changes in the past, and much progress has already been made (look at the article just one month ago!). CRGreathouse (t | c) 18:55, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:OR: "It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source." This is, in fact, textbook OR, and ought to be deleted outright, rather than simply being tagged. However, I think the editors here are enthusiastic and have already put in a lot of work, and will be willing to put in the work to get this change made. Until then, the tag ought to remain so that our readers are aware that they are reading a synthesis created by Wikipedians, rather than attributed arguments.—Perceval 19:05, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I didn't remove the tag; I agree that a case could be made for the section as OR. I don't believe it is for reasons I've mentioned, but I see no reason to fight about it in light of the fact that all the editors appear to agree with you on the way the article needs to change. CRGreathouse (t | c) 19:12, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I know you didn't remove the tag. And I know all the editors here are proud of their hard work. Instead of arguing about the tag, the best thing for the article and for our readers is to bring the section up to the standards set by Wikipedia's content policies.—Perceval 19:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Title

This title of this article severely violates NPOV. It reeks of 19th-century white supremacy. No nation should be called great comparatively. A more descriptive and accurate title is Major Power. No wonder there's so much argument above. Mandel 19:16, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

That's an odd comment. Great power is a technical term, which has a technical meaning. 'Major power' is just a phrase evoking nations which have (some unspecified level of) power. This article is about the former, not the latter. CRGreathouse (t | c) 20:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes Great power is a technical term, used in history, it can be applied about european international policy during Modern Era, expecially between 1815 (Congress of Vienna) to 1945 (end of World War II), after World War II the term was replaced by the concept of bipolarism and the use of the term superpower; now, after the Cold War, we still need to find new terms to describe international affairs, expecially about the actual debate upon multilateralism and unipolarism.

Well the term isn't POV but it is subjective as is the subject matter of this article. The term is commonly used in academia and thus we use it here as well. I think your critisims are certainly valid but this is the wrong forum to post them. It is a good arguement for you to publish in a journal or op-ed piece but as long as academis seems set on using the term "Great Power" we will have to use it here as well- whether we think its the best choice of termonolgy or not. Signature^brendel 23:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that the end of multipolarity around 1945-1950, or the end of bipolarity 40 years later, removes the usefulness of the term Great power. Why would it?

For a good discussion of *polarities, I heartily recommend the Wilkinson article toward the end of the citations.

CRGreathouse (t | c) 04:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Major power was deleted and redirected to great power. It will not come back. — Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 06:18, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

About the term "Great Powers": yes it is used in academia, but generally it is referred to the period before World War II. So if we want to maintain a neutral POV in Wikipedia the term can be used only about the historical period we are sure it is correct! About the usefulness of the term today: another time it is your POV. About multipolar/bipolar debate: it is not my POV that during Cold War the World was Bipolar and there were two Superpowers, if you affirm that between 1945 to 1990 the World was Multipolar, you are the one who needs to write articles about it! Because the majority of academics denied it. About the sources in the article: you searched and used the sources as they agree with your POV (that some countries are still today great powers and others are not): for example the same Danilovic essay, that you used so far for a great part of the article, affirms many times that none of the european countries was no more a global contenders after World War II, but you ignored it completely ! Another example: the sources over Middle Powers: you used it about some countries but not about others! (as it is referred above!) You also ignored completely some academic sources that can be easily consulted as this The Eclipse of a Great Power: Modern Britain, 1870-1975 by Keith Robbins! Wikipedia required a neutral POV, I'm displeased to say that this article about "Great Power" has too much an European POV, expecially a British POV! So I will write to administration to ask some change!

"generally it is referred to the period before World War II" -- where do you get this idea? I see the term in use primarily in the period around the time of the publication, a little before in discussing past events and a little after in predicting future events. In fact any political journal covering this sort of context should be filled with contemporary uses of the term; I would list papers, but it would be the majority of the papers on the subject I have downloaded, copied, or printed out. CRGreathouse (t | c) 23:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

you used the sources you preferred, tipically and politically oriented to the right, expecially ih the Aglo-saxon world! In the left sources and in the academic continental Europe the term is despised, for example as you can see in the sources referred above, where many German politics don't want apply the term to their country, because the term evokes negative periods of their history!

"Politically oriented to the right"? Odd choice for me, considering that I don't lean right. CRGreathouse (t | c) 18:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh yes, this is rich. I'm a liberal continental European and US citizen who quoted a German sociology professor in the Germany section. In you previous post you said this article has a European bias, and now it has an anti-continental Euro bias?! I think we can whole-heartetly dismiss the "right-wing 'Anglo-Saxon' bias" (The first time I have ever this phrase ;-)) accusations. If you find sources that are reliable and contain information pertaining to the subject you can add info from them. If they contradict sources already cited in the article, then you still don't delete those but rather objecitvely discuss the contradiction. Otherwise this discussion seems just a waste of server space. And sign your posts! Signature^brendel 19:41, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

While the term "great power" is criticized principally from non-realist IR schools, there's nothing precluding non-realists from using the term as part of analysis, and indeed many do (e.g. Kupchan). "Great power" is typically used to describe powers from pre-1945 for a simple reason: 1945 was a systemic shift from multipolarity to bipolarity (in the eyes of many, but not all, IR theorists). In a multipolar system, one refers to the powers as "great powers" and in a bipolar system you refer to them as "superpowers". "Great power" is a political science term, whereas "major power" is essentially a colloquial term, without any kind of attempt at rigor behind its definition (not to say that great power has a widely accepted definition--it does not--but there are at least a wide number of attempts to give rigor to the concept). However, the anon is right insofar as this article does not reflect any of the criticisms of the concept of "great powers". The term has been criticized on any number of fronts for a wide variety of reasons, and this article reflects none of them at the moment.—Perceval 20:00, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Syntax

In this context, isn't "Great power" a proper noun, i.e. rename the article "Great Power"...?  Regards, David Kernow (talk) 09:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Not always. Depends on the author.—Perceval 20:01, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Understood; suggest, then, that the article uses one or the other ("great power" or "Great Power") rather than the mixed "Great power". David (talk) 10:03, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

The last time this came up (see the archives), "Great power" was decided. CRGreathouse (t | c) 13:34, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

...presumably as "Great power" within the text as well as the article's title. Well, I guess most folks don't find that odd when reading the article. Thanks for the pointer, David (talk) 21:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I find it extremely odd. To write in the middle of a sentence "Great power" is ridiculous. The "g" should not be capitalised. A couple of minutes spent searching the archives of The Economist and The Guardian show that neither capitalise it. Gsd2000 17:50, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to changing the style; I was never in favor of this style in the first place. I do think that it's important to use a style consistently, though, so whatever is generally decided on (not just by you or me but by a broader consensus) should be applied throughout. Until there's a new consensus for style, I'll keep everything at "Great power". (For what it's worth, I strongly dislike "Great Power" but the other two are fine, with "great power" being my preferred.) CRGreathouse (t | c) 18:14, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

"Great power" is the worst of both worlds though. One can (doing a books.google.com search) find some texts that use "Great Power", one can find many more that use "great power", but I can't find a single one that uses the mixed "Great power". Therefore, according to Wikipedia's policies, I am changing it to "great power". Gsd2000 22:10, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Gsd2000. Using mixed case for a proper term is silly. Lower case is just fine.—Perceval 04:03, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

England

If Scotland breaks away from the UK soon and Wales follows suit would England be considered a great power considering it would account for 95% of the UK's former power. England would still be the 2nd largest economy in Europe behind Germany but ahead of France and would have the highest growth rate out of the major European economies of Germany, France, and Italy. London would be the capital of England and would still be one of the most major cities on Earth and the largest city in the EU. London would also still be the most major economic centre in Europe and 3rd in the world with the largest stock exchange in Europe and 3rd largest in the world. England would likely continue to use the Pound Sterling which is the 3rd most major currency in the world after the Dollar and Euro. England would likely continue to keep the UK's UN Security Council seat and keep all the UK's nuclear weapons because of this. England would also most likely keep the 2 new aircraft carriers being built as Scotland or Wales would be unable to afford to maintain one or have any real desire for one. England would probably keep about 90% or more of the UK's armed forces as Scotland and Wales would play no real role in the world and would probably continue to keep the defence spending as high as the UK did, which was 2nd in the world. England would also most likely keep all the UK's overseas territories as Scotland or Wales would lack any real desire or abilty to retain such distant territories, which would mean England would have the most number of overseas territories in the world as the UK does currently. England would also be likely to continue fullfil the role the UK took in overseas conflicts. In all England would be almost as strong as the UK was and would definitely be considered a Great power. Others' thoughts on this welcome. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.110.25.137 (talk • contribs)

Offhand I tend to agree with most of the analysis, although I would think England without Scotland and Wales to be smaller than France economically, as I thought they were very close with those two. But what has this to do with the article? CRGreathouse (t | c) 04:09, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I do have to say that is really quite irrelevant. Talk pages are not to be used discussion boards- if you like England, that's fine but this is too off-topic. Regards, Signature^brendel 05:02, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

It's about that England should be included into this article as one of the great powers if or when the UK should split up.

Please see Wikipedia:Original research. — Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 05:07, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Imagine if I created a section about how California would become a great-power is it seceeded from the US. It's speculation completely unfit for Wiki. England is part of the UK and CA is part of the US, we can't include these "what if" scenarios per OR policy, as Nobleeagle as pointed out above. Regards, Signature^brendel 05:11, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

If California were threatening to secede, or Wales to break away from the UK, then perhaps an article would be in order (with citations about current facts, not speculation about what might be). These not being the case, WP:CRYSTAL seems to be the order of the day. CRGreathouse (t | c) 05:21, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Exactely! Signature^brendel 07:08, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

We would have to wait until a reputable source published commentary on England's great power status. It's not up to us to analyze shifts in the balance of power--it's up to published experts. We merely strive to accurately summarize all sides of the debate.—Perceval 20:04, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

And in what way does this differ from what I wrote? CRGreathouse (t | c) 21:02, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Not at all, it just reinforces your argument (which actually closes this discussion pretty well) IMHO. Signature^brendel 21:32, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Retracted... I think I must have been a bit oversensitive when I posted that. CRGreathouse (t | c) 23:51, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Pruning

I propose that we cut back on the content in the individual Great powers's sections. These have, in most cases, expanded significantly from their initial state when the rewrite was completed. Perceval's well made OR points aside, turning these sections into random agglomerations of trivia is not really going to help the article. I think that it would be best if we cut these back to roughly their original state, listing the major events which affected the individual nations, which marked the ebb and flow of their power.

Any views?

Xdamr^talk 02:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Well the article isn't that long, but removing the trivia (Did you know that France has a new air-craft carrier and the UK too?) is always an endavour worth while. Additionally I think pruning would make room for some quotes, such as the one I added for Germany. I just think that one small blockquote per section would build a reader's confidence in the article and prevent this from article from becoming a blog-like forum. Otherwise your above proposal sounds good. Signature^brendel 03:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Kill the cruft. CRGreathouse (t | c) 05:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that Brendel is on the right track. I think blockquotes would be too much. But, if we stick to summarizing attributed opinions of experts from their books and articles, nationalists will have fewer areas in which to add their self-congratulatory cruft. If we stay with random aggregates of information that we've chosen, there will be no end to nationalists hyping their own country (and no end to OR problems).—Perceval 07:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Italy

"As of 2006, Italy ranks third in the world in number of military forces operating in peacekeeping and peace-enforcing scenarios (Afghanistan, Kosovo, Iraq, Balkans, Lebanon, Israel), following only the United States and United Kingdom." I believe that statement, which can be found on the Italian army page, would qualify Italy as a great power. Until told otherwise, I will reflect this change in the article. Also, I would like to re-open the vote on Italy's great power status, and if no one answers or votes against it I would like to have Italy included. The evidence is in the first page of the archive, under the "Italy" catigory, and it is quite overwhelming in favor of Italy's inclusion.- Izzo (Feb/22/07)

It's not a matter to be put to a vote; outside sources decide for us. Cite them. siafu 16:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

"My two cents on the issue of Italy:

Here is a list from an independent source and an american one at that.

http://www.globalfirepower.com/index.asp

This site lists countries global firepower taking into account all resources needed to fight a war, economic, military, infrastucture, etc (oops, so sorry for you non latin speakers). Any way, as you can see they list Italy as number eleven in the world, two away from the UK.

I have another page as well from a different source: http://www.strategypage.com/fyeo/howtomakewar/databases/armies/e.asp

Again Italy in sixth place in Europe.

Naval strength on another page: http://www.strategypage.com/fyeo/howtomakewar/databases/armies/e.asp

Again sixth place.

Here is another page from the CIA, whose job it is to know these things:

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2067rank.html

Look at that seventh place in the world. Hmmm.

How about economic power, again from the CIA:

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2001rank.html

Wow, number 10 in the world in terms of GDP by PPP, and not even a mention in your article.

Here is a list of the country's total output and infrastructure with links to rank in each category:

http://www.globalfirepower.com/country_detail.asp?country_id=19

Hey how about cultural influence with say something like tourism as a barometer:

http://www.allcountries.org/uscensus/1408_international_tourism_receipts_leading_countries.html

Again, number 4 in the world. Is there a trend here?

How about science and engineering:

http://www.allcountries.org/uscensus/1382_patents_by_country.html

Number 8 in the world. Not bad.

How about GNP versus GDP. ANd those of you who don't know the difference, GDP is the goods and services produced within a country regardless of the nationality of the company or individual. Whereas GNP is the good and services produced by a country's citizens and national companies regardless of the actual manufacturing takes place.

Now looking at the next web page:

http://www.allcountries.org/uscensus/1364_gross_national_product_by_country_1998.html

Again sixth in the world. Wow am I missing something!!???

How about another indicator of fighting power. Homogeneity of the population:

http://www.allcountries.org/uscensus/1354_foreign_or_foreign_born_population_and.html

Again Italy has far fewer immigrants than the other countries. Try to get a Turk to fight against Turkey in a war even though he's a German citizen. What about France's five million Islamic North Africans. Hey did you guys go up north during the summer during the riots.

How about merchant fleets, you know the ability to ship stuff around the world.

http://www.immigration-usa.com/world_fleet.html

Not great but where's that power house France. Hmmm.

How about central government expeditures, how much money a government spends every year:

1 United States 1,780,000 2 Japan 706,000M 3 Germany 694,000 4 France 662,000 5 United Kingdom 531,000 6 Italy 504,000 7 China - Mainland 400,000 8 Brazil NA 9 Russia 156,000 10 Canada 142,000 11 Spain 124,000 12 Netherlands 118,000 13 Belgium 115,000 14 Austria 113,000 15 Poland 110,000

Number 6 again but sadly not considered a major power even though it's ahead of China, Russia and Brazil.

How about number of scientific papers produced and published:

http://www.in-cites.com/countries/2004allfields.html

Internet users: http://www.indexmundi.com/g/r.aspx?t=100&v=118

Number eight worldwide. So much for soft power.

How about world influence in terms of what people buy from where:

http://www.indexmundi.com/g/r.aspx?t=10&v=85

Again number 7 in the world for exports.

How Olympic medals as measure of a country's pride and ability to waste money on international competition in order gain world prestige and bragging rights:

http://www.aneki.com/olympic.html

Number six. Those Italians have a lot of medals considering they are unable to feed themselves :P

I can go on and on and on. If you can't see that Italy is a major power in the world in almost every respect then you are deluding yourselves. "You can bring a horse to water but you can't make him drink."

And for my brothers: "Andiamoci!"

--65.95.147.214 03:03, 14 May 2006 (UTC) Hadrian1

Hey here is another one since you consider influence on other countries.

From your own source the Central European Initiative is centered in where? Trieste Italy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_European_Initiative

Which was a precursor to earlier groups which Italy was a founding member from the beginning.

I guess leading economic, scientific and cultural exchange groups doesn't mean much. --Hadrian1 03:43, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Repost again since nothing changed since last time. Since major power has been deleted for some strange reason, I put it here again. So since this is not a major power page anymore, then I dispute that Italy's greatness ended in 1945. I would say that there was a period when the country was rebuilding and that rebuilding is over a long time ago. My opinion is around 1980 or 1985. Since then the country has been involved in more and more international "peace-keeping efforts", which means clout and power projection." That was User:Hadrian1 back during the original debate. And I said, lets put it back to a vote, because the issue was decided by a vote the first time around. If you look at the information, there is no doubt that Italy is a great Power. - Izzo

I disagree with Izzo, and feel that Italy is a middle power—and perhaps not even the strongest middle power. I haven't seen a single academic source hold Italy (post WW2) as a Great power, and it's hard to imagine an argument.

Further, I doubt the statistic (and question its importance beside): would it not be below France, which spends more on its military than the UK (and much more than Italy) and extensively patrols its former colonies in Africa?

CRGreathouse (t | c) 02:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

To beat a still quite healthy horse, as long as this article presents countries as objectively being great powers for certain periods, the tide of nationalists coming here and complaining about their country not being adequately represented will never stop. If these entries are rewritten on the model I presented above we will not have this problem, and nationalists will be 1000% easier to deflect.—Perceval 05:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Somehow, being 11th and 18th in the world (by Izzo's sources) in military power, and 10th in the world (again, using Izzo's source) in economic power does not a Great power make. Being the 4th most popular tourist-attracting country (which may even be true) doesn't save it, either. How does this random collection of facts 'prove' in any way that Italy is a Great power?

Frankly, most political science sources I read list two to five Great powers, which doesn't make room for Italy even if we make the most generous assumptions for it. (The citations are in the archive, though there aren't that many at the moment; when I have time I may post others along with the originals.)

Now I love Italy, and I have a special place in my heart for Italian history from the Roman Republic through Dante and Ariosto. But this doesn't mean that I set aside my reason when considering its power.

CRGreathouse (t | c) 23:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, these days I don't have time to make extended replies. So I'll just point you out to WP:OR, you need to attribute these features directly with the great power claim within your sources. — Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 01:13, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

• One question to CRGreathoue. If you consider Italy to be a middle power and perhaps not even the strongest one, who is the strongest one? It could only be Germany if you consider it a middle power or Japan, but I think all these three countries are Great Powers.

ACamposPinho 0:51 07 March 2007

• • Thankfully, what you or CRGreathouse thinks of Italy/Germany/Japan is of no importance whatsoever. What matters are published opinions by reputable experts. I would advise finding attributable sources regarding any changes you desire for this article. It will save everybody a lot of time and frustration.—Perceval 02:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

The above words are the wisest i have ever read on a talk page. I redid the Regional power page with the same viewpoint. Every country on this page should have at least a couple of cited expert sources explicitly saying the country is a great power, or has been one since 1815. Despite this, to me Italy today is pretty much the definition of a middle power. No permanant seat on the UNSC, no nukes, ICBM's, SSBN's, or major combat since 1945, no natural resouces. UN contributions are irrelevant to a countries military power. Willy turner 04:02, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Global cities

There's been some question about the 'global cities' claim in the UK section. To wit, the list 'London, New York City, and Tokyo' is being expanded by the inclusion of Paris.

I have no opinion on the matter, but have reverted the change because it deletes a reference (which backs only the three) and does not replace it with one of similar quality. I might suggest removing all references to this, though, as I don't see it as truly forwarding the mission of this page. What are the thoughts on this? I'm happy to accept any consensus that appears.

CRGreathouse (t | c) 17:41, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a list of Alpha cities which can be used to list the most important cities in each nation listed-though I fail to see the point in listing the Aplha cities of each nation here. Signature^brendel 18:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Sig. I'm not sure whether listing big cities is really a value-add, unless it's central to the argument of an attributed author.—Perceval 02:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Irrelevancy

I can't revert this any more as I will be in violation of the rules, but I completely fail to see what this paragraph has to do with the article: "The UK has a currency of its own outside the Eurozone which is called the Pound Sterling. The Pound is considered to be the most stable major currency and is third most major currency after the US Dollar and the Euro. The City of London is the financial heart of the UK and is the most major financial centre in Europe with more money passing through the City each year than anywhere else in the world. The UK has extracted large amounts of oil and gas from the North Sea oil and gas reserves.".

• So what that the UK has a currency of its own outside the Eurozone? What difference does that make to the UK being a Great Power?
• Who says "it's the most stable currency"? Even if it is, that means the US Dollar and French Franc are less stable, but they are greater and lesser/equal powers respectively - so there can't be any link between currency stability and great power status, therefore it's irrelevant if true and not appropriate if false.
• "The City of London is the financial heart of the UK?" So???
• "The UK has extracted large amounts of oil and gas from the North Sea oil and gas reserves" Good for the UK! What difference does it make to Britain's Great Power status?
• "Most major"? "Most major"????

This was originally added by User:Usermale, a now permanently banned sockpuppet of User:Somethingoranother, who is now immediately reverting it when I try to remove it. Gsd2000 21:46, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I have temporarily semiprotected this article. Proto ► 23:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree with these comments. The pound sterling does make the UK special in many ways, but none that appear relevant to this article. Its stability, if truly exceptional, would be an indication of financial/economic strength, but this is not supported in the text. The North Sea drilling is likewise irrelevant to all appearances.

The special status of the City of London is an important point, but should probably be better supported.

CRGreathouse (t | c) 01:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

This is getting to be far too much. Within the next day or so I will go through these sections and purge them ruthlessly—try and get it a little more like it was at the time of the rewrite's completion. Taking a look through these sections as they stand, I don't think that much of any real importance has been added since then. I'll also take a look and see what I can do to address Perceval's concerns, though that is a more long term aim.

Last time I mentioned this (cutting down sections) we all seemed to be in broad agreement. I take it that this is still the case?

Xdamr^talk 02:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, scythe away as you see fit. If you cut too much in your zeal, we can always add it back. CRGreathouse (t | c) 03:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Horizontal scrolling

Please don't use Google cache results as sources. The links are not stable, and they make the edit screen scroll horizontally. Use something like [1] instead. CRGreathouse (t | c) 00:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

User GSD2000 Deleting Referenced Information

This user refuses to allow referenced information to be included in the United Kingdom section regarding London. Can other editors please see to it that they do not get away with removing referenced information from the article. Userofwiki 01:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

To other editors: User:Userofwiki is a sockpuppet of User:Somethingoranother, who has violated virtually every WP rule in the book: 3RR, harassment, sockpuppetry, and was eventually permanently banned. Gsd2000 01:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Maybe but you cannot refuse me to contribute referenced information to articles. If so I will message the Admin notice board which you are clearly breaking WP on not allowing others to contribute to articlesand reverting referenced information. Userofwiki 01:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I refer the honourable gentleman to the discussion above [2]. The consensus is that the type of information he is trying to add is irrelevant. Gsd2000 01:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

The information is not irrelevent because it is important information and is not included anywhere else in the article. Userofwiki 01:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Can you please explain what this "London, the capital of the United Kingdom, is one of the world's three most major cities alongside New York City and Tokyo. London is also the world's largest financial centre according to the British High Commission" has to do with the UK's status as a global power? I'm not denying it's true, I'm saying it's not relevant to the article at hand. It's relevant information if you are reading the article on London, but not if you are reading the article on Great Power. Gsd2000 01:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

It is very relevent as it shows the UK's has one of the most powerful cities in the world due to it's sheer status in world finance and culture which then contributes greatly towards the UK's status in world finance and culture, which contributes to the UK's power. Userofwiki 01:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Singapore and Hong Kong are major financial centres but they aren't global powers. Moscow isn't/wasn't a major financial centre but Russia is a great power and the Soviet Union was a superpower. Therefore having a city that is a financial centre is neither sufficient nor necessary for global power status. So how are you (without resorting to original research) proposing that London's status as a global financial centre makes the UK a global power? If that is your point, where is the reference backing up that conclusion? Where is the logical thread connecting the one to the other? We don't need to see references stating the obvious that London is a global financial centre. And anyway, what exactly is your objective definition of "major"? It can't be population because London is way down the list by any measure. Gsd2000 02:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

The point of including that London is the world most major financial centre is that this contributes towards the UK's economic status and its economic power. Singapore and Hong Kong are not as financially powerful as London hence London being the most power plus neither Hong Kong (which isn't even a country) nor Singapore have nothing else which could possible make them a powerful country e.g. military power, geographical size, population size, GDP, diplomatic power. Userofwiki 02:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Also London contributes around 20% of the UK's GDP which means London is very important to the UK's economy and the UK's economic strength. The UK's economy has an unusually high percentage made from the financial sector which proves how important the City of London is to the UK's economy. Userofwiki 02:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

If your point is that the size of a country's economy contributes to its ability to act as a Great Power, a large portion of the UK's economy is the financial services sector, and most of the financial service industry is located in London, I don't see how what you are adding ("London, the capital of the United Kingdom, is one of the world's three most major cities alongside New York City and Tokyo [84]. London is also the world's largest financial centre according to the British High Commission [85].") explicitly makes that point? Anyway, I have integrated the relevant portions of your point better into the article, in the right place (in the section discussing the UK's economy) and in the right terms. Gsd2000 11:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

EU as emerging superpower

The EU as great or emerging power has to be added. Lear 21 15:06, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a source saying that the EU is a great power?—Perceval 18:00, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

The EU is commonly seens as a quasi or potential supepower, not a great power. It consists of many great powers (Germany, France, UK...). Then again, of you find a source you can go ahead and mention it. Signature^brendel 18:10, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Some sources pointing in that direction :[3], [4], [5], [6], [7] Lear 21 18:34, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

None of those links say that the EU is a superpower. They all state clearly that it "could" or "might" or has the "possibility" of becoming one.—Perceval 20:56, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it's an emerging superpower, but I don't see it as a Great power for the same reason I don't see it as a superpower: it's not yet centralized enough, exercising slightly less power as a unit than NATO, which is by no means a Great power. The books I've read on the subject (notably The United States of Europe) all talk about this as a future event, not a current event. That said I wouldn't be opposed to a section on it in the Superpower article. CRGreathouse (t | c) 19:38, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

The superpower article already does mention it Superpower#Potential_21st_century_superpowers. It's done properly there, attributing the opinion to the author in the text and summarizing his arguments.—Perceval 20:54, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that seems appropriate. This article (Great power) doesn't strike me as the right place for it; I think it's fair to say I have consensus on my side. CRGreathouse (t | c) 00:26, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree, the information and research done by Lear 21 is great for the superpower page, but has little relevance here. The fact that the EU might possibly be superpower is a good statement for the superpower article. Signature^brendel 01:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

If there is even agreement about the EU as aspiring/emerging superpower, than the logical conclusion is that it already exerts great power. Considering this it has be at least mentioned in a section of its own. @CRGreathouse: In the 21. century economic and political power are at least equally relevant to military power politics. The EU fulfils this status. Lear 21 13:07, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

OR, OR, OR, and more OR I'm afraid. --Xdamr^talk 13:57, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Lear21: Is that comment directed toward me intentionally? I said nothing about economics vs. military power; in fact I believe that economic power trumps military power, at least in the 21st century. CRGreathouse (t | c) 17:09, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Lear21, the problem with the statement: "If there is even agreement about the EU as aspiring/emerging superpower, than the logical conclusion is that it already exerts great power", is that you came to the conclusion. What you would need to do is find a source that backs up this statement. We can't add any conclusions we come to, only those our sources come to. Signature^brendel 19:27, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Midlle Powers Initiative Link

After this link is written "note Italy inclusion on this category". Ok, it is there, but this only proofs the anti-Italy stance of some people here. Germany and Japan are also included, but I don't see written "note Germany, Italy and Japan inclusion on this category". And Germany sees itself as a Middle Power. Anyway I think all of them are Great Powers and this notes shoulb be reviewed.

ACamposPinho 2:45, 14 April 2007

Dispute on India's article

The article states "It engaged in a close relationship with the Soviet Union and defeated political rival Pakistan in 3 wars." is totally base-less and this shows the art of Indian patriotism by manipulating articles. Even mentioning that clearly sparks up a debate on who won or who lost and is against the Wikipedia:Five pillars, many sources claim that the 1965 war was a stale-mate if not a Pakistani victory.

Famous Quotes of 1965 (By independent observers):

"By all accounts the courage displayed by the Pakistan Air Force pilots is reminiscent of the bravery of the few young and dedicated pilots who saved this country from Nazi invaders in the critical Battle of Britain during the last war." Patrick Seale, The Observer, London, September 12, 1965.

"For the PAF, the 1965 war was as climatic as the Israeli victory over the Arabs in 1967. A further similarity was that Indian air power had an approximately 5:1 numerical superiority at the start of the conflict. Unlike the Middle East conflict, the Pakistani air victory was achieved to a large degree by air-to-air combat and on the ground. But it was as absolute as that attained by Israel." USA - Aviation week & space technology - December 1968 issue.

"During the night they threw in every reinforcement they could find. But wave after wave of attacks were repulsed by the Pakistani troops." India, said the London Daily Times, "India is being soundly beaten by a nation which is outnumbered by four and a half to one in population and three to one in size of armed forces." Sunday Times, London, September 19, 1965.

"Pakistan claims to have destroyed something like 1/3rd the Indian Air Force, and foreign observers, who are in a position to know say that Pakistani pilots have claimed even higher kills than this; but the Pakistani Air Force are being scrupulously honest in evaluating these claims. They are crediting Pakistan Air Force only those killings that can be checked from other sources." Roy Meloni, American Broadcasting Corporation, September 15, 1965.

"Pakistan has been able to gain complete command of the air by literally knocking the Indian planes out of the skies, if they had not already run away." Sunday Times, London, September 19, 1965.

And many more on.. source

regarding the two other wars. Yes, 1971 might have been a defeat for Pakistan but in 1999 the kargil war was also an indirect victory for Pakistan as it had occupied a key position in Kargil without the knowledge of Indian military, it's common sense. And we all know that external political pressures resulted in the stalemate not the Indian military in achieving it's task.

Pakistan also deserves a place in the article for the defence of the nation against a military which out numbered it 4 to 1 in 1965. Faraz 01:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

1948,1971,1999. Three wars. Read Kargil War article for further details, it's not victory when one occupies posts in winter and loses those posts after a month. Also note that your collection of quotes are all about air force superiority and all come from a Pakistani website. An ISI operative recently wrote a book entitled "The Myth of 1965 Victory" which suggests that the Pakistani media received some flaws during this war. However, you may change that comment to make it more clear but please don't add an ugly tag on the whole section when it's only one sentence that you are disputing. Regards. Traing 07:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh come on. the 1947 war was also stalemate if not a Pakistani victory. Pakistan occupied 40% of Kashmir against all odds with the Indian military opposing the occupation of Indian territory under the agreements signed with the maharaja of Kashmir. By the way, Kashmir had a majority of muslim population.

In 1999 the kargil war was also an indirect victory for Pakistan as it had occupied a key position in Kargil without the knowledge of Indian military, it's common sense. And we all know that external political pressures resulted in the stalemate not the Indian military in achieving it's task. Faraz 01:26, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Western media definitely did not portray it that way. Pakistani media did, particularly after Mr. Musharraf came to power. Edit the Kargil War (featured article) article if you want. But do that first before editing here. Traing 01:27, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Most wars end with a ceasefire, unlateral, bilateral or forced. To say two wars ended in ceasefire is erroneous. In Kargil, The Indian military recaptured all territory the Pakistani guerilla troops had initially captured over winter months. The war began with Pakistani positions in Indian administered Kashmir and ended with India recovering those positions. The UN commended India on it's performance at maintaining the status quo. Due to the war, there was a coup in Pakistan. After the war, Pakistan was suspended from the Commonwealth and Sharif was being labelled a failed PM. In 65, many sources place India with the upper hand. In 71, India clearly one, not only partitioning Pakistan, but also capturing much territory in Western Pakistan, which was returned in the Simla agreement. And this can be found only after a small amount of reading up. Traing 04:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

You claim many sources claim India's upper hand in 65, please give an example of one if not many. (all of the above quotes can be verified by the publishers and have been verified before) With regards to Kargil war "The two neighbors nearly waged a full-scale war in 1999 when 800 Pakistani soldiers disguised as militants scaled a 5,100-m-high ridge near Kargil in Indian-held Kashmir and began shelling a major road used by the Indians to supply their Siachen outposts. India recaptured Kargil after suffering many casualties, but the Indians remain wary of the peace-making vows of Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, who, as army chief, had planned the Kargil offensive." TIME magazine - War at the Top of the World and Political outburst this clearly verifys my claims.

Anyways, we are not here to discuss the outcome of these wars all, we are here to discuss the point of adding that sentence which violates Wikipedia policy of Wikipedia:NPOV and Wikipedia:Five pillars. Faraz 02:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I have discussed it with Mercenary2k on his talk page and feel convinced that my revert complies with Wikipedia policies. Particularly considering double-standards and failure to meet WP:OR, WP:V, WP:RS policies. Brittanica is very favourable towards India's performance in the 65 war.[8]. Also, India came within range of attacking Lahore. Pakistan cannot be victors if it's troops were forced to defend one of it's first/second/third most important city. India was referred to as politico-strategic victors and Shastri was hailed as a hero. India had used only 14% of it's ammunition reserves while Pakistan had used 80%. India had twice the number of tanks Pakistan did when the war ended. It was a decisive operation. Traing 04:32, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the Western media definitely did not portray 65 war that way. The Indian media as usual had its role in portraying Indian patriotism. By the way the link you have provided clearly states "Pakistan, however, believed it had won and that India's army was weak, and Zulfikar Ali Bhutto (1928–79), Ayub's foreign minister, urged another round in Kashmir that summer, to which Ayub agreed" in no other paragraph it mentions that India had an upper hand or had won the war. Regarding Mercenary2k I will be discussing this matter with him and a senior Arb committee member. Faraz 12:06, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I have rephrased the sentence in a manner which will be acceptable to all parties, "Has fought 3 wars with rival Pakistan and a war with China." and will not violate any Wikipedia policy. Faraz 01:52, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Brittanica IS a Western source and is an extremely reputable one at that. And you misread the source, it says Pakistan believed it had won the first skirmish and then decided to initate the 65 war. It then says how India launched a three-pronged retaliation and got close to attacking Lahore. Traing 06:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Brittanica is an encyclopedia just like Wikipedia not a news network. And "Got close to attacking Lahore" does not mean it had attacked Lahore in the first place again, the article does not mention that India had an upper hand or was in control of the war at any stage. Faraz 00:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, I will not waste my time on persuading you about 1965. 1999 was a clear Indian victory. The war began with Pakistani troops in Indian territory. India expelled the troops and Pakistan sufferred 4000+ casualties. The UN commended India for not crossing the LoC yet being so effective. The US commended India on it's military performance. The war resulted in political distress and a coup in Pakistan, while the Indian stock market shot up to record levels following the end of the war. It's clear about that victory. Traing 01:57, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

All that you have mentioned is not cited and is based on opinions of the Indian media or the public and is not based on ground realities. All that I have mentioned so far is cited and sourced which clearly verifys my claims. Anyways, we are not here to discuss the outcome of the wars but to discuss inappropriate and disputed additions to the Indian article. Faraz 00:10, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

• Funny how Faraz should quote from PakDef which uses nothing but a select compilation of a few sources (excluding the Islamic publications) that talks primarily about the PAF's performances. Make no mistake the PAF did outplay the IAF in that war by a small degree, but in the end wars are not decided in the air but in the ground. That's where neither made any headway, if anything pakistan only lost more men, material and land (all according to Pakistan's ally USA and other neutral sources like TIME magazine) than India. For a nation that started the 65 war on the premise of "liberating" Kashmir (read Operation Gibraltar to refresh one's memory), the war ended in a meaningless ceasefire for Pakistan and a needless setback in its then flourishing economy as well as laying the seeds of the nation's separation. If one looks at a war as a mere game, then it would be naive for the consequences of a war are long lasting and the lessons are bitter. That Pakistan never learned its lesson in that war is visible from a renowned Pakistani columnist Ayaz Amir: "Was anyone ever prosecuted for the folly of the 1965 war[9] or for the disaster of 1971?" not to forget Kargil in the same paragraph.

• So please try to put everything in context and read proper history before posting in here. It wasn't an Indian victory in 65 or 47/48 but surely not a Pakistani victory; if anything Pakistan's loss of the majority of the Kashmir region in 47 war despite the local tribal support and proximity to its territory, is the reason why they still keep the kashmir on the frontburner to this day. Multiple wars and covert help since that loss in the late 40s haven't really helped it to acquire any more territory, it has only resulted the loss of more territory both in Kashmir and elsewhere. Idleguy 02:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

If you read carefully all of the above, I have never claimed that Pakistan won the wars of 47 or 65 or 99, all I said that they were stalemate's if not a Pakistani victory. By the way, even in 1947 the Indian Army was huge in numerical terms as compared to Pakistan but we did manage to capture/occupy/free 40% of Kashmir thats why I said against all odds. Again, we are not here to discuss the outcomes of the wars but to remove inappropriate or distuped sentences from the Indian article inaccordance to Wiki policies. Faraz 22:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

'99 was no stalemate by any stretch of imagination. Ceding occupied land due to military and/or political retreats is hardly considered so. "Against all odds" in'47 is a stretch; with the tribals' backing, the Pakistani numbers weren't exactly like The 300 Spartans fighting great odds. Losing the majority of Kashmir might be good enough in Pakistan where a stalemate's considered as a "Pakistani victory" but outcomes of wars don't change. True, the statements about India winning 3 wars with Pakistan is wrong, and should stay out from the article, but that doesn't mean more wrong statements can be put forward in the talk pages. Idleguy 01:12, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Spain?

Obviously not much of a great power now, but if Austria-Hungary can make the list, and we're citing dates as early as 1452, Spain can obviously make the list as well.

As the header says, we're only considering great powers post 1815 Nil Einne 17:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Spain continues its extensive cultural influence upon a huge chunk of the world that includes most of the Americas (including a significant part of the population inside United States of America. At the least, Spain must be considered a cultural superpower in the sense that a country like Japan... isn't because of the huge volume of literature in Spanish and the gigantic market for Spanish-language film and music. The gigantic Spanish empire in the New World lasted after 1815, and even heavily truncated... it controlled Puerto Rico, Cuba, and the Philippines until 1898.

Ottoman Empire

I suggest that we consider the Turkish Empire, generally recognized as a menacing power to much of Europe as late as 1700 and an entity that one challenged at great risk as late as World War I. Even if known in its last decades as "the Sick Man of Europe" and was very much in decline (steadily losing control of its empire), it at the least deserves recognition as the inheritor of the martial heritage and to some extent the administrative and cultural characteristics of the Byzantine Empire. Even if much of the empire was satellite states, one must recognize that Turkey held onto those after 1815, and that satellite states are a form of empire.

As late as 1830 the Ottoman Empire contained not only modern Turkey, but also the whole of what are now Cyprus, Greece, Bulgaria, Serbia, Albania, Bosnia and Hercegovina, Romania (except for Transylvania), Syria, Lebanon, Israel, Libya, Tunisia, Iraq, Kuwait, and what are the most populous parts of what are now Saudi Arabia and Algeria.

After World War I, neither the moribund Ottoman Empire nor its truncated successor the Turkish Republic could be considered a Great Power. But even its current form it was a political entity that neither the Allies nor the Axis messed with.--Paul from Michigan 20:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

UK military

Its global power projection capabilities are deemed second only to the United States military, and its navy is the world's second strongest,[86] with the second largest aircraft carrier fleet.

I have a problem with these statements. The first one doesn't have a source, as for the second I found that the source is in fact the website of a UK national maritime renewal campaign and altough the site does make that statement I'm not positive it qualifies as a reliable source (it had a more propagandistic tone than a scientific one). Also the statement about having the second largest aircraft carrier fleet, altough technically correct, is misleading. The UK has only two aircraft carriers and both have a 20,000 ton displacement wich is half the displacement of the french carrier Charles de Gaulle and 1/3 the displacement of the russian carrier kuznetsov.

What you guys think? I thought about rewording that part. Any opinions? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by RIP-Acer (talk • contribs) 19:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC).

This whole article is riddled with POV language and OR claims, the UK bit especially. It needs clearing out, I agree.--Nydas^(Talk) 20:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed the above statement seems as though it is trying to make an OR point. It seems as thought its author placed it in the section to support his own hypothesis that the UK is the strongest military great power (after the US if included); thus, the statement is OR and ought to be removed (Unless of course, a reputable source shows up to support the claim this statement is meant to support). Regards, Signature^brendel 23:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok its done, I removed most of the unsourced stuff. I checked the British Armed Forces article and it's language is much more cautious than the one that was used here. RIP-Acer 01:16, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

ITALY

Sorry, but Italy is not a power so why you put in the great power.

• First identify yourself.

Second, you should have to defend your claim with arguments and read others arguments too.

ACamposPinho 16 June 2007,21:49

Quality sources

I've noticed a lot of people using headlines, news 'puffs' and book reviews to show that one or another country is a 'great power'. This is insufficient, as explained in Wikipedia's guidelines [10]. Please only cite sources from reputable sources, such as academics from respected universities, foreign policy institutions and the like. Opinion pieces from local or regional newspapers are not good enough. Further, there is no need to provide 'sources' for statements of fact. That the US is recognised globally as a superpower, or that France, Britain, Russia, the EU, or China are recognised as great powers, is merely a statement of fact—like saying that an orange is orange or an apple is red or green. Enhancing the quality of this article depends on using reputable sources, removing nonsense and other hyperbole, and using citations sparingly. Ouip (talk) 22:00, 29 May 2008 (UTC)jhfsuifasnnfhhxxfghxxfhxh

Yes, I concur with this. Attempts are being made to add bias to this article. Imperium Europeum (talk) 22:27, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

State of the article?

I've been away from this article for a few months now; things have certainly changed a lot since then, yet things are also basically the same. I'm interested in the general consensus of opinion here as to the state of the article. What are the views re. the OR tags? What is the best way of going about removing them (that is to say removing them by addressing the concerns, not simply by deleting them)? What is the view on the cohesion, style, and quality of the writing? Can this article be raised to GA once more?

Xdamr^talk 13:30, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

The current great powers section is flawed. No mention of Japan, one of the world's largest economies is mentioned, though italy is, just as an example.

there should be a list with the great powers --134.147.117.41 12:55, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

IP edits to Italy

Would someone look over the anon edits to the article's Italy section [11], please? CRGreathouse (t | c) 20:44, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

71.243.25.240 20:55, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Italy must be included. They were mentioned recently as a European power in my newspaper recently when Kosovo gained independence.

To back it up please read:

Political scientist and author Joseph Becker and Franz Knipping in, "Power in Europe? Great Britain, France, Italy and Germany in a Postwar World, 1945-1950," along with Ben W. Heineman, Jr., and Fritz Heimann in, "The Long War Against Corruption," have called Italy, alongside France, the UK, and Germany the remaining regional powers and describes Italy as a "major player" on par with the other regional powers within Europe.[30] [31]Also the Carabinieri and author B.A. Roberson have claimed Italy's status as a regional power.[32][33]

Italy is a member of the G8, NATO and is also a current elected member of the United Nations Security Council.[34], Italy also has the fourth largest economy within Europe [35] with "...roughly the same total and per capita output as France and the UK"[36]. It is regarded as a Great Power and is behind Russian military spending by just 307 million by 2006 est.[37] But Italy is undergoing military upgrades and reform including the making of a new aircraft carrier, the Cavour (550) and the purchase of more Eurofighter Typhoons.[38] Italy was one of the founding members of the EU and as of 2006, Italy ranks third in the world in number of military forces operating in peacekeeping and peace-enforcing scenarios such as Afghanistan, Kosovo, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Lebanon following only the United States and United Kingdom.[39] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.167.238.141 (talk) 01:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Major player is not Great Power MAJOR difference I have also read the cited documents and they do not support your claim, nor does being a member of G8 (eg Canada), not a Permanent member of the Security Council (among 15 others elected), Total GDP rank doesn't automatically make a country a Great Power, Italy 8 billion Thats a B... not 300 million, behind Russia in Military Spending, Nor does military build up or size of Army if so then Iran has a good claim as a Great Power, There were many original members of the EU including Belgium, And I cannot find any talk about peacekeeping forced but don't forget that Canada has a VERY large peacekeeping force. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 01:36, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Anyone who is interested in this discussion should also read User talk:59.167.238.141. Viewfinder (talk) 07:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Lead-in contraction

I have edited the article's lead for length, and much information that seemed redundant or irrelevant has been taken out. If you wish to reinsert this, please try to find a relevant section in the main body of the article. I know it is somewhat short for the article's size; however, I am sure that this article needs to be much more concise to regain good article status. This is just my opinion, however, and I would be glad to hear other comments on this matter. Gutterball1219 02:53, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

It looks generally good to me. I do have one question (which applies to the article even before your edit, but more so now): is post-Napoleonic the best description of the time the term was used? I would have thought "Westphalian".

CRGreathouse (t | c) 12:04, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Good call on removing some of that extraneous material. Personally I think that the best way that this article could be immediately improved is by removing the 'The Great powers' section. This has grown to assume the proportions of a nightmare and is the big OR/NPOV Achillies heel of the article. Replace it with one single, unified section discussing the broad themes of membership of the Great power club, allowing us to be rid of tedious information re. French aircraft carriers etc.

The big rewrite at the beginning of the year seems to have sorted out the theoretical aspects of this concept fairly well. Since then, I'd bet a large amount of money that 95%+ of the edits to this article have been in the nature of national aggrandisement in the 'The Great powers' section, bloating that section appallingly. This is not the place to give a history of France, Germany, Italy, Japan, etc, etc—this is for discussion of the Great power concept. Replace this morass of OR synthesii with something suitable for the purpose of the article and I think that we will be well on the way to recovering GA.

Xdamr^talk 13:20, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I haven't much to do for a while, so I can try to work on combining the "History" and "Characteristics" into a section that is relevant and concise. Xdamr, I agree; there is no problem in my mind with binning "The Great Powers" section altogether. I'm quite up for it if anyone would like to collaborate on this. Gutterball1219 04:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

The former 'The Great powers' section was useful for readers. When ppl reasearch Great Powers, the readers would wonder what nations were Great Powers in each moment. It is useful info for encyclopedias. The article was removed at:

-------------

13:29, 14 July 2007 Xdamr (Talk | contribs) (15,141 bytes) (→The Great powers - rm content per talk) (undo)

12:36, 14 July 2007 Takeshik (Talk | contribs) m (70,432 bytes) (undo)

-------------

---Brionies 02:33, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

The The Great powers section was interesting and I played a significant role in writing it (see archives). However it violated Wikipedia policy as it was almost entirely Original Research. Novel synthesii of sourced material (which is what that section had become) are not permitted. For us to take facts and extrapolate from them whether a nation was or is a Great power is beyond our role as editors, no matter how convinced we are that we are right. Anyway, that section had become a magnet for nationalistic self-aggrandisement - in the time this article has had its present structure, the theory aspects of the page have been largely untouched, while the The Great powers section saw tremendous editing, none of which contributed much to the overall article.

The basics of the article are sound - the removed section was in reality nothing more than a distraction.

Xdamr^talk 12:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I guess that is understandable that there is a need to bring back focus on the theory and concept of great powers. However, a written list and description of the role, influence, and effects of great powers should have a place in the article too. As an article about great powers, shouldn't there be a place noting on how each great power have shaped politics and the world? Good luck I guess on making the new direction work, though I will miss the old section. I do contest how much OR is the original section too, but I'm not going to argue that right now. DarkGhost89 20:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

No list?

I remember last time I was here that this page had a list of great powers, but now it doesn't. Why not? The regional power page has one, the superpower page even has a list of potential future superpowers! 60.231.148.248 07:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

let's categorized the list of power
the current undisputed Great Power are:
- USA (also a superpower)
- Russia (also referred as a superpower[[12]])
- UK
- France
- China
(noted, they also = permanent security council member)

disputed/potential Great Power are:
- Germany (defeated in WWII)
- Japan (defeated in WWII)
- India (independent after WWII)
(considered as forerunners for expanded security council; excluded brazil/etc with no projected power)
- Italy
(notable but not active in global affair)

Akinkhoo 07:31, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Lists lead to unecessary confrontations and edit wars. I don't think they should be added in. 138.237.165.140 18:49, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Just to thow a monkey wrench into the works: I don't think your "undisputed" list is actually undisputed. I think that there have been many papers since the fall of the Berlin Wall positing Russia as a non-Great power. In fact most academic sources I read have fewer than five Great powers, so they obviously drop at least one of the "undisputed" states. (Some have only two or three.) CRGreathouse (t | c) 20:37, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

All these great power things are opinions made my political scientists. France is a great power to some and not to others. Japan is to some an not to others. There can be no definate answer here. NONE.

And also how is Italy not active in global affairs. Have you read the news lately or even know of any of the worlds organizations because it seems your just talking out of the opinion of a 7th grader.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.170.185.121 (talk • contribs)

Surely there can be definite answers based on a consensus of experts. At the moment we don't really have good sourcing; we need to change that down the road. As for Italy -- it's not worth my time to respond. Figure it out. CRGreathouse (t | c) 14:31, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

A list would be advisable. I do not think either Italy or Germany can be seriously regarded as Great Powers. By contrast, Russia clearly and undisputably is a Great Power. (Peter) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.212.53.140 (talk) 16:07, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Russia but not germany or italy? russia is struggling to be not called a third world nation. germany can defeat russia in a war and germany has a larger economy. same with italy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.252.248.111 (talk) 20:13, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Russia is a nuclear power which puts her on another scale than the two middle powers Germany and Italy. It's also a country with massive energy resources which will make her even more important. (Peter) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.212.52.11 (talk) 07:36, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Italy has access to nukes through nuclear sharing via NATO and germany and italy both have the ability to create nuclear weapons quickly if they really wanted to. It would violate the NPT but who cares. They have the ability. Russia isnt on another level. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.170.156.102 (talk) 03:51, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I suppose, Italy and Germany as well as possibly Spain might be ranked as 'advanced middle powers' whereas Britain and France remain the sole great European powers. I suppose, though, that this is bordering on OR. (Peter) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.216.107.173 (talk) 09:22, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Great Powers List

i propose the deletion of this part of the article. its too controversial. I think we should let the readers determine the state of power of a nation based on the definition and information given in the article not have them draw conclusions off of a controversial and unofficial paragraph telling of "disputed powers" which in mine and many others opinions arent disputed. Ill delete in 24 hours. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.226.67.23 (talk) 04:03, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the Current Great powers section has enough citations. Do we need the Original research tag yet?　--221.190.253.70 (talk) 07:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protected

Given the recent spate of anon removals, I have semi-protected this page. This of course is without prejudice to any new consensus on the future of the 'The Great Powers' section. Anon editors should feel free to contribute to this discussion.

Xdamr^talk 11:51, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I would also like to have the anonymous editors discuss the section here. Although I did re-add the removed section, the best course of action may be to delete it -- I have no opinion at the moment on how best to fix it. CRGreathouse (t | c) 12:52, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The anon editor (I assume there is only one person behind this) has a decent point insofar as the section is at present in pretty bad shape. I see that we are now claiming (though, of course, not citing) South Korea as a potential Great power. This kind of nonsense completely devalues the article. I believe that there is a need for this section, containing a brief sketch of the changing membership of the 'club', but as it stands the state of the section does a disservice to an otherwise decently sourced and objective article.

Xdamr^talk 21:32, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually South Korea's not in bad shape, having joined the top 10 economies a while back. They're certainly no Great power, though, and I agree the section's pretty bad.

Unfortunately I'm not sure that the rest of the article is that objective; while I think the article is good, on the whole, it has serious POV issues from its roots. CRGreathouse (t | c) 01:23, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the term "Great Power" has not been applied by any widely respected commentators to any country in the post-WW2 world, and the section in question is therefore WP:OR and should be re-written accordingly. Any further comments? If there are none, I will re-write the section. Viewfinder 14:32, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

What? I've read at least a dozen post-WW2 papers that use that term, and I don't even read that many papers in this field. Even the references to the article have at least two such papers, as memory serves. Are you joking? I can't honestly tell.

CRGreathouse (t | c) 15:59, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

First, I must protest about your suggestion that my good faith comments are jokes, which is contrary to WP:CIV. Second, I ask you to identify the references you mention, and if they are not available from the web, provide transcriptions of the relevant passages. To what countries is the term applied. According to German authorities cited in this article, Germany is classed as a "middle power". If the "Great Power" claim has been applied by respected authorities to the likes of post-war UK and Germany, then it is in order to place this in the relevant country articles. Otherwise, it is not. Viewfinder 16:43, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I honestly couldn't tell you were serious -- there are so many sources for this it was hard to imagine. Danilovic, as cited in the article, would apparently be one source; the standard International Relations (Pearson / 8th edition) would be another. I believe the Wilkinson article also mentions Germany as a great power in his article, although I could be mistaken. The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers (Paul Kennedy) has Germany as a Great power. In fact I can think of no book-length references which do not. I've read a few textbooks which had great power lists, including Germany, but I can't think of their titles offhand. PINR has a number of articles listing Germany as a great power, even when the articles are discussing the great/middle split. I can't recall for certain, but The United States of Europe may also make such mention. If you look into the archives of this talk page you'll find a number of other references I found that discuss Great powers -- all were post-WW2, though not all list Germany as a Great power. (Some had as few as 2 great powers.) I know someone taking his undergrad who's in international relations, and if I can find his book I may be able to get yet another source. JSTOR can give tons of articles; I'm not going to insult you with a tremendous list, but "Great Power Arms Transfers: Modeling the Decision-Making Processes of Hegemonic, Industrial, and Restrictive Exporters" (ISQ, 1991) would be a typical example. CRGreathouse (t | c) 19:28, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the references. But, with respect, none of these references are easily verifiable because they are all in print or deeply buried in websites alongside countless other articles. To verify your claims, I would need to track down, buy and read these books cover to cover, or read through countless web articles. That is why I asked you for transcriptions (preferably accompanied by ISBN data and page numbers) of relevant passages. Even better would be links to specific web pages on which Great Power claims are made by widely respected sources. For example, can you not transcribe an appropriate passage from Danilovic, or find a specific PINR page? And does the Kennedy source talk about post-WW2 Germany being a Great Power? If there really are "so many sources" that you were justified in suggesting that I was not serious, you should be able to provide good samples. Viewfinder 20:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Danilovic ch.2 (so far as I recall) deals with the various 'Great powers'. It is referenced within the article as a pdf, so you should have no trouble in taking a look at it and setting your qualms to rest. Though we cannot escape the fact that many of Wikipedia's references are to books and not instantly available webpages, this source, written by an academic and published by a university publishing house, should at least indicate that the use of the term has some validity.

Xdamr^talk 21:57, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the specific reference. The chapter states (p.28) that "the expression major powers has come into a common usage recently, replacing the original phrase great powers. I think that the section in question should quote that. The chapter, in a somewhat contradictory manner, does go on to continue to use the term "great power" even when referring to situations after 1945. But its general conclusion seems to be that there is one superpower and several "major powers"; the chapter does not come down in support of claims that any of these are currently "great powers"; the global influence of the powers that are discussed has generally been in decline. Viewfinder 23:33, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

• You know, you came to this page and made what I consider to be an unfounded OR claim that is contradicted by almost every textbook on the subject, not to mention a great number of academic papers. That the term Great Power is still used is somewhat too self-evident to be the subject of a paper (though surely there are papers out there arguing that the term's dated). You're now asking me to do your research for you -- but there's no need. The article is sufficiently sourced in this regard (though not well enough in others, I easily concede), and a trip to a local university library should be quite enough to convince you. I don't feel that it's my job to enlighten you. Your extraordinary claim requires extraordinary proof -- and you bear the burden, not me.

If you're going to look seriously into this, I recommend basic textbooks, since little else would be sufficiently basic to spell this out. In fact I recommend you find a number of textbooks, not sticking to the list I or anyone else makes, so you can be assured that you're getting a representative sample. If you look over six textbooks and find that five agree and one states no position, you'll perhaps understand my incredulous response to your question.

CRGreathouse (t | c) 12:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Please, Greathouse, please visit WP:EQ and stop accusing me of ignorance on this subject. If you are right then it should not be any trouble at all for you to provide sample text passages and web links, similar to the one provided by Xdamr. Viewfinder 21:28, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I believe I am well within the bounds of etiquette. Your demand that I spend more time researching for you strikes me as a breach of same. Still, if I find the time I may look for more sources regardless -- but it would be to further improve the article, not to prove a point with you. CRGreathouse (t | c) 03:38, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Interpretation of German "Mittelmacht"

I have transferred the following from User Talk:UKPhoenix79, because it belongs on this page. Viewfinder (talk) 09:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

---

Hi Phoenix,

I missed the contradiction you pointed out, when I edited the text. The sources use the word "Mittelmacht"->Middlepower but this has a different in German than in English. In Germany the term is of historical origin: Germany at the end of the around 1900 being the dominating power in continental Europe and geographically lying in the middle of Europe. The term "Mittelmacht" come from the geographical position, at least thats what I learned during my history classes in german high school :). I'll edit the text, trying to avoid the contradiction. Feel free to undo if you think I'm wrong, but myself being german I'm quite positive that the cited source are supposed to be interpreted as I see it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.59.124.4 (talk) 20:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Please can this matter be discussed on the talk page. I reverted the changes because they were not accompanied by any edit summary or talk page contribution. I had not noticed the above comments, but I think they should have been made on the talk page. Viewfinder (talk) 06:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

You both have good points. If you can take this convo to the pages talk page that would be best. If you are correct about the translation of "Mittelmacht" it probably should still be mentioned if only so that it can be explained. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 08:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

---

While I am open to persuasion on this, especially by German contributors, it seems to me that the term "middle power" is used about Germany in a non-geographical sense, for example here. IIRC, the correct English translation of the geographical term would be "Central Power". Viewfinder (talk) 09:29, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Encarta is wrong

The encarta article opinion is found to be wrong.

Today’s great powers—the United States, Britain, France, Russia, and China—all have large military forces and substantial nuclear weapons capabilities. Japan and Germany—with huge economies and relatively large military forces but no nuclear weapons—also qualify as great powers. These seven states control over half of the world’s economy, 68 percent of world military spending, 27 percent of its soldiers, 95 percent of arms exports, and 99 percent of nuclear weapons. The only other states of comparable economic size are Italy and perhaps India, neither of which has the global outlook or military strength to qualify as a great power. India, which now has nuclear weapons capability, and Brazil are regional giants that have the potential to become great powers in the 21st century.

There is big errors in the list. The first line says The United States, Britain, France, Russia and China all have large military forces and substantial nuclear weapons. So is India. But regarding India the article says India, neither of which has the global outlook or military strength to qualify as a great power. Why is India which has a large military force (Second to that of China in terms of manpower and technologically on par with the U.S and Russia with Aircraft carrier, Su-30MKI's, Ballistic missiles like Agni, Brahmos supersonic cruise missiles, T-90 tanks, Anti-ballistic missile capability and many more capabilities) considered as not having military strength. Regarding economic capability India is third in terms of GDP PPP terms after U.S and China. This article may be written in the 1990's. Many years has passed after this article has been written and an update is necessary. Chanakyathegreat (talk) 04:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The thing is that the US, UK, France, Russia & China have military outposts thought the world with a military force that is ready to react any place in the globe at a moments notice. India brought an old Aircraft carrier from the UK and while it is notable about how much work they did in updating it and becoming the only country in SE. Asia to have an aircraft carrier, the other 5 countries have had aircraft carriers for many years and they number more than just the one. I think that you could agree that Encarta is completely correct about India's inward view lacking a global outlook, one cannot be anything more than a regional power without creating influence on a global scale. Even America notices when China gets p.o'd. Military force is not an indicator of a Great power either. Don't forget that in 1990 Iraq had the 5th largest military in the world. Heck if you include active and reservists Iran currently has 11,770,000 people available if a war started. Thats 5 million more than even china can call up! Even the worlds only Super Power the US ranks at number 7 with a meager 2.3 million ready. There has been no real accredited belief that India is a current global power, only that it has the potential to become one. Well I'll just drag and drop from what the article says: according to Dilip Mohite India will have to resolve the tremendously complex issues of ethnic and communal strife within its own body politic in order to stay together long enough to become a "great power".Swords and Ploughshares- India: The Fourth Great Power? Also read up on this article Is India a Major Power?, it might help. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 06:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Except the United States, no other nation in the list have military outposts thought the world with a military force that is ready to react any place in the globe at a moments notice. The other nations in the list Britain and France have colonial outposts but it is not all over the world. About Russia I doubt any such outposts except in Central asia. China don't have any military outposts. Regarding India it is said that India utilises an airbase in a central Asian nation for military purpose.

India is not the only country in South East asia to operate an AC. Thailand has one. But it can be said that India is the only country in Asia to have an operational AC. China don't have AC. Similarly France and Russia has only one and not more than 1.

India's inward looking foreign policy has changed after the collapse of the CCCP. Today India has excellent diplomatic relationship with the world nations including U.S, E.U, Russia and China.

And if you can explain what you meant by creating influence on a global scale I will be able to provide details.

Also don't compare the technologically inferior, under trained, low motivated Iraqi military with Indian military. The U.S has to think of inducting F-22 after the India-U.S air exercise, in which even the upgraded Mig-21's were quite a challenge to the U.S forces. Indian armed forces is a very professional technological force.

Dilip Mohite must have written something for the sake of filling the space, which is different from the reality. considering which will make France much more problematic because of the riots in France. This is what Thomas Friedman says India is a miracle with millions of peaceful Muslims not blowing up like in Iraq.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 04:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but the facts say otherwise. The UK has no more colonies, a commonwealth and a few dependency's like the Isle of Man or other places like the Falkland Islands. But there are British Military forts thought the world ranging from Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean to the bases Akrotiri and Dhekelia in Cyprus, each are a part of the the British overseas territories. Heck the British still have bases in Germany! As for aircraft carriers I was unaware that Thailand had one, so that is news to me. China had 2 but they have been taken out of commission, but if having an Aircraft Carrier is so important to being a Great Power, Argentina had 2, Australia had 4, Brazil has 1, Spain has 1, and even the Ukraine had one! Do you think that they should be considered Great Powers? Don't forget that by 1991 the Iraqi army had about 8 years of war with Iran and the republican guard was filled with veterans and was well respected for their fighting skills even by the US military. They were just outflanked and out generaled by a military force that was at the peak of its power after the collapse of the soviet union. But you have to admit that the internal instabilities of France are not the same as the internal instabilities of India. Being on a train where there are armed security guards with automatic weapons is not that uncommon in India especially if there guarding a politician, and lets not talk about bribery! But even so this has become a personal discussion with a lot of OR. There is just no academic belief that India is currently a great power, only the potential to become one. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 06:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

You must have called it colonies rather than dependencies. But the answer to the question is not given. Regarding military reach I still say that Britain and France has some colonial outposts and it's not world over. At the moment Diego Garcia U.S base. Hong Kong is handed over to China. So where are the world over bases. And still you carefully missed out the major part that's the Russian and Chinese bases.

Regarding AC you have mentioned in the first post that the other 5 countries have had aircraft carriers for many years and they number more than just the one Why you mentioned this in your first article? Regarding the nations having aircraft carriers you messed up the whole discussion by going for the wrong article. Here is the correct one.

The Iraqi's never had anything to match the American's in terms of technology. It was all outdated weaponry and an Army with low morale. Instability in France is a serious matter. I had read somewhere a minister in the France saying that France must be ready for a civil war in the near future.

Why this unwanted comments like armed guards for politicians when we are discussing global power.

What I am saying is that The potential has been reached. That means India is a Global power at the moment. Chanakyathegreat (talk) 14:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually Diego Garcia is a Joint UK/US base which is located on British Soil. If you check out British overseas territory you will see that is is indeed world wide. I know that China has a few outposts in the Pacific as does Russia. So you agree with my point about Iraq then? Just because the paper shows that it is an amazing military at the time filled with highly trained veterans and actually rather good US military wepons & tanks (The US sold them for the Iraq-Iran war) the reality can be somewhat different. The instability of France is an instability that it has had since Napoleon III and the reason that the minister said that he believes that a Civil war might be at hand, is because he believes that the high proportions of Muslims in the country is a security threat, as many Hindus believe India. I assume that you are SE. Asian and might even be From India itself, so the comment about armed guards was a direct response to the instability question you put forward showing the difference between India and France...

but really this is not the place for personal conversations why you believe that one is and the others isn't. I have tried to find some accredited sources saying that India is or believed to be a Great Power but at the moment people don't believe that. I am no expert in Geo-Politics nor am I a published author with degrees in world economics or paid lecture tours, from what I gather you aren't one either. So since we are not experts we must allow the experts have their say. So at the moment we should keep the page as it is until those academics start to change their mind or begin to believe that the future is now! -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 06:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

At the moment Diego Garcia belongs to the U.S. Sakhalin and Kuril are not worldwide. It's near Russia. What about China. You did not answer. Iraq had superior weapon. Absurd and I don't agree with you on it. That's what I am saying the so called reliable source like Encarta is written by some person who may not know anything about military capabilities. Shows the credibility of Encarta. Buddy the future that we were talking about has arrived. And the future is going to be much more interesting.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 12:46, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Umh read the Diego Garcia article! It is (as I have mentioned before) a British overseas territory with a joint US/UK base on it setup during the cold war. I also never said that Iraq had superior weapons! I said Don't forget that in 1990 Iraq had the 5th largest military in the world. how is that superior to the US? Also you need to check out the official wikipedia policies on No original research Reliable sources and Verifiability where they say for one thing that In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. You will discover that Encarta and Dilip Mohite (from Swords and Ploughshares- India: The Fourth Great Power?) are considered very reliable sources not Original research in the least. Heck they are great examples of references that give Wikipedia credibility. I'm sorry that you don't agree with what the scholars think of India's global power, but at least they agree that the potential is there even if they don't think that it has arrived yet. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 08:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, Let us consider the Dilip Mohite and encarta are reliable sources. The Encarta article as I said is very very old one. Similarly the Dilip Mohite's article was published either in 1990 or in 1992. At that time India was not a Great power. 18 years has passed since the article was first published. Mohite says that Thomas then posits a further transformation to the “Asian/Great Power Posture” by 1996 to 2000. Another point he notes is that There is reason to suppose that India’s current growth rates will support the ongoing levels of military expenditure, thereby allowing India to make the transition into the “Asian/Great Power Posture” posited by Thomas. However, the transnationalization of the Indian economy that has been responsible for the recent growth also means that the Indian economy is susceptible to the vagaries of the world economic system. That means he expected India to be Great power by the year 2000 provided India's economy grows stronger. From the economic stand point India is very strong at the moment and it is 2008 which is 8 years after the year in which India achieved the Great power status. So from the above reliable article itself it's proven that India is a Global power. I am adding it to the list of Global power based on the reliable source. Chanakyathegreat (talk) 05:56, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

LOL!!! And in 1913 The Power of the British Empire looked like it would continue to grow for another 100 years! Should I cite articles form the 1907 Encyclopedia Britannica proving that the British Empire is still the most powerful one on the earth??? Please use real citations and Real facts not just conjectures to prove your point. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 06:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

There is a big difference b/w the two. One was a Great power that lost its power other (India) was not a great power but has risen to be a Great power. The article is a reliable as you have admitted and making any changes will be a violation of Wikipedia rules and I will have to report you to the Administrator. Chanakyathegreat (talk) 13:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Please do not make threats as that is not very becoming of this decent conversation that we have had so far. Take a look at China it has everything to show that it is a super power right now, the arguments you have made for China are the same that you could make about China. People have made predictions that China would be considered a Super Power by now but it is still not considered one. The British Empire is a valid example because before its collapse no one would have predicted it at the time, so references cannot make predictions on the future they can only state what is seen now since facts change and situations change, 9/11 is another example of something no one predicted & changed a lot... but I wont get into that. Please just find a reliable source from an academic that states that India is currently a super power not a projection on India's growth that it might be after some time! -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 20:35, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I've taken this to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Great power to hopefully bring others into this conversation & see what they think. Please put up whatever you want to explain your beliefs :-) I hope this will resolve this issue for the best of the Article! -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 06:51, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, Chanakyathegreat, I'm an administrator, so consider me notified. Without getting into the specifics of this dispute, I wish to point out that the policy at Wikipedia:Verifiability requires that everything in Wikipdedia be verifiable from reliable sources, and that if a statement is challenged, then it is the responsibility of the editor wanting the statement to stay in to cite one or more reliable sources supporting the statement. The policy at Wikipedia:No original research complements verifibility, stating that:

• Wikipedia does not publish original thought: all material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source.
• Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not clearly advanced by the sources.

Finally, edit warring is against Wikipedia policy. -- Donald Albury 13:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

O.K, Let someone write an article on India as a great power, then it is possible to add it to the list. The only problem is that many of those links specifying India as an emerging great power is very outdated. Chanakyathegreat (talk) 10:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I took out the sentence about India and Brazil being emerging powers because it required weasel words to be considered accurate. Not because of India, but because of Brazil. There is only one notable article I could find that even considered the possibility of Brazil becoming a great power, and as such, that's not deserving of saying they're "thought to be" an emerging power. I was a little hasty on my removal however, as there does seem to be a general consensus regarding India, so I've restored the sentence with only India. I suggest we keep Brazil out of the article, as the suggestion of them becoming a great power is an extreme minority view that is supported by almost no experts (from what I could find, anyways). Sbw01f (talk) 20:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I would just like to say a few things. Firstly, I believe Japan also ranks above India in GDP, so it would be fourth. Furthermore, I believe that there is a difference between aircraft carriers. Thailand may have a carrier, but a single fully manned Nimitz class carrier could defeat the entire Thai airforce. The ability to effectively employ power throughout the world (like proven by the UK in the falkland war and by all 5 by possesion of powerfull balistic missiles)is a maior criteria, of which aircraft carriers is just a part. I also believe that inernational recognition as a great power already is an arguement on its own, that that country is indeed a great power. India has constant wars with Pakistan, which it is not winning vgery convincingly. Based on these arguments, and arguments previously mentioned by others, I support the idea that India is not yet a great power. Taketa (talk) 10:53, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Italy

America's closest ally in continental europe

The above link is to contradict the claim that Italy is not active in global affairs and highlights the perceived notions of its involvement around the world. I spent personally two months to get Italy listed as a great power only to come back here and the entire page revamped and the Italians being relegated to a two line footnote. And if you don't know who I am look at the archives a couple of years ago when I started this. It seems everyone is new here except for Xdamer who I remember. Former officer in the British military I remember. Problems with the country aside, the country is and has always been a major player in the world since unification. HadrianX. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.67.13.186 (talk) 02:46, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

And Americas closest allies in the middle east are Turkey & Israel, Africa would have to be South Africa or Egypt, N.America would be Canada, Pacific would be Australia & Asia would be Japan. Are you suggesting that they should be considered Great Powers because of US alliances? In Wikipedia we have to avoid OR. What is needed is reliable and sourced material from accredited experts believing that Italy is a Great World power not just a regional one. I read over the article you provided and it does not say anything about Italy being such. Don't forget that Canada is also a major player in world affairs but it is not considered a Great Power only a middle power. Is there a reference that you could provide stating that Italy is believed to be a current great power? -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 03:56, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

The reason Canada is not a Great Power is because the total GDP is lower than most other major countries and it's military is small compared to the countries. Further Canada does not want nor see itself as one. There is a lack of political will and the US owns too much of this country. They had a chance after WW2 but decided to dismantle the infrastucture. Further the article is to clearly state the contributions and invovlements the Italians have in the world contrary to the two line statement in the article. And as far as references, the three pages of references I posted here a year ago are archived. I would to postulate a point. If Italy isn't, then why is the UK? Remember this is not 1908 but 2008. I don't see the British any more involved in world affairs than the Italians. HadrianX —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.67.13.186 (talk) 20:32, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Well if you don't think that the British should then how can the French, Chinese, or the Russians be considered Great Powers??? Your comparing Super Powers with Great Powers. Undoubtedly the British were considered a Super Power in 1908 but it is still considered a Great Power by the Sourced References and the fact it is a permanent member of the UN Security Council, nukes and other measures. But give an accredited reference that states that Italy is a current Great Power and that should be ok! Remember Wikipedia's policies of Wikipedia:No original research Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 05:56, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

The British are still a major influencial power spending more in militry than any other country save the US. Italy is not nearly as much of a power as the UK. Italy does not have the same sort of political setup or as many overseas terrotries. HRH-Ryan (talk) 21:53, 27 January 2008 (UTC)HRH-Ryan

I don't think it's wise to say Italy is a Great power. Even Germany that is in the list is not a Major power. But due to some erratic info by Encarta it's there. While India is considered emerging Great power. Anyway Wikipedia is all about sources, so try to find a source that says Italy is a great power and we can have Italy in the list.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 04:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Who is this guy Chanakyathegreat? What gives you the right to mess with the article without getting a consensus from the group? Italy was mentioned and YOU decide to remove. Who even heard of you prior to a month ago. I am so filled up with absolute disgust with this group and the Neo-Nazi ideas. I don't agree with with Xdamer but at least the man is civilised. If you are the keeper of this article, revert the changes and protect the article from edits. This is becoming rediculous. You know I spent many nights obtaining articles and citations, and still I can't make headway for Italy. Then I get yahoos like this guy above who has his own personal opinion and makes changes. Give me a break! Hadrian —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.54.111.198 (talk) 02:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Personally I have reverted edits that have been unsourced or aren't from accredited sources. So if you have an accredited source that says that Italy is a Great power (not major power, notable power, or other such wordings, since they have different meanings) then please let us know. If you feel that no one here is being reasonable then please go to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard and let them know since they are watched by users that generally have a keen interest in such things. Don't forget that Chanakyathegreat came here making the same claims about India being a Great Power; but he could only find sources saying India is a possible future great power. Thanks to his research he has made that section of the article that much better by sourcing his findings. I hope I helped! -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 02:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I have found an article/paper that talks about the current reform attempts of the UN Security Council. In it, it describes the numeruos attempts at SC reform which have failed numerous times, mainly because the current permanent members refuse to give up their veto rights or allow any one else in. It also talks about Germany's and Japan's push to be made permanent members. In this paper, it specically refers to the UN security members as the great powers. And in it, it mentions Germany and Japan push for being considered considered great powers/permanent members of the UN security council. In the very next sentence it says if Germany and Japan can be in, why not Italy? Surely Italy is in the same league as the other two as well as Britain and France who are already members.

"The history of reform efforts geared toward making the Security Council more reflective of growing UN membership and of changing world politics since the organization’s establishment conveys the slim prospects for meaningful change. UN founders deliberately divided member rights and roles by establishing a universal General Assembly with the most general functions and a restricted Security Council with executing authority for maintaining the peace—unanimity among the great powers was a prerequisite for action. This arrangement was designed to contrast with the Council of the League of Nations, a general executive committee for all of the organization’s functions that failed miserably in the security arena because it required agreement from all states. Eternal seats for the era’s great powers—the United States, the Soviet Union, France, the United Kingdom, and China—now known as the Permanent 5 (P-5) with the right to veto decisions of substance, was an essential component of the original 1945 deal." The Illusion of UN Security Council Reform pg.148. The Washington Quarterly Autumn 2003

A few pages down,

"Even more difficult has been reaching agreement on new permanent members. If dominance by the industrialized countries was the problem, why were Germany and Japan obvious candidates? Would Italy not be more or less in the same league? Would it not make more sense for the European Union to be represented (rather than Paris, London, Berlin, and Rome individually)? How did Argentina feel about Brazil’s candidacy?" The Illusion of Un Security Council Reform pg. 151. The Washington Quarterly Autumn 2003

The Illusion of UN Security Council Reform

Now this clearly states that it's common sense that if Germany and Japan are allowed in, so should Italy and few other countries as well. And by extension, by referring to the UN security council members as great powers, so is Italy. If you can't follow this basic logic, you are either below normal intelligence or just plain descriminatory.

I have read the references you have cited here and they are quite flakey compared with this. Change this article. You wanted the reference, there it is. --74.14.96.68 (talk) 00:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC) HadrianX

Your taking a article that says nothing about Italy being a Great Power and making a conjecture from your opinions. Please find an accredited source that agrees with you and not give personal opinions about Geo-Politics. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 03:19, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Obviously you can't read. I clipped the relevant passages and you still refuse and say I am conjecturing. It says "If dominance by the industrialized countries was the problem, why were Germany and Japan obvious candidates? Would Italy not be more or less in the same league? " The previous paragraph says "Eternal seats for the era’s great powers—the United States, the Soviet Union, France, the United Kingdom, and China". What is it that you don't get. It says in the article if Germany and Japan should be on the security council because they qualify as great powers, why not Italy since it too is on the same level as the other two. Did you fail English/Logic? --76.67.14.102 (talk) 04:12, 23 May 2008 (UTC)HadrianX

Italy is not in the same league as Germany and Japan, over 2007 Italy had a GDP of $1.888 trillion, germany $2.81 trillion and Japan $4.346 trillion Taketa (talk) 10:39, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I can read, hence my ability to type and reply to you. Being insulting only highlights the frailty of your position. Tell me where in that entire article does it say that Italy is a GREAT POWER? It doesn't even make that claim about Germany or Japan. When you find an accredited source that claims that Italy is a current Great power then we can talk until then keep on researching. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 00:22, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Confused article

Having glanced at the article there is a long history section and then apparently some kind of sub-history section again under the list. Is that necessary? And can not that narrative be merged into the rest of the article above? Wjhonson (talk) 00:18, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

The section "Current Great Powers" contain original research and unverified or debated claims. In fact two days ago I added a source ( thecanadianencyclopedia.com ) that speaks against the list of current great powers, but someone removed it. I think is better if the list is removed because it is so debated, as we saw many time in the past. --80.104.57.29 (talk) 09:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually that is explained in the Prose of the text stating that there is some confusion between scholars. That would be a great link for that section. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 11:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Great Powers List

Um. like, I understand there is arguments about which powers included and such --- but right now the article looks really weird. I would expect under Current Great Powers to include in big letters UNITED STATES but um, the article doesn't list it? I don't know what compromise was arrived at based on discussion above, but this is a less than ideal resolution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.247.219.10 (talk) 06:43, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Well the US is in a class onto itself since it is the only remaining superpower. The UK & Russia can no longer be considered Superpowers but are now relegated to the lesser Great Power status. Do you think that the US should be called a Great Power not a Superpower? -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 06:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

In the French, Dutch, Spanish, Italian and German Wikipedia the European Countries and Japan are no more considered as Great powers --80.104.56.188 (talk) 14:39, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Who constitutes a great power is highly debated and debatable, and Wikipedia should not be trying to come up with a definitive list. TallNapoleon (talk) 08:16, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Canada, Great Power or Military Power?

Is Canada a "Great Power"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Walahi5000 (talk • contribs) 23:27, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

No, it's usually considered a middle power.Sbw01f (talk) 21:49, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Italy is recognized as a European Power

Recently, not only did i read it in the newspaper but i also heard it on BBC News when kosovo was formed last month, they mentioned Italy as one of the European powers. Why does this article not include Italy ? Here is the back-up that you need to prove it:

Political scientist and author Joseph Becker and Franz Knipping in, "Power in Europe? Great Britain, France, Italy and Germany in a Postwar World, 1945-1950," along with Ben W. Heineman, Jr., and Fritz Heimann in, "The Long War Against Corruption," have called Italy, alongside France, the UK, and Germany the remaining regional powers and describes Italy as a "major player" on par with the other regional powers within Europe.[30] [31]Also the Carabinieri and author B.A. Roberson have claimed Italy's status as a regional power.[32][33]

Italy is a member of the G8, NATO and is also a current elected member of the United Nations Security Council.[34], Italy also has the fourth largest economy within Europe [35] with "...roughly the same total and per capita output as France and the UK"[36]. Italy is undergoing military upgrades and reform including the making of a new aircraft carrier, the Cavour (550) and the purchase of more Eurofighter Typhoons.[37] Italy was one of the founding members of the EU and as of 2006.

If you've got credible sources that specifically label Italy as a great power, cite them and re-add Italy back to the list with the sources. I removed it for now. Sbw01f (talk) 01:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Please don't just copy paste material from another article (reference numbers and all), especially without citing sources. It's not necessary to make a whole paragraph dedicated to why Italy might be a great power. Just find a credible source that explicitly labels Italy as a great power, then add them to the list. Sbw01f (talk) 01:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Even if Italy is a European Power as you have said doesn't mean it has the ability to exert its influence on a global scale, just to let it out there. Knightshield (talk) 22:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

You are still debating if Italy is great power or not, and debat about the lists of current g. powers , but actually no one of the european countries (and Japan) are no more considered as great powers by many scholars, as demonstrated in the canandian encyclopedia article above, but you are still ignoring this POV: in fact the section and list of current g. powers ( Wikipedia is encyclopedia: what is "current" today will not be current tomorrow. Wikipedia articles are not newspaper, and should not be snapshots of the "today")is not neutral ad have to be removed or changed! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.104.57.148 (talk • contribs) 16:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

This section is sourced rather well, even to other respected encyclopedias. It even states that there is much disagreement out there but there are enough academic sources to keep this section as a valid topic. Just remember Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 19:23, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

"but there are enough academic sources " enough???? Who can affirm what is enough??? You??? It is only your (very english) POV! not neutral. the list/section of current g. power have to be removed, it generates continually flames and action from who has other opinions! --80.104.57.208 (talk) 16:19, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I added in the historical section:

"In the fifty years after the second world conflict, when the two superpowers emerged, many of the historical Great powers lost progressively their influence and status, so now there is a tendency in many scholars to refer to Britain, France, Germany and Japan as Middle powers"

UKPhoenix79 disputed it and erased it, without a very proper argumentation, only it's usual very british POV...

please, I ask a disclipline intervention by the administration --80.104.57.87 (talk) 09:44, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

LOL!!!! I kid you not I actually laughed out loud when you wrote this... Really I did :-) Seriously I'm still smiling :-D Oh ok Let me give you links to the Admins :-) Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard & Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard I hope they can help you :-D

You also forget that I reverted your vandalism of removing an entire scection of a highly soureced material... but i digress the summery that was without a very proper argumentation you mentioned was when I reverted your edit, my statement said That can be disputed by other encyclopedias including http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761590309/Great_Powers.html & http://www.britannica.com/eb/topic-243609/Great-Powers try rewording if you want, I see what you mean.... it has no basis in reality or facts, if only I would have included some sources :-) but when you say that I should be disciplined do you mean a spanking?? -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 10:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

1) you readded your favorite list section, but you removed the banner: "This article or section may contain original research or unverified claims." Why??? ...so I not vandalized, but removed a section very disputed, that I think need to be removed o rewrited correctly, with the POV of others sources, not only the sources that you like...

2) you removed what I added in the Historical section, that I sourced with the Canadian Encyclopedia (I also wrote that "many scholars...", not "all the scholars...", so I added a simply other, sourced POV, but you don't like it... mmhhh...)

3) you continually affirm "That can be disputed by other encyclopedias..." but you ignore the Canadian encyclopedia, that contradicts your POV... this is not neutral as required by Wikipedia--80.104.56.158 (talk) 17:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I love how you make your POV push, then when I revert it, you say that I have a POV :-) your funny! Just read my edit summary when I reverted it try rewording if you want I didn't say it was wrong ironically I was saying it was POV and needed some editing! You've become my new favorite editor <hehehe> How's the Admin notice going :-D In all seriousness I reworded the section you added to TRULY show a NPOV position showing both sides, what should have been done in the first place. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 21:47, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

This guy is absolutely right because I referenced three pages worth of internet sites showing how Italy influences the world, has independent research, develops its own rocket - Vega, 4th largest navy in the world, modern army with a budget in the top ten in the world, 7th largest GDP in the world, but according to some people here its all OR. Probably even if I got Bush to say Italy is a great power it wouldn't be enough for these guys. You know something, I never really hated the other western europeans until I got involved in this debate/dispute, but recently I really have to wonder who are Italy's real enemies. Russia? I don't think so. Italy is developing ever closer ties to them in enerfy and other areas. The Near East? They welcomed the Italians coming and leading the peace keeping force. So who is the enemy? Who constantly highlights every problem, every issue, every fault, every failure? I wonder who? Do you know who? Was peace truly signed in good faith after WW2? And this goes on not in the world, this view, but even in my own family! My brother married a british descent canadian woman. We have more money, more houses, more degrees, better jobs, better travelled, more in depth knowledge of the world and science but at every moment, every opportunity, her family puts us down as though we are second class citizens. The British people for the most part, for some unexplained reason, absolutely despise every thing Italian. It's like we tried to commit genocide on them. I can not understand what it is but its there and I experience it every day. I can only say "Thank God that we don't share a border with them because it would instant war overnight." Some of you who are here reading know what I talking about. I have fought my whole life and I have discovered sometimes there is no compromise, there is no peace. Only lulls in this never ending battle. HadrianX.

I would like to add another thing that is related but off topic. The EU, in my opinion, is a fraud. It is nothing more than the western powers trying to gain hegemony over southern and eastern europe. It is nothing more than France, Britain, and Germany trying to turn the rest of Europe into impoverished, dependent, satellite states. The EC free trade arrangement was a good thing, but this is an abomination. Prodi should be strung up by his heels for selling out the country for the EU. I am so glad he is gone. Retirement is too good for him. Exile is what he deserves. --74.14.96.68 (talk) 03:09, 28 March 2008 (UTC) HadrianX.

The British people [..] absolutely despise every thing Italian Are you kidding I absolutely LOVE Italy, Florence & Venice are two of my most favourite places to go to. Pompeii was fantastic and the nice thing about the country are the people! Don't even get me started on the Food! Any person of Irish decent will tell you that Italian food is the best!

But all of that has nothing to do with the task at hand. So please don't colour us all in the same blanket just because we don't agree. We had a recent discussion about India and how it has so and so weapons, with this much budget, and this big of an army, etc, etc. But unless ACADEMICS believe that this country is a Great Power then this is our speculation. Please I beg you don't just cut and past from the Regional power page but find REAL academic sources that say that Italy is a current Great Power. That will help more than bantering with others here just putting in their spare time to make wikipedia better.

Oh and the EU is eventually a fight between 2 opposing forces. One for greater uniting leading into the formation of one country (France & Germany) and the wish for Economic ties but individual independence (UK). That is why the UK has pushed so much to expand the EU because more countries involved the harder it will be to make it into one unified country. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 05:18, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

74.14.96.68 - It seems you're taking this a little personally. I assure you that I personally have nothing against Italy, and I'm almost sure that no one else here is excluding them just because they "hate Italy". You gotta remember that we need sources...always! You may be right about all that stuff regarding their GDP and influence, but unless you can find a legit source that actually calls Italy a great power, that stuff is all irrelevant - original research. It's not up to us to decide who gets to be named great power, it's only up to us to include already published material. If you look at most sources, they're all pretty clear about who the current great powers are, and those are the ones listed on this page. Italy is rarely if ever included with the main five great powers, which is why we don't include them in this article. Sbw01f (talk) 17:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Back to UKPhoenix, I didn't cut and paste from the Regional Power page. I haven't edited the article at all. You are confusing me with someone else. Now to Sbwo1f. How can you find something that says point blank that Italy is a great power when the word itself is an anachronism. Who ever says great power nowadays. I always see major power when referring to this. I always get a vision of handlebar shaped moustaches and germans wearing helmets with the spike on top of the helmet when I hear this word. The word great has overtones that imply inherent superiority, which I don't believe is true. This whole debate it seems to me is not so much the rank order of political/military status in the world but where the cut off is between middle and great/major. Everyone agrees the US is at the top for example. And most people even here agree that Italy if not a great power, its at the top of the middle powers. I had discussion before two years ago and the discussion is not where Italy is in rank order of things, it is, "has Italy past the cutoff?" . There is a large percentage of people that say it has, but the majority says "no". Is Italy as well run as say Germany? Absolutely not. I'm not living in a fairy tale land. Is it a major power ? Absolutely. The country has expanded its oversees operations quite a bit in the last 8 years specifically, It has a whole sector command in Afghanistan, and leads not only the UN ground force in Lebanon but recently took over the naval operations in the area from the German command. There was even an official handing over at sea between the heads of the state defense forces. In Bosnia it has a regional command of multinational NATO combat division. These are all verifiable at the NATO website. I didn't even know until I was browsing around. Oh and off topic about another thing. I am sure the Indians here are absolutely broiling that India was removed from the list and had all references removed. The country has nukes and a long range delivery system. I don't think even the US would be able to take them over if they wanted to. 1.2 billion people and counting is a lot of people. BTW I'm not Indian and I don't particularly like Indian culture, that is to say I'm not an Indianophile so I don't have a personal POV on this. I just know that they are a keep to themselves kind of people but if they wanted to, they could really make a lot of trouble in this world. They too suffer like the Italians from a lack of respect from the rest of the world which is really getting to the crux of the matter. HadrianX --74.14.96.68 (talk) 16:45, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if I mistook your edits for someone else. But you have to know that there are already articles called Regional power and Major power, this article is called Great Power hence the distinction & the need for verifiable academic references. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 04:50, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Power in Europe? A book that describes power status pre and post war europe discussing the "four" major powers. It highlights the individual circumstances of each country before and after the war, and their respective startegies for reclaiming the throne. Also explains the creation of the EU and how it is perceived by each country and for what purposes each country hoped to achieve by joining in. Though it is not the complete book, the excerpts there are sufficient to get an understanding of the situation right up to the 1990's. In it, it describes the geopolitical circumstances of Britain, France, Germany and Italy. HadrianX --74.14.96.68 (talk) 16:23, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

State of the article?

This article needs major rehaul. Some very incorrect things have been written. Some discussion points are being added here.

In the system of international relations this is the hiearchy of power:

1. GLobal Power: US is the unrivalled global power today. Its hard power is in a dimension of its own, it capacity and momentum to innovate, its pervasive culture good or bad, makes its soft power felt globally. Its economy is the largest in the world, its population growing, its currency the reserve of the world, it is feared and respected throughout the planet.

2. Major-Powers: There are only two. Russia: A rapidly declining one. largest country on earth, Straddles europe, middle-east, central and east-asia. Significant hard-power though rapidly atrophing, declining soft-power, immense resource power, declining population, pervasive corruption, political nihilism and legions of enemies without and traitors within. Largest stockpile of nuclear Weapons. Only country with capacity to annihilate the Global-Power.

China: A rapidly ascending power, phenominal investment in hard-power, rapidly increasing soft-power in central asia, africa and south-east asia. Growing population, rapidly growing economy, rapidly transforming itself into an industrial and knowledge powerhouse.

3. Middle Powers: Israel, Saudi Arabia, UK and India.

Israel is the defacto leader in middle-east today. It has unrivalled intellectual potential. its hard power is felt as far as europe, central-asia and south Asia. Entire middle-east is in its thrall, its existence and prosperity is the cornerstone of american and european foreign policy. It is one of the top 4 largest arms suppliers in the world. its economy one of the most innovative.

Saudi-Arabia: The worlds preeminent energy supplier, it sets the pace for global energy prices and supplies and hence the health of global economy and power relations. it is the custodian of the two holy mosques and a leader among the billion strong islamic world. Immense financial and inspirational source for wahhabi terror, which even ramzan kadyrov laments, has driven chechens to mass-terror. Through its arabic language and islamic literature exercises immense soft-power thorughout the islamic world and hence eurasia and North-America.

UK: Financial centre of the world, despite New-York claiming the throne. Through its imperial past and its language exercises phenomenal soft-power throughout the world. Rapidly replacing french language in global discourse, has significant hard-power. One of the few nations with autonomous nuclear-triad and air-craft carriers. Robust economy, shelters world famous criminals and masterminds and influences europe through divide and rule, without itself joining the euro. Sponsers terror and political subversion through first rate spy network and NGOs and masterfully keeps Eurasia destabilized and weak.

India: One Billion people, neo-liberal coolie of the americans. Rapidly expanding economy, brilliant but servile people ready to hand over their nuclear assests and military complex to americans, exercises considerable soft-power through yoga, philosophy, ancient heritage, film industry. Most significant strategic location with China in North-east, Middle-east in the west, Central-asia in the north and Indian Oceon in the South. Significant and rapidly expnading consumer of energy. Immense potential for hard-Power and Innovative Economy. Rapidly Increasing population.

4. Minor Powers:

Germany and Japan due to their innovation and economy (but colonies nonetheless), rapidly declining and decaying populations facing extinction. Germany crushed under permanent guilt.

France: due its still pervasive soft power through language and culture (though declining), its influence in Africa, its significant hard-power and force-de-frappe. Veto member in Security Council. Legacy power from imperial times.

Brazil: Largest Latin Country. Leader in South-America. Trying to be an innovative economy. Significant natural resources, expanding gdp and population. Portuguese is not a global language though, so a soft-power hadicap.Soccer.

Turkey: Third most powerful NATO country. Immense Geostrategic Importance, rapidly expanding energy hub. Guaranteer of Israel's security. Expanding population and economy, trying to be an innovation and financial hub, Significant ability and say in NATO decisions, unlike germany and other colonies. Significant legacy Soft-power from ottoman era. Leader among turkic nations.

Iran: A near minor power. Some legacy soft-power. Leader in the Shia World. One of the main energy suppliers mostly in Euros, Immense geostrategic significance. Never been colonized by European Powers, like Thailand and Ethiopia except during active wars. Significant cultural influence since ancient times in middle-east, caucasus and central-asia.

Among Minor powers only Turkey has the potential to become a middle-power in next 10-20 years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Geopolitics8 (talk • contribs) 10:55, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Now all you need are some credible sources for all that info and we're set! However, I think a lot of what you said is incorrect. Here's my opinion:

• Russia is not declining in power, but has actually seen an immense rise over the past 8 years in global influence, energy supplies (which equals power), and in military power which the US sees as second in the world again.

• Israel is far too small to be considered the leader of the middle-east and on par with the other countries you mentioned. They're just not self-sufficient enough, and rely too heavily on foreign aid. Without the help of America in particular, they would probably be no more of a power than various Scandinavian countries, and would probably be overrun by their neighbours quite easily through sheer force. Their nuclear weapons do give them an advantage, but they're currently just a reflection of Americas immense power.

• Saudi Arabia isn't the worlds preeminent energy supplier, that would be Russia, since it supplies both the second most oil, often trading places with first, and controls something like 1/3 of the worlds natural gas, meaning Europe relies on their gas completely. China soon as well, perhaps. Further, that's their only advantage - Oil. Their influence in global affairs is limited.

• I'd be reluctant to call the Indian people "brilliant". I think you overestimate them - they're still in deep poverty and have many, many hurdles to overcome before they start getting too involved in global affairs. No doubt they have plenty of extremely smart individuals in the country, but you must remember that their education system is still way below par compared to the developed world; there is only so much human capita potential with nearly half of the population being illiterate.

• UK is definitely not the leading financial center. The US is. You know the old saying, when the US sneezes, the rest of the world catches a cold. (which we've been seeing plenty of in the stock markets over the past few months). Same can't be said for the UK.

• Your comment about Japan and Germany going 'extinct' is just...I don't know what to make of that. Their populations aren't declining that fast. They're just seeing very little growth, which could easily change in the next 20, 50, 100 years.

• Calling Turkey the third greatest power in NATO is quite a wild claim in my opinion. I would say closer the 5th, behind America, Germany, France, and Britain.

Just my 2 cents. Regardless though, none of this can go into the article since it's all original research. Sbw01f (talk) 14:08, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

"India: neo-liberal coolie of the americans.servile people ready to hand over their nuclear assests and military complex to americans,."

Excuse me my what? Not only did you attribute someone else's quote to me, but racial slurs are absolutely unacceptable. Watch what you say or you're going to end up with a permanent block. Sbw01f (talk) 18:59, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Yea Geopolitics8 was the one who said that among many other questionable statements. Sbw01f it is obvious that Chanakyathegreat was offended and lashed out, unfortunately you got in the way. I'm sure he wished he didn't now, and from now on I'm sure he will try and double check before he accuses somebody of saying such things.... right? -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 01:41, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

The article should stay as it is - your list of middle powers (putting Saudi Arabia and Israel on a par with UK and India??) is completely flawd. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.176.97.11 (talk) 20:23, 5 April 2008 (UTC) Your recommendations are not even remotely feasible. The US, UK, Germany, France, Russia, China, Japan and India are Great Powers - their influence is well known and felt. Turkey, Iran and Saudi Arabia are completely dependent on others for their material well-being and have limited ability to defend themselves from the Powers I have mentioned above.

O.K it was not you. It was unsigned at that moment and your signature appeared below and I though it was you. I remove those comments. Sorry for that. Chanakyathegreat 03:23, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

This is a nightmare statement. Russia declining? No, it's rising fast. The UK is not the leading financial center. Israel beening the leader of the Middle East? What?!? The rest of the Middle East hates Israel and want to destroy it, and it's hardly as powerful as you make it out to be. Same thing with Saudi Arabia. Russia is just as strong energy-wise. Germany and Japan arn't going down that fast. You appear to racist and biased against many countries. User:Saruman20 (talk) 18:32, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Potential vs Emerging

I would like to say that having 2 sections dedicated for regional powers that are not actually Global Powers should be avoided. There is little sense to dictate that this regional power has a different status for not being a Global Power than the other one. Please can we agree upon one name either Emerging or Potential to give to these Regional powers? -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 08:26, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Add India to the great power list and then we can merge it. Otherwise it is not possible. We have to wait until India becomes a great power from the emerging power to remove the section.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 03:59, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Well India nor Brazil are Great Powers, so I cannot understand why you created "2 levels for not being a great power" (grammatically confusing I know but actually what I meant to say). I am wary about even having those two listed at all... I just cannot see any reason to having two levels shown. If they are not Great powers they should not be shown, if they are likely to be great powers in the future then that might be acceptable and that is the reason I have not removed them. But segmenting them into two levels is only to bolster one nation over the other when neither are actually great powers. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 05:44, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Look at the articles. India is an emerging great power. It's not a potential great power. Chanakyathegreat (talk) 07:20, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

UKPhoenix79, it was just because of your objections, India is not added to the list of great powers and put in the emerging powers list. Most of the articles consider India and China as emerging great powers. The older notion of P5 being great powers is no longer viable that can be understood by reading articles. And a decision can be taken whether India can be added to the great power list or kept in the emerging power list. I think for greater accuracy it will be better to keep India in the emerging power list until 2012 (four years from now) the time in which India will attain the great power status or the transformation of India from an emerging great power to a great power will be complete.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 07:31, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

My objections were backed up rather vigorously by other users and an admin if you recall. I am very grateful that you have cited all your sources but as we have discussed before citing sources that make future predictions of an uncertain matter is not a valid source. You have cited from many sources that both India and Brazil are on their way, but we cannot predict with 100% certainty which one will make it there first. At the moment I would also predict it would be India, but since I lack a Tardis or a Delorian I cannot back up my claims by going to the future to ensure I am correct. So these two options are invalid and only one will do. Neither are currently great powers and they are not even close to being a superpower. The current state of them approaching the honour of being possible (yes I did say possible because again we do not know the future) great powers is enough. Please do not create sub categories because of personal bias. Please! -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 10:25, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree that India and Brazil merit special reference as emerging or potential Great Powers. Although I don't agree that India should be automatically added in 2012 to the Great Power list. When, and if, India becomes a Great Power it can be added. The same for Brazil. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Colliver55 (talk • contribs) 10:46, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

My dear friend, the agreement was for not adding India to the great power list and keep it in the emerging great power list until articles that suggest India as a great power is found. Still I am not asking for adding India into the great power list. I can assure you that within 2012, India will be recognized as a complete great power. Until that one can wait.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 14:35, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Also I would like to point to you that the articles that we have about India describes India as an emerging great power and not as a possible/potential great power. And it also describes India as a potential superpower along with China. Such articles that describes India and China as potential superpowers can be found very easily by searching the web. These two powers are said to overtake the U.S within 2040-50 timeframe to claim the superpower status. Hence they are called potential superpowers.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 14:39, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

it looks like talking isn't working so I'll see if someone else can come in and help us out.

Lets just keep non-Great Powers out of the list. They don't belong there anyways... Lets not forget that in the 80's EVERYBODY was predicting the Rise of Japan as the 90's new Superpower and that never happened. There is already an article detailing the possible rise of the two Potential great powers that you edit rather frequently so please keep that article separate and link to it only. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 01:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

You are underestimating Japan, they have a strong economy and a strong military. What they lack is the nuclear deterrence. Their policy of self defense will never help them to be great power. The time they shed, the pacifist constitution and build nuclear deterrence capability, political recognition will follow and they are in the club.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 16:01, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Why have a list?

Seriously, why is it our job to determine who is and is not a great power? Virtually anything we say WILL be POV. Simply explain what a great power is, and let readers draw their own conclusions. If there has to be a list, it should simply be of countries commonly held to be great powers. TallNapoleon (talk) 05:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Russia is a Superpower not a great power

Many people are wondering about the United States (and Russia's superpower status now) and its down fall economic recession[13] economy as if its still a superpower with the Iraq war, falling US dollar[14] [15][16], high US minimum wages being outsourced for Chinese labor, a high unemployment rate, credit crisis[17] through US foreign policy spending, US inflation[18] [19][20] from the Federal Reserve lowing interest rates too low[21], a housing crisis, dependence from oil & high gas prices and etc. Where does the United States stand as a superpower versing Russia’s current superpower status? Read at these sources here to see how the United States is losing or is now considered a former superpower:[22][23][24] [25]

Now there is Russia a superpower (the United States only real counter partner as as a superpower[26] [27][28] [29] [30][31] [32] because they have the economics[33] [34], the wealth[35] [36], the diplomatic power[37] [38], ideological[39] [40] [41][42][43][44], technological power[45] [46][47][48][49]& advances[50] than any other country besides the United States (look here on why the US is losing its superpower status read here:[51][52][53]) recognizes Russia as a superpower [54], they have the cultural sector and lets not forget their military forces (supreme). Russia is also the largest military arsenal producer in the world (they hold 73% of the worlds military arsenals market) and they have the worlds largest nuclear weapons arsenal than another other country (newer & older which many are reconditioned as new again) which is 5 times greater than the US has.

So Russia is a Superpower and lets not forget a Space Superpower, remember Russia has a Mar's mission coming up in 2015 [55]to 2024, also a Moon space station planned for 2015[56] without NASA but Russia going by itself; which NASA is out of funding due to a poor current US economy, 2007 & 2008. I do not start this article to brag about how wonderful Russia is, I started it because I am an American and I am seeing how the US is becoming a former superpower[57]; even though I admire Russia as a country, I also admire my own country (USA) too.

Russia is a Superpower, that's plenty of facts in the bag to state they are in that position. The United State's position[58][59] [60]), think what they are in for, a lot in the bag on the whole US economy on all sorts of issues, so we need to understand our Congress has put a lot of our problems right in front of us. US Congressman Ron Paul[61] was the only presidential candidate who would have saved the US as a superpower and our country. We cannot regret Russia is a superpower once again, that was always predicted they would achieve that goal and good for them, they stuck to their dreams and they brought it back. The US has done the opposite and we are heading down down the economic depression [62] tube to a great power nation because of Congress, Unions, Corporate greed and oil.

If you want to save the US as a superpower, stop buying from US companies made in China (look for the labels and try to buy made in America only, store like Costco, Walmart, K-Mart, Best Buy, Staples and more are companies that buy made in China goods and we Americans buy these things by the millions each day), second visit Congress personally and request to bring down the US minimum wage and request to cap wages too high to cap them or lower high salaries so greed is enforced to stop US inflation. Read here as if we don’t do something we we’ll really suffer as China’s minimum wage is $.25 cents an hour as China has used its low labor population power to put their country on the Superpower front and we made that happen, please read an listen to this link: [63][64] [http://www.youtube.com/watch?

On the great power list, if you going to list the US as a great power and referred as a superpower than Russia should also be referred as a superpower as well. If you remove the sources, you create and on going argue to undo it again.

Only superpowers can destroy the world[65], great powers can't. Russia is way beyond that and the United States understands Russia as a superpower[66], the world has 2 superpowers not one but the US economy that may soon change[67] to one in the future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Versace11 (talk • contribs) 23:04, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I can only presume Versace 11 is a Russian fanatic for his sources are unreliable: Reference 36 is Russian and Russian press are not impartial Reference 37 is to do with oil Reference 38 is an opinion stating that Russia intends to rise to status of superpower - not that it is Reference 39 is an opinion in a newspaper hardly a reference Reference 40 just because Russia and China talk about superpower stuff doesn't make them superpowers Reference 41 is an israeli tabloid newspaper saying how Russia intends to be a superpower I believe Russia should not be referred to as a superpower. I ask other Wikipedians to post their comment. Until then I am placing the neutrality and original research tags on this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Colliver55 (talk • contribs) 07:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

How can Russia be a superpower? Her role in the world is not greater than the UK or France and they are definately not superpowers. She is too reliant on energy, has a poor standard of living, a declining population and a mortality rate an African country would be ashamed of. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Colliver55 (talk • contribs) 07:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Colliver55, you have not provided any consensus facts, your stating something bias and this is not what you think. It is based upon the data. Russia has been declared a superpower by the United States [68] not according to Wikipedia. You believe Russia should not be referred as a superpower but you have not provided a fact that is not a consensus argument. You stated """""How can Russia be a superpower? Her role in the world is not greater than the UK or France and they are definitely not superpowers. She is too reliant on energy, has a poor standard of living, a declining population and a mortality rate an African country would be ashamed of""""". No facts, this is complete bias attacks. Anybody can state anything but you have to argue on facts. – I don’t think you read my references, to make such a statement besides this more hatred than a statement or comment. You don’t see me making comments and having no sources, I provide sources when I write.

Really let’s talk about the United States, are they a superpower (2008)? Lets look with these current sources: Read Edward A. Kolodziej and Roger E. Kanet “From Superpower to Besieged Global Power”[69] May 2008. Then: Who's the superpower now?[://www.spacewar.com/reports/Asian_Poll_Foresees_US_Losing_Superpower_Status_To_China_999.html |accessdate=2008-05-12] and “Superpower?, Really?”|accessdate=2007-06-27 then: “Asian Poll Foresees US Losing Superpower Status To China” |accessdate=2006-07-10[70]

I mean if the US is being listed as a superpower on great powers, then we can argue about the US as a former superpower on top of Russia too. Ok I am not trying to make a heat of discussion, I am trying to provide the sources what the data says as Russia’s position is. I am not saying bad things about India, your country and I am from the United States, not Russia nor am I Russian, I am American but I am reading the right sources and providing the facts of consensus.

Please leave Russia as potential or as a current superpower on Great Powers or eliminate both the United States and Russia out of the great powers because Russia is not a great power.

Look I have nothing against Russia and saying I am discriminating is nonsense. Nobody can dispute that the United States is a superpower. Russia is very different case and has an awful lot of challenges ahead of it. By using the references you have stated, you have chosen to interpret the sources to come to the conclusion that Russia is a superpower. That is fair enought, but adding it on Wikipedia is a violation of NPOV and cannot be justified. Maybe we can come to some sort of compromise, but I feel your current stance is unfair. If I am blocked for edit warring it would be unjustified and certainly will add nothing to the neutrality of Wikipedia. Some sources also state the EU is a superpower, others cite China - would you be happy to site them as well, just because a few unreliable and sensationalist sources have chosen to say so? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.206.170.159 (talk) 21:02, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Please provide facts, undoing with the facts is a violation and you risk being block. If you talk talk talk and state no data, the above data is valid. Consenus the argument, not bash is with no merit. Facts are the reason why things change, not here say. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.205.234.250 (talk) 21:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I have requested protection for this page. You are obviously unwilling to be diplomatic about this issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Colliver55 (talk • contribs) 22:02, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

It should be noted that I am British, not American, so I have little to gain by supporting the notion that the US is a superpower and Russia is not. There are no reliable sources to suggest Russia exerts the kind of influence on the international stage as the United States. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.206.170.159 (talk) 22:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I am American, I am not Russia. Consenus above are facts, you have to provide sources to consenus your argument. There are realiable sources above and there are realiable sources the US is not a superpower or becoming a former superpower”[71] May 2008. Then: Who's the superpower now?[://www.spacewar.com/reports/Asian_Poll_Foresees_US_Losing_Superpower_Status_To_China_999.html |accessdate=2008-05-12] and “Superpower?, Really?”|accessdate=2007-06-27|accessdate=2006-07-10[72]. saying Russia is not, is not a fact, it doesn't supply your position, it is only a comment, it is not backed by anything. We can argue the US is a former superpower or we can discuss Russia is a superpower. Facts aboce state Russia is not a Great power but a potential or current new superpower.--24.205.234.250 (talk) 22:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

We need to discuss this, we don't have to fight, we can agree on something. We need to stop the anti Russia thing, we need to rely on the current sources, not what we think. Sources are available to discuss Russia's status as either a potential or current Superpower. Sources are needed to defend your talk discussions please. Admin staff agree and this is how we communicate.--24.205.234.250 (talk) 22:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree that we need to be reasonable. I am certainly not anti-Russian but the sources you are providing are not reliable. They are too sensationalist and tabloid. I don't quite know where we go from here but I believe that statement 'Russia is also referred to as a Superpower' is unreasonable, and gives the impression that Russia has equal leverage on the international stage as the United States - which is certainly not true. Surely no-one disputes the conclusion that Russia is a Great Power, but the status of Superpower cannot be justified on the references you have provided. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Colliver55 (talk • contribs) 22:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I can agree Russia is a border line superpower on their growth status but because of sources such "Russia in the 21st Century

The Prodigal Superpower" book by Steven Rosefielde[73] states Russia as a full fedged superpower by 2010. Second, John McCain's statement[74] last week on Russia and the United States but because he defined supwerpowers in a 40 minute speech using Russia (over 73 times on the speech) & the USA (not an a energy or nuclear superpowers or cold war superpower but defined the 2 as superpowers)with Washington's annoucement[75]

I think because Russia's status and it's current sources, great powers don't have the strength to destroy the world, only the US and Russia can. Superpowers can, that is also referenced on the superpower article too. So can we agree Russia is aborder line as a superpower then? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.205.234.250 (talk) 23:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

The comments on Russia under great power is a discussion, personally Russia should not even be on the list of great powers. I watch CNN news daily and Russia has been said all year, a superpower on the news. The United States government CIA has always known that Russia would come back as a superpower, there is no question about it. The time was when, which I certaintly agree it is now. Borderline or potential superpower in my opinion says they hold that certificate garranteed. If you watch foreign CNN tv in China, China calls Russia a superpower all the time.--64.69.158.252 (talk) 05:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Being able to destroy the world doesn't make a country a superpower --Hobie Hunter (talk) 19:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Isn't that interesting Hobie Hunter because that is the same source that is being said under article power. Is that wrong too? I get it though, you just hate Russia! I think with your anti Russia superpower history says a lot about you. I can read your record and thats all you do on Wikipedia is saying something anti Russia. I think you have a racial issue with Russia itself. That is why there is too much corruption on Wikipedia.--24.205.234.250 (talk) 08:37, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Look stop saying people are anti-Russian. You sound pathetic. Many people including most academics do not consider Russia a superpower. You are abusing the references you have cited and are blatantly spreading propaganda. Russia is in a sorry state - stop letting your bias tarnish Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.209.171.94 (talk) 09:28, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

On the superpower article the refs state superpowers have the power to destroy the world, that is a backed up source as there is enough evidence to stand on that one. I do agree with that fact but I do not agree we should be taking Russia off the potential superpower or achieving superpower. Russia is not a great power, they are too strong for that and the US CIA has admitted Russia has too much influence in the world today when you have the US to compared it too.

Personally Russia shouldn't even be on this page anymore when they have the sources stating superpower status.--64.69.158.252 (talk) 04:49, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

24.205.234.250, you need to relax and read Wikipedia: No personal attacks now. You sound pathetic. The source you cite for Sen. McCain's speech doesn't even mention superpowers at all! The Kommersant source is frankly a terrible source. If you actually read the article you would realize it. It says, and I quote:

U.S. Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe held special hearings devoted to Russia on Thursday. The Commission came to a conclusion which is flattering to Russia: the latter is returning to the international arena as an influential political and economic power.

First, the commission did not say that Russia has become a superpower. It said that it is "an influential political and economic power", which could be anything. A middle power, a regional power, a great power, etc. Second, news articles are under nearly all circumstances not reliable sources. The exceptions are prestigious reliable sources such as the Washington Post, Newsweek, Time, NY Times, BBC, etc. The source cited appears to biased and nationalistic. At the top of the page it says: "Russia's daily online". Its Wikipedia article states:

In August 2006, Patarkatsishvili sold his 100% stake in the Kommersant publishing house to Alisher Usmanov[5], head of Gazprom's Gazprominvestholding subsidiary.

This just confirms it. Its fully owned by a head in Gazprom with close ties to the Russian government. Of course the Russian government would argue Russia is a superpower. --Hobie Hunter (talk) 18:46, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

A minor typo

Leopold von Ranke is written like this, with a small "v". --Soetermans (talk) 23:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Reliable Academic and Verifiable Sources Only!

Here is an extract from Wikipedia:Verifiability

In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. As a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny involved in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the evidence and arguments of a particular work, the more reliable it is.

Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, such as history, medicine and science. Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas, particularly if they are respected mainstream publications. The appropriateness of any source always depends on the context. Where there is disagreement between sources, their views should be clearly attributed in the text.

Sources that are WP:QS:

Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking. Such sources include websites and publications that express views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, are promotional in nature, or rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources should only be used as sources about themselves as described below. Articles about such sources should not repeat any contentious claims the source has made about third parties, unless those claims have also been published by reliable sources.

• Russia Daily online - Topic header in no ways resembles the article at hand from questionable website (1)

Sources saying something completely different:

• CNN - Says Russia is an Energy superpower not a Superpower different thing entirely. (2)
• spacewar.com - Sourced from a personal blog that changed the name to get attention originally called Putin, Hu talk Iran, North Korea, SCO, space security in Moscow

Sources predicting the future:

• Russia in the 21st Century - States that in 2010 it might be possible, Not a good source about the hear and now. Wikipedia is about verifiable facts not guesses even if the person has a degree, if it was then India would be included in the list of Superpowers since there are many sources predicting that in the 21st Century as they did about Japan in the 80's.(3)
• telegraph.co.uk - Says that Putin wants to make it into a superpower but facts on the ground prevent that and never states that it is one.
• jpost.com - An opinion piece predicting what the future may hold... I wonder if Nostradamus will be sourced next? (4)

Per Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability these sources should not be used and per official policies they are to be removed.

The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation.... Any material lacking a reliable source may be removed.

Also took convo to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Great power yesterday . So please do not add these again and keep the edit war in Superpower and don't bring it here. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 10:13, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Note: following numbers in entry from User:24.205.234.250 below, correspond to the sections they reply on in the previous entry by User:UKPhoenix79. --Species8473 (talk) 13:12, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

(1) The U.S. Assistant Secretary of State is also a separate agency tied with the CIA gov't under the US gov't that connects heavily under US foreign policy rules. Since Daniel Fred is the U.S. Assistant Secretary of State, he has made it clear that Russia is a superpower, his information is also backed from the US Secret Service which is also tied to the White House. I also viewed the article on kommersant.com but there is also other links to his address on foreign policy relations with Russia, that is all docummented from official documents coming from the Bush adminstration which also ties to the G8 meetings, stating those sources again. Kommersant.com is only source which leads to other sources but the US is bound to what the U.S. Assistant Secretary of State says bottom line, that is a powerful role under the US government as he has sworn under the US constitution under oath to make these statements to the public, the US government is the authority of the U.S. Assistant Secretary of State. If the U.S. Assistant Secretary of State was wrong the US government could be seriously liable if he were misleading the public, that is why we have the US attorney general in these cases. You don't see media agencies like the Washington Post, US Today, New York Times or whatever saying liar liar, there is no lies here nor have there been any sources conflicting to his statements, that was a year ago. So I agree that this source with Daniel Fred is correct.

(2) Oh yes but CNN refers Russia as a superpower on their daily news, the US isn't even close to being an energy superpower, so what does that leave Russia in? Prehaps you ought to read all the discussion and Russia's influence in the middle east than and everything on Iran, the US foreign policy can't control the middle east, while Russia can. Russia as superpower but also an energy superpower, supples the world's greatest leader in nuclear energy, this is also the same for nuclear weapon's. On the superpower article only superpowers can destroy the world, that is only the US and Russia then.

(3) Really, well according to *Russia in the 21st Century is also states Russia's current foreign policy and it's involvement with the G8, the book states in page 81 that Russia has the possiblity of becoming a superpower by 2007 by author Steven Rosefielde. The book says full fedged superpower by 2010 but the author Steven Rosefielde also says Russia can still be a superpower by 2007 but not full fedged until 2010.

(4) This is bias, you have obivously have not read the article nor have you understand Putin's positon. The 2006 G8 meeting proved with the Bush Adminstration that not only did the US visit the Russian G8 meeting in St. Petersburg but Putin's party announced their superpower status to the press during the meeting, Bush was right there. Telegraph also discusses superpower facts on Russia once again.

Ok then UKPhoenix79, how many people are wondering if the United States and its recession[76] economy as if its still a superpower with the current Iraq war, the falling US dollar[77] [78][79], high US minimum wages being outsourced for Chinese labor, a high unemployment rate, credit crisis[80] through US foreign policy spending, US inflation[81] [82][83] from the Federal Reserve lowing interest rates too low[84], a housing crisis, dependence from oil & high gas prices and etc. Where does the United States stand as a superpower versing Russia’s current superpower status? Read at these sources here to see how the United States is losing or is now considered a former superpower:[85][86] [87]

Now there is Russia; a superpower (the United States only real counter partner as a superpower0[88] [89][90] [91] [92][93] [94] because they have the economics[95] [96], the wealth[97] [98], the diplomatic power[99] [100], ideological[101] [102] [103][104][105][106], technological power[107] [108][109][110][111]& advances[112] than any other country besides the United States (look here on why the US is losing its superpower status read here:[113][114][115]) recognizes Russia as a superpower [116], they have the cultural sector and lets not forget their military forces (supreme). Russia is also the largest military arsenal producer in the world (they hold 73% of the worlds military arsenals market) and they have the worlds largest nuclear weapons arsenal than another other country (newer & older which many are reconditioned as new again) which is 5 times greater than the US has.--24.205.234.250 (talk) 11:24, 19 June 2008 (UTC)