Template talk:List of great powers by date/Archive 1

Archive 1

Italy in 1880

From source given (p. 204): «Within just over a decade from its unification [i.e. 17 March 1861], therefore, Italy seemed a full member of the European Great Power system, and Rome ranked alongside the other major capitals.» Again (p. 206): «Thus by 1914, Italy occupied a position like that of 1871 [i.e. after a decade from its unification]. It was the "least of the Great Powers", frustratingly unpredictable and unscrupulous in the eyes of its neighbors, and possessing commercial and expansionist ambition in the Alps, the Balkans, North Africa, and farther afield which conflicted with the interest of both friends and rivals.» --Enok (talk) 04:43, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

«However, formal recognition of Great Power status resulted not just from statistical reckoning but also from inclusion in the inner circle of diplomacy, especially the drafting of the general peace treaties and territorial adjustments. Normally the rights of Great Powers could not be ignored in international affairs, while smaller states were routinely ignored and subject of Great Power management. [...] The heads of state and foreign ministers of the Great Powers met at congresses (the last in 1878), not conferences; generally only they exchanged ambassadors, not ministers. [...] On might be invited into the Great Power club even without the hard credentials of membership. Italy [in 1878] was a 'courtesy' Great Power. The Powers treated Italy like a Great Power in an effort to entice Rome into one alliance or another. Similarly, after 1892, the Great Powers upgraded their representatives in Washington to ambassadors. [...] By 1900 the United States also had a formidable industrial economy. Yet, though treated as a 'courtesy' Great Power, even Italy carried more political weight it counted most, that is in Europe.»

Antony Best, Jussi M. Hanhimäki, Joseph A. Maiolo, Kirsten E. Schulze (2004). International History of the Twentieth Century (p. 9), United States: Routledge. In summary, both sources said that Italy was already considered a Great Power in 1880, although weaker. Just as the United States in 1900, or Austria-Hungary under the dual monarchy. --Enok (talk) 05:38, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

But I read that as meaning Italy wasn't actually a great power in 1880!

"One might be invited into the Great Power club even without the hard credentials of membership. Italy [in 1878] was a courtesy Great Power. The Powers [ie the actual Great Powers] 'treated' Italy like a Great Power in an effort to entice Rome into one alliance or another."

Surely? Italy wasn't a great power but was invited to discussions etc in the interests of the actual great powers. David (talk) 10:40, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Just as the United States in 1900 ("By 1900 the United States also had a formidable industrial economy. Yet, though treated as a 'courtesy' Great Power..."). A Great Power is defined as such when other Powers consider it in the club (for example by inviting to the Congress of Berlin), even without the hard (not null!) credentials of membership; this is the concept expressed in the second source. --Enok (talk) 17:22, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Martin Wight (1978). Power Politics (p. 46), United Kingdom: Leicester University Press, 1995 ed. Here's the quote: «The Glorious Revolution did not only establish English liberties: it began the war that made Britan a great power. Russia became a great power through the defeat of Sweden in the Great Northern War. Prussia became a great power through Frederick the Great's attack on Austria in 1740 and his successful defence of his gains in the Seven Years War (1756-63). Italy became a great power by courtesy after her unification (1859-60), and developed a national inferiority complex through never having proved her place among her peers by war. [...] Japan became a great power through her defeat of Russia in the Russo-Japanese War (1904-05). China became a great power through her indomitable resistance to Japan in the long struggle from 1931 to 1945, and confirmed her rank by the defeats she inflicted on the United States in the Korean War (1950-53).» And another source here (see external link): Kenneth Waltz (1979). Theory of International Politics (p. 162, table 8.1), United States: McGraw Hill.

In brief

• Kennedy (1987): Full member of Great Power system in 1871.
• Best, Hanhimäki, Maiolo, Schulze (2004): In 1878 Italy was a "courtesy" Great Power, like United States in 1900.
• Wight (1978): Italy became a great power by courtesy, and not through war, after her unification in 1860s.
• Waltz (1979): In 1875 Italy was a great power along with France, Germany. Austria-Hungary, Great Britain, and Russia.

I will add the sources in the template when the discussion is over. Bye! --Enok (talk) 22:40, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

And Yet Otto von Bismarck the man who was at the core of Great Power politics in 1880 said ""All politics reduces itself to this formula: try to be one of three, as long as the world is governed by the unstable equilibrium of five great powers."[1]. He was a contemporary and did not include Italy as a Great Power. A country is either a great power or it is not. Saying "Courtesy Great Power" is not the same as actually being a Great Power. The source given says:

"and while [Italy's] entry into the Triple Alliance in 1882 ostensibly "resolved" the Italo-Austrian rivalry, it confirmed that an isolated France faced foes on two fronts. Just within a decade from its unification, therefore, Italy seemed a full member of the European Great Power system [...] Italy was a marginal member of the Great power system in 1890"

The author is not giving 1880 as date but states that it was a potential Great power with the Triple Alliance in 1882 (not 1880). The author only states by 1890's Italy was seen as a Great Power. And your quote about 1871 I think has more to do with the fact that it was powerless in 1914 much like it was before it was considered a Great power. The author is not saying that it was a Great Power in 1871 by any means.

I would like to get a second opinion from another editor so please read The rise and fall of the great powers. But at the moment per WP:BRD I am reverting its inclusion. Dont worry the conversation is not over, but being vetted :-) -- Phoenix (talk) 02:39, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

The author is not giving a specific date (history is made up of periods), but he writes that «within just over a decade from its unification [in 1861] Italy seemed a full member of the European Great Power system, and Rome ranked alongside the other major capitals». Three other sources confirm this statement. I can wait for a third opinion, but four sources leave no doubt. --Enok (talk) 06:40, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Is it possible that you could provide a link to read for those other sources :-) -- Phoenix (talk) 06:57, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

The only link to my library is a flight to Italy. :-) Seriously, I can't provide links, but if necessary I can bring some quotes or scanning of pages on request. --Enok (talk) 07:16, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I would like to respond to this sentence that I had previously missed: Saying "Courtesy Great Power" is not the same as actually being a Great Power. This is your interpretation that is not reflected in the text. If Best-Hanhimäki-Maiolo-Schulze were thinking in this way, they would clearly written: «Italy was a courtesy Great Power [...] but in reality can not be regarded as such», or would have avoided altogether the term Great Power. The authors also make a comparison with the United States in 1900, which we all consider to be a great power in that period. In any case, other sources not leave space for personal interpretation, and in particular Wight provides an explanation of the meaning of "courtesy Great Power", ie a power that has not yet proved her place through war. Waltz even gives us a very clear table. --Enok (talk) 18:39, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

While I still believe that contemporaries of the day did not believe that Italy was a Great Power. I believe that you have found some good academic sources. Power Politics By Martin Wight & The Rise and Fall of the Great powers seam to suggest that it was a Great power even if it was a weak one. I have included a link for other editors to vet or for you to use in your reference. I would wait a day and if there is no other objection please include Italy :-) -- Phoenix (talk) 06:42, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I think that Bismarck (along with Metternich and Cavour) was the greatest statesman and politician of the 19th century, and he had every interest in pronouncing that sentence to the Russian diplomat in an attempt to create a stable balance in Europe and to curb Russian expansionism. I can't believe he ignored the inherent weakness of his best ally or the military potential of Italy. Paradoxically, after the dissolution of the original "triple alliance" with Russia, one of three will be just Italy in 1882 (only two years after his statement). However, there is no doubt that before the 20th century Italy was the weakest of the Great Powers. ;-) --Enok (talk) 02:42, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

On second thought, I'm not so sure that Bismarck does not include Italy among the five powers mentioned. After the end of the personal union with Hanover, Great Britain had no interests on the continent, apart from maintaining the status quo. Alberto Banti in Storia contemporanea (Contemporary history) writes:

«Con la formazione di due nuovi grandi Stati, il Regno d'Italia e il Reich tedesco, il sistema delle relazioni internazionali registrò un profondo mutamento. La Germania acquistava di fatto lo status di massima potenza continentale a danno della Francia e dell'Austria-Ungheria, ridimensionata sotto il profilo politico e territoriale. Al "concerto europeo" dominato da Francia, Austria, e Russia si venne a sostituire un equilibrio che aveva come centro Berlino e che si basava su un sistema di alleanze tra cinque potenze (Germania, Francia, Austria-Ungheria, Russia, Italia), inteso a garantire, col beneplacito dell'Inghilterra, il mantenimento dello status quo. Principale artefice di questo sistema fu Otto von Bismarck, cancelliere del Reich fino al 1890.»

The text is very simple and you can translate it with Google. If you trust me, I'll try to summarize it in English. --Enok (talk) 03:51, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Since this discussion is soliciting a third opinion, I'd like to invoke the most scholarly of sources (WW2 propaganda films are always reliable - see about 2 minutes in) and point out that "If he gets a word in, it'll be a major Italian victory." Seriously, all great powers aren't created equal; regarding Austria-Hungary, the phrase "shackled (handcuffed) to a corpse" comes to mind. With all due respect to Bismarck, it's my understanding that Wikipedia policy is to reflect what the preponderance of current, secondary sources say rather than my opinion or his. Perhaps with a footnote if there's a discrepancy? If this weren't a simple list, a qualification and discussion of the sources would certainly be in order. Spieren (talk) 07:14, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I think the best thing is to discuss nation by nation in the text of the article. A good starting point for Italy are these sources. We can also take advantage to clarify the balance of power in the Bismarck system, looking for more sources about it. Anyway, I have now included Italy in the template. --Enok (talk) 09:13, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I noticed this on the Third Opinion page - but it now seems to have been removed while I was doing a little research. So, glad my contribution is no longer required, but I thought I'd throw the following few snippets your way as indications that Italy probably was considered a Great Power in the 1880's.

The Economist 20/3/1880 p.324

Englishmen who think of Italy as a second-class Power which has in this generation obtained very great advantages without any very severe fighting will not sympathise with this irritable condition of opinion, but it is noticeable in Spain also, and has, perhaps, more foundation than is always allowed. The minor States of Europe, and especially the minor States of the Mediterranean, feel that very great events, and possibly very great changes, are occurring and about to occur, and that they have not quite sufficient voice in them… Those changes, it is foreseen, will interest or imperil all the Great Powers; but it is often forgotten that they also concern lesser ones, and that Italy and Spain are not bound to remain passive. Either of them could, if seriously bent on an active policy, affect the course of events more directly than is supposed. Italy, for example, though she might not venture on a great policy alone, could, in alliance with any great Power, make it most difficult for France to act by invading Savoy…more especially as Italy has a fleet which, as against any Power but England, is a strong one, and a position which for Mediterranean warfare is unrivalled.

The Economist 29/1/1881 p.127

It is affirmed, on credible authority, that the Ministry of Spain are asking the great Courts of Europe to admit their country formally to the rank of a Great Power…Her alliance…woold very considerably increase the force of Germany…it would be equally valuable to Russia…even to Austria…would, in any quarrel, be a great check on Italy…could be a most important factor in any war which France or Italy was engaged… neither Russia nor Italy will care enough about the matter to make a vindictive enemy. In that case, therefore, the six Powers may soon be raised to seven..

The Economist 3/1/1885 p.3

The assistance of any great Power doubles its neighbour's strength, while mere neutrality from a State which might oppose greatly increases in serious crises its own freedom of action. Prince Bismarck has shown himself singularly alive to the value of such understandings, and we have little doubt that he is now seeking one with France. He would prefer England, which has little to acquire that he cares about, but France will do, and he is seeking France. With Austria bound to his side by the strongest ties of self-interest, Russia for the moment friendly, and Italy entirely in accord with him, he has only to soothe France to be able to carry out any design even if England should object.

I hope that helps in some way! MissionNPOVible (talk) 09:29, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry MissionNPOVible, that was my fault. I initially forgot the instructions said to remove it from the 3O page. I'm glad I didn't, seeing as you did some research rather than simple opinion-giving. To Enok, I agree about discussing each one. It's nice to have a visual representation as well though. Well done. Spieren (talk) 23:44, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

No worries Spieren, glad to have helped. Good luck with it all. MissionNPOVible (talk) 03:25, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Proposal

c. 1763	1815	c. 1880	c. 1900	1919	c. 1939	1946	c. 2010
Austrian Empire	Austrian Empire	Austria-Hungary	Austria-Hungary
Kingdom of Great Britain	British Empire	British Empire	British Empire	British Empire	United Kingdom	United Kingdom	United Kingdom
Portugal
						Republic of China	China
France	France	France	France	France	France	France	France
Holy Roman Empire	Prussia	German Empire	German Empire		Germany		Germany
		Italy	Italy	Italy	Italy
Mughal Empire					United Kingdom		India
			Empire of Japan	Empire of Japan	Empire of Japan		Japan
	Russian Empire	Russian Empire	Russian Empire		Soviet Union	Soviet Union	Russia
Spain
Kingdom of Great Britain			United States	United States	United States	United States	United States

This was my effort to reflect other global conflicts before the Napoleon era. Please add ideas to edit this template below and don't directly edit the template. - — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.33.151.29 (talk • contribs)

Can I stop you there - Great power status didn't formally exist before 1814. The whole point of this template is to show the official great powers since the formalisation of the term.

If I were being cynical I'd say this is a rouse to include India on the table.

Also, why is the UK given twice for some of the years? Sorry, but this is a mess, and based on Original Research. David (talk) 07:46, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Yeah...I propose removal of the 1763 section....

If any source(s) are found to support Italy upto 1939..it would be ok

About India...we seem to have only one source to support it.So I would only support it very very weakly. Even removal is ok. TheStrikeΣagle 07:56, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

So basically you agree that it should be "no change".

Regarding Italy - it is referenced in the actual template.

Regarding India - I really don't think we should have a "c. 2010" section at all. Keep it to "c. 2000" (contemporary history) - the present day is covered in the emerging powers section of the great power article. Essentially there are not enough academic sources for the great powers that exist right now. David (talk) 08:15, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Yep, A status quo is fine. We could add India if and only if a 2010 section is added and we find some more sources to support it. I'm pretty sure India didn't had even one third the (some)influence it has now. TheStrikeΣagle 08:21, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh, be in no doubt - I am not against India in any way - I believe this decade is when it becomes a great power (you can't really put an exact date on it) but we shouldn't add a c. 2010 or c. 2015 date until great powers of the present day are written in more than one academic sources, which probably won't be for some years. Of course if India were added to the UN security council as a permanent member that would be pretty conclusive, but I somehow don't think such reform is going to happen any time soon! David (talk) 08:52, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

That's exactly what I'm saying....India is not a great power now..I would better call it a nascent great power still finding the ropes. As you said, it could become one by the end of this decade.....UN reform..probably won't take shape until atleast 2040s when the Chinese and Indian economies take control of the world..hehe TheStrikeΣagle 09:21, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Off-topic, but there simply aren't enough resources for both India and China to become so economically large - huge resource wars are looming methinks! David (talk) 09:26, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

hehe..of-topic..I know......you are right though....finding resources to sustain the growth of over 38% of the world's population could be real hard.. TheStrikeΣagle 09:33, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

OK, firstly we have to remember this is a List of Great powers by date. The dates are highly important:

• 1815 - end of the Napoleonic wars and the treaty of Vienna.
• c. 1880s - the scramble for Africa resulting in most European empires doubling in size.
• c. 1900 - turn of a new century, rise of new powers like the USA.
• 1919 - end of WW1.
• 1939 - start of WW2.
• 1946 - end of WW2.
• c. 2000 - turn of a new century.

All of these above dates represent a significant time in history and a shift in global power. This is why I agree with David that we should not have a c. 2010 section, because the year 2010 is insignificant.

In my opinion India is a Great power, but it's weakness is that it is a new power. This is because new powers like India struggle to wield the same diplomatic power and influence on the international stage as the old established powers like Britain, Russia, France etc. For example, look at the talks with Iran over its nuclear programme - (Talks between world powers and Iran (BBC)) - it is China, Britain, France, Germany, Russia and the United States who call the shots regarding Iran, their opinions matter and the rest of the world listens and generally adopt their policies and ideals. We have to remember that while Britain and France have been formal Great powers since 1815 (that's 200 years), India has only emerged as a Great Power over the last decade, so it is understandable that India does not have the same international clout as the established Great powers. As Strike Eagle perfectly put it, India can be described as a 'nascent great power'.

But the question is, should we add India to the List of Great powers by date? I think I agree with David and Strike Eagle that we probably shouldn't :( - even though India is a great power we have to remember this is Wikipedia and we would need some more academic citations to fully support placing India in the table. For now we only have the one. But I have a proposal, see this current map of great powers at the Great power article, why don't we add India to the map? I think a consensus could be reached for this, and we can mention in the text under the map that India has recently emerged as a great power according to some academics. What do you guys think?

Off-topic - There will indeed be a major stand-off between China and India for resources and hegemony in Asia, this is inevitable. However, China and India will not be the only players involved. The United States has shifted focus towards the Asia Pacific and working more closely with Japan to counter a rising China. The British and French are still committed to expeditionary warfare and the British are placing greater emphasis on security in the Gulf, Indian Ocean. The USA, UK and France are NATOs three most powerful members and these three nations are also (in effect) allies with India. We also have to remember that the British, French, Indians and Americans all share the same concerns about China and China is regarded as a potential enemy by all of these nations. Any war for resources and hegemony would involve all of these nations, I.e combined French, British, Canadian, Indian and American forces engaging China from the west, and combined Japanese, Canadian, Australian and American forces engaging China from the east. Hysterical North Korea would aid China by invading South Korea and the Russians would aid the Americans, Indians and British etc by engaging Chinese and North Korean forces from the north. China will hands down loose any war in the current strategic environment. Remember, allies are the greatest weapon in war... not one single nation can wage major war alone and win, not even the United States! When Britain ruled the world we won all our major wars with the aid of allies, for example we allied with the Prussians against the French, we allied with the French against the Russians and allied with the Russians against the Germans (who were historically Prussian) :D Antiochus the Great (talk) 21:10, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Arguably, the main reason why Britain was #1 nation and had the world's largest empire was down to its centuries of excellent foreign policy and global strategic manoeuvring amongst the other powers. Arguably too that this hasn't changed, but that Britain's power is now far more "reasonable" (essentially the position it found itself in by the end of the 19th century was truly exceptional)... saying that, for a country now with less than 1% of the world's population it's still doing exceptionally well. (And especially when you consider that for decades now we've had a political class which only sees and wants to manage "decline"..!) The UK now sits in the middle of various alliances of different forms (EU, NATO, UKUSA, Commonwealth being the main ones) which should see things through to the middle of the century I reckon. NATO was the UK's greatest foreign policy success of the 20th century IMO - I love how the UK's central line of thinking for getting it formed ("to keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down") is on the Wikipedia article's opening section!

Anyway - returning to the inclusion of India on the map - this of course would be something to raise at Talk:Great power where a consensus would have to be reached. There's only one proper academic source for India's great power status, so I'd be cautious personally. David (talk) 21:50, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

The Mughal empie might have been a regional power in the 18th Century, but it wasn't really a great power. It was already in part effectively ruled by the British and at the time to some extent by the French. As for India at present - yes, it may be considered a great power at present, but perhaps it will be easier to see in the future than now.

The Holy Roman Empire didn't really exist as a power at all in the 18th Century. Since the Peace of Westphalia it wasn't much more than a lose confederation. Austria was a great power, but it wasn't an empire by then, it was an archduchy. Prussia was perhaps also to be considered a great power, even if I am not sure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John Tatebury (talk • contribs) 06:29, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Antiochus the Great, prior to your comment that "even though India is a great power we have to remember this is Wikipedia and we would need some more academic citations to fully support placing India in the table", the sources had been added to the page, in fact there are many more, but i added only 5 for now, so let me know. OccultZone (talk) 11:53, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

OccultZone, could you please list the references here so other editors can take a look at them? A broad consensus should be reached before the addition/removal of Great Powers to the list and it would need more than just a discussion between you and I. Antiochus the Great (talk) 12:12, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

The guy below had suggested the list, although it's yet to change "United Kingdom" into "Great Britain" for 1939 and 1946.

If it's me you are talking about, I have suggested nothing but the change of "United Kingdom" into "Great Britain" for 1939 and 1946. I haven't suggested any new list of some sort. Harold O'Brian (talk) 21:42, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

References, [2], [3], [4],[5], [6], "India: Emerging Power", p. 60 By Stephen P. Cohen, and the "Strategic Vision: America & the Crisis of Global Power" by Dr. Zbigniew Brzezinski, pp 43-45, because of which germany, japan are added too. OccultZone (talk) 13:06, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Clearly, a consensus must be reached at the talk of great power before any inclusion. The consensus must include atleast 6-10 editors and the discussion must be closed by an uninvolved admin. All these fuss because it's an extremely important article and what we write influences the thoughts of millions of readers! ƬheStrikeΣagle ^sorties 14:36, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Sure, but let me know, if you and Antiochus the Great agreed with this one. OccultZone (talk) 15:51, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Great Britain 1939 and 1946

I think that between the statute of Westminster in 1931 and full Irish independence in 1947, it is more correct to name the British state as Great Britain rather than the United Kingdom. That was what it was usually called at the time and the name which was used for it at the foundation of the United Nations. Harold O'Brian (talk) 19:20, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Agreed with Harold O'Brian, and the list below. OccultZone (talk) 05:33, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Could add India though, but couldn't name change "United Kingdom", i think you should attempt. OccultZone (talk) 06:00, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

legislation.gov.uk,which is managed by The National Archives on behalf of the government, refers to the state as the United Kingdom, and not Great Britain.[7] I'm changing it back to United Kingdom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qwertzy (talk • contribs) 18:27, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Ottoman Empire

Could the Ottoman Empire be considered a great power from 1815 to 1900? They were the only non-European nation invited to the Congress of Berlin, they controlled over a billion square kilometers of land, had over 20 million people and were generally considered one of the greatest a military powers in the world. Should they be considered a great power or not?--24.207.199.254 (talk) 02:45, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

South Korea in 2012

Japan has dropped out of the great power by depression. Instead, I add South Korea to a great power for the common sense of Asia that South Korea has gained power. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coreamax (talk • contribs) 08:55, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

That's not very likely true, is it? By the way, take it up at talk:Great power first, not here. Ove Raul (talk) 00:07, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Archives for this page by bot

I think old discussions on this talk page need to be archived. I think a bot should do it. Do you agree? Harold O'Brian (talk) 06:55, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Seems like it's already so anyway (see top of this page)? Cecil Huber (talk) 11:28, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Archive away! :) Argovian (talk) 21:43, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

58.33.151.29's proposal

(I don't know why the template of 58.33.151.29 is published below and not where on this talkpage he put it, but there it is. It is not my doing. Harold O'Brian (talk) 21:56, 1 September 2013 (UTC))

I fixed this now, by completing the template code in the end. Harold O'Brian (talk) 21:53, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Flags of France are linked

I don't see the reason why the flags of France are linked, but the others aren't. Where is this defined in the source? --Mythographus (talk) 00:53, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Tidied. See my edits to see how it's done. :) Argovian (talk) 09:59, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Kingdom of Italy

The discussion under this headline is moved here from Talk:Great power 09:19, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

In the section "List of great powers by date" we should use "Kingdom of Italy" instead of "Italy" from 1880 to 1938. Moreover, for the last one, maybe is better "Italian Empire", in fact it was established in 1936. What do you think? -- Nick.mon (talk) 17:00, 28 March 2015

No, I find it more logical to change "German Empire" etc. to "Germany" etc. "British Empire" should still stand though, since it in a way was a different entity than the UK. Tutlulu (talk) 09:10, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Update required for the template & data

Article is out of date. Power perceptions of Germany, Japan, India, Brazil reflect the situation of 2011-2012 period and are a far cry from latest transformations which are ongoing in Europe and Asia/BRICS. Data under the 2000 column needs to be updated in light of 2015 realities. Germany & Japan were cited as 'great powers' just by using academic references which cannot make it sufficient since they refer to the US perception of potential great powers and who the US treats as alike a great power in certain cases. To be a Great Power it goes without saying that the country/countries need to be recognised universally as a Great Power. Do Germany, Japan, India, Brazil fit the bill ? None are UN veto-wielding P5 members. 91.182.214.69 (talk) 23:27, 24 March 2015 (UTC)~

Your personal opinion regarding academic publications referenced in the article is irrelevant. It doesn't matter who you think is a great power, or what you think constitutes a great power - it only matters what reliable academic sources say. Also, you claim the article is out of date, and that the global situation of 2015 is different from 2011/12 - could you kindly provide a reliable source for this? Perhaps we could then include it in the article instead of spamming the page with maintenance templates. Antiochus the Great (talk) 08:21, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

This template is not meant to be up to date. It is meant ti show the change in great powers over time by showing snapshots at different years, the last year being 2000. Skogsvandraren (talk) 20:09, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

China in 1815

Why is China called 'Qing Empire' in 1815? Sure, Qing was the ruling dynasty, but the country was still called China, wasn't it? I think this should be changed. Boot Blues (talk) 21:18, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes. Skogsvandraren (talk) 20:10, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

China in 1938

Only one source give China as a great power in 1938. At the time, there were civil wars going on in China and vast parts of the country were occupied by Japan. Is it really stated in the source that China is to be considered a great power at the time? Skogsvandraren (talk) 20:14, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Ottoman Empire and China as Great Powers

China gained international formal recognition as Great Power only during and primarily after WW II by granting permanent membership in UN Security Council. Ottoman Empire during 19 and 20 century never held internationally recognised Great Power status. If we admit Ottoman Empire as Great Power, then we will have to admit also United States as Great Power from 1815 on. In 1815 US won over UK (battle of New Orleans), subsequently won a war with Mexico, gaining large new territories (plus Louisiana Purchase in 1803) and thus acting virtually as sole great power in Americas, plus economically much better than declining Ottoman Empire, and despite this United States are not counted as Great Power until 1900 in our chart.

Germany gained formal internationally recognised Great Power status after losing WW I in 1926 and Soviet Union in 1934. In that years these countries became permanent members of the League of Nations Council.Lucullus19 (talk) 22:13, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Key historic events at formimg of officially internationally recognised group of countries held Great Power status:

• 1815 - Vienna Congress. 5 officially recognised Great Powers (all european)
• 1878 - Berlin Congress. 6 officially recognised Great Powers (all european), 5 of Vienna Congress plus Italy.
• 1900 - Eight-Nation Alliance at Boxer Rebellion. 8 officially recognised Great Powers. 6 of Berlin Congress plus 2 non-european (USA, Japan)
• 1919 - Paris Peace Conference. 5 officially recognised Great Powers.
• 1926 - Germany permanent member of League of Nations Council. 6 officially recognised Great Powers.
• 1934 - Soviet Union permanent member of League of Nations Council. 7 officially recognised Great Powers.
• 1946 - Permanent members of UN Security Council. 5 officially recognised Great Powers Lucullus19 (talk) 23:01, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Turkey a great power

here are the sources we need. https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=OX3lsOrXJGcC&pg=PA61&dq=ottoman+empire+a+great+power&hl=tr&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj3or2z_-DWAhUEKlAKHf1pCtgQ6AEIUjAG#v=onepage&q=ottoman%20empire%20a%20great%20power&f=falsehttps://books.google.co.uk/books?id=NytctRcwiE4C&pg=PA73&dq=ottoman+empire+a+great+power&hl=tr&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj3or2z_-DWAhUEKlAKHf1pCtgQ6AEIYjAI#v=onepage&q=ottoman%20empire%20a%20great%20power&f=false https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=xHluy4795U4C&pg=PA67&dq=ottoman+empire+a+great+power&hl=tr&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiJx_TT_-DWAhXKJVAKHUNZCw44ChDoAQhFMAQ#v=onepage&q=ottoman%20empire%20a%20great%20power&f=false https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=ZHRxKz0xQJIC&pg=PA231&dq=ottoman+empire+a+great+power&hl=tr&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiJx_TT_-DWAhXKJVAKHUNZCw44ChDoAQhVMAY#v=onepage&q=ottoman%20empire%20a%20great%20power&f=false — Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgepodros (talk • contribs) 12:17, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Georgepodros: There are some issues about your edit.

Firstly, your suggested addition has been reverted by no less than three different editors. That means that there is no consensus for adding the Ottoman Empire to the list. The only way to go if you want it added, is to convince the community in a discussion on the talk page. If you just continue to add it without consensus, that is called edit war. Even if you so far have ignored all suggestions about learning and understanding Wikipedia rules, I will try once more: Please read WP:CONSENSUS, WP:EDITWAR and WP:BRD. If you continue to disregard the rules, you may soon find yourself blocked from editing.

Secondly, the suggested addition needs sources, not only given in the talk page, but sources presented in the article itself, in order to let other people check where the information comes from. Again I insist you read WP:V about verifiability and WP:RS about reliable sources.

Finally, the sources you have added, are not even supporting your claim. The first source says nothing about the Ottoman Empire being av Great Power. The second mentions OE as a «non-Christian Great Power in the region», but continues to describe it as «obsolescent», «on its last legs», «hastening to its dissolution». In the third source, OE is described as a «third rate power». The sources do simply not give any backing for adding the OE to the list.

I will give you a chance to self revert your addition and to start discussing in the talkpage instead. If not, your addition will again be removed. --T*U (talk) 21:12, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

@Georgepodros, stop with the edit war and seek consensus on this talk page. Antiochus the Great (talk) 11:22, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Empire of Brazil

I think the Empire of Brazil should be included 2A02:A44E:A90C:1:15E5:E56B:5F8:1B14 (talk) 17:36, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Citations? We need references from reliable sources saying it was a great power. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 13:22, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Italy

A government which changes its prime minister like a pair of gloves? Financial issues, and all the mafias? Italy a great power, are you kidding me?Ernio48 (talk) 19:24, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Ernio48 Welcome to the discussion. Feel to reply above but please keep your arguments based on the sources we have (or provide more to help in the discussion). Your current statements are, IMO, personal views which we cannot discuss on. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 21:17, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Overhaul of Last 2 Sections

Unlike the other 6 sections, the last two time frames (2000s and 2010s) are based on no concrete great power concerts. This needs to be changed as it has led to a misrepresentation of what nations are really great powers in the modern day, as well as causes an organizational inconsistency in the template.

The 2000s should be changed to 1975 with reference to the 1st G6 summit in which the great powers would be composed of:

UK

China

France

Germany

Italy

Japan

USSR

US

These are the same great powers as listed under the 2000s section we have currently, and adding a real great power concert to this collection of state would increase the legitimacy of the article's current claim. As you may have noticed, however, the USSR and China were not members of this concert. This does not necessarily decrease the validity of the statement we are trying to make, as the references we have listed themselves offer enough legitimacy to the claims that the USSR and China were great powers at that time. If anything, adding the fist G6 summit can only help legitimize the article as the alternative would be to have no concrete examples of a great power summit at the time.

With regards to the last section of the template, this requires more drastic changes. Currently, we have a listing which is identical to that of 20 years earlier, again with no concrete example of a great power concert. If this were the case, which I would argue it is not, we would not even need to have a separate section for these nations in the first place, as the article could simply state that the 2000s constitute the current year. Instead, a wiser way to organize a contemporary listing of great powers would be to refer the last section to the 2015 Iran Nuclear Deal, or more formally the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, as this is arguably the closest representation to a full great power concert that we have seen in contemporary history. The great power nations in this section should be composed of:

EU/UK

China

EU/France

EU/Germany

Japan

Russia

US

These nations consist of all the signatories of the Deal, other than Iran of course, with the addition of Japan. Similar to the conditions of the USSR and China with regards to 1975, there are enough credible references pointing to Japan's great power status in 2015 that their absence from the JCPOA is unfortunate, but does not completely disregard their claim of being a great power. Again it is better to have a concrete example that showcases MOST of the great powers and to have a few notable exceptions than to simply give no concrete evidence at all. Italy has also been eliminated from the list, as they, unlike Japan, do not constitute one of the top economies in the world, nor do most scholars or policy makers recognize them as being a current great power. The EU is also represented in this section, as it was given a seat at the JCPOA, showcasing that it is seriously taken at some level on the great power stage. As the EU is not necessarily a state, but still deserves recognition, its flag should be shown alongside its member states that are also considered more fully fledged great powers.

An example of what I propose can be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:List_of_great_powers_by_date&oldid=840352820 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Кирова (talk • contribs) 11:15, 9 May 2018 (UTC) --Кирова (talk) 11:18, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

:Please my friend Stop with your prejudices against Italy. Italy  have one of the Largest economies of the world [8] the Third Gold reserve as well Italy is one of the Largest Richest countries of the world , See:  National wealth.  and as for power diplomacy , I think that You lack a bit of what really  means " all Global discussion" Italy plays a more Important role than Japan in Syria [9] where partecipate also Russia and China, in Lebanon [10] Where also partecipate Russia and China, so Why you Exclude Italy?, alreday there sources that cite Italy as a great Power for their inclusion on the Contact group and NATO Quint.LuigiPortaro29 (talk) 12:06, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

LuigiPortaro29 We need more than just economy to justify Italy's inclusion on that list. There are two other countries, Brazil and India, which have much larger economies and are not on the list. All the references mentioned for Italy in that reference point it as a middle power or a power withing Europe not the world. And here I am not necessarily picking on Italy. I think we need to reassess the criteria of inclusion on that list and maybe remove some countries which do have enough referneces to support it. Adamgerber80 (talk) 12:23, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi there Adam, well Please Read better my Comment above. and read the Sources of Italy as great Power here on the main Page. I agree with you that India should be included . Milenio Sterio writes The great powers are super-sovereign states: an exclusive club of the most powerful states economically, militarily, politically and strategically. These states include veto-wielding members of the United Nations Security Council (United States, United Kingdom, France, China, and Russia), as well as economic powerhouses such as Germany, Italy and Japan But She says also : India and Israel are great powers so India deserve!. and as for economic Power India is ahead of Italy by GDP nominal . But Please can you say me right now how much is the value in US dollar of the GDP of Brazil about 6,950.400 in Brazilian real and Italy about 1,760.017 euros? ( we are almost half of the year ...Im looking only the Nominal GDP which seems more effective when comes the International Trade matters). Cheers LuigiPortaro29 (talk) 13:51, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

LuigiPortaro29 There are multiple issues with the points you have raised. First, why is only "Milenio Sterio" considered here and not other experts and what they have to state on great powers. I believe her opinions are being given too much WP:WEIGHT. We need to refer to multiple sources here and give them equal weight. Second, what you are currently doing is WP:SYNTH which is taking something an author has said and extrapolating it to other countries. If Milenio does not mention India or Israel then they shout NOT be included. I think we need to review the list of countries we have in the modern era and only add them if we have multiple sources supporting them. For the record, I don't think India or Israel or Brazil or Italy currently have enough sources to justify their inclusion but we should examine the countries already listed on a case by case basis. I am also pinging senior editors @Antiochus the Great: and @Illegitimate Barrister: who have been interested in this page and might want to weigh in with their opinions.

Hi Adam. Well, First I have never said that Milena Sterio is the Unique source. that is the source for Italy. in the Table there many sources which Talk for other countries! , and if you see "better" the Book of Sterio then, India and Israel appears as great powers. I'm not lying to you. Im not that Kind of person. I have cited Sterio because this conversation is started about Italy and Japan.

But Why Japan is not member of the  ISG The International Support Group of Lebanon that has brought together the governments of China, France, Germany, Italy, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom and the United States? as well Japan doesnt partecipate in Syria Talks as Italy do. [11][12]. 

Guys Im starting to think that here there a certain rencor gainst Italy and that is not Good here in Wikipedia. or Im wrong?LuigiPortaro29 (talk) 18:30, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

In my view Italy, as a member of the G7 and a cultural superpower, and thanks to his important role in global diplomacy as member of the NATO Quint and the European Big Four, should be listed in this template, even if it has a weak political system that threats Italian influence in the world. However this decision cannot be taken by majority but with reliable sources, and I think we have them. -- Nick.mon (talk) 21:17, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Anyway I must admit that I’m Italian, so I could be a bit biased :) -- Nick.mon (talk) 21:25, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Кирова Perhaps you are blinded by your own national bias, Luigi, as the only reason there is any negativity towards Italy being listed as a great power is because most scholars, and more importantly policy makers in the diplomatic field, agree that it is not. Even sources that supposedly reference Italy as being a great power fail to, with Verbeek and Giacomello, as well as the Italy: Justice System and National Police Handbook quoting the nation as being a middle or regional power, not a great power. Many nations are middle and regional powers, from Nigeria, to Turkey, to India; this article, however, is about great powers, which is something that Italy simply does not meet the criteria for.

Furthermore, you mention the fact that Italy is a member of some national groupings, such as the NATO quint and the Contact group, and the fact that because Japan is not a member of these institutions they should be ruled out, or at least that Italy is on the same level of international importance as Japan because of their membership in these groups. First of all, the Contact Group is a regional power concert, as only nations that are concerned with the Balkans are members of it. Furthermore, when was the last time it met or had relevant impact on international relations? That would appear to be 2006, so it should be ruled out as being representative of the modern day. The NATO Quint has a similar history as the Contact Group, as both came to prominence around the same time and also originated as a grouping of European regional powers in the 1980s. Whether or not they truly constitute international great powers in the modern day is more questionable, and while they do interact with other great powers with regards to Syria, it is arguable that Syria is simply in Italy's regional interest as a Mediterranean nation to deal with, and thus cements their position as a regional power, but not a great power. A better example to look at is the Iran Deal talks, as this is not in the immediate region of any of the great powers, yet they all have a part in agreement, showcasing them as real, powerful, international actors.

--Кирова (talk) 21:57, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

What you say is fair enough, but I'll answer you simply with this Wikipedia article, Least of the Great Powers, Italy will be less influent and powerful compared to the other powers, but it's a great power, even if the "least" of them. Moreover I think that citing Itay as "The Least of the Great Powers" and then not citing it in the article about them, should be confusing and incorrect. -- Nick.mon (talk) 05:27, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Everyone, can we please present sources here rather then point to other articles or events like the Iran deal to determine a great power status. Also, let's leave our biases or personal opinions out and discuss based on sources. Do we have more than 1 source which places Italy as a great power? Adamgerber80 (talk) 21:52, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Regarding the Iran deal, even there Italy went in and off the P5 + 1 group a couple of times. And the Italian Mogherini was named EU representative precisely to find a compromise regarding Italy's position in the Iran dealThat is consistent with the label of "Least of the Great Powers" (if someone wants sources claiming Italy as a major power look at the first 11 sources of that article).

The point is how we present this position and that of the EU in the article.Barjimoa (talk) 03:43, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Generally speaking, I agree with Nick.mon and LuigiPortaro29. I've looked at the two previous versions. I propose this compromise. We do put the EU in the 2020s but we also put a note saying that it is a sum of its sovereign states (from the quoted source used here) and that Germany and France are major powers with Italy being the least of the great powers. We should also put a note saying that Britain will remain part of the EU until 2019.

1815	1878	1900	1919	1939	1945	1975	2020s
Austria	Austria-Hungary	Austria-Hungary
British Empire	British Empire	British Empire	British Empire	United Kingdom	United Kingdom	United Kingdom	United Kingdom
					China	China	China
France	France	France	France	France	France	France
Prussia	Germany	Germany		Germany		Germany	European Union
	Italy	Italy	Italy	Italy		Italy
		Japan	Japan	Japan		Japan	Japan
Russia	Russia	Russia		Soviet Union	Soviet Union	Soviet Union	Russia
		United States	United States	United States	United States	United States	United States

Barjimoa (talk) 03:43, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

References

In recent years the European Union had absolutely played a key role in many important agreements and deals and I hope that it will be more and more influent by 2020, but I think that it'll not happen. However, in 2000s and 2010s Germany, France, Italy, and often the UK, had always act as a "single" entity and just in few cases they were in disagree, so inserting the EU could be a good solution, but I think it will create lot of controversies :) -- Nick.mon (talk) 08:59, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Maybe we could keep Germany, Italy, France and UK and then add also the EU in 2010 or 2020:

1975	2010s
United Kingdom	United Kingdom
China	China
France	France
Germany	Germany
Italy	Italy
Japan	Japan
Soviet Union	Russia
United States	United States
	European Union

References

I must say again, let's discuss on base of sources not one "feels". Do we have source which justify Italy to be a great power after 2010. (And just for reference I am happy to do this exercise for every other country in that list). Now, I examine the sources provided to support Italy's claim in the post 2010 era and here they are:

(1) Verbeek, Bertjan; Giacomello, Giampiero (2011). Italy's foreign policy in the twenty-first century : the new assertiveness of an aspiring middle power. - This source itself calls Italy a "middle power" not a great power.

(2) Italy: 150 years of a small great power, eurasia-rivista.org - This is an editorial aka WP:SPS and not permissible.

(3) Italy: Justice System and National Police Handbook, Vol. 1 - This terms Italy as a "regional power".

(4) Transforming Military Power since the Cold War: Britain, France, and the United States, 1991–2012 - This refers to Italy's role during the Kosvo War which happened between 1998 and 1999 which is not post 2010.

(5) Canada Among Nations, 2004: Setting Priorities Straight - This is published in 2005 and thus cannot forsee if that is true in 2010.

(6) The right to self-determination under international law : "selfistans", secession and the rule of the great powers - This is the only source which is valid and justifies Italy's inclusion in the post 2010 era. But it also includes Israel, India and Pakistan as great powers (which are not in the list).

Now I feel just on the basis of this single source we cannot justify adding Italy, Israel, India and Pakistan to the list. So if you wish to argue for the inclusion of Italy then we need more sources which firmly states this in the post 2010 era.

The same goes for the inclusion of the EU in the list. The definition of great power is a sovereign state. EU is a grouping or a union NOT a sovereign state. For the last time, please state your arguments on basis of sources not what you feel or random events that a country was not in the Iran deal. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 16:12, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

there one and two sources of Middle power rank also for Germany and Japan there on the list. already Italy have better sources listed than Japan.

Please dear Adam check "better" before to write.... please please dont get mad. Because the last day you have accused me of a false thing, nice that we agree that India and Israel are inclueded in the Book of Sterio even if is not in the principal "paragraph". But Unlike Japan, India, Israel and others Italy Play a major role in Diplomacy that them. the JCPOA is not the Only one Ministerial group of Important countries ( maybe the most popular by media) there also other "Middle east" Important Talks as the ISG where Partecipate US, Russia, China , France, Germany, the UK and Italy as well in the Syrian case there Important Talks as for Example the ex President François Hollande of France did with the inclusion of the US, China Russia UK Germany and Italy. and as for the Iran deal , Please read better here Italy is not inclueded as well as Japan , But Unlike Japan, Italy play a certain more Important major role in the affairs with Iran than Japan.LuigiPortaro29 (talk) 17:00, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

LuigiPortaro29 I am not getting mad just having a discussion. I have already mentioned that I am not picking on Italy and I am happy to have this discussion for every country in that list. Let's focus on Italy for now and once this is done we can discuss Japan, UK, Germany as well. In the meantime, please provide WP:RS which place Italy as a "Great Power" in the post 2010 era. I have provided my analysis of the available sources which proves that we have insufficient sources to establish that Italy is indeed a great power in the post 2010 era. (I did not say you lied I claimed we cannot do so on one source and second you were doing WP:SYNTH with gold reserves which is not applicable here). As of now, all that I see is random sources which are not relevant here. I am happy to discuss if more sources are provided until then we cannot go on what we "feel" or "think" or let our personal biases guide us. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 17:12, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

I understand you. the source that talk for Italy and as for Today reflects what is Italy: a great Power in Diplomacy, economy, Geopolitic ,Military. Here the sources and "no consensus" BETWEEN ITALY AND JAPAN is very .well-known , and as for Gold reserve is Huge Important for Geopolitics and that is why Italy play a major role than Japan (again). Here some Books about Gold Importance if you want you can read it. [13] [ https://books.google.de/books?id=e4u_DQAAQBAJ&dq=Gold+reserve++Important&hl=it] and here the China plans [14] However I don't believe in what China wants, the US dollar is still Huge more Important for the Global affairs.LuigiPortaro29 (talk) 18:37, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

LuigiPortaro29 I am sorry but I do not understand what you are trying to say. The sources which you posted here do NOT mention that Italy is a "great power". Can you please quote me exact lines from the book which do? What you are currently doing is called WP:SYNTH (please read this since I think you are not understanding it). I am going to come to other countries as well but as of now we do not have barring one source which puts Italy as a great power in the post 2010 era. It seems to me that you are currently WP:STONEWALLING the discussion. Adamgerber80 (talk) 19:51, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, I don't have so many experience Like you. Still I'm learning because I'm not perfect maybe I don't know much, But I just Have show you some Books where they speak about the "IMPORTANCE" of "Gold" in Global affairs Because you have said me "superficially" that gold is not important in this section. I just have show you what Mileno sterio means when she speak about "economically", militarily, politically and "strategically". it is necessary to explain that 2 x 2 is 4? . I have make some examples above with "reliable sources" about GLOBAL DIPLOMACY from the French Goverment and the ISG and you still say that is not important. are you STILL THINKING that India or Japan are in the same level of Diplomacy of Italy? Please dont hate me, but I needed to say that. I have cited Japan because this discussion IS STARTED WITH JAPAN AND ITALY!!!!!! and you Have said me that you dont see Italy as great Power , that is your POV , that all the sources of Italy was of a middle power you are ignoring what Milena sterio Means when she talk for "economically", militarily, politically and "strategically" . Anyway we can delete the year 2010 Because it is too short compared with the year 2000 and about for today there many confusion,( Brexit, new deal Paris Climate, etc) and of course Japan is not Playing any major role in GLOBAL DIPLOMACY than Italy. this is a Fact.as well scholars dont have always the same opinion .LuigiPortaro29 (talk) 20:59, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

LuigiPortaro29 I am sufficiently convinced that Italy should not be included in the post 2010 era. There is currently one source which also states other countries and this source is not sufficient. I have repeatedly asked you to avoid WP:SYNTH but it seems to be that you either you don't understand this or are WP:IDHT. Similarly, whether Italy has the same diplomacy power as Japan/India/any other country is based on sources not on what you "think" or "believe". I will now move on to analyze Japan's sources and determine if it should be included. You are welcome to chime in with your opinions but please base them on sources (and I am stressing on this for the umpteenth time). Adamgerber80 (talk) 14:59, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi Adam, I am also that sufficiently convinced that the list of the year 2010 should be delete it all , until wait for the "year 2020".( for not make confusion between the other sources on the List) there no consensus here Because Italy is still part of the G7 NATO Quint as well have more influence than Japan in Global affairs. and this is Not what I feel , this are Real Facts. LuigiPortaro29 (talk) 15:23, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

LuigiPortaro29 Membership of G7 and NATO Quint does not mean a country is great power (if it does provide a source). Also, FYI Canada is a member of G7 but not on the list. As I have said before, unfortunately you are lettng your personal biases come in the way of editing are currently editing with a WP:POV. Your argument about 2010 now sounds farcical since you know Italy cannot be included. I will move onto Japan and Germany next. Provide a source which puts Italy as a great power not some random news article which discusses how different countries had a discussion with Lebanon. I am also happy to take this to a Wikipedia forum if you continue to WP:STONEWALL the discussion. Adamgerber80 (talk) 15:33, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Try to relax. I Only Have said that it is better to delete the List of the 2010, ( the year 2010 was added for a guy that was a sock puppet one month ago) So what do you want to do, Delete Italy and puting the source of Milena Sterio for the Other countries Making a little confusion?. that is unfair. Because Milena Sterio Have right to say that Italy is a great Power in 2013 in economically", militarily, politically and "strategically ways ,how much sources we need for understand that 2+2 is 4?. already the Table is Good , But as you dont like. Anyway we need Other editors here to comment in a fair way and Time maybe there other editors that Know more about sources. the Group of Lebanon calls ISG and is not random.Please do not minimize the sources that you do not like. However is Nice that you care too much about this section. CheersLuigiPortaro29 (talk) 16:13, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

LuigiPortaro29 I think I have made myself very clear. Milena Sterio source is too broad and thus cannot be used selectively. Italy can be included in the list only on the basis of that source alone and I do NOT support including other countries in that list aka India, Pakistan and Israel. I actually spent some time reading and looking up other sources. Now, unlike Milena Sterio's source which makes passing mention of Italy as a great power (among other countries), there are more references which place Italy (along with UK and France) as middle power. These sources are more recent and are actually about Italy and its foreign policy and power status thus giving them more weight. I have presented some of them below with specific quotes

Italy as a Regional Power: The African context from national unification to the present day (2016), Gabriele Abbondanza - "Middle powers are those countries that possess .... .Among these are United Kingdom, France, Japan, Italy ..."

Italy in International Relations: The Foreign Policy Conundrum (2017), Emidio Diodato, Federico Niglia - "...The issue of Italy as a new middle power in the post bi-polar system is very much contested. .... . But difficulties emerge when certain roles are considered as those of middle powers ...". In short this source builds on the "Italy's Foreign Policy in the Twenty-first Century: The New Assertiveness of an Aspiring Middle Power" source and states that Italy might not even be a middle power.

Another good point which came about this exercise was I also came across source for UK and Japan which place them as middle powers not great powers. I will analyze them next in concurrence with the sources existing on the page to check if it justifies their inclusion. I am happy if other editors watching this page want to chime in. Please base your discussion to scholarly sources (or provide one if you think I missed out on something).

Lastly please read WP:WEIGHT before you bring in any sources and remember this is not a VOTE. This is a discussion based on the merits of sources and not a vote on what editors "feel" so there is no concept of "Majority". So, please stop WP:CANVASSING. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 21:08, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi Adam, Well I'm not accusing you, But I say what I see. (even if you claims that you dont picking on Italy)

and Why I say this? First you have said that ALL sources for Italy on the table was of a middle power.( without even see the sources listed on the table). then you Have said that the source of Milena is good that is the only source which is valid and justifies Italy's inclusion in the post 2010 era. but Italy have only one source after 2010. Now you said I think I have made myself very clear. Milena Sterio source is too broad and thus cannot be used selectively. as if you're against any inclusion, Please don't hate me, I just say what I see and If someone read all the conversation then can understand what Im talking about. the sources of Milena is a good one source of the year 2013 she talks about economically, militarily, politically and strategically ways, that possibly India is also a great but only for the nuclear Bomb. is a sufficient resource for the year after 2010? NO. but remains a good source for Italy. Simply I feel uncomfortable here with what I see then I have talk with Nick.mon , He also have commented on this discussion, I have also talk with the user Mikeblas, since he was very kind to fix the Italian source in the page of Great power, I have talk about this source: Political atlas of the Modern World Year 2011 By Andre Melville, Yuri Polunin, Mikhail Ilyin and Others. in this Book talks about comparison between a cluster analysis of countries exertin maximun influence on the International Arena (China, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, UK and the US) the US , Russia and China leaving for their own clusters of the worldwide influence "core", the UK stays with France, Germany, Italy and Japan. [15] looks a good source for Italy! this book talks about countries in international affairs like in the UN, Economy (IMF Voting power), military, geopolitical, etc. and Honestly today in the 2018 things are the same like in that year. ( UN; IMF, International Trade, etc) they make a cluster for the countries with more influence.

About the sources that you have cited here: Italy as a Regional Power: The African context from national unification to the present day (2016), Gabriele Abbondanza - "Middle powers are those countries that possess .... .Among these are United Kingdom, France, Japan, Italy , Germany etc. this Book give more weight to countries with large population and forget some of those with more influence in international associations like in the UN and IMF. so here again... No all scholars agree. and for the other Book... well , what I can say , the Book say also that Japan Germany are middle powers or great powers?, I have also found a Book were they talk that Germany is not a great power! , I have also found a Book " Stalking the antichrist" of the year 2013 were they speak about great powers with the inclusion of " China, India, Brazil" as the new great powers and the old great powers " UK Russia Japan, Germany Italy and France".LuigiPortaro29 (talk) 16:28, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I am having a bit difficulty in keeping with your stream of thought. Here is the summary of mine, we only have a single source which places Italy as a great power post 2010 and this not sufficient. We have more sources with more WP:WEIGHT than this one which place Italy as a regional power. Sorry, I do have the analysis for Germany, Japan and UK lined up next but have been busy with other pages. I will post them soon. Adamgerber80 (talk) 21:15, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Now, what Problem you have with this source? [16] LuigiPortaro29 (talk) 15:09, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

A world atlas does NOT carry enough Weight as a scholar published source. The world atlas is about world information (very tangential to the topic) while the sources I have presented are about Italy and it's power status. Thus, they carry much more significance. Also, do remember, that asking other editors to do proxy edits for you are frowned upon. Adamgerber80 (talk) 15:32, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Ottoman Empire

The Ottoman Empire was a super power of the world. It was a great power until in 1918 the end of the World War I. Even in the article List of modern great powers it has been mentioned as a superpower. If Austria-Hungary can be considered as a super power why not the Ottoman Empire.--Perseusittk (talk) 10:28, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

The article List of modern great powers does mention the Ottoman Empire as at the height of its power in the 16th–17th centuries. About the period relevant here it says the OE "during the 19th century was still a considerable power ... but the empire was in a condition of decline and during this period lost progressively its influence, and the majority of his territories were conquered by other powers". This does not support the claim that OE was a "Great power" in 1815, 1878 and 1900. Before you try to re-add this claim, you will need to present reliable sources (see WP:RS) that explicitly support the claim that OE was a great power in 1815, 1878 and 1900. --T*U (talk) 15:39, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

There has been a lot of contention on this page. Please provide WP:RS, gain consensus. IMO, when I had a look at this sometime ago Turkish Empire did not meet this criteria. Plus there are other countries here which also should be removed. Have a look at the discussion above. Adamgerber80 (talk) 16:25, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Addition of more members in the template.

As per advice of LuigiPortaro29 (talk · contribs) I have read the references, at least most of them given in the template article for ITALY and JAPAN being great countries in the 2000s. My inability to recognize italian in some cases may have hampered my judgement but IMO not to a large extent.

What I have seen is articles from not so reputable sources and sources which doesnot have esteemed authors.

But in my research I have seen countless articles on great powers where they should include India, Saudi Arabia or Brazil as Great Powers .

This it is my conclusion that at least sone of this countries be added to the list.

SoloKnowHow83 (talk) 10:56, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't support the inclusion of any new country as of now. However, there is an open issue of some countries which need to be removed. See discussion above. I will get back to it sometime soon and complete that. Adamgerber80 (talk) 19:10, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Italy, a great power in 2020?

Can you folk please tell me how we're justifying Italy as a great power coming into 2020? Lets take India as an example here. India has a larger economy, much stronger military, is actually a nuclear power (with intercontinental ballistic missiles and a nuclear triad that even countries like Japan and UK don't have), yet India is not being considered a great power for the purposes of this template but we're keeping Italy? Furthermore, the sources cited for Italy being a great power are from the late 90s or early 00s. Its been 20 years since and the world has changed dramatically. The one recent article from 2013 talks about Italy and Germany as "middle powers". So do you guys think its time to remove Italy? On that tangent, should we be adding India? The Great power article itself describes India as a great power but its missing on this template. Imperial HRH2 (talk) 15:57, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi, lets focus on sources you updated in the interest of maintaining neutrality and productive discussion of classification of great power. the new column seems a bit premature for the year 2020 . copy and paste the same sources of the years 2000 and 2010 for the year 2020 and cutting "only" italy it seems a bit arbitrary. Have we sources for the year 2020?.--LuigiPortaro29 (talk) 20:11, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

No offence but I can see countless sections here discussing Italy's lack of legitimacy as a great power in 2010 yet it seems as a proud Italian yourself you're being very biased towards the your country and dismissing everyone's opinion. I can see you've also engaged in various edit wars over the topic. Either way, I didn't remove Italy from 2010 because I really didn't want to have a Wiki argument over this. Furthermore, if you really want to focus on Italy then the sources for Italy themselves are vastly outdated, with some being published in the 90s. The latter sources for Italy describe it as a "middle power". I will update the 2020 sources for India as a great power.Imperial HRH2 (talk) 02:24, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

I understand your point. I would suggest to focus us only on sources and avoid things that have nothing to do with it. see that I'm not against the non inclusion of Italy in the column of the year 2020. your decision to delete only Italy and copy and paste the same sources from the 2000 and 2010 years to the 2020 years is quite arbitrary. Note that your accuse of warring actitude to me seems a bit out of place. the last warring notice that I had was the last year in December with a sock puppet.( and was because I didnt understand that term and only to prevent the destruction of that page.) most opinions without sources against Italy are sock puppets, or accounts activated only to support themselves. as for the source of Milena Sterio (2013) cites Italy and Germany as great powers not as middle powers. the source of Verbeek, Bertjan; Giacomello, Giampiero (2011) cites Italy as small "great power"/ "power", or midle power. note that only the US, Russia and China are great powers in that term.--LuigiPortaro29 (talk) 08:46, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Finding sources supporting Italy as a great power after 1945 requires quite rigorous cherry-picking. As of 2020 great powers, isn´t quite early for such topic? Pavlor (talk) 12:59, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Pavlor Hi!. in fact it is rare to find sources from academics calling Italy as a great power, anyway theres some Reliable sources calling Italy as a great power. the column of the year 2020 is Unsourced and added arbitrarly because simply the decade is not happen yet, a column in style POV with the same sources of the 2000s and 2010s to the 2020 years.--LuigiPortaro29 (talk) 16:53, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Pavlor, LuigiPortaro29 Lets get rid of 2020 then, and remove Italy from everything beyond 1945. I mean who are we kidding here. If Italy is a great power then so are another dozen countries like Spain, Saudi Arabia, Brazil, Canada, Korea, etc. Imperial HRH2 (talk) 23:24, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Don´t forget India, it is in the same boat as Italy. Pavlor (talk) 07:12, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Italy is a bordeline case and could be considered an "intermitting" great power: it's the second industry of Europe (7th in the world, before France) [17], member of the G7/G8 and part of the Nuclear sharing [18]. But it's not a permanent member of the UN Security Council, so sometimes not present in the international decision process. Techman84 (talk) 09:27, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Discussion about this table on the Great power article talk page

All watchers of this template are invited to the discussion about this very table on the Great power article talk page Talk:Great power#Powers in the table.... Pavlor (talk) 08:55, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

2010 & 2020

The addition of 2010 & more problematic 2020 to the list has made this template rather unstable. The article should never have countries listed as of today. Academics can only know by looking in the past who were great powers so 2020 would be impossible to know. The sources for Brazil and India talk about the BRICS countries and how they have the potential to be Great Powers. That does not mean that they are great powers, only that they will most likely be. So from the sources given for the 2010's nothing has changed since around 2000.

Also, can I point out that this template has become rather ugly as of late. A revision to one that is visually more refined like what I just shared would be better aesthetically going forth. 51.7.116.245 (talk) 17:00, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

The Ottoman Empire

As for "The Ottoman Empire" I am sorry that I reverted the edit there, that was not intentional as I have not checked those sources. Was the Ottoman Empire considered a Great Power during the Crimean war? If so then it might be worth inclusion. If it was not then it might not have been seen as one by others at the time. 51.7.116.245 (talk) 17:05, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

As per The Sr Guy editing for request of inclusion of Ottoman Empire between post 1815 events and 1900. First of all, Ottoman Empire had no place as a participant in any post-Napoleonic conferences and was far from one recognised prime great power in accordance of the 19th century event. Ottoman Empire began to decline early in the 18th century who had faced long-term stagnant of its development, the relative weakening of the empire's military strength in the second half of the eighteenth century threatened to undermine the fragile balance of power system and the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire was believed to be imminent. The political instability of maintaining the empire's integrity in European domains, has led to a continuous competition in Southeast Europe by each involving great powers throughout the 19th century to the eve of WW1, which was referred as Eastern Question. The empire barely retained its European and North African territories who forced to rely on foreign military intervention and protection especially by British or Austrian aid, and was widely regarded as “Sick man of Europe”. In 1878 Congress of Berlin, Turkey was the defeated side as the result of Russo-Turkish War (1877–1878) and lost more than half of its European territories in consequences. 150.116.17.93 (talk) 00:43, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Winning or losing a war against a Great Power does not by itself mean the other party is not a great power. After all, France was seen as one after losing the Napoleonic Wars in 1815 as was Russia after losing the Russo-Japanese War one in 1905. The question is if the sources back up the claim and if other academics say that they were one during that time period. I went through the modern sources for the post above and found they do not support their claims, I have not done so for this one, but I'm open-minded either way. 51.7.116.245 (talk) 02:27, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

At the beginning of the nineteenth century, the Ottoman Empire was still a great power. Its territorial possessions presented an imposing façade. it controlled most of North Africa, Asia Minor and the Middle East.(The Sr Guy (talk) 20:30, 27 April 2020 (UTC))

Reliable sources is the only thing we are looking for and only few of these would call the Ottoman Empire a great power in the 19th century. Pavlor (talk) 04:16, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Note there is also a discussion on the Great power article talk page (one of only two articles using this template), where a consensus may be achieved this template is removed from the article altogether. Adding dubious powers like the Ottomans, Italy, Brazil or India certainly helps that outcome. Pavlor (talk) 04:24, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

The Ottomans did not even win any single war by its own against any great power throughout 19th to 20th centuries... Even Italians were capable enough to defeat them easily in Italo-Turkish War while Italy was widely considered the Least of the Great Power at the time. How come Ottomans could be consider a major power if a label of Sick man of Europe is generally referred to the declining empire at the time? 1.164.172.23 (talk) 22:53, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Why is Ottoman not in the list?

Now everyone knows that, at the beginning of the 20th century, the definition of world powers were not like how they are though of as today. At that time, the whole world was under the influence or major European powers through their colonial empires, or under the influence of countries that gained independence shortly before the French Revolution (the era of the First wave of European colonization) - countries like United States. Then there are countries that came indirectly under the European dominance - like China, and lastly there are countries that had to transform itself to adapt and resist, like Japan did during the Meiji Restoration. But Ottoman Empire was an exception. It was a state in it's own right - I urge you not look at it like how it would compare in terms of hard or soft power. Compare it to it in terms of it's independent status in the political situation of the world during the early 20th, century. It was an independent and kept that independence during the first wave and the second wave (New Imperialism) of European colonization, before and after French Revolution and Napoleanic Wars, ever since the day of the Fall of Constantinople in 1453 to the partition of the Ottoman Empire Dajo767 (talk) 02:03, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

It is obvious consensus of reliable sources doesn´t count the Ottoman Empire among the Great Powers in the 19st century. Nothing to add. Pavlor (talk) 11:12, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Pre 1815 list

I am working on a Pre 1815 list; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dajo767/sandbox please have a look or contribute . I was inspired by the suggestion by a user on this talk page (Section 12). Dajo767 (talk) 06:38, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Pre-1815

Although the term "Great Power" has been in use only since 1815, could we extend the table further back into the past, pre-1815? The Austrian Empire could become the Holy Roman Empire, and Great Britain could become England, etc. And Spain and the Ottoman Empire could also be included. It would be interesting to see a table stretching all the way back to Ancient times, but I'm not sure that's practical. So, could a template for Great Powers before 1815 be created? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.99.126.230 (talk) 06:21, 27 January 2020 (UTC) And I think at least the French Empire should be referenced as a Great Power. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.99.126.230 (talk) 06:23, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

I will look into creating it. If no update, drop a message into my talk page Dajo767 (talk) 21:37, 10 February 2021 (UTC). I will start with one that shows Great powers from 1450s to 1815. If it works out, then one from the Fall of the Western Roman Empire in 476 to 1450s. Dajo767 (talk) 21:37, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

I am working on a Pre 1815 list; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dajo767/sandbox please have a look or contribute . Dajo767 (talk) 06:38, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Original research nightmare... Pavlor (talk) 06:03, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Probably, but I am improving upon it, with sources to be added. Thanks for the input anyway Pavlor Dajo767 (talk) 04:56, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

The Ottoman Empire

As for "The Ottoman Empire" I am sorry that I reverted the edit there, that was not intentional as I have not checked those sources. Was the Ottoman Empire considered a Great Power during the Crimean war? If so then it might be worth inclusion. If it was not then it might not have been seen as one by others at the time. 51.7.116.245 (talk) 17:05, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

As per The Sr Guy editing for request of inclusion of Ottoman Empire between post 1815 events and 1900. First of all, Ottoman Empire had no place as a participant in any post-Napoleonic conferences and was far from one recognised prime great power in accordance of the 19th century event. Ottoman Empire began to decline early in the 18th century who had faced long-term stagnant of its development, the relative weakening of the empire's military strength in the second half of the eighteenth century threatened to undermine the fragile balance of power system and the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire was believed to be imminent. The political instability of maintaining the empire's integrity in European domains, has led to a continuous competition in Southeast Europe by each involving great powers throughout the 19th century to the eve of WW1, which was referred as Eastern Question. The empire barely retained its European and North African territories who forced to rely on foreign military intervention and protection especially by British or Austrian aid, and was widely regarded as “Sick man of Europe”. In 1878 Congress of Berlin, Turkey was the defeated side as the result of Russo-Turkish War (1877–1878) and lost more than half of its European territories in consequences. 150.116.17.93 (talk) 00:43, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Winning or losing a war against a Great Power does not by itself mean the other party is not a great power. After all, France was seen as one after losing the Napoleonic Wars in 1815 as was Russia after losing the Russo-Japanese War one in 1905. The question is if the sources back up the claim and if other academics say that they were one during that time period. I went through the modern sources for the post above and found they do not support their claims, I have not done so for this one, but I'm open-minded either way. 51.7.116.245 (talk) 02:27, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

At the beginning of the nineteenth century, the Ottoman Empire was still a great power. Its territorial possessions presented an imposing façade. it controlled most of North Africa, Asia Minor and the Middle East.(The Sr Guy (talk) 20:30, 27 April 2020 (UTC))

Reliable sources is the only thing we are looking for and only few of these would call the Ottoman Empire a great power in the 19th century. Pavlor (talk) 04:16, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Note there is also a discussion on the Great power article talk page (one of only two articles using this template), where a consensus may be achieved this template is removed from the article altogether. Adding dubious powers like the Ottomans, Italy, Brazil or India certainly helps that outcome. Pavlor (talk) 04:24, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

The Ottomans did not even win any single war by its own against any great power throughout 19th to 20th centuries... Even Italians were capable enough to defeat them easily in Italo-Turkish War while Italy was widely considered the Least of the Great Power at the time. How come Ottomans could be consider a major power if a label of Sick man of Europe is generally referred to the declining empire at the time? 1.164.172.23 (talk) 22:53, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Why is Ottoman not in the list?

Now everyone knows that, at the beginning of the 20th century, the definition of world powers were not like how they are though of as today. At that time, the whole world was under the influence or major European powers through their colonial empires, or under the influence of countries that gained independence shortly before the French Revolution (the era of the First wave of European colonization) - countries like United States. Then there are countries that came indirectly under the European dominance - like China, and lastly there are countries that had to transform itself to adapt and resist, like Japan did during the Meiji Restoration. But Ottoman Empire was an exception. It was a state in it's own right - I urge you not look at it like how it would compare in terms of hard or soft power. Compare it to it in terms of it's independent status in the political situation of the world during the early 20th, century. It was an independent and kept that independence during the first wave and the second wave (New Imperialism) of European colonization, before and after French Revolution and Napoleanic Wars, ever since the day of the Fall of Constantinople in 1453 to the partition of the Ottoman Empire Dajo767 (talk) 02:03, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

It is obvious consensus of reliable sources doesn´t count the Ottoman Empire among the Great Powers in the 19st century. Nothing to add. Pavlor (talk) 11:12, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Pre 1815 list

I am working on a Pre 1815 list; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dajo767/sandbox please have a look or contribute . I was inspired by the suggestion by a user on this talk page (Section 12). Dajo767 (talk) 06:38, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Pre-1815

Although the term "Great Power" has been in use only since 1815, could we extend the table further back into the past, pre-1815? The Austrian Empire could become the Holy Roman Empire, and Great Britain could become England, etc. And Spain and the Ottoman Empire could also be included. It would be interesting to see a table stretching all the way back to Ancient times, but I'm not sure that's practical. So, could a template for Great Powers before 1815 be created? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.99.126.230 (talk) 06:21, 27 January 2020 (UTC) And I think at least the French Empire should be referenced as a Great Power. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.99.126.230 (talk) 06:23, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

I will look into creating it. If no update, drop a message into my talk page Dajo767 (talk) 21:37, 10 February 2021 (UTC). I will start with one that shows Great powers from 1450s to 1815. If it works out, then one from the Fall of the Western Roman Empire in 476 to 1450s. Dajo767 (talk) 21:37, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

I am working on a Pre 1815 list; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dajo767/sandbox please have a look or contribute . Dajo767 (talk) 06:38, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Original research nightmare... Pavlor (talk) 06:03, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Probably, but I am improving upon it, with sources to be added. Thanks for the input anyway Pavlor Dajo767 (talk) 04:56, 14 February 2021 (UTC)