Talk:Great power/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15

First paragraph of 'Current great powers' copied verbatim from Encarta article

I've removed the first paragraph of the 'Current great powers' section (see diff), as it's directly taken from the Encarta article here: http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761590309/Great_Powers.html. Please rephrase that paragraph so as to not make it a copyright violation, and then add the revision. Emw2012 (talk) 15:51, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can see, the Encarta article is alone in attempting to list today's great powers, and any attempt to do so, by Encarta or anyone else, is a POV. If I had noticed the above mentioned paragraph I would have opposed it. The Encarta source is implicitly contradicted by other sources. Where do you draw the line? As this page shows, wherever we draw the line, it will offend some editors. The hard facts are undisputed at the List of countries by military expenditure and they indicate that today's world contains one superpower and many middle powers. Viewfinder (talk) 21:11, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

And perhaps now that the paragraph has gone, the hornets' nest that it has evidently stirred up will go away too. Viewfinder (talk) 21:34, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I would submit that all sources on this subject contain a point of view regarding great powers. Encarta is not unique in this regard, and this point alone does nothing to disqualify it as a source. It's been established that Encarta is a reliable source: with eleven citations, it is the most used source in this article. It is the only source being used to support, for example, the assertion that France, the United Kingdom, and the United States are great powers. Regardless of how widely agreed-upon they may be from resident editors, the opinions we synthesize from metrics of economic and military strength are not appropriate for this article, as they violate WP:OR.

To the specific point that Encarta is alone in attempting to list today's great powers, I would say that neither entirely correct nor particularly pertinent. What does it matter that Encarta makes such a list? To reiterate, article's on this subject represent a palette of points of view: our job is to represent them with due weight. To categorically disqualify reliable sources on the basis that they support claims one disagrees with is wrongly prejudicial, and not in the spirit of basic editorial policies on Wikipedia. Furthermore, several other articles used as sources (e.g. [1] and [2]) list current great powers.

The paragraph in itself was not an issue. The problem was that it represented a blatant copyright violation. Once it is reworded, I don't see any problem with restoring it. Emw2012 (talk) 22:05, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry if I gave the wrong impression that I am contesting the use of Encarta as a source. It was its verbatim reproduction that was wrong, not only because of copyright, but also because it was presented as fact rather than a competing POV. Regarding the two sources mentioned above, these do not formally list today's great powers, but mention some (including Japan) as great powers in ex-Soviet Asia and the Pacific respectively, which imo is not the same as worldwide. Viewfinder (talk) 22:51, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Great Power status is determined only by the United Nations

The United Nations since 1945 has been the authority of international relations and power, and it recognises that five countries, and five countries only are great powers, and they have each been given a permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council with veto power in recognition of their status as great powers. Those five great powers according to the the United Nations are: the People's Republic of China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Whether other states are recognised by the United Nations as great powers in the future and therefore given permanent seats on the United Nations Security Council or should it decide to change its philosophy of powers in international relations is a matter for the United Nations to decide, but as of 2009 those five countries as stated above are held to be great powers by the recognition of the 192 member states of the United Nations. Usergreatpower (talk) 17:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Plenty of other things besides the UN can say what are great powers. For instance, George Friedman does not believe that the UK or France are great powers, and that only Russia and China are great powers while U.S is a superpower. While the UN in a way recognizes great powers as permanent members in the UNSC, academics and organizations also state their own opinions of what they believe are great powers. Some academics think that the current list we have are the great powers. Some say France isn't, or UK isn't, or China isn't, etc. There is great amount of debate on the subject, and no correct list. That's why on the list, we put that there is no definative list, as there are different academics who say UK is a great power, or Russia is a great power, etc. Deavenger (talk) 19:19, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

The views from other sources such as George Friedman, academics, and other organisations would be considered by most to be irrelevant, obscure, and ignored to say the least by comparison to the view of the United Nations and its member states in this field. Practically no other source could hold higher authority over the subject of international relations and power. By the very power a permanent United Nations Security Council seat holds constitutes a great power. A state cannot hold sufficient international power without a permanent United Nations Security Council seat, and any state with a permanent United Nations Security Council seat holds such sufficient international power. A permanent United Nations Security Council seat accorded to a state is recognition by the United Nations member states that a particular state is a great power and is therefore accorded such appropriate powers. Powers such as the power over international relations such as the power to the establish peacekeeping operations, to establish international sanctions, and the authorization of military action exercised through United Nations Security Council Resolutions, the power to veto such resolutions, and the right to maintain a nuclear stockpile under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty give a permanent United Nations Security Council seat holder sufficient power over other states to be recognised as a great power. Usergreatpower (talk) 23:26, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I think you're equating a permanent seat on the UN Security Council (a legal/institutional status, decided in 1945 and extremely hard to change) with current "great power" status (a term of indefinite meaning, which anyone can have a view on). You're free to do so but there are good reasons why many argue otherwise, eg the UK's decline in importance since 1945 (not least with the conversion of Empire into Commonwealth). Rd232 ^talk 00:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Bring an accredited source that passes WP:Reliable & WP:Verifiable to support your thesis, otherwise its WP:OR. -- Phoenix (talk) 10:43, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Here is a source from the United Nations referring to the United Nations Security Council http://www.un.org/sc/members.asp. The United Nations itself refers to the veto power permanent United Nations Security Council members enjoy as great Power unanimity, therefore the United Nations recognises the five permanent United Nations Security Council members to be great powers. Usergreatpower (talk) 05:15, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

humh good source, here is the exact quote.

Decisions on substantive matters require nine votes, including the concurring votes of all five permanent members. This is the rule of "great Power unanimity", often referred to as the "veto" power.

Well this is a primary source. Does this mean that its exclusive, and no other great powers are possible without a permanent seat at the UN Security Council? Are the other academic sources in agreement that a UN seat is the modern prerequisite in being a Great Power? -- Phoenix (talk) 06:45, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

It would seem that the United Nations only recognises the current five permanent Security Council members to be great powers as it awards a permanent Security Council seat to a state it recognises to be a great power. The United Nations may consider other states to be potential great powers at times but it recognises a state to be a great power if it awards it a permanent Security Council seat. An example of this would be the G4 nations, which the United Nations considered to be potential great powers but it has not recognised those states to be great powers as it has not awarded them permanent Security Council seats, mainly due to opposition from other United Nations member states. This is an example of states, though considered to be potential great powers, were not able to hold sufficient international power to have their Security Council bids accepted. A state which holds sufficent international power to have its Security Council bid accepted would be a great power, and therefore have its status recognised at the United Nations, just as member states recognised the current five permanent Security Council members at the formation of the United Nations, as their international power was sufficient to have their permanent Security Council seats accepted. Whether the current five permanent Security Council members could wield such international power today is debatable, however they do hold sufficient international power to maintain their permanent Security Council seats and maintain recognition by the United Nations of their status as great powers. Usergreatpower (talk) 19:10, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Your first sentence assumes its conclusion (restated as an assumption in the next sentence). In fact the UN was created in 1945 with its structure determined by the then great powers (otherwise they wouldn't have accepted it). That structure cannot easily be adapted to reflect changing circumstances because that institutional structure gave each of the then great powers veto over any change. In some cases that veto is one of the last vestiges of great power status; and indeed one of the last vestiges of the great power's power. Rd232 ^talk 01:14, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Michael Lind - Convene a Global Great Power Summit states that the Permanent members of the U.N security council are the victors of world war-II and there is a requirement for a Global Great power meet involving the victors of World war-II and the new great powers.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 06:06, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:OR Conversation about India and China

Michael Lind - Convene a Global Great Power Summit Chanakyathegreat (talk) 12:21, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I do not think highly of a Neoconservative's opinion. After all, they have proven themselves to be completely clueless when it comes to geopolitics, an area in which they claim to be specialists. Here is some one with a lot more credibility has to say about India - Is India a Major Power?

Some excerpts from the article: "India today lacks great power in that, for the most part, it cannot make other important states comply with Indian demands. Nor can India obtain all that it desires in the international arena. It cannot compel or persuade technology suppliers to ignore nonproliferation strictures and supply new power reactors to the country, nor can it alone win preferred trade terms in World Trade Organization (WTO) negotiations. India cannot persuade others to isolate Pakistan and probably cannot gain a permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council in the foreseeable future." AND "To go further and make others do what one wants them to do through payment, coercion, or persuasion is a more demanding measure of power. Iraq raises questions whether even the United States has this power. India, to be great, has more urgent things to do."

My two cents is that India ought to focus on the basics such as providing adequate nutrition to its children and a good basic education for all before aspiring to be a great power, for these two items are crucial to a nation's power. Right now, 47% of all Indian children under the age of five are malnourished and stunted. What is more worrying is that 40% of Indians are illiterate.

On other parameters, India fares equally badly:

1) 456 million Indians live below the global absolute poverty line of $1.25/day (PPP). In terms of percentage and sheer quantity, this is worse than even sub-Saharan Africa.

2) Not a single Indian city has 24/7 water supply.

3) 45% of Indian households have no electricity.

4) Over 70% of Indians have no access to toilets and basic sanitation services.

5) 6000 Indian children die each day from hunger and malnutrition. Another 1000 die each day from diarrhea.

6) India ranks 94 out of 118 on the Global Hunger Index. India scores TEN places BELOW North Korea (yes, the famine stricken North Korea). Other countries scoring higher than India include Zimbabwe, Nigeria, and Uganda.

7) India's HDI (Human Development Index) score is below such countries as Namibia, Botswana, Vanuatu, Congo, Guyana, and Gabon.

India is about as developed as the whole of Sub-Saharan Africa. I suspect that none of us would rate the combined sub-Saharan African countries as a great power, then why should we do the same for India?

For the vast majority of Indians living in the rural areas (75% of India's population), the filthy urban slum life depicted in the movie Slumdog Millionaire is still better than what they currently have in the country side. India has some ways to go to become even a middling power, let a lone a great power. By78 (talk) 01:15, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

The Perkovich is from 2004. 5 years has passed. You did point out the negative aspects to say that India is bad and is not a great power yes with a lot of exaggerated statistics. I don't know from where you got the statistics from? From the power perspective you must understand that the opposite of the number you quoted is so huge and can equal two United States. So where is the lack of power? Also for your kind information the change from the negative to positive is happening, so no longer you will be able to brag about such things expect to bring in bogus statistics which you can always do. The same can be said about China as well. What's the HDI of China(94th). Beyond the cities. It's not there in the top six. That never affects Power.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 14:12, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

My statistics are accurate. I think you are blinded by your single-minded quest to add India to the great power club that you never had the motivation to do the basic research into the parameters upon which national power is based. However, I will save you some time, and below are the sources for my statistics, with each itemized number corresponding to those listed in my previous post.

1) [3]. See side bar titled "What is means for India".

2) [4]

3) [5]

4) [6] [7] [8]

5) [9] [10]

6) I must apologize that the statistic for this item was outdated. I used the Global Hunger Report from 2007, but the 2008 report had since come out. In this new report, India is now 13, as opposed to 10, places below the famine stricken North Korea. [11]

7) [12]

8) 456 million Indians live below the global absolute poverty line of $1.25/day (PPP), the source is [13].

9) For literacy rate in India, see [14]

10) For child malnutrition rate, see [15] and [16]

So, Chanakyathegreat, my research has been pretty thorough. India is doing about as well economically as the entire Sub-Saharan Africa. Tell me now, if the entire sub-Saharan Africa were a single country, would you consider it to be a great power? Before you blathering on about India having nuclear capabilities, let's not forget that South Africa also had a successful nuclear program before giving it up. I think India has a long way to go before it can rightly claim the title of a Great Power. There are just too many urgent fundamentals to take care of, fundamentals that underlie national power.

-To answer your other points. First, I am not here to look at India as glass half full. I am here to objectively assess India as it is, paying attention to the half empty as well as the half full. I have no personal motivation to include or exclude India from the Great Power club. I think your nationalistic attitude is inappropriate for the objectivity of Wikipedia.

-Second, we are not here to discuss China. Why? Because we are discussing India. Since you brought up China, I will humor you a bit. Your research on China is truly sloppy and representative of your propagandist style. You cited China's HDI placement as 94th, which is completely wrong. China's placement is 81st, and India, on the other hand, is ranked 128th. Of course, HDI is not precise and by no means the best indicator of a nation's overall power. However, your claim that HDI "never affects power" is simply preposterous. A hypothetical nation of a billion beggars will hardly command the respect accorded to a great power, will it?

-Third, India does NOT lack power. I think India has plenty of it. However, having plenty of power does not make it a Great Power.

-"Also for your kind information the change from the negative to positive is happening, so no longer you will be able to brag about such things expect to bring in bogus statistics which you can always do." I don't know what you were implying with this statement. I assume you meant to say that India is progressing, and some day, all these parameters will improve sufficiently so that India will join the Great Power Club. Good point, I agree with you.

-"Brag about such things expect to bring in bogus statistics which you can always do." My statistics are not "bogus", as I have provided sources for each one of them. It is your statistic that China is ranked 94th on the HDI that is bogus, as I have previously pointed out.

-Your rejection of Perkovich's view was expected, because you are singularly focused on putting India up there with the greatest National Powers on earth, however premature it is to do so. We are not here to massage your ego, so you can take your nationalistic chest-thumping somewhere else, however amusing I find your superiority complex to be. By78 (talk) 02:41, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok this conversation has become very WP:OR and is starting to become a bit heated. The question was if Great Powers were decided only by its membership to the UN Security Council and if sources would back that up. It appears that people disagree, so lets leave this conversation as it is and not make this into a WP:Forum conversion. -- Phoenix (talk) 05:22, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

The same statistics applies for China which stands at a pathetic 94th position in the HDI. The HDI value and Power requirements don't gel together. Else instead of the present Great power list, the list will be the one with Iceland, Norway, Canada, Australia, Ireland, Netherlands, Sweden, Japan, Luxembourg and Switzerland. In these countries which top the list in HDI, the quality of life is excellent, but they cannot become great powers. It's all about numbers. Even if the poor in India and China is huge, the amount that is opposite is also huge. That gives India and China the economic strength and the large population gives another advantage, military power. These are the factors that make a great power. HDI is important from the point of quality of life but that discussion must go there in that page instead of in the great power discussion page. I hope you understood it and no more explanations is required.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 12:20, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

LOL, Chanakyathegreat, your ears are not for listening, for words simply enter one and exit the other. Stop rehashing old arguments when they had already been debunked. I will give you benefit of the doubt and assume you did not read my previous post carefully. In reply, I will RE-post my response in direct quotes.

"-Second, we are not here to discuss China. Why? Because we are discussing India. Since you brought up China, I will humor you a bit. Your research on China is truly sloppy and representative of your propagandist style. You cited China's HDI placement as 94th, which is completely wrong. China's placement is 81st, and India, on the other hand, is ranked 128th. Of course, HDI is not precise and by no means the best indicator of a nation's overall power. However, your claim that HDI "never affects power" is simply preposterous. A hypothetical nation of a billion beggars will hardly command the respect accorded to a great power, will it?" Where did you get the "fact" that China is ranked 94th on HDI? Out of Bhagvagita? Open your big brown eyes and read the HDI report, Chanakya. I am not here to lecture a child, but sometimes it does feel like it when talking to you.

If the entire Sub-Saharan Africa were a single country, would you call it a great power? Come on, answer it. Please do not evade the question again. By78 (talk) 00:47, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

By78, for that kind of discussions, you better visit some forums that do it. In List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Index, China and India's HDI is pathetic compared to the other countries. Even if you say that it's not 94 but 81, you must know that 81 is not a good number. India and China belong to the same category in HDI because of their huge population. It's not possible for these two countries to reach the top 6 list in the near future. It will take decades. Power list is totally different from HDI. The list itself is the answer. And you must stop the naive talk. No need for such bad, uncultured way of talk. Everything can be expressed in a decent manner.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 02:33, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not I who said China was ranked 81, it is what HDI report says. I have already provided you with a link to the report, and did you even bother to check it out? I never said HDI is the sole indicator of power. I merely listed HDI as one of the factors counting against India being a Great Power. You were the one who focused singularly on the HDI parameter, not me. Let me quote what I said again, since your Hindish is apparently different from English. "Of course, HDI is not precise and by no means the best indicator of a nation's overall power. However, your claim that HDI 'never affects power' is simply preposterous. A hypothetical nation of a billion beggars will hardly command the respect accorded to a great power, will it?" Do you understand me now? By78 (talk) 03:43, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Sub-Saharan Africa is a good point. There is a big difference between Sub-Saharan Africa and countries like India and China. Wherein Sub-Saharan Africa, there is no local industry that can provide products for cheap rates. Whatever comes to this poverty stricken county is from the developed world. Whereas in India and China, the products come cheap, the labor is cheap and the services are also cheap or even free in some cases (village life). This is the difference between the $1 in Sub-saharan africa and the $1 in India or China. For China to eliminate poverty, it may take another 8 years and for India another 15 years, if we compare the reduction of 1%/year (According to U.N figure) of poverty reduction.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 02:42, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

You are being ill-informed again here. My point was that India is doing about as well as the whole of Sub-Saharan Africa, and if you are willing to label India as a Great Power, then you must concede that Sub-Saharan Africa qualified as a Great Power as well, if it were a single country. Since you are not willing to call Sub-Saharan Africa a Great Power, then how can you call India a Great Power? Since you attempted to compare Sub-Saharan Africa to China and India, I will humor you a bit more and point out your ill-informed comparison:

1) Labor is as cheap if not cheaper in Sub-Saharan Africa than either India or China. Furthermore, labor costs are higher in China than India. Even a cursory glance at their respective per capita GDP (PPP) will tell you that, only if you could open your eyes.

2) So what if services and products come cheap in China and India? They don't come cheap in Africa? What is the point of this comparison when on balance, they don't make a difference for your argument?

3) There is almost no difference between $1 in Sub-Saharan Africa or in India. Why? If you had read my link to the Global Poverty Report done by the World Bank, you would have found out that more people (both in sheer quantity and percentage) live below the global poverty line in India than in Sub-Saharan Africa. This global poverty line is defined as $1.25/day. Before you start blathering about $1.25 in Africa is different from $1.25 in India, I must kindly remind you that $1.25/day poverty line is based on Purchasing Power Parity (PPP). If you don't know what PPP is, I suggest you look it up. I am not here to provide you with the knowledge your Slumbai Schools couldn't teach you. By78 (talk) 03:43, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

By78, It's sad that there are still poor people in India and China but it's also remarkable that in these Six decade of independence rule the poverty rate of the people earning less than $1/day has reduced to 15% in India and 8% in China. If you ask if this 8% which rivals the Sub Saharan African population, can be called as belonging to a great power, the answer is an obvious no. Let's wish that the slum brothers become millionaires sooner.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 13:28, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Where did you pull your numbers about India? Out of the arse of a holy cow? According to the world bank, 456 million Indians live below the global absolute poverty line of $1.25/day (PPP). See source [17]. Furthermore, according to your own government, 836 million Indians (or 77% of the total population) live on less than 20 rupees ($0.50) per day (see source [18]). So it puzzles me as to where you got your poverty figure of 15% living under $1.00/day. Please provide a source! By the way, making up statistics without source is not something the real Chanakya would have approved.

By the way, why do you insist on bringing China into the conversation? What is this obsession you have with China? Do you look up to China as a promised land? Do you seriously believe India and China are in the same league? Just as I do not compare Mexico with the United States, I do not compare India with China.

I am glad you that have finally agreed with me that Sub-Saharan Africa, if it were a single country, would not deserve to be a Great Power. Then the issue of whether India is a Great Power is settled. India, which is as advanced and well-off as Sub-Saharan Africa, is NOT a Great Power. By78 (talk) 01:44, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

From the Arse of a beautiful Panda. According to the World bankWb stats Both the dollar a day and $1.25 measures indicate that India has made steady progress against poverty since the 1980s, with the poverty rate declining at a little under one percentage point per year. and As per the revised estimates for India, the percentage of people living below the $1.25 a day decreased from 60 percent in 1981 to 42 percent in 2005. Even at a dollar a day (2005 prices), poverty has declined from 42 percent to 24 percent over the same period. I was quoting the $1 figure and according to older estimates it must have down to 15%, but now with the revised estimate the less than $1 figure in 2005 was 24 and 20% in 2009. The $1.25 figure available for China, the statistics say In China, the number of people living on less than $1.25 a day in 2005 prices has dropped from 835 million in 1981 to 207 million in 2005. So the number of people earning less than $1.25 stands at 16% of the population and not 8 as thought earlier. It will be 11% in 2009. So by your account China which has such a large number of poor people cannot be called a great power. Regarding China and India being in the same league, no certainly not. India is democratic and China is communist. How is the tank man doing? Well not in Sub-Saharan Africa or Somalia but in the so called People's Republic of China.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 12:25, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

From me, to your humble shack in Dharavi, I say you are full of ignorance. Anyhow, getting onto the substantive part of the discussion. "I was quoting the $1 figure and according to older estimates it must have down to 15%, but now with the revised estimate the less than $1 figure in 2005 was 24 and 20% in 2009." Ah, WRONG. According to $1.00/day standard, the poverty rate for India is 34%, not 24% as you claimed. Stop making up statistics and assume people couldn't read English. Afterall, English is my native language, but for you, a language "forced upon" you. In any event, the new poverty line is $1.25/day now, adjusted upward by $0.25 to reflect actual costs of living around the world, and 456 million Indians living below this line, which represents over 40% of the population. However you massage it, over 40% of Indians live in abject, barely substistent poverty. Great Power? Pffff... How about Great Pauper.

Now, I understand that you are relatively better off than most of your fellow countrymen. So what are you? A Chaiwallah or a Rickshawallah? One thing is for sure, you are not a Dalit, which by the way, numbers around 160 million and remain oppressed by that nasty, medieval Indian Caste System. You should count yourself lucky for not being born into the Untouchable class, but that doesn't mean you could mingle with us as equals, if you were to go by your Hindu social rules.

That's right, India is not in the same league as China. Even the more sensible among your countrymen have condeded this point. See [19] and [20].

I have no idea where the tank man is, and most of sensible Americans have forgotten about it a while ago. We are just glad at the news that China is to continue finance our recovery efforts. My question is, where are the victims of acid attacks buried in India? For that matter, where are the thousands of victims of caste violence? Have you personally participated in murduring Untouchables? Indian democracy is magical indeed, as it makes even cow piss taste like Sprite, doesn't it? With your democracy and vote bank politics, India will be even a greater Pauper in no time, "100%, toppmost maximum guaranteed", as that poor Slumdog tour guide in Slumdog Millionaire is apt to say.

So, tell me now, do you wake up every morning and look at yourself in the mirror and keep repeating, "Eendiah, de laahgest deemahkrasi een de vehrald! Pawah to Eendiah! Eendiah vill be de Sooopa-Pawah in tdwantie-tdwantie"? If so, your power of self-suggestion is strong indeed, as are the resulting delusions of granduer. By78 (talk) 01:54, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

By78, I don't agree with you on Great power and poverty are linked. Poverty can be utilized to judge a nation on the HDI which is necessary for the nation where the quality of life is good. There is another index that's the Happiness index invented by Bhutan. So my opinion is that both these are important for a peaceful and prosperous society which must be the aim of every nation. The $0.25 will not make China a great power. You have no understanding of the world around you. There is so much poverty in China itself, you feel it offensive. [21][22][23] The Chinese govt is trying to demolish the slums to make it look good but the sad part is that it will not demolish poverty. Eating a Carcass will seem offensive but if it is a practice worldover. So what is bad and good is decided by individual choices like eating a live Octopus will be offensive for some and not for others. That's this world where human thought and actions reign supreme. China did start the economic liberalization (1980's) early and that difference will be there with India (1990's) in the economic sphere. Freedom is very special, you can enjoy it in your one life or lose it for someone. India has reached this stage from 100% poverty in the 1947 through democratic means and communists can take note of it and allow democratic principles and freedom in China. Regarding the tankman, you must do a google search. If you are in China, you will never come to know. Yes, indeed India will be a superpower, a superpower with a difference like in the past and in the future.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 13:55, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

This debate is getting way much into personal attacks, and not adding anything to the article, and seeing how this is not a forum, the discussion has to be ended now. If you guys are going to continue this conservation, please have a clean nice chat on each other talk pages, as if the debate continues like this, with personal attacks, I don't want to bring an admin to come and cool down this conservation. Deavenger (talk) 03:04, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

By78 please cease this conversation. You are now becoming offensive. We may not agree with Chanakya's views but we must not belittle ones culture or people. No good will come from that. Please read WP:CIVIL. -- Phoenix (talk) 10:19, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Defense easier than offense

The article states, "For Duroselle's definition to result in more than one great power, major world powers must be equal in power—each able to resist one another. This fails to take into account the general state of international relations in which amongst great powers there are nations which are stronger than others." This statement is suspect; it is easier to defend a territory than to take it, so even a country that is twice as militarily powerful as another might not be able to conquer the other. See the Vietnam war. Halberdo (talk) 05:58, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually according to most military historians/annalists a 3:1 ratio is required to successfully invade a country. It is my speculation that Duroselle was referring too was traditional warfare since Gorilla warfare was considered uncivilized at the time. But we shouldn't start a Forum conversation about this topic. -- Phoenix (talk) 08:20, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

G-20

This week at London the G-20, according to the international press, met the leaders of the twenty most powerful countries in the world. It was a global event that in some ways marked the beginning of a process of changes in world geopolitics. The international media expressed many terms as "new world powers", "multipolar world", "BRIC", etc. The host of the summit, Prime Minister Gordon Brown, said: "...a new world order is emerging." It's time to start discussing the inclusion of more countries in the article. The G-20 marks a new era in the world, the rise of Argentina, Australia, Indonesia, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, South Korea and Turkey, and especially Brazil and India as global powers. Felipe ^{( talk )} 16:20, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Gordon Brown has a habbit of using grand terms like New World Order which gets alot of people hyped up. There should be a mention of the G20 and a paragraph about how power is shared between more countries but its not up to editors on wikipedia to start adding countries to the Great Power list unless theres sources that describe them as such. Sorry but Argentina is not a great power and the same can be said for quite a few other ones. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:36, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Like Britishwatcher said, there needs to be a reliable sources that states those are great powers without it being OR/SYN. Unless you can find a couple of reliable sources (without being OR/SYN), then we can't include those countries. Deavenger (talk) 19:00, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

The G20 might well be the top 20 powers of the world (though of course remember that only 19 countries are represented - the 20th member is the EU), but many of those powers are still middle powers, not proper great powers. The world is becoming more multi-polar, and there might well be soon (that is, in the next few decades) new members of the "great powers club" but for now I don't think any new/upcoming great powers can be added to the list. Most G20 nations do not individually exert enough influence across the globe to be considered as a great power, rather than a regional or middle power. Interesting developments none-the-less. David (talk) 21:12, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

What I meant was not list all the countries of the G-20 as great powers, but make reference to this new chapter of geopolitics. Brazil and India could be considered as emerging great powers, we have many reliable sources for that. Felipe ^{( talk )} 02:16, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

As long as the sources are reliable and aren't OR or SYN. I know encarta lists both Brazil and India as emerging great powers, however, I'm kind of reluctant to use that source anymore due to the fact it's going to be taken offline soon. As for the new chapter in geopolitics, there are plenty of books that mention a new order emerging, though it is usually what the authors consider the new superpowers, middle powers, or just plain powers in general. Fareed Zakaria's The Post American World talks about rising powers and their rising influence (specifically India and China, though i think he talks about them as possible superpowers, if not, I'll have to remove the source for India and China in the potential superpower page). Parag Khanna's The Second World talks about what he considers a tripolar world ruled by US, China, and EU, and what he calls the second world, which are essentially middle powers, except he describes Russia and India (and possibly Brazil, I'll check) as the perfect example of second world states, which could possibly mean great powers, but that's doing some SYN/OR. Nina Hachigian and Mona Sutphen in their book The Next Century talk about what they consider the pivotal/core -6 powers of US, Japan, Russia, India, China, and EU. Kishore Mahbubani in his book of The New Asian Hemisphere talks about how Asia is becoming the main hemisphere, and has talked alot about the rise of India and China. However, these sources, while talk about the rise of a new global order, do not explicitly describe the countries as great powers (Mahbubani might as I have not finished reading his book yet), as second world can be described as regional/middle/great powers, the pivotal powers could be described as great powers, but I'm reluctant to use the source as it still might be OR or SYN. I know Samuel P. Huntington has said the major powers are (US is a superpower), Russia, Japan, China, the European majors with less powerful regional powers of South Africa, India, and Brazil, which is pretty much the great power list we have right now. Plus, I'm reluctant to make a subsection saying potential/emerging great powers as it could lead to other editors using OR sources, or lots of nationalism such as "hey, India is a slumdog country, so my country should be up there" or "My country of _______ is so much greater then Brazil, so it should be up there" and using sources that could say something like economic great power and go "this source says it's an economic great power. If it's an economic great power, it is a emerging great power". Deavenger (talk) 04:01, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

The G8 are great powers, the G20 are middle powers

The G20 major economies is the meeting of great powers with middle powers. The G8 is the meeting of great powers. Members of the G20 who are also members of the G8 are great powers, members of the G20 who are not also members of the G8 are major middle powers (except China which is a great power but not a G8 member due to it not being developed). Simple as that. Calling G20 members who are not also G8 members great powers is mistaking middle powers for great powers. Usergreatpower (talk) 00:32, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Spain and Canada are members of G8. But they can hardly be called even regional powers or even middle powers.Deavenger (talk) 00:37, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Spain isn't a member of the G8, or even the G20 although it is now invited to the G20 summits and is considered to be a middle power. Canada remains a G8 member since the G8 was created and is considered to be a middle power, probably the only middle power of the G8. Whether the G8 invites new members in the future as has been suggested or even if existing members leave is up to the G8 but the G8 remains the highest club of economies and therefore a good measure of countries' powers. Usergreatpower (talk) 00:45, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

If you look at the G8 page that you linked, the only asian country there is Japan, China is not even a member. The members in the G8 page you linked are US, UK, France, Italy, Canada, Spain, EU, Italy, and Japan. Deavenger (talk) 00:55, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

As I explained earlier, China is the only great power who is not a member of the G8 because it is the only great power which does not have a developed economy. G8 countries are all developed major economies. Spain is not a member because its economy is not big enough nor is it a great power. Usergreatpower (talk) 01:00, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

However, Canada and Spain are both on G8, and could hardly be described as great powers. Italy is borderline, leaning away from Great power more, EU I'm not sure if you could even consider them a great power. That leaves UK, France, Germany, Japan, Russia, and US. US and Russia are the only two countries that for sure are great powers, while UK, France, Germany, Japan, and Germany are borderline. Deavenger (talk) 01:07, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Spain is most certainly not on the G8. I suggest you read the G8 article again. The G8 members are (1) Canada, (2) France, (3) Germany, (4) Italy, (5) Japan, (6) Russia, (7) United Kingdom, and (8) United States. No one really doubts the UK or France are great powers as they have permanent United Nations Security Council seats with Great power unanimity, according to the UN, not to mention are recognised nuclear weapons states under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and have G8 sized major developed economies. 01:15, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

My bad. I was looking at another article in which spain was a member.Deavenger (talk) 01:19, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Can you find a reliable source, as opposed to your POV, which equates G8 membership with great power? Afaik no reliable source has been found in support of claims that Italy and Canada are great powers (although it is my personal POV - and that of countless Italian wikipedians - that if UK, France and Germany are great powers, so is Italy). Viewfinder (talk) 01:28, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree Canada is not a great power but remains on the G8 because no other G8 member is likely to ask it to leave. Canada found itself on the G8 in the beginning because it was, and still is the largest importer/exporter to the United States. Usergreatpower (talk) 01:31, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Ergo it is not "simple as that". Viewfinder (talk) 01:33, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Here is a source stating Russia's desire to return its status as a 'great power' at the G8. http://www.internationalreporter.com/News-2167/putin-may-try-moscow-to-restore-its-status-as-great-power-in-g8.html

Here are 2 other sources http://www.worldproutassembly.org/archives/2005/07/great_power_ten.html

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/jul2005/summ-j07.shtml Usergreatpower

These last 2 sources discuss the tensions between the 'great powers' of the G8. Usergreatpower (talk) 01:42, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Here are some more sources discussing the G8 members as 'great powers'

http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p73484_index.html

http://www.blogging-g8.blogspot.com

http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2004/693/op5.htm Usergreatpower (talk) 01:46, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Please can you reproduce a passage which claims or implies that the G8 members are all great powers. Mention of "great power tensions" at the G8 does not. Viewfinder (talk) 01:48, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Here are some good sources naming G8 members as 'major powers'

http://www.reuters.com/news/video/videoStory?storyID=71d58fb701568a0af67a77f21f06b9b0d4391844

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1150886011464&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull Usergreatpower (talk) 01:50, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Major power is not the same as great power. It has a looser meaning. Viewfinder (talk) 01:52, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

The sources implied 'major power' as 'great power' as the term major power is often used as a modern term for a great power. I doubt there is a source stating all 8 members of the G8 are great powers because Canada is not a great power but is a member nonetheless as I had explained earlier. Usergreatpower (talk) 01:54, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree Italy in my own POV is a great power because it has a great power sized major developed economy (hence a G8 member), and a substantial military, including a blue water navy. Canada is in my POV the only non great power G8 member but is a G8 member anyway because it's the biggest importer/exporter to the United States. Russia, in my POV, is a G8 member even though its economy is not so big, or at least wasn't, nor as developed, but has a substantial military, including a massive nuclear arsenal, large energy reserves, and a permanent UN Security Council seat. The UK, France, Germany, and Japan, in my POV are similar in overall power, (combined economic, military, diplomatic power) and have remained stable in the amount of power they hold. The US obviously remains a superpower. Usergreatpower (talk) 02:08, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

The term "Great Power" was coined at a time when several powers, in a similar league, were competing for global hegemony. No power today is in a similar league to the USA (although some have the potential to do so in the future). "Major", on the other hand, has vaguer implications. I don't think anyone is questioning the major power status of any G8 country. Viewfinder (talk) 02:15, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

The term Superpower is the term used to decribe what you described as a great power. Great power is now used to describe those countries which are not powerful enough to be superpowers but are more powerful than middle powers. Major power is now often what the media use to call great powers as the term great power still refers to historical powers too. Usergreatpower (talk) 02:24, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I clarify the United States is also a G8 member who is not a great power as it is a superpower. Usergreatpower (talk) 03:21, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

The G8 is composed of 1 superpower (US), 6 great/major powers (UK, France, Germany, Italy, Russia, Japan), and 1 middle power (Canada), with one great power left out the G8 (China). Overall though the G8 is a group of great powers. Usergreatpower (talk) 03:02, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

The G20 however is composed of 1 superpower (US), 7 great/major powers (UK, France, Germany, Italy, Russia, China, Japan), 6-7 major middle powers (Canada, Mexico, Brazil, Spain if included, India, South Korea, Australia), and 5-6 additional middle powers (Argentina, Netherlands if included, Turkey, South Africa, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia). That's my POV anyway and likely the majority of POVs. Usergreatpower (talk) 03:21, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Economic powers

I've removed the 'despite lack of nuclear weapons' part from the sentence about Germany and Japan since this is not really sincere. Both are de-facto nuclear states. They both have major uranium enrichment facilities, nuclear power plants which produce plutonium as by-product and the industrial base necessary for the production of nuclear devices. Yet both currently do not want to possess their own nuclear weapons and take part in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Germany recently declined to share nuclear weapons with france when offered [24] and has nuclear weapons on its soil through NATO agreements (Nuclear sharing). Public support for nuclear weapons in both countries is quite low. Especially in Japan as the only country to have suffered the devastating effects of nuclear weapons. Yet Japan could reverse this Japan's non-nuclear policy in the near future due to North Korea acquireing nuclear weapons. (see Japanese nuclear weapons program). I hope this shows why I removed 'despite lack of nuclear weapons'. (PS: No original research - I only summarised from the given wikipedia articles...) -- 84.193.73.56 (talk) 12:58, 5 April 2009 (UTC) --Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.163.73.56 (talk)

I am inclined to agree. If they felt the need to do so, I doubt if it would take Germany or Japan long to get nukes ready for use. I do not think the UK and France wield significantly more power on account of their nukes. Viewfinder (talk) 13:29, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to have caused this edit war in the article... It its just that while reading the old version, I was thinking that this emphasis on the lack of nuclear weapons was not sincere this it a) has litte relevance b) is (today) driven by lack of motivation c) is not hard for both to overcome d) (this is the only speculative part on my end) could change in the long term for one of them (Japan-N. Korea). Of course it is also highly probable that neither will ever have them.

Today's powers - India and Brazil missing

Except UN Security Council, Germany and Japan are listed. But what about India and Brazil? Those two countries want security council seat same as Germany and Japan, and they all are in G4. India is also potential superpower, that's another reason why it should be listed. --Novis-M (talk) 04:12, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

See the problem is, we need reliable non OR/SYN sources that list India and Brazil as great powers. However, experts/academics opinion on this are mixed. As we stated in the article, that while some experts consider France and UK great powers, other consider them middle powers. So while some academics and experts think that India is a potential superpower, that doesn't mean India is a Great power. However, if you can find a couple reliable sources stating both of those countries are great powers, and we talk it over with everybody else, then we can add those two countries. Currently, I'm reading Clash of Civilizations and Tragedy of Great Power politics, as both books are supposed to talk about great powers in the 21st century. So I'm reading to get their opinions on this, and make sure I can add the countries without it being OR or SYN. Deavenger (talk) 04:17, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I know about that, but since we can list all 5 members of the UN security councils as the superpowers (which we surely can), we also can list another four countries (Germany, Japan, Brazil, India), that are candidates, as the great powers too. Just look at their military budgets, economies, etc. All these countries are the great powers. If we wanted to list some of them as middle powers, and some of them as superpowers, it would only make confusion. Good luck with reading, but as I said, there should be both India and Brazil listed. Because if not, there is no reason to have Germany and Japan, since all four countries fall into same category. --Novis-M (talk) 05:00, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

There is one superpower. Not 5. Anyone who doubts that can go to List of countries by military expenditure. It is very difficult to find sources that list great powers. Could that be because there are none, only a superpower and numerous middle powers? Viewfinder (talk) 05:34, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

How is Brazil a great power? It has only the world's 10th largest GDP in nominal terms (9th by PPP), does not possess a particularly significant military (and has only the 14th largest military expenditure), has no nuclear weapons, obviously no permanent UN security council seat, and as far as I can gather has no particularly significant influence in global politics or influence over other notable nations. It is a middle or regional power. I think those who suggest Italy, Germany, Japan, India or Brazil are great powers are not understanding what it means to be a great power. Brazil cannot exert military, political, cultural, diplomatic or economic pressure on significant other countries in the same way as any of the 5 recognised great powers do. Maybe in 25 years time, but certainly not at the moment. David (talk) 15:33, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

If there was five superpowers, this world would be a very different place. The only commonly accepted superpower is the US, and various academics add one that EU, India, China, or Russia are all superpowers, or emerging superpowers, but that's another page. The reason why Germany and Japan are listed is because we have sources that state they are great powers. The encarta source we have states that both countries, while they lack nukes and UNSC permanent seats, have large economies to make up for that. And Japan has another source by Richard Haass stating that Japan is a great power due to ______,______,______, and a couple of other sources. However, while India and Brazil might be potential/emerging Great Powers, we shouldn't add a section on that without discussing it. Deavenger (talk) 22:10, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Adding of "potential" great powers + other

How does one define what a "potential" great power is or which countries might (MIGHT being the word here) be great powers in the future? Wikipedia is not a horoscope. It is not here to predict the future. Frankly, many countries could become great powers this century. Without real evidence and sources to back up claims (and Encarta is really not a particularly good source) no new entries should be added to the current (note: CURRENT) list of great powers.

India, Brazil and Italy are middle and regional powers. They are not great powers.

As for the notion that Germany and Japan have powerful militaries - do they have aircraft carriers? Do they have nuclear powered submarines? Do they have nuclear weapons? These two nations may have powerful defence forces, but they are largely just that - defence forces. Their ability to project military power (and therefore be more than just regional powers militarily) is very limited. They are to one degree or another even constitutionally prohibited to many such offensive actions. They are considered possible (note: possible) great powers because of their economies, not because of their militaries.

I suggest we cool off editing of the article for a while, and instead discuss things on this discussion page. And if consensus cannot be reached then no further editing should take place. David (talk) 22:04, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

While we all have our opinions on what countries we consider great powers or not, India, Brazil, and Italy could be listed as great powers as long as we could find a couple of reliable non-or sources that state such. Also, if we were going to add a emerging great powers, we should at least get consensus on that, as they can be huge OR and POV magnets. Deavenger (talk) 22:10, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Just answer to this "Germany and Japan have powerful militaries - do they have aircraft carriers?" - Japan and Germany are 6th and 7th in the military expenditures. They don't have carries, but for example Italy has 2 aircraft carriers, and nobody cares. --Novis-M (talk) 22:14, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Great Powers Table

I was wondering if we should list the Great powers in a table so that we can concentrate on the Prose of the article... I have made the below table as an example.

1815	c. 1880	c. 1900	1919
Austria	Austria-Hungary	Austria-Hungary	British Empire
British Empire	British Empire	British Empire	Japan
France	France	Japan	France
Prussia	German Empire	France	Italy
Russian Empire	Russian Empire	German Empire	United States
		Italy
		Russia
		United States
c. 1939	1945	c. 2000
British Empire	Republic of China	China
Japan	France	France
France	Soviet Union	Germany
Germany	United Kingdom	Japan
Italy	United States	Russia
Soviet Union		United Kingdom
United States		United States

I figure that we would put the references next to each country in the table. What do you guys think? -- Phoenix (talk) 06:54, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I have to say, that does look very good! I know it's done alphabetically, which in the world of Wikipedia is most correct, but I don't suppose we could have it so that the same power (i.e. the British Empire/United Kingdom, France, Russia/Soviet Union, etc) is on one row of its own? That way it would be easier to analyse changes (who's in, who's out, who's been around for a long time sort of thing!) over the last two centuries. Just a thought. David (talk) 09:25, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

edit conflict. I just updated the table a bit more let me know what you think. I had the same idea but I realized that it would make the table rather large so I tried to avoid that. But I'm always open to feedback. I can try and make an example so we can see what it will look like, though that will have to be done later :-) -- Phoenix (talk) 09:47, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

1815	c. 1880	c. 1900	1919
Austria	Austria-Hungary	Austria-Hungary
British Empire	British Empire	British Empire	British Empire
		Japan	Japan
France	France	France	France
Prussia	German Empire	German Empire
		Italy	Italy
Russian Empire	Russian Empire	Russia
		United States	United States
c. 1939	1945	c. 2000
British Empire	United Kingdom	United Kingdom
		China
Japan		Japan
France	France	France
Germany		Germany
Italy
	Republic of China
Soviet Union	Soviet Union	Russia
United States	United States	United States

Is this what you were thinking? -- Phoenix (talk) 10:25, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey, good table. For the second table, for 1919,2000 and 1945, are there supposed to be gray spaces in between them. Deavenger (talk) 16:32, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it's looking good! Should the "two Chinas" share the same row? After all the awarding of the permanent security council seat in 1945 and in 1971 was in both instances to the internationally recognised government of the same nation. I'd put them in the same row. David (talk) 17:19, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the grey bits (were they intentional?) and changed the China business - do say if you think it's wrong though. David (talk) 17:34, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

1815	c. 1880	c. 1900	1919
Austria	Austria-Hungary	Austria-Hungary
British Empire	British Empire	British Empire	British Empire
		Japan	Japan
France	France	France	France
Prussia	German Empire	German Empire
		Italy	Italy
Russian Empire	Russian Empire	Russia
		United States	United States
c. 1939	1945	c. 2000
British Empire	United Kingdom	United Kingdom
Japan		Japan
France	France	France
Germany		Germany
Italy
	Republic of China	China
Soviet Union	Soviet Union	Russia
United States	United States	United States

Yes the gray boxes were intentional since it showed that the absence of the country from the list was intentional. You can see in the page history that the addition of the gray boxes was a recent change. I guess people didn't like :-( Also The Republic of China and the Peoples republic of China are two different countries now, so thats why I listed them separately... But I forgot that in 1945 they were both occupying the same territory, so you are correct they should be listed in the same row. -- Phoenix (talk) 19:21, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Austria	Britain	France	Prussia			Russia
Austria-Hungary	Britain	France	Germany			Russia
Austria-Hungary	Britain	France	Germany	Italy	Japan	Russia	United States
	Britain	France		Italy	Japan		United States
	Britain	France	Germany	Italy	Japan	Soviet Union	United States
Republic of China	United Kingdom	France				Soviet Union	United States
China	United Kingdom	France	Germany		Japan	Russia	United States

Just looking how this would look... --84.163.94.246 (talk) 13:32, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Merge of the History & Change of great powers section

I was WP:BOLD and included the table people liked into the article... Now I realized that more work needs to be done. I do not have the time at the moment but can someone please continue my work and merge the History and Change of great powers section since they are just repeating themselves now. Thanks -- Phoenix (talk) 09:02, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Never mind I did it. Its very quiet here. What happened? Is everyone on vacation? -- Phoenix (talk) 09:29, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Good job you've done there. I've added a sub-heading for the table... maybe one or two other sub-headings should be added, to break up the History section a bit? I'll leave that up to you. David (talk) 10:08, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Already done. I have made sub sections called The World at War and Aftermath of the Cold War. The history section can always be expanded and I have included a template below that we can use for research. It focuses on the pre-war years. -- Phoenix (talk) 23:23, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I just changed sub section name from "The World at War" to "The Great Powers at War" -- Phoenix (talk) 09:46, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Brazil

According to Barack Obama, Brazil is not an emerging power or a potential power, but a current great power. The U.S. President says today that Brazil is a great power and a big player in the international stage. Felipe ^{( talk )} 21:25, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Got a source for that? David (talk) 22:24, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll see if I can find the speech on him making that comment, and see if he has made any more comments like this. Though I don't know how much leaders can count, as Ahmadinejad says Iran is a superpower, though I'm pretty sure most political scientists or academics will say otherwise. Also, this source [25] by a political scientist who lists the great powers as US, China, Russia, Japan, India, and the major European countries. While this could probably be used for US, China, Russia, and Japan, we shouldn't use it on France, UK, or Germany as it only says major European countries, and doesn't go into specifics. And I don't want to wander into OR or SYN here. As for India, I think we should find another source also, as I don't feel comfortable adding countries on few sources. Deavenger (talk) 22:39, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

A quote from President Obama does not justify upgrading Brazils status to "great power", alot more sources and not single peoples quotes are required. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:54, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I feel that a number of national politicians are hyping up the rise of certain developing countries, such as Brazil and India, as they are looking to the future where potentially certain countries (like Brazil and India) will be great powers and so want to include them in the international community at an early stage. Also, for instance, the media in the UK love calling China a superpower, but I would hardly regard China to be a superpower at the moment. Essentially, what I'm getting at here, is that certain politicians and media outlets are getting carried away with long-term developments (and what amounts to naval-gazing) - in a similar way I suppose to Japan in the 1970s/80s when it was predicted by some to have become a superpower by now! I too am therefore very reluctant to adding any further countries to the list of current great powers. And speculation on who might be a great power one day is not really for Wikipedia, and could easily end up being an original research/vague sources nightmare. David (talk) 23:02, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

That's why I'm strongly against using politicians as what's great powers or not. That's why I think we should stick to using academics, political scientists, etc. Also, we have to watch out on what the articles/books say. As (using India as an example), there are sources like the source I provided above that says India is a great power. Several other sources have comments of, India is on the verge of becoming a great power, or , India is becoming a great power. Deavenger (talk) 23:09, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

The Obama's declaration was made during a interview to CNN en Español. Here are the source in portuguese. Well, my goal was not trying to include Brazil as a great power in the article with that quote. In my opinion, the article should display China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States as great powers (UNSC permanent members), Japan and Germany as economic great powers, and Brazil and India as potential/emerging great powers (the G4). Or Brazil and India should be added, or Japan and Germany should be removed. Whether or not, Brazil and India represent a power that did not exist five years ago. It is speculated that the changes in US-Cuba relations were influenced by Brazil, after a meeting between Lula and Obama. However, I would find academic sources to confirm this view. Regards; Felipe ^{( talk )} 00:09, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that adding a potential/emerging (emerging would be more appropiate because any country has potential to be a great power), is that it could be a huge OR/SYN magnet. So for adding a section or page on emerging great powers, we should have a large section on that. (Also, for the interview, can you try and bring the CNN source in spanish (if you can't find it in english) as I'm more used to reading Spanish). Deavenger (talk) 02:21, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Interview in Spanish Felipe ^{( talk )} 17:49, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Where is the European Union ?

In the year 2009, the EU is widely recognized as a new type of great power. Some even predict superpower status in the coming decade. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.53.14.131 (talk) 01:00, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a couple of reliable sources that indicate that the EU is a great power. I know that there are several sources that say the EU is going to be a superpower, but because it's considered a emerging superpower ≠ great power as that is considered Original Research here. But if you bring a couple of academic sources saying that EU is a great power, we can add it. Deavenger (talk) 02:23, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

The EU isn't even a sovereign state! Its power derives from its 27 member states, of which three are great powers themselves (the UK, France and Germany). If you regard the EU as a unified body (which it isn't) then it would already be a superpower, with a larger economy and population than the US and the second largest military (air force, army and navy) in the world. But as I said, it's not a sovereign state, other than in economic terms it isn't unified, and consists of a number of existing great powers. David (talk) 09:16, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

The EU acts collectively on many global issues and is arguably a de facto great power. But I agree that we need source material in support of this. Viewfinder (talk) 09:27, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the EU and all its members act together like a great power. Think of the WTO where there is only a EU mandate for all EU countries. Its just a new type, a semi souvereign state. Everybody knows that the EU and its members are an influential part of the world in the 21. century. Probably more influential than China, Russia not to mention India or Brazil which are developing countires. Here are Google sources: [26] and more detailed here: [27] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.225.77.93 (talk) 12:47, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but hang on. How is the EU any different than other organisations or alliances consisting of great powers? You might as well call NAFTA, or NATO, or any of the other multitude of international organisations which collectively exert great power. Surely the Concert of Europe of the 19th Century was a hyperpower when it took unified action on an issue. Yes, the EU is pretty special, but it is not a sovereign state and does not wield power independently - its power derives only from its member states.

The EU might well act as a unified body in economic terms, but not at all in the areas of foreign affairs and defence, which are the two cornerstones of being a great power. David (talk) 19:08, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Might I also add that the issue of the EU and its power status is already on Wikipedia - Potential superpowers#European Union - and that article seems more appropriate for it. David (talk) 19:24, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

David, was that serious, when you compared EU to NATO? I guess it was trying to be funny (British humour I assume)...Here is why the EU can be considered almost a state with independent, supranational influence: EU. Actually the term great power seems to be outdated. But anyway, by the definition and by the standards used at this article the EU needs to be mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.225.77.93 (talk) 21:20, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Don't patronise me. I know what the EU is. And I wasn't suggesting that the EU and NATO are the same or similar. All I am saying is that both are international organisations comprising of member states and they derive their power from their member states. The EU does not have independent power beyond the field of markets, the economy and such (and only has that power because its member states agree that it should). Actually, even in the field of the economy, recent events have shown that individual member states act pretty much independently when it comes to dealing with economic situations. David (talk) 22:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

[28] I guess this can be taken as a valid source. The EU exerts enough relevant political power on its members and in global affairs (WTO) to be taken seriously. This is actually common knowledge. It might be true that the EU does not fulfill thousands of so called traditional "nation state" criteria, but it is too relevant not to be enlisted here. In other words, an article dealing about great power which does not mention the European Union in one or the other way, fails. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.225.77.93 (talk) 00:44, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I guess that source could be taken as a reliable source. Atleast I think so, lets see what everybody else thinks. However, if this page doesn't mention EU as a great power due to the lack of reliable sources that don't break OR or SYN, then that means there are no reliable sources to back up our opinions. But there seems to be atleast one reliable source. Deavenger (talk) 01:58, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

As I understand it, the term "great power" is primarily (although nor exclusively) military, and as far as I am aware the EU has no military forces of any consequence. But the case remains for the EU to be considered an economic great power; its economy is larger than that of the US. Viewfinder (talk) 10:45, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

The only compromise I would accept, with regard to mentioning the EU in this article, is a short paragraph in the "Aftermath of the Cold War" section, which would go along the lines of "With continuing European integration, the supranational organisation of the European Union is increasingly being seen as a great power, most notably in areas which it has exclusive competence, such as representing the union at the WTO and at G8 and G-20 summits. The European Union however has limited scope in the areas of foreign affairs and defence, which remain with the union's 27 member states, which include three of the current great powers - France, Germany and the United Kingdom. Collectively the European Union has a population of half a billion, and a larger economy than the United States." David (talk) 10:51, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

That could be construed as WP:SYN and might open up the door for others to include their own synthesis on their nation of choice. We really should tread lightly here. I checked the source and it is, from what I can tell, a reliable academic source so mentioning the EU as a possible current melding of those 3 great powers might be advisable. But personally I think that the text should be discussed before it gets added, anyone else agree? -- Phoenix (talk) 11:05, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree we should tread lightly here and I don't feel that the EU needs to be mentioned at all. However if it is to be mentioned then it should not be added to the list of great powers, but added to the history section as a current development in international relations and power.

As for that source, frankly I regard it as a crass simplification of international relations and power. What the governments of France and the UK would think of their respected countries being completely ignored in a study of international power! As I keep saying - and it's fact - is that the EU does not have independent power in the two crucial fields of foreign affairs and defence. In both areas, the member states have (almost) total competence. Even with the Lisbon Treaty in force, foreign affairs remains something which requires unanimity of all member states. As for defence, some members are neutral, whilst most are members of NATO - which even the EU regards as the organisation responsible for the defence of the continent as a whole! David (talk) 11:13, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

It is not unusual for EU spokespersons to address foreign policy issues. Still, any mention of the EU should carry a clear "economic" tag. Viewfinder (talk) 11:51, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Reading this a bit more thoroughly even though the author does talk about the 4 current great powers (china, EU, Japan & Russia) & 1 Superpower (USA) he focuses more on the future and the possible changes that can occour and what effects a new superpower would be to the balance of power.

Something I should add. Has the EU been invited to meetings where France, Germany & the UK has not? Is the EU seen as representing those powers in international relations? -- Phoenix (talk) 19:10, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Only at the WTO? And perhaps other trade talks and similar meetings (to do with something that is exclusively the competence of the EU - ie agriculture). Other than that, no. David (talk) 19:38, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Another consideration is simply that the EU is seen as a potential superpower in the upcoming decades (according to Wikipedia). Wouldnt it be logical to assume that great power status has been already achieved ?

Anyway, the European central bank governs the second largest currency in the world, the Euro, independently. The terms of GDP the Eurozone is almost the the size of the dollar spere. This fact alone justifies its mentioning here. The text of user David seems a good base, although I see it rather necessary to include the EU as an entry at the list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.53.6.70 (talk) 20:34, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually according to the WTO article and World Trade Organization accession and membership Germany, France and the UK has the same rights as China, Japan or the US (Russia is not in the WTO... yet). From what I can tell the EU doesn't have diplomatic relations that exclude its member states from independent international organizations. Also just because a nation is seen a potential superpower does not mean that it is currently a Great Power, if you check the talk page archives you will see that this has been discussed many times. -- Phoenix (talk) 06:34, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I just rv'd the inclusion of the EU in the table. The inclusion of the EU would be at the exclusion of the other European Great Powers because it would be listed twice... Right? There are at least three valid sources given but the EU source is focused on the Future of Great/Super power(s). Not only that the EU is still not a sovereign state able to act in complete representation of its member parts. So for the moment the inclusion of the EU should be avoided. What do others think? -- Phoenix (talk) 03:02, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I agree that the EU should not appear in the table. As you say, it's not a sovereign state and is only described as being an economic great power, with three of its member states (Germany, France and the UK) being listed as great powers.

I am now content with the way the article deals with the EU. Cheers. David (talk) 08:59, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

China was not a great power in 1945, Sweden was

in any definition. Sweden on the other hand was a great power, both in terms of economy, industrial and military power. Sweden was for sure one of the strongest military powers in the world by that time to the 50s, only surpassed by USA, USSR and UK. Awakened82 (talk) 22:05, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Can you find a source in support of your Sweden claim? (No source is given in support of the claim that China was a great power in 1945. A source should be given). Viewfinder (talk) 22:13, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, we have the Encarta source for china in 1945. I think it accidentally got moved after we replaced the list with a chart. Deavenger (talk) 00:26, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, I see it now. Thanks for restoring it. Viewfinder (talk) 13:21, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Sweden had the fourth strongest air force after US,USSR and UK at that time consisting of 800 moder aircrafts, the fifth largest naval fleet after the same countries including France and was able to develope tactical nuclear missiles since the 50s. Sweden had bunkers everywhere and is described as a swiss cheese!, it was the country most prepared for protecting its civilians and radiocommunication and perhaps also oilreserves in case of an eventual attack. Swedens civil defence was the most developed at the time.

http://www.newsmill.se/artikel/2009/01/30/ss Swedens industy was not harmed by the war cause Sweden stayed neutral. Sweden was the 2nd most advanced country in the world after United States. The computers BARK(1950) and BESK(1954) was superior to everything the world had seen during that time.

Sweden had enormous resources of iron ore and copper a key factor in the military industry. The iron ore in Sweden was the main reason for the german invasion of Denmark and Norway.

To say that China but not Sweden was a great power during 1945 and the decade that followed is like saying that Nigeria is a great power cause of its huge population but Israel isnt. I can go on and on about why Sweden schould be regarded as a great power during that time, but I guess the population is the burning point why it will not be admitted the status it actually was in position of. China was because of its population and partipication in the war against Japan backed up by US military aid, able to gain a place among the the five permanent members of UN security council, but to call it a great power is just ridiculous and in some way thats also right in the case of France. If China is considered a Great Power 1945 there is no reason Sweden schould not, Sweden was the strongest country of the two in every field during 45 and the 50s, even if China had the potential. Awakened82 (talk) 12:32, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Please can you provide a translation of the text from the above sources which specifically claim that Sweden was a Great Power in 1945. Otherwise this is WP:OR and WP:SYN. Despite being technologically advanced, Sweden's power has been limited by small population. Viewfinder (talk) 13:19, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Small population was a disadvantage, but to have the 4th strongest airforce and 5th biggest naval fleet must mean something in the end. Swedens relativly large area, very long coast and location makes it easy to defend. I can agree that France and UK had certain position as great powers cause of their colonial wealth even if their glory days there had passed in 1945. But China was an undeveloped and extremely poor country. Now China is a great power but in 1945 it was a just huge coloss that would lack after most of the world til the 90s. Another reason for China in the security council was to shape balance in the world between the west and the east, 3 in west and 2 in east, but power did not qualify China, so therefor there is no reason to mention China as great power before 1990s. Awakened82 (talk) 15:42, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Here is a translation. The exact premise of the webpage/book/article (I cannot figure out which) is that Sweden was one of the world's most militarized countries and goes on to say Sweden was at times the country in the world "most per capita on defense after the United States, Soviet Union and Israel. Are you trying to say that Israel was a Great Power back then too? Sorry but this is WP:SYN the webpage/book/article you have presented does not state that Sweden was a Great Power after WWII. -- Phoenix (talk) 22:39, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll see if I can find a reliable sources (without it breaking OR or SYN) that would say that Sweden was a great power in 1945. Also, we should make sure that the table has all the sources that the previous list had, as they might have been moved about during the table creation. Deavenger (talk) 01:11, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, but if you check the history you will see that that section wasn't thoroughly sourced before. But if anything was missed please re-insert the refs :-) -- Phoenix (talk) 05:29, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Davenger, I will look through sources too, still I think that Chinas status as great power is wrong, its was not a great power because some call it so, it have to be backed up with military equipment(aircraft/naval/tanks etc), industrial production(both concerning quality and quantity). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.11.73.10 (talk) 13:33, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Republic of China?

While the ROC was a permanent member of the UNSC immediately following World War II, neither of the sources listing it as a "Great Power" explicitly name it as a Great Power. The Chinese Republic after World War II was still in a state of civil war between the nationalists and the communists, its economy was in shambles, its currency hyperinflated. I don't think China at this point exerted very much international influence. If someone can find a source that actually calls the ROC a Great Power, and explains why, then I would be happy to withdraw this complaint, but I don't think inclusion in the Security Council automatically makes you a great power. That seemed more an attempt at nation-building than anything else. Any comments or rebuttals would be most appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Icetitan17 (talk • contribs) 21:51, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Ready fo GA nomination?

Anyone else think the article is ready for the GA nomination again, as we dealt with most of the problems identified in the article. Deavenger (talk) 12:08, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder. I'll get right on that :-) Ok. Its now nominated here. -- Phoenix (talk) 04:55, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Let's hope that if it gets nominated, it'll stay a good article so we can work towards A and FA class articles. Deavenger (talk) 19:11, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

BRIC

Several news articles refered to the BRICs (wich includes Brazil and India) to be emerging powers after their first official summit. [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] And this article still excluding them... Felipe Menegaz 20:51, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh this article excludes them? Erm, no. Russia and China ARE Great Powers, as stated in this article. India and Brazil may be great powers in the future, but are not yet. We've been through all this before - see the discussion archives. David (talk) 10:23, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, the article should display a section or just few sentences about the emerging of Brazil and India. Felipe Menegaz 15:50, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

If Japan and Germany are listed as great powers, then India and Brazil also deserve a place in the list. India and Brazil are two of the G4 nations seeking a permanent seat at the UNSC, the other two being Japan and Germany. The G8 will cease to exist next year, when the G14 (with India and Brazil) will take its place (G8 summit could be the last as rising nations want their voices heard, G8 is dead, long live G14, Leaders favour conversion of G-8 and G-5 into G-14). Brazil and India were the two countries who pressured for the G8 expansion. According to President Barack Obama "Tackling global challenges in the absence of major powers like China, India and Brazil seems to be wrongheaded" (Forbes: G8 pledges $20 bln in farm aid to poor nations). Nicolas Sarkozy has said that "no-one could imagine resolving problems today without involving China, India and, of course, Brazil" (BBC: Brazil and EU leaders hold summit) The joint statement issued after the 1st BRIC summit (between Brazil, India, Russia and China) specifically mentions the importance of the "status of India and Brazil in international affairs" (Joint Statement of the BRIC Countries’ Leaders). Several sources name Brazil as a "great power" (or at least a "potential great power") and some even "potential superpower" (USA Today:Booming Brazil could be world power soon, Brazil Is the Next Economic (and Political) Superpower, Brazil Does Have the Potential to be a Great Power, StanleyFoundation: Rising Powers: Brazil, etc). The reason why most sources don't agree on what to call Brazil is due to the country's recent economic "boom", more "aggressive" foreign policy, stability (both political and economic), drastic reduction of poverty, etc. Several years ago no one would even dream of Brazil at a G14 or being one of the leaders of the Doha Round or the G20 (which was created under Brazil's initiative) (Brazil and the G20). We could go on and on. Conclusion, Brazil and India are - or at the very least "have the potential" to be - at the same level as Germany and Japan (who lack size and population) a great power. So we should either exclude Japan and Germany from the list or add Brazil and India. A better alternative would be to add a section on potential great powers (and before you start on about WP:Crystal ball, see: Potential superpowers). Limongi (talk) 00:49, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I've been trying to find a couple of academic sources listing Brazil and in India as great powers. The sources that people keep trying to bring up to add these countries are newspapers, which usually talk very little about that specific country being great powers, or OR and SYN of , "These countries held this and this and this conference, therefore they are great powers. All people have brought up are newspaper article where si has maybe one sentence like the one above. Ass for the superpower article you have brought, the only one that could even come close to working is the Next economic and political superpower, and yet the entire article, it calls it an economic superpower. And an economic superpower ≠ superpower. Difference between India and Brazil compared to Germany and Japan, we have academic sources listing them as great powers, 2 for Germany, and 4 from Japan, and the one newspaper article for Japan is written by a well known IR expert, who is the president one of the largest IR think tanks in the world, and has even gone to congress to talk about the changes in specific places like the middle east, and the newspaper article talks about of why Japan is a great power by that same guy.

Like the potential superpower page, a potential great power page or section just creates lots of trouble. The entire thing turns into an OR/SYN page, WP:Crystal ball, and nationalistic pushing war, and the editors who actually try to be neutral get in the middle of it and get shit for it. For example, a user tried to add Brazil in the potential superpowers. However, all his sources were OR or from SYN, and was saying how Brazil is completely perfect compared to any other country in the world. One, if the user brought good reliable sources for Brazil and actually brought it up before bringing it up, I would have been fine about it. After all, I have removed an overwhelming amount of bad sources that turn out to be complete SYN or OR from the India and other sections. Other users and I even explained to this to the other user that he needs to bring in some reliable sources that don't turn out to be OR or SYN, and we did it very nicely. What happens instead, the user vandalizes the page, specifically the Indian section (looking back at his history, he's been really racist towards Indians). And since I'm of Indian origin, he starts giving me shit because "I obviously believe that India is a superpower" though it would take five seconds to look through my past history to realize that I don't think India can be even considered a potential superpower, and the only reason I keep India there as there is still enough reliable sources that aren't OR/SYN. And whenever the user came to visit the page, he gave me shit for being Indian, and now, he's finally left the page, and stopped bothering me that I'm Indian. That's what having a potential page gives you. If I add Brazil on the page with a couple academic sources, I would be fine. If I add India though, I'm just going to get shit because I'm of Indian origin. For you guys, it would be vice versa because you guys are from Brazil or of Brazilian origin. However, if you want to work on a potential page like that, I have one in the works on my user page, though I'm not sure if I want to create it.

Also, the potential page is already a mess. It talks about the potential superpowers right now, but not about them historically. For instance, the Great power page does not talk the entire time about what the great powers now, it talks about what makes a great power, the history of great powers, etc. I'm pretty sure when people thought Japan was going to become a superpower, they started to embrace Japan more, take action against them, or bring them into more institutions. Like George Friedman noted, there were people predicting the rise of United States and Russia before they were strong powers, and the prediction of the rise and fall of Germany. Before we make a potental great power page, the potential superpower page needs to be fixed big time.

Also, I might have some academic sources to add Brazil and India, however, it lists the two countries as Major powers, not great powers, and I'm not sure if we're also using the term major powers. Deavenger (talk) 16:00, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

"Of the five original great powers recognised at the Congress of Vienna..."

Of the five original great powers recognised at the Congress of Vienna, only France and the United Kingdom have maintained that status to the present day, although France was conquered and occupied during World War II.

Should Russia also be included in the list of those that maintained that status to the present day, given that it is still counted as one (according to the list of "Great Powers by Date")? Ok, there were several years when it wasn't one, but presumably France wasn't a great power while it was occupied by Germany, so if it can be listed as "maintained that status to the present day", should not Russia? Wardog (talk) 14:22, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I can see where you're coming from. France was conquered and occupied for four years, though was a great power immediately prior and immediately after that occupation and is described as one of the victors of World War II. During its occupation France was still recognised and had its own Free French government-in-exile and armed forces (thanks to Britain). Other than those four years, its great power status has not been interrupted. Russia on the other hand is a little different. Arguably it lost its fight in World War I and that together with the communist revolution initially reduced it to below that of a great power for at least a decade. It had regained great power status by the beginning of World War II. I would therefore argue that Russia's great power status is not continuous, whilst France's is - despite the four years of occupation during World War II. David (talk) 15:07, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

G14

World leaders signaled the demise of the Group of Eight wealthy nations club on Friday, saying only a forum that included the major developing economies could decide on important global issues.

"One thing that is absolutely true is that for us to think we can somehow deal with some of these global challenges in the absence of major powers like China, India and Brazil seems to be wrongheaded," U.S. President Barack Obama told reporters.

French President Nicolas Sarkozy also backed the G14, which represents 80 percent of the global economy. "We will put the G14 in place in 2011 when France chairs the G8," he said.

(Reuters) Felipe Menegaz 22:29, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Great power/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Commencing review

I will, with a little trepidation, undertake this second round of review, following an initial listing, and a GAR that resulted in delisting. I am a pol sci expert, but not in international relations and, for better or worse, I do not reside in a country that could at any stretch be regarded as a 'Great power'. :-)
I will be back after some further reading and consideration. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:02, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

The subject of the article

The very last comment during the GAR, by User:Geometry guy, was a good one: "My suggestion would be to shorten an tighten the article to focus on how the term has been used by historians and other reliable sources throughout history." The article should be about the concept of a "great power"; what nations might be great powers is a secondary matter. As such, the current first section, "Characteristics", is right on track. Although the prose is clunky at times, the content is the right kind of material. Subsequent sections on occasion drift into a talking about which countries are great powers - for example, "Of the five original great powers recognised at the Congress of Vienna, only France and the United Kingdom have maintained that status to the present day..." (under the "History" heading), but from the heading "The Great powers at war", it stays broadly on track.

Maintaining an analytical focus

I think the sections beginning "History" will be improved by a stronger focus on the arguments made, by academic sources in particular, about what a great power is, and how the nature of that power is changing. For example, in the paragraph that follows the heading "Aftermath of the Cold War", there is reference to how there are differences of view regarding how Germany and Japan should be regarded. I suggest that this WP article should be discussing the arguments put in those sources about why they should be considered 'great powers', or 'great economic powers', or 'middle powers', or whatever. In other words, what is of most interest is the arguments around the application of the concept of "great power", rather than which country is/was 'in', and which is/was 'out'.

It seems to me also that "great power" appears to have been superceded, both as language and perhaps as concept, with discussion of superpowers and middle powers, of hyperpower and of the capacity of states (and non-state actors) to resist major powers' intent. I think there shouold be some acknowledgement of the historical and geopolitical specificity of the term as associated with later imperialism and the west (and Japan), in the period 1815 to 1945. This is hinted at in the last section, which remarks "China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States are still occasionally referred to as great powers, although there is no unanimous agreement among authorities as to the current status of these powers or what precisely defines a "great" power..." I would assume the literature discusses this. At the very least, there needs to be some discussion of the interchangeability (if they are, as Danilovic p. 27 suggests, interchangeable) of the terms "great power and "major power".

I think there needs to be reference made to capacity to resist great / major powers (if the literature does so). Consider the realist AJP Taylor's "test of strength for war", and similar definitional approaches. How should one interpret the capacity of some small states or alliances successfully to resist superpower aggression or lower-level beligerence (if I can put it that way) - the Taliban against the Soviets in Afghanistan for example; Vietnam; or limited superpower / major power capacity to influence the politics or regional ambitions of Iran, India, Pakistan or North Korea. Again, this should be discussed in terms of interpreting what "great power" means, rather than using it as evidence to debate whether or not any given country is or is not a "great power"

There is another issue that I'm going to mention, but am still thinking about how it can be tackled. At present in the article, the concept of "great power" is applied only to recent (post-1815) events, presumably since that is when the term was first used by actual historical actors. Pre-1815 major civilisations are dealt with in a separate article, Historical powers. As a corollary, or a consequence, it is western-centric. If we are to treat the term as an analytical concept based on the three dimensions of power, then there is no reason not to apply it to pre-1815 circumstances. The concept having been developed, surely the literature has applied this concept to deal with pre-1815 geopolitics? That being the case, where is the Ottoman Empire, perhaps the Chola Empire and Incan Empire, certainly the Ming dynasty, or for that matter the Roman empire etc? The split between two articles does not address the important analytical questions that should affect how the article is structured, and what is included. I think the fact that the term was in 1814 used for the first time by historical figures, in primary sources relating to diplomacy, should not be allowed to confust the analytical application of the concept. If however none of the scholarly literature applies the terminology to pre-1815 geopolitics (which would surprise me, but this isn't my field), then that alerts us to an important issue, sketched above - that the term has more historical specificity than the analytical 'dimensions' model suggests. I realise the preceding may not be a model of clear prose, and I am happy to elaborate further / have another go at explaining myself if required.

Secondary issues

UN

• There was an interesting interchange on the talk page (archive #11 here) about the UN's own use of the term "great power" in discussing its security council (the example given in that discussion relates to this: http://www.un.org/sc/members.asp). I think this should be included as an example of the application of the concept in the post World War 2 era. Hopefully, it will also be discussed in secondary sources, but regardless of that, it is a significant use of the term that should be explicitly noted.

sources

• The referencing needs significant tidying. There are many different formats used, and for refs that are linked online, many publication details are missing. If a style is going to be incorporated that uses "op cit" , the term can only be used after the reference has been initially cited, however this style is not supported on Wikipedia: see Wikipedia:Footnotes, so it should not be used. The alternative is a list of references, and then short refs in notes (however that is not the approach taken in this article overall).
• During the review that resulted in de-listing, the reliability of Black's Academy as a source was raised. If there has been further discussion of this elsewhere, can a user please draw my attention to it. If there has not, then my initial view is that this is a 'black box' website, that says almost nothing about how it works; I have no idea where its material comes from; a superficial google search supplied me with no immediately apparent external sources that would explain what Black's Academy is, and its own website does not exactly encourage such curiosity. My conclusion is that it is not a suitable source, but I am open to being enlightened or corrected. We could also take that particular issue to Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources.
• The following paras are seriously under-referenced (as well as possibly needing some re-consideration in light of the above discussion):

During the Cold War, the Asian power of Japan and the European powers of the United Kingdom, France, and West Germany rebuilt their economies. France and the United Kingdom maintained technologically advanced armed forces with power projection capabilities and maintain large defence budgets to this day. Yet, as the Cold War continued, authorities began to question if France and the United Kingdom could retain their long-held statuses as great powers.[34][35]
China, with the world's largest population, has slowly risen to great power status, with large growth in economic and military power in the post-war period. By the 1970s, the Republic of China began to lose its recognition as the sole legitimate government of China by the other great powers, in favour of the People's Republic of China. Subsequently, in 1971, it lost its permanent seat at the UN Security Council to the People's Republic of China.

Comments

Well. I think the Black's Academy source could go if needed as every instance it is used, it is supported by 2 other sources that have had no complaints. I'll remove the source, and let the other user try the fix the references and notes as I'm not too good at working with references. Deavenger (talk) 05:38, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Wow what a response. Are you sure your not trying to skip WP:Good Article all together and make this into a WP:Featured Article? Personally I believe that it’s a good thing that you’re not from a country considered a Great power. The last reviewer got comments of personal bias due to his/her nationality. Well let’s try to reduce your comments into something a bit more manageable.

The subject of the article

• "History" will be improved by a stronger focus on the arguments made, by academic sources in particular, about what a great power is, and how the nature of that power is changing. ... what is of most interest is the arguments around the application of the concept of "great power", rather than which country is/was 'in', and which is/was 'out'.
• "great power" appears to have been superceded, both as language and perhaps as concept ... there shouold be some acknowledgement of the historical and geopolitical specificity of the term as associated with later imperialism and the west (and Japan), in the period 1815 to 1945.
• reference made to capacity to resist great / major powers (if the literature does so).
• the article ... is applied only to recent (post-1815) events ... Pre-1815 major civilisations are dealt with in a separate article, Historical powers. ... The split between two articles does not address the important analytical questions that should affect how the article is structured, and what is included. ... If however none of the scholarly literature applies the terminology to pre-1815 geopolitics (which would surprise me, but this isn't my field), then that alerts us to an important issue, sketched above - that the term has more historical specificity than the analytical 'dimensions' model suggests.

Secondary issues

• There was an interesting interchange on the talk page (archive #11 here) about the UN's own use of the term "great power" in discussing its security council (the example given in that discussion relates to this: http://www.un.org/sc/members.asp). I think this should be included as an example of the application of the concept in the post World War 2 era. Hopefully, it will also be discussed in secondary sources, but regardless of that, it is a significant use of the term that should be explicitly noted.
• The referencing needs significant tidying..
• ... a superficial google search supplied me with no immediately apparent external sources that would explain what Black's Academy is, and its own website does not exactly encourage such curiosity. My conclusion is that it is not a suitable source, but I am open to being enlightened or corrected. We could also take that particular issue to Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources.
• [a few] paras are seriously under-referenced (as well as possibly needing some re-consideration in light of the above discussion)

I'll try to get on this. Sorry about the wait. I only hope I can get this finalized before the weekend as I am going to be out of town after that. -- Phoenix (talk) 01:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Yeah, sorry about the essay. There's lots of good stuff in the article, and I had trouble articulating why I thought there was a 'big picture' issue with it, rather than letting myself get bogged in details like missing refs and format issues. Your summary is more like what I wish I had written in the first place. Re your comment about leaping to FA, you may have a point. My concern is that it may not sufficiently meet the criteria of addressing the main aspects of the topic unless this issue, about the nature of the term and its historical application, is sorted out a bit better. But let's see how things go and I will be mindful of not seeking to go beyond the GA criteria in assessing revisions in coming days / weeks. I will stick this on hold for a while and keep tabs. Cheers. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:26, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Don't apologize for the prose it is actually very helpful. I would only recommend that next time you should try to bullet point the main suggestions and then put the more verbose description of your ideas below. It will help to have individual tasks that allow people to focus on one issue at a time & give the necessary specifics needed to fulfill those requests.

I hope that you are willing to place this on hold for about a week+. I originally believed that the page was ready to be a Good Article with only a couple of minor tweaks needed. After your review it looks like it's going to take a bit longer than expected. Whats worse is I am going to be without my PC for about 1-2 weeks after tomorrow. Currently Deavenger and myself are the main editors to this page and I do not wish to offload all this on him/her. But I know that we are both REALLY eager to get this page to GA status again. I can only hope that you are willing to wait until I am back. Pretty please! -- Phoenix (talk) 07:23, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

No worries. This is about my twentieth GA review this year, and a few were on hold for well over a month, as I knew there were editor(s) with definite plans to respond to issues, or who were going to be away etc. As long as there's a plan, my view is the WP norm of 'one week' just doesn't take sufficient regard of 'real life'. See you and Deavenger around this article over coming weeks. Cheers. hamiltonstone (talk) 10:43, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay. I think I fixed the citations and added a notes section due to the fact that we had all those notes. On with the rest of the improvements. Deavenger (talk) 21:59, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey, can I ask one last favor. During the review, I was out of the country for most of the time. In a couple of days, I'll be leaving out of the country for a longer period of itme. Can the final decision be waited until August 15th? Deavenger (talk) 03:59, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

We might be setting a record at GAN for a hold, but it's fine with me :-) hamiltonstone (talk) 12:15, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. For sure, end the GA review on August 15th, and it'll hopefully be passed by then. Thanks again. Deavenger (talk) 18:31, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Lead

At five sentences across two small paragraphs, the lead section is quite sparse (even for this relatively short article). Consider expanding it to be a more comprehensive, stand-alone summary of the article. Emw2012 (talk) 22:44, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Would turning it into one paragraph work? Deavenger (talk) 03:33, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Each paragraph seems to deal with different topics: the first with characteristics of great powers (i.e. the first section of the article) and the second with their history (the second section). That seems like a good structure, but each paragraph could probably be expanded by at least two sentences. Emw2012 (talk) 04:05, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I've expanded the lead by two sentences and tried to make it more comprehensive and representative of the article material. Some more work may be needed. Nirvana888 (talk) 16:41, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I also expanded the sentence a little bit. However I can't think of what to add to the second paragraph. Deavenger (talk) 18:01, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

British English and American English

The article currently commingles the two. I noticed by searching for instances of "ise" and "ize" and finding a singular use of the British "ise"; but also found an instance of the BE "favour". There article should be consistent in either using American English or British English. See American and British English differences for more examples. Emw2012 (talk) 22:54, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Good point. Let's go with American English. Nirvana888 (talk) 16:20, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Great Britain has been a great power far longer than the United States has, and much of the article's history section regards European powers, so I would argue that the article should be in British English. Though I'm not terribly bothered. David (talk) 09:16, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

conclude review

Owing to a lck of changes, and the inability of a key editor to return to the task, I will fail this GAN for now. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:27, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Brazil

Brazil should be added. Its 191 million population is the 5th in the World. It is the 10th largest economy, larger than India at nominal prices. But, contrary to India or Russia, it is an stable, cohesive and structured nation, much homogeneus as millions of immigrants from the rest of the World have been assimilated into the Portuguese culture (something not happening anymore in America, where an increasing percentage of Hispanics are not being assimilated)--79.146.210.235 (talk) 21:41, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

This is a recurring topic in connection with this article. The short answer is no, Brazil should not be in here, nor India in most opinions. This is not an article about what any of us thinks makes a great or big country, but about a concept from the academic and international relations literature in relation to the action of nation states in international affairs, particularly in the period 1815-1945, though also through to the present day (the historical scope is a topic of discussion in the GA review). In any case, it is a question of what the reliable sources being used say, not what any of us otherwise think. Cheers. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:37, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

We've been through this on this article and its talk page re: Brazil, India, even Italy. Lots of people and mining stuff from the rainforests do not make a great power. There needs to be a powerful international influence, be it militarily, culturally or commercially. Brazil is not at great power level yet (might be in the long term future) rather it is a regional/middle power. David (talk) 09:09, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Great Powers in 1815

Shouldn't the Qing Empire be a great Power then ? They were only weakened after the Opium War . :) --69.157.65.49 (talk) 00:39, 26 July 2009 (UTC)UnKNown

What do the relevant reliable sources say? hamiltonstone (talk) 01:18, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

The name be "Chinese Empire" or "Qing Empire" instead of "Qing Dynasty" which is the ruling dynasty, not the empire name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.143.32.147 (talk) 21:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Typo

There is a typo in reference no. 37. A blank is missing in the quote of the title: "German dream: "Hat Eure Bundeswehr_eine Seele?"

Why is it not possible to edit such things directly? Is this wikipedia or not...!?

I've changed it to "Hat Eure Bundeswehr Eine Seele?" - is that now correct? As for not being able to edit the page - this is because this article is protected, due to vandalism/petty nationalism, and so only established users may edit it. David (talk) 10:49, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Britain

A new article titled The Last Gasps of the British empire and Forget the great in Britain in the Newsweek magazine contains details of the present great power status of Britain.Bcs09 (talk) 15:09, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, the only thing is that it's just typical journalistic rubbish. The fact that it bangs on about the empire says it all - no one in the UK has notions of imperial (i.e. superpower) might anymore. It's an article stuck in the past, written by a journo stuck in the past. See here for the counter argument David (talk) 15:49, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Britian shouldnt be a great power in 2000s [45]--69.157.68.144 (talk) 14:24, 13 August 2009 (UTC)Unknown

The Suez Crises was more an expression of America's superpower status (and the loss of Britain's superpower status/imperial power in the 1950s) than the loss of Britain's great power status. If Britain isn't a great power, then neither is France, Germany, or Japan. The article also overdoes the whole "here endeth Britain" - clearly Britain became regarded as an inferior power to the US after the Suez Crises, but it continued to be one of the most powerful countries on the planet to the present day. David (talk) 15:17, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

The article makes clear that there is no precise science in what is and is not a "Great power". This articles goes out of its way to list some of the factors which have a role in determining it, such as a seat on the United Nations Security Council and Nuclear weapons. Its there for perfectly reasonable to list the UK and as said above, if the UK can not be listed then others would have to be removed from this article too. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:04, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

European Union in C.2000?

Should the European Union just simply be added in C.2000 and the European states removed?

Err... what? David (talk) 15:30, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

No, not yet. It will take some time and the Brits need to stop balking at it. We'll have an update on the article in 2030. --Wulf Isebrand (talk) 00:15, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Japan

Found a quote from the Pentagon (perhaps a more direct source to whoever made the comment could be found?) which a) uses the term "great power" in a modern context and b) uses it for Japan.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/japan/6174814/Incoming-Tokyo-government-threatens-split-with-US.html

The Pentagon reminded Japan of the expectations it faced as a "great power and one of the world's wealthiest countries".

Perhaps this could be used in the article itself to demonstrate that the concept of great powers is still alive and well in the contemporary world and/or as a reference for Japan's present status as a great power? David (talk) 21:25, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

EU added

The European Union is a permanent member of the G8, G20 consultations. It manages the second largest reserve currency in the world and is the most significant player at WTO talks. The EU is a prime source for the legislation of 3 great powers (France, Germany, UK) which are listed here. Even militarily the EU has become an international actor: [46] It is a great power on a global and on a European scale. The entry has been added to the list. Lear 21 (talk) 09:58, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

RV edit. This has been talked about ad nauseum on this talk page. Here is a link to the last discussion on this topic Talk:Great power/Archive 11#Where is the European Union ?. Since I havent said this in about 3 months I will cut and past a past message:

This article is quite simple in its Goal, it is about Great Powers. It is not about Superpowers, not about Middle Powers and it is not about potential Great Powers. We are not here to Create our own opinions and post it on Wikipedia, it is actually officially banned:

Wikipedia:No original research : Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position

we must also avoid creating our own conclusions by doing research here and drawing our own conclusions from them:

Synthesis of published material which advances a position : Material published by reliable sources can inadvertently be put together in a way that constitutes original research. Synthesizing material occurs when an editor comes to a conclusion by putting together different sources. If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion, or if the sources cited are not directly related to the subject of the article, then the editor is engaged in original research.

We should also not post opinions about what may happen in the future, because one can never know what tomorrow brings:

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball : Articles that present extrapolation, speculation, and "future history" are original research and therefore inappropriate. While scientific and cultural norms continually evolve, we cannot anticipate that evolution but must wait for it to happen. Of course, we do and should have articles about notable artistic works, essays, or credible research that embody predictions. [..] "Future history" is welcome at Future Wikia, where original research is allowed to some extent and fact-based speculations are welcome.

As you see official policies are in agreement. We should only use Academic accredited sources that we can cite via Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability. -- Phoenix (talk) 10:28, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

The entry is backed by the provided source. The source seemed to be a longterm part of this article and can be therefore considered to be credible. It is an academic source from the US in 2003. It reads: The current system is presented as one superpower and four great powers (China, EU, Japan, Russia). Everything accurate and justified to include the EU in the list. It acknowledges the situation 6 years ago. By now it is rather common knowledge that the EU has become a global player. Lear 21 (talk) 11:59, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

There should be a whole section talking about the European Union, but it shouldnt be listed as a great power in the tables as the current version shows. The great powers listed are sovereign states, something the European Union is not. "A great power is a nation or state that has the ability to exert its influence on a global scale." If the EU is to be included the intro needs changing. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:24, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

The EU is a union of sovereign states. If you can include the EU on the list, then why not NATO, NAFTA or any of the other countless international unions and alliances in existence? Sure, the EU has greater integration than most unions, but it's not a sovereign entity. Further, if you include the EU on the list, then would Germany, Britain and France have to be removed? You cannot have a great power with a number of its constituent parts as further great powers. That would be a nonsense. Finally I will add that whilst the EU has substantial economic power, it has very limited foreign affairs and defence roles. These are the main aspects of what great powers are about. (The article actually states that the EU can be thought of as an economic great power.) So, for these and many other reasons mentioned, the EU should not be included in the main list of great powers. It can of course be mentioned otherwise, and is. David (talk) 14:24, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

First, I should note that I can't find where in Aydinli and Rosenau's book "Globalization, security and the nation-state: paradigms in transition" that the EU is considered only an economic great power. The current reference (reference 40) cites page 59 of the book, but running searches on "EU", "European Union" and "economic" return no hits on that page when searched on Google Books. It may be that Google Books doesn't include that page in search results, but that would seem odd to me since other pages omitted from the preview are returned in hits. Could someone please verify that page 59 of Aydinli and Rosenau's book says what its being used to support (that is: "the supranational organisation of the European Union is increasingly being seen as an economic great power"). It makes me somewhat wary that the link in that reference brings up page 177 in the same book, which states the situation in a notably different way: "The current system is presented as one superpower plus four great powers (China, EU, Japan, Russia)".

So, if upon verification page 59 does not say something close to "the EU is an economic great power, but is not a fully-fledged great power", then I think editors here should take the unmodified claim in page 177 of the book. The different claims that the EU is a great power and that traditional nation-states like France, Germany and the United Kingdom are great powers seem to have roughly similar support in reliable sources. Here I'm taking Encarta, a tertiary source that is slated to become quite unavailable sometime this month, to have significantly less weight than the academic, secondary source by Paul et al supporting the claim that the sovereign European nations are great powers. Considering that, both claims have about one reliable source respectively supporting them. I notice in the previous post and the series of posts linked above by Phoenix79 that editors are providing a lot of their own rationale to not include the EU as a great power. Rathering than prioritizing our own analysis, I think we should be deferring to reliable sources on the matter of whether the EU or its constituent states should be considered a great power. Emw (talk) 15:45, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you. If we can find two or more academic primary RS that state that the EU is a great power and preferably describe how it is a great power with a list of comparable great powers then it could definitely be listed. Nirvana888 (talk) 15:47, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

And what do you make of the idea that the two different claims -- 1) that the EU is a great power and 2) that some constituent nations of the EU are great powers -- have essentially the same amount of support in reliable sources? (See the message immediately above yours for some elaboration on this point.) If that's the case, then shouldn't this approximately equal weight be more closely reflected in the article? As it currently stands, the statement in this article that Aydinli and Rosenau's book is being used to support ("...the supranational organisation of the European Union is increasingly being seen as an economic great power") doesn't at all seem to be what the authors are stating in the cited material, p. 177: "The current system is presented as one superpower plus four great powers (China, EU, Japan, Russia)..." [emphasis mine]. Emw (talk) 18:33, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Globalization, security, and the nation-state: paradigms in transition seems to suggest the EU may be a great power in that sentence but it also goes on to state that "The question of whether the European complex contains a great power is a tricky one" (p161) thereby questioning whether France, Germany, and UK are indeed great powers. I agree that the text referring to the EU in the article should reflect the source. Are there any other sources that comment on whether the EU is a great power? It would be helpful to review other sources. Nirvana888 (talk) 15:44, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

As you seem to acknowledge, Aydinli and Rosenau claim that the EU is currently a great power. Thanks also for noting the bit about the EU/constituent nation question being called "tricky" on page 161 of Globalization. Reading that paragraph, I think you'll see that the authors clarify the issue somewhat: "Because of the salience of the center-periphery pattern, it is most helpful to take the picture with the EU as the power as the starting point of analysis and only remember the complexities created by the dual nature of powers in Europe." Given that, and the fact that they more explicitly state as much on page 177, it seems safe to say that the authors consider the EU and not its constituent nations as the primary 'great power' designee. Emw (talk) 22:49, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of the claims made by sources, the problem with the EU being listed is that it is neither a nation nor a state. If we list the EU, the first line of the article would need to be amended. Viewfinder (talk) 16:05, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

What's being used to support that first sentence? In any case, if reliably sourced claims (as we seem to have here) conflict with the existing state of an article, then we should probably change the article so that we aren't forced to omit what's being said in reliable sources. Emw (talk) 22:49, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I've edited this section. I think it now reads better and takes into account most of the views expressed above. Imperium Europeum (talk) 17:18, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I reverted the edit because it relies on synthesis of materials, personal opinions and predictions of the future. If you check Balance of power: theory and practice in the 21st century page 59. It states that the Great powers are Britain, China, France, Germany, Japan, Russia & The United States and then goes on to detail all countries and their interactions. Not that this really matters but it was published in 2004. This section is purposefully vague being c.2000 so the country of the month doesn't keep on getting added. It does not say Today's Great Powers... because only the experts can tell us and it takes them years to agree on anything. -- Phoenix (talk) 02:07, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps some of the confusion here is due to reference 40 mistakenly citing page 59, which is the page correctly cited in the book used for reference 43, "Balance of power". Page 177, not page 59, should be the one cited in reference 40. Please see that page (available immediately upon accessing the link in reference 40) and let me know what you think, given whatever changed impression of my previous post that new information leaves you with. I've just changed reference 40 to reflect the correction. Emw (talk)

The provided reference seems to be credible. For the editors who still have a lack of understanding what the EU does and where its global/European influence is founded should listen to this....Danish ambassador to US (Oct/2008) The European Union as a Rising Superpower. For those who need help to understand the global military involvement of the EU, please click here European Union’s geopolitical footprint. Correct me if I´m wrong, but it appears that the EU military missions on the globe supersede the capabilities of China and Russia (combined). And: The new G8 image adds to the understanding of a great power, which is, backed by several experts, foremost underlined by economic power. all the best Lear 21 (talk) 09:42, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

The EU doesn't have any military capabilities as it's not a sovereign entity with its own armed forces - it's member states are the ones with the sovereignty and the armed forces. NATO (which, like the EU, is an alliance/union of sovereign states involving close co-operation and a sharing of their capabilities) sends forces here and there - by your measure can we include that in the great powers list? No, of course not. David (talk) 10:06, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

@David: The longestablished reference from this article is clear about that. It specifically names the EU as great power [47]. Find evidence, sources or experts who cite NATO or whatever as geopolitical, classical great power and it can be discussed. I doubt you will be able to find one. Your assessment about the military actions of the EU has been proofed wrong. Plain Wrong. I´m not inclined to present the cited map a third time. The EU is by all measures including expert assessments a new type of great power in its own right. This does not mean that the 3 national great powers (UK, France, Germany) can or should be removed. These countries still hold enough souvereignity and influence in the world to be called "great power". Lear 21 (talk) 10:42, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

"Your assessment about the military actions of the EU has been proofed wrong. Plain Wrong." - erm, what? Where do you get that impression? And where did you get the impression from that I wanted NATO to be included? I'm using NATO as an example of why the EU has no place on the list of great powers! You fail to respond to some basic and obvious arguments put forward here on this discussion page against the EU's status as a great power, the main one being that it is not a sovereign state. You hold up just one source for the claim that the EU is a great power.

I will let other Wikipedia contributors attempt to change your mind, because I can't be bothered to argue against what seems to be dogmatic arrogance on this matter. Sorry. David (talk) 15:28, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

The inclusion of the EU as a single entry in the current list of great powers is based on the following arguments:

1. An academic reference from 2003 naming the EU "great power"

More sources back up the claim that other countries not including the EU are Great powers even one from 2005 Balance of power: theory and practice in the 21st century. It is also clear that since the section talked about is dedicated to the possible future of Great power/Superpower interaction that he has used the EU as a simpler way to define his arguments assuming that in the future the EU becomes a more integrated entity. -- Phoenix (talk) 19:48, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

When you say "the section", which source are you referring to -- "Balance of Power"? If so, note that this isn't the resource being used to support the claim that the EU is a great power. The source being used is Andiyli and Rosenau's book "Globalization, Security and the Nation-State: Paradigms in Transition", page 177, where the authors state: "The current system is presented as one superpower plus four great powers (China, EU, Japan, Russia)..." [emphasis mine]. As I mentioned in my first post in this section, I think this claim should be taken as it stands, rather than using our own analysis to change the claim that is clearly being made by Andiyli and Rosenau that the EU is a current great power.

Also reiterating what I've previously said, I think that Encarta -- the second source being used to support the claim that the constituent EU countries are great powers -- is of negligible weight by virtue of it being a non-academic, tertiary source slated to become unavailable this month. In my opinion the first source being used to support the claim -- a relatively academic text by Paul et al -- has much more weight. Thus the two claims being debated here have roughly equivalent support in reliable sources: one each. Emw (talk) 16:07, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

2. Several other sources claiming the EU IS already a superpower (Obama advsisor on foreign policy) or an emerging superower. This would logically lead to the conclusion that the EU is at great power level today.

Since when are highschool students considered Academic accredited sources that we can cite via Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability? -- Phoenix (talk) 19:48, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

3. Evidences of the global power projections are manifold. The European Union is a permanent member of the G8, G20 consultations. It manages the second largest reserve currency in the world and is the most significant player at WTO talks. The EU is a prime source for the legislation of 3 great powers (France, Germany, UK) and 2 G20 countries (Spain, Italy). It has supranational powers and influences.

Synthesis argument. -- Phoenix (talk) 19:48, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

4.Militarily and in terms of development aid the EU has become an international actor: [48]

Since when have blogs been included as a reliable source? -- Phoenix (talk) 19:48, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

5. The EU sets global industry standard and has the singular ability to fine international corporations (Microsoft) because of competetion violation.

Synthesis & Original research argument. -- Phoenix (talk) 19:48, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

6. With the assumed ratification of the Lisbon Treaty, the EU will have a legal personality (souvereignty), a Foreign Relations staff with embassies around the world and a President. Experts expect the treaty to come in force in less than 6 months.

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. -- Phoenix (talk) 19:48, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Conclusion: Comprehensive evidence has been provided to support the claim that the EU is a great power and therefore needs to be listed here. Lear 21 (talk) 09:07, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry but your arguments are based on conjecture and the majority of academic sources do not agree. Not surprising as that is actually stated in the article itself. But please in the very least use the Bold, revert, discuss cycle if people revert your changes. It doesn't help others trust your edits if you keep on re-inserting your opinions while its being discussed. -- Phoenix (talk) 19:48, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Lear 21, please obtain consensus before making large scale changes such as the inclusion of the EU. Do you have an academic source which describes the EU as a great power and equally as important how and why it is a great power. Nirvana888 (talk) 19:54, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

If the European Union was a sovereign state, it would be an economic and military superpower. Im sure thats something us europeans are all very proud of, however at the moment the European Union does not fit the definition of a great power which is in the introduction. It is not a nation, and it is not a sovereign state and there are not the reliable sources describing it as one like the other nations listed. The European Union deserves a mention on this page in its own section, and i think it deserves a mention in its own section on the superpower page, but it just does not make sense to list it along side Germany, France and the United Kingdom in the list of great powers. If we add the EU there is little reason not to add NATO which is without doubt the most powerful and advanced military power on the planet. Either way the edit warring cant continue, we need agreement here first. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:03, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The presented references are credible and were, in part, longterm installations at this article. The consequences of the definitions must be drawn therefore. A compromise version has been installed to credit the state of power concerning the EU.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Lear 21 (talk • contribs) 10:14, 7 October 2009(UTC)

Please do not make changes to the article itself until you have gained consensus. Please place your suggestions here. Now lets try to comment on your edits. I see no reason why the EU should have its own section at this point. currently it is talked about in the prose of the text. What is your suggestion on changes to that text? What is it missing. Please place your proposal here. Thanks -- Phoenix (talk) 11:21, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

A compromise version has been offered. If there is no alternative instead of reverting every credible reference, the EU has to be re-installed in the list. I have no problems of discussing this for next couple of months. Lear 21 (talk) 11:44, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Please stop POV pushing/edit warring. Discuss things here if you disagree but do not make any major change to the article without having obtained consensus. Reminds of the Chanakyatehgreat dispute and those of us that went through that saga know how well it ended up. Nirvana888 (talk) 19:38, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I've made three posts in this thread, all of which seem to have been ignored to this point. Emw (talk) 05:16, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

The recognition of the EU as a great power is overdue. The media is speculating about a rise of the EU as emerging superpower next to China and the US. But here, at a lower level even great power is questioned. It seems absurd. So if there are reliable quotes (and that seems the case) the EU belongs in the table. A seperate section would be also useful. KJohansson (talk) 10:44, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

The first line of the article states that a "Great Power is a nation or state..". The EU is neither. Viewfinder (talk) 13:39, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

The EU is recognized as a great power in the sources. It is a major global actor in several international organizations and significantly wields power over 3 European great powers. It has accumulated several important policy fields and spheres of souvereignty. Right now it also seems that a majority in this discussion wants an accurate description of the reality today. Lear 21 (talk) 13:07, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

If we add the EU we must change the first line of the article, otherwise the article is contradicting itself. The EU is neither a nation nor a state, has no military forces and cannot take key decisions without the agreement of all its member states. Viewfinder (talk) 14:49, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

The member states ARE the EU, and vice versa. So if the member states within the EU institutions decide, it is than an EU decision, pretty simple. The EU is state-like. Even more with the new Lisbon Treaty coming in force and the newly introduced legal personality. An amendment of the introduction should be no problem to address the current situation.

(The above unsigned contribution was from Lear21.)

The Lisbon Treaty is not yet in force. Could you please propose an amendment to the first line? Viewfinder (talk) 15:45, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Lear 21, dispute repeated warnings not to make major changes to the article until you have obtained consensus, you have done just that by edit warring and offering what you see as a "compromise" version that is clearly not. Clearly you have read these repeated warnings since you've replied to this thread. Any further unilateral edits and we will have to ask for article protection and a potential block of disruptive editors. Nirvana888 (talk) 15:50, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

The model of Wikipedia is not concerned with editors' analysis of subject matter, it's concerned with reliable sources' analysis of the subject matter. Given that, many of the supporting and opposing arguments that have filled this discussion are peripheral.

We should not be discussing whether the EU is sufficiently centralized to be considered a nation or state or whether it yields power over three constituent nations. Instead we should be discussing what is said in reliable sources. There has been a high-quality academic source (Aydinli and Rosenau's book) provided which says that the EU is a great power. This claim may be in conflict with another claim that some constituent nations of the EU are great powers. Note that this conflicting claim is also supported by one (and thus far, only one) high-quality academic source -- Paul et al's book. The other source supporting the conflicting claim -- Encarta, a tertiary source that is scheduled to be discontinued this month -- ranks significantly lower in status compared to a high-quality academic source. Thus both claims in question have roughly equivalent support among the sources thus far provided.

Let me try to be clearer. I'm dismayed that almost a week into this discussion we are still including statements like "It is a major global actor in several international organizations and significantly wields power over 3 European great powers" (Lear 21) or ''The EU is neither a nation nor a state, has no military forces and cannot take key decisions without the agreement of all its member states" (Viewfinder). It seems clear to me that, while perhaps correct in their own right, these kinds of statements are procedurally invalid. We should be strictly focused on what is said in reliable sources, and reflecting in the article the relative weight of what is said in those sources. Emw (talk) 15:57, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Point taken that if reliable sources support the EU's Great Power status then we should list it. But do you not then accept that we then have to review the first line of the article, or do you maintain that the EU has become a nation and/or state? I don't see how that can be so when any one of its constituent states can veto its decisions. Viewfinder (talk) 16:16, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Further to the above, we are claiming at sovereign state, to which the internal link at the top of the article under state is directed, that "A sovereign state is a political association with effective internal and external sovereignty over a geographic area and population which is not dependent on, or subject to any other power or state." (my italics). That is surely not the EU. Viewfinder (talk) 16:31, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Let me ask... Emw: What are your proposals for the article ? I don´t see your statement, clearly. Are you moderating or commentating the discussions ? What is your goal ? Just curious. Viewfinder, let me ask a question too: France and Germany have no souvereignty over their currency anymore, do you think we should remove these countries because the lack of it? To my knowledge Britain does not even have a constitution and one its "countries" Scotland has an independent football team. So where is the souvereignty here? Nirwana, what enables you to warn somebody. Right now it rather appears that the "We block everything fraction" should be warned. These editors have so far deleted useful alterings to the text concerning the European Union. The arguments and sources appear reliable, sometimes it is common knowledge (EU handling the Eurozone). I think it should be no problem to modernize the introduction as well. I now tend to include the EU in the list including an elaborate explanation. KJohansson (talk) 22:28, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

As there are still no new proposals to find a modification of the article it seems sensible to acknowledge the given references and to install one of the 2 versions provided by myself. Lear 21 (talk) 14:20, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I am going to re-instate the section about the European Union. According to Prof. Barry Buzan (one of the foremost scholars of international relations in the world) of the London School of Economics, the EU can and should be seen as a great power. As he puts it in his 2004 book 'The United States and the Great Powers':

During the nineteenth century. great power rank was possessed by Germany, the US and Japan [Britain and France being superpowers]. After the First World War it was still held by Germany and Japan, and France dropped into it as a declining superpower [with the British and Americans both as superpowers]. During the Cold War, it was retained by China, Germany and Japan, with Britain and France coming increasingly into doubt....After the Cold War, it was held by Britain/France/Germany—the EU, Japan, China and Russia [with the US as a superpower]. India was banging hard on the door, but had neither the formal capability, the formal recognition, nor the place in the calculations of others to qualify. (p. 70).

This clearly states that the EU is a great power in the post-Cold War era. Imperium Europeum (talk) 14:55, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

This is a good source that clearly describes when power shifts occur. However, upon review the source, it is decidedly ambigious as to whether or not the EU has emerge as a true great power. If you had bothered to include the text between the ellipses I wouldn't have had to check the source. I quote: "Here there was the difficult question of how to treat the EU, which as time wore on acquired more and more actor quality in the international system, and was by the 1970s being treated as a emergent great power, albeit of an unusual kind, and with some serious limitations still in place." Moreover, "Britain/France/Germany—the EU" and the next paragraph seems to suggest that Britain/France/Germany can be represented by the EU as a single great power and thus would drop these three states from great power status. Nirvana888 (talk) 16:58, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is a very good source. I draw your attention to the fact that it states 'by the 1970s', implying that these issues have come closer to being resolved. As someone who has read the book from cover to cover, I can assure you that Buzan not only sees the EU as a great power, but also as an emerging superpower. His definition of a great power is a political community (normally, but not necessarily a nation-state) with the means (capability and ideology) to become a superpower and challenge the dominant power for its hegemonic status. The only two political units he puts in this category are the United States, the European Union and China. The latter is the dominant great power, so automatically has great power status. The other two are not yet superpowers, and may never become so, but the fact that they could become superpowers also places them in the great power club. There is ambiguity as to whether or not Russia or India really are great powers, for the simple reason that they will never be able to match the vastly superior and potential power of the US, EU and China. So the EU reference does hold and should be installed in the article, albeit with the caveats I added previously. 89.243.214.36 (talk) 17:18, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I assume you are Imperium Europeum? Thank you for your well reasoned and rational response. We could use more of this rather than the POV pushing/edit warring that has been going on lately. After reading the chapter, I agree with the gist of your comments. A description of the EU in the article prose of its plausible great power status is definitely warranted with caveats as you stated. Nirvana888 (talk) 17:26, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it was me! I was having issues with saving my comment and it must have removed my username... Glad to hear that we're reaching a consensus on this. I agree with you that the G8 map should not be included, although I concur with Lear 21 that the G8 has traditionally been seen as the world's principal great power club. It's a little archaic though, and reflects the world powers of the 1970s when it was constituted than today... 89.243.214.36 (talk) 17:41, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

It did it again! Third time lucky!! Imperium Europeum (talk) 17:42, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Can you find a more high-quality reliable source (i.e. academic or book from a reputable press) that suggests that ratification of the Lisbon Treaty will further support the EU's great power claim? The current citation is a little weak. Nirvana888 (talk) 21:41, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

What an earth are you talking about? That source is written by Professor Jolyon Howorth, one of the leading—if not the leading—authority on European security and defence policy in the English-speaking world! I urge you to look him up if you don't know anything about him!! Imperium Europeum (talk) 01:03, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey, calm down a bit. I am not doubting that the author is an acknowledged expert. What I am suggesting is that there is no causal link between "great power" status and the entry into force of the Treaty at least from that specific source. This would make it synthesis of ideas not attributable to the source. Nirvana888 (talk) 17:29, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Just in the news...[49]. BTW, Nirvana...you violated the 3RR rule. This could end in blocking your account ! KJohansson (talk) 22:38, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

This is not an academic source from an IR expert. Moreover, it does not say anything about Lisbon Treaty and great power status. This page has now been fully protected due to a couple of editors constantly making unilateral edits without consensus. Please discuss any changes on the Talk page and once again, do not make any controversial change until consensus is obtained. Nirvana888 (talk) 23:24, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

So you dispel a comment from the highest EU Foreign Relations authority in office? I think you need a time out because of your endless reverts and the 3RR violations. Hopefully somebody bothers. If not I will report you. You need to cool down. KJohansson (talk) 23:55, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

 Confirmed that KJohansson and Lear21 are the same editor and have been given a long term block. -- Phoenix (talk) 23:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

1. proposal

Inserting an updated text on the EU:

With continuing European integration, the European Union is increasingly being seen as a great power in its own right. Most notably in areas which it has exclusive competence, such as representation at the WTO and at G8 and G-20 summits. As a centralized institution and a state-like entity the EU governs the single European currency, the Euro and the respective Eurozone. Because of its hybrid souvereignty and sui generis characteristics, the European Union has become an important source of legislation for the 27 EU member states. However, it has limited (but growing) scope in the areas of foreign affairs and defence, which remain with the union's member states including France, Germany and the United Kingdom. With the Treaty of Lisbon expected to be implemented in early 2010, the European Union's role these remaining areas is likely to be expanded, not least with the creation of a permanent president, a foreign service, and 'permanent structured cooperation' in military affairs. Lear 21 (talk) 12:36, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Let me be clear: I support mention of the EU's great power status in the article prose. Buzan's book clearly states that the EU can be seen as a great power. This also means, that the Britain, France, Germany's great power status would be increasingly in doubt. However, I do not see the rationale of the added text in the article. Sentences like "As a centralized institution and a state-like entity the EU governs the single European currency, the Euro and the respective Eurozone" and "Because of its hybrid sovereignty [sic] and sui generis characteristics, the European Union has become an important source of legislation for the 27 EU member states" are uncited and also not backed by a source that relates these features with great power status. The same can be said with the sentence on the proposed Lisbon Treaty. Now I am not saying that the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty won't help to consolidate EU great power status; however, I have yet to come across a high-quality academic source which confirms this. Thus, I don't think it should be included for time being. Nirvana888 (talk) 21:58, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I oppose this proposed change, the current paragraph is good enough except for the point i mentioned at the bottom of the page. Some of that text proposed above i have concerns about. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:30, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

The sentence about the Eurozone specifically examplifies the sovereign power of the EU as a state like entity and needs therefore to be included. Lear 21 (talk) 13:57, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

 Confirmed that KJohansson and Lear21 are the same editor and have been given a long term block. -- Phoenix (talk) 23:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

3. proposal

Because of the established list of multiple experts, claiming a great power even superpower status of the EU, it seems necessary to update the current list with a new entry including an EU flag. Lear 21 (talk) 13:50, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Oppose Still unclear whether EU is a great power; and whether Britain, France Germany are as well. Nirvana888 (talk) 14:02, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Lear, please could you reproduce the "list of multiple experts" here, or somewhere linked to here? Thanks. Viewfinder (talk) 17:03, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Viewfinder, Please list them :-) -- Phoenix (talk) 05:37, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Europe: The Quiet Superpower, Andrew Moravcsik, Professor of Politics and Public Affairs, "Europe is and will remain for the foreseeable future the only other superpower besides the US in a bipolar world"

That is not what the article is saying, he even prefaces that with "According to a liberal analysis of global power..." Nowhere did the article say that the EU is a Great Power. -- Phoenix (talk) 02:10, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

European Superpower, McCormick McCormick argues that the European Union is nothing less than "a superpower -- the new pole in a post-modern bipolar international order."

This wiki article is about Great Powers not Superpowers. If you notice on the Potential Superpowers article it lists India. There is no academic source out there that says that India is a Great power but there are many speculating about it being a future Superpower. This is not the Superpower article nor the Potential Superpower article. -- Phoenix (talk) 02:10, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

The European Dream: How Europe's Vision of the Future Is Quietly Eclipsing the American Dream, Jeremy Rifkin, In a related article in European Affairs magazine, he writes that the E.U. "is, indeed, a new superpower that rivals the economic power of the United States on the world stage," a new reality that "America is unaware of and unprepared for."
The United States of Europe: The New Superpower and the End of American Supremacy, T.R. Reid, "We need to recognize and accept the plain fact that the planet has a second superpower now, and that its global influence will continue to increase as the world moves toward a bipolar balance of economic, political, and diplomatic authority."
Why Europe Will Run the 21st Century, by Mark Leonard a British foreign-policy thinker with the London-based Center for European Reform. In Europe as well as America, many intellectuals and some politicians view Europe as the world's second major pole in two respects.

Why link to the same article thrice?? The name of the article and the very first words you read on this article states Europe Is the Next Rival Superpower. But Then, So Was Japan. This wiki article is not about Superpowers and not once does it talk about Great Powers. -- Phoenix (talk) 02:10, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Parag Khanna, Second World, page XV Introduction (directly copied from the book I´m currently holding in my hands): "The world´s superpower map is being rebalanced- ...., the EU and China have engineered a palpable shift toward three relatively equal centers of influence: Washington, Brussels and Bejing."

I will let others read what was written right before your previous sentace The world's superpower map is being rebalanced - but without a single center. By challenging America's position in the global hierarchy and securing allies and loyalty around the world, ... Again this wiki article this about Great powers not Superpowers. If others wish to read please follow this link -- Phoenix (talk) 02:10, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I assume the answer to these academic references is, that it only cites the EU as a superpower and not directly as great power, right ? Lear 21 (talk) 12:32, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Although I haven´t yet been interested in this matter, by looking at the sources, I feel these are pretty reliable. KJohansson (talk) 11:01, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

A new entry with some of the references cited above has been added. Lear 21 (talk) 21:00, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

The mentioning of the EU as great power is in line with other Wikipedia languages dealing with the article Great power, such as the German and the French version. The articles at Wikipedia about superpower and potential superpowers have included several academic sources to underline the inclusion of the EU in their articles. Because a Great power is regarded of lesser influence than a superpower, the lack of inclusion at this article here seems apparant. The inclusion of the EU in list seems justified. Because of the hybrid sovereign structure of the EU it is, for the time being not necessary to remove the nation states like France or Germany. The amount of credible references who support both the single nation state as great power and the EU as current superpower/great power can´t be ignored. The list of credible references (above) is credible and of academic status. Please respect this. Lear 21 (talk) 22:09, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I have posted my objections to the above in the new Consensus section. Viewfinder (talk) 22:14, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

 Confirmed that KJohansson and Lear21 are the same editor and have been given a long term block. -- Phoenix (talk) 23:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Changing the introduction

I think we need to modify the introduction. It is not clear enough. It implies a necessary similarity between a great power and a global power. I accept that they are often coterminous, but not always. A great power, according to most definitions, is a power able to hold its own during war against all other potential powers. Clearly, this probably applies only to the United States, and perhaps, to a lesser degree, Britain, France, Russia and China. A global power is a state that is able to exercise power on a worldwide scale. This does not include China or Russia. It does include Britain, France and the United States. All of those have an international—indeed, thoroughly global—military presence and extensive trading and diplomatic infrastructure, as well as colonies and territories in almost every continent. Can we not make this clearer? Imperium Europeum (talk) 15:14, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Do you have sources for those definitions? My understanding from the way these terms are defined here is a that a superpower (i.e. United States) is a power able to hold its own during war against all other potential powers. A superpower is sometimes referred to as a great power in academic publications and can be confusing. A great power as this article defines it is one that has global influence but it not as powerful as a superpower. Nirvana888 (talk) 18:14, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm probably being a little pedantic, but I was attempting to draw a distinction between global great powers and regional great powers. Take Britain, for example: it is a small island state off the coast of mainland Europe, yet it has extensive territorial holdings around the world. It is a dominant power in Latin America through its possession of the Falkland Islands and Caribbean holdings; it is a major power in the Mediterranean and North Africa through its possession of Gibraltar and Sovereign Base Areas in Cyprus; and it has major reach into the Indian Ocean and Middle East, through its possession of bases in Oman, Diego Garcia and Singapore. Its alliance systems with NATO and the Five Powers (Australia, New Zealand, Singapore and Malaysia) give it a leading position in the world's major international structures too. France and the United States are also global great powers: they have, like Britain (and in America's case, exceeding Britain) a global military and economic-political presence (or, at the very least, can amplify their power in any given region within a few days or weeks). China and Russia—maybe even India, Germany and Japan—are also considered great powers, yet their global reach is no-where near as extensive. Russia's reach extends not far beyond Eurasia; China's is limited to the South China Sea and its 'string of pearls' through the Indian Ocean. As for Germany, Japan and India, while they can hold their own in defence of their homelands, their military reach is extremely limited beyond their own peripheries and can only be mobilised if slotted into a US- or EU (UK/French)-led coalition. So we have two types of great power: regional powers and global powers. Again, Barry Buzan talks of this in his book, already mentioned. As does Paul Kennedy in his seminal 'Rise and Fall of the Great Powers'. Halford Mackinder, Nicholas Spykman and Alfred Mahan also discussed this difference at length in their various publications in the previous century. Imperium Europeum (talk) 20:27, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me you're assessing powers by their territorial possessions/influence not by the broader and overarching factors of political, economic, and military influence that is characteristic of great powers. In Buzan's apt book, he defines three categories of power: regional power, great power and superpower. This is also how categories of power are structured here in terms of articles. He asserts that middle power is a subset of regional power and is far less important. I agree that that the academic versus lay distinctions between great power, regional power, global power can be confusing and often overlap. For the purposes of this article though, I don't see the need to make such distinctions. Nirvana888 (talk) 20:35, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

@IE:Although this has almost has nothing to do with change at this article, it has to be mentioned: Germany´s global power indeed is based on its political, diplomatical influence. The establishment of EU structures is credited to Franco-German initiatives. The UK for instance has chosen to have almost no influence or personel at EU institutions. Global issues like the acknowledgement of climate change or global financial supervision (already before the crisis) has been massively conducted by German politicians. German trade connections and its development aid (2nd highest in the world) ensure special relations with major powers like Russia, Iran, Israel for instance. Great powers have a whole set of influences. Military is one of several spheres. Concerning the intro I would add "political community" (Buzan) to the "nation or state" term. Lear 21 (talk) 20:51, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

The view that Germany is a great power is implicitly denied by Chancellor Merkel. More generally, I think that we are agreed that changes to the article are desirable and consensus is emerging, as it usually does on Wikipedia when editors present their cases on talk pages instead of unilaterally imposing their positions on articles. For example, if we have found a good source in support of the claim that a political community can be a Great Power, then the case for the EU is strong. Viewfinder (talk) 23:12, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

 Confirmed that KJohansson and Lear21 are the same editor and have been given a long term block. -- Phoenix (talk) 23:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Image Congress of Vienna

The image of the Congress has bee removed. During the Congress the majority of participant nations where not considered Great powers. It is therefore not suitable to represent Great power status. The image has no reference as well. Lear 21 (talk) 11:52, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I guess, it was a test to see if Nirvana and Phoenix stick their own argumentation. It looks as they tapped into the trap. They now exposed themself as hypocritical editors. In my eyes these are the worst editors at Wikipedia and the most dangerous ones. They betray all ideals and policies at Wikipedia. KJohansson (talk) 11:06, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. And also read the resources provided in the article. The Congress of Vienna is where the term Great Power came from. It is academic & reliable. As it says in the Prose.

"Different sets of great, or significant, powers have existed throughout history; however, the term "great power" has only been used in scholarly or diplomatic discourse since the Congress of Vienna in 1815. The Congress established the Concert of Europe as an attempt to preserve peace after the years of Napoleonic Wars.

Lord Castlereagh, the British Foreign Secretary, first used the term in its diplomatic context, in a letter sent on February 13, 1814: "It affords me great satisfaction to acquaint you that there is every prospect of the Congress terminating with a general accord and Guarantee between the Great powers of Europe, with a determination to support the arrangement agreed upon, and to turn the general influence and if necessary the general arms against the Power that shall first attempt to disturb the Continental peace."

Your are verging on Wikipedia:Disruptive editing. and KJohansson, that was VERY offensive, meta:Don't be a dick, read WP:Etiquette & WP:Assume good faith. I have no interest in having a conversation with someone that slings insults when I am trying to have an honest debate. -- Phoenix (talk) 16:26, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

KJohansson, no personal attacks. I realize that you may be frustrated because others disagree with you but there is no reason for you to throw a hissy-fit, make baseless accusations, and complain of hypocrisy. Request third-party mediation if you feel you have a valid point. But as things are going right now it seems amply clear that you and Lear21 are trying to push your own opinions instead of calmly discussing differences so that we maybe able to reach some agreement. I will request page protection again, if you are unable to stop making your controversial edits until consensus is reached. If you do not cease forthwith from being disruptive you will be blocked from editing. Nirvana888 (talk) 16:44, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

 Confirmed that KJohansson and Lear21 are the same editor and have been given a long term block. -- Phoenix (talk) 23:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC)