Talk:Middle power

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is related to the WikiProject Power in international relations, an effort to improve, organise and standardise Wikipedia's articles in the area of Power in international relations and Geopolitics. For guidelines and a participants list see the project page. You can discuss the project at its talk page.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.


I'm pretty sure the term "middle" power was invented (or at least popularised) by Canadian PM Louis St. Laurent and I have it down in print, but I can't find an internet source on this. Anyone else know anything about the origin of the term. Kevlar67 14:47, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Thinking that you have the term's source, and having a mostly-referenced article are two very different things. Beyond the source of the term, there is not definition or criteria of the term, and no explanation as to why certain countries are part of the this article as opposed to others. Until there are references for those things, the template ought to remain. As I said before, this article is basically Original Research at this point.—thames 20:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Middle powers in 1988

This section of the article and its list has to be deleted because has not a neutral POV as Wikipedia required, in fact it rapresents only a canadian/canadian institute POV, the same can be affirmed about many aspects of the whole article.

[edit] Limiting List

The easiest way to prevent the list of middle powers from growing too big is to only include those we have references for. I found a reference for Canada in the Canadian Encyclopedia, which is here online. Please only add nations to the list that you have sources for. Kevlar67 07:32, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

The problem with that is there is no defintion for middle power so to include references would be pointless. In addition while Canada is universally regarded as a middle power it not so just because the "Canadian Encyclopedia" says so. Do you realise that source is worthless becuase of it's bias. Ronan.evans 03:53, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

If there is no definition then we shouldn't have this article. But more to the point, Canada was the original country to be called a middle power, which is why I found the reference so easily. If other countries are frequently termed "middle powers" then there will be plenty of references. Furthermore the Canadian Encyclopedia is no more biased than Britannica or Compton's or World Book. Kevlar67 08:51, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Here are some more references:

Oh and here's an interesting academic paper about whether or not South Africa is really a middle power or not, and just generally about the definition of "Middle Power". I think there is much in this paper that our article should adress. See: South African Foreign Policy and Middle Power Leadership. Now that wasn't so hard. Why can everyone do that? Kevlar67 09:07, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the info. I can see where you are coming from and now that you have explained it it makes sense- but still I think you have to apply some common sense here. The list will never grow otherwise. 58.178.23.143 10:52, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I quote the article, "Middle power is a term used in the field of international relations to describe states that are not superpowers or great powers, but still have some influence internationally." One could put up a fairly convincing argument that Australia has just as much- if not more- influence on the world stage as Canada. Certainly in the present political climate Australia is percieved as a closer ally to the U.S. than Canada thus having a greater influence. Also Australia's influence come's through it's location. It is certainly the most important western democracy in the whole of South East Asia which makes it a very important voice in this stategicly important region. Also where does Japan fit into the whole Super Power/ Middle Power arrangment? Ronan.evans 10:59, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Here is a source listing Australia as a midlle power. http://www.ubcpress.ubc.ca/search/title_book.asp?BookID=442 Thankyou. Ronan.evans 11:07, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I think your right in suggesting that Australia has a greater presence/visibility on the international stage. Canada certainly is able to be more visible but its geographic position with the US tends to promote a 'taken-for-grantedness' as its a pretty stable and benign position. - Htra0497 28th August 2006 06:10 (AET)

[edit] Dig More Digging

I think I can now say why Canada thought of herself as a middle power, whether or not the title was appropriate. But I can also say with certainty that many recent writers are very critical of the term. See

Does that help? Kevlar67 22:23, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This article should be deleted.

It is neither useful or complete and focuses too much on Canada. An appropriate title would be "Canada as a Middle Power", not a general article on middle powers. I think it should be deleted.--Sir Edgar 00:28, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

It is currently Canada-centric because that is where the most English-language literature on the subject has been published, and where the term was first used. However, that doesn't mean you couldn't find information on other countries, if one was inclined to look. Kevlar67 07:23, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Here, this might help. Kevlar67 07:48, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Globe icon The examples and perspective in this article or section may not represent a worldwide view of the subject.
Please improve this article or discuss the issue on the talk page.

You should put that on the front page of the article. Anyhow, it is a virtually useless article as you prevent others from contributing to it.--Sir Edgar 04:44, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree with sir ed. 211.27.37.63 07:11, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

This article is outdated. Mexico's economy is not larger than Brazil's, nor is Italy a middle power by economic standards. Tim

[edit] List of middlepowers

Where did it came from? Is (for example) Finland middlepower? What base does this claim have? Just asking, don´t think the list is correct. ^anon^

  • I totally agree

And Poland and Ukraine Middle Powers? Since when,they are totally dominated by foreign Nations and foreign capital. They have capabilities to be Middle Powers like Turkey is,but they don't have such independence from other powers like Turkey and less they have influence in others, only in very small nations near, like Lithuania.

And if they are Middle Powers so is Sweden, Portugal, Egypt and many others. Sweden is almost a Regional Power for Scandinavia and northern Europe, Egypt the same for Arab World and northern Africa and Portugal for it's old colonies and because of all Lusophone World. Portugal has the CPLP, the equivalent to British Commonwealth.

As for Italy and Brazil, if they are included in this list, they are also Regional Powers and in the case of Italy Global/Great Power. In what we stand: Middle, Regional, Global? Of course Brazil is a Regional Power in Latin/South America but it's also a Middle Power in world stage.
As for Italy it is a Regional Power in southern Europe, the Mediterranean and even Europe as a whole or in EU and it's also a Global/Great Power in World stage. Middle Power it isn't or at least in the way it once was - an ally of USA, NATO and EEC(EU) that agreed always with the others. Now Italy has gained respect and power in the World and takes care of it's interests with agreement with others but in it self-interest first and showing signs of power inthe missions it's involved. ACamposPinho 3 August 2006, 1:42

I tried to limit the list, but people keep adding more countries when I'm not around to patrol it. Kevlar67 05:55, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] We need a definition

We need a definition for which countries ought to be included in the middle powers list. Someone added Poland. Since there is no definition, I cannot object to anyone adding any country which is obviously not unimportant to the list. I added Greece, with the rationale that it is in the UN Security Council, NATO, EU, has great influence (economic and diplomatic) in the Balkans, participated in both World Wars, and had some successes in World War II, and Athens presents some evidence of a global city under formation. NerdyNSK 17:19, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately both the friend of Poland and yourself are doing what's called ‘’original research’’. That is, you are drawing your own conclusions based on what you know. In any other medium that would be commendable. But not in Wikipedia. Really the list should only consist of countries called middle powers in published literature. I've tried to enforce that rule, but people keep adding more countries faster than I can take them off. If I don't have support from other editors to help me keep the list down, then it's hopeless. In fact last time I tried to keep the list down, I was accused of "preventing others from editing". (see above). Perhaps I'll try again. Anyway it's not up to us to create a definition of Middle Power-hood. It's our job to find out what published sources say about it, and act on that. Kevlar67 18:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
You are right that we were engaging in some sort of original research. The list looks like it is based on gut feeling rather than a definition or reference, so I removed it. I added a new list based on a reference (Wood). We can add more, but we should take care not to confuse middle powers with regional powers. Better to have multiple lists like "researcher A published this list, while researcher B that list" rather than a general list. Then, with lists based on explicit references, we can resist "gut feeling original research" additions. Some open tasks for anyone who has time to improve the article: 1) add wikilinks to the new list, 2) change my Wood reference to Wikipedia's standard format for references, 3) I have no time to update my map right now, so you may like to help with it, too (perhaps multiple maps per references list, for now let's make it a map based on what Mr Wood says). NerdyNSK 09:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Italy is a GreatPower

Italy is already in the list of Great Power . Why it is also in the list of the middle powers? Now I am confused. Italy is a great power or a middle power?? You decide yourselves: or you put it in the list of great powers or in the list of the middle powers. It cannot be in both the lists. I believe that Italy must be in the list of great powers. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.10.31.210 (talk) 15:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC).

I'd suggest that you take another look at the Great power page. Italy is explicitly listed as being of uncertain status. It probably was in the past (pre WW2), it is probably a middle power today.
Xdamrtalk 16:34, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd suggest that you take another look at the Great power page. Italy is explicitly listed as being of uncertain status. It probably was in the past (pre WW2), it is probably a middle power today.

Italy is a G8 member and it is in the Security Council of the UN (not permanent member); It is the third country in the world (after United States and United Kingdom and before other great powers like France, Germany, Japan..etc) for number of soldiers engages to abroad; It is the world seventh economic power (but, calculating also the underground economy that it is equivalent to 30% of the Italian GDP, it would be the world fourth economic power) and one of the world majors exporting countries; It is one of the majors european powers (like France, Germany and Great Britain).....etc. Therefore Italy is without a doubt a great power.

Each of these things that you say may be true, but this does not make Italy a Great power. Great power is an academic term; unless you have a sourced academic claim that modern-day Italy is a Great power it cannot be described as such here.
Xdamrtalk 23:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] OR problem

The given list of 2005 Middle Powers has OR problem, if we can't find a source for it we should delete it soon. It is arbitary now.Farmanesh 19:03, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

there no such list, but editors keep changing the sourced 1988 list to suit their personal views. Kevlar67 02:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
I see, anyhow if no one adds a proper reference we need to delete current list. Whether to add 1988 list again or not is another story as 1988 is too old and may be considered irrelevent to current world.Farmanesh 03:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Farmanesh, if you want to discuss an issue, please do it here. The article space is not the propper place to discuss anything. I have deleted you sentence about the 2005 list of Middle Powers. By the way, the list clearly specify that it's based on GDP and that experts also use other characteristics. However, the list is perfectly sourced. There is a link to the 2005 Top Ten countries based on GDP, according to Goldam Sachs Investment Bank. Alejcov 15:16, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I think there is a need for readers to be alerted that link doesnot have the foollowed information. As for the link, it gives list 0f 10 countries (not current list of 31 on the article page) which is different with even first 10 names on the list.
I really wonder if we are looking to the same link??? If you see 31 countries in the link let me know...
Current way of presenting is even worse than being OR, it is giving false legitimacy to an unknown-sourced list of countries.Farmanesh 17:03, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Farmanesh, you have been deleting information in several articles, in what seems to be a POV pushing. Please, understand that there are rules in Wikipedia, and one of them is that debates should take place in the talk page (like this), not in the article itself. About the list, it is well sources, both in the reference and in the List of Countries by GDP (nominal). You should read the "See also" and "References" section in each article, before tagging an entire article of OR. Sometimes, there are no inline references, but at the end of the article in the mentioned section. Thank you. AlexCov ( Let's talk! ) 19:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for reminding the rules, OR is a very serious wikipedia rule, if an article doesn't have proper reference should be deleted, please read OR policy, it is very clear. I did first mention my points in the talk page and after a while I made the suggested change. Lets also discuss each article in its place.
Now about list of countries in this article: Please show me where in the given reference link there is any mention of these 31 countries in this order? I don't see why we are in conflict here, either there is such a list in the given reference or not. I do not see such a list there, please tell me if I am missing something.Farmanesh 00:58, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry if you don't know how to use the references or how to follow a link. The reference is there, click it. If you continue to delete perfectly referenced information, I will report you for vandalism (deleting valid info). By the way, the link is there [7].AlexCov ( Let's talk! ) 12:54, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
I do agree with current way article is. The link doesn provide the list in 1988 and is fine. Problem was the article claimed 2005 list which refrence do not provide the list for it.
As for "reporting" me :), sure go on... asking for clear citation is a wikipedia pillar policy. But I hope we can work toghther based on the policies and don't waste everyones time.
Anyhow current version of article is fine as far as it clearly says it is the list in 1988 (as reference gives that year).Farmanesh 14:22, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wood’s work: insufficient and irrelevant

First of all, thank you Kevin for your work, anyway, let me explain my doubts.

The article "Middle powers in 2005" is a wrong view since finds its bases on an incomplete work, since the matter it holds must be explain, or interpreted, through many parameters and not the merely one here used: I mean GNP term. Further the term “Middle Powers” isn’t a relevant matter to have a lemma: it is single opinion, unilaterally based. To achieve its own value it needs a major support. Honestly speaking the list (once attached as a classification, as well as the one present now) and the map attached – furthermore India, China, Italy are considered major powers from the most, even they present many more lacks, put in debates, than other, as they are almost always among the first ten positions in lists per parameter, not only economical, as a matter of study with outstanding source such as the IMF and the different organizations of the UN, far to academic studies; furthermore, note that Italy is clearly in debate per Military terms but the same debate originates disputes since internationally, per presence and diplomacy ability, she’s ranked 3rd) – surely come from the work of B. Wood, so they have a some kind of support, but, the question is: may GNP itself allow a so kind of work to be made? First of all it’s difficult draw a so large pictured “hit-parade” of Nations if we think to cultural differences, political meaning even in international matters, history, population, territorial specifics such as morphology or weather, raw materials and energy availability and so on (examples from things which are the so-called "economical substratum"), anyway economists try to explain a so-called status of a Nation looking at many terms, making it easy (usually for "non-scholars") the same terms can be easily put into four general terms each of them includes a large bouquet of ways of measurement. Only one among these four general terms asks for Economy Status (or Power): and this is something giant to measure!

The GNP term quantifies the movements of budget well recognizable in the same movements explained through GNI term (someone considers GNP long to be the same as GNI or, at least, its younger brother). Surely, GNP often finds correspondences in a given Nation's status (note: in its Economy), but it's not enough: neither in case we are trying to have a "hit" or a "status picture" nor when even only a single of the a.m. four terms is needed, this means GNP is able to explain only a tone of a whole. In case of Welfare, and also Wikipedia simply explains in the page about GNP, as many other measure terms, the GNP suffers while trying to measure "life", hence, explain "indirect unpaid activities" (not paid actions which don't create short-term economical and not directly measurable changes) as well as "indirect paid activities" (paid actions whose effects are not directly/immediately measurable in economical terms). Furthermore GNP isn't able to explain what I quoted above as "economical substratum": things with a very high meaning nobody must forget in the case of work upon these sensible things. And again GNP is responsive to the exchange movements of currencies, it hasn't a large reference period while other terms has, so scholars prefer to avoid a wide use of GNP term, replacing it with ampler (such as GDP, and the related PPP, and, for Welfare, the more precise and suitable HDI term). Even, GNP is less malleable than other terms (where, for example, nominal ratios and real ratios are present, allowing better and more detailed economic measurements), and it does not explain political choices, military presence anywhere, freedom of a Nation as well as its ability in diplomacy competition (wrong, right: don't care) and so on. Wood has tried to explain through GNP terms (merely insufficient) far to the Welfare. This means Germany, despite of all, should have a lower place than UK and Italy, at the same level, or even lower if compared to a little higher France, consequently this does not match with dedicate term of Welfare’s measure like the HDI or similar. This is a further confirmation that GNP might not be considered suitable to explain all the sides of Economy, let us imagine for all the sides of a Nation.

Works, such as the one used as the base to this article (and the lemma), are supposed to be able to list nothing more than the term they obtain bases from (in this case GNP).

Recording does not allow anything out of the objectivity of a record: this means a single opinion (or work) will be never enough especially in those cases (as in the present lemma / article) in which the same opinion (or work) is not worth itself as a way to explain a whole: then it might be misinterpreted for arrogance (or so it seems). Encyclopaedia’s modern idea bore in XVIII century with the solo purpose to record well-recognized universal matters and experiences of knowledge. So this should also be the column to support Wikipedia as an encyclopaedia. A matter becomes universal when the most part (or almost the most) agrees with a unique "truth" (please, allow me using this term). Even, “universal” does not mean "you must accept" any case. Sure: studies are welcome since they allow a matter to become universal but they do not become universal when many other studies disagree with the same strength. It's a opinion: we're free to accept or not, awaiting it is universally consolidated (and differently from this case, strong enough to explain a whole) so use it as a term of comparison. I can spend my time to find the Napoleon's white horse was, instead, black. I can get an evidence of that. But I cannot issue my work, spread it as universal, and the work used to draw an entire lemma of encyclopaedia, or take it to an evening news. Only if many other opinions will agree the horse will change colour.

The article surely may be cited somewhere here in Wikipedia, first making the title different and not "Middle powers in 2005": it is illusive. But why? Did Wood and his incomplete work decide? Anyway still no sense. Who does the idea belong to? Is the Wood's work worth enough in this case? Is the Wood's strong enough (and with good foundations) to draw a list of Nations?

Request

I think the work to be ok, but merely incomplete: good as a work on GNP power, with serious lacks when we're trying to compare the Nations (thing slightly more difficult...). The work might be cited in the GNP page (and not here) as a comparison of Nation's GNP: the same, Wikipedians are doing in many other cases (..GDP, PPP, HDI and so on pages). This article in this lemma is only a spot: I claim for this matter to be verified. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lysmark (talk • contribs) 12:55, 8 April 2007 (UTC).

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/i/d/Talk%7EMiddle_power_f4cc.html"