Talk:Great power/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

1 Denmark?
2 Has this page matured
3 Semi protected
4 USA
5 Portugal?
6 "Disagreement exists"
7 Italy is a great power
8 Criteria
9 India
10 Start again?
11 One source listing Great powers
12 Interesting article
13 Delete Pre 1500AD section
14 The historical concept of “Great Power”

Denmark?

Denmark used to be listed as a former great power. During the Dutch Revolt Denmark became powerful, with economic growth. Denmark was also a major player in the 30 Years War. I think that Denmark should be put back on the list.Casey14 23:56, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Has this page matured

I remember the earlier, horribly Eurocentric versions. Great evolution fellows!

Semi protected

I've semi-protected this page to deal with the anon William M. Connolley 09:27, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Best Regards, Signature^brendel 16:27, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

USA

In the opening paragraph it states that: "The United States of America is not considered a great power, but a superpower." We do, however list the US as we should. I have revised the sentence to read the US is also considered a superpower. In my opinion being a superpower implies you being a great power. Signature^brendel 16:47, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Portugal?

Portugal isn't referred anywhere on the article! How can this be? Portuguese Empire was one of the largest and more diverse empires in history!!!

"Disagreement exists"

Okay, here:

The UN Security Council nations (excluding the USA), namely the UK, France, China and Russia, are normally considered Great Powers, but disagreement exists, especially on the status of Russia.

What's there to debate? These are all immensely powerful nations. Especially Russia, actually. I've removed this part for the time being. Furiouszebra 00:05, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Quite right, goodness knows how that crept in.

Xdamr^talk 00:21, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I Agree they all are true Great Powers. Signature^brendel 15:16, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Italy is a great power

Italy is actually a global/great power, simply because the weight of the country is too big to be ignored. If someone does not admit it I think it is a prejudice. Many proofs were brought before in this debate, evidently someone prefers to ignore them. I can simply recapitulate: 1) The weight of Italian economy is quite the same of United Kingdom and France, only in the last five years China surpassed them in the list of GDP (and I hope for the global economy that it is not a bubble) so the status perception of them can’t be downsized in so few years. 2) The weight of Italian military is lesser than United States, China, Russia, a little lesser than France and United Kingdom, but is quite the same of Germany and Japan (but actually the last two countries can’t project their force far beyond borders due their constitutional limits and history), in fact Italy yields not only a considerable army (see Military of Italy) but also the fifth navy in the world in terms of gross tonnage (after United States, United Kingdom, France and Russia), with an aircraft carrier (very few countries can line up them, the navies of Germany and Japan are completely lacking of aircraft carriers) and another is under construction (see Marina Militare). Also the technological capacity of the country is proved in the link posted above, especially in terms of military and space construction. Actually the weight of military projection of Italy is superior than Germany and Japan, it is proved by the fact that Italy is absolutely the third contributor on United Nation military mission throughout the world. 3) The weight of Italy in the global policy is proved in many manners: the country is member of G8 and a founder of NATO and European Union , where plays the role of balance needle between the others great countries. The capacity of Italian diplomacy is globally recognized, especially in some strategic areas as East Europe, Mediterranean sea, Middle East and Latin America. Italians are famous since the Middle Ages for their diplomatic ability and mediation capacity, moreover Italy is viewed more nicely than the others ex colonial powers in the developing countries, surely better than Germany (for is Nazi past) and Japan (that is very hated in east Asia for his behavior during the II World War). Very recently Rome hosted the summit about the Israeli-Lebanese crisis and probably will be Italy to guide the UN interposition force that will be lined up on the Israeli-Lebanese border (it will be decided in the very next days). Last year (during the September 2005 UN General Assembly) Italy (that is working for a permanent seat on UN Security Council for the whole European Union) leading the Coffee Club was able to block the aspiration of the G4. About the soft power...Well someone was ironical about pizza, pasta and italian stylists, but if in the world billion are eating and dressing italian it is another proof of the influence of the country. The cultural influence is proved in many other manners: Italy hosts the 40% of the World Heritage Site of UNESCO and during the last decades was always in the top five list of most visited countries. The country hosts the Holy See of Catholic Church and the Italian language is the Lingua Franca among the hierarchy. The Italian language is also the fifth most taught non-native language in the world (after English, French, Spanish and German). Finally the italian cinema is regarded as one of the most important in the world (and it is also proved by the fact that italian cinema won the greatest number of oscars among movies non-english speaking). Even in sports Italy is not the last one (see Total Olympics medal count). All that proves that Italy is among the most important countries in the world. kayac1971 11:57 22 August 2006

From the archives I read you are absolutely correct. Many points are made but their is just an bigoted mindset that exists in the admins who "guard" this page. This is exactly why the WIki project has lost and is always losing credibility.. especially with anything that is "political". Sad. But these same people will read these lines and generate another excuse in their heads why they are actually -right-.

Just a quick pointer - on this page we post new topics at the bottom, not the top.

You raise an interesting prima facie case. If you can find a source which explicitly states that Italy is a Great power (WP:OR, WP:V, etc) then by all means add it. We cannot make original inferences or interpretations from data and statistics, so the source needs to be explicit. Do that and nobody will have any problem with Italy being included here.

Xdamr^talk 11:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Where are the sources that explicitly states, for examples, that Japan, Germany and perhaps India are actually Great powers? The proofs that you are finding are the same statistics and data reported in so many discussions and links here, surely a statistic can be interpretated, but in the lists where a country is always placed in the top five or in the top ten, one can't ignore its position, or he is blind. If Germany and Japan are included in the group of Greats only because their huge economy (their political and military weight remaining still lesser than others) I can also give a citation from the CIA The World Factbook 2005 "Italy has a diversified industrial economy with roughly the same total and per capita output as France and the UK". kayac1971 14:09 22 August 2006

I add some links about the military projection of Italy [1] [2] [3] kayac1971 15:55 22 August 2006

Here is a good example of an external source that claims Italy is subordinate to Franco-German or US-UK actions. From the article, "Italian classical geopolitical interests -- i.e. stability and security of the Euro-Mediterranean area and advantageous economic exchange with southeastern Europe and North African countries -- seem to be subordinated to the U.S.' 'Greater Middle East' project and to the Franco-German political and economic leadership in the E.U." I do not doubt the fact that Italy is probably the greatest power that is not currently listed on Wikipedia as a Great Power. I just can find no verifiability as to its being given the status of Great Power by anyone other than contributors here. At the same time, I have found a few articles of varying strengths that suggest the opposite (i.e. that Italy is building its power but can not currently stand on the same level as current Great powers). I urge you to read the "WP:" policies listed above in Xdamr's post that define Original Research and Verifiability and provide sources that explicitly state Italy as a Great power in international relations. ju66l3r 15:15, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with this statement. Italy is not a current great power. If we raise Italy to great power status, then other countries such as Spain, Brazil, heck, even Canada and Australia will have to move up, due to many similarities. Casey14 19:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, lets not argue with the "If Germany and Japan are superpowers then Italy should be too" scheme. There seem to be two main theories here:

All G8 nations are Great Powers or,
All those with either huge economies / global infuence (Germany and Japan) and UN security council seat /military power (UK, France) are great powers.

Now I can see how one might argue both ways but the bottom line is that Germany and Japan are economic behemoths, meaning that they own a substantial share of this world's factors of production and thus have immense control of the global allocation of resources. The UK and France have smaller, though still large, economies (roughly the size of Italy's) but in turn they each have a seat on the UN security council and a strong military. Italy just has a relatively large economy (much smaller than that of Germany or Japan) and unlike the UK or France does not have a UN security council seat or a similar military power. Now, as Xdamr said, if you find a source that states Italy is a great power you can go ahead and add it. As I have said, despite the Italy's economy being smaller than Germany's I could see Italy being a G8 country as a great power-you just need to find a credible source. Regards, Signature^brendel 20:04, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Credible source for Italy to be a Great Power? This page is starting to lose any credibility just because of these sort of statements, no offense. To me it looks like there is no rigid criteria used on here what-so-ever. Everything is opinions and stereotypes -- usually based on ignorance. Why is there this obsession with asking for sources that Italy is a Great Power? I am personally in the opinion that neither Germany nor Japan is a great power. Italy, Japan and Germany are all G7 countries. None are a member of the UN Security Council. There wealth is quite similar, Germany benefits by a larger population to it's neighbors -- that is all. On the flip side Germany and Japan have militaries that are almost indefinitely hobbled. Italy was the third or fourth largest force in Iraq after the US and UK. Italy is currently the only country with the balls to come forward and lead the peacekeeping force in Lebanon after mighty France backed out. You would simply not see this from Germany or Japan. Ok, this leads us to China and India. They are so-called emerging powers, it doesn't mean they are a Great Power. The Chinese and Indians may disagree with much emotion, but does that create fact or fiction? In my opinion, this page has no credit in it's current stage, especially with the extremely biased and stubbornly-POV administrative work that one can sense from the archives. Singling out Italy to require credible sources is almost laughable, if their wasn't suppose to be some seriousness to this project. At this stage I would even suggest removing the Modern Power section all together until a very clear criteria can be setup. I for one do not see Germany above UK, France or Italy. Besides a higher population -- I see many things lacking. To be a Great Power wouldn't a country also have to have some domination culturally? There is a strong desire for French, British and especially Italian culture. German culture? Please... This comment was left by 192.45.72.26

I agree that sources are never asked for Germany or Japan. I find many sources that say that neither Germany or even UK and France are still Great Powers and that India is a possible Great Power in the future and China is begining to be a Great Power.Japan isn't metioned.

On the other we cannot compare Italy to Australia, Canada, Spain or even Brazil. The population of the first three is lower and while that of Brazil is higher it has a GDP not much more than half of italian one. And what international order is Brazil capable of maintain. It hardly can contribute to it. The same for the other three. Australia and Canada are involved in international missions, but more in their region of the World and without the weight of Italy. The market and economy of these four countries is much smaller than italian one and their military is smaller and weaker too.

And if we look at many articles including some of wikipedia, we found sources that Italy is really a Great Power. It is commonly found papers and articles saying that Italy is against G-4 intentions because if G-4 entered UN Security Council, Italy would be the only Great nation left outside UNSC. And is also common to see that Italy would be the only of EU Majors being left outside. Spain is not considered an EU Major. The EU Major nations are France, Italy, UK and Germany.

And finally if we look at wikipedia criteria of Great Power, Italy has all. It has capability to contribute to international order, the main eg. is the Lebanon crisis,in which Italy will lead UN Mission. It has internal cohesion that allows effective state action, specially in the last 20 years, when arrest of big mafia brought more security and since the 90's when governments became more stable. It has economic power and a great internal market. Germany is an economic behemoth as someone said, but Italy is not a midget. Germany GDP isn't even the double of Italian one. It could be one and an half. And as for military power Italy isn't so great as France or UK but has a great military in all senses that is comparable to Germany. It has a smaller army and air force but has a bigger navy and is more involved internationally. It has more combat experience, altough people don't think so. ACamposPinho 0:23, 22 August 2006

Okay Germany and Japan are without a doubt Great Power.

The cultural influence of both countries is great: American culture, for example, is hugely influenced by German culture (Hamburgers, obsession w/ cars, etc...) In the US Italians were still as seen as a minority ethnic group until well into the century. They suffered many of the same hardships as African and Irish Americans as they were not accepted into the American mainstream for a long time, leading to the fact that Italian culture remains "ethnic" to this day (Watch just about any Scorcisi movie). German and English cultures (Germans started settleing in the US in the 1790s) had more influence of the development of US culture which is now being sold across the world. So when a consumer in Shanghai gobbles up American culture is he consuming Italian culture? Probably not. Is he consuming British and German culture by consuming a American culture? Yes to some extend he or she is.
Both countries, Japan and Germany, have immense influence over the global allocation of resources. German and Japanese companies own much of the infrastructure in other countries, their investors determine the fate of many business across the planet and entire cities such as Pueblo, Mexico depend on German or Japanese corperations for emplyment. I think we all know by now how powerful large corperations such as SONY, Daimler-Chrsyler, RWE, T-Mobile, Siemens, the Volkswagen AG, Honda can be-Germany and Japan could make or break entire third world countries with their economic might. Stores across this globe are filled with German and Japanese products and customers holding Japanese cell phones under the contract of German celluar providers. (A Sony phone held by a T-Mobile customer at a Safeway in Honolulu pucharsing Ritter Sport chocolate, for example)
China could foreclose on US debt which would lead to economic disaster-they fate of much of this world's economy rests in the hands of the Chinese.
India has one-freaking-billion people
The UK and France do not have the economic might of Germany or Japan but in turn have a UN Secutity council seat.

That said (and I am repeating myself here), Italy could, as a G8 nation, be seen as a Great Power, just provide a reference. Regards, Signature^brendel 01:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I think this is exactly what is being stated above, opinions based on simple and out of control ignorance. You are listing all this information about Germany, because you simply have some insight into Germany. What utter arrogance to try and claim that American culture is actually a German bi-product. American culture is by definition a combination of cultures. You point out the popularity of hamburgers (LOL!) but then completely neglect the same situation exists with pizza, etc., etc. Germany simply does not dominate the World culturally -- and probably never will. Hopping on the American bandwagon is a very sorry sight to see. You mention a few well known Japanese companies and German companies you are familiar with, and think this is going to make a convincing story? Because you happen to not be aware of companies from Italy, Canada (i.e. the other G7 nations) that make huge global contributions, you expect us to educate you? Pueblo may have a strong dependence on Volkswagen, but Poland and Brazil largely depend on Fiat's same type of investment. Magneti Marelli and CNH are major employers in the US. Purchasing Ritter Sport chocolate (whatever the heck that is)? Maybe instead they have some taste and are buying something from Ferrero like Rocher or Nutella. And by the way, Samsung isn't even Japanese -- it is KOREAN!! Ok, on to more arguments. India has "one-freaking-billion people". This means it is a Great Power? Absolute nonsense. Lastly, I'm a bit confused about you after reading the archives. On your page you imply you are a German who immigrated to the US. It sounds to me like you were actually an Army brat who was born in Germany with a woman who married an American. Saying you are "orginally from Germany and was born in Heidelberg." is bending the truth in your favour -- oh just a tad bit. It would be interesting to know where all this ultra German attitude has come from. You do know giving an air of arrogance 9 out of 10 times points to insecurity. hah. This particular project has really become a Grade A joke. JJx2 05:17, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

It is obvious that Germany and Japan carry far more economic clout than Italy. Yes I am aware of Italy's large corperations but there are fewer than German ones. FYI: Let's keep this professional. ("brat" is a actually a personal attack-which I removed) Also, Ritter Sport is sold in the US as gurmet chocolate (Trader Joe's-I thought you live in CA). That said I remember you from your dynamic IP-which was blocked-so uh... good-bye. Regards, Signature^brendel 07:54, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, what is number of Italian vs. German "large corporations? Or are these, as I expect, numbers pulled out of your...umm, air. "Army Brat" as a personal attack? You have got to be kidding. Hyper-sensitive; need a hug? I do not live in the United States, and I don't know what you are talking about with Ritter Sport nor blocked IP addresses. So uh... good-bye. JJx2 08:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

For India, not only are there all the sources and facts presented on India as an emerging superpower. But there are sources that explicitly call India a Great Power. Exhibit A, Exhibit B, Exhibit C, Exhibit D. And that took me hardly any time. I might as well source them now so that you guys don't bring it up again. Happy? These sources say that India is a GREAT POWER. I googled India Great power and that is what I got. Now if I google "Italy Great Power". The first source is [www.imdb.com/title/tt0145487/ this]. The media is often the decider of who is and who isn't a Great power. Nobleeagle (Talk) 07:38, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

What about the German Exhibit, the Japanese Exhibit, the Chinese Exhibit, the second Chinese Exhibit. They all describe their respective countries as GREAT POWERS. And HERE and HERE is a source that describes Italy as a MIDDLE POWER! Nobleeagle (Talk) 07:47, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, so let me get this straight. You are an Indian who is arguing that India is a Great Power. You are not maybe a bit biased and nationalistic? Your first reference is a page heavily edited by POV Indians. The second reference is one man's opinion that India may be a Great Power one day. In the conclusion he even states, "Finally, with regard to the third factor, India will have to resolve the tremendously complex issues of ethnic and communal strife within its own body politic in order to stay together long enough to become a “great power.". That sentence thereby negates your own reference! I mean, don't waste everyone's time with biased and nationalistic POV. Just because you feel India is a Great Power, and you Google to your little heart's content, does not mean it is. The only thing going for it (or may it will actually go AGAINST it) is a huge population. India has no political influence outside of the region of Pakistan and Bangladesh. It is not even an internally stable country. The GDP/per-capita is lower-class third-world and poverty is immense. You just don't mass procreate into a Great Power. Not convinced -- not in the least. But I'm sure you have already made a nationalistic goal of your self to have India listed.... JJx2 08:03, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

"No, no my fiend, not army. My father was a professor, then became a civilian advisor for the military in Heidelberg, where I grew up" Oh, that looks like a personal attack there. Calling people fiends, how cruel. I'll try to get through it though. Ok, so he was involved with the military, but it is beside the point. The point is, it seems you go out of your way to say you are a German who has moved to the US. But it isn't really the case. More like a American/German whose Dad found a German wife, married, and then moved back to the US. I guess it sounds more fancy to say you are a full German who just immigrated. Ok, whatever. JJx2 08:13, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, "friend" is a bit tart, but brat is a flat out attack. How does this relate to the article? I doesn't. This is obviously meant to be offensive. Also, there is a difference between revising a post to take out anything that might be offensive and leaving it in. Regards, Signature^brendel 08:17, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Wiki itself has Military Brat listed. No where does it state it is derogatory. You really need to learn to relax and not think every word or statement is offensive. You just stick to your POV and even censure other's posts?? JJx2 08:22, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Read the article in full: "and can be an insult or a compliment, depending on the context. Although brat is usually taken to mean a spoiled child," -aside from the fact that term does not apply to me-this is my last post responding to you. Regards, Signature^brendel 08:27, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

That only suggests the meaning is subjective. Ah, I love it when people can only resort to bowing out of a debate. It shows a lot. JJx2 08:29, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Please! Don't we bring the discussion to a personal level! It is not serius! We are debating about international facts and data not about our families or the love we have to our countries.kayac1971 15:22 23 August 2006

Exactly as I have said. This should be a serious project. I personally believe that we need to stop discussing individual countries and instead develop a rigerous criteria. I'm tired of reading all this, "Germany is obviously...", "Japan is obviously...", "Italy is obviously...". I'm not convinced there is any Great Power at the moment aside from the Superpower US and the emerging power, China. Can we work on a real criteria? These political pages that harbor people just trying to cement their nationalistic opinions and agendas on WP are really getting old.

Only one thing to add: speaking of allocation of resources is not enough or a good criteria to define a Great Power. If it was, India couldn't be considered a Great Power because it has fewer big corporations than Italy for eg. And India and China only have some big corporations because of their huge population and recent growth.

But if this was a criteria to take into account, there would be many countries that should be in this list, Italy, Netherlands, South Korea, Switzerland, Spain and others, because allof these countries have bigger allocation of resources inthe world. Are all Great Powers? I don't think so. ACamposPinho 23:09, 23 August 2006

Campos, the question is not regarding Germany or Japan's position as a Great Power but whether or not Italy is a great power. If A and B are great power then C must be too-is not the best way to argue. As you can see I have added footnotes for Germany, Japan and China. Do the same for Italy and it will be on the list as a current great power. All you need to provide is a source about as good as the one we have for Japan or Germany. We could argue about different ways in which to interpret economical statictics for next decade and still disagree. Regards, Signature^brendel 22:17, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I was not arguing who is a Great Power. I only said that allocation of resources and having big corporations is not a good eg., is one but not the only one. If this was the case, Netherlands would be one of the greatest powers in the World since many global corporations have headquarters there.ACamposPinho 0:02, 24 August 2006

Considering what is a fact in wikipedia, "Italy as a Great Power" ended in 1945, read this:

In 1943 Italy was war-torn and poverty-stricken, a country that was regional and predominantly agrarian. Since then Italy has undergone the most profound transformation - economic, social and demographic - in its entire history. source: http://www.word-power.co.uk/catalogue/0140124969.
Or this: As of 2006, Italy ranks third in the world in number of military forces operating in peace-keeping and peace-enforcing scenarios (Afghanistan, Kosovo, Iraq, Balkans, Lebanon, Israel), following only the United States and United Kingdom. A new aircraft carrier, the Conte Cavour, is in construction in the Liguria region. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_Italy ACamposPinho 0:17, 24 August 2006

Here, two seconds on Google, first link. President of the Republic of Estonia (EU Member) says, "Anyway, there is no doubt that Italy is a great power." and also says "Looking up to Italy as a great power whose inherent features include dynamism and quest, alteration and a cooperative spirit, I would like to say with a ceremonial air of a state visit as well as with a Nordic matter-of-factness: this is the kind of philosophy of life, the kind of understanding of the world that gives Europe the chance it needs, gives the world the hope it craves". So there is a reference. Or now do we raise the bar again? We need two? a dozen? 100? Just forget about the ones that say Italy is not a Great Power? You know, like the ones Nobleeagle found saying India has not reached Great Power status? *sigh* Link: http://vp1992-2001.president.ee/eng/k6ned/K6ne.asp?ID=4352 JJx2 09:24, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I read the Estonia Presidents comments from 1998. I am a bit concerned with the fact that this is one politician in the presence of another politician, that he needs to befriend according to the reasons given for the state visit. Is it possible to find a source from a press or independent think-tank/institute that could reinforce what you've found. I am happy to finally see in print somewhere "Italy is a great power" but considering the source, I'd prefer to have a bit more independent sourcing in order to back your request to include Italy as a great power. You do see how a president of a country hoping to create ties and recruit support to his country's bid to join the EU could be seen as a bit biased, right? I'll read through some of the G8/etc links below when I have a bit more time. Thanks, this is definitely the direction this discussion should go in. ju66l3r 14:52, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

"Thanks, this is definitely the direction this discussion should go in.". Amen brother! I would like to see this stop being so country specific of a discussion. We need to address the core problem. I agree that this and many references are political more than quantitative. But it is the type of reference we have relied on so far, probably unfortunately. Anyway, I vote for G8 as our basline, the a mature discussion about the nature of Great Powers and finding resources. Is that too difficult? 192.45.72.26 19:55, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I would like to point some things- first that I've known the Estonian president speach and it states that Italy is a Great Power, of course it could be biased but he would never call Denmark or Poland for eg. Great Powers. He was sympathetic but he is also the head of state of a country and knows to whom he is speaking.

Second point is that if you don't consider G-8 a good criteria of Great Power status, then in all G-8 countries that you consider Great Powers, G-8 membership shouldn't be included as a Great Power criteria.

To finish, do you know what is the problem you have considering Italy a Great Power. Is that Italy in terms of International Relations is Great but a very underrated country, because of anglo-saxons prejudices. On the other hand China,India and even Brazil are countries that due to their recent growth are overrated. But this growth besides being because of their economic delay is not sure it will continue for a very long. Banks and some institutions says that they will be among the first of the World in 2050, but until then who knows what happens. Brazil was growing well in the 60's and 70's and look at the 80's and 90's.....
ACamposPinho 22:07, 24 August 2006

From what I've read from some users on here, I would strongly agree with your statement. A lot of it is based on prejudices not quantitative evidence. I don't know if China is overrated, but I would say Brazil and India, yes, for sure. By the way, those people making those predictions, they usually do this: 1. get historical data 2. fit a line to the data 3. extrapolate out to 2050 and believe they are predicting the future. It is comical. Hopefully not, but China and/or India could be hit with a plague next year and disappear, etc. I personally still believe the G8 is a very clear criteria. We say we are being ad-hoc, but actually this group has occured in fact, it just isn't imaginary. Going back to the G7, you have the seven most powerful industrialized nations on Earth, a planet made up of hundreds of countries. Not including these based on this fact, but others because of articles from Google, seems almost negligent.. to be blunt. 192.45.72.26 01:09, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Criteria

If possible I want suggest some criteria: 1) presence in the top ten of both List of countries by GDP (nominal) and List of countries by GDP (PPP) 2) permanent seat on UN Security Council 3) presence in the G8 4) countries with a considerable military power. This criteria can be deduced from: List of countries by number of active troops, countries that actually can line up aircraft carriers in their navy (see List of aircraft carriers by country), presence in the top ten List of countries by military expenditures, presence in the List of countries with nuclear weapons and also among the countries that can built them in a very short stretch of time, the list is reported in the same article; presence in the top ten number of military forces operating in peace-keeping and peace-enforcing scenarios or more simply major presence in List of UN peacekeeping missions 5) countries with a considerable soft power or cultural influence in the world. This criteria can be deduced from: list of major multinational corporation and companies [4]; the national language have to be in the top ten group of most taught non-native language; presence in the top ten list of Nobel laureates by country; presence in the top ten list of World Tourism Rankings; presence in the top ten list of Total Olympics medal count;

I think that if a country reaches 2/3 of the criteria can be considered as a great/global power.

Obviously some criteria can be changed and others added.

kayac1971 1:11 22 August 2006

OR, we just make it simple with less formulas and criteria for now and say G7/G8 and/or UNSC equal GP. Then eventually try and develop a more robust and probably complex measure. 192.45.72.26 00:01, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Not quite, We cannot "develop a more robust and probably complex measure"-that would be OR as well, we need to find a more robust measure-but we can't create it ourselfs. Regards, Signature^brendel 03:03, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Interesting though, because I've seen you many times state that Germany is "obviously" a Great Power. That sure doesn't sound like a very robust measure, the Gerdbrendel measure... Nobleeagle posted so called references that ended up explicitly stating that India is not a Great Power. Hilarious! I bet he will hope to hide those ASAP, simply because they do not fit his agenda. These attitudes are clear as day. It would be nice if you two could see them as well. I've made mistakes in these discussions, but you two seem unable to admit your own faults. JJx2 05:16, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Well that's all fine and good but where is a source explicitly stating that Italy is a Great Power? The criteria above look fine and where do they come from? Who says a country needs 2/3 of those criteria? The phrase "Obviously some criteria can be changed and others added" indicates that the criteria, as good as they are, are OR. We cannot create our own WP criteria for what a great power is. Regards, Signature^brendel 23:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I've largely kept out of this debate - I've said all I want to on the other occasions the case of Italy has been brought up. However I will jump in here and shout out ORIGINAL RESEARCH, ORIGINAL RESEARCH, ORIGINAL RESEARCH.

Read WP:OR - please, read it. Where do you get this idea from? Unless it is verified from a reputable source you may not use it here. No matter what a good idea it appears to be, unless it constitutes part of reputable academic opinion, it doesn't belong here. By all means get it published in a scholarly journal; if you do then it will be included with grateful thanks to you. Until you do, a personal theory cannot be used here in any form whatsoever.

Xdamr^talk 23:23, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes! That;s what I said above-we cannot create our own criteria-doing so would be OR. Regards, Signature^brendel 02:57, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

But then we have a paradox, because we are creating our own criteria by dealing with these Google references everywhere. Now we have conflicting Google articles on India. What do we do? That is already brings us into OR. I really suggest ditching these ambiguous or politically-tainted articles we are finding and go with some real research into metrics for determining so-called Great Powers. Entire lists of assumed great powers, not articles that say, "oh, France is a Great Power". It is just not good research or method. 192.45.72.26 01:12, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Amen!! We have people on here fighting on and on about what are in effect their personal (and sometimes purely nationalistic) views. I do not see any country but the US and (possibly) China as Great Powers (AND this is just my opinion). If this were further extended, I would say all G7 countries and UN security members because you can now see some sort of logic that many would agree with. Simple, done. This nonsense above with all the Germans vs. Italians vs. Indians vs. Chinese and vise-vise versa is just crazy. One German mentions all the time no-way Italy, definitely Germany. I mean, is this becoming a grade-school yelling match? And sorry, when it comes to Brazil and India: Emerging, yes. Great? Not yet, unclear if they will reach that status. Don't get your feelings hurt over this!! 192.45.72.26 00:01, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

SIMPLE PROPOSAL: G8 and UNSC countries. Use that for now, it is simple and less debatable. Debate a more "robust" method later, since it will obviously take years to bring consensus! LOL 192.45.72.26 00:25, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I could live with a "all G8" proposal-but I still think we'd need a source stating that all G8s are Great Powers-even though being a G8 country means that you are an international force. I never said no way Italy-I said provide a source stating that Italy is a great power and suddenly I was attacked by JJx2 for being nationalistic-geeez. Then I tried to counter this "If Germany is than Italy is too" nonesense argument-which I probably should have simply ignored. I tired to explain it a thousand times: If A=C that doesn't mean B=C. Anyways, all G8 sounds like a good guideline-lets wait for some other editors (Not sockpuppets like JJx2-right, a new user gets directly invloved in this disucssion and just happens to have the same style of writing as a previous IP who was active here a few weeks ago-conicidence-I don't think so ;-)) for consensus. Regards, Signature^brendel 02:57, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

You really have a penchant for whining. You and Nobleeagle conspire on your discussion pages for all to see. You both are clearly ignorant towards countries which are not your own. You state Germany is "obviously" a GP which goes against the image you now try to project of yourself. You can't even admit that your approach is biased and wrong. I simply believe the criteria is skewed and countries should not be listed because stubborn and WP "addicted" users such as you two enforce your POV. This is my opinion of what you two in particular have been doing. You even now make these personal attacks accusing others of being a sockpuppet. I for one have no other account. WHO are you to go and say whose arguments are nonsense? If anything, you two have made a mockery of this page. If it isn't me you try to enforce your POV with, it was others such as ACamposPinho. I'm almost sure next on your "list" will be kayac1971. Thanks to you two for at least documenting your methods and attitudes so well on your talk pages. For sure Nobleeagle will not accept the G8 proposal. Why? Because the proposal is flawed? No, simply because India *must* be on the list. If we went with a UNSC proposal, then you both would likely be up in arms. But I guess you all can not see that -- or do not want to see it. JJx2 05:08, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

If possible, I'd like to propose a criteria: If you find a reputable, independent source that says "Country X is a Great power", then we'll include it. Thanks. ju66l3r 04:48, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

That one is alright...although it could cause controversy as many sources have differing opinions. Everyone, remember WP:NOR before posting, the top proposal is complete Original Research. It was OR that got the Major power page deleted. Nobleeagle (Talk) 07:13, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I Agree as well, Ju6613r, has a good prosposal. The G8 proposal would be fine as compromise but this is even better. Regards, Signature^brendel 07:17, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

In truth, this proposal isn't really a compromise - it (sourcing) is the only legitimate way we can add content whilst remaining with in WP:OR. As such, I hardly need say, it has my support(!). But seriously, whether by making up criteria, or putting down G8 nations, we are simply making it up as we go along.

Perhaps the time has come to purge this page and return to first principles? This page has become a complete mess; despite the work put in by Gerdbrendel and Nobleeagle over the past few days, the vast majority of this page remains unsourced. I mean, what is the justification, and more importantly the source, for adding such entities as Alexander's empire, The Mauryan Empire, Ayutthaya, Kingdom of Aksum, Song Dynasty, etc, etc, etc? Are we trying to list every significant power the world has ever seen? I think we can get rid of most of these at a stroke; all the sources I've seen indicate that 'Great power' is an Industrial age term, that its retrospective application seems to be anachronistic.

So what do you all think? A smaller page which is verified and accurate is surely preferable to a vast page full of conjecture, guesswork, and amateur theorising. Purge the page, keep the material which has recently been verified and dump the rest. Police this page relentlessly, deleting any unsourced statements which creep in in the future. Drastic, yes - but the status quo is just a mess.

Xdamr^talk 17:35, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

True the current page is way to unsourced-thus opening the door for disucssion such as the Italy one above. I have added some sources for three current great power and will try and add further refs for the current great power. Unfortunately I am not a historian for Asian history so I do not really know whether or not all these Dynasties were Great Powers-I think your right thought it is an induatrial age term. Purging unreferenced info is probably our only and best option. Regards, Signature^brendel 17:43, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

What defines a reputable source? In politics this is very tough. Also, ok, say we find an Indian, Italian, etc. that says X is a Great Power. Then we find articles (as our buddy Nobleeagle found) which say India has not reached Great Power status yet. Do we add the positives and negatives and come up with a winner? I would agree and vote for the G8/UNSC proposal. This is not based on what is usual extremely-subjective political or nationalistic bias. This makes the page based on hard fact -- what countries have been made SC members and which have been included in the Group of Eight. JJx2 09:15, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, politics makes reputability difficult, especially when searching for sources without (or with as little as possible) bias. This is why I believe the sources need to be as detached from politics as they can be. There are many neutral think-tanks, institutes, academics, and so on who study these very issues of international policy and power. I'm actually surprised we can't find a source that says "these are the countries that we count as Great powers currently". Surely this power hierarchy is not one created solely by wikipedia, so where is the country power "leaderboard" that would help steer our course here? As for what to do in the absence of such evidence, I think we need consensus from the sources just as we would need consensus on an AfD discussion. It may be necessary to find out what different sources consider to be their criteria for Great power stateship (like seen below but I haven't had a chance to read yet) and create seperate sections within the article for how each country meets differing criteria and the end result will be to compare the lists and have "definite Great powers" like the US and UK, "Probable Great powers" like China, and "Great Powers by some standards" like Italy or India. This is only a thought for how to come to consensus by reorganization of the article to better satisfy what I think we've all started to come to say similarly. ju66l3r 15:00, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

You make good points. I also have tried this morning to search for some groups as you mention, but have had little luck. It is surprising, indeed. I like the idea of the G8 (maybe Security Council too) to be the baseline list. Then from that be patient to find some really good references on this. I may disagree a bit with the definitions you were proposing; I'm wondering if this may start to put us towards OR. Though, I think it may just be impossible not to do a little OR (i.e., thinking!) when it comes to this project. I really must say that everyone should strongly resist the urge to just search out facts which promote their own country. This seems to be the trend now, as just seen with India (which in my opinion is also not a Great Power, but it is just an opinion folks!). 192.45.72.26 19:58, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I've found one source that implies UNSC and G8 membership are measures of Great Power nations. http://www.cdi.org/russia/johnson/9087-24.cfm "are part of Russia's proper status as a great power member of the UN Security Council and the G8" Here is another, http://www.worldproutassembly.org/archives/2005/07/great_power_ten.html, that implies G8 members are Great Powers. JJx2 09:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

India

I propose removing India from the Modern Great Power listings. Nobleeagle has provided us with some references that show it is not thought of as a Great Power (see below). JJx2 06:46, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

For example, read: http://www.acdis.uiuc.edu/Research/S&Ps/1993-Sp/S&P_VII-3/great_power.html Posted by our very own Nobleeagle who obviously Googled a little too quickly and forgot to see what he was putting on the table. This is research from the Univeristy of Illinois. Last paragraph clearly states that India has work to do *if* they are to become a Great Power -- much less a Superpower. By the way, if you two are doing real reference searches, you don't just look for article that say India and Germany are GPs. You look at the entire range of opinions. Would be nice of you to self-reflect on that one... JJx2 05:21, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Wow, another one posted by Nobleeagle above, http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20060701faessay85402/c-raja-mohan/india-and-the-balance-of-power.html, states "India is on the verge of becoming a great power". This article from someone who is just a writer in India -- hardly a reputable source. But still, another article thankfully provided by our pal Nobleeagle. Thanks bud. JJx2 05:27, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Nope, we got sufficient sources for that one. Regards, Signature^brendel 07:17, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Do you have some feeling you control this page and/or WP? What makes you believe you have the right to say what we have is sufficient and when the case is closed? WP is about continuous improvement, not stopping and locking the door when your particular POV has been met. JJx2 09:07, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Look, I got sources that explicitly stated that India, China, Germany and Japan were at or very near Great Power status (the fact that you have ignored the remainder of the sources proves your POV-pushing intentions). I also presented sources stating that Italy is a Middle power, not Great, it is a Middle power. So unless you can find a source that explicitly states that Italy is a Great power. You have no argument. Nobleeagle (Talk) 07:26, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Your reaction is right on key Nobleeagle -- no surpises. First, you simply ignore the references you just posted that strongly contradict India's status. Second, you try and turn around things to say it is me (or everyone else who doesn't feel India has even reached Great Power status) is "POV-pushing". You my friend are the POV-pusher -- and you are doing it full force. You just ignored references YOU YOURSELF posted and say I'm pushing POV by pointing them out?? That means I actually read them, you did not. You both seriously need to set aside even five minutes to consider how you approach what is supposed to be a non-biased factual resource; not an opportunity to promote your own nations. I for one am rather sad to see the way you two, in particular, use WP. It is a secondary issue when coming to this particular project. I for one have enough confidence in myself that I don't need to be so extreme to push if my nations of origin are listed on WP as a Great Power. *rolls eyes* I assume for quite a few others the opposite appears to be true (and rather glaringly). By the way, we are not talking China, Japan, Italy, etc. here. We are discussing INDIA. Note the title of this section. Thanks, good day. JJx2 09:05, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, the first source that you are claiming disproves my point is written in the early 1990s, in this it is written that India "appears poised to achieve the status that Nehru envisaged for it", the title is India: The Fourth Great Power. It then goes on to talk about India's Military Might, ends up writing quite a lot about the favourable aspects of India. But you concentrate on only the last paragraph. Which details some of the things India has to combat with. The second source you comment on simply says that India is on the India is on the verge of becoming a great power and the swing state in the international system. As a large, multiethnic, economically powerful, non-Western democracy, it will play a key role in the great struggles of the coming years. Washington has recognized the potential of a U.S.-Indian alliance, but translating that potential into reality will require engaging India on its own terms.. How this calls India a middle power I do not understand. Thanks. Nobleeagle (Talk) 07:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

See this is a major example of where this page is a total disaster. This is just a squable over India now, and it looks to be very personal-agenda motivated. I see it in Nobleeage, and probably in JJx2 also. Like I said below, I do not believe India is a Great Power at this point. But that is just it, my opinion doesn't matter at this stage. If I go out on Google and find 10 articles that say so, because I'm looking for articles that say YES (not NO), that is called biased-research. We must either go with non-political groups that list current Great Powers, or nothing at all (yes, even remove the page). The only alternative I would agree with in the meantime would be going with the former Group of Seven, just because this is a well-recognized group that contains the most powerful/wealthy nations in the World. 192.45.72.26 19:12, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Start again?

I've taken this from a response I made in the Criteria section above. I think that it is a point that could do with wider discussion, away from the clutter.

Xdamr^talk 20:29, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

My only addition to this would be to actually dump all the references, even the recently added ones. We need to actually not only be better at finding references, but we have to think more on where these references come from. What do you think? 192.45.72.26 20:35, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, one more point too. Going with think-tanks, etc. would hopefully give us a list. I'd really like avoid Google articles that say, just as an example, India is a Great Power. Why? Because this leaves us often to what fancies the researcher. Obviously Nobleeagle cares about having India thought of as a Great Power, so he takes a lot of time to search out references. But is this really the way we want to do things?? I'm just singling out India, just for example, but I hope I'm making some sense. 192.45.72.26 20:38, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

moved my recent post too, which I think follows along your lines:

Ok, here is my proposal, just to sum up what I (and others) have been saying perhaps. So, we keep it as simple as possible in the beginning. Great Power is an industrial age term (someone stated), so we start out with the Group of Eight industrialized nations. Yes, there is some OR with this, it is not rigerous, but gosh darnit at least it is a simple and common sense start! We then begin to really search out non-political groups that have researched this and published their finding, and present this as a discussion, not run and post references and then your favourite countries. I for one believe we should completely avoid this posting of newspaper articles, speaches, opinions, etc off of Google. These are just too easily biased by politics or by the searcher him/herself. How does this sound? To me this sounds pretty clear cut and should eventually result in the best product. Get's my vote - and yes, I need to make an account eventually. :) 192.45.72.26 20:30, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

OR is OR, the aim is to avoid OR like the plague. Neither truth nor common sense have anything to do with wikipedia, only verifiability. WP:V is our guide to what is a valid source or not. But I do agree that we have to be rigourous re. what sources we are prepared to accept. WP:V is a good guide to this - stick to WP:OR and WP:V and this will be an infinitely better article.

Do get an account; two minutes work and it makes everything so much easier!

Xdamr^talk 20:41, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I actually think we have found consensus, 4 users have agreed that only adding countries with references to them being a Great POwer is the way to go; thus that is exactly the policy we should intitute. Why dump all the current refs-becuase they don't agree with you? Also: "Nobleeagle cares about having India thought of as a Great Power, so he takes a lot of time to search out references. But is this really the way we want to do things?"- Yes. OR is OR and we need sources. If Noleeagle finds enough sources to list India as a Great Power (He has already done so) then he can, by all means, add India to the list. Why should we disregard sources that are in compliance with the WP:V guidelines? Regards, Signature^brendel 21:23, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I guess you didn't catch my point. The problem that comes in doing things this way is you easily introduce bias. If instead we are all looking for non-political think tanks, academic groups, etc. which have developed their own lists, then it is much more rigorous. The way you are saying we should do things is actually going back to the status quo (i.e. nothing is wrong with the way we are doing things). What you say now, what is different than now? Nobleeagle (sorry to keep making him an example), goes out in a large search to find anything and anyone that says India is a Great Power, and there we go. What if they are stories mostly written by Indians? I for one do not think things are being done well, nor do I think the majority of the references now are worth the paper they are written on. Sorry. :) By the way, I don't think we have reached a consensus, and we are fine to leave this go. Please don't unilaterally close discussions like this. Thank you. 192.45.72.26 01:02, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Italy, India, bloody Bangladesh - add them all if there are reputable sources. That is the key; if we really stick to WP:V then we will have a much higher quality article. As (hopefully) an honest broker, I will happily go through the new sources and check that they are adequate - is that enough for everyone? If any user wants to search out references for a particular country, then let them. There's nothing to stop others from looking for references for other any countries; if there are references supporting any particular country's case then add them.

One thing that I want to stress is that it is not for us to seek to provide definitive answers on this topic. WP:NPOV means that we must consider all points of view. There are sources for (for example) India - if there are sources against India then add them too. Simply note that there is debate on the topic, leave it at that. We don't have to (indeed mustn't) decide the issue, we simply report on the state of the debate.

Can I take it that there is some agreement on the need to remove all the extraneous (and unsourced) material on the page?

Xdamr^talk 21:51, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you can. I was just making the point that "There's nothing to stop others from looking for references for other any countries; if there are references supporting any particular country's case then add them." I agree let's stick with WP:V. I also agree that we need to present all authorative vantage points. Signature^brendel 00:11, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, but question for you both. There were articles presented by Nobleeagle that also claim India has not yet reached Great Power status. So which articles do we "believe", so to say. I'd just prefer we use some very rigerous, non-political, sources, as was mentioned before by Ju66l3r. Just listing tons of stuff off Google, I don't know. To put it simply, which articles do we take, which do we not? For example, a speach has been posted where the Estonians say Italy is a great power. I think it was political, but well, then we open up a new can of worms. Look, even this article on Germany [reference 7 on the project]. It is along the same lines. It is a professor from Germany presenting at NATO. Hardly non-political. Don't take offense, I'm simply trying to play devil's advocate also. 192.45.72.26 00:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

The Nato article is alright. All think tanks and professors are going to have some POV-as long as its written by human beings that inevidable. Just because its a German professor presenting at NATO is not enough evidence to dismiss his opinion on the issue. I'm not taking offense but I think even a German professor is a reputable source on the issue-perhaps it means that he has a better understanding on the issue. Also if you read the article you will notice that he is ciritcal of Germany. Of course, you're right we need to screen the sources we use, Xdamr has even offered his services. You said something interesting though: "So which articles do we 'believe'"-Well all of them-if they are reputable. As Xdamr said we cannot omit valid information and must present all vantage points even if they contradict each other. Regards, Signature^brendel 02:33, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you guys. By the way, this is for all you people that like to use me as an example. I have nothing against Italy, I simply wanted a source that says Italy is a great power, it could NOT be included without even ONE such source. There is obviously debate on India's greatness as well. But the difference in my mind between including and making a note that "there is some debate" and excluding and making a note of such debate (like we did to Italy) was the fact that no sources were presented directly describing Italy as a Great Power. Now a source has been presented, and I hope that our pro-Italy people don't stop there, keep bringing in sources so that Italy is included. If we are going to completely restart much of the article, we should include Italy as a great power, though a debatable one. You may do the same for India, although the way "India is on the verge of becoming a Great power" has been translated as "Nobleeagle has presented sources that disprove his entire point" is quite annoying. I believe we should include nations that have TWO OR MORE sources describing them as Great powers (for now). For you to be able to enter the idea that there is debate on the topics we'll say you should present TWO OR MORE SOURCES that describe the particular nations as either explicitly not-Great or as a Middle power. I personally don't believe that saying Nation X is on the verge of becoming a Great power is an example of explicitly stating that a nation is not-Great, but I would like Xdamr and Brendel and other members of the project to comment. Because you won't find any for nations like Brazil or Australia wherever you look. By the way, I don't know what you've got against Google since that has helped me to get very good academic information on other topics in the past. But Google is simply a search engine, you can't simply discard stuff because it was found on google. Wikipedia articles are even found on Google. Nobleeagle (Talk) 07:31, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

This page is going through a momentus transformation. I hope it is for the better. This weekend I'll be creating a list of consensus is the Great power pages for WP:PIIR, I say all the new users should consider joining if they truly want to make a difference on the power in international relations pages. Nobleeagle (Talk) 07:46, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Why do you take the India situation so personally? I just read those articles and they also infer that India has not yet become a Great Power, and it may never become on. I personally don't believe India is a Great Power, but it is just my opinion. Seeing articles from Google doesn't change my mind either way. Is this so personal to you? Also, you can't pick who you want to comment. Anyone should be able to come on here and make a discussion. It is not juch a cliche that is deciding Great Powers of the world now. Also, your ad-hoc criteria of two or more sources is totally that, ad-hoc.. and is totally against the OR policy. Also, it just goes back to the same situation we have now. Try not to be defensive of the current status quo, it has proven to work extremely poorly. Don't take it personal. We really have to get 100% away from the situation where we are implicity deciding what is a Great Power. I get the opinion you have it in your mind to promote India. It just shouldn't be done on here. 192.45.72.26 19:08, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

After thinking about this more this morning, I really think we need to completely get away from the status quo of going out and looking for articles that says, "Country X is a Great Power". This is actually by definition doing research when one gooes out and searches references. This also turns into biased research when individuals goes out with the implicit goal of proving a particular country is a Great Power. We really need to get away from this all together. It destroys the credibility of this page and will create political/nationalistic fighting on the WP forever. At this point I could only agree with searching for non-political groups who have done this reference search and compiled a list of what they decide to be Great Powers in the modern world under some criteria. Anything else we do is definitely OR, and so far the status quo has generated a disaster. I know for nobleeagle and brendel this may be a bit hard to hear, but it is just constructive critism, and a bit of info on how research is actually done. Nobleeagle, for example. I can see you often going on to express and find articles that show India is a Great Power. It sounds almost as if you have a point to express FIRST and then go about finding resources to back it up. But we all have to ask if this is really the way we want to go about things. In my opinion, it is very wrong. Take no offense, this is all a learning experience. Anyway, I think we should also make one more section where everyone makes an opinion of how this page should work. Keeping it to a limited number of words too, hopefully. :) 192.45.72.26 19:02, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I think you have a problem with the Citing sources policy. Because to ensure accuracy we simply look at what other observers and academics have written (including news stories) and cite them. In general, people accept that. Now with the whole "Nobleeagle is taking it personally", how is finding sources taking it personally? It is Wikipedia policy. I'm MEANT to find sources. The People's Republic of China as an emerging superpower and India as an emerging superpower pages are full of 100s of sources. I've worked a bit to include more sources in pages like Hannibal, does that mean I take the Second Punic War personally? It's Wiki-policy, I simply abide by it. Nobleeagle (Talk) 00:28, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you feel offended by it, and yes, maybe it is a problem on a grander scale. There are big issues with Wiki when it comes to political/nationalistic issues, but that is just my opinion. I think scouring Googles for sources in politics is just a disaster waiting to happen. Oh wait, it just happened on this page. :P Just to close, I think you are letting personal reasons taint your thinking. Sorry again if you find this offensive, but I see it as useful when people point out my errors. Everyone is different though. 192.45.72.26 01:19, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and one last thing Nobleeagle. A reference was posted above that refers to Italy as an obvious Great Power. It is a debatable reference, but a reference nonetheless. There are no references yet that says Italy is definitely not a Great Power. So what do we do? We should now add Italy, no? Also, with India you have positive and negative references. What do we do? Add a statement that India's status is debatable? Can you deal with the idea of India not being listed on here? Don't go and get feisty now, just try and answer my questions calmly and professionally. Cheers. 192.45.72.26 01:24, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Exactly so [ref to Nobleeagle's post - 00:28 26/08/06]. I think that we can bring this particular line of debate to an end now - concentrate on the substansive/structural issues rather than debating the conduct of one individual.

Xdamr^talk 00:35, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Right, fine. 192.45.72.26 01:19, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Great so we have consensus and the issue is resolved, right? I have gone ahead and added some refs. Regards, Signature^brendel 01:49, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I really hope you are joking. The status quo has generated a disaster. I see no consensus, and once again it looks like you are jumping to conclusions to say the issue is resolved. Again, hopefully you are joking -- otherwise this type of statement is really... well, I just won't say it. LOL JJx2 02:21, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Read the discussion before just launching in. The consensus is that we wipe this article clear, starting again including only those fact which are properly established as per WP:OR and WP:V. This will result in a smaller, yet more academically sound page.

Xdamr^talk 18:30, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Please read what I was referring to. I did not ask whether we have consensus to keep that status quo, but whether we have consensus on Xdamr's proposal to reset the site and include countries according to refs. The following users seem to have agreed to Xdamr's proposal:

192.45.72.26
Nobleeagle (Talk)
Signature^brendel
Xdamr^talk

Looks like we have consensus. See what I mean?-If you want I can put the important posts regarding my observation in bold font. As this proposal will change the status quo shouldn't you actually add your name to the list ;-) Signature^brendel 03:49, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

It is not at all clear what you were referring to. A lot was written by Xdamr and you just said, "Great so we have consensus and the issue is resolved, right?" I hardly call that making it obvious what particular issue you were referring to. Usually you add just a bit more text for all of us as to make it clear. Thanks, now you have, after the fact. Also, why don't you let the users say if they have agreed or not. I'm sure you and Nobleeagle agree with the status quo, this is without question. But, I do not. Ju66l3r has implied he prefers going with think tanks, etc. who catagorize all Great Powers as a group. 192.45.72.26 as stated the same thing. We have not heard from ACamposPinho, Kayac1971, etc. You are doing the same thing you do on this project. You simply make a decision for everyone -- and one that fits your desires, based on your references (i.e., the ones who agree with you). It is a bit bizarre, really. We were starting to have some good discussions, as Ju66l3r mentioned, but it seems you want to end things ASAP. You are not the moderator of this discussion or project. JJx2 04:05, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Man, it is hard to reply when you are changing your post 5x. :P I do not agree with the status quo, I also do not feel things will work on here with just users searching out, what they may want to portray politically, off of Google. I favour the idea Ju66l3r mentioned. Find groups that have researched Great Powers as a whole and decided a list. Just like the group that decided what is a planet. Then post that information. The situation now is OR, because we are trying to do research to compile a group. We have developed a criteria... countries that we find browsing Google basically. This has not worked. You then have to develop a criteria of what Google citations are acceptable or not. That is a huge can of worms. I found and posted a quick reference on Italy, and I did so tongue-in-cheek. Why? Because the reference is very debatable, yet following the way you like to do things, it is acceptable. Italy is a Great Power, without debate. JJx2 04:10, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I am arguing to keep the status quo! I am trying to steer to clearly outline any possible compromise-and am not trying to bring the discussion to a close unilaterally. FYI: Just read the last revision-that's just how edit ;-) Signature^brendel 06:44, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Look, this is a start, when you find a list of Great powers created by a neutral source in the current century then tell us. Now, in response to this post: I'm sorry if you feel offended by it, and yes, maybe it is a problem on a grander scale. There are big issues with Wiki when it comes to political/nationalistic issues, but that is just my opinion. I think scouring Googles for sources in politics is just a disaster waiting to happen. Oh wait, it just happened on this page. :P Just to close, I think you are letting personal reasons taint your thinking. Sorry again if you find this offensive, but I see it as useful when people point out my errors. Everyone is different though.. I know Xdamr said close the issue, but if you had read my above posts you would have seen that I had said that the reference presented for Italy was good and warranted it's inclusion, however I had found some references saying Italy was NOT a great power thus we should put a note in the table saying debatable (which would be source of course). With India as well, we have some sources saying yes some sources saying no, again we will put the debatable note. I support Italy's debatable inclusion since two sources have been given warranting an inclusion., that's all I ever wanted but it took months to get the sources. OK? I'd written this before but you guys keep going on about how I'm POV Pushing, not accepting others sources etc etc. *rolls eyes*. Nobleeagle (Talk) 04:50, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

So if I don't find a neutral source, as Ju66l3r suggested, we should just go with the Internet articles? I believe we either do it right -- or not at all. Going by the Internet articles for this page is completely OR. A good start would be going with the UNSC or G8. Anyway, you really have a problem admitting fault, don't you? :) I have read where you clearly went nuts over the inclusion of Canada (even though it is G7). That to me says that you have an inherent POV (admit it or not). Also, how you go on about India gives the same impression. Anyway, I don't have to discuss it anymore, you do what you want. hah. In my opinion the only country which is not a debatable Great Power is the United States. The Euro Big 4 and India are all definitely very debatable. JJx2 18:27, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

If we only use sources on the internet, we level ourselfes open to a internet bias which will have lots of devloped countries called THEMSELVES Great Powers instead of having smaller nations call the the countries Great Powers. We will have another inbuilt bias if we only use sources that are in English, then we will end up having relativly smaller English speaking nations Great Powers over speakers of other languages, and if we try and sort this out this will be Original Research. In my opinion we should use Encyolopedias like World Book or Britannic for our sources in this page Aussie King Pin 23:09, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Very good points! I really dislike this idea for this page of sourcing anything from Internet articles. The point about English is good too, because this inherently builds in an Anglo-Saxon bias. JJx2 18:10, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Anglo-Saxon bias? Thus far the Great powers have been acknowledged as UK, France, Germany, Russia, China, India, and Japan. Last time I looked France, Germany, Russia, China, India, and Japan were pretty far from Anglo-Saxon. Scholarship is scholarship, facts are facts. I very much doubt that Greek IR academics (for example) include countries that UK academics do not. Bizzare.

Xdamr^talk 18:26, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, you've let yourself become offended for some reason. Saying there is an Anglo-Saxon bias doesn't mean anyone on here is anti Anglo-Saxon. It points out that when you go on Google and search in English, you get articles that likely have an English-speaking-World bias. You make a bad example actually, because Greeks would be much more likely to consider Italy as a Great Power than the British ever would. There is huge cultural bias in both cases. In Taiwan for example, they would not believe the Euro Big 4, OR the EU for that matter, are World Powers. You completely missed the point my friend, when you mention Russia, India, etc. are far from Anglo-Saxon. THAT was pretty bizarre. :P By the way, so far I havn't seen ONE article posted on here that has academics studying what is a Great Power, and who they include using their criteria. So I don't know where these facts (are facts) are. take care. JJx2 18:38, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for getting my point JJx2, that was what I meant but as well I think their might be a bias to all Western European nations (and yes I know that India, China and Japan aren't European) because the two main English speaking nations are the UK and the US, both nations which are very Pro-Western; and anyway I wouldn't have a anti Anglo-Saxon stance because ( and this would have been obivious had I signed my username above) I am a Anglo-Australian. Aussie King Pin 23:09, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm in favour of sources from groups, think tanks,geopolitical magazines and others alike.ACamposPinho 14:44, 27 August 2006

Exactly. I favour the G8. Second choice is as you say, academic groups, think tanks, etc. who have actually done research and applied their criteria. 192.45.72.26 01:55, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

But you can't favour the G8 - at least not without a source stating that all G8 countries are great powers (and what about Canada?). Without a source the G8 proposal is OR which is exactly the thing that we are trying so hard to get away from.

As far as thinktanks, geopolitical journals, etc go, that is an entirely different matter. What you are concerned about here is reputability of sources. Here I think that we agree - I don't want to see blogs, articles by hack journalists, and other similarly shoddy work cited here either. But if you look at WP:V I think that you will find most of your concerns addressed. I don't think that you need to be concerned - after all, the proposal is that we stick to the letter of these policies in the future.

Xdamr^talk 02:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

One source listing Great powers

Brendel has found this and used it to source 6 powers positions on this page. What are your opinions on this source? Nobleeagle (Talk) 04:55, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps we could make a distinction between direct, authoritiative sources which argue in emphatic terms 'X is a great power', and those which mention 'X is a great power' in somewhere in the text in a tangental manner - indirect sources. To me, this source looks like the latter; the article is about something else and mentions this point (re. great powers) as a collateral issue, without considering it further in any depth. By itself, one such source is unsatisfactory. Two, three, four such sources (all pointing towards the same fact - X is a great power) will be pretty compelling - a concurrence of opinion. Better to have a good, direct source that considers the issue directly - but a few indirect sources do the job quite well. But anyway, if you can find indirect sources for a proposition then it shouldn't be too hard to find an direct source, should it?

Xdamr^talk 13:01, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I think that is a good start for the new list. The reason being that the French ex-Foreign Minister quoted in the article (from a reputable independent news source) actually is responsible for coining the term "hyperpower" that is used today to describe the U.S. So, I have to imagine he knows something about international tiers of power. ju66l3r 15:45, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, the article is from 1999. The article I posted on Italy was from 1998. Where is our cutoff for age of an article? Ah, more OR, great. :) Also, for all intents and purposes this guy is a French politician (as my article was an Estonian politician). I'm sure he has some idea of the tiers of power, but politicians always have some agenda that puts an inherent bias on things. That and, well, of course he mentions France is a Great Power. hah. JJx2 18:09, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

We can't just disregards a source due to its nationalitly. How do you know an Estonian is less bias than a French? Signature^brendel 06:48, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Thus the distinction I've tried to draw between direct and indirect sources. For instance he also fails to mention China, does that mean that China is not a great power - no, presumably it just slipped his mind. Of course if he was claiming that China isn't a great power, he is wrong, contradicted by many other sources here.

Xdamr^talk 18:33, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes it's an idirect source-we still need more-but why not have both direct an indirect? Signature^brendel 06:48, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, well I agreed with your points. My opinion only differs that I would say to not only make the distinction, but get rid of these sort of indirect sources all together. The only idea that makes sense to me is to have academic, think-tank, etc. (not-political groups) that have explicitly researched a criteria for a Great Power and then applied it. JJx2 18:43, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I think this is a very bad sources becuase this comment was probably just said in the spur of the moment without much thought. Aussie King Pin 23:12, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Than perhaps, we should look at the hyperpower article beucase this is one of the main sources there. (Of course on that article its direct). Signature^brendel 06:48, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree, it sounds like comments made on the spot. Not to mention the part about saying "and perhaps others". That kind of kills the point automatically -- as he basically implies he is not listing things as if he was really thinking about it. JJx2 05:10, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I don't think that source can or should be used to eliminate nations from contention as a Great power. However, it can be used to support the nations that he mentioned. Nobleeagle (Talk) 05:41, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

"I don't think that source can or should be used to eliminate nations from contention as a Great power. However, it can be used to support the nations that he mentioned." - That was my intention when I added the source from the hyperpower article. I knew it was indirect but I think it can appropriately be used to support the listing of the nations mention as Great Powers. Regards, Signature^brendel 06:48, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Interesting article

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5283956.stm -- Reading this article really had me laughing, because you can almost replace words and come up with an article that discusses this debate. After reading this article it just makes it more clear (at least to me) that even for a group of academics researching these criteria, there will never be a really hard-scientific criteria. Just as they mention the criteria for a planet are not rigorous, the same case exists here for so many points. So even if we do go soley with non-political academic groups sourced to fill in this page (which I believe is the only way to go that is not OR), there will still be huge debatable error there inherently. Anyway, thought it was an interesting article and relevant to this discussion. JJx2 18:51, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I think that we have moved away from a search for criteria. You are right, this is not a science - there are few hard-and-fast rules. The most that we can do is to report on the overall consensus of academic/political opinion, noting where there is broad agreement and noting where there is debate - all combined with rigourous adherence to WP:OR, WP:V, and WP:NPOV. This is what I have proposed above, this is what has been agreed upon, this is where we are going with this article.

Xdamr^talk 21:59, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Forgive me Xadmr, but I guess I don't see exactly where things have been agreed upon -- even by a vote, etc. JJx2 00:29, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

That's why I made that post above you didn't like :-) Signature^brendel 06:51, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

See Start Again section up above. There has been widely expressed consensus for a fundamental revision of the article, going back to first priniciples, with stringent future emphasis on ensuring verifiability etc.

(Actually I probably sounded a little dictatorial in the last sentence of my last contribution - unintentionally, of course. At the end of the day we're all pulling together to make this the best article that it can be, consensus seems to be that present proposals are the way.)

Xdamr^talk 00:35, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, and making it nicer as well :) Anyway, I'm just saying, we still havn't really given everyone a chance to express their views on things, so I'm not sure if consensus has really been reached. TO me it is not clear if ACamposPinho, Aussie King Pin, Ju66l3r, Kayac1971, or 192.45.72.26 agree. Just to be more conservative in our approach, can we lay out the entire proposal and see if it is agreeable? The first principles with ensured verifiability sounds great -- but I don't know how we could state things anymore general than that. :P take care. JJx2 05:06, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

This is what it seems to me. The proposal is: Should we start the article from scratch by keeping only well-sourced material and deleting the rest. This way, in future, we can monitor the expansion of this article closely and ruthlessly delete unsourced material. The more complicated stuff comes in with what is a good source and what isn't. For now, I proposed that if two or more sources stated explicitly that Nation X is a Great power then the nation should be included. We can increase the number of sources required if that seems better. That's not OR (which is defined as Original research is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to material placed in articles by Wikipedia users that has not been previously published by a reliable source.), it is simply an interim policy I thought of until we can find something better. The G7/UNSC proposal is inevitably OR until you find a reliable academic source that states that the G7 and UNSC represent the world's Great powers. Nobleeagle (Talk) 05:47, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Also WP policy does not actually give us a choice aside from "keeping only well-sourced material and deleting the rest" ;-) Regards, Signature^brendel 06:51, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

EXACTLY...There should be no debate, no compromise or consensus. It's wiki-policy, therefore we should delete all unsourced material. In fact, once I read that Jimbo dislikes the {{Fact}} tag and would rather things were deleted straight away. Nobleeagle (Talk) 07:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Just as a total aside (and I should probably just say this on your user talk page), I really appreciate {{Fact}} tags, because I may often remember something I know to be true but can not remember the source...and someone (or myself) can come behind and fill it back in later with the correct source. If the tag has stagnated, then I delete the item. ju66l3r 16:32, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Look I understand that we need to use sourced articles, but it is going to be very hard to find GOOD sources on the internet or in print media (including books), so I think we should just use the G8 nations as the world great powers because admission to the group is (mainly) based on power. Aussie King Pin 09:45, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes it is hard. But if we decide to use all G8 nations that would be OR unless you provide a good source applying the term Great Power too all G8 nations. Ture by definition all G8 nations are international powers, nonetheless we need a source drawing a conncetion between being a G8 nation and a Great Power. Regards, Signature^brendel 16:37, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if I would say using the G8 is OR. It is kind of common sense, like water is wet. We don't need a reference for everything that is more or less obvious. Group of Seven, the seven most powerful industrial countries on Earth. This amongst a World made up of hundres of Nations. Being part of the G7/G8 is an obvious outcome of being a modern power. This definitely gets my vote, largely because it is the only thing that really has common sense attached to it. Calling this a jump of Original Research is probably just a bit going overboard. 192.45.72.26 01:53, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I have found another interesting article from an interview with John Mearsheimer (one of the top 5 most important International Relations professors of today). I only linked to one of the questions of the interview, feel free to read more of the interview too as well has his wiki page. I have a feeling that if anyone could answer "who are the current great powers and what reference shows it?" it would be this guy. I may e-mail him to see if he'd be kind enough to send me a link to what we're looking for. On the other hand, as I read more articles and stories on international power/relations, it seems that it may even be a philosophically-dependent answer that we're searching for. Political Realists may have one list of great powers based on their criteria for what "power" is, and the next philosophy has their list, and so on. It also appears from the interview that in a post-cold war world, America may be the only true Great power (and beyond) because it basically hamstrings any other potential "Great power" to bend to its own ways. The fact that America has also then botched certain recent international moves (like the War in Iraq) and has a shaky economy in some aspects (although still the biggest) suggests that we may be in time of great flux as to who can and who will and who is exerting their power enough regionally to be a Great power. In other words, judgement of what states are Great powers may be something only possible in retrospect (aside from overwhelming power players like the U.S. is currently). Our detailed list of Great powers may need to stop at the end of the Cold War because we're far too close to the results and causes of the past few decades' (and today's) power moves to see who is up or down in the hierarchy of international relations. Just some thoughts I'd share as we continue to find our Holy Grail of a list of Great power states. ju66l3r 05:31, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Delete Pre 1500AD section

I think we need to delete the Pre 1500AD section of this article because before this time no nation had knowleage over the whole world and theirfor couldn't have power over the whole world. Empire of major sigificants and power before this time (Roman Empire, Egyptian Empire, Medieval China etc.) should be put in a new article called Anicent Powers Aussie King Pin 10:29, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Besides it the term is usually applied to countries from the industrial age on forward. I agree with your points above and ancient powers would be good place for these empires. Regards, Signature^brendel 16:10, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

One of the empires in the India area and the Byzantine Empire should both be kept because they were both during modern ages. Constantinope fell in 1453, which is modern time. Casey14 21:14, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Casey14, 1453 is before 1500 so the Byzantine Empire is NOT is modern times —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aussie King Pin (talk • contribs)

It is a common fact that modern times started in the 1300s with the Renaissance. Casey14 18:55, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Industrial age was the term used (ie. post c1830) - not modern age.

Xdamr^talk 20:20, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree, let's move that section to Ancient powers. Nobleeagle (Talk) 07:39, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree to create a new section about Ancient Powers. Kayac1971 14:42, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. A nation only needs to know of the entire world to be a superpower, not a great power. Trip: The Light Fantastic 13:03, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, no offense, but I disagree with that. A Great Power has global influence and thuse does need to know the whole world (something that applies to all Great Power anyways since the term stems from the industrial age). Regional and middle powers would not have to have known the entire planet. Anyways, we need to stick to our sources and as this is an industrial age term, all Great Powers have more or less known the entire world. Regards, Signature^brendel 20:27, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, if we follow through on the consensus expressed above, much of this page (including the pre 1500 section) will be removed in the course of the next day or two. Unless anyone wants to have a shot at it themselves, I'll probably start during the weekend. I'll preserve a copy of the page as it stands in case anyone wants to refer to it (for use in an Ancient power page, for example).

Xdamr^talk 14:02, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I think I'll leave it up to you (you know what you're doin' ;-)) Signature^brendel 20:27, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't go that far, but I'll give it a shot anyway :)

Xdamr^talk 22:09, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

This article from "The New York Times" states that Italy have to be included in the club of the so called Great Powers. It also confirms that there is a prejudice against Italy. [[5]] . Kayac1971 14:35, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

A bit tricky to verify as you seem to need to pay to read it... A newspaper article is not conclusive, but provided we can establish content it certainly merits a mention in the revised article.

Xdamr^talk 02:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

So, if you've got that under control then while you work on Ancient powers I may have time to prune the unsourced material in this article. Does anyone have a strong objection? Note that Italy will be included as a Great power as it has some sources now instead of lists of GDP figures and OR techniques. Nobleeagle (Talk) 07:31, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm a little mixed up - who is working on Ancient powers?

Xdamr^talk 10:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Go ahead! Signature^brendel 07:38, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

If you want to read the article in "The New York Times" you can try the fourteen days free access. Kayac1971 10:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I have applyed for the free-access promotion, so i'll try to summarize that article, without adding any personal opinion of mine, since I am italian (and so forgive me for my english):

In the first part, the article describes the struggle of Italy trying to be recognised as an top tier world power, due to the poor attitude of italians in identifing themselves in their state, other home political issues, and a certain "unspoken prejudice" between the other powers.

In the second part, the article states that this seem to be changed during the last years, and describes how Italy have a key role in the Lebanon crisis, and its commitment in sending troops has been decisive for the current establishing of a large European militay presence in Middle East.

In the third part, it analizes the relations beween the US and Italy, and describes how the new italian administration (unlike Spain) was able to wipe out the issue of its witdrawing from Iraq, and, at the same time, was able to give a role to Europe as single powerful political entity, managing to aligning American and European interests, to combine their influence power over Israel and Arab nations, in a process toward peace.

In the last part, the articles warns that Italy is taking serious risks in Lebanon, but concedes that it has proved steadfast in recent years, with its military presence in Afghanistan, had has won a measure of trust both from Israel and from Arabs, and has been in the last months a better bridge between US and Europe than the UK. There is also a quotation from the former italian president, Francesco Cossiga, who has recently said that italian government "has committed the major error of considering itself a great power", but I must add that Cossiga has been recently very critic against the foreign policy the new government, since he has some personal issues with the foreign minister D'Alema.

In the conclusion, the article suggests that Italy should be allowed in the Britain-France-Germany club, and could also be helpful in the negotiations with Iran. --It.wiki:Twilight 22:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I have a free weekend so I will try to start the article (if no-one does) in 16 hours or so. Aussie King Pin 10:16, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I have started the page under Historical Powers with Egypt, Carthage and Rome so please come and edit. Aussie King Pin 00:30, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

The historical concept of “Great Power”

I leave an historical reconstruction about the concept of great power and its use, I hope it will be useful for who wants to arrange the article

The historical concept of “Great Power” was probably settled during the Industrial era (Nineteenth century) and it is typically centered on the European system of states, but the concept was formed in the European conscience during the whole Modern era, nearby at the idea of balance of power (a concept “invented” during the Fifteenth century among the diplomacy of Italian states).

So we can see that during the Sixteenth Century the great powers of Europe were Spain, France and Ottoman Empire; Spain obtained the supremacy at the end of the Wars of Italy (peace of Cateau Cambresis 1559) and after that France collapsed under the Religion wars; meantime the Ottomans continued their expansion to the west fiercely contained by Venice; (in the same times England was able to preserve her independence but was too weak compared to the others; Poland was a very great country but still confined on the east, a country that rarely participated at the system and was also divided inside and with a weak elected monarchy, especially after the extinction of the Jagellons dynasty; Portugal was annexed by Spain in 1580; the House of Austria, after the abdication of Charles V and the division in two dynastic lines, was weak and not able to command over the Holy Roman Empire, especially after the Protestant Reformation; Russia was far away to participate at the system; the others were simply too weak).
During the Seventeenth Century France recovered and surpassed Spain (Thirty Years War 1618-1648, Peace of Pyrenees 1659), that still remained a weakened great power until the end of the century; after the civil war Great Britain became surely another great power (1688); in the same time and for a little period the Netherlands and Sweden joined the group of the great; the Ottoman Empire launched its last assault to the west but was definitely blocked by Austria, that after the reconquest of Hungary and Transylvania (1683-1699) became another great power;
At the start of the Eighteenth Century Russia did her apparition on the Europe scene taking the place of Sweden among the great powers (War of the North 1700-1721), at the same time the Spanish War of Succession weakened definitely Spain (from this moment Spain lost progressively her status). During the century also the Netherlands and the Ottoman Empire lost gradually their status. Finally, at the middle of the century, Prussia became the last great power (after the Seven Years War 1756-1763).
At the start of the Nineteenth Century (after the French Revolution and the Period of Napoleon) five great powers were recognized in the European concert at Vienna (1815): Great Britain, Russia, France, Austria and Prussia. By the end of the century and after the unification of Italy and Germany, this two countries joined them (the second took the place of Prussia). During the century the Ottoman Empire lost its status and became the sick power of Europe.
After the First World War (1918) Austria vanished as great power, USSR took the place of Russia and two extra european countries joined the group: United States and Japan.
After the Second World War Germany, Japan and Italy lost their status and United States, United Kingdom, France, USSR and China, as winners of the war, were recognized as Great Power. But really only USA and USSR were great, so the world became bipolar and the two were indicated as Superpowers (and the concept of Great Power lost interest as a topic on the international debate, especially on the european terminology).
After the end of Cold War only USA remained as superpower and so the country was also indicated as an Hyperpower. On an inferior level than USA the others old winners of the Second World War (China, France, UK) were joined by a weakened Russia as heir of USSR, and also were joined in some manners by Germany, Japan and Italy that were able to recover gradually their weight during the last thirty years. And perhaps India in the last ten years was able to join the group. This group of eight countries is today important in the international scene, but their weight is very far than the weight of USA (for example the sum of their military spending can’t much the American). Now we can apply to them the old concept of Great Powers, because they were important (the most important countries in the world after the USA), but not securely as it was devised before the Second World War. (Apologize me if my English is not perfect...) Kayac1971 23:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Categories: Talk archives