Talk:Great power/Archive 4

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.

Contents 1 Version before pruning 2 Cleanup 3 References 4 Getting rid of table format 5 Portugal!! Ottoman Empire!! The Netherlands!! Sweden!! and Poland!! 6 Seems like a good source 7 Some other powers to Consider 8 Why I keep adding sources... 9 Merge Global power into Great Power 10 Another source about Italy 11 Peer review? 12 Two sources about Italy 13 Source problem 14 US? 15 List of Great powers and Hyperpowers 16 You have got to be kidding me 17 What sort of prose do we need 18 What the hell? 19 Poland 20 Whoever keeps editing this page is... 21 Protect this Page? 22 Portugal, Prussia and Spain

Version before pruning

Here is the pre-pruned version which contains a list of all the unsourced historical powers and modern powers. Once to page, unsourced material will not be allowed to stay on this page, even if it states things that some people consider obvious. Nobleeagle (Talk) 04:17, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup

I've begun to go through the article. I've started to delete OR/unsourced statements and I'm also starting to examine the various sources cited, to assess whether they support their propositions and to ensure conformity with WP:V.

Does anyone have the text of the source in footnote no.2? (Hegemony, liberalism and global order: what space for would-be great powers? Hurrell, Andrew; 2006; International Affairs 82 (1); pp1-19; Accessed May 22, 2006 (Subscription or one off-payment of 19p required)) If anyone could provide me with the text then I would be grateful.

Xdamr^talk 00:54, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Do you dispute the historical (and referenced) fact that nation-states or former nation-states such as the Ottoman Empire and Prussia were great powers? Cleanup does not mean remove much of the content essential to an article and the topics surrounding such article. No offense, but you are not the head editor or whatever self-appointed position you appear to have taken. "... I'm also starting to examine the ... sources cited ... whether they support their propositions ..." sounds like a self-powering statement belittling to others, you shouldn't be the only one with a say on what stays in this article. Is this abstract not a good enough source for you? If so, then you would have trouble with many articles on Wikipedia with much worse or no references! If anything, you could add a {{fact}} tag to unreferenced statements instead it just deleting them. Sorry if I sound a bit vicious, but I do not like it when people strip an article of much of its flesh, while you seem to have added much information of Jan Smuts while taking away from this article. ~ clearthought 02:16, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

There are at least two more references (other than [1]) to the Ottoman Empire as a great power, [2] and [3]. ~ clearthought 02:28, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Don't take umbrage, if you look at discussion above - expecially the Start again? section - you will see that we (ie. the current editors of the page) have been planning this for some time. We have agreed to go back to first principles and observe WP:NPOV, WP:OR, and WP:V to the letter for now and for eternity. This isn't something that I've unilaterally taken it upon myself to do on the spur of the moment. We might end up with a smaller page, but it will be a more academically rigorous page.

I hope that's clarified things.

Best wishes, Xdamr^talk 02:39, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

References such as the ones I listed above (in re to the de-listing of the Ottoman Empire as a former great power) are alright for your version of WP:V, are they not? ~ clearthought 02:46, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

No problem with putting the Ottaman empire in, it's just that the page is in severe flux at the moment. Note your contention, and the source, here and it will be acted upon when we get the core of the page stabilised.

Xdamr^talk 02:51, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

After you are finished with your editing spree, let me know. I can work on the article a good amount tomorrow. ~ clearthought 02:59, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

References

I'm sorry, while I was working on the page I didn't notice that the references got messed up. I looked at diffs and went through the referencing but couldn't find anything. I'm stopping work now and I hope someone else can find the problem. Nobleeagle (Talk) 05:03, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Getting rid of table format

Xdamr has proposed that we get rid of the tables and prosify instead (of course we will be very hard on sourcing). Does anyone disagree or have objections? Nobleeagle (Talk) 05:02, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I think tables are bad in all artices that ane not lists so I think the article should be rewritten like the Historical Powers page. Aussie King Pin 06:10, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Portugal!! Ottoman Empire!! The Netherlands!! Sweden!! and Poland!!

Who deleted these? Why do people keep deleting nations that have been great powers? Who gives you the right! PUT THESE BACK ON!Casey14 23:26, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

The term 'Great power' (as used in politics and academia) has been sourced as originating from the Congress of Vienna, from a statement made by Lord Castlereagh. The five powers of the Congress of Vienna were France, Russia, Prussia, UK, and Austria-Hungary. If you can provide a source which adds nations to this list then please bring it up. (nb. we are not talking about nations which have exercised great power, we are considering nations which have been Great powers within the meaning of the term).

Xdamr^talk 23:38, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

That is a lot of nerve. Nearly all history books describe Portugal, The Netherlands, the Ottoman Empire and Poland as Great Powers. If you do not believe those are or were great powers. The Ottoman Empire was a power until 1918, so your little speil about The Congress of Vienna must be nulled and void. These must be put back on the list, or you are a terrible fool. Portugal nearly controlled the whole world during the age of exploration. The Netherlands controlled the world of commerce and had many colonies. The Ottoman Empire controlled the Mediterranean Sea and was the strongest nation in the world for over a century. Just because the first term was used by Lord Castleragh, dosn't mean it didn't apply before that. Don't make asssumptions! Casey14 00:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Come on now, no personal attacks. If you want to add them, then source them - it's as simple as that. What we think that we know, or what we think is obvious, does not matter - what we can source does. We have a sourced definition for the development of the term as one of diplomatic/academic discourse. If you find a source that contradicts it, encompassing Poland etc, then bring it forward.

I will reiterate: we are not talking about nations which have exercised great power, we are considering nations which have been Great powers within the meaning of the academic/diplomatic term.

Xdamr^talk 00:23, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Why isn't the Ottoman Empire allowed in? It was a great power during and after the Congress of Vienna, unlike the other 3, which I have to now prove, even though they are obviously and well-known? Casey14 00:25, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

No-one is stopping any of them getting in, but they must all be sourced. Otherwise we are looking at Original Research, just the thing we are trying to get rid of.

Xdamr^talk 00:27, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Here is a link for Portugal: http://www.bartleby.com/65/po/Portugal.html If you read it states Portugal was never again a great power, stating that it was once a great power. I found this same article on other encyclopedic pages. Casey14 00:48, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok as far as it goes, can you find one or two more (academic/history research papers)? -- Xdamr^talk 01:15, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

http://www.portugal-travelteam.com/resources/phist.html , http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/world/A0860493.html Casey14 01:35, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I mean sources eminating from universities or scholars in the field, not unattributed compilations of information. -- Xdamr^talk 02:16, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Here is a link for Sweden: http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/2880.htm . This is from the US State Department website! It states the subsequent peace treaties, the allied powers, joined by Prussia and England-Hanover, ended Sweden's reign as a great power.. Also Wikipedia has an article that is titled Rise of Sweden as a Great Power. Casey14 00:53, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Can't reference other Wikipedia articles (WP:V) -- Xdamr^talk 01:15, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I also gave you another very reliable source, which is good enough. Sweden WAS a Great Power, no debate!Casey14 01:28, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

There is always debate, that's the point of academic study. The state dept. page is fine as an indirect source, one or two more would be desirable. -- Xdamr^talk 02:16, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Here is a link for the Ottoman Empire: http://home.earthlink.net/~tebrister/great_power_rivalry.htm Casey14 01:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Non-reliable source (Wikipedia:Reliable sources) -- Xdamr^talk 01:15, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Well there are reliable sources listed above Casey14 01:28, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Here is a link for the Netherlands: http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/3204.htm , which states the Netherlands became a great sea and colonial power. Casey14 01:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Here is another link for the Netherlands: http://www.houseofdavid.ca/new_fr.htmCasey14 01:35, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Who is David Steinberg and why does his opinion matter? WP:V applies (reliable sources), otherwise I could just as well start throwing in my uncle Augustus's opinion. -- Xdamr^talk 02:16, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I had some other references for the Ottoman Empire in this earlier discussion. I hope to work on this article today and tomorrow adding sufficiently-cited information and cleaning up some too. ~ clearthought 01:09, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to look all night for your stupid research pages. I've given you ample enough, and all these countries were great powers. I do not need to show any more pages, because I have proven myself. You need to show pages that disprove them as great powers at those times, and then they won't go on the page. Casey14 02:48, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

From WP:V:

The burden of evidence lies with the editors who have made an edit or wish an edit to remain. Editors should therefore provide references. If an article topic has no reputable, reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on that topic.

From Wikipedia:Reliable sources:

Use sources who have postgraduate degrees or demonstrable published expertise in the field they are discussing. The more reputable ones are affiliated with academic institutions. The most reputable have written textbooks in their field: these authors can be expected to have a broad, authoritative grasp of their subject.

This is what we need. Try taking a page to Peer Review, or Featured Article nomination, with poor sourcing like this and see where it gets you.

Xdamr^talk 02:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

You were original editor, I wasn't. All those countries were on the list. Casey14 03:30, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

In my personal opinion they all were Great powers in the early 19th century and some remained Great powers for a long time after. However, all MUST be reliably sourced. I think we should be able to find the source for the Dutch and the Ottomans. Nobleeagle (Talk) 07:28, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Casey 14 please note that the Ottoman Empire belongs on the hisorical powers articles so if you find 2 reliable sources please add it to the page. Aussie King Pin 12:00, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

If you look under the cleanup section, you will find 2 reliable sources to the Ottoman Empire. Casey14 17:50, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Who is Steven W. Sowards and why do his opinions matter (is he a noted academic? etc). What makes www.bulgaria.com a reliable source? We have to address these questions for all sources to comply with WP:V. This is nothing personal, either against yourself or the countries concerned, but we need academic rigour to the page. Source from those with 'published expertise in the field they are discussing', that way this article will become a worthy guide to those seeking to learn about this area.

Xdamr^talk 17:57, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually I apologise to Mr Sowards:

Steven W. Sowards is Head of Main Library Reference at the Michigan State University Libraries, East Lansing. In addition to the M.L.S., he holds a Ph.D. in History from Indiana University with a thesis on Habsburg foreign policy in Macedonia in the period preceding the Balkan Wars. Prior to coming to Michigan State in 1996, he was Humanities Librarian at Swarthmore College, where he also taught occasional courses on Eastern European history as an adjunct instructor.

Found at: http://www.press.umich.edu/jep/05-02/bios.html

So that's ok then.

Xdamr^talk 15:30, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Seems like a good source

This Source presents a list of Great powers in the late 19th century and an analysis of their positions in affairs during this time. Nobleeagle (Talk) 07:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

We should try and look up some of these books. They would help greatly. Nobleeagle (Talk) 08:00, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Excellent list. I think it's time to face facts, there just isn't a great deal of easily accesible, authoritative, information on the internet covering this topic. Yes, you can find the opinion of just about everyone and their dog, but there aren't too many academic papers, journals, etc available (unless you have paid access). I think that a few of us might have to make a trip to the local library...

Xdamr^talk 00:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Very good sources, we might be albe to add all these nations because I think we already have 1 sources for all these. Aussie King Pin 12:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Some other powers to Consider

I really do not have the time or resources to add to this page in a scholarly manner, but I do recomend that ancient powers like Rome, Alexander's Greece, Imperial China, the Mongol Empire, and the Islamic Empires be considered in any updates to this page. In the very least, I do recomend that the Islamic Empire (Umayyad and Abbasid Dynasties) be added to this list because that was the first true global empire- the empire covered vast lands, spread a common religion (Islam) and language (Arabic) to much of the Middle East, Africa, and South Asia as well as brought many cultures together through Islamic customs such as the Hajj, which allowed people from vast corners of the globe to come together and speak a common tongue. (I appologize deeply if I did not thoroughly read this article and theses powers were already considered)

Just my two cents. SgtPepper967 00:48, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Those powers belong to Historical powers, as Great power was generally an Industrial Age term. If you find sources for these, feel free to add them there. Nobleeagle (Talk) 07:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Why I keep adding sources...

Some people may be asking that "Why is this Nobleeagle adding sources for nations that are already well sourced". Well the reason is that as we have put dates as to when nations were Great powers and when they were not Great powers. It would follow logically that we back up that time period with a variety of sources from different parts of that time period. I don't say we completely eliminate the dates straight away (as they are susceptible to Original Research), but for now it's good to keep those sources in hand for when we prosify. Just clearing that up. Nobleeagle (Talk) 07:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Merge Global power into Great Power

I can't find any real differences between the two concepts. Global power sounds more "cool" and contemporary, while Great power has something more historical, but that's all. The two articles have similar content and list almost the same countries. So I think a merge could avoid confusion. --Twilight 09:49, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it could be done,but keeping in the merged article a definition and explanation of both concepts.ACamposPinho 22:35, 6 September 2006

It should only be done if we can establish, by reputable sourcing, that the two are the same. I think that I came across an assertion to this effect when I was sourcing this article. I'll have a look around and see if I can find it.

Xdamr^talk 22:01, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

The Free Online dictionary says "World power" and "Major power" are equal to "Great power". I think we can say that World power and global power are the same thing and thus I think a merge might be fine. Just redirect it to this page, all information will remain in Global powers history and can be used if it is sourced. By the way, we only have one {{Fact}} tag left. After we fix that we can prosify the table. Nobleeagle (Talk) 06:27, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Another source about Italy

I've found another source about Italy and her position among the "major countries", it is from Foreign Affairs [[4]] ...the working group has demonstrated its credibility by criticizing the convention's inadequate implementation in major countries such as France, Japan, Italy, and the United Kingdom. It is essential that OECD monitoring continue beyond 2007, when current funding is scheduled to end. The working group's monitoring ...

In this article we are concerned with the term 'great power' (or 'major power', if you prefer). This is an established political science term. We are not looking for examples of the use of 'great' or 'major' as adjectives in respect of individual countries. The distinction is quite an easy one. Sources bearing on the former are acceptable, sources as examples of the latter are not. I urge you not to spend any more of your time bringing up examples of the latter use, they are of no use in the article and it only wastes your time.

Xdamr^talk 14:53, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Peer review?

What's the general view on putting this page up for Peer Review? The concept is now sourced in most essentials. I think that a fresh view in terms of prose/sourcing/layout etc would be beneficial. What do you think?

Xdamr^talk 00:29, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Go ahead...we should look for some tips to use before improving it further. Nobleeagle (Talk) 00:57, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good, go ahead! Regards, Signature^brendel 06:40, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I've put the page up. I've flagged up a few specific points for discussion, points which struck me as important. If anyone has any of their own to add then feel free to amend the PR request.

Xdamr^talk 23:18, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Two sources about Italy

Two more sources about Italy among the greats. The first is from the Washington Post [[5]]: On Tuesday evening, Rice will hold a dinner with her counterparts from France, Germany, Britain, Russia, China and Italy, in what U.S. officials billed as a session to determine what elements would be in a sanctions resolution...

The second is from the New York Times [[6]] : Rice is set to have dinner on Tuesday with foreign ministers from the permanent five members of the U.N. Security Council as well as Germany and Italy to discuss how to deal with Iran.

These are sources for absolutely nothing (other than the fact that international statesmen/women are busy having meetings). Reading inferences into a piece of information, such as you are trying to do, is a clear breach of WP:OR. As it happens, I have come across some proper, academic references which declare Italy a great power (though noting that there is some debate about it, given that Italy is smaller than the other great powers). I intend to being them forward within the next day or two.

Xdamr^talk 14:30, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

How on Earth does the text you provided specifically state that Italy is a great power?? Nobleeagle (Talk) 23:40, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Who are you asking?

Xdamr^talk 02:15, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

The pro-Italy source-provider. Nobleeagle (Talk) 02:53, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Source problem

I'm having difficulty with a source. It's at http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20060501faessay85305/ben-w-heineman-jr-fritz-heimann/the-long-war-against-corruption.html - The Long War Against Corruption, Heinemann, BW & Heimann, F, Foreign Affairs May/June 2006.

At first sight, this source seems excellent - written by academics, published in a reputable journal etc. Just the kind of thing we are looking for. It is cited to support the proposition that France, Japan, Italy, and the UK are major powers (citation text - France, Japan, Italy and United Kingdom among major countries). The trouble is that the article doesn't seem to address this at all. Now, I'm basing this on reading the first 500 word preview. The complete article (3900 words) can be purchased - has somebody done this? The first 500 words do not mention either these countries or the concept of great/major powers - do the remaining 3400 words?

Oh, it's reference no.33 by the way.

Xdamr^talk 15:35, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll delete this reference then.

Xdamr^talk 15:18, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

The full context is: Over two-thirds of all OECD parties, including the group of seven highly industrialized states (G-7), have been reviewed, and the working group has demonstrated its credibility by criticizing the convention's inadequate implementation in major countries such as France, Japan, Italy, and the United Kingdom. It is essential that OECD monitoring continue beyond 2007, when current funding is scheduled to end. The working group's monitoring budget should also be increased so that the group can promptly perform follow-up visits to noncompliant states and build momentum for greater enforcement.

There is also a sentence saying that Although 13 of the 24 countries examined in Transparency International's 2005 report have centralized enforcement, some major players, such as Germany, Italy, Japan, and the United Kingdom, have not.

On the whole, this amounts to saying that Italy is a member of the G-8, which I trust the article already mentions. JCScaliger 21:47, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

US?

The US seems to be listed here as a great power, why? I'll amend it to 1897-1945 rather than to the present day. As we all know, the present day US is a superpower, not a Great power (even though it might have great power - if you see what I mean).

Xdamr^talk 15:57, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Well I think being a superpower, kind of implies that you have Great Power. Thus I don't quite see the harm in listing the US here, although some people may be confused and we should perhaps add a note stating that the US is also a superpower. (Also, didn't the US become a superpower after WWI? At least that's what I always thought.) Regards, Signature^brendel 17:30, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

You certainly have great power, but are you a 'Great power'? My instinctive reaction is no - if you are a Great power then you are not a middle power, if a superpower then you are not a Great power, etc, etc. Each category is mutually exclusive.

Xdamr^talk 20:57, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I understand, I just happen to have, well... opposite perspective on the issue as I bleieve the terms are mutually inclusive. Of course, readers might be confused by seeing the US under the Great Power label and the superpower label. Thus it is perhaps best, for the sake of our readers, to remove the US from the listing on this article and add a sentence stating that the US is a superpower. Regards, Signature^brendel 21:07, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I am in agreement that one superimposes the other like cum laude, summa cum laude, and magna cum laude graduation honors. If I hold magna cum laude honors, then it's clear that I qualified for the cum laude honors but at the same time was so qualified that I achieved a higher honor. It's then unimportant to maintain yourself as cum laude. The U.S. is a Super Power and when it was considered as such it left behind its lesser Great Power status. ju66l3r 21:09, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Mmmh... I like your analogy. Ture, the US is a superpower and as thus has surpassed the great power stage. See, I thought of it more in terms of degrees. Say person has a BA, MA, and Ph.D, on his resume he wuld mention all three, right. But I have to say the honor analogy works better. Well, looking at it from this vantage point plus considering my previous concern over readers being confused, I say remove the US from this listing as it is a superpower. In other words, present the terms as being "mutually exclusive." Regards, Signature^brendel 21:56, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Just as an aside, as soon as I finish my PhD here, I won't list my lower degrees unless I hold them in alternate fields (like Dr. Joe Smith, Ph.D., J.D., M.D.; not Dr. Joe Smith, BA, Ph.D.). Most people won't get a Ph.D. without the BA/BS/BE first, so it's assumed usually. ju66l3r 22:34, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Correct you don't mention it in conversation. Its for example, Dr. Frizt Manheim, Ph.D, right. But when you apply for a job, it is common practice to list your other degrees with major. Ture, the only thing your prospective employer is really going to look at are the post-graduate studies, nontheless on a resume all degrees are commonly mentioned. Regards, Signature^brendel 23:30, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

The analogies made by Ju66l3r are thought-provoking. I agree with Xdamr here, I think we should declare a date in which the US stopped being a Great power and became a Superpower and show in the Fall or Notes section that this was because of a "transition to superpower status". But what about the Soviet Union? That was also a Superpower? Do we only include the SU as a Great power up to the fall of Nazi Germany and then give it the same treatment as the US? Nobleeagle (Talk) 23:43, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, we need to let the sources determine when the US and USSR became superpowers, but during the Soviet Union's "tenure" as superpower it wasn't a great power but a superpower and should thus be listed in the same manner as the US IMHO. Regards, Signature^brendel 23:54, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

List of Great powers and Hyperpowers

Xdamr, I don't agree with the removal of the List of Great powers and Hyperpowers article that Brendel added for a number of the nations in the Present Section. Although the list was created off the person's head and wasn't really directly addressing the topic, I think it is a decent source for now. Say in an interview someone asked one of us who we though were the Great Powers and say we were world-renowned experts on the subject. Just because we said it without having a good long think about it doesn't remove its credibility. I think that while we don't have the magnificent academic list of Great powers which we need, that source should remain. Nobleeagle (Talk) 23:49, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the article is relevant and supports the other sources. Why not have more supportive sources. The article merely supports the assertions made based on other, perhaps, more credible sources. Thus I do not really see any point in omitting the article from being cited IMHO. Regards, Signature^brendel 23:53, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Well I won't argue with you about it if you want to put it back in. Perhaps at this stage of the article's evolution it has a place. I was just trying to be a little ruthless in applying WP:V and the requirement for reputable sources. I thought, on reading the source, that it was to unspecific to be of much use. But, as I have said before, I really think that the past/present sections could do with prosifying. The current situation, with each country followed by 3/4/5 source citations, without any indication of their content or contentions, is unsatisfactory. We should really select sources in order to back up argued propositions, rather than simply listing them like this.

Xdamr^talk 02:12, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I say removing the article I cited is okay if it was the only citation for those countries, but as there are other citations this one merely becomes a supportive citation, backing up the others. Perhaps adding more specific titles in the citation templates is another alternative in addressing your concerns? Regards, Signature^brendel 02:57, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

You have got to be kidding me

When the hell was Italy a great power? Italy has done nothing at all to earn the status of a great power. The most important thing they have done is invent pizza...but did that make them a great power? NO! It just made their country more obese. They got owned in the war. At least Germany put up a fight, but these guys, had no hope. Italy has never been, and will never be a great power. This comment was left by Damareinu.

This has been discussed again, and again, and again, and again and again...in the last again we decided to include Italy as a great power. Please see above and check the archives. Nobleeagle (Talk) 23:49, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

No OR please, if there is a source stating Italy to be a Great Power (there is) then we need to include it. Personally, I also do not beleive that Italy is a Great Power, but we all have different opinions and beleives which is why we must only include referenced material and trust our cited sources on articles whose subject matter is of a very subjective nature. Regards, Signature^brendel 00:27, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

What sort of prose do we need

OK, I think it may be time to prosify this...but we don't want to make the mistake of making this page just a list of why those powers are so great. So what prose do we need? A bit of history that incorporates some power factors (ie. Country A developed nuclear weapons in ----. At the height of its power, country B had some ------- troops under its control. Country C has experienced economic growth in the past -- years and is currently growing at -.--% per annum). Do we agree on that sort of thing? Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 00:26, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

What the hell?

People around the world- except in China- use Wikipedia as a source of knowledge. What is the point of having Italy as a great power, if their is NO legitimate source whatsoever showing Italy as a great power. No mater how many times this has been argued about- internally- for the good of the public, we should all omit Italy from the list of great powers. Unless, you are ready to bow down to a mentally challenged obese Italian with nothing other than pizza and world domination in their heads, then I call for the deletion of Italy as a great power. If Italy is a great power, then so would be half the other countries on the Earth WE live in. Should we really be deceiving the public? Should we? NO. It is clear as crystal that Italy is a useless, floccinaucinihilipilificacious, low-life place with absolutely no identity at all. If Italy is a great power, even my home country- Spain- could be a great power. What does everybody think of that?

Poland

Library of congress clearly states that Poland was a power. The fact that you choose to ignore plain writing continously, is really upsetting. http://memory.loc.gov/frd/cs/pltoc.html The Jagiellon Era, 1385-1572 The Polish-Lithuanian Union The "Golden Age" of the Sixteenth Century Poland-Lithuania as a European Power

I could easily remove neatherlands, since they had no military might capable of competing with any European country at the time. Same goes with portugal, since other then naval warfare, these countries were militarly weak. Italy was just a merchant state which high culture, but there were many wars fought on its land simply because no one respected the country. Germany lost the two major conflicts that it got itself into when you say it was a "power" France was occupied, so the period of it being powerful would have to end, and Japan winning a war against Russia does not make it a great power, that would be like me saying that Poland defeating Ottoman turks would make it a great power. Actually, Ottoman Empire was at the time a world power, but Russia at the time of Russian/Japanese war was not. US clearly wasnt a world power untill after WW1, when the markets of Europe were ruined and had to rebuild, so putting it as after war with Spain is inaccurate.

Nothing personal, it's simply that you have not provided a source which states Poland to have been a Great power. 'Gerat power' is really a post Congress of Vienna term (post 1815), as such it is not immediately applicable to 16th century Poland. As far as the Netherlands, Spain, etc goes I've removed them myself. Goodness knows how they crept in, but they are unsourced OR and as such cannot remain. I wouldn't pay too much attention to the tables as they are likely to be rewritten over the next few days.

Xdamr^talk 13:51, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

The term "great power" may have originated with the Congress of Vienna, but great powers existed well before the Congress. A comparison can be the Americas. Before it was discovered it did exist. That's why Portugal and the Netherlands are both applicable. Portugal did have a reference, someone on this page, and the Netherlands does as well. Spain will be rather easy to find multiple sources, as it was the strongest nation in the world for nearly a century, at least. Casey14 03:34, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Only if an academic tries to retrospectively apply the term. In much the same way that it is regarded as anachronistic to describe the Roman Empire as a superpower, it is not something that is done in the sphere of academic Internatinal Relations.

Xdamr^talk 11:04, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

No offense, but right now it is supported, go read it, it says in clear words, "The next major period was dominated by the union of Poland with Lithuania under a dynasty founded by the Lithuanian grand duke Jagiello. The partnership proved profitable for the Poles, who played a dominant role in one of the most powerful empires in Europe for the next three centuries." "The Polish-Lithuanian alliance exerted a profound influence on the history of Eastern Europe (see fig. 3). Poland and Lithuania would maintain joint statehood for more than 400 years, and over the first three centuries of that span the "Commonwealth of Two Nations" ranked as one of the leading powers of the continent. "

"The Teutonic Knights had been reduced to vassalage, and despite the now persistent threats posed by the Turks and an emerging Russian colossus, Poland-Lithuania managed to defend its status as one of the largest and most prominent states of Europe"

"THE NOBLE REPUBLIC, 1572-1795 Although most accounts of Polish history show the two centuries after the end of the Jagiellon Dynasty as a time of decline leading to foreign domination, Poland-Lithuania remained an influential player in European politics and a vital cultural entity through most of the period."

So other then the fact that it says great power, lets look at the things that produce great powers.

Military strenghts- Poland fought wars against all the countries near its borders and untill the 17th century, was winning them. Economic- Poland was the bread basket of Europe, before industralization, when economies were judged by their agricultural capabilities. Poland in the center of trade with the east. This was a time when resources from Asia were traveling through Poland, an example would be Persian rugs. Culture- In the areas that were conquered, nobility of those areas tried to behave Polish. Same was true for countries not conquered, like Russia for which boyards dressed in Polish outfits. You have the closest thing to democracy since Greek times. Poland and the largest nobility, yet that nobility had the same rights people expect today. Religous freedom. Poland had the greatest tolerance for religion of any European country.

I'm personally sick of u removing it, this time u will readd it, or im flagging u and the whole article, since you are just pushing your view with complete bias on the matter.

Whoever keeps editing this page is...

It is a given fact. Spain, Portugal, the Netherlands, Austria, Sweden, The Ottoman Empire, and all the other past powers on this list are now gone. What the hell is your problem? uncivil remark removed I'm giving up with this stupid page. I made the list, but someone uncivil remark removed keep making it ridiculously retarded. Casey14 21:35, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Two things: a) Remain civil and b) in the history you can look up recent changes. But please refrain from phrases such as "stupid" or "idiot." WP is not the place for such demeanor. Keep in mind that you may revert certain edits-if you don't know how, just ask. Thank you. Signature^brendel 21:38, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

It would be nice if these people would give logical reasons for editing, but they don't. They think they are the only right ones, without proving anything. Casey14 01:25, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Im sorry, I removed those countries because Xdamr is a forum troll and keep ignoring the support evidance that i give for why Poland should be on that list. It was on that list long ago, I did not add it, I simply came across this article two days ago, and tried readding it 3 times, to no luck because of that troll. Since he is ignoring credible sources, I figured that it was only fair that I ignored other sources. Although he did state that he feels that some of those countries should not be there, he continues to add them but constantly removes Poland when ever it is added.

This can only mean that he is RACIST, and should therefore be disqualified from the article.

Again I'm really sorry, but I'm simply tiered of racism toward my ethnic group. That nazi should be banned.The preceding comment was left by Funny4life

First, I don't think I was referring to you. Some unregistered user, deleted all past great powers except the Soviet Union.Casey14 02:33, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Wait, I was referring to you. Just because Poland-Lithuania is currently not on the list, does not mean you can VANDALIZE! You are not being productive. You may debate Poland, by starting a discussion on this page. Please do not vandalize the main page any more. Casey14 02:37, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I did start it, look up ^^^ I also wrote in his talk page, and he responded in mine.The preceding comment was left by Funny4life

I don't care what you did, you are still vandalizing the page. Do not vandalize the page. You are just as equal to blame, if not more now, because of your vandalization. Casey14 03:21, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Please sign your posts with your signature with the four ~. Casey14 03:28, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Fine, I'll be mature about it. I'll stop removing them, and we can see if we can have a valid discussion here. Funny4life 05:13, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

In the interests of wider debate, here are the 'sources' for Poland, as provided by Funny4life:

http://freepages.history.rootsweb.com/~koby/political/chapter_13/13passpoland.html

http://www.answers.com/topic/poland

http://memory.loc.gov/frd/cs/pltoc.html

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

And of course, WP policies WP:OR, WP:V, WP:RS.

Have a nice day, Xdamr^talk 11:01, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Protect this Page?

With recent editings, without any discussions, I believe we should protect this page. Many of these edits have came by unregistered members and have had no reasoning behind them. Casey14 01:28, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Portugal, Prussia and Spain

I have delated the Portugal, Prussia and Spain from the former great powers section because they are unsourced. I think that these nations were all great powers for short periods of time but we can have unsourced statements in an article like this. Aussie King Pin 09:48, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Prussia is (to a degree). See the Concert of Europe discussion in the history section. That seems to validate it (along with UK, France, Russia, and Austria-Hungary).

Xdamr^talk 10:46, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I am going to look for more references for both Spain and Portugal. Casey14 21:14, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I have restored Spain and Portugal, with a reference for Spain's status in the 16th century, when Spain was probably a superpower. The contention that Spain was a Great Power as late as 1898 I find very doubtful; neither Iberian power was one of the five recognized powers in 1815. Portugal (for, again, the sixteenth century) is doubtless equally easy; most of the 3500 scholarly hits for Portugal and "great power" should do. JCScaliger 22:35, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

So he can find refrences, readd the country and expect it to stay but i because of a troll can not even when i find support. Wow talk about fairness in having a troll named Xdamr in this article. Oh and you currently are a perfect example of a typical forum troll, or as the troll is discribed in wiki, so im not insulting you, im just calling you what you are. Funny4life 00:05, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

It is because you haven't provided any reliable sources, sourcing Wikipedia, one of its mirrors or a free site that could've been written by anybody is not good enough per WP:RS. Please maintain civility. Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 00:29, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I sourced library of congress, which is far more accurate then wiki. He ignored it, and currently, so are you. Funny4life 04:41, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I would have to agree with you. I gave many reputable sources, but Xdamr didn't recognize any. He does not own this page. Casey14 19:03, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for agreeing with me.

Im going to readd Poland later, hopefully he wont remove it this time. I feel that i have supported my arguments, and he simply did not support his. Removing content based on disagreement without support is not a responsible way to act. I acted like a dick by removing other countries, but i was simply taking out my frustration because of his childness. I hope that troll gets banned. Funny4life 21:13, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Help me out will you? Point to the part of the Library of Congress page that discusses Great powers, and more specifically which names Poland as having been one. Could you also please explain to me how your sources meet the requirements of WP:RS.

Please note that "one of the keys to writing good encyclopedia articles is to understand that they must refer only to facts, assertions, theories, ideas, claims, opinions, and arguments that have already been published by reputable publishers" (taken from WP:V). Further note that "reputable publications include peer-reviewed journals, books published by a known academic publishing house or university press, and divisions of a general publisher which have a good reputation for scholarly publications" (taken from WP:OR).

Xdamr^talk 22:18, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

No, I actually do not have to find an article that talks about great powers. I only have to find an article about Poland, that states it was a great power. I have done that. Again, you are a troll and, you should be banned.Funny4life 23:53, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Do not call another editor a troll; such conduct is not appropriate. Keep calm. Please this is WP, not a blog, lets stay professional. Thank you. Regards, Signature^brendel 23:00, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

That's exactly what I asked; which part of the article states that 'Poland was a Great power'? Furthermore this whole 'troll' nonsense is wearing a little thin - grow up for crying out loud. If you have a complaint then post it in the proper channels. I have full confidence in my conduct and contributions, both past and present, to answer any allegation or charge you try to make.

Wikipedia:Resolving disputes will tell you what to do.

Xdamr^talk 23:57, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

It is clear that you, Funny4life, are the one who doesn't have an accurate grasp of Wikipedia policies. In any case, you honestly can't expect us to sift through the entire Library of Congress page on Poland and look for information on Great powers. Please link to the page which states that Poland was a great power. Casey14, Xdamr doesn't own this page and neither does anyone else, this is a collaborative effort to improve this page and requires all users involved in collaboration to be aware of Wikipolicies. Particularly WP:RS, WP:OR and WP:V. Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 06:20, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely. I have never asserted any personal rights over this article, other than those of an ordinary editor with an interest in making it as good as it can be. This includes adding content but also ensuring that such content is in line with wikipedia policies. If it is not then it is not permitted to remain. I play my part, as do other editors (check the page history), in making sure that policies are observed.

Xdamr^talk 13:54, 8 October 2006 (UTC)