Talk:Great power/Archive 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Mini Peer review 1.1 Xdamr 2 Past/Present tables 3 Global power 4 Brazil 5 The Return of Western Centrism 6 An issue 7 Poland 8 Wikipolicies 9 ON the case of pre-1815 great powers 10 "Generally accepted" 11 United States 12 Rewrite 13 Pre-1815 14 Status of various countries 15 Spain 16 US did not become a great power after Civil War 17 - vs — 18 The good old days? 19 GERMANY 20 Rewrite is completed 21 Bias towards past powers vs. current powers and the Dispute

[edit] Mini Peer review

To my (& I'm sure everyone else's) disappointment the PR page seems to be attracting next to no comment. This is rather a pity - external input would have been handy. As it is, it seems like we will have to do it ourselves.

I think that it might be useful if we all made a note here of our thinking as far as the future direction of this article goes. What needs adding/changing, prose, sourcing, layout, etc, etc. Perhaps then we can get some sort of direction worked out for the short-medium term. Just stick your thoughts in a subsection, your user name as the title.

So then, what do we all think?

Xdamr^talk 13:37, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry I haven't been working here, maybe I'll get time on the weekend. Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 06:09, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Xdamr

• Pictures - is there any scope for adding them? General shots of the UN, seats of world power (eg Westminster, US Congress, Bundestag), etc would add to the aesthetic appeal of the page.
• Prose - decent, but a copyedit would certainly be in order. I think that we have to standardise on Great power or great power (or even Great Power, although I don't think that this is much good). I favour the former - the capital is warranted as it is being used as a noun.
• Sourcing - the theory aspects of the article seem to be decently sourced (although I'd like to see the section verified, see Academic Peer Review below), but the past/present Great powers are not. I think that we're concentrating far too much on looking for internet-based sources. I think we need to face facts, sources of the quality that we require are simply not easily acessible on the internet. Books and paper journals are the best bet. As far as the use of sources go (this applies to the table format), I object to the citation of sources divorced from any sort of proposition. The endless sources after the UK and France, for example; we are left with no idea what the source says, what proposition it argues.
• Layout - the tables are pretty poor. They look awful and fail to convey any real, in-depth information. I've highlighted the problem with the tables and sources - I think that this problem is inherent with the constricted space offered by the table format. The tables also seem to lend themselves to, for want of a better term, ill-considered edits. I think that prosification is a must. As far as the content of this prose goes (per Nobleeagle's note above), I think that we should be guided by the sources that we come across. I don't think laying down a set format is useful at the moment. Make a note of the facts that relevant sources see fit to mention.
• Academic Peer Review - Easier said than done, I know. Unfortunately ours is the only wikiproject dealing with this area, so it's difficult to know where to look for help. Perhaps we need to place emphasis on recruiting editors with a background in the subject to the wikiproject?

Xdamr^talk 13:37, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

scholar.google.com is very useful. JCScaliger 22:36, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Past/Present tables

Now that things have quietened down a little perhaps it's time to revisit the tables. I think that there has been broad agreement that prosification is in order - I certainly think that a prose-based layout would have discouraged things like the recent Poland debacle. If we all remain in agreement as to the desirability of losing the tables, I will make a start on it within the next day or two. I have one or two sourcing leads which I'll follow up to write new Past and Present sections, I'll then cut and paste the new text in place of the tables. Anyone with further valid sources can then add their contribution to the text. Is that OK?

Xdamr^talk 23:15, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Go ahead. I simply don't have the time for prosifying but I'll definitly check up on what you add and possibly elaborate. Look at Global power for help on some information (although it's all unsourced over there). Once you're done I'll delete the contents of Global power and create a redirect to this page. Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 07:25, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Gonna wait and see what you write, I'm still doing research, kinda low on time because of school and work, but should be done soon.Funny4life 04:56, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I've made a sort-of start (Aust-Hungary and most of France). I had an idea of doing the whole thing in one go, but I felt tired and hungry so I left it half done. In the meantime I've commented the rewrite out and reinserted the tables - watch for that if you are editing that section. If anyone fancies looking through it you will get an idea of where I'm hoping to go (although France isn't referenced yet).

Xdamr^talk 00:51, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I've let this slip very badly with no work since the 15th Oct. I will make a definite and concerted effort to get it done over the weekend.

Xdamr^talk 23:36, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Global power

There were some sourced statements in Global power, which I merged to Great power since there was no objection after a month. You can see the pre-merged version here. Some of the stuff could come in useful later on. Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 05:10, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brazil

It looks like the Major power article has been brought back from the dead, at least so far as Brazil is concerned, sigh. Changes made to the Great power article, Template:International power, and Brazil as an emerging great power to deal with. All cheerfully unsourced - ever get the feeling that you're banging your head against a brick wall? I almost feel like throwing in the towel and going back to writing articles on South African history (my primary interest).

Xdamr^talk 02:46, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

The only user editing with his own personal brazilian bias is User:João_Felipe_C.S. He has been editing a lot of articles to promote a false image of brazil. He's also very uncivil. Just revert his edits, he's already reported. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Let's talk! )} 08:30, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Return of Western Centrism

Some time ago I included the Ottoman, Moghul and Chinese (Qing dyanasty era) as historic great powers contemporaneous with the western powers mentioned - of which only the Ottoman has been retained. But I feel the Moghul and the Chinese (Qing era) operated in their international context as great powers as their contemporaries like Austria, Prussia and the Ottomans did in their international context. The Chinese empire projected its power outside of China proper (Tibet and Xinjiang) and operated a system of tributary states in the east. If the Ottoman is included so should the Chinese (Qing dynasty era) and Moghul empires 58.84.126.240 05:11, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Can all these three go on the Historical Powers page. Also make sure everything that you write in is sourced because this page has a very aggesive unsourced delation policy. Aussie King Pin 06:24, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Mughal and Qing can go to Historical powers. Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 07:40, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] An issue

The Ottomans, British etc. would not have been referred to academically as "Great powers" before the Treaty of Vienna. So should we reduce the dates of the those powers to 1815-1918 or whatever the case being. Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 04:24, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

No. Juse because a "term" was not invented, does not mean that these countries were not great powers. Casey14 22:46, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm very much afraid that it does. It was a new term, invented to describe a given set of nations, therefore only those particular nations have a right to be termed 'Great powers'. However, the term has now become an established part of the International Relations lexicon, other scholars from the more recent past and the present have applied the term to the most powerful nations of their own time; therefore we may safely term these new additions as 'Great powers'. In the pre-Congress of Vienna epoch there could not have been Great powers because the term did not exist.

Xdamr^talk 23:34, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

That makes no sense. Since "America" wasn't called anything (by Europeans) before it was "founded", I guess it didn't exist. Casey14 23:36, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

It certainly didn't exist as far as European scholarship and learning was concerned. Those who lived there knew that it existed, those who had been there knew that it existed, but until Columbus's discoveries Europe didn't. No particular culture has a monopoly on knowledge, no culture knows everything that there is to know. If it did then there would be no need for scholarship. Having said this, I don't really see the relevance of your point to Great powers...

Xdamr^talk 23:41, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

It is something caled a comparison. Really. A Great power is a nation or country that controlled the world or a major section of the world (either politcally, economically, or even socially). It dosn't matter what year it was, as long as it was since the Renaissance. Casey14 23:45, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

A comparison which seems to have little bearing on the matter at issue. We aren't talking about a phenomenon of nature, which would objectively exist whether humanity was around or not. The term is one which is the creation of man. It exists now, it existed in the past, it did not exist in the far past (pre 1815). Why? Because it had not been created. Your philosophy smacks of OR - why the Renaissance? It seems a very arbitary point to choose, and good luck trying to pinpoint when it began/ended.

Xdamr^talk 23:53, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Before the Renaissance, the technology was not capable in sustaining a large empire, in most cases. However there are the few that were, such as Alexander's Empire, and the Roman Empire. Personally, I wouldn't mind them being on the page, but you have criticized us that have said that. Casey14 01:08, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Complete and utter Original Research. The term Great power was not used in the early 2nd millenium and thus did not apply to any powers of that time. If you can present professional academia or scholarship which suggests that the term can be applied to powers before that period, then by all means present it. The term was also used within the capacity of Europe before globalization, which is why we don't see the Mughals mentioned on this page or anything like that. Please read WP:OR, Wikipedia presents information, it doesn't create it. Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 04:08, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Then this article can not really state any country as a great power if the time period is before the time you select. Otherwise, you are simply picking based on your selection, and that is what this article seems to represent right now. So countries such as Habsburg Monarchy/ Austrian Empire/ Austria-Hungary[23][24], Spain[28] Sweden[29] The Ottoman Empire[23] Portugal can not have a period listed before that word was established. However, if we look at the criteria, and not the date, then there are plenty other countries that fall into the category.

While I like the article in general, I really see a lot of selective picking in selecting the nations, yet giving a criteria that needs to be fufilled in order to qualify as a great power. However, countries that have met that criteria before the term was created, are either ignored, as with Poland, or included with the limitation that the deletion of these countries is automaticly considered abuse although the time frame listed would not meet the criteria that restricts other countries.

Not exactly sure if I'm explaining it clearly. -- I think that we currently have an article that forces some countries into restrictions based on a time line although they meet the actual criteria requirements; while other countries which either do not meet the criteria but meet the timeline are allowed in. It seems like the criteria aspect with the current selection of countries is completely useless.----

You aren't getting it, countries aren't being allowed in because they meet some self-invented criteria, they are being allowed in because they are sourced academically as a Great powers in its form in Power in international relations, it's not simply two words, it's a state of power. Please see WP:RS, WP:OR, WP:V and if possible sign up to Wikipedia. It's quick, it's free and you get extra opportunities. Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 05:42, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I do believe all great powers are listed already -- unless one wants to argue for the EU as a great power/emerging superpower/superpower. Poland is most assuredly not a great power today, and I have serious doubts about Italy. I haven't removed Italy since it had traditionally been considered a great power, but I don't think the term fits now. "Debatable", though, suffices for me; until there's better consensus among the editors, it should stay with that note. CRGreathouse (t | c) 10:36, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Who considers Italy a great power. It never established colonies. Its only true territorial gains were at the expanse of the papal states. You are correct, it should be removed. I'll look for reasons with the other countries as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.184.97.24 (talk • contribs)

Italy is not generally considered a great power. It is not a military power like Britain nor an economic power like Germany. The Proffesor 21:57, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Italy is no more than a great power than Spain was in the 19th century, yet Spain is not on the list, due to pro-Italy wikipedians who are biased, and have no real factual support. I've given support for Spain, Portugal, The Netherlands, yet mine don't count, but whenever Italy or India, which arn't great powers are brought up, members go crazy addding them. This one-way narrowed approach needs to stop. Casey14 21:16, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Poland

Shouldn't Poland be included as a Great Power? After all, it was one in practice for some time in the early modern age. --Andrelvis 18:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it should be, but we simply have people with their own biased views who will not allow that to happen.

Bring the references and you can Poland up there (I myself am actually 1/8 Polish). Regards, Signature^brendelNow under review! 03:25, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Just because you are 1/8 Polish dosn't mean anything. You could hate the country with a passion, for all I know. A few certain members should not be allowed to rule this page. Casey14 21:17, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipolicies

This is getting intolerable! Before accusing me, Xdamr or anyone else of bias PLEASE PLEASE read WP:RS, WP:OR, WP:V, WP:NPOV. These are not negotiable, whatever we decide here has to be in relation to these. PLEASE understand this before accusing people of bias. The reason Poland isn't there is because no reputable sources were found and the dates were prior to 1815 anyway. If you believe Poland, Bulgaria, Kazakhstan or East Timor should be there but can't present sources, then it will not and cannot be there. WP:RS, WP:OR, WP:V, WP:NPOV. Read them. Wikipedia:Reliable sources, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Original research, Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View. I am upholding the policies, please understand that, I have no personal problem with China, Russia, Brazil, Poland, the Netherlands, Bulgaria, Pakistan or any other country for that matter but I have been accused of being biased towards each of these countries. Tell me how and why I can possess a bias to all different countries in all different continents which speak all different languages. Regards. Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 03:31, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Nobleeagle is completely right. Also, I agree that using the term for times before 1815 would be an anachronism. It is not inconceivable that the term has been used retrospectively in academic discussion, but if it has, the burden of showing WP:RS is with anyone who wants to make the claim. Extending the term not just to before 1815 but back to the 10th century seems ridiculous. dab (ᛏ) 07:58, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the problem is that great power is misunderstood as essentially middle power -- an state that is active throughout the globe without having leading positions.

As for the dates, I can see both sides. I have no objection, as such, to applying the term before it was invented, although expanding the historical table is not my preference (that table is overly large already, that much information should be in paragraphs instead). However, it would be crazy to apply the term to pre-Westphalian (1648) times, because the modern nation-state did not yet exist. On the other hand, I also haven't edited the dates to before 1815 years. CRGreathouse (t | c) 08:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree entirely with what has been said here. If the term has been retrospectively applied by a reputable source then there is a prima facie case for adding it here, however adding powerful pre 1815 nations as of right is not the way forward. The fundamental problem is the confusion noted by CRGreathouse above, the distinction which has to me made between a state which is posessed of great power and a state which is a Great power. Frankly I don't see any way to clear up this misunderstanding except with rigorous application of policy, this confusion is inherent in the term.

re. the tables. If you edit the Great powers section you will find, commented out, the beginnings of a rewrite. This is essentially a prosification to get rid of the tables (which look pretty unsightly) but also to move away from the practice of naming a nation a Great power and supplying a list of references in the table, divorced from any knid of proposition or indication of content. In so many cases these 'sources' prove themselves to be wholly inadequate, either they are not reputable or they do not squarely deal with the topic, relying on creative interpolations in order to claim any relationship with the subject of Great powers. The rewrite has somewhat stalled but I hope to pick it up again over the weekend.

Xdamr^talk 12:50, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Well since we are now getting rid of the tables, I'm just gonna remove them right now.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.184.97.24 (talk • contribs)

Best to leave the tables, at least until the rewrite is ready to be pasted in their place. Incidentally take care not to disturb the commented-out rewrite section.

Xdamr^talk 20:24, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

If they are left, we are spreading incorrect information, so either remove it completely, or do not argue if you disagree with some countries.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.184.97.24 (talk • contribs)

You are in violation of WP:3RR (with 4 reversions in 24 hours). If you revert the page again you risk being reported and blocked.

Xdamr^talk 23:59, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ON the case of pre-1815 great powers

Since we are not "documented" enough to have these on the list, we should have a section before stating powers like Portugal, which might have been great powers if the term would have been invented earlier.Casey14 22:36, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

There's a revision going on in the page now (commented out) to expand the earlier powers. Why don't you look at that format and do some writeups for the pre-1815 powers in your userspace, and then when the revision is further along we can figure out how to work it in. On one hand I don't think there's any reason to limit to the age of the term (although it can only be properly applied to post-Westphalian times), but on the other thee have been many countries that have been a Great power, at least for a short time, and I don't want to clutter the article. I look forward to seeing how you address this. CRGreathouse (t | c) 23:38, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Right now I do not have time (very busy with schoolwork), but in the future I will consider that.Casey14 03:19, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

We do have the Historical powers page which could do for these countries. I don't favour them being included on this page under any heading, however we could make a note to the effect that "Great powers only existed post 1815, but for prior important powers powers see Historical powers", or similar.

Xdamr^talk 00:06, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

You are just trying to impose your view on everyone. That's just pathetic. Also, you are constantly reverting the article back, so stop being a hypocrat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.184.97.24 (talk • contribs)

Please remember WP:CIVIL- stay calm. Signature^brendelNow under review! 04:06, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your problem or objection is, apart from wanting to get rid of the tables immediately, with nothing to put in their place. How objecting to this makes me a hypocrite I have no idea.

Additionally, please follow proper page formatting; it makes it difficult to follow the flow of the debate otherwise.

Xdamr^talk 00:35, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

It is the role of a Wikipedian to uphold Wikipolicies. Please, what Xdamr is saying makes perfect sense, try understanding him instead of coming up with insults. Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 08:19, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't feel like argueing anymore. I'm simply gonna remove the table as has been agreed on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.184.97.24 (talk • contribs)

It has not been agreed upon, there is absolutely no consensus for removing the tables before the rewrite is complete. I really have no idea why you are approaching this with such an antagonistic attitude, but regardless, we have enough good editors here to ensure that the article won't be pulled apart. If you don't subscribe to the norms of Wikipedia etiquette then I suggest that you stop editing until you are capable of displaying basic courtesy.

Xdamr^talk 01:39, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

If you blank it again, you will be reported and most probably blocked. Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 03:30, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Generally accepted"

There needs to be some sort of consensus here because I don't like this cycle of reverting. Right now we have:

• "It is now generally accepted that the term "great power" also applies to... Italy".
• "There is debate on whether Italy should be included as a 'great power'."
• "Debatable" on Italy's status as a Great Power.

First of all, the first of these contradicts the next two. If there's debate, then it's not generally accepted. In fact, based on the number of articles disputing Italy as a Great Power referenced in this article alone, I think it's clear that there is debate. I think of Italy as a classic "Middle Power", but I understand that a person could come to the opposite conclusion. I don't think the first statement is justified, however.

More importantly, the list of "generally accepted" Great Powers does not include India. If India, an emerging superpower going toe-to-toe with unquestioned Great Power China, is not "generally accepted", then certainly no sane person could conclude that Italy was "generally accepted" as one.

I see several possible fixes. The most reasonable would be to replace Italy with India, and remove the prose (that I added) supporting India as a questionable Great Power. While what I wrote about it acting largely regionally had been true in the past, it seems to ring hollow today as India acts on the global stage more often and more forcefully.

The second would be to remove Italy without adding India. This is appropriate if people feel agree with what I wrote about regionalism (I'm not sure I do myself), or if they feel for some other reason that it is questionable [i]and add the reasoning to the paragraph[/i].

The third would be drastic: simply remove the list of unquestioned Great Powers. This stops most debate, but also puts the US and China in the same undifferentiated category as lesser Great Powers as France and Italy.

Further, I imagine there are other possibilities that may arise; I would be open to considering these as well. Suggestions?

In closing: the article contradicts itself and needs to change. I'd like to do this without animosity as far as possible. CRGreathouse (t | c) 18:03, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Well the term "generally accepted" is a weasel word; as we have never actually polled the world's or Europe's populous over whether or not they consider Italy a Great Power. The thing is that we have sources stating Italy to be a Great Power and others omitting Italy from their list of Great Powers. Thus its status is debatable and I don't see any problem with you removing the phrase "generally accepted" from Italy's entry (but leave Italy in as we have sources for its inclusion). Regards, Signature^brendelNow under review! 18:22, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I absolutely agree that Italy needs to be discussed, because as I mentioned there are reasons to consider it as a Great Power -- for one thing, it has an economy larger than Russia's by some measures. I just think it's silly to call it "generally accepted" and then disagree in the same paragraph.

As an aside, polling the citizens of Europe would not be a good measure IMO. First, few are familiar with the definition of Great Power and most would simply respond regarding whether it has great power or not. More importantly, the world decides, not just Europe or America. I think very few from East Asia would think of Italy as a Great Power as such. CRGreathouse (t | c) 21:44, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I think few from Great Britain would consider Italy a great power either. The Proffesor 22:05, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

As the article itself says, "[The search for Great powers] has led to a great deal of subjective analysis, with little agreement on a definitive list." So long as we have reputable sources (reputable - very important point) stating that a country is a Great power, then there shouldn't be much difficulty. There is no definitive list, so we shouldn't necessarily expect to agree with all the nations listed, but the judgements as to who is and who isn't, which source is 'correct' and which is not, aren't ours to make. Both India and Italy seem to have enough support to merit their being here. Perhaps we should describe them as being the more 'junior' Great powers? I recall coming across a source which described Italy in these terms.

ps, you don't really have to worry about animosity here, we usually get things done in a fairly friendly and cooperative way. I suppose the recent POV/OR pusher disputes have shown us in a bit of a bad light, but a proper editor has nothing to worry about - in fact it's nice to have a new editor interested in the article.

Xdamr^talk 21:22, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Do you really think India is a "junior Great power"? Regardless, I don't want to remove the entry, just to take it from the list of "generally accepted" nations. Even if someone else removed it from the main list I would probably put it back, since it is 'so close' and debatable.

I'm glad you go about things in a friendly way here. I'm still shell-shocked from my experiences over in Hugo Chavez. CRGreathouse (t | c) 21:44, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

My own vague 'league table' of Great powers (leaving the superpower, the US, out) puts the UK and China up at the top, both with political, economic, and military power, and the will to use it (possibly less economic power for UK and a little less will to use power for China). After that comes Japan, substantial economic power, a little less in the way of political power, unusable military power. Germany and Russia are tied. Germany, with much the same justification as Japan - Russia, with political clout, substantial armed forces, poor economy, but the will to wield power. France (good armed forces, reasonable economy, but too politically divided from the US and broader 'West' to exercise real power/influence) and India (most things improving, but not there yet) follow, with Italy at the end. Others will probably differ...

As a result, yes, I do consider India somewhat 'junior' - though on the whole it is a term which applies less to it than to Italy. Nevertheless, within any category like this, there will be some powers which are slightly more 'Great' than others. Of course the best test of 'Greatness' is to look at how the country stands in comparison to those which are Middle/Regional/or less powers. By and large all the Great powers look good in comparison with such countries.

Xdamr^talk 22:07, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I see your argument, although I feel that the armed forces of India, including their will to use them, have improved enough recently that they are in the same category at least as France. Actually, the same could be said for Japan (with its move toward changing the constitutional limitations on the military and a surge in naval spending), although as a clear Great Power that's not relevant here. Feel free to remove India from the list of "generally accepted" Great Powers and add a quick description of the reasons it is debatable, if you feel that way; I won't stop you. CRGreathouse (t | c) 23:20, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I probably wasn't clear, I do roughly equate India with France - in the same way that I roughly equate Germany and Russia. Having said this, when the prosification of the tables is complete, I think that inserting debatable etc will be unnecessary.

Xdamr^talk 23:55, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure the prose will fix many problems (although at least initially cause just as many). I look forward to it; when the initial version is out, I'll work on the wording and such. I've already done one cleanup edit on it. Good luck! CRGreathouse (t | c) 08:56, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] United States

Why are United States listed here? Shouldn't they be listed just as superpower? --Fertuno 17:46, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Well the status of superpower implies the attaiment of Great Power status. Think of the education system as an analogy. The attainment of an MA usually also means that a BA has been attained. Signature^brendelNow under review! 19:18, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

This has been discussed before. I think once we prosify it, we should discuss the US only up to the beginning of the Cold War. Then say it ascended to superpower status. Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 23:18, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's in the archives and that was the conclusion. Hence the education analogy. First you earn the BA, than the MA. America was a Great Power than became a superpower w/ the latter status implying the former. Signature^brendelNow under review! 23:26, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Well that was one way of looking at it. My preferred conceptualisation is to regard each 'level' of power (Not a power, Middle power, Great power, Superpower, Hyperpower - if you can tolerate that term) as akin to steps on a ladder; once you move up a rung, you are no longer on the previous one - you have left it (and that power classification) behind.

All cheerfully unsourced though ...

Xdamr^talk 23:59, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Sure, that's another way of seeing it. Signature^brendelNow under review! 01:34, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that it would be rare to call a superpower a "great power", and would tend to not include the US on this list. It should be covered at Superpower. I don't mind its inclusion enough to change what someone else writes, though. CRGreathouse (t | c) 00:58, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

You've got a point. That said, I won't revert anyone who decides to remove the US from this list. Regards, Signature^brendelNow under review! 01:34, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rewrite

I'll be adding stuff to the rewrite throughout the weekend. I'll assemble it in bits, so if you think at any point that it looks POV/unsourced/full of mistakes just leave it for the time being, I'll be getting around to it. Once the thing is finished then you'll all be welcome to rip it apart as you see fit :)

Xdamr^talk 01:47, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pre-1815

It has been said here that there were no Great Powers before 1815, because the definition didn't yet exist. However, that is not true, as the definition applies retroactively. Think of it - when someone invented and defined the word "tree", it didn't mean that trees didn't exist prior to his inventing of the word and definition. --Andrelvis 15:44, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I feel as you do. For brevity, it might be best to choose some point (and 1815 is as good as any) before which we don't discuss Great powers, but I don't think we should change existing dates to 1815 and I'd prefer to see the 1815s changed to their proper dates. CRGreathouse (t | c) 18:16, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll reiterate a comment I made above, in the An Issue section, which dealt with this point:

We aren't talking about a phenomenon of nature [the concept of Great powers], which would objectively exist whether humanity was around or not. The term is one which is the creation of man. It exists now, it existed in the near past, it did not exist in the far past (pre 1815). Why? Because it had not been created [ie. pre-Congress of Vienna].

In fact this issue has been discussed quite a bit recently, discussions can be seen above.

Xdamr^talk 21:31, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you, yet some members dictate this page, using irrevelant facts. Spain was a great power since the 15th century. The same goes for Portugal, Sweden, and the Netherlands. But some reason some people on this page cannot see the forest because the trees are in the way. Casey14 02:02, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Status of various countries

I've been reading a number of papers recently on polarity and realist theory in general, and I thought I'd apply what I could of this to this article. I think that most of these articles mention the Great powers, so I'm going to mention their lists. This should provide support on the two issues discussed above: whether the superpower is typically included, and which states are Great powers.

[Wilk1999] 4 Great powers: France, Britain, Russia, and China. "India presses to join the group"; given the advances it has made in the last 7 years, I would not be surprised if Wilkinson included India today. Of the four states listed, only Russia has declined significantly since publication, but few would argue that it has left the group.

[Wohl1999] 4 Great powers: Japan, China, Germany, and Russia.

[Layn1993] 0-1 Great powers: China?. "Germany, Japan, and Russia certainly have the potential to be great powers. Germany and Japan cannot today be considered great powers, however, because they lack the requisite military capabilities, especially strategic nuclear arsenals that would give them deterrence self-sufficiency. Notwithstanding Russia's still formidable nuclear and conventional military capabilities, economic difficulties and domestic political uncertainties have undercut its great power status. China will be a strong contender".... Given the spectacular rise of China in the past 13 years, there should be no doubt that Layne would now consider it a Great power.

I'd like to add more articles as I come across them. If it's not too early to do a bit of analysis:

• The widespread agreement doesn't show up.
• No source has Italy or India, though the latter is disadvantaged by the age (7-13 years) of my sources.
• No source includes the US; all tacitly agree that superpower status overrides great power status.

[Wilk1999]: David Wilkinson, "Unipolarity without Hegemony", International Studies Review, Vol. 1 (1999), p. 142.
[Wohl1999]: William Wohlforth, "The Stability of a Unipolar World", International Security, Vol. 24 (1999), p. 8.
[Layn1993]: Christopher Layne, "The Unipolar Illusion", International Security, Vol 17 (1993), p. 5.

CRGreathouse (t | c) 07:07, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

They are all Great Powers. Great Power status is a subjective vague thing and there will be sources for and against for just about every country for such status is imaginable. We have sufficient sources for all countries currently on the list. There are many sources backing me when I say that Germany and Japan, home to world's only economies w/ a nominal GDP of more than 2 trillion (other than the US), guranteed US protection are great powers; there may be some who disagree with me and they as well as can find sources supporting their point of view. As long as we have sources stating a country to be a superpower we need to list it. If there are sources stating that they may not be, than we need to mention that there are sources who do not identify those countries as Great Power. In any case, if a sources says a given country is a great power, we need to include it, even if they're sources stating the contrary. Those sources get a note in the margin. Regards, Signature^brendelNow under review! 07:25, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not arguing for the immediate removal of any country. In particular terms, I don't mind Germany and Japan being listed as Great powers. (I listed only three papers; I'd like to turn that into ten or twelve to get a better idea.) I don't agree with you in principle, however: just because some source calls a country a Great power doesn't mean we should include it. I'm sure I would dig up some source if I tried hard enough that would list some crazy country as a Great power, just like I have a crazy source above saying there aren't really any Great powers. I do want to get away from the language we're using now, since it makes it seem like there's widespread agreement on Great power status where there is not.

In any case, I'm looking to increase the knowledge the editors here have, not to make any overt changes (yet). I'd like to clean out the cobwebs, so to speak. CRGreathouse (t | c) 14:14, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

WP:RS is our friend. You are quite right, crackpot sources are not good sources; but so long as we adhere to this policy we should have some sort of respectable academic grounding.

Xdamr^talk 02:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

When I say source you can assume I mean a source that complies with WP:RS. When we have reliable source for the inclusion of an article, then we need to include. If there are then other sources that state this particular country not be a great power, then need to mention their exsistance and the country's debatable status, but not remove the country from the list entirely. I hope that clearer. Regards, Signature^brendelNow under review! 02:30, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

RS is not what I'm talking about. All three of the sources I listed are quite reliable; I wouldn't mention them otherwise. The third article takes a slightly harder view of the 'Great power' definition, though, which puts it out of step with the others. My trouble is that there could be a reliable source that for one reason or another includes a country which would very seldom be considered a Great power, perhaps because they're using a slightly different meaning for the term. Regardless, one source alone should not sway the general thrust of the article, although it might be useful as a note to the contrary.

If we collect two dozen sources (reliable sources, at that) and find that one includes Brazil and another includes Italy, that doesn't mean we should include either (although we could mention them as possibilities). If the two dozen, say, mostly agree on three countries (perhaps Russia, China, and the UK) and have three more that are mentioned by a significant minority (say, France, Japan, and Germany) we can include the three or even the six, but we should note the level of agreement on these with a comment like

Foo, Bar, and Goo are generally accepted as Great powers. Foobar is sometimes often considered a Great power because of its military might, despite its lack of influence politically and economically. Gazonk and Googaz, because of their impressive economies and political clout (especially in the case of Googaz, which sits on the UN Security Council) are often grouped with the Great powers, although because of their small, non-nuclear militaries most scholars do not consider them as Great powers but rather as strong Middle powers.

What do you think? I'm talking about the general principles here; again, I want to read more papers and collect more sources before making any changes. (If you have papers worth listing, go right ahead; the more the merrier.) CRGreathouse (t | c) 04:57, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I don't quite follow. What are you proposing? Japan is listed as a Great Power becuase a) we have sufficient sources and b) it is commonly considered a very powerful country. BTW: Who says France is any less of a great power than the UK-it's got a UNSC seat, nuclear weapons and larger economy and larger population. France and Germany are according to many sources whom I trust the two most powerful countries in Europe-but that aside. What is it exactely that you are proposing? Signature^brendelNow under review! 06:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, we're apparently not communicating at all since Japan and France have nothing whatever to do with what I was talking about. (For what it's worth, France also has larger military spending than the UK, the third-highest in the world.) My main points:

• I disagree with this statement of yours: "In any case, if a sources says a given country is a great power, we need to include it, even if they're sources stating the contrary." I think that a country should be included only if at least a significant minority of (reliable and relevant) sources include a country as a Great power.
• Our current sources are lacking. "Modern Italy Stakes a Claim to Top League"? It's not scholarly, it's talking only about regional politics (and as such deals with regional and middle powers at least as much as great powers), and it's rather specific to the Lebanon conflict. The Estonian speech is obsequious and not to be taken literally for that reason. "Germany, a European great power": 'European great power' cannot be read other than as 'regional power'; there's no justification other than similar sound to read the term as meaning Great power in this context, etc.↑
• We shouldn't make statements like It is now generally accepted that the term "great power" also applies to the United States, United Kingdom, Germany, France, India, China, Japan, and Russia. when this is not true for roughly half the list. India and the US may well be Great powers, but most sources would currently disagree.
• Generally: We should reconsider the list of current Great powers, ensuring that recent changes in world affairs haven't removed any countries or added others.

↑ I'm arguing against the validity of these sources, not against their arguments. Germany is by many/most accounts a Great power, but the article mentioned doesn't support this.

Let me know how you feel about all of this. CRGreathouse (t | c) 07:51, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

All reasonable enough. As far as sources go, if you find a source which is no good then either delete it (if it is outstandingly bad) or bring it up here for discussion.

One thing which we should all bear in mind above all else is that:

"There is great debate as to which nations constitute the Great powers of the world. Largely the question has been answered by recourse to 'common-sense'. This has led to a great deal of subjective analysis, with little agreement on a definitive list."

So don't go looking for one, we can only arrive at our list by studying the broad academic consensus, over a variety of sources.

Xdamr^talk 16:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you, especially with your last line: "So don't go looking for one, we can only arrive at our list by studying the broad academic consensus, over a variety of sources." I think it is most important to keep this in mind, and indeed that more eloquently states my point than anything I wrote. CRGreathouse (t | c) 02:04, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

So you, CRGreathouse (t | c), are basically saying that some of our sources are not of high enough quality is that it? As for, "I'm arguing against the validity of these sources, not against their arguments. Germany is by many/most accounts a Great power, but the article mentioned doesn't support this."- what does this mean. There are four different sources for Germany. Are you unhappy with all of them. If so, the thing to do would be to look for new ones. Regards, Signature^brendelNow under review! 00:23, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, I think many sources in this article are not good enough. While I am not suggesting Germany be removed, I think the source I mentioned in particular should probably be removed for the reasons I mentioned. I'm not removing it right now because I'd like to get good replacements for all the sources, as well as to review all the sources currently in the article. Most of the sources in the article I haven't looked over in much detail at all. CRGreathouse (t | c) 02:04, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, waiting to remove a source until you can replace it is probably a good idea. If you find a better source for something, I say, you can present it here or put it in the article right away. As long as we're just talking about replacing some of our sources-I think gradual replacement is the best way to go. Regards, Signature^brendelHAPPY HOLIDAYS 02:09, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spain

some of the dates were simply not factual in the Section listing the great powers of the past. This was especially true of Spain, where the dates implied that the reconquista occurred in the early 1800s and that Latin American revolutions caused Spanish downfall just prior to the twentieth century. I changed these dates so that they reflected the real time period of these events (that is, the early 1500s to the late 1500s/early 1600s). I realize that this was before the 'invention' of the idea of a great power, but I felt that it was better to have somewhat factual information, rather than leaving the data be due to one detail. G.bargsnaffle 01:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Spain lost its great power status after the Spanish American War. It controlled much of the world's economy up until then, when it finally lost most of its remaining possesions. Spain's status from 1815 to 1898 could be similar to Italy and Japan today, who are both on the list. Casey14 02:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Spain controlled the world economy until 1898? I think that that is pretty far from the mark. How do you reconcile this with the fact that the UK had a 30% share of world trade?

Xdamr^talk 02:33, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

As usual, you do not understand. I don't think Italy by any means controls 30 percent of today's economy, neither does Japan, nor France. However all of these three countries are on present day lists. Spain and Portugal, until their downfalls, controlled siginficant amounts of world trade, and land. Did I say Spain controlled 30 percent? I did not. I said it controlled, at least comparable (more actually) than countries like France and Italy control today. Yet those are on the list because they're in the "G8". In 1815, if their was a G8 that would have been made up of: Austria-Hungary, Great Britain, France, Prussia, Russia, Spain, Portugal, and either the Netherlands or Sweden. However the 8th spot would actually go towards the Ottomans, because during that time they would have not been allowed to participate. Casey14 02:56, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

(cough) Source (cough). Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 03:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I had sources, but they were deleted when some member deleted those two countries off the lists, maybe if you look back into the history you will find them. I am not searching my but off for someone's folly. Also, I notice no Sources are out for Prussia or the Third Reich, so don't be a hypocrite. Casey14 03:31, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Prussia and the Third Reich? First of all, Prussia was not a great power, the unified German state was. But here are some sources:

• Danilovic's book on the major powers.
• Wright, Quincy. 1942. A Study of War
• Townsend, Mary Evelyn. European Colonial Expansion since 1871

Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 03:38, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] US did not become a great power after Civil War

How crazy is this. The US was suffering after the Civil War. Many men died, and the whole southern half of the nation was destroyed. The US did not become a great power until it defeated Spain (a falling great power, cough, cough) in the Spanish-American War. Casey14 21:20, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] - vs —

I'm curious, what is the rationale for replacing hyphens in this form ' - ' with '—'?

Xdamr^talk 15:54, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

That was me. A hypen is used to join words, an em dash for pauses. All major styles guides covers this; it's also found in Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dashes).

If there's some good reason to leave it as-is I supose we can, but the (correct) syntax I changed it to is

• Visually attractive
• Semantically useful: screen readers and the like are given pause information
• 2 bytes smaller. :)

In any case, I'm not changing it back until I hear from you at least.

Oh, and on an (almost) unrelated note, good job on the revision! What a massive project. CRGreathouse (t | c) 18:01, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

You learn something new every day! I had no idea that there was so much to the simple hyphen. I certainly don't mind changing to the appropriate hyphen, as a matter of aesthetics I'd like to see a leading and a trailing space after the em dash though (ie. ' — ') — is that proper usage?

Xdamr^talk 01:10, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I've worked as an editor (not recently), so the differences between an em-dash, an en-dash, a hyphen*, and the minus sign are significant to me. As for the spaces, no space is the standard way, but I must admit " — " is sometimes used. I think it's less attractive, though. If it's important to you I'll use spaces, I guess.

* Actually, when I say hyphen I use the Unicode "hyphen-minus" sign, but let's not go there.

CRGreathouse (t | c) 01:43, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The good old days?

I've just come across an old version of this article that I userfied back in September — User:Xdamr/Great Power Rev X. Quite a difference! Good job all round, we've made huge strides in the past few months.

Xdamr^talk 01:16, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Wow, that old version is terrible. This article has really improved! CRGreathouse (t | c) 01:45, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GERMANY

Why is there NOTHING under the topic of Germany in the "Great Powers - WIP"? Someone should write SOMETHING about Deutschland, right? Or else why is it even there? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.127.233.162 (talk) 01:02, 28 December 2006 (UTC).

You have pointed out the reason yourself — the title is Great powers - WIP. Something will be added on Germany in due course — in fact I will probably try to finalise the whole section tomorrow.

Xdamr^talk 01:17, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Done. Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 04:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rewrite is completed

Yes it is done, I am deleting the tables... Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 03:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bias towards past powers vs. current powers and the Dispute

This page shows huge bias towards powers of the past. How today can we have over 8 powers while in 1815 we only had 6? Bias towards Spain and Portugal is obvious, as any history book will tell you they were great powers at 1815. I have provided references on pages past, but it seems that those are irrelevant, because of the anti-Iberian bias. Today, France, Russia, Italy, and Japan hold the same amounts of power that Spain and Portugal held. Spain and Portugal don't have as many references of this power, because during their time technology was not as advanced. Articles were not written that stated Great Powers. The G8 also did not exist during their time. The Congress of Vienna was heavily biased itself. Metternich (Austria) included Prussia, Russia, and France because of their closeness, and Great Britain because of former alliances. The Ottoman Empire was left out because of being an Islamic nation. Spain and Portugal were left of some discussions because of their distance from Vienna and their recent sacking from Napoleon, one of the greatest leaders in history. Spain and Portugal did not fight during the 6th and 7th coalitions which led Metternich and other leaders to not want to include them in this Congress, which was really meant for the victors of Europe, and the poor dynasty of France. Spain and Portugal both had huge economic status'. They controlled, together, at least 40% of the world economy. They both had capable militaries. Spain and Portugal did not both suddenly drop from being superpowers to middle powers, they gradually declined.

I would like a little more response, then just from Xdamar and Nobleeagle. These two members are very much friends and control this page. No other member can make a change without them quickly reverting it, and asking 1000 questions why, and if you do not answer all 1000 questions your contribution will be deleted. None of their edits and contributions are judged, because they control this page. I do not want to start an argument, but it is obvious. Many of us have criticized this Nazi-like control, but nothing is done. It is time to stop the biasness of this page, and let all facts be brought out. I would love to resolve this long going dispute with these two members. I have went away from this page, cooling down like it is said, but neither of these members have. While I left, they took complete control of the page, and no other members has any validity now.

Please, let's solve this, and this page could be much better without these frivolous disputes. Casey14 04:10, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Given that you explicitly ask for other editors to comment, I'll leave this alone for now. However I really must respond to your belief that this is part of a long-running dispute. Speaking for myself, and probably for Nobleeagle (as well as other editors who have reverted you), this is by no means a dispute with you as an individual editor. My 'dispute' is with the content that you try to add — content that often seems little more than your own personal interpretations and interpolations of history. These may be interesting to discuss, but they should not be added unless they are sourced. That is the nature of our work here, to add sourced material — we can add other people's theories, but we should never add our own.

Xdamr^talk 05:19, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

It is really quite simple. Any editor may edit or completely re-write an article, but unless their edits are an improvement there is good chance they'll be reverted. That is why sometimes discussing large changes first is advisble. If you would like to change in the article's content, just tell us what you want to add, show us your sources and we can discuss it. There is no need for accusations and finger pointing. So please, heed the NOPV and CIVILITY policies. That said, I can assure you there is no bias against Spain and Italy. Why would there be any??? Regards, Signature^brendelHAPPY HOLIDAYS 06:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think that we have 8 Great powers today, and that it's more like the 6 or so in the 1800s. There's no "anti-Iberian bias", where do you get that idea? Most of the sources I've read list 4-6 Great powers in the modern world, regardless. Now I'm not going to say outright that Spain wasn't a Great power, because I haven't done historical research on this subject like I have done research into the modern period. Still, from what I know generally of the history of the period I think Portugal and Spain were Middle powers: while they were major colonialists, they weren't powerful enough to decide wars without allying with other states, and that is the litmus test. Of course there are always exceptions, but these exceptions prove that the contrary was indeed the rule.

I'll let our other editors, better-versed in the history of that period, comment further. I will note that Metternich was a (political) realist, though, and wasn't inclined to exclude countries on a whim. CRGreathouse (t | c) 07:25, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

While I do think think that there are 8 (actually I also beleive Saudi Arabia is power to be reckoned w/-OIL), I agree w/ CRGreathouse, there is no anti-Iberian bias in this article. During the industrial revolution, Spain and Portugal were relatively poor and therefore lacked the resources to be a great power. There was a time when Spain and Portugal were very powerful nations and had empires stretching across the globe-but that was well before the concept of great power exsisted. Regards, Signature^brendelHAPPY HOLIDAYS 17:21, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Sidenote: If you think Saudi Arabia is an emerging Great power, you should look at the article Regional power where Saudi Arabia is essentially coming in third as a regional power. We could use some help editing that article up to standards. CRGreathouse (t | c) 19:05, 28 December 2006 (UTC)