Talk:Great power/Archive 7

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Expanding the Russian section

It seems to small compared to the other sections. Possible expansion?

-G

[edit] Original research

Following the AFD vote which led to the deletion of the emerging superpowers articles, I've tagged the Great Powers section with an original research notice. We need to go through the text and makes sure that we are not synthesizing source material to argue for or against the status of a country as a great power. Each country designated as a great power must simply have sources, named and attributed in the text, explaining who designated them as a great power and why and during what time period. Remember, there is no academic consensus on when certain countries were great powers, for what reasons, and for what time periods. As such we must not present these countries as beyond discussion--all aspects of their great power status (or lack of status) are debated and continue to be debated. We must represent that debate, not justify the country's designation one way or the other. As such, these sections need a strict reworking representing only arguments from attributed sources.—Perceval 04:08, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I truly fail to see your reasoning. I think the article reflects the debate and subjective nature of the concept quite well. Would you mind pointing out any specific examples so I at least know what it is you suspect of being OR. Best Regards, Signaturebrendel 07:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Perceval's concerns—his suggested modus operandi was certainly uppermost in my mind during the recent rewrite. We certainly don't want this to turn into the Major power page reborn. I've been rather away from this page over the past fortnight or so, but looking at the 'Great powers' section, I notice that some of these have been considerably expanded by other editors. I noted this trend in earlier comments above, but it seems to have picked up pace fairly recently. I would be happy for us to go through these sections again, reviewing content, removing OR synthesii (word?).

First and foremost though, the actual list of Great powers is not OR. What we do with these countries, and how they are laid out etc is the question. I think that the current layout is satisfactory, but I'm more than happy to review it.

Xdamrtalk 17:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rewrite example

Brendel, here is the difference between an WP:OR presentation and a presentation that meets WP:V. The current presentation states for example,
From the accession of the Archduke of Austria to the Holy Roman Emperorship in 1452, the Habsburgs were at the centre of great power politics until their demise in 1918.
It includes a citation to an author certainly, but the author is not attributed in the text. Some of the following reasons for Austria's great power status are from the same author, some are from other authors. The text presents Austria's great power status as being beyond debate--i.e. it was a great power from date XYZ to date ABC--whereas Austria's great power status is certainly debated, and the length/period of its great power status is not uniformly agreed upon. Moreover, the various sources (three that I count) are synthesized together to support the position, rather than attributing different arguments to different authors in the text. How to refactor these sections to avoid OR can be achieved in the following way:
Historian Art Vandelay names Austria as one of Europe's five great powers during the period XYZ-ABC. He cites their formidable military expenditures, which rivaled those of ??? country, their vast territorial holdings, their strategic marriages during this time, and the size of their army which exceeded that of ***. International relations theorist H.P. Pennypacker, on the other hand, believes that a distinction between regional and global great powers is necessary, and while a number of European countries were globally relevant due to their naval strength, Austria could only be counted as a regional great power, as it lacked a navy. Historian Joe Davola says that Austria was a great power, but asserts that it was for a briefer period, from ABC-XYZ years, due to the following reasons, blah blah blah etc etc etc."
See how in the second example the arguments are clearly attributed to each author in the text, so that the reader knows whose theory they're reading? The way the sections are currently presented, the reader is essentially reading The Wikipedia Theory as to Austria's great power status, rather than reading competing expert theories summarized side by side. The former is OR, the latter is verifiable. This is the change that needs to occur.—Perceval 18:28, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes I see. That is the way I cite theories in my social class articles as I acutally agree with you that authors ought to be cited in the text. Now that I see what you consider OR (though I am still doubtful whether or not neglecting to mention an author is really OR), I'm assuming that the way to fix this article is also the way to fix the emerging superpowers text. Thanks for giving some concrete suggestions. Signaturebrendel 18:42, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Yep. People need to be reading a summary of the "state of the debate", not a collection of facts that Wikipedians assembled. Applies in both cases. It's certainly doable, and I think the editors of these articles are up to it. And the articles will be 100% better for it.—Perceval 18:49, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't feel that the section can be marked "OR/unverified" in good faith, even in its current state—the 115 inline references cover a lot of ground. Still, I don't object to the changes you want to make here; I have argued for similar changes in the past, and much progress has already been made (look at the article just one month ago!). CRGreathouse (t | c) 18:55, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
WP:OR: "It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source." This is, in fact, textbook OR, and ought to be deleted outright, rather than simply being tagged. However, I think the editors here are enthusiastic and have already put in a lot of work, and will be willing to put in the work to get this change made. Until then, the tag ought to remain so that our readers are aware that they are reading a synthesis created by Wikipedians, rather than attributed arguments.—Perceval 19:05, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
I didn't remove the tag; I agree that a case could be made for the section as OR. I don't believe it is for reasons I've mentioned, but I see no reason to fight about it in light of the fact that all the editors appear to agree with you on the way the article needs to change. CRGreathouse (t | c) 19:12, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
I know you didn't remove the tag. And I know all the editors here are proud of their hard work. Instead of arguing about the tag, the best thing for the article and for our readers is to bring the section up to the standards set by Wikipedia's content policies.—Perceval 19:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Title

This title of this article severely violates NPOV. It reeks of 19th-century white supremacy. No nation should be called great comparatively. A more descriptive and accurate title is Major Power. No wonder there's so much argument above. Mandel 19:16, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

That's an odd comment. Great power is a technical term, which has a technical meaning. 'Major power' is just a phrase evoking nations which have (some unspecified level of) power. This article is about the former, not the latter. CRGreathouse (t | c) 20:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


Yes Great power is a technical term, used in history, it can be applied about european international policy during Modern Era, expecially between 1815 (Congress of Vienna) to 1945 (end of World War II), after World War II the term was replaced by the concept of bipolarism and the use of the term superpower; now, after the Cold War, we still need to find new terms to describe international affairs, expecially about the actual debate upon multilateralism and unipolarism.

Well the term isn't POV but it is subjective as is the subject matter of this article. The term is commonly used in academia and thus we use it here as well. I think your critisims are certainly valid but this is the wrong forum to post them. It is a good arguement for you to publish in a journal or op-ed piece but as long as academis seems set on using the term "Great Power" we will have to use it here as well- whether we think its the best choice of termonolgy or not. Signaturebrendel 23:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't think that the end of multipolarity around 1945-1950, or the end of bipolarity 40 years later, removes the usefulness of the term Great power. Why would it?
For a good discussion of *polarities, I heartily recommend the Wilkinson article toward the end of the citations.
CRGreathouse (t | c) 04:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Major power was deleted and redirected to great power. It will not come back. — Nobleeagle [TALK] [C] 06:18, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


About the term "Great Powers": yes it is used in academia, but generally it is referred to the period before World War II. So if we want to maintain a neutral POV in Wikipedia the term can be used only about the historical period we are sure it is correct! About the usefulness of the term today: another time it is your POV. About multipolar/bipolar debate: it is not my POV that during Cold War the World was Bipolar and there were two Superpowers, if you affirm that between 1945 to 1990 the World was Multipolar, you are the one who needs to write articles about it! Because the majority of academics denied it. About the sources in the article: you searched and used the sources as they agree with your POV (that some countries are still today great powers and others are not): for example the same Danilovic essay, that you used so far for a great part of the article, affirms many times that none of the european countries was no more a global contenders after World War II, but you ignored it completely ! Another example: the sources over Middle Powers: you used it about some countries but not about others! (as it is referred above!) You also ignored completely some academic sources that can be easily consulted as this The Eclipse of a Great Power: Modern Britain, 1870-1975 by Keith Robbins! Wikipedia required a neutral POV, I'm displeased to say that this article about "Great Power" has too much an European POV, expecially a British POV! So I will write to administration to ask some change!

"generally it is referred to the period before World War II" -- where do you get this idea? I see the term in use primarily in the period around the time of the publication, a little before in discussing past events and a little after in predicting future events. In fact any political journal covering this sort of context should be filled with contemporary uses of the term; I would list papers, but it would be the majority of the papers on the subject I have downloaded, copied, or printed out. CRGreathouse (t | c) 23:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

you used the sources you preferred, tipically and politically oriented to the right, expecially ih the Aglo-saxon world! In the left sources and in the academic continental Europe the term is despised, for example as you can see in the sources referred above, where many German politics don't want apply the term to their country, because the term evokes negative periods of their history!

"Politically oriented to the right"? Odd choice for me, considering that I don't lean right. CRGreathouse (t | c) 18:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Oh yes, this is rich. I'm a liberal continental European and US citizen who quoted a German sociology professor in the Germany section. In you previous post you said this article has a European bias, and now it has an anti-continental Euro bias?! I think we can whole-heartetly dismiss the "right-wing 'Anglo-Saxon' bias" (The first time I have ever this phrase ;-)) accusations. If you find sources that are reliable and contain information pertaining to the subject you can add info from them. If they contradict sources already cited in the article, then you still don't delete those but rather objecitvely discuss the contradiction. Otherwise this discussion seems just a waste of server space. And sign your posts! Signaturebrendel 19:41, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

While the term "great power" is criticized principally from non-realist IR schools, there's nothing precluding non-realists from using the term as part of analysis, and indeed many do (e.g. Kupchan). "Great power" is typically used to describe powers from pre-1945 for a simple reason: 1945 was a systemic shift from multipolarity to bipolarity (in the eyes of many, but not all, IR theorists). In a multipolar system, one refers to the powers as "great powers" and in a bipolar system you refer to them as "superpowers". "Great power" is a political science term, whereas "major power" is essentially a colloquial term, without any kind of attempt at rigor behind its definition (not to say that great power has a widely accepted definition--it does not--but there are at least a wide number of attempts to give rigor to the concept). However, the anon is right insofar as this article does not reflect any of the criticisms of the concept of "great powers". The term has been criticized on any number of fronts for a wide variety of reasons, and this article reflects none of them at the moment.—Perceval 20:00, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Syntax

In this context, isn't "Great power" a proper noun, i.e. rename the article "Great Power"...?  Regards, David Kernow (talk) 09:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Not always. Depends on the author.—Perceval 20:01, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Understood; suggest, then, that the article uses one or the other ("great power" or "Great Power") rather than the mixed "Great power". David (talk) 10:03, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
The last time this came up (see the archives), "Great power" was decided. CRGreathouse (t | c) 13:34, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
...presumably as "Great power" within the text as well as the article's title. Well, I guess most folks don't find that odd when reading the article. Thanks for the pointer, David (talk) 21:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I find it extremely odd. To write in the middle of a sentence "Great power" is ridiculous. The "g" should not be capitalised. A couple of minutes spent searching the archives of The Economist and The Guardian show that neither capitalise it. Gsd2000 17:50, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to changing the style; I was never in favor of this style in the first place. I do think that it's important to use a style consistently, though, so whatever is generally decided on (not just by you or me but by a broader consensus) should be applied throughout. Until there's a new consensus for style, I'll keep everything at "Great power". (For what it's worth, I strongly dislike "Great Power" but the other two are fine, with "great power" being my preferred.) CRGreathouse (t | c) 18:14, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
"Great power" is the worst of both worlds though. One can (doing a books.google.com search) find some texts that use "Great Power", one can find many more that use "great power", but I can't find a single one that uses the mixed "Great power". Therefore, according to Wikipedia's policies, I am changing it to "great power". Gsd2000 22:10, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Gsd2000. Using mixed case for a proper term is silly. Lower case is just fine.—Perceval 04:03, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] England

If Scotland breaks away from the UK soon and Wales follows suit would England be considered a great power considering it would account for 95% of the UK's former power. England would still be the 2nd largest economy in Europe behind Germany but ahead of France and would have the highest growth rate out of the major European economies of Germany, France, and Italy. London would be the capital of England and would still be one of the most major cities on Earth and the largest city in the EU. London would also still be the most major economic centre in Europe and 3rd in the world with the largest stock exchange in Europe and 3rd largest in the world. England would likely continue to use the Pound Sterling which is the 3rd most major currency in the world after the Dollar and Euro. England would likely continue to keep the UK's UN Security Council seat and keep all the UK's nuclear weapons because of this. England would also most likely keep the 2 new aircraft carriers being built as Scotland or Wales would be unable to afford to maintain one or have any real desire for one. England would probably keep about 90% or more of the UK's armed forces as Scotland and Wales would play no real role in the world and would probably continue to keep the defence spending as high as the UK did, which was 2nd in the world. England would also most likely keep all the UK's overseas territories as Scotland or Wales would lack any real desire or abilty to retain such distant territories, which would mean England would have the most number of overseas territories in the world as the UK does currently. England would also be likely to continue fullfil the role the UK took in overseas conflicts. In all England would be almost as strong as the UK was and would definitely be considered a Great power. Others' thoughts on this welcome. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.110.25.137 (talk • contribs)

Offhand I tend to agree with most of the analysis, although I would think England without Scotland and Wales to be smaller than France economically, as I thought they were very close with those two. But what has this to do with the article? CRGreathouse (t | c) 04:09, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
I do have to say that is really quite irrelevant. Talk pages are not to be used discussion boards- if you like England, that's fine but this is too off-topic. Regards, Signaturebrendel 05:02, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

It's about that England should be included into this article as one of the great powers if or when the UK should split up.

Please see Wikipedia:Original research. — Nobleeagle [TALK] [C] 05:07, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Imagine if I created a section about how California would become a great-power is it seceeded from the US. It's speculation completely unfit for Wiki. England is part of the UK and CA is part of the US, we can't include these "what if" scenarios per OR policy, as Nobleeagle as pointed out above. Regards, Signaturebrendel 05:11, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
If California were threatening to secede, or Wales to break away from the UK, then perhaps an article would be in order (with citations about current facts, not speculation about what might be). These not being the case, WP:CRYSTAL seems to be the order of the day. CRGreathouse (t | c) 05:21, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Exactely! Signaturebrendel 07:08, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
We would have to wait until a reputable source published commentary on England's great power status. It's not up to us to analyze shifts in the balance of power--it's up to published experts. We merely strive to accurately summarize all sides of the debate.—Perceval 20:04, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
And in what way does this differ from what I wrote? CRGreathouse (t | c) 21:02, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Not at all, it just reinforces your argument (which actually closes this discussion pretty well) IMHO. Signaturebrendel 21:32, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Retracted... I think I must have been a bit oversensitive when I posted that. CRGreathouse (t | c) 23:51, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pruning

I propose that we cut back on the content in the individual Great powers's sections. These have, in most cases, expanded significantly from their initial state when the rewrite was completed. Perceval's well made OR points aside, turning these sections into random agglomerations of trivia is not really going to help the article. I think that it would be best if we cut these back to roughly their original state, listing the major events which affected the individual nations, which marked the ebb and flow of their power.

Any views?

Xdamrtalk 02:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Well the article isn't that long, but removing the trivia (Did you know that France has a new air-craft carrier and the UK too?) is always an endavour worth while. Additionally I think pruning would make room for some quotes, such as the one I added for Germany. I just think that one small blockquote per section would build a reader's confidence in the article and prevent this from article from becoming a blog-like forum. Otherwise your above proposal sounds good. Signaturebrendel 03:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Kill the cruft. CRGreathouse (t | c) 05:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
I think that Brendel is on the right track. I think blockquotes would be too much. But, if we stick to summarizing attributed opinions of experts from their books and articles, nationalists will have fewer areas in which to add their self-congratulatory cruft. If we stay with random aggregates of information that we've chosen, there will be no end to nationalists hyping their own country (and no end to OR problems).—Perceval 07:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Italy

"As of 2006, Italy ranks third in the world in number of military forces operating in peacekeeping and peace-enforcing scenarios (Afghanistan, Kosovo, Iraq, Balkans, Lebanon, Israel), following only the United States and United Kingdom." I believe that statement, which can be found on the Italian army page, would qualify Italy as a great power. Until told otherwise, I will reflect this change in the article. Also, I would like to re-open the vote on Italy's great power status, and if no one answers or votes against it I would like to have Italy included. The evidence is in the first page of the archive, under the "Italy" catigory, and it is quite overwhelming in favor of Italy's inclusion.- Izzo (Feb/22/07)

It's not a matter to be put to a vote; outside sources decide for us. Cite them. siafu 16:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
"My two cents on the issue of Italy:

Here is a list from an independent source and an american one at that.

http://www.globalfirepower.com/index.asp

This site lists countries global firepower taking into account all resources needed to fight a war, economic, military, infrastucture, etc (oops, so sorry for you non latin speakers). Any way, as you can see they list Italy as number eleven in the world, two away from the UK.

I have another page as well from a different source: http://www.strategypage.com/fyeo/howtomakewar/databases/armies/e.asp

Again Italy in sixth place in Europe.

Naval strength on another page: http://www.strategypage.com/fyeo/howtomakewar/databases/armies/e.asp

Again sixth place.

Here is another page from the CIA, whose job it is to know these things:

https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2067rank.html

Look at that seventh place in the world. Hmmm.

How about economic power, again from the CIA:

https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2001rank.html

Wow, number 10 in the world in terms of GDP by PPP, and not even a mention in your article.

Here is a list of the country's total output and infrastructure with links to rank in each category:

http://www.globalfirepower.com/country_detail.asp?country_id=19

Hey how about cultural influence with say something like tourism as a barometer:

http://www.allcountries.org/uscensus/1408_international_tourism_receipts_leading_countries.html

Again, number 4 in the world. Is there a trend here?

How about science and engineering:

http://www.allcountries.org/uscensus/1382_patents_by_country.html

Number 8 in the world. Not bad.

How about GNP versus GDP. ANd those of you who don't know the difference, GDP is the goods and services produced within a country regardless of the nationality of the company or individual. Whereas GNP is the good and services produced by a country's citizens and national companies regardless of the actual manufacturing takes place.

Now looking at the next web page:

http://www.allcountries.org/uscensus/1364_gross_national_product_by_country_1998.html

Again sixth in the world. Wow am I missing something!!???

How about another indicator of fighting power. Homogeneity of the population:

http://www.allcountries.org/uscensus/1354_foreign_or_foreign_born_population_and.html

Again Italy has far fewer immigrants than the other countries. Try to get a Turk to fight against Turkey in a war even though he's a German citizen. What about France's five million Islamic North Africans. Hey did you guys go up north during the summer during the riots.

How about merchant fleets, you know the ability to ship stuff around the world.

http://www.immigration-usa.com/world_fleet.html

Not great but where's that power house France. Hmmm.

How about central government expeditures, how much money a government spends every year:

1 United States 1,780,000 2 Japan 706,000M 3 Germany 694,000 4 France 662,000 5 United Kingdom 531,000 6 Italy 504,000 7 China - Mainland 400,000 8 Brazil NA 9 Russia 156,000 10 Canada 142,000 11 Spain 124,000 12 Netherlands 118,000 13 Belgium 115,000 14 Austria 113,000 15 Poland 110,000

Number 6 again but sadly not considered a major power even though it's ahead of China, Russia and Brazil.

How about number of scientific papers produced and published:

http://www.in-cites.com/countries/2004allfields.html

Internet users: http://www.indexmundi.com/g/r.aspx?t=100&v=118

Number eight worldwide. So much for soft power.

How about world influence in terms of what people buy from where:

http://www.indexmundi.com/g/r.aspx?t=10&v=85

Again number 7 in the world for exports.

How Olympic medals as measure of a country's pride and ability to waste money on international competition in order gain world prestige and bragging rights:

http://www.aneki.com/olympic.html

Number six. Those Italians have a lot of medals considering they are unable to feed themselves :P

I can go on and on and on. If you can't see that Italy is a major power in the world in almost every respect then you are deluding yourselves. "You can bring a horse to water but you can't make him drink."

And for my brothers: "Andiamoci!"

--65.95.147.214 03:03, 14 May 2006 (UTC) Hadrian1


Hey here is another one since you consider influence on other countries.

From your own source the Central European Initiative is centered in where? Trieste Italy.

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

Which was a precursor to earlier groups which Italy was a founding member from the beginning.

I guess leading economic, scientific and cultural exchange groups doesn't mean much. --Hadrian1 03:43, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Repost again since nothing changed since last time. Since major power has been deleted for some strange reason, I put it here again. So since this is not a major power page anymore, then I dispute that Italy's greatness ended in 1945. I would say that there was a period when the country was rebuilding and that rebuilding is over a long time ago. My opinion is around 1980 or 1985. Since then the country has been involved in more and more international "peace-keeping efforts", which means clout and power projection." That was User:Hadrian1 back during the original debate. And I said, lets put it back to a vote, because the issue was decided by a vote the first time around. If you look at the information, there is no doubt that Italy is a great Power. - Izzo


I disagree with Izzo, and feel that Italy is a middle power—and perhaps not even the strongest middle power. I haven't seen a single academic source hold Italy (post WW2) as a Great power, and it's hard to imagine an argument.
Further, I doubt the statistic (and question its importance beside): would it not be below France, which spends more on its military than the UK (and much more than Italy) and extensively patrols its former colonies in Africa?
CRGreathouse (t | c) 02:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
To beat a still quite healthy horse, as long as this article presents countries as objectively being great powers for certain periods, the tide of nationalists coming here and complaining about their country not being adequately represented will never stop. If these entries are rewritten on the model I presented above we will not have this problem, and nationalists will be 1000% easier to deflect.—Perceval 05:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Somehow, being 11th and 18th in the world (by Izzo's sources) in military power, and 10th in the world (again, using Izzo's source) in economic power does not a Great power make. Being the 4th most popular tourist-attracting country (which may even be true) doesn't save it, either. How does this random collection of facts 'prove' in any way that Italy is a Great power?

Frankly, most political science sources I read list two to five Great powers, which doesn't make room for Italy even if we make the most generous assumptions for it. (The citations are in the archive, though there aren't that many at the moment; when I have time I may post others along with the originals.)

Now I love Italy, and I have a special place in my heart for Italian history from the Roman Republic through Dante and Ariosto. But this doesn't mean that I set aside my reason when considering its power.

CRGreathouse (t | c) 23:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, these days I don't have time to make extended replies. So I'll just point you out to WP:OR, you need to attribute these features directly with the great power claim within your sources. — Nobleeagle [TALK] [C] 01:13, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
  • One question to CRGreathoue. If you consider Italy to be a middle power and perhaps not even the strongest one, who is the strongest one? It could only be Germany if you consider it a middle power or Japan, but I think all these three countries are Great Powers.

ACamposPinho 0:51 07 March 2007

    • Thankfully, what you or CRGreathouse thinks of Italy/Germany/Japan is of no importance whatsoever. What matters are published opinions by reputable experts. I would advise finding attributable sources regarding any changes you desire for this article. It will save everybody a lot of time and frustration.—Perceval 02:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

The above words are the wisest i have ever read on a talk page. I redid the Regional power page with the same viewpoint. Every country on this page should have at least a couple of cited expert sources explicitly saying the country is a great power, or has been one since 1815. Despite this, to me Italy today is pretty much the definition of a middle power. No permanant seat on the UNSC, no nukes, ICBM's, SSBN's, or major combat since 1945, no natural resouces. UN contributions are irrelevant to a countries military power. Willy turner 04:02, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Global cities

There's been some question about the 'global cities' claim in the UK section. To wit, the list 'London, New York City, and Tokyo' is being expanded by the inclusion of Paris.

I have no opinion on the matter, but have reverted the change because it deletes a reference (which backs only the three) and does not replace it with one of similar quality. I might suggest removing all references to this, though, as I don't see it as truly forwarding the mission of this page. What are the thoughts on this? I'm happy to accept any consensus that appears.

CRGreathouse (t | c) 17:41, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a list of Alpha cities which can be used to list the most important cities in each nation listed-though I fail to see the point in listing the Aplha cities of each nation here. Signaturebrendel 18:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Sig. I'm not sure whether listing big cities is really a value-add, unless it's central to the argument of an attributed author.—Perceval 02:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Irrelevancy

I can't revert this any more as I will be in violation of the rules, but I completely fail to see what this paragraph has to do with the article: "The UK has a currency of its own outside the Eurozone which is called the Pound Sterling. The Pound is considered to be the most stable major currency and is third most major currency after the US Dollar and the Euro. The City of London is the financial heart of the UK and is the most major financial centre in Europe with more money passing through the City each year than anywhere else in the world. The UK has extracted large amounts of oil and gas from the North Sea oil and gas reserves.".

  • So what that the UK has a currency of its own outside the Eurozone? What difference does that make to the UK being a Great Power?
  • Who says "it's the most stable currency"? Even if it is, that means the US Dollar and French Franc are less stable, but they are greater and lesser/equal powers respectively - so there can't be any link between currency stability and great power status, therefore it's irrelevant if true and not appropriate if false.
  • "The City of London is the financial heart of the UK?" So???
  • "The UK has extracted large amounts of oil and gas from the North Sea oil and gas reserves" Good for the UK! What difference does it make to Britain's Great Power status?
  • "Most major"? "Most major"????

This was originally added by User:Usermale, a now permanently banned sockpuppet of User:Somethingoranother, who is now immediately reverting it when I try to remove it. Gsd2000 21:46, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I have temporarily semiprotected this article. Proto ► 23:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
I tend to agree with these comments. The pound sterling does make the UK special in many ways, but none that appear relevant to this article. Its stability, if truly exceptional, would be an indication of financial/economic strength, but this is not supported in the text. The North Sea drilling is likewise irrelevant to all appearances.
The special status of the City of London is an important point, but should probably be better supported.
CRGreathouse (t | c) 01:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
This is getting to be far too much. Within the next day or so I will go through these sections and purge them ruthlessly—try and get it a little more like it was at the time of the rewrite's completion. Taking a look through these sections as they stand, I don't think that much of any real importance has been added since then. I'll also take a look and see what I can do to address Perceval's concerns, though that is a more long term aim.
Last time I mentioned this (cutting down sections) we all seemed to be in broad agreement. I take it that this is still the case?
Xdamrtalk 02:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, scythe away as you see fit. If you cut too much in your zeal, we can always add it back. CRGreathouse (t | c) 03:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Horizontal scrolling

Please don't use Google cache results as sources. The links are not stable, and they make the edit screen scroll horizontally. Use something like [1] instead. CRGreathouse (t | c) 00:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User GSD2000 Deleting Referenced Information

This user refuses to allow referenced information to be included in the United Kingdom section regarding London. Can other editors please see to it that they do not get away with removing referenced information from the article. Userofwiki 01:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

To other editors: User:Userofwiki is a sockpuppet of User:Somethingoranother, who has violated virtually every WP rule in the book: 3RR, harassment, sockpuppetry, and was eventually permanently banned. Gsd2000 01:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Maybe but you cannot refuse me to contribute referenced information to articles. If so I will message the Admin notice board which you are clearly breaking WP on not allowing others to contribute to articlesand reverting referenced information. Userofwiki 01:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I refer the honourable gentleman to the discussion above [2]. The consensus is that the type of information he is trying to add is irrelevant. Gsd2000 01:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
The information is not irrelevent because it is important information and is not included anywhere else in the article. Userofwiki 01:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Can you please explain what this "London, the capital of the United Kingdom, is one of the world's three most major cities alongside New York City and Tokyo. London is also the world's largest financial centre according to the British High Commission" has to do with the UK's status as a global power? I'm not denying it's true, I'm saying it's not relevant to the article at hand. It's relevant information if you are reading the article on London, but not if you are reading the article on Great Power. Gsd2000 01:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
It is very relevent as it shows the UK's has one of the most powerful cities in the world due to it's sheer status in world finance and culture which then contributes greatly towards the UK's status in world finance and culture, which contributes to the UK's power. Userofwiki 01:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Singapore and Hong Kong are major financial centres but they aren't global powers. Moscow isn't/wasn't a major financial centre but Russia is a great power and the Soviet Union was a superpower. Therefore having a city that is a financial centre is neither sufficient nor necessary for global power status. So how are you (without resorting to original research) proposing that London's status as a global financial centre makes the UK a global power? If that is your point, where is the reference backing up that conclusion? Where is the logical thread connecting the one to the other? We don't need to see references stating the obvious that London is a global financial centre. And anyway, what exactly is your objective definition of "major"? It can't be population because London is way down the list by any measure. Gsd2000 02:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
The point of including that London is the world most major financial centre is that this contributes towards the UK's economic status and its economic power. Singapore and Hong Kong are not as financially powerful as London hence London being the most power plus neither Hong Kong (which isn't even a country) nor Singapore have nothing else which could possible make them a powerful country e.g. military power, geographical size, population size, GDP, diplomatic power. Userofwiki 02:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Also London contributes around 20% of the UK's GDP which means London is very important to the UK's economy and the UK's economic strength. The UK's economy has an unusually high percentage made from the financial sector which proves how important the City of London is to the UK's economy. Userofwiki 02:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
If your point is that the size of a country's economy contributes to its ability to act as a Great Power, a large portion of the UK's economy is the financial services sector, and most of the financial service industry is located in London, I don't see how what you are adding ("London, the capital of the United Kingdom, is one of the world's three most major cities alongside New York City and Tokyo [84]. London is also the world's largest financial centre according to the British High Commission [85].") explicitly makes that point? Anyway, I have integrated the relevant portions of your point better into the article, in the right place (in the section discussing the UK's economy) and in the right terms. Gsd2000 11:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] EU as emerging superpower

The EU as great or emerging power has to be added. Lear 21 15:06, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a source saying that the EU is a great power?—Perceval 18:00, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
The EU is commonly seens as a quasi or potential supepower, not a great power. It consists of many great powers (Germany, France, UK...). Then again, of you find a source you can go ahead and mention it. Signaturebrendel 18:10, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Some sources pointing in that direction :[3], [4], [5], [6], [7] Lear 21 18:34, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

None of those links say that the EU is a superpower. They all state clearly that it "could" or "might" or has the "possibility" of becoming one.—Perceval 20:56, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it's an emerging superpower, but I don't see it as a Great power for the same reason I don't see it as a superpower: it's not yet centralized enough, exercising slightly less power as a unit than NATO, which is by no means a Great power. The books I've read on the subject (notably The United States of Europe) all talk about this as a future event, not a current event. That said I wouldn't be opposed to a section on it in the Superpower article. CRGreathouse (t | c) 19:38, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

The superpower article already does mention it Superpower#Potential_21st_century_superpowers. It's done properly there, attributing the opinion to the author in the text and summarizing his arguments.—Perceval 20:54, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, that seems appropriate. This article (Great power) doesn't strike me as the right place for it; I think it's fair to say I have consensus on my side. CRGreathouse (t | c) 00:26, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree, the information and research done by Lear 21 is great for the superpower page, but has little relevance here. The fact that the EU might possibly be superpower is a good statement for the superpower article. Signaturebrendel 01:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

If there is even agreement about the EU as aspiring/emerging superpower, than the logical conclusion is that it already exerts great power. Considering this it has be at least mentioned in a section of its own. @CRGreathouse: In the 21. century economic and political power are at least equally relevant to military power politics. The EU fulfils this status. Lear 21 13:07, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

OR, OR, OR, and more OR I'm afraid. --Xdamrtalk 13:57, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Lear21: Is that comment directed toward me intentionally? I said nothing about economics vs. military power; in fact I believe that economic power trumps military power, at least in the 21st century. CRGreathouse (t | c) 17:09, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Lear21, the problem with the statement: "If there is even agreement about the EU as aspiring/emerging superpower, than the logical conclusion is that it already exerts great power", is that you came to the conclusion. What you would need to do is find a source that backs up this statement. We can't add any conclusions we come to, only those our sources come to. Signaturebrendel 19:27, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Midlle Powers Initiative Link

After this link is written "note Italy inclusion on this category". Ok, it is there, but this only proofs the anti-Italy stance of some people here. Germany and Japan are also included, but I don't see written "note Germany, Italy and Japan inclusion on this category". And Germany sees itself as a Middle Power. Anyway I think all of them are Great Powers and this notes shoulb be reviewed.

ACamposPinho 2:45, 14 April 2007

[edit] Dispute on India's article

The article states "It engaged in a close relationship with the Soviet Union and defeated political rival Pakistan in 3 wars." is totally base-less and this shows the art of Indian patriotism by manipulating articles. Even mentioning that clearly sparks up a debate on who won or who lost and is against the Wikipedia:Five pillars, many sources claim that the 1965 war was a stale-mate if not a Pakistani victory.

Famous Quotes of 1965 (By independent observers):

"By all accounts the courage displayed by the Pakistan Air Force pilots is reminiscent of the bravery of the few young and dedicated pilots who saved this country from Nazi invaders in the critical Battle of Britain during the last war." Patrick Seale, The Observer, London, September 12, 1965.

"For the PAF, the 1965 war was as climatic as the Israeli victory over the Arabs in 1967. A further similarity was that Indian air power had an approximately 5:1 numerical superiority at the start of the conflict. Unlike the Middle East conflict, the Pakistani air victory was achieved to a large degree by air-to-air combat and on the ground. But it was as absolute as that attained by Israel." USA - Aviation week & space technology - December 1968 issue.

"During the night they threw in every reinforcement they could find. But wave after wave of attacks were repulsed by the Pakistani troops." India, said the London Daily Times, "India is being soundly beaten by a nation which is outnumbered by four and a half to one in population and three to one in size of armed forces." Sunday Times, London, September 19, 1965.

"Pakistan claims to have destroyed something like 1/3rd the Indian Air Force, and foreign observers, who are in a position to know say that Pakistani pilots have claimed even higher kills than this; but the Pakistani Air Force are being scrupulously honest in evaluating these claims. They are crediting Pakistan Air Force only those killings that can be checked from other sources." Roy Meloni, American Broadcasting Corporation, September 15, 1965.

"Pakistan has been able to gain complete command of the air by literally knocking the Indian planes out of the skies, if they had not already run away." Sunday Times, London, September 19, 1965.

And many more on.. source

regarding the two other wars. Yes, 1971 might have been a defeat for Pakistan but in 1999 the kargil war was also an indirect victory for Pakistan as it had occupied a key position in Kargil without the knowledge of Indian military, it's common sense. And we all know that external political pressures resulted in the stalemate not the Indian military in achieving it's task.

Pakistan also deserves a place in the article for the defence of the nation against a military which out numbered it 4 to 1 in 1965. Faraz 01:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

1948,1971,1999. Three wars. Read Kargil War article for further details, it's not victory when one occupies posts in winter and loses those posts after a month. Also note that your collection of quotes are all about air force superiority and all come from a Pakistani website. An ISI operative recently wrote a book entitled "The Myth of 1965 Victory" which suggests that the Pakistani media received some flaws during this war. However, you may change that comment to make it more clear but please don't add an ugly tag on the whole section when it's only one sentence that you are disputing. Regards. Traing 07:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh come on. the 1947 war was also stalemate if not a Pakistani victory. Pakistan occupied 40% of Kashmir against all odds with the Indian military opposing the occupation of Indian territory under the agreements signed with the maharaja of Kashmir. By the way, Kashmir had a majority of muslim population.

In 1999 the kargil war was also an indirect victory for Pakistan as it had occupied a key position in Kargil without the knowledge of Indian military, it's common sense. And we all know that external political pressures resulted in the stalemate not the Indian military in achieving it's task. Faraz 01:26, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Western media definitely did not portray it that way. Pakistani media did, particularly after Mr. Musharraf came to power. Edit the Kargil War (featured article) article if you want. But do that first before editing here. Traing 01:27, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


Most wars end with a ceasefire, unlateral, bilateral or forced. To say two wars ended in ceasefire is erroneous. In Kargil, The Indian military recaptured all territory the Pakistani guerilla troops had initially captured over winter months. The war began with Pakistani positions in Indian administered Kashmir and ended with India recovering those positions. The UN commended India on it's performance at maintaining the status quo. Due to the war, there was a coup in Pakistan. After the war, Pakistan was suspended from the Commonwealth and Sharif was being labelled a failed PM. In 65, many sources place India with the upper hand. In 71, India clearly one, not only partitioning Pakistan, but also capturing much territory in Western Pakistan, which was returned in the Simla agreement. And this can be found only after a small amount of reading up. Traing 04:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
You claim many sources claim India's upper hand in 65, please give an example of one if not many. (all of the above quotes can be verified by the publishers and have been verified before) With regards to Kargil war "The two neighbors nearly waged a full-scale war in 1999 when 800 Pakistani soldiers disguised as militants scaled a 5,100-m-high ridge near Kargil in Indian-held Kashmir and began shelling a major road used by the Indians to supply their Siachen outposts. India recaptured Kargil after suffering many casualties, but the Indians remain wary of the peace-making vows of Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, who, as army chief, had planned the Kargil offensive." TIME magazine - War at the Top of the World and Political outburst this clearly verifys my claims.
Anyways, we are not here to discuss the outcome of these wars all, we are here to discuss the point of adding that sentence which violates Wikipedia policy of Wikipedia:NPOV and Wikipedia:Five pillars. Faraz 02:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I have discussed it with Mercenary2k on his talk page and feel convinced that my revert complies with Wikipedia policies. Particularly considering double-standards and failure to meet WP:OR, WP:V, WP:RS policies. Brittanica is very favourable towards India's performance in the 65 war.[8]. Also, India came within range of attacking Lahore. Pakistan cannot be victors if it's troops were forced to defend one of it's first/second/third most important city. India was referred to as politico-strategic victors and Shastri was hailed as a hero. India had used only 14% of it's ammunition reserves while Pakistan had used 80%. India had twice the number of tanks Pakistan did when the war ended. It was a decisive operation. Traing 04:32, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


Unfortunately, the Western media definitely did not portray 65 war that way. The Indian media as usual had its role in portraying Indian patriotism. By the way the link you have provided clearly states "Pakistan, however, believed it had won and that India's army was weak, and Zulfikar Ali Bhutto (1928–79), Ayub's foreign minister, urged another round in Kashmir that summer, to which Ayub agreed" in no other paragraph it mentions that India had an upper hand or had won the war. Regarding Mercenary2k I will be discussing this matter with him and a senior Arb committee member. Faraz 12:06, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I have rephrased the sentence in a manner which will be acceptable to all parties, "Has fought 3 wars with rival Pakistan and a war with China." and will not violate any Wikipedia policy. Faraz 01:52, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Brittanica IS a Western source and is an extremely reputable one at that. And you misread the source, it says Pakistan believed it had won the first skirmish and then decided to initate the 65 war. It then says how India launched a three-pronged retaliation and got close to attacking Lahore. Traing 06:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


Brittanica is an encyclopedia just like Wikipedia not a news network. And "Got close to attacking Lahore" does not mean it had attacked Lahore in the first place again, the article does not mention that India had an upper hand or was in control of the war at any stage. Faraz 00:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
OK, I will not waste my time on persuading you about 1965. 1999 was a clear Indian victory. The war began with Pakistani troops in Indian territory. India expelled the troops and Pakistan sufferred 4000+ casualties. The UN commended India for not crossing the LoC yet being so effective. The US commended India on it's military performance. The war resulted in political distress and a coup in Pakistan, while the Indian stock market shot up to record levels following the end of the war. It's clear about that victory. Traing 01:57, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
All that you have mentioned is not cited and is based on opinions of the Indian media or the public and is not based on ground realities. All that I have mentioned so far is cited and sourced which clearly verifys my claims. Anyways, we are not here to discuss the outcome of the wars but to discuss inappropriate and disputed additions to the Indian article. Faraz 00:10, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Funny how Faraz should quote from PakDef which uses nothing but a select compilation of a few sources (excluding the Islamic publications) that talks primarily about the PAF's performances. Make no mistake the PAF did outplay the IAF in that war by a small degree, but in the end wars are not decided in the air but in the ground. That's where neither made any headway, if anything pakistan only lost more men, material and land (all according to Pakistan's ally USA and other neutral sources like TIME magazine) than India. For a nation that started the 65 war on the premise of "liberating" Kashmir (read Operation Gibraltar to refresh one's memory), the war ended in a meaningless ceasefire for Pakistan and a needless setback in its then flourishing economy as well as laying the seeds of the nation's separation. If one looks at a war as a mere game, then it would be naive for the consequences of a war are long lasting and the lessons are bitter. That Pakistan never learned its lesson in that war is visible from a renowned Pakistani columnist Ayaz Amir: "Was anyone ever prosecuted for the folly of the 1965 war[9] or for the disaster of 1971?" not to forget Kargil in the same paragraph.
  • So please try to put everything in context and read proper history before posting in here. It wasn't an Indian victory in 65 or 47/48 but surely not a Pakistani victory; if anything Pakistan's loss of the majority of the Kashmir region in 47 war despite the local tribal support and proximity to its territory, is the reason why they still keep the kashmir on the frontburner to this day. Multiple wars and covert help since that loss in the late 40s haven't really helped it to acquire any more territory, it has only resulted the loss of more territory both in Kashmir and elsewhere. Idleguy 02:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
If you read carefully all of the above, I have never claimed that Pakistan won the wars of 47 or 65 or 99, all I said that they were stalemate's if not a Pakistani victory. By the way, even in 1947 the Indian Army was huge in numerical terms as compared to Pakistan but we did manage to capture/occupy/free 40% of Kashmir thats why I said against all odds. Again, we are not here to discuss the outcomes of the wars but to remove inappropriate or distuped sentences from the Indian article inaccordance to Wiki policies. Faraz 22:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
'99 was no stalemate by any stretch of imagination. Ceding occupied land due to military and/or political retreats is hardly considered so. "Against all odds" in'47 is a stretch; with the tribals' backing, the Pakistani numbers weren't exactly like The 300 Spartans fighting great odds. Losing the majority of Kashmir might be good enough in Pakistan where a stalemate's considered as a "Pakistani victory" but outcomes of wars don't change. True, the statements about India winning 3 wars with Pakistan is wrong, and should stay out from the article, but that doesn't mean more wrong statements can be put forward in the talk pages. Idleguy 01:12, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spain?

Obviously not much of a great power now, but if Austria-Hungary can make the list, and we're citing dates as early as 1452, Spain can obviously make the list as well.

As the header says, we're only considering great powers post 1815 Nil Einne 17:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Spain continues its extensive cultural influence upon a huge chunk of the world that includes most of the Americas (including a significant part of the population inside United States of America. At the least, Spain must be considered a cultural superpower in the sense that a country like Japan... isn't because of the huge volume of literature in Spanish and the gigantic market for Spanish-language film and music. The gigantic Spanish empire in the New World lasted after 1815, and even heavily truncated... it controlled Puerto Rico, Cuba, and the Philippines until 1898.

[edit] Ottoman Empire

I suggest that we consider the Turkish Empire, generally recognized as a menacing power to much of Europe as late as 1700 and an entity that one challenged at great risk as late as World War I. Even if known in its last decades as "the Sick Man of Europe" and was very much in decline (steadily losing control of its empire), it at the least deserves recognition as the inheritor of the martial heritage and to some extent the administrative and cultural characteristics of the Byzantine Empire. Even if much of the empire was satellite states, one must recognize that Turkey held onto those after 1815, and that satellite states are a form of empire.

As late as 1830 the Ottoman Empire contained not only modern Turkey, but also the whole of what are now Cyprus, Greece, Bulgaria, Serbia, Albania, Bosnia and Hercegovina, Romania (except for Transylvania), Syria, Lebanon, Israel, Libya, Tunisia, Iraq, Kuwait, and what are the most populous parts of what are now Saudi Arabia and Algeria.

After World War I, neither the moribund Ottoman Empire nor its truncated successor the Turkish Republic could be considered a Great Power. But even its current form it was a political entity that neither the Allies nor the Axis messed with.--Paul from Michigan 20:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] UK military

Its global power projection capabilities are deemed second only to the United States military, and its navy is the world's second strongest,[86] with the second largest aircraft carrier fleet.

I have a problem with these statements. The first one doesn't have a source, as for the second I found that the source is in fact the website of a UK national maritime renewal campaign and altough the site does make that statement I'm not positive it qualifies as a reliable source (it had a more propagandistic tone than a scientific one). Also the statement about having the second largest aircraft carrier fleet, altough technically correct, is misleading. The UK has only two aircraft carriers and both have a 20,000 ton displacement wich is half the displacement of the french carrier Charles de Gaulle and 1/3 the displacement of the russian carrier kuznetsov.

What you guys think? I thought about rewording that part. Any opinions? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by RIP-Acer (talk • contribs) 19:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC).

This whole article is riddled with POV language and OR claims, the UK bit especially. It needs clearing out, I agree.--Nydas(Talk) 20:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Indeed the above statement seems as though it is trying to make an OR point. It seems as thought its author placed it in the section to support his own hypothesis that the UK is the strongest military great power (after the US if included); thus, the statement is OR and ought to be removed (Unless of course, a reputable source shows up to support the claim this statement is meant to support). Regards, Signaturebrendel 23:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok its done, I removed most of the unsourced stuff. I checked the British Armed Forces article and it's language is much more cautious than the one that was used here. RIP-Acer 01:16, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ITALY

Sorry, but Italy is not a power so why you put in the great power.


  • First identify yourself.

Second, you should have to defend your claim with arguments and read others arguments too.

ACamposPinho 16 June 2007,21:49