Talk:Major power/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Moved this part out of the superpower topic. But it's still too long on this page. Would be better to sumarize every power in about 10 lines IMO. Mjolnir1984 14:32, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

No. I'm still not certain whether moving this was a good idea, but removing information from the article is defintely not helpful.

It would be better to have a seperate section on Major Powers and a seperate section on Emerging Powers. As opposed to having Europe, Asia and South American as seperate sections.203.214.107.127 03:56, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Diagree. China is currently a major power (and could be considered an emerging superpower). India, Brazil and Russia could also be considered major powers. Perhaps call them "new major powers" or "newly emerged" major powers, but it is possible to provide a lot of arguments against Russia being a "rising" major power. That's why I used a geographical classification.

Mjolnir1984 00:38, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Brazil

Does Brazil really merit inclusion as a major power? It certainly has strategic potential, but can its inclusion with the likes of France, Germany, UK, Russia etc. really be justified? With greatest respect to Brazil, it simply does not have sufficient presence on the world stage to justify this classification (IMHO). Regional power, certainly - but not a Major power.

Any views?

Xdamr 00:30, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Brazil should be removed and India and China should be added. Brazil can be considered as nothing more than an emerging major power. It does not yet have any influence on parts of the world outside its region. Braizilian politics and culture does not have any effect on the running of Asian/Pacific or even European nations. India and China, however, are gradually growing into the economy of nations like Australia, Britain and the United States. 210.84.2.192 02:11, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Australia, Britain, and the United States ? What is this, an anglophone club ? Either way, Australia is by no means a major power. –Aquarelle 21:16, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I must say that I look at the entry for Brazil and all I seem to see are reasons why Brazil should not be considered a Major Power: no substantial military, little by way of representation on world bodies such as the G8 and UN security council, relatively small economy. We should remember with whom we are comparing Brazil, countries such as the UK, France, Germany and Russia are leagues ahead by almost all objective measures. Brazil has potential to join this group and without doubt it is a hugely important South American power, however is it really a Major Power - one step down from a Superpower?

Xdamr 19:51, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

It seems that the only point for Brazil is that it has large territory. In which case Kazakhstan should be added as a Major Power as well. Every nations with large territory is not a Major Power. So it seems we are presented with three choices.

A) Someone should get more points in favour of Brazil, at least enough points to overpower the points Against Brazil.

B) We Remove Brazil

C) We add Kazakhstan

Can we make this a vote please?

Cloretti 21:09, 23 February 2006 (UTC) Just for curiosity, Brazil is four times the size of Kazakhstan...

More points for Brazil. Cloretti2 03:27, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

It's fine now...good work!

Remove Brazil It has no strong presence in the international stage. It also has a relatively small economy with moderate rate of growth (not something like red-hot 10% for example). Its military power is, in my opinion, not that powerful. It doesn't even have a nuclear capability. It also lacks in terms of space science and technology such as sending satellites, rockets etc into space. It does not have any respectable educational centers (universities that have good reputation and/or attract large foreign international students). It is also does not house any large multinational companies (MNCs) and/or world-famous consumer product brands. Therefore, it's not economically influential yet. It's also not a member of the UNSC (United Nation Security Council). And in terms of cultural influence, when one think of Brazillian culture, one tends to think more of Portuguese/Spanish culture. I don't think there's any unique Brazillian culture that has spread much further beyond its borders. I have many things to say, but I think I ought to stop here. Y'all got it. But don't mistake me though. I agree that Brazil is the most powerful country in the South Latin America region. Therefore, it obviously is a regional power. At best, it can be called an emerging major power. But certainly not a major power yet. Heilme 02:25, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

My view is that there are 6 certain and inarguable major powers: UK, France, Germany, China, Japan and Russia. I think India also qualifies, though not as strongly; though India's case for inclusion is only likely to be strengthened by the march of time. This leaves Brazil.

I personally don't consider Brazil a current major power; as you say, there are significant arguments against. However looking round the world today, I don't see any other nations except Brazil who have the potential to join the major powers. On this ground I think that consideration ought to be made for its inclusion here, but heavily flagged as a potential rather than a current power. To my mind the latest additions to the Brazil section have only confirmed that Brazil does not yet have this status. Of course, how far this conflicts with 'wikipedia is not a crystal ball' is open to debate...

Xdamr 12:43, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

--Well, the only undebatable truth that I see when I look at this discussion is that most of you know absolutely nothing about post-Cold war era politics. As someone here stated, wikipedia political sections is more prone to be a anglophone club than a serious political forum.

Getting this straight, let me ask you some questions: What makes a country a major power? A large economy? Brazil has a larger economy than Russia, just look at the 2005 GDP ranking. Brazilian companies like Petrobras and Vale do Rio Doce are some of the largest enterprises in the world. A large population? Brazil has a population of 180 million people.

Brazil is a rich country, economically speaking, the problem is: that wealth is badly distributed among the brazilian population.

The concept of "Third World" is flawed and outdated. You cannot include a country like Brazil (a huge economy) or countries like Argentina and Chile (high IDH) in a group that include the likes of Zimbabwe, Angola and Haiti.

The XXIth century shows the emergence of a new brand of major powers, differently from those that emerged in the post-WW2 era. These new powers have large economies, and a huge industrial lot, but they do not have a high standard of living.

Just wake up, we are not in the sixties. When I was a kid, during the brazilian dictatorship, I could easily classify Brazil as a banana republic. That time has passed. <Tom Mueller

That's a fairly sweeping comment, perhaps I could ask you to justify it?

How does Brazil's military power compare with the other major powers? Nuclear weapons? Is it represented in high-level world bodies such as the G8 or the UN security council? What impact does the culture of Brazil have on the world? Is Brazil's economy comparable in size with the UK, France, Germany, Japan etc? How many of Brazil's companies rank in the top 20 in the world?

Noone is seeking to bracket Brazil with the 3rd world (you must surely have noticed that Brazil is flagged as a Potential Major Power), but the fact is that it is not one of the richest and most powerful nations (in other words, a major power) either. Large population and territory do not make a country a major power, that is simply nineteenth century thinking.

Xdamr 02:08, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

--Xdamr, I understand you argument completely, and your points are perfectely rational. Althought, political labels are very dubious by their own nature. You cited, as requirements to be a major power: Military might, economic power and cultural influence.

The problem is: If you look closely, almost none of the current major pwers fills all the requirements. First of all, the only country with solid cultural influence over the world at the present moment is the US. Secondly, countries like German and Japan have very potent economies, but tiny armies. Russia has nukes in its backyard, but has a smaller economy than Brazil.

Honestly, the only major power that could fill all the political need to claim the title is the UK, that is former hiperpower.

I have seen, through the development of this page information that clearly points out the lack of reseach done by its authors.

To my dismay, I have read, in this very page, some time ago, that Brazil has "internal conflicts". This is absurd, at best.

And last, Brazil is by no means comparable to powers like Japan, the UK or France. What I am discussing here is the the reach of the term "major power".

Best wishes, Tim Mueller

You are absolutely right. I think the main thing we have to bear in mind is that this is not an exact science. We can look at Germany and Japan's lack of military power and mark them down for that. But of course Germany and Japan have the consequences of WW2 to consider, understandably their societies have little militarism; of course if they were to decide tommorow to develop powerful armed forces then they would almost certainly be up there with the most powerful in the world, but they don't.

Consider Russia, a country which was at the top tier of power 20 years ago, but one which started to fall and is still falling. France, with its history and UN seat, but with little real power and unsure of the place of its culture and influence in the Anglo-saxon dominated world. China and India, low standards of living and high individual poverty, but they are accorded greater respect because of their potential.

I think that is what it all comes down to, respect. We can try to derive factors and elements which define what is a major power and what isn't. Fundamentally though there is no clear-cut answer. Countries are major powers because the other major powers treat them as such, ultimately that is what I think it comes down to.

Xdamr 16:01, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Brazil has similar status to Australia, I believe.

Nobleeagle 08:56, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

"France, with its history and UN seat, but with little real power and unsure of the place of its culture and influence in the Anglo-saxon dominated world."

"Honestly, the only major power that could fill all the political need to claim the title is the UK, that is former hiperpower. [ sic ] "

Could someone please give me their views on why so many users think that the UK is still a major force in this world and that Germany and France are not? I know that the UK's empire was once very vast and great, but aside from the fact that they spread their language all over the world I don't see how this can be argued as a major factor in their influence today. - Aquarelle 15:16, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

By Anglo-Saxon I didn't mean specifically the UK. I was encompassing the UK, US, Canada, Australia, as well as those countries which, for want of a better term, operate with an Anglo-Saxon mindset (eg. South Africa).

Xdamr 15:46, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

China & India

Shouldn't China and India be here? I know that they are on the Superpower page as 'Emerging Superpowers' but they surely qualify to be included here.

Xdamr 00:30, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

China and India deserved each one specific articles. Why to mention those countries again.Cloretti2 02:20, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, then atleast the article should provide a link to those "specific articles". We have a section on India, but we do need to mention People's Republic of China too. Without mentioning PRC, this article is incomplete. Thanks --Spartian 15:49, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Redirecting

Searching Major Power redirects to Power (International) although it should redirect to this page.203.214.107.127 06:15, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

This is wrong

What is discussed in this article is not Major Powers. The topic of discussion in the section of "superpower" that you have taken upon yourself to place here is "possible superpowers", or "emerging superpowers".

A "Major Powers" article would not only include the countries discussed here, but also Israel (major power of the Middle East), South Africa, and tonnes more.

Also what would need to be discussed is major powers from history; Roman Empire, Greek Empire, Egypt, Spain, Republic of China, Macedonia etc; etc;.

The only way of keeping this article short would be to turn it into a list. This has nothing to do with possible superpowers.

You never should have moved this without consulting anyone. I'm going to make some huge changes. Trip: The Light Fantastic 16:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Copy-editing

Can we be specific on which sections require copy-editing? So that some work can begin.

EU's "Cultural power as a unit"

What is the source for the assertion that the EU had "approximately 328 million international tourist arrivals in 2002"? It seems a bit suspect compared to to the US, so I am wondering if many of these tourists are from EU states (including additions since 2002). Basically, is a German or a Hungarian visiting Italy considered an international tourist? --Ajdz 05:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Although this does not answer the question, it is a fact that Tourism within the European Union is bolstered by the fact that one does not need a visa to travel between nations for tourism purposes. --203.214.122.45

Right, but treating the EU as a nation would prevent those trips from being counted as "international" --Ajdz 06:37, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

The United Kingdom is not a declining major power

Where in the hell did this come from?? Who said that the U.K. is a declining major power, we are a declining or already passed the "Superpower" sell by date, British influence in the world is still a big thing.

No one said that the UK is no longer a major power, and no one said that it could not remain one. However in demographic, economic and military terms the UK is falling behind. For instance: its population is graying and will shrink, while world population grows fast. Its relative part of world economy output and trade is gradually shrinking also. Etc. RoLeoVers 18:35, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

There's quite a lot of POV in this article.

Would someone please go over the article checking for POV? Especially in the United Kingdom and Germany sections. Jombo 03:22, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Stating that the UK is a "contemporary industrial superpower" in relation to France and Germany seems like a bit much. I don't see how this claim can be reasonably supported. In terms of industry, it appears that Germany is far ahead of the UK and even the United States in terms of exports, but nowhere in the article does it list Germany as a "contemporary industrial superpower." I have removed this wording because it is a grandiose and unsupported claim. –Aquarelle 00:19, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I think that you might have missed the point of the statement. We are discussing the historical rise of German industry after unification in 1871. At this time the UK, as the first country to industrialise, was the 'industrial superpower'. The UK was the 'contemporary' superpower then, I don't read it as being a claim that the UK is the contemporary industrial superpower now.

Xdamr 11:24, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I see what you mean, but it still isn't a very neutral statement. Right afterwards, it says that Germany's population is 82,000,000 and ranked 14th, allowing it to outpace all other countries and defeat France. Some editor must not have realized that he was mixing current statistics with Germany's historical position in the late 19th and early 20th century. I have deleted the part about the population, and I have changed "contemporary industrial superpower" to "the first nation to industrialize." –Aquarelle 12:28, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

You are right, I think that the reference to the UK as having been a 'superpower' should probably go. I do think that there should be some reference to the UK's industrial pre-eminence at the time, in order to show a little context.

Xdamr 12:44, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

No India and China?!

Fortunately, these two countries are mentioned as potential superpowers in the Superpower article. Suprised to see that India and China aren't mentioned as major powers. --Deepak|वार्ता 22:57, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Pre WW2?

There were many Major Powers before World War II, while we're at it...why don't we add the Germanic Tribes as part of a section called 'Pre Middle Ages'. This page is about current major powers and should remain about current major powers.

rmvd section

I removed "to such an extent that as of 2004, the British Armed Forces were planning for an immediate future where any large overseas operation would be undertaken as part of a coalition with the United States." "large" is subjective and the policy is more complicated than what is written above. Mark83 16:27, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Germany

The work on Brazil has really changed that section, we now must focus on Germany, which is by far the shortest section in this article.

Absolutely, perhaps those with expertise can add a bit more to France and India as well?

Xdamr 13:23, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Country sections

I understand the original motivation in listing individual countries as sections, but now that we've seen how that plays out, I'd like to suggest that we re-think it. The problem with the country sections is that they are devolving into poorly edited versions of the country's main article, and very little of the detail under each country actually aids the reader in understanding the topic of the page. We can easily list the criteria and the countries which are believed to match that criteria without having a section for each nation. One rule of Wikipedia that I've learned over the past few weeks: make a list, and everyone will want to add their favorite thing in the whole world to it. Thoughts? -Harmil 07:17, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Without doubt the article has become a little unwieldy (contrast Russia with Germany). I think that we need better integration between the Superpowers (& potential Superpowers), Major Powers and national pages. This raises the question, what do we leave here? Do we confine this article to a discussion of the concept of Major Power in the abstract or do we simply cut down hard on the length of each section?

Xdamr 16:01, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I am going to include China and India here

Everything said about China and India would just be copy-and-paste from the Potential superpowers section. I know it's repetition but we seriously need to properly and clearly mention these 2 countries. Heilme 07:43, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I am removing China and India for two reasons:

There are various comments concerning these 2 countries as potential superpowers (one step up a ordinary major power). Also, if clear comments and links were done, why to repeat what has been written in the Potential Supepower-China and Potential Superpower-India ? The article is already long and it was created (as a subarticle of superpowers) to be shorter and give more elegance. We are repeating again the same mistake.

Isn´t it logic to clarify just both links and their condition as potential superpowers ? People are not that dumb!

I think anyone who reads this article will realize that China and India are potential superpowers and current major powers, deserving both specific articles Regards Cloretti2 23:10, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

There is no reason to remove China and India from this page. So long as they are held to be major powers they deserve to remain here, along with the other major powers.

Xdamr 23:13, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

India and China are potential superpowers, which means that they are not superpowers and therefore we are not 100% sure that they will become a superpower. In other words, they may not become a superpower in the end if something bad happens in the near future. They simply had the potential. However, they are currently a major power, so they have to be included here. I don't even think that a potential superpower is a classification of power status, it's more like predicting a future outcome. Heilme 02:06, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Cloretti2, please tell me a reason why India and China cannot be included here in this "major power" section? Don't they satisfy most of the criteria? And, even if they have been mentioned many times somewhere else (such as the "potential superpowers" section), I don't think that is a good reason not to mention them again here. I think it's better to remove the mention of their names in the introductory paragraph, and instead we can simply integrate them smoothly into the content, and give a short description or link to their respective "potential superpower" section like the previous version (so they're interconnected). A country can be both potential superpower and a major power, they does not exclude each other in the case of India/China. Plus, as I mentioned, I don't think potential superpower is a category, it's more speculation based on current trends that can always reverse itself. So it's more like crystal-balling. This is not about Indian/Chinese fans. This is about completeness. Heilme 02:25, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Cloretti2, thanks for your note on my talk page. China and India are not superpowers, they are major powers. It is possible that in the future they might grow to such a degree as to become superpowers; this is not certain and is a matter of conjecture. Irrespective of whether they become superpowersin the future, they are major powers at the moment. As nations which are major powers they should be included here.

Simply because the sections for China and India were stubs that's no reason to remove them. In terms of thematic completeness they should be included.

I intend to restore them, if you still wish to remove them then please debate the idea here first.

Xdamr 12:04, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Dears Xdamr and Heilme,

I agree with you about both countries are being major powers. And for completeness purposes I think the format is nice. So I concede my vote for both your jobs (nice ones, just to mention). I recognize that is really a matter of style...and for a encyclopedia, perhaps yours are better. But please...DO NOT include the US (a true superpower)...

Many regardsCloretti2 14:38, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I think we should also include United States too

It should be no brainer that USA is a major power because it is a superpower. Now, it may sound stupid but I think a superpower can be called a major power, but a major power does not necessarily mean a superpower. Hence, USA should be included in the list. Comments? Heilme 09:46, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

No, a superpower is a step up from a major power. In terms of english usage the US is indeed a 'major' power, but it does not fit into the classifcation of 'major power'.

Xdamr 12:25, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

My logic is that a superpower can be called a major power, but a major power is not necessarily a superpower. Therefore, countries like France, UK is a major power but not a superpower. However, the USA is both a superpower and major power. Think of it (like mathematics - see Venn diagram), that a superpower classification (small circle in the Venn diagram) is a subset of major power status (large circle enclosing the small circle in the Venn diagram) but not vice versa. 134.84.165.145 21:59, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

That's a fine idea, and would be quite workable if that were the meaning of "major power". However, it is not. Wikipedia is not the place to advance an idea for a new meaning. Major powers are explicitly a category of world power below superpower. If you can find an authoritative source to the contrary, then it's worth discussing. -Harmil 22:17, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, I will follow suit. I won't put the USA here anymore. Heilme 03:26, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

The United States should not be on this page, they are a Superpower and Hyperpower.

The US is not a hyperpower. What does this imply anyways ? Please do not redirect me to the article again for I have already read it. The US is a democracy, and despite its large military, is not able to just go to war whenever it wants. Do you see all of this trouble over the Iraq War ? Imagine them trying to do anything against a larger opponent. It just wouldn't happen, the people would never allow it. Let's just stop this hyperpower nonsense. I see no reason in trying to put the US two steps above all other countries. –Aquarelle 18:47, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't imply anything as far as motive, it only implies a greater power. Democracy (or not) has nothing to do with it. The US is two steps ahead because the only other superpower (the Soviet Union, which was never a democracy but was always very powerful) disappeared. So let's stop this United States nonsense, and instead add comments that advance the article. Kevlar67 19:16, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

The hyperpower article may be in need of cleanup, but it is the topmost position in the Power Hierarchy, it is given to any nation that is a superpower in a unilateral world. Nobleeagle (Talk) 07:41, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Potential Superpowers Pages

It is likely that these pages are going to be deleted in the near future, so we must prepare to briefly summarize the points on those pages (WE CANNOT COPY AND PASTE) and place them here. Keep an eye on Potential Superpowers - India's deletion page.

Vote: Delete Brazil

We simply cannot go into representing all the Potential Major Powers on this page, then other pages will follow suit and we'll end up having Potential Regional Powers: Papua New Guinea etc. There are other powers that are in a similar state to Brazil, for example, Australia has Cultural, Geographic, Military, Economic and Political Power. It has these powers to an extent which rivals Brazil, it also has around 50% of the world's uranium which could be very helpful in the future. So I propose Brazil be deleted from this page and never appear again. Nobleeagle (Talk) 05:52, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Please post general comments above the actual voting section.

General Comments

By the way, every comment in the Brazil section is unsourced and could be taken as POV or OR. Nobleeagle (Talk) 05:54, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Voting

Delete - WAS 4.250 17:29, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete - For the points I stated above. Nobleeagle (Talk) 05:52, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete --203.193.147.234 14:37, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Keep (weak) - I think that the general consensus is that Brazil is not a major power, yet. However (to my mind) there are no other countries in the world likely to attain this status with in the next decade or two. We also have the BRIC thesis to consider; whilst it doesn't address military and diplomatic aspects of major power status, I accept that it makes a reasonable case for Brazil's economic potential. Yes, as Brazil is a 'potential' major power questions of crystal-balling arise, but seeing as Brazil is the only country likely to be included under this head I think, on balance, that it should stay.

Xdamr 11:44, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Keep - but I really think that juts few comments (for all countries including UK, France, India.....) should be added. Focus on the concept of major power should be larger. For the article Superpower, comments about the role of US as a superpower were summarized.201.1.154.129 13:25, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment. I agree with Xdamr: concept major power should be central. Furthermore, it's only easy to define "past" major powers, so I suggest that most (3/4?) of this page should be about the concept major power and about the past major powers. Sijo Ripa 16:55, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Opening discussion - voting

In the Superpower article, just a summary of the reasons why US is a superpower was included. Why not to make the same here with all major powers ? In favor or not?

In favor 201.1.154.129 13:31, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

In favor Editors are summarizing points in the Superpower article (mainly in the US session).Cloretti2 13:49, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

In favor We need to spend at least three to four paragraphs explaining the power hierarchy and what a Major Power's role in the world is. These articles are getting too political for Wikipedia's liking. Nobleeagle (Talk) 22:19, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- CommentSo we're saying that we summarize each Major Power with one or two paragraphs? I was about to do that with Japan but thought I should confirm with the rest first. Does these paragraph summaries include China and India? Nobleeagle (Talk) 02:24, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - I would say YES for your sugestion. Just one or two paragraphs - including China and India (frankly talking, I think those potential superpower articles are pointless)Cloretti2 13:11, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

In favour I rather think that some here (me included) rather lost sight of the purpose of the individual major power sections. Reduce (or expand, as necessary) each section to encompass the salient points; leave it up to the reader to explore the various aspects there discussed by looking at the wikipedia pages of the individual nations.

Xdamr 22:51, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

- Comment In reference to your reducing of the individual sections, nice work but I hope you aren't simply deleting any information that may be considered important, I'd rather we reworded every sentence to make it shorter yet fit as much information in as possible. Nobleeagle (Talk) 07:09, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I quite understand. I have removed a few points which I consided went beyond the scope of the article or which were repetition. What I have left are, I think, the the fundamental points. Some of what is left could perhaps do with a little rewriting but I don't think that anything that I left should be removed. (All IMHO of course).

Xdamr 12:21, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

What about removing all bad points and just keep the more expressive (good) points for all powers. well..take a moment to think. A poor country can be a superpower ? For example, China... When we classify a point as good or bad we are making judgments Cloretti2 12:53, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Original Research

When you click on edit this page you see

This page is 30 kilobytes long. This may be longer than is preferable

However, we have only 6 sources in the entire article, while Potential Superpowers - India has over 100 even though it is about only one country. We need to quickly fill these up with sources and limit our OR. Nobleeagle (Talk) 04:21, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, with 120 references, that keeps repeating the same point over and over again. I don't see the point. In fact, I suggest the India's page to remove references that talkes about the same thing. I mean, a sentence with 6 or 8 "similar-content" references is laughable. 66.253.171.85 08:30, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

You're right about them, I'll delete a few on especially obvious points. Nobleeagle (Talk) 03:34, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I think we should sort out content first, before inserting copious references. I think that there is agreement that some sections are overly large (UK, Russia), whilst others are too small. Perhaps once we get these in better balance we can consider references etc?

Xdamr 10:26, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Xdamr Cloretti2 13:18, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

China, France, Germany, India

Now that Brazil, the UK and Russia are at a more reasonable size, perhaps those with the necessary expertise could add a bit to the above sections?

Xdamr 13:42, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I have summarize India in 4 paragraphs, I don't want to interfere too much with other nations as I don't have as much knowledge on them. Nobleeagle (Talk) 22:44, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I have further reduced Russia's military section from 5 points to 4 and have added short sections for economy and culture. This should hopefully present a nice summary of the factors that make Russia a major power without being too long. I have also removed the sentence at the beginning of the article that said, "Note that there are arguments to consider Russia a declining as well as a rising power." This seems to imply that this article will present such arguments, which it does not do (and really this article does not seem to be the place for such a discussion). Let the reader draw his own conclusions...

69.138.134.88 04:31, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Major Power's Subsections - Layout

Perhaps we should lay out a kind of style guide for entries in the subsections for each of the Major Powers? There seem to be two approaches, each presently illustrated in the article. The first is a narrative structure, laid out in paragraphs. The second consists of sub headings (Political, Military, Economic, Cultural) with bullet points for each factor.

Personally, I quite like the latter. I think that moving over to this would aid readability and comprehension, as well as being in spirit with the nature of these sections - that of a national overview rather than an in-depth treatment of the nation.

That being so I'd like to propose a template we could all work to:

MAJOR POWERS

UK (for example)

Brief narrative here

Military factors

Military point here
Military point here

etc.

Economic factors

Economic point here

Cultural factors

Cultural point here

Political factors

Political point here

I do think that we need to impose some stylistic rule here, the article is beginning to look a little disjointed. I also think that reducing factors to bullet points in this way may inhibit the article from growing too large, forcing contributors to reduce their points down to the bare essentials. Any views?

Xdamr 12:20, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Xdamr's suggestion. Since major powers must meet certain criteria, then it makes sense to list the criteria that the given country fulfills and then have bullet points that illustrate how it satisfies the criteria. Regarding the negative points (like the "political issues" or "major issues" sub-sections), these points really don't illustrate why the country is a major power. Perhaps we could instead have a brief text at the bottom that says that the country also faces issues in certain areas and refers the reader to the proper article for further detail. This should keep the Major Power better focused on the point of what is a major power and how the listed countries fit in this category.

69.138.134.88 14:29, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

For this particular article, I'd go with the former, there are a couple of reasons for this and if they we overcame them I would agree with Xdamr. Firstly, China and India can't have two articles going into their details in dot points, since they have many many qualities for and against, we don't want the article getting too long and neither do we want them looking weak by not adding many points in their favour (that would a a misperception). Similarly, I doubt we'll get many dot points for Germany and France based on current growth of those sections. Also, I believe Brazil will be better off in paragraph structure as opposed to dot points. Nobleeagle (Talk) 02:51, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Essentially I think that it comes down to the fact that there are criteria for major power status. I think that it is wholly appropriate that we should note how any particular country meets them. I also think that is is appropriate that we should note how they also fall short of others; after all, if they met them all then they would be considered superpowers. If certain countries look weaker or stronger than others then is this not simply a reflection of the fact that whilst all the countries here are Major powers, some are more major than others?

Xdamr 00:33, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

But China and India can only have a narrative section as they already have their own huge dot point filled articles. I guess your layout would work with the rest. Nobleeagle (Talk) 00:40, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I visualise the China/India articles as a more in-depth treatment of their possible emerging superpower status. I don't think that the China/India articles mean that we can't have some sort of executive summary here. Their potential superpower status shouldn't, in my view, prejudice a reasonably full section in the Major powers article. Simply extract the points relevant to their current Major power status - leave the emerging superpower points out.

Xdamr

I can do that I guess. I'll leave out everything that relates to the future and the unnecessarily long foreign relations sections. Do we have a points against as well or do we leave that out? Nobleeagle (Talk) 01:12, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I do think that we need to make some kind of acknowledgement of where the various nations fall short, especially as the criteria for Superpower and Major power are the same - differing only in the degree to which they are met. As I said above, if a nation met all the criteria then it would be a superpower; by noting the criteria that any particular nation does not meet we are simply reinforcing Major power status.

Xdamr 01:18, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I've converted China over to the bullet-point style. I don't vouch for the points made, I just converted the those that were already there. Provided there are no objections I'll convert each of the other nations to this style.

Xdamr 12:00, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Germany and France

These are the only nations that are keeping this article from some sort of sense of completeness. So please concentrate your efforts on these sections now, fill in at least three criteria factors and then we can concentrate on another project related to this article. Nobleeagle (Talk) 00:14, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Relative decline?

In what way exactly are Germamy and France in "relative decline" (as written in the introduction of the article), and the United Kingdom is not? This must be some sort of joke only worthy of the British tabloid press. Right there from the beginning of the introduction this article greatly discredits itself. Just for the information of the British authors of this article, demographers forecast that by 2050 France will be the most populated country of the European Union with 75 million inhabitants due to high birth rate compared to other European countries, whereas they forecast that the UK population will be stagnating at around 60 million due to lower birth rate and emigration of British citizens to Southern Europe, Australia, or elsewhere. ([1], [2], [3]) Now where is the decline? Hardouin 23:56, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree. These articles are poor in general. Do you have any idea how we can save them? Guinnog 23:58, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

By forbidding English people from editing them? I'm being ironic. Yet look at the United Kingdom section of this article, not only it's the longest of the article, but it's also the most bombastic and chauvinistic. London is regarded as "the most important commercial and financial centre in the world". Really? By whom? Must be by people in the UK, because in the world out there exist far larger commercial and financial centres than London. Tokyo, just to mention it, has a GDP larger than the entire GDP of the United Kingdom. And in the US, where I lived for several years, nobody in their right mind would consider London more important that NYC in terms of commerce and finance. I could go on and on about other chauvinistic claims in the article. Hardouin 00:12, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I am a UK (Scottish) editor and I would like to sort out some of the problems with POV as well. The criteria seem to me to be Original Research, as is much of the article written around the criteria. Superpower, Hyperpower, and all the major powers stuff is poor now but was even worse before I added in some real-life facts about the US. I'd be happy to do the same for the UK, but then you still end up with a poor article, just a little less POV. Guinnog 00:17, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

One way to improve the article would be to remove France and Germany from the "relative decline" sentence in the introduction. Another way would be to de-chauvinize the United Kingdom section. I let you do the de-chauvinization: since you're from the UK (albeit Scottish), people will be less inclined to think that you're doing it out of anti-UK bias. Then third we should call for some major French and German contributors to come and enlarge the sections regarding their respective countries. Just check the language lists to find out large contributors from these two countries.

On a side note, Guinnog, if you're interested in doing some more de-chauvinization, I suggest you have a look at British Empire, an article hopelessly chauvinistic and absurd in many ways (e.g. the " anachronous map showing all the territories ruled by the British Empire"). Have a look. Hardouin 00:29, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll have a look. Guinnog 00:49, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Guinnog, my friend, we are all trying to make the articles better. We have no signed-up users that constantly edit this article with POV. I've been working on Power (international) and Regional power to make all of the articles a bit better. I would appreciate help there too. And just to tell you, the criteria is NOT original research, I can no longer find the site, but the Origins Section and Criteria sections were largely plagiarised from that site. Sorry I can't provide the site.

Back to the topic of discussion, it is obvious that London is not the financial capital of the world. This article really needs to work out its sources for all sections apart from the China article and the India article (which provides all its sources within the main article and all factuality debates should be made there). I'll work on the UK when I have the time. Nobleeagle (Talk) 02:15, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Categories: Talk archives