Talk:Great power

For older discussions, see archives:
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7
History

Quality sources

I've noticed a lot of people using headlines, news 'puffs' and book reviews to show that one or another country is a 'great power'. This is insufficient, as explained in Wikipedia's guidelines [1]. Please only cite sources from reputable sources, such as academics from respected universities, foreign policy institutions and the like. Opinion pieces from local or regional newspapers are not good enough. Further, there is no need to provide 'sources' for statements of fact. That the US is recognised globally as a superpower, or that France, Britain, Russia, the EU, or China are recognised as great powers, is merely a statement of fact—like saying that an orange is orange or an apple is red or green. Enhancing the quality of this article depends on using reputable sources, removing nonsense and other hyperbole, and using citations sparingly. Ouip (talk) 22:00, 29 May 2008 (UTC)jhfsuifasnnfhhxxfghxxfhxh

Yes, I concur with this. Attempts are being made to add bias to this article. Imperium Europeum (talk) 22:27, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

State of the article?

I've been away from this article for a few months now; things have certainly changed a lot since then, yet things are also basically the same. I'm interested in the general consensus of opinion here as to the state of the article. What are the views re. the OR tags? What is the best way of going about removing them (that is to say removing them by addressing the concerns, not simply by deleting them)? What is the view on the cohesion, style, and quality of the writing? Can this article be raised to GA once more?

Xdamr^talk 13:30, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

The current great powers section is flawed. No mention of Japan, one of the world's largest economies is mentioned, though italy is, just as an example.

there should be a list with the great powers --134.147.117.41 12:55, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

IP edits to Italy

Would someone look over the anon edits to the article's Italy section [2], please? CRGreathouse (t | c) 20:44, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

71.243.25.240 20:55, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Italy must be included. They were mentioned recently as a European power in my newspaper recently when Kosovo gained independence.

To back it up please read:

Political scientist and author Joseph Becker and Franz Knipping in, "Power in Europe? Great Britain, France, Italy and Germany in a Postwar World, 1945-1950," along with Ben W. Heineman, Jr., and Fritz Heimann in, "The Long War Against Corruption," have called Italy, alongside France, the UK, and Germany the remaining regional powers and describes Italy as a "major player" on par with the other regional powers within Europe.[30] [31]Also the Carabinieri and author B.A. Roberson have claimed Italy's status as a regional power.[32][33]

Italy is a member of the G8, NATO and is also a current elected member of the United Nations Security Council.[34], Italy also has the fourth largest economy within Europe [35] with "...roughly the same total and per capita output as France and the UK"[36]. It is regarded as a Great Power and is behind Russian military spending by just 307 million by 2006 est.[37] But Italy is undergoing military upgrades and reform including the making of a new aircraft carrier, the Cavour (550) and the purchase of more Eurofighter Typhoons.[38] Italy was one of the founding members of the EU and as of 2006, Italy ranks third in the world in number of military forces operating in peacekeeping and peace-enforcing scenarios such as Afghanistan, Kosovo, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Lebanon following only the United States and United Kingdom.[39] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.167.238.141 (talk) 01:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Major player is not Great Power MAJOR difference I have also read the cited documents and they do not support your claim, nor does being a member of G8 (eg Canada), not a Permanent member of the Security Council (among 15 others elected), Total GDP rank doesn't automatically make a country a Great Power, Italy 8 billion Thats a B... not 300 million, behind Russia in Military Spending, Nor does military build up or size of Army if so then Iran has a good claim as a Great Power, There were many original members of the EU including Belgium, And I cannot find any talk about peacekeeping forced but don't forget that Canada has a VERY large peacekeeping force. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 01:36, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Anyone who is interested in this discussion should also read User talk:59.167.238.141. Viewfinder (talk) 07:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Lead-in contraction

I have edited the article's lead for length, and much information that seemed redundant or irrelevant has been taken out. If you wish to reinsert this, please try to find a relevant section in the main body of the article. I know it is somewhat short for the article's size; however, I am sure that this article needs to be much more concise to regain good article status. This is just my opinion, however, and I would be glad to hear other comments on this matter. Gutterball1219 02:53, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

It looks generally good to me. I do have one question (which applies to the article even before your edit, but more so now): is post-Napoleonic the best description of the time the term was used? I would have thought "Westphalian".

CRGreathouse (t | c) 12:04, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Good call on removing some of that extraneous material. Personally I think that the best way that this article could be immediately improved is by removing the 'The Great powers' section. This has grown to assume the proportions of a nightmare and is the big OR/NPOV Achillies heel of the article. Replace it with one single, unified section discussing the broad themes of membership of the Great power club, allowing us to be rid of tedious information re. French aircraft carriers etc.

The big rewrite at the beginning of the year seems to have sorted out the theoretical aspects of this concept fairly well. Since then, I'd bet a large amount of money that 95%+ of the edits to this article have been in the nature of national aggrandisement in the 'The Great powers' section, bloating that section appallingly. This is not the place to give a history of France, Germany, Italy, Japan, etc, etc—this is for discussion of the Great power concept. Replace this morass of OR synthesii with something suitable for the purpose of the article and I think that we will be well on the way to recovering GA.

Xdamr^talk 13:20, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I haven't much to do for a while, so I can try to work on combining the "History" and "Characteristics" into a section that is relevant and concise. Xdamr, I agree; there is no problem in my mind with binning "The Great Powers" section altogether. I'm quite up for it if anyone would like to collaborate on this. Gutterball1219 04:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

The former 'The Great powers' section was useful for readers. When ppl reasearch Great Powers, the readers would wonder what nations were Great Powers in each moment. It is useful info for encyclopedias. The article was removed at:

-------------

13:29, 14 July 2007 Xdamr (Talk | contribs) (15,141 bytes) (→The Great powers - rm content per talk) (undo)

12:36, 14 July 2007 Takeshik (Talk | contribs) m (70,432 bytes) (undo)

-------------

---Brionies 02:33, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

The The Great powers section was interesting and I played a significant role in writing it (see archives). However it violated Wikipedia policy as it was almost entirely Original Research. Novel synthesii of sourced material (which is what that section had become) are not permitted. For us to take facts and extrapolate from them whether a nation was or is a Great power is beyond our role as editors, no matter how convinced we are that we are right. Anyway, that section had become a magnet for nationalistic self-aggrandisement - in the time this article has had its present structure, the theory aspects of the page have been largely untouched, while the The Great powers section saw tremendous editing, none of which contributed much to the overall article.

The basics of the article are sound - the removed section was in reality nothing more than a distraction.

Xdamr^talk 12:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I guess that is understandable that there is a need to bring back focus on the theory and concept of great powers. However, a written list and description of the role, influence, and effects of great powers should have a place in the article too. As an article about great powers, shouldn't there be a place noting on how each great power have shaped politics and the world? Good luck I guess on making the new direction work, though I will miss the old section. I do contest how much OR is the original section too, but I'm not going to argue that right now. DarkGhost89 20:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

No list?

I remember last time I was here that this page had a list of great powers, but now it doesn't. Why not? The regional power page has one, the superpower page even has a list of potential future superpowers! 60.231.148.248 07:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

let's categorized the list of power
the current undisputed Great Power are:
- USA (also a superpower)
- Russia (also referred as a superpower[[3]])
- UK
- France
- China
(noted, they also = permanent security council member)

disputed/potential Great Power are:
- Germany (defeated in WWII)
- Japan (defeated in WWII)
- India (independent after WWII)
(considered as forerunners for expanded security council; excluded brazil/etc with no projected power)
- Italy
(notable but not active in global affair)

Akinkhoo 07:31, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Lists lead to unecessary confrontations and edit wars. I don't think they should be added in. 138.237.165.140 18:49, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Just to thow a monkey wrench into the works: I don't think your "undisputed" list is actually undisputed. I think that there have been many papers since the fall of the Berlin Wall positing Russia as a non-Great power. In fact most academic sources I read have fewer than five Great powers, so they obviously drop at least one of the "undisputed" states. (Some have only two or three.) CRGreathouse (t | c) 20:37, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

All these great power things are opinions made my political scientists. France is a great power to some and not to others. Japan is to some an not to others. There can be no definate answer here. NONE.

And also how is Italy not active in global affairs. Have you read the news lately or even know of any of the worlds organizations because it seems your just talking out of the opinion of a 7th grader.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.170.185.121 (talk • contribs)

Surely there can be definite answers based on a consensus of experts. At the moment we don't really have good sourcing; we need to change that down the road. As for Italy -- it's not worth my time to respond. Figure it out. CRGreathouse (t | c) 14:31, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

A list would be advisable. I do not think either Italy or Germany can be seriously regarded as Great Powers. By contrast, Russia clearly and undisputably is a Great Power. (Peter) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.212.53.140 (talk) 16:07, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Russia but not germany or italy? russia is struggling to be not called a third world nation. germany can defeat russia in a war and germany has a larger economy. same with italy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.252.248.111 (talk) 20:13, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Russia is a nuclear power which puts her on another scale than the two middle powers Germany and Italy. It's also a country with massive energy resources which will make her even more important. (Peter) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.212.52.11 (talk) 07:36, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Italy has access to nukes through nuclear sharing via NATO and germany and italy both have the ability to create nuclear weapons quickly if they really wanted to. It would violate the NPT but who cares. They have the ability. Russia isnt on another level. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.170.156.102 (talk) 03:51, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I suppose, Italy and Germany as well as possibly Spain might be ranked as 'advanced middle powers' whereas Britain and France remain the sole great European powers. I suppose, though, that this is bordering on OR. (Peter) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.216.107.173 (talk) 09:22, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Great Powers List

i propose the deletion of this part of the article. its too controversial. I think we should let the readers determine the state of power of a nation based on the definition and information given in the article not have them draw conclusions off of a controversial and unofficial paragraph telling of "disputed powers" which in mine and many others opinions arent disputed. Ill delete in 24 hours. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.226.67.23 (talk) 04:03, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the Current Great powers section has enough citations. Do we need the Original research tag yet?　--221.190.253.70 (talk) 07:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protected

Given the recent spate of anon removals, I have semi-protected this page. This of course is without prejudice to any new consensus on the future of the 'The Great Powers' section. Anon editors should feel free to contribute to this discussion.

Xdamr^talk 11:51, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I would also like to have the anonymous editors discuss the section here. Although I did re-add the removed section, the best course of action may be to delete it -- I have no opinion at the moment on how best to fix it. CRGreathouse (t | c) 12:52, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The anon editor (I assume there is only one person behind this) has a decent point insofar as the section is at present in pretty bad shape. I see that we are now claiming (though, of course, not citing) South Korea as a potential Great power. This kind of nonsense completely devalues the article. I believe that there is a need for this section, containing a brief sketch of the changing membership of the 'club', but as it stands the state of the section does a disservice to an otherwise decently sourced and objective article.

Xdamr^talk 21:32, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually South Korea's not in bad shape, having joined the top 10 economies a while back. They're certainly no Great power, though, and I agree the section's pretty bad.

Unfortunately I'm not sure that the rest of the article is that objective; while I think the article is good, on the whole, it has serious POV issues from its roots. CRGreathouse (t | c) 01:23, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the term "Great Power" has not been applied by any widely respected commentators to any country in the post-WW2 world, and the section in question is therefore WP:OR and should be re-written accordingly. Any further comments? If there are none, I will re-write the section. Viewfinder 14:32, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

What? I've read at least a dozen post-WW2 papers that use that term, and I don't even read that many papers in this field. Even the references to the article have at least two such papers, as memory serves. Are you joking? I can't honestly tell.

CRGreathouse (t | c) 15:59, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

First, I must protest about your suggestion that my good faith comments are jokes, which is contrary to WP:CIV. Second, I ask you to identify the references you mention, and if they are not available from the web, provide transcriptions of the relevant passages. To what countries is the term applied. According to German authorities cited in this article, Germany is classed as a "middle power". If the "Great Power" claim has been applied by respected authorities to the likes of post-war UK and Germany, then it is in order to place this in the relevant country articles. Otherwise, it is not. Viewfinder 16:43, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I honestly couldn't tell you were serious -- there are so many sources for this it was hard to imagine. Danilovic, as cited in the article, would apparently be one source; the standard International Relations (Pearson / 8th edition) would be another. I believe the Wilkinson article also mentions Germany as a great power in his article, although I could be mistaken. The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers (Paul Kennedy) has Germany as a Great power. In fact I can think of no book-length references which do not. I've read a few textbooks which had great power lists, including Germany, but I can't think of their titles offhand. PINR has a number of articles listing Germany as a great power, even when the articles are discussing the great/middle split. I can't recall for certain, but The United States of Europe may also make such mention. If you look into the archives of this talk page you'll find a number of other references I found that discuss Great powers -- all were post-WW2, though not all list Germany as a Great power. (Some had as few as 2 great powers.) I know someone taking his undergrad who's in international relations, and if I can find his book I may be able to get yet another source. JSTOR can give tons of articles; I'm not going to insult you with a tremendous list, but "Great Power Arms Transfers: Modeling the Decision-Making Processes of Hegemonic, Industrial, and Restrictive Exporters" (ISQ, 1991) would be a typical example. CRGreathouse (t | c) 19:28, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the references. But, with respect, none of these references are easily verifiable because they are all in print or deeply buried in websites alongside countless other articles. To verify your claims, I would need to track down, buy and read these books cover to cover, or read through countless web articles. That is why I asked you for transcriptions (preferably accompanied by ISBN data and page numbers) of relevant passages. Even better would be links to specific web pages on which Great Power claims are made by widely respected sources. For example, can you not transcribe an appropriate passage from Danilovic, or find a specific PINR page? And does the Kennedy source talk about post-WW2 Germany being a Great Power? If there really are "so many sources" that you were justified in suggesting that I was not serious, you should be able to provide good samples. Viewfinder 20:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Danilovic ch.2 (so far as I recall) deals with the various 'Great powers'. It is referenced within the article as a pdf, so you should have no trouble in taking a look at it and setting your qualms to rest. Though we cannot escape the fact that many of Wikipedia's references are to books and not instantly available webpages, this source, written by an academic and published by a university publishing house, should at least indicate that the use of the term has some validity.

Xdamr^talk 21:57, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the specific reference. The chapter states (p.28) that "the expression major powers has come into a common usage recently, replacing the original phrase great powers. I think that the section in question should quote that. The chapter, in a somewhat contradictory manner, does go on to continue to use the term "great power" even when referring to situations after 1945. But its general conclusion seems to be that there is one superpower and several "major powers"; the chapter does not come down in support of claims that any of these are currently "great powers"; the global influence of the powers that are discussed has generally been in decline. Viewfinder 23:33, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

• You know, you came to this page and made what I consider to be an unfounded OR claim that is contradicted by almost every textbook on the subject, not to mention a great number of academic papers. That the term Great Power is still used is somewhat too self-evident to be the subject of a paper (though surely there are papers out there arguing that the term's dated). You're now asking me to do your research for you -- but there's no need. The article is sufficiently sourced in this regard (though not well enough in others, I easily concede), and a trip to a local university library should be quite enough to convince you. I don't feel that it's my job to enlighten you. Your extraordinary claim requires extraordinary proof -- and you bear the burden, not me.

If you're going to look seriously into this, I recommend basic textbooks, since little else would be sufficiently basic to spell this out. In fact I recommend you find a number of textbooks, not sticking to the list I or anyone else makes, so you can be assured that you're getting a representative sample. If you look over six textbooks and find that five agree and one states no position, you'll perhaps understand my incredulous response to your question.

CRGreathouse (t | c) 12:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Please, Greathouse, please visit WP:EQ and stop accusing me of ignorance on this subject. If you are right then it should not be any trouble at all for you to provide sample text passages and web links, similar to the one provided by Xdamr. Viewfinder 21:28, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I believe I am well within the bounds of etiquette. Your demand that I spend more time researching for you strikes me as a breach of same. Still, if I find the time I may look for more sources regardless -- but it would be to further improve the article, not to prove a point with you. CRGreathouse (t | c) 03:38, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Interpretation of German "Mittelmacht"

I have transferred the following from User Talk:UKPhoenix79, because it belongs on this page. Viewfinder (talk) 09:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

---

Hi Phoenix,

I missed the contradiction you pointed out, when I edited the text. The sources use the word "Mittelmacht"->Middlepower but this has a different in German than in English. In Germany the term is of historical origin: Germany at the end of the around 1900 being the dominating power in continental Europe and geographically lying in the middle of Europe. The term "Mittelmacht" come from the geographical position, at least thats what I learned during my history classes in german high school :). I'll edit the text, trying to avoid the contradiction. Feel free to undo if you think I'm wrong, but myself being german I'm quite positive that the cited source are supposed to be interpreted as I see it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.59.124.4 (talk) 20:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Please can this matter be discussed on the talk page. I reverted the changes because they were not accompanied by any edit summary or talk page contribution. I had not noticed the above comments, but I think they should have been made on the talk page. Viewfinder (talk) 06:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

You both have good points. If you can take this convo to the pages talk page that would be best. If you are correct about the translation of "Mittelmacht" it probably should still be mentioned if only so that it can be explained. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 08:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

---

While I am open to persuasion on this, especially by German contributors, it seems to me that the term "middle power" is used about Germany in a non-geographical sense, for example here. IIRC, the correct English translation of the geographical term would be "Central Power". Viewfinder (talk) 09:29, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Encarta is wrong

The encarta article opinion is found to be wrong.

Today’s great powers—the United States, Britain, France, Russia, and China—all have large military forces and substantial nuclear weapons capabilities. Japan and Germany—with huge economies and relatively large military forces but no nuclear weapons—also qualify as great powers. These seven states control over half of the world’s economy, 68 percent of world military spending, 27 percent of its soldiers, 95 percent of arms exports, and 99 percent of nuclear weapons. The only other states of comparable economic size are Italy and perhaps India, neither of which has the global outlook or military strength to qualify as a great power. India, which now has nuclear weapons capability, and Brazil are regional giants that have the potential to become great powers in the 21st century.

There is big errors in the list. The first line says The United States, Britain, France, Russia and China all have large military forces and substantial nuclear weapons. So is India. But regarding India the article says India, neither of which has the global outlook or military strength to qualify as a great power. Why is India which has a large military force (Second to that of China in terms of manpower and technologically on par with the U.S and Russia with Aircraft carrier, Su-30MKI's, Ballistic missiles like Agni, Brahmos supersonic cruise missiles, T-90 tanks, Anti-ballistic missile capability and many more capabilities) considered as not having military strength. Regarding economic capability India is third in terms of GDP PPP terms after U.S and China. This article may be written in the 1990's. Many years has passed after this article has been written and an update is necessary. Chanakyathegreat (talk) 04:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The thing is that the US, UK, France, Russia & China have military outposts thought the world with a military force that is ready to react any place in the globe at a moments notice. India brought an old Aircraft carrier from the UK and while it is notable about how much work they did in updating it and becoming the only country in SE. Asia to have an aircraft carrier, the other 5 countries have had aircraft carriers for many years and they number more than just the one. I think that you could agree that Encarta is completely correct about India's inward view lacking a global outlook, one cannot be anything more than a regional power without creating influence on a global scale. Even America notices when China gets p.o'd. Military force is not an indicator of a Great power either. Don't forget that in 1990 Iraq had the 5th largest military in the world. Heck if you include active and reservists Iran currently has 11,770,000 people available if a war started. Thats 5 million more than even china can call up! Even the worlds only Super Power the US ranks at number 7 with a meager 2.3 million ready. There has been no real accredited belief that India is a current global power, only that it has the potential to become one. Well I'll just drag and drop from what the article says: according to Dilip Mohite India will have to resolve the tremendously complex issues of ethnic and communal strife within its own body politic in order to stay together long enough to become a "great power".Swords and Ploughshares- India: The Fourth Great Power? Also read up on this article Is India a Major Power?, it might help. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 06:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Except the United States, no other nation in the list have military outposts thought the world with a military force that is ready to react any place in the globe at a moments notice. The other nations in the list Britain and France have colonial outposts but it is not all over the world. About Russia I doubt any such outposts except in Central asia. China don't have any military outposts. Regarding India it is said that India utilises an airbase in a central Asian nation for military purpose.

India is not the only country in South East asia to operate an AC. Thailand has one. But it can be said that India is the only country in Asia to have an operational AC. China don't have AC. Similarly France and Russia has only one and not more than 1.

India's inward looking foreign policy has changed after the collapse of the CCCP. Today India has excellent diplomatic relationship with the world nations including U.S, E.U, Russia and China.

And if you can explain what you meant by creating influence on a global scale I will be able to provide details.

Also don't compare the technologically inferior, under trained, low motivated Iraqi military with Indian military. The U.S has to think of inducting F-22 after the India-U.S air exercise, in which even the upgraded Mig-21's were quite a challenge to the U.S forces. Indian armed forces is a very professional technological force.

Dilip Mohite must have written something for the sake of filling the space, which is different from the reality. considering which will make France much more problematic because of the riots in France. This is what Thomas Friedman says India is a miracle with millions of peaceful Muslims not blowing up like in Iraq.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 04:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but the facts say otherwise. The UK has no more colonies, a commonwealth and a few dependency's like the Isle of Man or other places like the Falkland Islands. But there are British Military forts thought the world ranging from Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean to the bases Akrotiri and Dhekelia in Cyprus, each are a part of the the British overseas territories. Heck the British still have bases in Germany! As for aircraft carriers I was unaware that Thailand had one, so that is news to me. China had 2 but they have been taken out of commission, but if having an Aircraft Carrier is so important to being a Great Power, Argentina had 2, Australia had 4, Brazil has 1, Spain has 1, and even the Ukraine had one! Do you think that they should be considered Great Powers? Don't forget that by 1991 the Iraqi army had about 8 years of war with Iran and the republican guard was filled with veterans and was well respected for their fighting skills even by the US military. They were just outflanked and out generaled by a military force that was at the peak of its power after the collapse of the soviet union. But you have to admit that the internal instabilities of France are not the same as the internal instabilities of India. Being on a train where there are armed security guards with automatic weapons is not that uncommon in India especially if there guarding a politician, and lets not talk about bribery! But even so this has become a personal discussion with a lot of OR. There is just no academic belief that India is currently a great power, only the potential to become one. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 06:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

You must have called it colonies rather than dependencies. But the answer to the question is not given. Regarding military reach I still say that Britain and France has some colonial outposts and it's not world over. At the moment Diego Garcia U.S base. Hong Kong is handed over to China. So where are the world over bases. And still you carefully missed out the major part that's the Russian and Chinese bases.

Regarding AC you have mentioned in the first post that the other 5 countries have had aircraft carriers for many years and they number more than just the one Why you mentioned this in your first article? Regarding the nations having aircraft carriers you messed up the whole discussion by going for the wrong article. Here is the correct one.

The Iraqi's never had anything to match the American's in terms of technology. It was all outdated weaponry and an Army with low morale. Instability in France is a serious matter. I had read somewhere a minister in the France saying that France must be ready for a civil war in the near future.

Why this unwanted comments like armed guards for politicians when we are discussing global power.

What I am saying is that The potential has been reached. That means India is a Global power at the moment. Chanakyathegreat (talk) 14:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually Diego Garcia is a Joint UK/US base which is located on British Soil. If you check out British overseas territory you will see that is is indeed world wide. I know that China has a few outposts in the Pacific as does Russia. So you agree with my point about Iraq then? Just because the paper shows that it is an amazing military at the time filled with highly trained veterans and actually rather good US military wepons & tanks (The US sold them for the Iraq-Iran war) the reality can be somewhat different. The instability of France is an instability that it has had since Napoleon III and the reason that the minister said that he believes that a Civil war might be at hand, is because he believes that the high proportions of Muslims in the country is a security threat, as many Hindus believe India. I assume that you are SE. Asian and might even be From India itself, so the comment about armed guards was a direct response to the instability question you put forward showing the difference between India and France...

but really this is not the place for personal conversations why you believe that one is and the others isn't. I have tried to find some accredited sources saying that India is or believed to be a Great Power but at the moment people don't believe that. I am no expert in Geo-Politics nor am I a published author with degrees in world economics or paid lecture tours, from what I gather you aren't one either. So since we are not experts we must allow the experts have their say. So at the moment we should keep the page as it is until those academics start to change their mind or begin to believe that the future is now! -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 06:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

At the moment Diego Garcia belongs to the U.S. Sakhalin and Kuril are not worldwide. It's near Russia. What about China. You did not answer. Iraq had superior weapon. Absurd and I don't agree with you on it. That's what I am saying the so called reliable source like Encarta is written by some person who may not know anything about military capabilities. Shows the credibility of Encarta. Buddy the future that we were talking about has arrived. And the future is going to be much more interesting.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 12:46, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Umh read the Diego Garcia article! It is (as I have mentioned before) a British overseas territory with a joint US/UK base on it setup during the cold war. I also never said that Iraq had superior weapons! I said Don't forget that in 1990 Iraq had the 5th largest military in the world. how is that superior to the US? Also you need to check out the official wikipedia policies on No original research Reliable sources and Verifiability where they say for one thing that In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. You will discover that Encarta and Dilip Mohite (from Swords and Ploughshares- India: The Fourth Great Power?) are considered very reliable sources not Original research in the least. Heck they are great examples of references that give Wikipedia credibility. I'm sorry that you don't agree with what the scholars think of India's global power, but at least they agree that the potential is there even if they don't think that it has arrived yet. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 08:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, Let us consider the Dilip Mohite and encarta are reliable sources. The Encarta article as I said is very very old one. Similarly the Dilip Mohite's article was published either in 1990 or in 1992. At that time India was not a Great power. 18 years has passed since the article was first published. Mohite says that Thomas then posits a further transformation to the “Asian/Great Power Posture” by 1996 to 2000. Another point he notes is that There is reason to suppose that India’s current growth rates will support the ongoing levels of military expenditure, thereby allowing India to make the transition into the “Asian/Great Power Posture” posited by Thomas. However, the transnationalization of the Indian economy that has been responsible for the recent growth also means that the Indian economy is susceptible to the vagaries of the world economic system. That means he expected India to be Great power by the year 2000 provided India's economy grows stronger. From the economic stand point India is very strong at the moment and it is 2008 which is 8 years after the year in which India achieved the Great power status. So from the above reliable article itself it's proven that India is a Global power. I am adding it to the list of Global power based on the reliable source. Chanakyathegreat (talk) 05:56, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

LOL!!! And in 1913 The Power of the British Empire looked like it would continue to grow for another 100 years! Should I cite articles form the 1907 Encyclopedia Britannica proving that the British Empire is still the most powerful one on the earth??? Please use real citations and Real facts not just conjectures to prove your point. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 06:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

There is a big difference b/w the two. One was a Great power that lost its power other (India) was not a great power but has risen to be a Great power. The article is a reliable as you have admitted and making any changes will be a violation of Wikipedia rules and I will have to report you to the Administrator. Chanakyathegreat (talk) 13:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Please do not make threats as that is not very becoming of this decent conversation that we have had so far. Take a look at China it has everything to show that it is a super power right now, the arguments you have made for China are the same that you could make about China. People have made predictions that China would be considered a Super Power by now but it is still not considered one. The British Empire is a valid example because before its collapse no one would have predicted it at the time, so references cannot make predictions on the future they can only state what is seen now since facts change and situations change, 9/11 is another example of something no one predicted & changed a lot... but I wont get into that. Please just find a reliable source from an academic that states that India is currently a super power not a projection on India's growth that it might be after some time! -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 20:35, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I've taken this to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Great power to hopefully bring others into this conversation & see what they think. Please put up whatever you want to explain your beliefs :-) I hope this will resolve this issue for the best of the Article! -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 06:51, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, Chanakyathegreat, I'm an administrator, so consider me notified. Without getting into the specifics of this dispute, I wish to point out that the policy at Wikipedia:Verifiability requires that everything in Wikipdedia be verifiable from reliable sources, and that if a statement is challenged, then it is the responsibility of the editor wanting the statement to stay in to cite one or more reliable sources supporting the statement. The policy at Wikipedia:No original research complements verifibility, stating that:

• Wikipedia does not publish original thought: all material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source.
• Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not clearly advanced by the sources.

Finally, edit warring is against Wikipedia policy. -- Donald Albury 13:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

O.K, Let someone write an article on India as a great power, then it is possible to add it to the list. The only problem is that many of those links specifying India as an emerging great power is very outdated. Chanakyathegreat (talk) 10:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I took out the sentence about India and Brazil being emerging powers because it required weasel words to be considered accurate. Not because of India, but because of Brazil. There is only one notable article I could find that even considered the possibility of Brazil becoming a great power, and as such, that's not deserving of saying they're "thought to be" an emerging power. I was a little hasty on my removal however, as there does seem to be a general consensus regarding India, so I've restored the sentence with only India. I suggest we keep Brazil out of the article, as the suggestion of them becoming a great power is an extreme minority view that is supported by almost no experts (from what I could find, anyways). Sbw01f (talk) 20:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I would just like to say a few things. Firstly, I believe Japan also ranks above India in GDP, so it would be fourth. Furthermore, I believe that there is a difference between aircraft carriers. Thailand may have a carrier, but a single fully manned Nimitz class carrier could defeat the entire Thai airforce. The ability to effectively employ power throughout the world (like proven by the UK in the falkland war and by all 5 by possesion of powerfull balistic missiles)is a maior criteria, of which aircraft carriers is just a part. I also believe that inernational recognition as a great power already is an arguement on its own, that that country is indeed a great power. India has constant wars with Pakistan, which it is not winning vgery convincingly. Based on these arguments, and arguments previously mentioned by others, I support the idea that India is not yet a great power. Taketa (talk) 10:53, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Italy

America's closest ally in continental europe

The above link is to contradict the claim that Italy is not active in global affairs and highlights the perceived notions of its involvement around the world. I spent personally two months to get Italy listed as a great power only to come back here and the entire page revamped and the Italians being relegated to a two line footnote. And if you don't know who I am look at the archives a couple of years ago when I started this. It seems everyone is new here except for Xdamer who I remember. Former officer in the British military I remember. Problems with the country aside, the country is and has always been a major player in the world since unification. HadrianX. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.67.13.186 (talk) 02:46, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

And Americas closest allies in the middle east are Turkey & Israel, Africa would have to be South Africa or Egypt, N.America would be Canada, Pacific would be Australia & Asia would be Japan. Are you suggesting that they should be considered Great Powers because of US alliances? In Wikipedia we have to avoid OR. What is needed is reliable and sourced material from accredited experts believing that Italy is a Great World power not just a regional one. I read over the article you provided and it does not say anything about Italy being such. Don't forget that Canada is also a major player in world affairs but it is not considered a Great Power only a middle power. Is there a reference that you could provide stating that Italy is believed to be a current great power? -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 03:56, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

The reason Canada is not a Great Power is because the total GDP is lower than most other major countries and it's military is small compared to the countries. Further Canada does not want nor see itself as one. There is a lack of political will and the US owns too much of this country. They had a chance after WW2 but decided to dismantle the infrastucture. Further the article is to clearly state the contributions and invovlements the Italians have in the world contrary to the two line statement in the article. And as far as references, the three pages of references I posted here a year ago are archived. I would to postulate a point. If Italy isn't, then why is the UK? Remember this is not 1908 but 2008. I don't see the British any more involved in world affairs than the Italians. HadrianX —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.67.13.186 (talk) 20:32, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Well if you don't think that the British should then how can the French, Chinese, or the Russians be considered Great Powers??? Your comparing Super Powers with Great Powers. Undoubtedly the British were considered a Super Power in 1908 but it is still considered a Great Power by the Sourced References and the fact it is a permanent member of the UN Security Council, nukes and other measures. But give an accredited reference that states that Italy is a current Great Power and that should be ok! Remember Wikipedia's policies of Wikipedia:No original research Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 05:56, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

The British are still a major influencial power spending more in militry than any other country save the US. Italy is not nearly as much of a power as the UK. Italy does not have the same sort of political setup or as many overseas terrotries. HRH-Ryan (talk) 21:53, 27 January 2008 (UTC)HRH-Ryan

I don't think it's wise to say Italy is a Great power. Even Germany that is in the list is not a Major power. But due to some erratic info by Encarta it's there. While India is considered emerging Great power. Anyway Wikipedia is all about sources, so try to find a source that says Italy is a great power and we can have Italy in the list.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 04:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Who is this guy Chanakyathegreat? What gives you the right to mess with the article without getting a consensus from the group? Italy was mentioned and YOU decide to remove. Who even heard of you prior to a month ago. I am so filled up with absolute disgust with this group and the Neo-Nazi ideas. I don't agree with with Xdamer but at least the man is civilised. If you are the keeper of this article, revert the changes and protect the article from edits. This is becoming rediculous. You know I spent many nights obtaining articles and citations, and still I can't make headway for Italy. Then I get yahoos like this guy above who has his own personal opinion and makes changes. Give me a break! Hadrian —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.54.111.198 (talk) 02:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Personally I have reverted edits that have been unsourced or aren't from accredited sources. So if you have an accredited source that says that Italy is a Great power (not major power, notable power, or other such wordings, since they have different meanings) then please let us know. If you feel that no one here is being reasonable then please go to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard and let them know since they are watched by users that generally have a keen interest in such things. Don't forget that Chanakyathegreat came here making the same claims about India being a Great Power; but he could only find sources saying India is a possible future great power. Thanks to his research he has made that section of the article that much better by sourcing his findings. I hope I helped! -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 02:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I have found an article/paper that talks about the current reform attempts of the UN Security Council. In it, it describes the numeruos attempts at SC reform which have failed numerous times, mainly because the current permanent members refuse to give up their veto rights or allow any one else in. It also talks about Germany's and Japan's push to be made permanent members. In this paper, it specically refers to the UN security members as the great powers. And in it, it mentions Germany and Japan push for being considered considered great powers/permanent members of the UN security council. In the very next sentence it says if Germany and Japan can be in, why not Italy? Surely Italy is in the same league as the other two as well as Britain and France who are already members.

"The history of reform efforts geared toward making the Security Council more reflective of growing UN membership and of changing world politics since the organization’s establishment conveys the slim prospects for meaningful change. UN founders deliberately divided member rights and roles by establishing a universal General Assembly with the most general functions and a restricted Security Council with executing authority for maintaining the peace—unanimity among the great powers was a prerequisite for action. This arrangement was designed to contrast with the Council of the League of Nations, a general executive committee for all of the organization’s functions that failed miserably in the security arena because it required agreement from all states. Eternal seats for the era’s great powers—the United States, the Soviet Union, France, the United Kingdom, and China—now known as the Permanent 5 (P-5) with the right to veto decisions of substance, was an essential component of the original 1945 deal." The Illusion of UN Security Council Reform pg.148. The Washington Quarterly Autumn 2003

A few pages down,

"Even more difficult has been reaching agreement on new permanent members. If dominance by the industrialized countries was the problem, why were Germany and Japan obvious candidates? Would Italy not be more or less in the same league? Would it not make more sense for the European Union to be represented (rather than Paris, London, Berlin, and Rome individually)? How did Argentina feel about Brazil’s candidacy?" The Illusion of Un Security Council Reform pg. 151. The Washington Quarterly Autumn 2003

The Illusion of UN Security Council Reform

Now this clearly states that it's common sense that if Germany and Japan are allowed in, so should Italy and few other countries as well. And by extension, by referring to the UN security council members as great powers, so is Italy. If you can't follow this basic logic, you are either below normal intelligence or just plain descriminatory.

I have read the references you have cited here and they are quite flakey compared with this. Change this article. You wanted the reference, there it is. --74.14.96.68 (talk) 00:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC) HadrianX

Your taking a article that says nothing about Italy being a Great Power and making a conjecture from your opinions. Please find an accredited source that agrees with you and not give personal opinions about Geo-Politics. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 03:19, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Obviously you can't read. I clipped the relevant passages and you still refuse and say I am conjecturing. It says "If dominance by the industrialized countries was the problem, why were Germany and Japan obvious candidates? Would Italy not be more or less in the same league? " The previous paragraph says "Eternal seats for the era’s great powers—the United States, the Soviet Union, France, the United Kingdom, and China". What is it that you don't get. It says in the article if Germany and Japan should be on the security council because they qualify as great powers, why not Italy since it too is on the same level as the other two. Did you fail English/Logic? --76.67.14.102 (talk) 04:12, 23 May 2008 (UTC)HadrianX

Italy is not in the same league as Germany and Japan, over 2007 Italy had a GDP of $1.888 trillion, germany $2.81 trillion and Japan $4.346 trillion Taketa (talk) 10:39, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I can read, hence my ability to type and reply to you. Being insulting only highlights the frailty of your position. Tell me where in that entire article does it say that Italy is a GREAT POWER? It doesn't even make that claim about Germany or Japan. When you find an accredited source that claims that Italy is a current Great power then we can talk until then keep on researching. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 00:22, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Confused article

Having glanced at the article there is a long history section and then apparently some kind of sub-history section again under the list. Is that necessary? And can not that narrative be merged into the rest of the article above? Wjhonson (talk) 00:18, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

The section "Current Great Powers" contain original research and unverified or debated claims. In fact two days ago I added a source ( thecanadianencyclopedia.com ) that speaks against the list of current great powers, but someone removed it. I think is better if the list is removed because it is so debated, as we saw many time in the past. --80.104.57.29 (talk) 09:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually that is explained in the Prose of the text stating that there is some confusion between scholars. That would be a great link for that section. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 11:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Great Powers List

Um. like, I understand there is arguments about which powers included and such --- but right now the article looks really weird. I would expect under Current Great Powers to include in big letters UNITED STATES but um, the article doesn't list it? I don't know what compromise was arrived at based on discussion above, but this is a less than ideal resolution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.247.219.10 (talk) 06:43, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Well the US is in a class onto itself since it is the only remaining superpower. The UK & Russia can no longer be considered Superpowers but are now relegated to the lesser Great Power status. Do you think that the US should be called a Great Power not a Superpower? -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 06:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

In the French, Dutch, Spanish, Italian and German Wikipedia the European Countries and Japan are no more considered as Great powers --80.104.56.188 (talk) 14:39, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Who constitutes a great power is highly debated and debatable, and Wikipedia should not be trying to come up with a definitive list. TallNapoleon (talk) 08:16, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Canada, Great Power or Military Power?

Is Canada a "Great Power"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Walahi5000 (talk • contribs) 23:27, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

No, it's usually considered a middle power.Sbw01f (talk) 21:49, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Italy is recognized as a European Power

Recently, not only did i read it in the newspaper but i also heard it on BBC News when kosovo was formed last month, they mentioned Italy as one of the European powers. Why does this article not include Italy ? Here is the back-up that you need to prove it:

Political scientist and author Joseph Becker and Franz Knipping in, "Power in Europe? Great Britain, France, Italy and Germany in a Postwar World, 1945-1950," along with Ben W. Heineman, Jr., and Fritz Heimann in, "The Long War Against Corruption," have called Italy, alongside France, the UK, and Germany the remaining regional powers and describes Italy as a "major player" on par with the other regional powers within Europe.[30] [31]Also the Carabinieri and author B.A. Roberson have claimed Italy's status as a regional power.[32][33]

Italy is a member of the G8, NATO and is also a current elected member of the United Nations Security Council.[34], Italy also has the fourth largest economy within Europe [35] with "...roughly the same total and per capita output as France and the UK"[36]. Italy is undergoing military upgrades and reform including the making of a new aircraft carrier, the Cavour (550) and the purchase of more Eurofighter Typhoons.[37] Italy was one of the founding members of the EU and as of 2006.

If you've got credible sources that specifically label Italy as a great power, cite them and re-add Italy back to the list with the sources. I removed it for now. Sbw01f (talk) 01:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Please don't just copy paste material from another article (reference numbers and all), especially without citing sources. It's not necessary to make a whole paragraph dedicated to why Italy might be a great power. Just find a credible source that explicitly labels Italy as a great power, then add them to the list. Sbw01f (talk) 01:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Even if Italy is a European Power as you have said doesn't mean it has the ability to exert its influence on a global scale, just to let it out there. Knightshield (talk) 22:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

You are still debating if Italy is great power or not, and debat about the lists of current g. powers , but actually no one of the european countries (and Japan) are no more considered as great powers by many scholars, as demonstrated in the canandian encyclopedia article above, but you are still ignoring this POV: in fact the section and list of current g. powers ( Wikipedia is encyclopedia: what is "current" today will not be current tomorrow. Wikipedia articles are not newspaper, and should not be snapshots of the "today")is not neutral ad have to be removed or changed! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.104.57.148 (talk • contribs) 16:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

This section is sourced rather well, even to other respected encyclopedias. It even states that there is much disagreement out there but there are enough academic sources to keep this section as a valid topic. Just remember Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 19:23, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

"but there are enough academic sources " enough???? Who can affirm what is enough??? You??? It is only your (very english) POV! not neutral. the list/section of current g. power have to be removed, it generates continually flames and action from who has other opinions! --80.104.57.208 (talk) 16:19, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I added in the historical section:

"In the fifty years after the second world conflict, when the two superpowers emerged, many of the historical Great powers lost progressively their influence and status, so now there is a tendency in many scholars to refer to Britain, France, Germany and Japan as Middle powers"

UKPhoenix79 disputed it and erased it, without a very proper argumentation, only it's usual very british POV...

please, I ask a disclipline intervention by the administration --80.104.57.87 (talk) 09:44, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

LOL!!!! I kid you not I actually laughed out loud when you wrote this... Really I did :-) Seriously I'm still smiling :-D Oh ok Let me give you links to the Admins :-) Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard & Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard I hope they can help you :-D

You also forget that I reverted your vandalism of removing an entire scection of a highly soureced material... but i digress the summery that was without a very proper argumentation you mentioned was when I reverted your edit, my statement said That can be disputed by other encyclopedias including http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761590309/Great_Powers.html & http://www.britannica.com/eb/topic-243609/Great-Powers try rewording if you want, I see what you mean.... it has no basis in reality or facts, if only I would have included some sources :-) but when you say that I should be disciplined do you mean a spanking?? -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 10:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

1) you readded your favorite list section, but you removed the banner: "This article or section may contain original research or unverified claims." Why??? ...so I not vandalized, but removed a section very disputed, that I think need to be removed o rewrited correctly, with the POV of others sources, not only the sources that you like...

2) you removed what I added in the Historical section, that I sourced with the Canadian Encyclopedia (I also wrote that "many scholars...", not "all the scholars...", so I added a simply other, sourced POV, but you don't like it... mmhhh...)

3) you continually affirm "That can be disputed by other encyclopedias..." but you ignore the Canadian encyclopedia, that contradicts your POV... this is not neutral as required by Wikipedia--80.104.56.158 (talk) 17:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I love how you make your POV push, then when I revert it, you say that I have a POV :-) your funny! Just read my edit summary when I reverted it try rewording if you want I didn't say it was wrong ironically I was saying it was POV and needed some editing! You've become my new favorite editor <hehehe> How's the Admin notice going :-D In all seriousness I reworded the section you added to TRULY show a NPOV position showing both sides, what should have been done in the first place. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 21:47, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

This guy is absolutely right because I referenced three pages worth of internet sites showing how Italy influences the world, has independent research, develops its own rocket - Vega, 4th largest navy in the world, modern army with a budget in the top ten in the world, 7th largest GDP in the world, but according to some people here its all OR. Probably even if I got Bush to say Italy is a great power it wouldn't be enough for these guys. You know something, I never really hated the other western europeans until I got involved in this debate/dispute, but recently I really have to wonder who are Italy's real enemies. Russia? I don't think so. Italy is developing ever closer ties to them in enerfy and other areas. The Near East? They welcomed the Italians coming and leading the peace keeping force. So who is the enemy? Who constantly highlights every problem, every issue, every fault, every failure? I wonder who? Do you know who? Was peace truly signed in good faith after WW2? And this goes on not in the world, this view, but even in my own family! My brother married a british descent canadian woman. We have more money, more houses, more degrees, better jobs, better travelled, more in depth knowledge of the world and science but at every moment, every opportunity, her family puts us down as though we are second class citizens. The British people for the most part, for some unexplained reason, absolutely despise every thing Italian. It's like we tried to commit genocide on them. I can not understand what it is but its there and I experience it every day. I can only say "Thank God that we don't share a border with them because it would instant war overnight." Some of you who are here reading know what I talking about. I have fought my whole life and I have discovered sometimes there is no compromise, there is no peace. Only lulls in this never ending battle. HadrianX.

I would like to add another thing that is related but off topic. The EU, in my opinion, is a fraud. It is nothing more than the western powers trying to gain hegemony over southern and eastern europe. It is nothing more than France, Britain, and Germany trying to turn the rest of Europe into impoverished, dependent, satellite states. The EC free trade arrangement was a good thing, but this is an abomination. Prodi should be strung up by his heels for selling out the country for the EU. I am so glad he is gone. Retirement is too good for him. Exile is what he deserves. --74.14.96.68 (talk) 03:09, 28 March 2008 (UTC) HadrianX.

The British people [..] absolutely despise every thing Italian Are you kidding I absolutely LOVE Italy, Florence & Venice are two of my most favourite places to go to. Pompeii was fantastic and the nice thing about the country are the people! Don't even get me started on the Food! Any person of Irish decent will tell you that Italian food is the best!

But all of that has nothing to do with the task at hand. So please don't colour us all in the same blanket just because we don't agree. We had a recent discussion about India and how it has so and so weapons, with this much budget, and this big of an army, etc, etc. But unless ACADEMICS believe that this country is a Great Power then this is our speculation. Please I beg you don't just cut and past from the Regional power page but find REAL academic sources that say that Italy is a current Great Power. That will help more than bantering with others here just putting in their spare time to make wikipedia better.

Oh and the EU is eventually a fight between 2 opposing forces. One for greater uniting leading into the formation of one country (France & Germany) and the wish for Economic ties but individual independence (UK). That is why the UK has pushed so much to expand the EU because more countries involved the harder it will be to make it into one unified country. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 05:18, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

74.14.96.68 - It seems you're taking this a little personally. I assure you that I personally have nothing against Italy, and I'm almost sure that no one else here is excluding them just because they "hate Italy". You gotta remember that we need sources...always! You may be right about all that stuff regarding their GDP and influence, but unless you can find a legit source that actually calls Italy a great power, that stuff is all irrelevant - original research. It's not up to us to decide who gets to be named great power, it's only up to us to include already published material. If you look at most sources, they're all pretty clear about who the current great powers are, and those are the ones listed on this page. Italy is rarely if ever included with the main five great powers, which is why we don't include them in this article. Sbw01f (talk) 17:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Back to UKPhoenix, I didn't cut and paste from the Regional Power page. I haven't edited the article at all. You are confusing me with someone else. Now to Sbwo1f. How can you find something that says point blank that Italy is a great power when the word itself is an anachronism. Who ever says great power nowadays. I always see major power when referring to this. I always get a vision of handlebar shaped moustaches and germans wearing helmets with the spike on top of the helmet when I hear this word. The word great has overtones that imply inherent superiority, which I don't believe is true. This whole debate it seems to me is not so much the rank order of political/military status in the world but where the cut off is between middle and great/major. Everyone agrees the US is at the top for example. And most people even here agree that Italy if not a great power, its at the top of the middle powers. I had discussion before two years ago and the discussion is not where Italy is in rank order of things, it is, "has Italy past the cutoff?" . There is a large percentage of people that say it has, but the majority says "no". Is Italy as well run as say Germany? Absolutely not. I'm not living in a fairy tale land. Is it a major power ? Absolutely. The country has expanded its oversees operations quite a bit in the last 8 years specifically, It has a whole sector command in Afghanistan, and leads not only the UN ground force in Lebanon but recently took over the naval operations in the area from the German command. There was even an official handing over at sea between the heads of the state defense forces. In Bosnia it has a regional command of multinational NATO combat division. These are all verifiable at the NATO website. I didn't even know until I was browsing around. Oh and off topic about another thing. I am sure the Indians here are absolutely broiling that India was removed from the list and had all references removed. The country has nukes and a long range delivery system. I don't think even the US would be able to take them over if they wanted to. 1.2 billion people and counting is a lot of people. BTW I'm not Indian and I don't particularly like Indian culture, that is to say I'm not an Indianophile so I don't have a personal POV on this. I just know that they are a keep to themselves kind of people but if they wanted to, they could really make a lot of trouble in this world. They too suffer like the Italians from a lack of respect from the rest of the world which is really getting to the crux of the matter. HadrianX --74.14.96.68 (talk) 16:45, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if I mistook your edits for someone else. But you have to know that there are already articles called Regional power and Major power, this article is called Great Power hence the distinction & the need for verifiable academic references. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 04:50, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Power in Europe? A book that describes power status pre and post war europe discussing the "four" major powers. It highlights the individual circumstances of each country before and after the war, and their respective startegies for reclaiming the throne. Also explains the creation of the EU and how it is perceived by each country and for what purposes each country hoped to achieve by joining in. Though it is not the complete book, the excerpts there are sufficient to get an understanding of the situation right up to the 1990's. In it, it describes the geopolitical circumstances of Britain, France, Germany and Italy. HadrianX --74.14.96.68 (talk) 16:23, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

State of the article?

This article needs major rehaul. Some very incorrect things have been written. Some discussion points are being added here.

In the system of international relations this is the hiearchy of power:

1. GLobal Power: US is the unrivalled global power today. Its hard power is in a dimension of its own, it capacity and momentum to innovate, its pervasive culture good or bad, makes its soft power felt globally. Its economy is the largest in the world, its population growing, its currency the reserve of the world, it is feared and respected throughout the planet.

2. Major-Powers: There are only two. Russia: A rapidly declining one. largest country on earth, Straddles europe, middle-east, central and east-asia. Significant hard-power though rapidly atrophing, declining soft-power, immense resource power, declining population, pervasive corruption, political nihilism and legions of enemies without and traitors within. Largest stockpile of nuclear Weapons. Only country with capacity to annihilate the Global-Power.

China: A rapidly ascending power, phenominal investment in hard-power, rapidly increasing soft-power in central asia, africa and south-east asia. Growing population, rapidly growing economy, rapidly transforming itself into an industrial and knowledge powerhouse.

3. Middle Powers: Israel, Saudi Arabia, UK and India.

Israel is the defacto leader in middle-east today. It has unrivalled intellectual potential. its hard power is felt as far as europe, central-asia and south Asia. Entire middle-east is in its thrall, its existence and prosperity is the cornerstone of american and european foreign policy. It is one of the top 4 largest arms suppliers in the world. its economy one of the most innovative.

Saudi-Arabia: The worlds preeminent energy supplier, it sets the pace for global energy prices and supplies and hence the health of global economy and power relations. it is the custodian of the two holy mosques and a leader among the billion strong islamic world. Immense financial and inspirational source for wahhabi terror, which even ramzan kadyrov laments, has driven chechens to mass-terror. Through its arabic language and islamic literature exercises immense soft-power thorughout the islamic world and hence eurasia and North-America.

UK: Financial centre of the world, despite New-York claiming the throne. Through its imperial past and its language exercises phenomenal soft-power throughout the world. Rapidly replacing french language in global discourse, has significant hard-power. One of the few nations with autonomous nuclear-triad and air-craft carriers. Robust economy, shelters world famous criminals and masterminds and influences europe through divide and rule, without itself joining the euro. Sponsers terror and political subversion through first rate spy network and NGOs and masterfully keeps Eurasia destabilized and weak.

India: One Billion people, neo-liberal coolie of the americans. Rapidly expanding economy, brilliant but servile people ready to hand over their nuclear assests and military complex to americans, exercises considerable soft-power through yoga, philosophy, ancient heritage, film industry. Most significant strategic location with China in North-east, Middle-east in the west, Central-asia in the north and Indian Oceon in the South. Significant and rapidly expnading consumer of energy. Immense potential for hard-Power and Innovative Economy. Rapidly Increasing population.

4. Minor Powers:

Germany and Japan due to their innovation and economy (but colonies nonetheless), rapidly declining and decaying populations facing extinction. Germany crushed under permanent guilt.

France: due its still pervasive soft power through language and culture (though declining), its influence in Africa, its significant hard-power and force-de-frappe. Veto member in Security Council. Legacy power from imperial times.

Brazil: Largest Latin Country. Leader in South-America. Trying to be an innovative economy. Significant natural resources, expanding gdp and population. Portuguese is not a global language though, so a soft-power hadicap.Soccer.

Turkey: Third most powerful NATO country. Immense Geostrategic Importance, rapidly expanding energy hub. Guaranteer of Israel's security. Expanding population and economy, trying to be an innovation and financial hub, Significant ability and say in NATO decisions, unlike germany and other colonies. Significant legacy Soft-power from ottoman era. Leader among turkic nations.

Iran: A near minor power. Some legacy soft-power. Leader in the Shia World. One of the main energy suppliers mostly in Euros, Immense geostrategic significance. Never been colonized by European Powers, like Thailand and Ethiopia except during active wars. Significant cultural influence since ancient times in middle-east, caucasus and central-asia.

Among Minor powers only Turkey has the potential to become a middle-power in next 10-20 years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geopolitics8 (talk • contribs) 10:55, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Now all you need are some credible sources for all that info and we're set! However, I think a lot of what you said is incorrect. Here's my opinion:

• Russia is not declining in power, but has actually seen an immense rise over the past 8 years in global influence, energy supplies (which equals power), and in military power which the US sees as second in the world again.

• Israel is far too small to be considered the leader of the middle-east and on par with the other countries you mentioned. They're just not self-sufficient enough, and rely too heavily on foreign aid. Without the help of America in particular, they would probably be no more of a power than various Scandinavian countries, and would probably be overrun by their neighbours quite easily through sheer force. Their nuclear weapons do give them an advantage, but they're currently just a reflection of Americas immense power.

• Saudi Arabia isn't the worlds preeminent energy supplier, that would be Russia, since it supplies both the second most oil, often trading places with first, and controls something like 1/3 of the worlds natural gas, meaning Europe relies on their gas completely. China soon as well, perhaps. Further, that's their only advantage - Oil. Their influence in global affairs is limited.

• I'd be reluctant to call the Indian people "brilliant". I think you overestimate them - they're still in deep poverty and have many, many hurdles to overcome before they start getting too involved in global affairs. No doubt they have plenty of extremely smart individuals in the country, but you must remember that their education system is still way below par compared to the developed world; there is only so much human capita potential with nearly half of the population being illiterate.

• UK is definitely not the leading financial center. The US is. You know the old saying, when the US sneezes, the rest of the world catches a cold. (which we've been seeing plenty of in the stock markets over the past few months). Same can't be said for the UK.

• Your comment about Japan and Germany going 'extinct' is just...I don't know what to make of that. Their populations aren't declining that fast. They're just seeing very little growth, which could easily change in the next 20, 50, 100 years.

• Calling Turkey the third greatest power in NATO is quite a wild claim in my opinion. I would say closer the 5th, behind America, Germany, France, and Britain.

Just my 2 cents. Regardless though, none of this can go into the article since it's all original research. Sbw01f (talk) 14:08, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

"India: neo-liberal coolie of the americans.servile people ready to hand over their nuclear assests and military complex to americans,."

Excuse me my what? Not only did you attribute someone else's quote to me, but racial slurs are absolutely unacceptable. Watch what you say or you're going to end up with a permanent block. Sbw01f (talk) 18:59, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Yea Geopolitics8 was the one who said that among many other questionable statements. Sbw01f it is obvious that Chanakyathegreat was offended and lashed out, unfortunately you got in the way. I'm sure he wished he didn't now, and from now on I'm sure he will try and double check before he accuses somebody of saying such things.... right? -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 01:41, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

The article should stay as it is - your list of middle powers (putting Saudi Arabia and Israel on a par with UK and India??) is completely flawd. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.176.97.11 (talk) 20:23, 5 April 2008 (UTC) Your recommendations are not even remotely feasible. The US, UK, Germany, France, Russia, China, Japan and India are Great Powers - their influence is well known and felt. Turkey, Iran and Saudi Arabia are completely dependent on others for their material well-being and have limited ability to defend themselves from the Powers I have mentioned above.

O.K it was not you. It was unsigned at that moment and your signature appeared below and I though it was you. I remove those comments. Sorry for that. Chanakyathegreat 03:23, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

This is a nightmare statement. Russia declining? No, it's rising fast. The UK is not the leading financial center. Israel beening the leader of the Middle East? What?!? The rest of the Middle East hates Israel and want to destroy it, and it's hardly as powerful as you make it out to be. Same thing with Saudi Arabia. Russia is just as strong energy-wise. Germany and Japan arn't going down that fast. You appear to racist and biased against many countries. User:Saruman20 (talk) 18:32, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Germany and Japan in the list

Germany and Japan is in the list of Great powers. Both are economic powers only. There need to be a separate section for the Economic powers. Else there need to be lot of Addition to the list. The list will have to accommodate all the economic powers. A separate section will be created for the economic powers.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 03:32, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Italy should be added, it is in the same league of Germany and Japan, it is a economic power and it is influent on World stage, Lebanon War, Afghanistan War and many more. AcamposPinho 00:00, 20 May 2008

I can't believe this. I just posted an article from the Washington Quarterly stating point blank Italy is in the same league as Germany and Japan, and instead of adding Italy to the list, they demote Germany and Japan to economic powers only and still keep Italy off the list. This is blantant bigotry! Even on the list of economic powers Italy is not there. The seven or eighth largest economy and it does not make the list. This is total BS! With a capital B and a capital S. You disgust me utterly. HadrianX--76.67.14.102 (talk) 03:09, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Japan and Germany there in the economic list since they are at the top in the GDP list.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 15:10, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Italy is not a Great Power - full stop. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Colliver55 (talk • contribs) 18:20, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Even if Italy is not a Great Power, why do you say that way? Have you any good proof to sustain your claim? This is not about our personal opinion. I could ask why India is a great power or why Brazil is a possible great power. The future is the only who can tell if this will happen. ACamposPinho00:58, 31 May 2008

I have no doubt that Italy is a major player in European affairs, but it lacks the cultural and military capabilities to be a Great Power. Just look at Italian performance in all the conflicts it has been involved in - they are hardly the achievement of a Great Power. Do you really believe Italy plays as an important role in international diplomacy as Britain and France? Or even Germany or Japan? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.206.30.107 (talk) 12:28, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I do not believe that Italy has the same pull in the world as Britain or France but I do believe they have a lot more than most other countries except for a select few. As far as military performance aside from losing WW2 when did they lose? They won every war up to that point. The unification war, war against Turkey, 1866, 1870. I might add their forces are currently in Lebanon, Afghanistan, and the Balkan with sector level control. Surely incompetence is not a prerequisite for leading a divisional command. And I would like to point out other things, Italy is the only former Axis power currently actively supporting the USA in the field unlike the other two. Mainly because the Italians see the US as its ally and friend and wants to help. The Italians were Iraq not France and Germany. But I can't find something the states point blank that Italy is a Great Power yet. The only thing I can find are articles which allude to it through deduction and inference. Plus I have a double whammy of Italian economic performance not being exactly stellar lately and a rash of extremely bad press even for Italy lately. So who would back me up given the circumstances? My sincerest view is that even when I find an article that says Italy is a Great Power, the people here still will refuse to list it because it fundamentally shakes their belief system in this world. Further the Italians themselves are the first to cry to everyone about how bad things are like Beppo Grillo who proclaimed for someone to invade Italy. If I was the government, I'd show him door and tell him to live in a third world country to have a real taste of economic hardship. But I have argued here for two years and will continue to do so until I get it listed because it is my deepest belief that it should be. HadrianX --76.67.14.102 (talk) 00:50, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree that Italy did win those wars but they were against very weak enemies. To my knowledge the Italians defeated the extremely weak Turkey and gained a Libya. It was defeated by the Ethiopians at the end of the 19th Century. It then nearly lost the First World War as only British and French troops prevented the Germans and Austrians over-running the capital. It then eventually defeated the extremely feeble Ethiopia and bullied powerless Albana with a population of about 2 million. The Second World War was, at the very least, a fiasco for the Italians - the Allies landed in Italian territory with hardly any resistance. It struggled to defeat even much-weaker Greece, only doing so with German help. It's hardly the stuff of Great Powers. Italy is an influential power, but firmly belongs in the Middle rather than Great Powers.

It should also be noted that the Italian unification wars were won by the German and French defeats of the Austrians. To my knowledge, the Italians had little to do with it.

I know my posts will be angering alot of Italians! This is not my intention but I cannot understand how Italy could be included. Yes the Italians have an economy roughly comparable to the UK and France, but the UK and France possess considerable military capabilities. Italy lacks a nuclear deterrent. The UK and France also hold permanent seats on the UN Security Council, meaning they have the power to veto any internationally important event. Just as importantly, the UK and France, due to their historic roles as colonial powers have great cultural influence. Most countries in the world, particularly smaller, developing nations base their structure and education on British and French models. English and French as a language also have much greater coverage internationally than Italy. I do believe that Italian influence can be considered almost comparable to Germany and Japan, although German and Japanese economic influence is greater. This is because Germany and Japan, while having great economic influence, have only modest cultural, or military influence. To be a Great Power, you have to have more than money - you must have cultural and military influence on the rest of the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Colliver55 (talk • contribs) 10:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah now I see your hand. Because Italy never defeated a Great Power solely on its own, it has never proved its worth to be in the club. Because Greece in World War 2 successfully defended itself until German's helped the Italians, how can Italy claim great power status. I would like to make the point that France doesn't have an exactly stellar record since Napoleon. Also I dispute your claim about the First World War. The English and French help was not that substantial and it occurred when the Central Powers decided to defeat Italy in a combined German and Austrian offensive at Caporetto which culminated in an Italian victory at Vittorio Veneto. All of these events occurred when even here in Wikipedia the country was considered to be a Great Power. As far as military power, Italy has the 4th strongest navy in the world, its in Wikipedia, and its army is well equipped, though recently reduced to a smaller all volunteer army. True Italy has not developed a nuclear deterrent but was developing one in the 70's to counteract the nuclear development by Yugoslavia, only to be discouraged by the US on the agreement that Italy would have a nuclear sharing arrangement with the US where they store and can deploy that deterrent in case of Soviet attack. So Italy does have a nuclear deterrent just not a home-grown one primarily at the urging of the US. I am glad of one thing though, at least you acknowledge Italy's soft power in the world which I believe is self evident. The Italians go a long way to promote their culture around the world and it shows in that every time I say bigotry or prejudice, the person says I love Italian stuff. I lay forth the proposition that Italy has been active in global affairs as of late and its relative position in maintaining world security has grown tremendously over the last decade and a half. It is actively peace-keeping in many places around the world and in significant numbers not just in a token way. But you want an article from reputable sources so the search continues. Again once I find it, I want an unbiased review if Wikipedia wants to maintain its position that it is a free and unbiased encyclopedia for everyone to use and contribute to. HadrianX --76.67.14.102 (talk) 00:33, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Independently of Italy being a Great Power or not, what I see here is talking about past. This is about present. If it was about past, the Austro-Hungarian Empire would still be a Great Power, portugal and Spain would also be Great Powers and Russia/USSR would be a Superpower. We are not talking about Italy's past victories and defeats, that is for history. For current Great Powers we should talk of today. And besides all the debates what I can say is that unlike someone said above Italy is not less involved in world and regional affairs than Germany and Japan. Japan is only involved in regional aspects of geopolictics, ecomically it's more important than Italy, but Geo-politically and in military aspects it isn't more important than Italy and even Germany who is in the nuclear Iran problem talks it hasn't more international clout than Italy. Italy has more troops abroad, is more diplomatically involved and even in the Iran nuclear case it wishes to be part of the today called P5+1. ACamposPinho 00:33, 6 June 2008

It is just as arguable that Italy is less powerful now then she was between 1890-1943. So even based on the evidence now, Italy does not qualify as a Great Power. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Colliver55 (talk • contribs) 15:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

As a german, I'd probably feel a bit coaxed to see Germany on the great power list. But it's pointless to argue about which country is a great power or not. History will show. According to research on military expediture, [4], Japan may be a considerably greater military power than India or even Russia. Considering Italy's severe social, political and economical problems and eventually also it's record in world war 2 (where Italy had to change sides due to humiliating defeats by the british), I really doubt Italy should be considered a great power. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.171.178.249 (talk) 17:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

As I said this is not ab out history. And if it was Italy would be a Great Power, it was betwenn unification and 1943, with peaks of power after the WWI until the late 30's. It shouldn't have entered WWII anyway, it wasn't in great conditions after Abissinian War and Spanish Civil War. But in the 30's it had an Empire, great expansion plans and an international power and diplomacy of some importance. Before WWI as was said Italy was the least of the Great Powers, but was one. After WWI, with the victory and conclusion of the Unification process, was more important and gained respect. With the fascists this respect was more assertive and the plans were big. After the armistice it losted many of these respect but you shouldn't forget that Germany lost the war adn was in Allied control without being even sovereign. It was a shame either, a bigger one. But with time Italy, Germany and Japan beggan to develop economically and politically, becoming great countries with big economies. ACamposPinho 01:25, 13 June 2008

Back to the German guy, Severe??! In what context? According to who? Why because Italy is not growing at 3% like Germany? Mostly due to the fact of a high euro which the Bundesbank, sorry, the ECB refuses to lower interest rates to bring the Euro the down a bit. And we didn't lose to the British, we lost to the Americans. It was American firepower that pushed Italians out of the war. Remember Operation Torch. Furthermore Rommel was in command. So who lost the Africa campaign? I wish people would get their facts straight. BTW, Germany lost too. Amd your own generals tried to kill Hitler to end a lost cause. The Italians knew this and ended a lost war in order to save something. Or would you rather have Italy stay in and see its cities razed to the ground or perhaps nuked. Considering that the Americans are reasonable when victorious, which is the better option? Obliteration or a reasonable peace? Another thing, OT, how come you guys never mention all the other countries in your alliance that switched sides in the war, Romania, Bulgaria, Croatia. HadrianX --74.14.97.133 (talk) 02:16, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

It was the British that defeated you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Colliver55 (talk • contribs) 20:05, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Riiiiggghhhht. Sure you did. You didn't need the Americans at all.

HadrianX--74.14.97.133 (talk) 01:50, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Look the only reason Hitler lost the war was because Italy was so pathetic. Romania was a more reliable ally. Italy is a joke. Get over it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Colliver55 (talk • contribs) 09:32, 17 June 2008 (UTC) In no way can Italy be considered more powerful than Spain - and Spain is not a Great Power. In fact, I would say Spain would whip Italy's arse in any conflict. What a joke! I also like the way you call yourself Hadrian, like the Roman Emperor. The Roman Empire has long gone and is never coming back! Mussolini tried to bring back the Roman Empire - struggled to defeat Ethiopia. Hillarious! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.209.171.94 (talk) 09:55, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Do I sense some bitterness? If you're trying to start a flame war, forget it. Otherwise, explain to me how the British defeated the Italians by themselves. Oh and BTW, don't forget we caused Japan to lose too. And that's Mr. HadrianX to you! HadrianX --74.14.97.133 (talk) 00:08, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Don't lost your time with kids trying to enfuriate us. For this kid Spain is a Middle Power a big Middle Power but a Middle Power anyway. Italy is also more, I don't know if it is the greatest of the middle powers or the weakest of the great powers, one thing is for sure, it is an Economic Power, it possibly isn't so important as other but in economy is, it had untill recently 5th biggest GDP, even today it has the 7th highest GDP and if we consider the undergroud economy it can have the 5th biggest already. Its not for a case that Italy is on the G8 and posssibly will enter in the P5+1+1 Nuclear Talks with Iran. Canada is also on th G8 but its economy is smaller than that of Spain nowadays and the difference between these countries GDP and Italy is bigger than the difference between Italy and France or UK

ACamposPinho 03:22,18 june 2008

Look we don't need to argue about this. Any person with any grasp of reality knows Italy is not a Great Power so lets not argue about it. I've tried to argue my point sensibly why Italy is not a great power but it has just been swept aside. There is nothing to suggest Italy has any more influence in the world than Spain. You have provided no adequate sources to suggest Italy is a great power and your anti-British stance just amazes me. It is well known that British commonwealth forces defeated the Italians and if your pride is so big you have to think the Americans defeated you because you believe they are a more worthy opponent to be defeated by, then get on with it. I'm pretty sure most Americans don't consider Italy a great power either. You think I'm bitter?? - what have I got to be jealous about Italian history? The Spanish have a much more interesting and glorious history than a country barely 140 years old. Stick to what Italy knows best - pasta and football. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Colliver55 (talk • contribs) 09:14, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm not anti-British, I didn't mention the UK at all and it's well know that UK is a Great Power. Why? It's part of G8, UNSC Permanent Member, has the 2nd or 3rd big defence spending in the World, huge connections in the World stage, the 2nd biggest number of soldiers in peace keeping missionsand the 5th biggest economy in the world. This is why it is well aknowledge that UK is a Great Power and why Germany is more questioned its stance as a Great Power. But it's one too, only without being do powerfull. This reasons are the same that can apply to the difference between Spain and Italy. And of course this doesn't matter to you. For your comments you are an incredible stupid and ignorant person. If it was for history, Portugal would be so great as Spain and one of the greatest powers in the World, with the biggest one, USA being a tiny power, since it has 222 years of story...... And Italy has 147 as a united country in the present form, because in reality it's one of the oldest civilizations of the world, do you have heard of Roman Empire? And other great powers of history like Venice, Genoa, Papal States? But this is about present. So for you Spain is in the G8? It has suceeded in canceling the bidding of the G4 for the UNSC and it's in the condition of entering the UNSC as a permanent member? It has the 3rd biggest contingent in peace keeping missions? It has huge multinational corporations beside services?Replying to you I would say, stick to what Spain knows best- paella and bullfighting. Grow up, this is not a forum of kids and simple minded opinion persons. And I surelly knows Spain better than you. And I'm not anti-Spain, quite the contrary. ACamposPinho 19:35, 18 June 2008

Oh I didn't know I touched a nerve there Colliver. If you signed your statements maybe I would know who was writing. Jeez, you really are touchy about WW2. But you still didn't respond to my question. Secondly, this is not the WW2 forum. And third, I really don't remember when you "sensibly" showed why Italy isn't a great power, unless of course saying my evidence doesn't count that it is, is your "sensible" arguement. Have a nice day Colliver. Oh, BTW, you still have to call me Mr. HadrianX --74.14.97.133 (talk) 01:21, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Look it doesn't matter how stupid you two are, Italy is not a Great Power. Why argue about this point? What I am saying is perfectly true. To be a Great Power you have to 1. have a nuclear detterent and 2. be a permanent member of the UN Security Council. Germany's leaders have admitted that Germany is a middle power - Italy is in no way as powerful as Germany. I believe you two are allowing your passion for Italy cloud your judgement. HadrianX as for your touch a nerve thing you are right about one thing I hate it when ignorant and blind people like you belittle the achievements of the UK. For a nation as small as we are, we have achieved an awful lot and Montgomery did defeat the Italians AND Germans at El Alamein, which is widely regarded as one of the turning points of World War II. So, yes, I can be proud of my nations past. I doubt you can say the same for Italy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Colliver55 (talk • contribs) 13:55, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Anyway I am walking away from this argument. If you really believe Italy is a Great Power then just back it up with references and there will be nothing to argue about. Colliver55 (talk) 14:13, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Well I never! Ha. So Sir Colliver, there's the rub, eh. To be a great power you must be on the UNSC and have a nuclear detterent. After two years of making case for Italy and finally somebody comes out and gives the criteria. Well Colliver, if these are agreed upon criteria then you're right. But if not, then it's a whole new ball of wax. But when this little project which started many moons ago, I don't remember that specifically being the criteria. And if you are right Colliver, then remove Germany, Japan, Brazil, and India. For none of them are on the security council either. If you want to include them, put a link to a page about the G4, and keep them off this page. Be consistent or expect to hounded by the likes of me forever. Why, because I like to bug you. It invigorates me. There's nothing more satisfying. Alas, Montgomery did win at El Alamein...with American equipment, and the Australians, Indians, and other parts of "glorious" British Empire. Unfortunately Colliver, that was the past, and the empire is gone. So you see Colliver, it was a phyrric victory. You sacrificed all, and saved nothing except for a seat at the table. You're at the table. For how long, we'll see. Have a nice day Colliver, enjoy the sun. HadrianX--74.14.97.133 (talk) 02:37, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I have a link where it is mentioned Italy in the same category of France, UK, China, Japan, Germany, Brazil. Even if Italy isn't a Great Power, the talks about Italy are the longest ones about a specific country, that isn't for nothing. If someone woudl brought here the case of Netherlands,Canada or even Spain being Great Powers the talk wouldn't be so long because that is very clear they aren't Great Powers.ACamposPinho 20:32, 22 June 3008

Potential vs Emerging

I would like to say that having 2 sections dedicated for regional powers that are not actually Global Powers should be avoided. There is little sense to dictate that this regional power has a different status for not being a Global Power than the other one. Please can we agree upon one name either Emerging or Potential to give to these Regional powers? -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 08:26, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Add India to the great power list and then we can merge it. Otherwise it is not possible. We have to wait until India becomes a great power from the emerging power to remove the section.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 03:59, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Well India nor Brazil are Great Powers, so I cannot understand why you created "2 levels for not being a great power" (grammatically confusing I know but actually what I meant to say). I am wary about even having those two listed at all... I just cannot see any reason to having two levels shown. If they are not Great powers they should not be shown, if they are likely to be great powers in the future then that might be acceptable and that is the reason I have not removed them. But segmenting them into two levels is only to bolster one nation over the other when neither are actually great powers. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 05:44, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Look at the articles. India is an emerging great power. It's not a potential great power. Chanakyathegreat (talk) 07:20, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

UKPhoenix79, it was just because of your objections, India is not added to the list of great powers and put in the emerging powers list. Most of the articles consider India and China as emerging great powers. The older notion of P5 being great powers is no longer viable that can be understood by reading articles. And a decision can be taken whether India can be added to the great power list or kept in the emerging power list. I think for greater accuracy it will be better to keep India in the emerging power list until 2012 (four years from now) the time in which India will attain the great power status or the transformation of India from an emerging great power to a great power will be complete.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 07:31, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

My objections were backed up rather vigorously by other users and an admin if you recall. I am very grateful that you have cited all your sources but as we have discussed before citing sources that make future predictions of an uncertain matter is not a valid source. You have cited from many sources that both India and Brazil are on their way, but we cannot predict with 100% certainty which one will make it there first. At the moment I would also predict it would be India, but since I lack a Tardis or a Delorian I cannot back up my claims by going to the future to ensure I am correct. So these two options are invalid and only one will do. Neither are currently great powers and they are not even close to being a superpower. The current state of them approaching the honour of being possible (yes I did say possible because again we do not know the future) great powers is enough. Please do not create sub categories because of personal bias. Please! -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 10:25, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree that India and Brazil merit special reference as emerging or potential Great Powers. Although I don't agree that India should be automatically added in 2012 to the Great Power list. When, and if, India becomes a Great Power it can be added. The same for Brazil. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Colliver55 (talk • contribs) 10:46, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

My dear friend, the agreement was for not adding India to the great power list and keep it in the emerging great power list until articles that suggest India as a great power is found. Still I am not asking for adding India into the great power list. I can assure you that within 2012, India will be recognized as a complete great power. Until that one can wait.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 14:35, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Also I would like to point to you that the articles that we have about India describes India as an emerging great power and not as a possible/potential great power. And it also describes India as a potential superpower along with China. Such articles that describes India and China as potential superpowers can be found very easily by searching the web. These two powers are said to overtake the U.S within 2040-50 timeframe to claim the superpower status. Hence they are called potential superpowers.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 14:39, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

it looks like talking isn't working so I'll see if someone else can come in and help us out.

Lets just keep non-Great Powers out of the list. They don't belong there anyways... Lets not forget that in the 80's EVERYBODY was predicting the Rise of Japan as the 90's new Superpower and that never happened. There is already an article detailing the possible rise of the two Potential great powers that you edit rather frequently so please keep that article separate and link to it only. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 01:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

You are underestimating Japan, they have a strong economy and a strong military. What they lack is the nuclear deterrence. Their policy of self defense will never help them to be great power. The time they shed, the pacifist constitution and build nuclear deterrence capability, political recognition will follow and they are in the club.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 16:01, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Why have a list?

Seriously, why is it our job to determine who is and is not a great power? Virtually anything we say WILL be POV. Simply explain what a great power is, and let readers draw their own conclusions. If there has to be a list, it should simply be of countries commonly held to be great powers. TallNapoleon (talk) 05:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Russia is a Superpower not a great power

Many people are wondering about the United States (and Russia's superpower status now) and its down fall economic recession[5] economy as if its still a superpower with the Iraq war, falling US dollar[6] [7][8], high US minimum wages being outsourced for Chinese labor, a high unemployment rate, credit crisis[9] through US foreign policy spending, US inflation[10] [11][12] from the Federal Reserve lowing interest rates too low[13], a housing crisis, dependence from oil & high gas prices and etc. Where does the United States stand as a superpower versing Russia’s current superpower status? Read at these sources here to see how the United States is losing or is now considered a former superpower:[14][15][16] [17]

Now there is Russia a superpower (the United States only real counter partner as as a superpower[18] [19][20] [21] [22][23] [24] because they have the economics[25] [26], the wealth[27] [28], the diplomatic power[29] [30], ideological[31] [32] [33][34][35][36], technological power[37] [38][39][40][41]& advances[42] than any other country besides the United States (look here on why the US is losing its superpower status read here:[43][44][45]) recognizes Russia as a superpower [46], they have the cultural sector and lets not forget their military forces (supreme). Russia is also the largest military arsenal producer in the world (they hold 73% of the worlds military arsenals market) and they have the worlds largest nuclear weapons arsenal than another other country (newer & older which many are reconditioned as new again) which is 5 times greater than the US has.

So Russia is a Superpower and lets not forget a Space Superpower, remember Russia has a Mar's mission coming up in 2015 [47]to 2024, also a Moon space station planned for 2015[48] without NASA but Russia going by itself; which NASA is out of funding due to a poor current US economy, 2007 & 2008. I do not start this article to brag about how wonderful Russia is, I started it because I am an American and I am seeing how the US is becoming a former superpower[49]; even though I admire Russia as a country, I also admire my own country (USA) too.

Russia is a Superpower, that's plenty of facts in the bag to state they are in that position. The United State's position[50][51] [52]), think what they are in for, a lot in the bag on the whole US economy on all sorts of issues, so we need to understand our Congress has put a lot of our problems right in front of us. US Congressman Ron Paul[53] was the only presidential candidate who would have saved the US as a superpower and our country. We cannot regret Russia is a superpower once again, that was always predicted they would achieve that goal and good for them, they stuck to their dreams and they brought it back. The US has done the opposite and we are heading down down the economic depression [54] tube to a great power nation because of Congress, Unions, Corporate greed and oil.

If you want to save the US as a superpower, stop buying from US companies made in China (look for the labels and try to buy made in America only, store like Costco, Walmart, K-Mart, Best Buy, Staples and more are companies that buy made in China goods and we Americans buy these things by the millions each day), second visit Congress personally and request to bring down the US minimum wage and request to cap wages too high to cap them or lower high salaries so greed is enforced to stop US inflation. Read here as if we don’t do something we we’ll really suffer as China’s minimum wage is $.25 cents an hour as China has used its low labor population power to put their country on the Superpower front and we made that happen, please read an listen to this link: [55][56] [http://www.youtube.com/watch?

On the great power list, if you going to list the US as a great power and referred as a superpower than Russia should also be referred as a superpower as well. If you remove the sources, you create and on going argue to undo it again.

Only superpowers can destroy the world[57], great powers can't. Russia is way beyond that and the United States understands Russia as a superpower[58], the world has 2 superpowers not one but the US economy that may soon change[59] to one in the future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Versace11 (talk • contribs) 23:04, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I can only presume Versace 11 is a Russian fanatic for his sources are unreliable: Reference 36 is Russian and Russian press are not impartial Reference 37 is to do with oil Reference 38 is an opinion stating that Russia intends to rise to status of superpower - not that it is Reference 39 is an opinion in a newspaper hardly a reference Reference 40 just because Russia and China talk about superpower stuff doesn't make them superpowers Reference 41 is an israeli tabloid newspaper saying how Russia intends to be a superpower I believe Russia should not be referred to as a superpower. I ask other Wikipedians to post their comment. Until then I am placing the neutrality and original research tags on this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Colliver55 (talk • contribs) 07:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

How can Russia be a superpower? Her role in the world is not greater than the UK or France and they are definately not superpowers. She is too reliant on energy, has a poor standard of living, a declining population and a mortality rate an African country would be ashamed of. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Colliver55 (talk • contribs) 07:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Colliver55, you have not provided any consensus facts, your stating something bias and this is not what you think. It is based upon the data. Russia has been declared a superpower by the United States [60] not according to Wikipedia. You believe Russia should not be referred as a superpower but you have not provided a fact that is not a consensus argument. You stated """""How can Russia be a superpower? Her role in the world is not greater than the UK or France and they are definitely not superpowers. She is too reliant on energy, has a poor standard of living, a declining population and a mortality rate an African country would be ashamed of""""". No facts, this is complete bias attacks. Anybody can state anything but you have to argue on facts. – I don’t think you read my references, to make such a statement besides this more hatred than a statement or comment. You don’t see me making comments and having no sources, I provide sources when I write.

Really let’s talk about the United States, are they a superpower (2008)? Lets look with these current sources: Read Edward A. Kolodziej and Roger E. Kanet “From Superpower to Besieged Global Power”[61] May 2008. Then: Who's the superpower now?[://www.spacewar.com/reports/Asian_Poll_Foresees_US_Losing_Superpower_Status_To_China_999.html |accessdate=2008-05-12] and “Superpower?, Really?”|accessdate=2007-06-27 then: “Asian Poll Foresees US Losing Superpower Status To China” |accessdate=2006-07-10[62]

I mean if the US is being listed as a superpower on great powers, then we can argue about the US as a former superpower on top of Russia too. Ok I am not trying to make a heat of discussion, I am trying to provide the sources what the data says as Russia’s position is. I am not saying bad things about India, your country and I am from the United States, not Russia nor am I Russian, I am American but I am reading the right sources and providing the facts of consensus.

Please leave Russia as potential or as a current superpower on Great Powers or eliminate both the United States and Russia out of the great powers because Russia is not a great power.

Look I have nothing against Russia and saying I am discriminating is nonsense. Nobody can dispute that the United States is a superpower. Russia is very different case and has an awful lot of challenges ahead of it. By using the references you have stated, you have chosen to interpret the sources to come to the conclusion that Russia is a superpower. That is fair enought, but adding it on Wikipedia is a violation of NPOV and cannot be justified. Maybe we can come to some sort of compromise, but I feel your current stance is unfair. If I am blocked for edit warring it would be unjustified and certainly will add nothing to the neutrality of Wikipedia. Some sources also state the EU is a superpower, others cite China - would you be happy to site them as well, just because a few unreliable and sensationalist sources have chosen to say so? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.206.170.159 (talk) 21:02, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Please provide facts, undoing with the facts is a violation and you risk being block. If you talk talk talk and state no data, the above data is valid. Consenus the argument, not bash is with no merit. Facts are the reason why things change, not here say. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.205.234.250 (talk) 21:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I have requested protection for this page. You are obviously unwilling to be diplomatic about this issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Colliver55 (talk • contribs) 22:02, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

It should be noted that I am British, not American, so I have little to gain by supporting the notion that the US is a superpower and Russia is not. There are no reliable sources to suggest Russia exerts the kind of influence on the international stage as the United States. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.206.170.159 (talk) 22:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I am American, I am not Russia. Consenus above are facts, you have to provide sources to consenus your argument. There are realiable sources above and there are realiable sources the US is not a superpower or becoming a former superpower”[63] May 2008. Then: Who's the superpower now?[://www.spacewar.com/reports/Asian_Poll_Foresees_US_Losing_Superpower_Status_To_China_999.html |accessdate=2008-05-12] and “Superpower?, Really?”|accessdate=2007-06-27|accessdate=2006-07-10[64]. saying Russia is not, is not a fact, it doesn't supply your position, it is only a comment, it is not backed by anything. We can argue the US is a former superpower or we can discuss Russia is a superpower. Facts aboce state Russia is not a Great power but a potential or current new superpower.--24.205.234.250 (talk) 22:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

We need to discuss this, we don't have to fight, we can agree on something. We need to stop the anti Russia thing, we need to rely on the current sources, not what we think. Sources are available to discuss Russia's status as either a potential or current Superpower. Sources are needed to defend your talk discussions please. Admin staff agree and this is how we communicate.--24.205.234.250 (talk) 22:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree that we need to be reasonable. I am certainly not anti-Russian but the sources you are providing are not reliable. They are too sensationalist and tabloid. I don't quite know where we go from here but I believe that statement 'Russia is also referred to as a Superpower' is unreasonable, and gives the impression that Russia has equal leverage on the international stage as the United States - which is certainly not true. Surely no-one disputes the conclusion that Russia is a Great Power, but the status of Superpower cannot be justified on the references you have provided. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Colliver55 (talk • contribs) 22:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I can agree Russia is a border line superpower on their growth status but because of sources such "Russia in the 21st Century

The Prodigal Superpower" book by Steven Rosefielde[65] states Russia as a full fedged superpower by 2010. Second, John McCain's statement[66] last week on Russia and the United States but because he defined supwerpowers in a 40 minute speech using Russia (over 73 times on the speech) & the USA (not an a energy or nuclear superpowers or cold war superpower but defined the 2 as superpowers)with Washington's annoucement[67]

I think because Russia's status and it's current sources, great powers don't have the strength to destroy the world, only the US and Russia can. Superpowers can, that is also referenced on the superpower article too. So can we agree Russia is aborder line as a superpower then? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.205.234.250 (talk) 23:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

The comments on Russia under great power is a discussion, personally Russia should not even be on the list of great powers. I watch CNN news daily and Russia has been said all year, a superpower on the news. The United States government CIA has always known that Russia would come back as a superpower, there is no question about it. The time was when, which I certaintly agree it is now. Borderline or potential superpower in my opinion says they hold that certificate garranteed. If you watch foreign CNN tv in China, China calls Russia a superpower all the time.--64.69.158.252 (talk) 05:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Being able to destroy the world doesn't make a country a superpower --Hobie Hunter (talk) 19:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Isn't that interesting Hobie Hunter because that is the same source that is being said under article power. Is that wrong too? I get it though, you just hate Russia! I think with your anti Russia superpower history says a lot about you. I can read your record and thats all you do on Wikipedia is saying something anti Russia. I think you have a racial issue with Russia itself. That is why there is too much corruption on Wikipedia.--24.205.234.250 (talk) 08:37, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Look stop saying people are anti-Russian. You sound pathetic. Many people including most academics do not consider Russia a superpower. You are abusing the references you have cited and are blatantly spreading propaganda. Russia is in a sorry state - stop letting your bias tarnish Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.209.171.94 (talk) 09:28, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

On the superpower article the refs state superpowers have the power to destroy the world, that is a backed up source as there is enough evidence to stand on that one. I do agree with that fact but I do not agree we should be taking Russia off the potential superpower or achieving superpower. Russia is not a great power, they are too strong for that and the US CIA has admitted Russia has too much influence in the world today when you have the US to compared it too.

Personally Russia shouldn't even be on this page anymore when they have the sources stating superpower status.--64.69.158.252 (talk) 04:49, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

24.205.234.250, you need to relax and read Wikipedia: No personal attacks now. You sound pathetic. The source you cite for Sen. McCain's speech doesn't even mention superpowers at all! The Kommersant source is frankly a terrible source. If you actually read the article you would realize it. It says, and I quote:

U.S. Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe held special hearings devoted to Russia on Thursday. The Commission came to a conclusion which is flattering to Russia: the latter is returning to the international arena as an influential political and economic power.

First, the commission did not say that Russia has become a superpower. It said that it is "an influential political and economic power", which could be anything. A middle power, a regional power, a great power, etc. Second, news articles are under nearly all circumstances not reliable sources. The exceptions are prestigious reliable sources such as the Washington Post, Newsweek, Time, NY Times, BBC, etc. The source cited appears to biased and nationalistic. At the top of the page it says: "Russia's daily online". Its Wikipedia article states:

In August 2006, Patarkatsishvili sold his 100% stake in the Kommersant publishing house to Alisher Usmanov[5], head of Gazprom's Gazprominvestholding subsidiary.

This just confirms it. Its fully owned by a head in Gazprom with close ties to the Russian government. Of course the Russian government would argue Russia is a superpower. --Hobie Hunter (talk) 18:46, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

A minor typo

Leopold von Ranke is written like this, with a small "v". --Soetermans (talk) 23:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Reliable Academic and Verifiable Sources Only!

Here is an extract from Wikipedia:Verifiability

In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. As a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny involved in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the evidence and arguments of a particular work, the more reliable it is.

Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, such as history, medicine and science. Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas, particularly if they are respected mainstream publications. The appropriateness of any source always depends on the context. Where there is disagreement between sources, their views should be clearly attributed in the text.

Sources that are WP:QS:

Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking. Such sources include websites and publications that express views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, are promotional in nature, or rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources should only be used as sources about themselves as described below. Articles about such sources should not repeat any contentious claims the source has made about third parties, unless those claims have also been published by reliable sources.

• Russia Daily online - Topic header in no ways resembles the article at hand from questionable website (1)

Sources saying something completely different:

• CNN - Says Russia is an Energy superpower not a Superpower different thing entirely. (2)
• spacewar.com - Sourced from a personal blog that changed the name to get attention originally called Putin, Hu talk Iran, North Korea, SCO, space security in Moscow

Sources predicting the future:

• Russia in the 21st Century - States that in 2010 it might be possible, Not a good source about the hear and now. Wikipedia is about verifiable facts not guesses even if the person has a degree, if it was then India would be included in the list of Superpowers since there are many sources predicting that in the 21st Century as they did about Japan in the 80's.(3)
• telegraph.co.uk - Says that Putin wants to make it into a superpower but facts on the ground prevent that and never states that it is one.
• jpost.com - An opinion piece predicting what the future may hold... I wonder if Nostradamus will be sourced next? (4)

Per Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability these sources should not be used and per official policies they are to be removed.

The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation.... Any material lacking a reliable source may be removed.

Also took convo to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Great power yesterday . So please do not add these again and keep the edit war in Superpower and don't bring it here. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 10:13, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Note: following numbers in entry from User:24.205.234.250 below, correspond to the sections they reply on in the previous entry by User:UKPhoenix79. --Species8473 (talk) 13:12, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

(1) The U.S. Assistant Secretary of State is also a separate agency tied with the CIA gov't under the US gov't that connects heavily under US foreign policy rules. Since Daniel Fred is the U.S. Assistant Secretary of State, he has made it clear that Russia is a superpower, his information is also backed from the US Secret Service which is also tied to the White House. I also viewed the article on kommersant.com but there is also other links to his address on foreign policy relations with Russia, that is all docummented from official documents coming from the Bush adminstration which also ties to the G8 meetings, stating those sources again. Kommersant.com is only source which leads to other sources but the US is bound to what the U.S. Assistant Secretary of State says bottom line, that is a powerful role under the US government as he has sworn under the US constitution under oath to make these statements to the public, the US government is the authority of the U.S. Assistant Secretary of State. If the U.S. Assistant Secretary of State was wrong the US government could be seriously liable if he were misleading the public, that is why we have the US attorney general in these cases. You don't see media agencies like the Washington Post, US Today, New York Times or whatever saying liar liar, there is no lies here nor have there been any sources conflicting to his statements, that was a year ago. So I agree that this source with Daniel Fred is correct.

(2) Oh yes but CNN refers Russia as a superpower on their daily news, the US isn't even close to being an energy superpower, so what does that leave Russia in? Prehaps you ought to read all the discussion and Russia's influence in the middle east than and everything on Iran, the US foreign policy can't control the middle east, while Russia can. Russia as superpower but also an energy superpower, supples the world's greatest leader in nuclear energy, this is also the same for nuclear weapon's. On the superpower article only superpowers can destroy the world, that is only the US and Russia then.

(3) Really, well according to *Russia in the 21st Century is also states Russia's current foreign policy and it's involvement with the G8, the book states in page 81 that Russia has the possiblity of becoming a superpower by 2007 by author Steven Rosefielde. The book says full fedged superpower by 2010 but the author Steven Rosefielde also says Russia can still be a superpower by 2007 but not full fedged until 2010.

(4) This is bias, you have obivously have not read the article nor have you understand Putin's positon. The 2006 G8 meeting proved with the Bush Adminstration that not only did the US visit the Russian G8 meeting in St. Petersburg but Putin's party announced their superpower status to the press during the meeting, Bush was right there. Telegraph also discusses superpower facts on Russia once again.

Ok then UKPhoenix79, how many people are wondering if the United States and its recession[68] economy as if its still a superpower with the current Iraq war, the falling US dollar[69] [70][71], high US minimum wages being outsourced for Chinese labor, a high unemployment rate, credit crisis[72] through US foreign policy spending, US inflation[73] [74][75] from the Federal Reserve lowing interest rates too low[76], a housing crisis, dependence from oil & high gas prices and etc. Where does the United States stand as a superpower versing Russia’s current superpower status? Read at these sources here to see how the United States is losing or is now considered a former superpower:[77][78] [79]

Now there is Russia; a superpower (the United States only real counter partner as a superpower0[80] [81][82] [83] [84][85] [86] because they have the economics[87] [88], the wealth[89] [90], the diplomatic power[91] [92], ideological[93] [94] [95][96][97][98], technological power[99] [100][101][102][103]& advances[104] than any other country besides the United States (look here on why the US is losing its superpower status read here:[105][106][107]) recognizes Russia as a superpower [108], they have the cultural sector and lets not forget their military forces (supreme). Russia is also the largest military arsenal producer in the world (they hold 73% of the worlds military arsenals market) and they have the worlds largest nuclear weapons arsenal than another other country (newer & older which many are reconditioned as new again) which is 5 times greater than the US has.--24.205.234.250 (talk) 11:24, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

New Map

I'd just like to say kudos to whoever added the new map. It's much better than the old one. You could barely tell the categories apart on the old one. --Hobie Hunter (talk) 18:14, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Glad you like :-) -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 18:56, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm beginning to think that maybe we should use red instead of green since it might show up better. After all the countries are rather small on that map. What do you think? -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 07:49, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Just a matter of personal preference, but I like green better, but if you want to make the countries to stand out more, you could make the green brighter. --Hobie Hunter (talk) 00:06, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Russia Superpower Consensus

Template:RFCpol An attempt to achieve a consensus about the superpower status for Russia.

• Do include your opinion starting your message with either support, neutral or oppose.
• Do try to keep your reply civil, short and to the point.
• Do not bring other countries including Italy and the United states into this discussion.

Proposal by Species8473

I believe we cannot conclude it being a superpower, nor can we conclude it is not. And propose Russia is stated to be the following in the article:

• Former superpower (Generally seen to have lost superpower status since fall of the Soviet Union 1(p4), 2
• Re-emerging superpower (Noted as possibility/opinion not fact) 1, 2, 3
• Regional superpower 1(p27), 2(p10)
• Nuclear superpower (Notable for Russia has the largest amount of nuclear warheads) 1(p91), 2(p12) 3(p95),
• Energy superpower (Notable for Russia has the laregest fields of natural gas) 1, 2, 3(p115), 4

Oppose

1. Oppose I oppose calling Russia a great power simply because the definition is under the article superpower sources that if countries can destroy the world with its power is defined as a superpower[109] In the opinion of Professor Paul Dukes, "a superpower must be able to conduct a global strategy including the possibility of destroying the world; to command vast economic potential and influence; and to present a universal ideology". Although, "many modifications may be made to this basic definition" [110]. This has been repeated many times on the Superpower discussion and I believe with the issues other members have bought up John McCain defining superpowers recently in thee last month on his televised conference about Russia and the USA on their nuclear missile programs, I believe his statement is a direct indication Russia is an achieving superpower because of it's role in the middle east situation. The USA does not have enough control and needs NATO as a counter partner to act as foreign country to mediate in foreign affairs (even that has not been enough to handle the situation with Iran) with Middle East countries where Russia is not a NATO member as they have more control with Middle East countries without the assistance with NATO intervening control. John McCain has said Russia has too much influence in controlling its relations in the Middle East situation as the US has or does not have the power to intervene control they would like to have to halt the Iran nuclear energy & nuclear missile programs. Listen this is big discussion but my point is, the US simply does not have the aid in controlling the Middle East, too many conflicts are with the US, which is a very critical right now; Russia has not created any new enemies since they left Afghanistan in 1989. The European Union nor Great Britain, France, Germany countries have even themselves as Great Powers simply cannot controlled the situation with Iran, Russia along with China both have but Russia has that influence. This lifts the level of Russia from being a Great Power but between Superpower or potential superpower. Many will argue Russia is a potential superpower than a superpower but not a great power. I support Russia as a superpower because the United States government has made their decision to call it a superpower by a US government official Daniel Fred who is the U.S. Assistant Secretary of State as he has the position under the Bush Adminstration to call the country a superpower because of his role on US foreign policy.[111]--66.17.49.165 (talk) 22:27, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

   My proposal is not to call Russia a great power, but to list certain aspects as provided in the proposal. The title of the article you cite is misleading for it's content, and so is what you claim the article says. It quotes Daniel Fred saying "Russia has restored its position of a large political and economic force recently." He does not say Russia is a superpower. Besides providing a basic definition of what a superpower is, has Professor Paul Dukes also stated Russia is one? The references you make to the Middle East countries are the reason Russia is recognized as regional superpower. It's not plausible to conclude Russia is a world superpower only because it has some influence on bordering countries such as Iran. And even there the biggest influence could simply come from the two countries being trading partners.Species8473 (talk) 23:55, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

2. I oppose calling Russia a re-emerging superpower, at best it is a potential superpower. No one has been able to find any sources on Senator McCain's speech that have him categorically stating "Russia is a superpower". There is no definition as a superpower as "a country that can destroy the world." The definition is and I quote "A superpower is a state with a leading position in the international system and the ability to influence events and project power on a worldwide scale; it is traditionally considered to be one step higher than a great power." Simply put, Russia does not have this ability. The United States is the world's sole superpower (at least right now). The best sources pro-Russian nationalists have been able to dredge up is a blatantly incorrect, biased non-mainstream news article. Russia is only a great power. --Hobie Hunter (talk) 23:42, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

   In my proposal I have noted the re-emerging superpower status should (if there is a consensus) be listed as possibility or opinion, not as fact. Your statement that the "a country that can destroy the world" definition doesn't exist, goes against the superpower article where it is cited. It's not really important though, as if the definition exists, it's not a source for stating Russia is a superpower or not.Species8473 (talk) 00:09, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

   Oh, okay. But if you're going to state Russia as a possible re-emerging superpower, isn't that the same as a potential superpower? --Hobie Hunter (talk) 17:45, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

   What are you affaid of if Russia is called a superpower? Why is it that you take such offense to Russia? nuclear superpower, energy superpower, space power, military superpower, is there something wrong not give them any superpower credit?--24.205.234.250 (talk) 21:57, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

   • Is the United States a Superpower? No, this is why:[112] [113]: A superpower presumably is able either to impose its preferences on other states or to elicit their support

   • The United States does not meet this test
   • Yet the United States remains a formidable global power

   1. Its military is the most powerful relative to the forces of other states

   2. Its economy is still the largest at $13 trillion in GDP

   3. Its population is well educated and creative

   4. It has impressive hard and soft power to negotiate a global environment favorable to its interests, but it cannot command others to do its will absent concessions to their interests and power [:[114]] (Russia has major control in the middle east as I agree from the above comment[115])

   United States as a formidable global power, but NOT a superpower[:[116] listen to the news.--69.239.171.174 (talk) 04:07, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

   This is on Russia. Not the US. As stated above please do not bring other countries into this. --Hobie Hunter (talk) 17:45, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

   Excuse me Hobbie Hunter aren't you the one who's been making these claims about the USA and Russia on superpowers arguments? The above says "formidable global power" the USA that is, you defend the US all the time; why now only Russia? Russia should be the discussions for potential superpowers but you argue about Russia on Great Powers, Superpowers, Potential Superpowers on all these articles too. Because this is an issue of Russia, it should be listed as a superpower because the sources say it is and the US government........ I consensus to either we eliminate both the USA & Russia out of the great powers article please...... or leave it to discuss on potential and superpowers..... or .....we allow the sources such as your favorite article Kommersand and others to post by Russian Federation titles on Great Powers. Only speaking about USA as a current superpower on Great Powers is not fair to allow users to say Russia should have their links listed too. It isn't fair to the readers not able to view the sources when they are in fact the right sources.--24.205.234.250 (talk) 21:48, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

   Oh thankyou for your block warning Hobbie Hunter, that's a nice note--24.205.234.250 (talk) 21:48, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

3. Oppose This is not the Superpower article but the Great power article. These variances of definition of superpower needs to be listed in that article and not this one. The only time that the definitive term of superpower should be used in this article it has to have the same criteria for adding another country to the Great power list. Academic accredited sources. Baring that this term should not be used. Setting up new criteria for different countries is not the way wikipedia does things we need to only report what scholars agree upon (or mostly agree upon) not create those definitions. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 18:52, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
4. Support This maybe not a Superpower article but when you post the US as a superpower on this article, what does that say about Russia? Maybe both countries should be taken out then.

If you want to bash Russia not being a superpower but you won't bash the United States as a possible former superpower with the new 2008 articles[117], sounds like a lot of hate to me on what country is and isn't, that is selective critizism and not a foundation of facts for each 2 countries. Either you eliminate both Russia & USA off great powers or we shoot to eliminate the article on hate speech. If you hate Russia so much, don't sit here and make bias comments over the sources, write your own book then.--24.205.234.250 (talk) 22:30, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

And you are changing articles without reaching any consensus on your move, flouting the basis agreed upon norms. You moved India from the list altogether, without taking into consideration the articles links. Your dislike must not be presented in this article. Let the Admin lift the restriction. I will revert the article to the version by HobieHunter. Then discuss and agree on changes and make the change. Personal opinion of yours will not be considered to be put in the article.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 02:17, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know who you are talking too but I would like to step in and say that I strongly disagree with a revert to that version. It is the same as starting to dedicate more space in this article about superpowers. This article is about Great Powers not superpowers or potential global powers. Potential Great Powers are not Great powers and should not be listed on the map as such. But I believe that since the article that you were so keen on editing was recently deleted it might be worth a mention in the article. Now since predictions are funny things and wikipedia is not a fortune telling website they should be treated with a grain of salt. But like I said they should not be listed with other current global powers. Don't forget that their addition to the list only happened a couple of weeks ago and after the redesign of the great power list we have had this page protected at least 3 times since then. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 05:04, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes after your changes, someone has changed it. Unknown user 24.205.234.250.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 05:11, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not following. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 05:39, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Chanakya's referring to our resident troll, unknown user 24.205.234.250, and his edits to the article. --Hobie Hunter (talk) 13:50, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Potential Superpower

Hi, on this article, it mentions India and Brazil as potential great powers. But, should we also mention (when the article becomes unprotected) that to some, India is considered a Potential Superpower. India is already mentioned on the potential superpower page, and is considered one by IHT and newsweek. So when this page becomes unprotected, shouldn't we add a note saying "to some, India is considered a potential superpower, but this is disputed" or something long the lines like that. Deavenger (talk) 21:00, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

If its brief and links to the proper full discussion on Potential Superpowers that should be fine. But we shouldn't loose the fact that its currently not considered a great power. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 18:56, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, tat's all we need to do. Just add a link, saying according to some sources, India is considered a potential superpower (link here) while others consider it a potential great power.Deavenger (talk) 21:29, 22 June 2008 (UTC)