Talk:Great power

For old version, see: History

Removal of all uncited claims

The article contains a manifold of unreferenced claims. Estimated half of the given sources are books and can not be verified. This amounts to around half of the written content. It has to be removed. Lear 21 (talk) 11:04, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Round in circles. Nirvana888 (talk) 12:49, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Problem solved, uncited claims are removed. The article appears to be not entirely cleaned up. A first scan has been made. Lear 21 (talk) 21:35, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest you immediately cease your disruptive editing and changing. Build consensus before you make another disputed change. Nirvana888 (talk) 01:36, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

The new trimmed version only presents readable, accessible references. Please, in the future, if somebody wants to add content provide acedemic in advance. all the best Lear 21 (talk) 21:45, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Removal / Renewal of Great power map

The current map at this article divides Great powers in permanent UNSC members. The sources does not reflect this situation. The map has to be removed or should be updated. Lear 21 (talk) 11:16, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Round in circles. Nirvana888 (talk) 12:49, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Support. In this case you certainly have Nirvana and Phoenix on your side. KJohansson (talk) 18:29, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Several unreferenced claims and non accessible references (mostly books) have been removed. all the best Lear 21 (talk) 21:29, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

References which couldn´t been accessed have been removed. Considering the logic of the account Nirvana888/Phoenix79, I´m sure there is support. Lear 21 (talk) 02:16, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

To be very frank, you're unilateral edits and continued disruptive edits have alienated yourself from the other editors and gravely poisoned the editing atmosphere. There is now very little chance other editors will agree to your points unless you stop being disruptive. Nirvana888 (talk) 02:26, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

A map dividing the Great powers does make no sense. The list below also does not emphisize a UNSC as special feature. In fact the references I provided proof pretty clearly the g8 being THE determining institution for global affairs. It is shocking to see editors like Phoenix/Nirvana not being able to recognize the endless amount of credible evidences while at the same time defending sources which are not even accessible. Lear 21 (talk) 03:35, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

What source is not accessible? -- Phoenix (talk) 06:37, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Brazil?

Brazil takes off The Economist. Felipe Menegaz 16:30, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

No Brazil is not a great power. It has no permanent UN Security Council seat and is not on the G8. It is a major middle power. If a country truely is a great power then other countries will ackowledge that power and accept it into various great power exclusive groups such as the the UN Security Council or G8, hence a part of being a great power is wielding such influence as to get such acknowledgement and membership.

A large number of countries support the inclusion of Brazil in the UN Security Council and is a member of the G8+5 and the G20, that will surpass the G8. Lots of leaders called Brazil a great power on various subjects such as Economy and Diplomacy. New military contracts will transform Brazil into a military power too. I think we need consider Brazil as an emerging great power at least. Felipe Menegaz 20:42, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

You're right, Brazil is an emerging great power but it needs to have become a great power before it can be added. Bambuway (talk) 21:21, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Why? We could create an article like Potential superpowers, or even a section on this article, including Brazil and India. Felipe Menegaz 23:35, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Before he left, Deavenger was working on two things:

A potential Great Powers article, and also the transformation of the Potential Superpowers article into a more generic 'rising powers' article. He was also interested in reconstructing the Potential article to highlight the history of them, just like how on here we have the history of Great Power classification and on the Superpower article we talk about how they were classified and their political history Comics (talk) 05:23, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

This argument has already been articulated earlier in the archives. Please read the discussion. I am contemplating writing an FAQ at the top of the page to avoid having repetitive discussion come up every so often. Both Brazil and India are considered potential great powers in the future. The consensus was they not not be listed until/if they become acknowledged great powers. Nirvana888 (talk) 22:30, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

So, can I request the deletion of Potential superpowers? Felipe Menegaz 22:32, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Nirvana888 that a country must already be recognised as a great power before it can be added to this article. I would like to clarify to editors who keep suggesting various countries to be listed as great powers. The most widely regarded recognition of a nation being a great power is it holding a permanent United Nations Security Council seat because all permanent members of the Security Council are given the power to veto (block) resolutions, which the UN calls "Great Power Unanimity", therefore the UN recognises these permanent members of the Security Council as great powers, and subsequently so do the 192 members states who accepted this when they signed and joined the UN. And as the UN is the main body of international politics this is seen as the highest official recognition of a country being a great power. To add countries to this article claiming them to be great powers without such recognitions would open the flood gates to various claims of nations being great powers for various reasons even though they hadn't been recognised as such and before we knew it obviously non-great power countries would be being added for various reasons. If a nation is indeed a great power it will wield sufficient power to get itself such recognition as a permanent UN Security Council seat. Until then it's likely to be a middle power. I agree Brazil is emerging from middle power to great power and may become recognised as a great power at some time but statistics about population and GDP won't get it listed, it needs recognition as a great power. Bambuway (talk) 23:01, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Solution

I think an image of the G8 should be included. G8 members are economic great powers. Permanent UN Security Council members are all round great powers. So long as such destinction is made clear in the article. G20 members are not great powers, it is a group of great powers and middle powers. I think many editors are confusing middle power traits for great power traits.

Maybe the G8 image could be included but not be a lead image to satisfy everyone? Maybe placed somewhere relevant in the article?Bambuway (talk) 18:34, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

After reading some of the refs brought by Lear, it gets clear that the G8 members are even more than only economic powers. The G8 is also cited as an informal global governance meeting for over 30 years. These meetings ruled on a vast number of policy fields ranging from security to environment. Anyway, with a decent caption it should be no problem to include this important info to the article. It is relevant after all. KJohansson (talk) 18:38, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I tried to find material relevant to this article in the references provided by Lear but it did not seem to be there. So I asked Lear to transcribe specific passages that uphold his case. I am sorry that he did not do so. Viewfinder (talk) 00:54, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

So there is a unanamity about the inclusion, I reckon. As there are now around 30 references of all types of academia or media supporting the view the G8 being a forum even a world governance meeting gathering the major/great powers. I´m adding one of references once the image is stabilised at the article got clear longterm acceptance. Until then it can remain without the specific ref, like many other claims as well. Lear 21 (talk) 02:24, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

There is not consensus here, and I now oppose the adding of the G8 image anywhere in the article, including my earlier compromise, until someone can transcribe and reference specific pages from academic sources in support of the case in favour of its inclusion. Please do so, then we can debate them. Viewfinder (talk) 20:17, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Your stance is pretty unreliable Viewfinder, I should say. As you probably recognize, two editors here, shit on all references, no matter what is proposed. KJohansson (talk) 12:07, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

India is a great power

Close per WP:NOT#FORUM
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I am very surprised that the article does not list India as among great powers. If China is counted as one, so must India. India has many things that support her status as a great power: It is the world's largest democracy. It has the world's largest middle class. The demographic dividend means that India has a largely young working population. India has the brain power. Many NASA scientists, doctors, researchers are of Indians. India's IT industry is the second most powerful after the U.S. India's economic growth rate is the second highest in the world. India is already the 4th largest economy in the world. India has nuclear weapons and missiles to deliver them. India has the most powerful navy in Asia. It has nuclear submarines and three aircraft carriors. Culturally, India is becoming more influential. Bollywood films are very popular around the world. India's increasing improtant is recongized by all. Even the U.S. has signed a nuclear deal with India. India is on track to be a superpower by 2020. Many many people list India and China together and even use the term Chindia. I am very puzzled why this article does not list India as a great power. V.Chowla (talk) 21:55, 14 November 2009 (UTC) See talk archive. It has the potential to be a great power this century. Nirvana888 (talk) 22:03, 14 November 2009 (UTC) That is not what I mean. India is already a great power. By any measure, India is a very powerful country. It qualifies as a great power. V.Chowla (talk) 22:10, 14 November 2009 (UTC) As I stated, India is not usually seen as a great power by scholars but one that has the potential to be one. Read the talk archives on the previous discussion and consensus. Nirvana888 (talk) 22:14, 14 November 2009 (UTC) I agree with Nirvana888 that a country must already be recognised as a great power before it can be added to this article. I would like to clarify to editors who keep suggesting various countries to be listed as great powers. The most widely regarded recognition of a nation being a great power is it holding a permanent United Nations Security Council seat because all permanent members of the Security Council are given the power to veto (block) resolutions, which the UN calls "Great Power Unanimity", therefore the UN recognises these permanent members of the Security Council as great powers, and subsequently so do the 192 members states who accepted this when they signed and joined the UN. And as the UN is the main body of international politics this is seen as the highest official recognition of a country being a great power. To add countries to this article claiming them to be great powers without such recognitions would open the flood gates to various claims of nations being great powers for various reasons even though they hadn't been recognised as such and before we knew it obviously non-great power countries would be being added for various reasons. If a nation is indeed a great power it will wield sufficient power to get itself such recognition as a permanent UN Security Council seat. Until then it's likely to be a middle power. Bambuway (talk) 23:02, 14 November 2009 (UTC) How can India not be a great power? It is as obvious as day that India is. Many use the term Chindia, stating these two countries are both powerful. If China is listed, then why not India? V.Chowla (talk) 23:08, 14 November 2009 (UTC) Also, all the old disussions are before the financial collapse of Europe and America. India's position is stronger than before the crisis. V.Chowla (talk) 23:08, 14 November 2009 (UTC) UN security consil is not a good measure for great power. The membership has stayed the same because the 5 countries want to monopolize power and exclude countries that are real great powers. India made a bid to join the consil and received support from many countries, but the 5 powers stopped it because they want to keep the power to themself. Such unfair behavior should not disqualify India from being recognized for what she is: a great power. V.Chowla (talk) 23:12, 14 November 2009 (UTC) I agree India is emerging from middle power to great power and may become recognised as a great power at some time but statistics about population and GDP won't get it listed, it needs recognition as a great power. Bambuway (talk) 23:14, 14 November 2009 (UTC) US already see India as a great power. US has signed a nuclear deal with India and made great accomodations on account of India's power. US has called India a strategic partner. Japan is getting close to India too. Many many western companies are in india doing business. India has taken over Jaguar, Land Rover, and other Britisher and western companies. India has the largest English speaking population in the world. V.Chowla (talk) 23:18, 14 November 2009 (UTC) The UNSC is the best measure of great power. It is official international recognition of a nation being a great power and powers being given to that nation accordingly, such as being a recognised nuclear weapons state under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. I'm sorry but India just hasn't got that recognition yet and can't be listed or else it would be your say so that India is a great power, not that of other nations, which being a permanent UNSC member accords. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bambuway (talk • contribs) 23:19, 14 November 2009 (UTC) Who said UNSC is the authority on great power? V.Chowla (talk) 23:22, 14 November 2009 (UTC) India is known for her brain power, just to name a few examples: 38% of doctors in USA are INDIANs. 12% scientists in USA are INDIANs. 36% of NASA scientists are INDIANs. 34% of Microsoft employees are INDIANs. 28% of IBM employees are INDIANs. 17% of INTEL scientists are INDIANs. 13% of XEROX employees are INDIANs. V.Chowla (talk) 23:22, 14 November 2009 (UTC) Again this is your say so that India is a great power. The UN hasn't accepted India as a great power or it would have given it a UNSC seat. Add India to the list when it gets a UNSC seat because that will be international recognition of India being a great power and not just your say so. Bambuway (talk) 23:22, 14 November 2009 (UTC) who gave UNSC authority to judge? Who said UNSC has the power to judge? Also, India has just bought 200 tonnes of gold from IMF. India's growing power is for all to see. V.Chowla (talk) 23:24, 14 November 2009 (UTC) 192 member states recognised the permanent UNSC members as great powers with "great power unanimty" when they signed the UN treaty when they became members. I'm not going to argue with you over facts. Facts mean nothing without recognition. Bambuway (talk) 23:28, 14 November 2009 (UTC) I ask you who gave UNSC authority to judge. You did not answer. Who is USNC to judge? It is just a comittee of world war 2 victors who want to exclude new powers. I like to see your source for your claim that UNSC is the standard. Show me the UN document that say UNSC has the power to judge. V.Chowla (talk) 23:29, 14 November 2009 (UTC) I am starting to feel like you may be a WP:Troll. This is not a forum to discuss India's "brain power" and stats. Further off-topic statements will be removed or refactored. Nirvana888 (talk) 23:35, 14 November 2009 (UTC) And I said the 192 member states of the UN have authority over who is or isn't a great power. The 192 members states of the UN recognised 5 countries as great powers and gave them such regard at the UN with according powers. If a country can't get recogised by the UN as a great power, which accounts for 99% of the world's countries, then it's not a great power. Bambuway (talk) 23:33, 14 November 2009 (UTC) My point was at the time the members believe the 5 countries are great powers and they are. But 192 members are not given authority to judge. It is just they exercised judgement that one time. I see no UN document which gives 192 members formal authority to regonize great power status. V.Chowla (talk) 23:48, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

G8 Solution x2

Ok so let me ask for an honest response. Viewfinder has requested for someone to transcribe and reference specific pages from academic sources in support of the case in favour of (the G8's) inclusion. I have asked for the same many times, and I agree with his/her proposal. So this time can someone please so this so that we can finally put this issue to rest... And since this is an ongoing debate can we please leave the article alone until this conversation is over. There is no reason for an edit war while we are trying to solve this issue. So lets use the talk page properly and discuss the issue at hand. Thanks -- Phoenix (talk) 02:49, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Why is it that no one is using the talk page any longer? Please just cite what academic source gave you this thought in the first place, so that we can discuss this as the civilised people we know we are. Please use that talk page as the main article should be off limits during a discussion. Also the removal of cited material does not make sense as it follows wikipedias policies. Have you even tried to verify them yourself by looking for the books in question on-line? Or are you just doing that to be disruptive? So lets just end this disruptive editing and discuss the actual issue, please. -- Phoenix (talk) 21:54, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I assume the discussion about wether there are references has already ended. Now its up to you to accept them. I recommend, you are including the reference by yourself. 92.225.18.164 (talk) 23:09, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry that is not how it works on wikipedia. Please provide a source backing up such claims (see WP:BURDEN & WP:PROVEIT for just a couple of policies on this matter). Without evidence backing up such claims it is just WP:OR and does not belong in wikipedia. -- Phoenix (talk) 23:17, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Quote: "While the G8 is the only permanent global concert of great powers" [1] KJohansson (talk) 13:57, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok so here is the source that you provided. I wish I could just copy and paste. I hate writing this all by hand so I apologize for any typos.

pg 40

Even in Iraq, as casualties and costs mounted, the United States became eager to hand over responsibility to a UN-approved sovereign Iraqi government on 30 June. But neither America nor its G8 partners were under any illusions, after the previous twelve years, that the UN could cope without major support in many forms from the G8 great powers themselves. Only on the issues of development could the UN claim a level of normative and epistemic effectiveness that the G8 could use as a foundation for action to move ahead.

Pg 84

Concert Governance

The G8 can be seen as a global security concert: and instrument for the joint management of international relations buy the most significance powers. Concerts are informal instruments: they rely on few informal rules and mainly serve to co-ordinate policy' Convert-based models have traditionally emerged-or gains in importance-after major wars. The Concert of Europe emerged after the Napoleonic Wars. There was a short-lived concert after both the first and the second World Wars. The end of the Cold War made it possible for the G8 to emerge as a global concert.

Concert diplomacy has a number of advantages (as well as some obvious disadvantages) over the UN system and over such international organisations for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE). Perhaps the most significant is the flexibility of concert diplomacy. Since there are no explicit rules, bureaucratic procedures or legalistic considerations do not hamper a concert. When conditions are right, a concert can be an adaptable and powerful tool for managing international security. A concert can provide a forum for policy co-ordination, but it can also make an important contribution to restraining its members' behaviour. By conditioning some actions an condemning others, a convert sets norms and codes for international behaviour. If there is a compelling argument for action, it can function as a de facto decision-making body in regard to the introduction of sanctions or military intervention. In short a great-power concert can provide leadership, thus enhancing the ability of the international actors (states and international organisations) to manage a crisis.

These benefits are offset by serious shortfalls. Not being based on international treaties, convert diplomacy is often seen as lacking legitimacy. Due to its restricted membership, it is often disliked by small states and aspiring powers: the former fear a great power condominium, while the latter would like a seat at the top table themselves. Owing to its emphasis on personal contacts between the normal democratic process.

While the G8 is the only permanent global convert of great powers, there have been several recent cases of ad hoc concerts shouldering the responsibility for finding a solution to a regional crisis. The most conspicuous contemporary ad hoc concert is the Middle East Quartet, which consists of the United Nations, the European Union, the U.S., and Russia. Another example is the contact groups that were set up to resolve crises in Bosnia-Herzegovina, Kosovo, and Namibia.

Pg 102

For the United States, two reasons support the use of the G8 as an instruments for the advancements of U.S. interests in arms control, counterterrorism, and regional security. First, the U.S. would increase the legitimacy of its actions by consulting other great powers in an orderly multilateral fashion. Second, it would be able to strengthen cohesion between the West and Russia in relation to matters of global security.

Pg 248

Taken together, this analysis shows that actors well beyond the G8's great power governments are not only increasingly involved and influential at the global level but also work together with one another and with G8 governments to produce better global governance as a result.

I want to ask what are peoples thoughts? -- Phoenix (talk) 06:51, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

It supports the arguments which have been brought here already to the discussion several times. It supports the view that the G8 is/was a premier meeting for Great power global governance. This is relevant for the scope of this article. More important is that there are at least 10 other academic and obviously endless high profile media sources which support this view and aim in the same direction. KJohansson (talk) 13:03, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Here is my question. What are the sources saying. Are all members of the G8 Great Powers? If so then Italy and Canada would be considered so. Are they saying that its a place for the US to tell other economically powerful countries what it wants. If so that is not Great powers only great economic powers, a qualifying remark that this article is not focusing on. Is it saying that some members are great powers and others are not. This article is not about Concert Governance, but Great powers, I really would like others to read these over and if they agree then the G8 should be added if not... then it shouldn't... Just not the lead image. There is no reason for that. -- Phoenix (talk) 11:29, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Quote: "While the G8 is the only permanent global concert of great powers" That is the quote which has to be considered. It is directly transscribed to the caption of the G8 pic and complies with all policies, all recommendations of Wikipedia. Every other question is irrelevant, I also don´t start asking why the Congress of Vienna is integrated although half of the participants have not been considered "great powers". If this source is not enough I´m going to add other sources as well until this issue is settled. The decisive question for the inclusion of the G8 summits at this article is: Does this meeting stand alongside with other historical meetings (Vienna Congress), situations (after WW2), or institutions (UNSC) where the most powerful nations/participants gather in order to discuss the global order. The answer is a clear cut YES. And please do not try to suggest that the given source is the only one. There are plenty of other academic sources naming the G8 "group hegemony" including "major powers". KJohansson (talk) 12:58, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the G8 is the ultimate concert of great powers. I believe the United Nations Security Council is. However I do believe an image of the G8 should be included in this article because the G8 is a concert of nations who possess "economic great power" status. Although an image of the UNSC should be the most important image of a concert of great powers because it is generally recognised as a group of all round great powers which have been accepted as such by the United Nations member states and given according powers and recognition. I believe that images of both the UNSC and G8 should be included in this article with the UNSC being the most important. It should be explained in the article that the UNSC is a concert of all round great powers while the G8 a concert of economic great powers. Bambuway (talk) 14:22, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

The UNSC is one important institution deciding exclusively on security issues. It wields no power on economic, financial, trade, energy or environmental questions. The beauty of the G8 pic is, that nobody ever proposed an abolition of the UNSC pic. Instead the G8 is the inevitable addition to the article informing the reader, that other formats of great power decision making exist. KJohansson (talk) 13:46, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

The UNSC actually wields enormous power in economic, financial, trade, and energy questions because it passes resolutions which include international sanctions, which are either diplomatic sanctions, economic and trade sanctions or military sanctions. G8 decisions are non-binding and apply only to G8 members, whereas UN sanctions are binding and apply to all UN members. I support the inclusion of both the UNSC image and G8 image. Bambuway (talk) 15:33, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

See also: [2] Lear 21 (talk) 00:20, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Yea I asked for comments from others that are independent of this debate. I just want this issue over with already whichever way it goes. I still haven't heard anything from Nirvana nor Viewfinder :-( I would not want to proceed until we hear from those long time editors. Any chance that either of you two could get them to comment on this topic before we continue? -- Phoenix (talk) 04:08, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

It appears unlikely to believe that accounts who argued against an inclusion are swaying in officially. The usual indication of consent is silence or lack of appearance. That appears to be the case. all the best Lear 21 (talk) 17:21, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I have been away and out of circulation since Thursday. I will respond tomorrow. Viewfinder (talk) 22:55, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

What else now can be done to keep editors from reverting the badly needed update ? Well, I don´t know. We have countless sources, the pic is similar to others on this article. There is a majority of editors who find the pic justified, or a minority who is not answering anymore. There are external, neutral editors who give an OK. 1 month of arguing to proof the obvious, 1 month of arguing with people convincing them to accept a statement comparable "an apple is a fruit" or "a dog is an animal". A fucking waste of sensible energy. Anyway. I beg everyone who deep inside believes in rational reasoning to accept the updated version, which of course can be altered but should inlcude the new picture. Thank you very much. KJohansson (talk) 00:54, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Look we know that you believe this. I hope you know that I have only asked for academic sources to prove this, because until it is proven it is just a theory an anonymous person on the internet said. You might want to read Wikipedia:How many legs does a horse have? which says Simply saying that an horse has five legs doesn't make it true – you must prove it. -- Phoenix (talk) 05:30, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Lear and Johansson, at the top of this section is a request for transcriptions from academic passages linking G8 membership with great power status. Perhaps I have missed something, but I still cannot see any such transcriptions. G8 membership, which excludes China, does not imply great power status or vice versa. Therefore the inclusion of the image is based on OR and POV. While I personally do not object to its inclusion, other editors such as Phoenix are entitled to continue to contest this issue if they choose to do so, and the continuation of unilateral editing of the article in contravention of this will only harden the determination of editors like Phoenix and Nirvana to remain inflexible. Please let's air our differences here and leave the article alone until they have been resolved. Viewfinder (talk) 09:30, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I added another source underlining the G7 as a group hegemon, that shape great power interaction in contrast to most international institutions and great power collaboration. page 4KJohansson (talk) 14:54, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

This source needs to be discussed further and I am annoyed that Johansson has yet again unilaterally edited the article without allowing time for discussion first. The source is historical in that the G8 was primarily an economic forum, but economic issues are now being transferred to the G20. Therefor I oppose Johansson's edit. Viewfinder (talk) 16:02, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

@Viewfinder: The reference is a credible academic evidence. Please accept academic references which have relevance for this article. Please accept that the majority of editors find that these academic, relevant references belong in this article. Please accept external assessment [3]. Please accept that Wikipedia is based on references and not on opinions. Please with sugar on the top. Lear 21 (talk) 21:42, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I think the time has come to name all the disruptive reverts by what they really are, an attack of all Wikipedia policies. The only arguments I can read in this topic started by Phoenix seem to be like, "can´t we wait" or "this source needs to be discussed further" without citing any qualified objections. Experienced Wikipedians would have come forward with proactive proposals to include the proven relevant update (G8). This hasn´t been the case for more than a month. I´m sick of it and call it what it is, vandalism to relevant important content. KJohansson (talk) 14:21, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

The above reference is historical because we have moved on since it was published. I am open to persuasion about whether or not it is still OK but I am not interested in entering into discussion with the author of the above contribution, which has a totalitarian tone and will only make consensus harder to achieve. Ditto the unilateral reinstatement of the G8 image into the lead section, in direct contravention of my repeated pleas. Viewfinder (talk) 14:56, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Further to the above, I think there is a compromise case for a G20 image, and some G8/G20 text, but not in the lead section. But please, please, please allow time for Phoenix and Nirvana to respond before reinstating any G8 or G20 image anywhere in the article. Please. Viewfinder (talk) 15:05, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Viewfinder could you please stop your: "I´m open to persuasion" arguments ? After 1 month this sounds only flimsy and shallow. It is not a matter of how or if the G8 is relevant. It is proven, academically. The only remaining question could be where to put the G8 pic (maybe in the status section). You and others have provoked my tone I´m sorry because of aggressive ignorance of sources and blindly defending a status quo. I promise I will not accept a version without this article getting an update to provide a broader perspective. Probably Lear supports this view. KJohansson (talk) 15:45, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

That "it is proven" is your opinion, and accusing other editors of "aggressive ignorance" is not helpful. "I promise I will not accept" is fascist in tone; "I will continue to press" would be more helpful. Can you not just wait a day to allow Phoenix and/or Nirvana to respond? If they do not, then I will be happy with some G8/G20 text and a G20 image in the status section. That is my stance. I hope you can accept this. Viewfinder (talk) 16:02, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I have stated before that the G20 makes more sense than the G8 and I would be ok with its inclusion. -- Phoenix (talk) 19:46, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

The G8 has been cited as global governance, it covers a history of 30 years. The G20 contains more than a half of participants which can not be considered of global great power status. Several members of the G20 are not even economic great powers. The G8 is a referenced meeting. I inserted the image in the status section. Lear 21 (talk) 02:39, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

G8 solution: Chapter 3

KJohansson has stated on his talk page that his case is supported by "many scholars and academics who published their position and which is available on internet sites". I formally repeat my request for examples of these passages to be copied, pasted and referenced here, and that no more edits are made to the article until time has been allowed for other editors to comment. Viewfinder (talk) 16:30, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

@Viewfinder: The 2 references included by KJohansson citing the exact page of the transscripted respective sentences in the caption of the image. Lear 21 (talk) 02:46, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

The Bailin reference was published in 2001. Since then there has been a substantial shift to the G20 so the reference is outdated. Please supply an appropriate transciption from the other reference. Viewfinder (talk) 11:36, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Please respect academic references which have relevance for this article. Please respect that the majority of editors find that these academic, relevant references belong in this article. Please respect external assessment. Please respect that Wikipedia is based on references and not on opinions. Lear 21 (talk) 19:19, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Lear, I have challenged one of your references and asked for a transcript from the other. You have not responded to my challenge or supplied any transcript. Instead you have unilaterally reinstated the G8 image into the article yet again. Therefore I am reverting you again. Viewfinder (talk) 21:03, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

@Viewfinder: Please stop adding absurd demands. If you want to challenge anything, read the provided references. Obviously the exact text referring to the reference has been added to the image caption. Please also respect that external assessment has approved the inclusion of the image. For those who still need extra information what the G8 is or does, read this [4] Lear 21 (talk) 23:18, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

The editing atmosphere has been completely poisoned over the past few months by two (possibly one) unilateral/disruptive editors. I am very surprised that they have not been blocked for a long time already. Anyone who would care to peruse the edit history would clearly come to the conclusion of egregious and consistent disruption. I have to say I am usually a fairly flexible editor when it comes to disputes and am willing to compromise but this has gone too far and quite frankly is the worst case of shockingly bad faith behavior I have encountered thus far in my experience here. Nirvana888 (talk) 01:23, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

The above reference does not mention Great Power. Please supply the source transcriptions that I have asked for, and a link to the external assessment passage that "approved" the G8 image. By the way I have stated that I will accept a G20 image. So has Phoenix. Infact, unless there are any objections, I will insert a G20 image with a source to show that it is now more relevant than the now superfluous G8. Viewfinder (talk) 08:38, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok friends, lets bring this to an end. I will not look back and I will try to use a language nobody can claim to be an obstacle. I will not put the G8 pic back as long as this gets either silent or outspoken recognition, but if anyone of the established editors (Viewfinder, Phoenix79,Nirvan888) refuses to deal with arguments and sources or refuses to take part, this will be interpreted as silent consensus. I expect a concentrated discussion were everybody deals with content and recognizes current realities. The articles scope in general must stay in the center, so please take a breath and deal with the issue without prejudices and preconditioned attitudes. Does that sound like a plan ?

Preamble: This articles deals with the issue Great power. The introduction claims that it is a country influencing many dimensions on an international level. The introduction does not name any country specifically. The article tries to illustrate many moments in history were great powers gathered in order to negotiate global order mostly after a crisis or war.

The G8: The G7/G8 has been created initially by the largest and most potent economical powers (excluding Russia & China at the time second or third world, economically) in order to coordinate the global economy. After 1989 Russia joined and the forum expanded to negotiate on a wider range policy fields. Academics have recognized the G8 as: the G8 is the only permanent global concert of great powers New perspectives on global governance: why America needs the G8 by Michele Fratianni Page 84.

The G7/G8 has been described by academics as a group hegemon, that shape great power interaction in contrast to most international institutions and great power collaboration. From traditional to institutionalized hegemony by Alison Bailin Page 4

An informal request wether these sources are original research has been declined by an external neutral assessor Quote: it is definitely not OR to mention the G8 in the Great power article (as there are reliable sources that discuss the G8 in the context of being a meeting of great powers). Since it is appropriate to mention the G8, it is also appropriate to illustrate the article with an image of the G8. Blueboar.

Conclusion: In the context of this article in general also recognizing the historic context of great power developments, it seems highly justified to add an information about the history of the G8 and to include a picture to illustrate its existence. Because information about other institutions (UNSC) or lists (List of great powers by date) are already included in the article, an addition of the G8 cannot be seen as single exclusive forum for Great powers, nor can the absence of powers (Russia until 90ies & China) can be interpreted as lack of information.

Furthermore, the proposed picture and its caption does not try to imply to be an ongoing forum. It specifically addresses its transformation to the G20. The G20 on the other side is not yet recognized academically, the historical judgement if the G20 can be seen as sustainable forum has yet to be decided.

Proposal: The introduction should be extended to an info about the G8. The G8 picture should be included in one of the sections or next to the lead picture. KJohansson (talk) 15:55, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

My proposal is that the article should go back to how it once was before this dispute, with the G8 image included in one of the sections on the article. I believe the G8 is relevant to this article and it is representitive of the article's subject as it is representitive of economic great powers. The United Nations Security Council image should stay where it is at the top of the article as its main image as the United Nations Security Council is representitive of diplomatic, military, and economic great powers. I am very much opposed to the inclusion of a G20 image as it comprises of some nations which are very much not great powers and are unlikely to be so any time soon. The G8 is a club of developed economic great powers while the G20 is a club of developed economic great powers and developing middle powers with emerging markets. I have seen some editors confuse middle powers for great powers when they have proposed certain countries be included on this article. Bambuway (talk) 22:22, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

It would appear that activity today has been confined to discussion here and has not spilled over into the main article, which I heartily welcome. I also think that the above contributions from Johansson and Bambuway are helpful. I recognise that there will be more text about the G8 added to the article. I am still concerned about the current status of the G8, and think that it is worth recalling this passage, added earlier by Phoenix:

Officials: G-20 to supplant G-8 as international economic council Leaders of the G-20 economic summit will announce Friday that the group will become the new permanent council for international economic cooperation, senior U.S. officials told CNN Thursday. The move comes in the wake of a major push by President Obama, the officials said. The G-20 will now essentially eclipse the G-8, which will continue to meet on major security issues but carry much less influence. "It's a reflection of the world economy today and the players that make it up," said one senior official. Nations like China, Brazil and India -- which were locked out of the more elite G-8 -- will be part of the larger group. The Group of 20 -- leaders of 20 countries representing 90 percent of the world's economic output -- are meeting in Pittsburgh for a two-day summit, focusing on the financial crisis and how to avoid a future repeat. The gathering is Obama's first time hosting a major international summit... --

The G8 has always been a primarily economic forum, so if in this role it is being eclipsed by the G20, questions still have to be asked about whether the G8 or the G20 are now the focus of great power cooperation. The presence of several indisputedly middle powers in the G20 does not bother me because unlike the G8, the G20 includes all countries that have been called great powers. Therefore I propose that we add text about the G8, with sources including the above source. In view of the pressing need for consensus, I would prefer that the G8 image were not added back, at least for now. I hope that Lear and Johansson will agree to that. Viewfinder (talk) 23:13, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd rather not have an image of the G20 on the article because there are far too many middle powers in the G20 plus it would confuse readers and would be inaccurately suggesting some middle powers are great powers and blurring the distinction between the two. If the G8 is replaced by the G20 I'd rather just have an image of the UNSC which is comprised only of great powers and is really the primary recognition of a country being a great power. If anything a G20 image belongs on the middle power article because the vast majority of G20 members are middle powers.Bambuway (talk) 01:51, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Bambuway, more than half of the G20 are middle or regional powers. There are also no sources to support the claim of a specific great power forum. More important to my eyes is, that the G8 existed over 30 years. Its an important major historical gathering and has a greater relevance. Viewfinder, the G8 did encompass a wide range of global issues, not only economy, thats what the sources proofed and thats why the sources named it "global governance" and not economic governance. Also, the discussion deals with the inclusion of the G8 and not the G20, please stick to that. The given sources deal with the G8 not the G20. If you want to add another discussion topic later on the G20 you can open one, but please stick to the central topic and the central proposal. Thanks KJohansson (talk) 03:10, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Wow I cant believe that we are finally having a cordial conversation about this subject... It's about time! Ok before I start I just want to respond to what Bambuway said:

the article should go back to how it once was before this dispute, with the G8 image included in one of the sections on the article

Actually that is incorrect. Before the dispute began the G8 was never in the article. The dispute arose because of its inclusion. My point about the G8 has been about academic sources and not the fact that it excludes China, but because it includes Canada & Italy. As Bambuway said "it would confuse readers and would be inaccurately suggesting some middle powers are great powers and blurring the distinction between the two." That is what the G8 would do. Am I wrong? But thanks again for talking to us and I honestly hope that this situation can be resolved one way or another :-) -- Phoenix (talk) 08:02, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Phoenix, the proposed pic and the caption directly transscripts the academic claim. Nobody can get confused here. Afterall the Congress of Vienna does include participants which at the time have not been considered Great power. By the way, the UNSC does not include Germany and Japan and nobody gets confused either. The reader expects to get information about great powers. The absence of the G8 and a pic is a lack of information which needs to be changed. KJohansson (talk) 18:27, 28 November 2009 (UTC)