Talk:Great power

For old version, see: History

G8

It seems Viewfinder could arrange with the idea of placing the G8 pic somewhere in the article. I think this pic is to important to leave it out. The economic power dimension must have a place in this article. KJohansson (talk) 21:33, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I have been cut off from Wikipedia for the last few days by a local internet failure. Where do you want to put the G8 image? Viewfinder (talk) 11:00, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

The G8 image could be placed next the UN SC image, in the "Status dimension" section or the "Aftermath of the Cold War" section. Lear 21 (talk) 14:42, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

If there is no other proposal, I would soon go ahead and place the pic in the status dimension section. KJohansson (talk) 20:57, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I would prefer the place next to the lead image. Lear 21 (talk) 01:17, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I remain opposed to the G8 image considering that not all G8 members are great powers and the inclusion of the image will infer that they are. Moreover, it has been widely stated that the P5 was created specifically for the "great powers" while I cannot find an RS that attests to the same for the G8. Nirvana888 (talk) 02:17, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

The references on the G8 status are convincing and reliable. The article here does not reflect reality nor does it address the theme comprehensively nor does it address its own introduction. This contradicts Wikipedia manual of style. The article has to change and needs an update. Lear 21 (talk) 02:41, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I have not seen a single one. Please show one that says being a member of the G8 makes one a Great Power. Sources have been provided showing such for the 5 permanent members of the Security Council. -- Phoenix (talk) 05:29, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

The references have been provided several times by now. No need for a third or fourth time. The references cite that Great powers gather at G8. The same is said and referenced for the Congress of Vienna meeting, where several non Great powers attended. Go ahead KJohansson, here are three out of 5 editors who back up, the countless refs cannot be denied anymore and the similar quality compared to other historic gatherings is unquestionable. Lear 21 (talk) 01:46, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Your sources prove that there are Great Powers in the G8 not that being in the G8 makes one a Great Power. You challenges me to provide sources citing that being one of the 5 permanent members of the Security Council made one a Great Power and I sourced them for you... If you cant reciprocate then you have no sources that back up your claim... sorry. -- Phoenix (talk) 05:14, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

The G8 is nothing else than a permanent Congress of Vienna in the current era. It gathers (gathered) the most potent economic powers of the current era. Like the Congress it gathered the most significant powers of the time and few lesser powers. The double standards taken in this discussion can´t be justified and are irrational and non-historical. Lear 21 (talk) 15:11, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I still disagree as I have seen no source that says membership makes one a great power. But since others seam to disagree and wish for a representation of modern economic might, I have changed it to the G20 as it has all the Great Powers and has been talked about as an addition before. This way it does not exclude any Great Power and might actually include future Great Powers. But that is the future and we wont really know until it become the past :-P -- Phoenix (talk) 05:15, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Please start a new topic, if changes to this article appear to be necessary. Lear 21 (talk) 22:08, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

G8/G20

There has been some disagreement over whether the G8 or G20 images are appropriate. Both sides have their merits and demerits. The G8 and G20 both technically represent economic powers though the former is more exclusive and less representative. Though above all one would ask, why either picture belongs anywhere when there is virtually no mention of either groups in the article itself? I would suggest removing the disputed images if considerable differences arise. Nirvana888 (talk) 22:13, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

You are kidding, right? Only a week or so you voted against G8 because two of the members are not typical full great powers. Now you want an image were 13 members aren not recognized. Give me a break. You continue the untrustworthy argumentation I always suspected. The Viewfinder compromise was pretty good. KJohansson (talk) 01:29, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I won't fault you for your unrefined English language ability if it is not your native language but you should have realized that it was a rhetorical question. That is to say, if the G20 has all the great power is not listed why should the G8 which does not have all the great power be included? Simply put, neither have academic sources that confirm great power status. Nirvana888 (talk) 15:22, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that either one should be listed as there is no academic source that states that links ones Great Power status to the G8. If there was Italy & Canada would be considered one. But if people don't wish to go by academic research I would feel better with the G20 as they consist of all the Great Powers & it shows economic power heavily influenced by the Great Powers with all but Russia being in the top. -- Phoenix (talk) 04:35, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I think that the G8 image can be justified in the status section on the grounds that great economic power has been wielded by the G8 for several decades. This is at least implicitly supported by sources which call the G8 a "conference of Great Powers". How about having both the G8 and G20 images, but with reduced resolutions so as not to take up undue space? Viewfinder (talk) 05:13, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

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... -- Phoenix (talk) 06:49, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Helpful passage, thanks Phoenix. Although the article is about both the past and the present, and for about 40 years the G8 were the economic power, it indicates that the G8 is no longer a great economic power. Viewfinder (talk) 10:07, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I want to point out that in no place does it talk about Great Powers. It only states that the G8 is no longer the centre of power & attention, that is now the G20. -- Phoenix (talk) 12:06, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The G8 has become an almost historically relevant image. The references have been given (group hegemony) to underline it´s position. Even more important, the G8 covered all issues of global governance whereas the G20 deals truly only with economic issues. @phoenix: right now your standpoint cannot be identified, your arguing for the G20 and or the removal of G8 at the same time. It contradicts itself. Lear 21 (talk) 14:24, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

As has been repeated stated, the UNSC and Congress of Vienna are discussed in the article as important to the term "great power" hence why there is an image. The G8/G20 are not discussed in the article despite whether you think they constitute group of great powers so they should not be included. Frankly, this asinine back and forth discussion has run its course and we really should move on. Nirvana888 (talk) 15:06, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Lear 21 it is simple. Please provide academic sources backing your claim. You challenged me to do so with the Congress of Vienna and I provided them to you. You did the same with the Permanent members of the UN security council and I did so. So I now challenge you to do the same. How about this, is there a subgroup within the G8 that is only allowed for countries considered Great Powers like the UNSC P5?Please provide these sources or this article is going to make claims that are just not viable.... How about this, is there a photo containing only countries considered Great Powers when the photo was taken? That would be Great to find. -- Phoenix (talk) 21:40, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

An article has to address its scope laid out in the introducion. The introduction claims several power dimensions of which at least to are not mentioned or addressed in the article. It seems ther is still a misunderstanding of how an article works in Wikipedia. A simple example: Does has an article about the UN have to show all members at all images ? Does an article about apple (the fruit) has to display apples and only apples in order to illustrate a subject ? Of course not ! The article here has to explain the term great power in a comprehensive manner. Right now it is not more than a list of great powers plus few images mostly concentrating on few occasions in history. Where are, for example, images of the axis powers during the WW2, namely Germany, Itlay, Japan ? Where are they. This article here lacks a massive amount information. The G8 image will overcome at least the defiencies in terms of economic great/major power dimensions. Lear 21 (talk) 01:38, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Does [an] article about the UN have to show all members at all images Well if you don't think an article about the UN doesn't have to show images... Then why do you think that this article needs to have an image about a different subject? -- Phoenix (talk) 02:21, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Its pretty exhausting to talk to people who neither are able to read or to comprehend. I almost come to the conclusion that Phoenix just doesn´t have the intelligence to understand what pictures like the G8 can transport. Whatever. KJohansson (talk) 13:21, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

KJohansson, what did we say about personal attacks? They are not tolerated here. You have repeatedly been incivil towards other editors and your flippant remark of "Phoenix just doesn´t have the intelligence to understand" is offensive. Since you have proven yourself incapable of being civil and heeding good-faith warnings there is no use responding to your replies. We should ignore such editors in the future.Nirvana888 (talk) 13:44, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Was that a new argument? 92.225.150.45 (talk) 17:56, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I completely agree with the above contribution from Nirvana. If it were up to me, editors like KJohansson would be given indefinite blocks, reversible only on apologetic application. Viewfinder (talk) 06:02, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Could I suggest that we add something like this to the text of the status section: For several decades, the G8 was considered to be a Great Powers' conference (Lear's references), although not all Great Powers were included and not all participants were considered to be Great Powers. Recently the G8 has been eclipsed by the G20 (Officials: G-20 to supplant G-8 as international economic council), which includes all the Great Powers and several middle powers. The G20 image would then fit. I think we can adequately reference this, and it seems that it would end the on-going edit conflict. But please don't add this to the article until Phoenix and Nirvana have responded. Viewfinder (talk) 14:34, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

@Viewfinder: The compromise attempts are truly appreciated. The G8 image though has the unique advantage of representing a concert of economic great powers (economic dimension) discussing all global issues. The G20 is rather a meeting of several national economies deciding on economic issues. Considering the actions and argumentations of the 2 Wikipedia accounts Nirvana888 and Phoenix79 I have come to the conclusion to seen below. all the best Lear 21 (talk) 15:02, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm all for reaching an agreement but we cannot do so by edit warring and pushing a POV. Disputes are only resolved after sometimes lengthy discussion. I think a ground rule should be patient and keep a cool head. Personally, I don't think either G8/G20 belong since no academic literature supporting great power status and those groups have been provided. I don't particularly like the CNN source since media reports are often not authoritative. But I am willing to work out a compromise and Viewfinder's proposal is a good first step.Nirvana888 (talk) 15:23, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

ref1[1]

Source does not talk about "Great Powers" it says that in 1976 (the G7) included democratic Canada as a new major power in the world Are you saying that Major Power = Great Power?? If so then there are about 30 other countries that should be included in this article... -- Phoenix (talk) 09:01, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

ref2[2],

Great Source... for the G8 article. I liked the read but it is not about Great Powers... Please add to the G8 article where it belongs. -- Phoenix (talk) 09:01, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

ref3[3],

Another source that talks about the G8 but not one mention about the topic of this article Great power Please find sources about Great power not G8 -- Phoenix (talk) 09:01, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

ref4[4]

While annoying that you actually cant read the entire article this again is about G8 another academic topic that is separate from Great powers -- Phoenix (talk) 09:01, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

ref5[5]

You specifically searched for "G8" "MAJOR powers" I know that English is not your primary language. Not a diss in the least I wish that I was as proficient at German as you are at English. But there is a difference. Major Powers are not Great Powers but are any country ranging from Middle power Great power to Superpower. This is specific about Great powers, the middle of the three. There is only one mention of great powers in this book and it is not in reference to the G8 but the decline of public health in great powers after WWII. -- Phoenix (talk) 09:01, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

ref6[6]

Interesting Read. Nothing about Great Powers of course. But it says things like The G8 is seen mostly as a club of the rich North, predominantly concerned with its interests and values. But as the article states and goes on to prove the G8 is a logical consequence of complex interdependence and multipolarity in a world polity still dominated by nation-states. This is article shows that the G8 has nothing to do with the Great Powers. Thanks :-) -- Phoenix (talk) 09:01, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

ref7[7]

Yet again not a single word about Great Powers. It talks about the evolution of the G7 into the G8 and what it should become in the future. -- Phoenix (talk) 09:01, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

ref8[8]

This is the ONLY article that actually mentions the Great powers in any meaningful sense. Its conclusions are that the G7 - G8 shape(ed) great power interaction in contrast to most international institutions that govern specific issue-areas and facilitates great power collaboration and that in the end the great powers cooperated to support the US-created Western order. This article needs to be reviewed more closely but is it saying that Italy and Canada are Great Powers? Is it saying that the G7-G8 was used as a vessel for the France UK & US to communicate at first (Germany and Japan were not Great Powers in the 70's) and later allow them to also drive the conversation... Please others read this and lets try to figure out if this source is sufficient. -- Phoenix (talk) 09:01, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

"shape great power interaction...collaboration" does not intimate the G8 being a group of great powers. In other world, the author's thesis is that the G7 was in important institution for the great powers when it was create. Lear 21, I know you are trying to push your POV but mindlessly googling g8 and pasting the first few links here won't suffice. Look we are not here to say whether the G7/8 was important or not. It clearly was significant for some time after it was created. But does it represent a group of great powers as it is defined in this article? The answer would tend to be no. Else, one would be apt to adding countless other images such as G20, NATO, WTO, IMF, World Bank etc etc as it is reasonable to suggest that they also influenced great power interaction. Nirvana888 (talk) 12:41, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

ref9[9]

Wow out of the 9 you provided this is the only other one that talks about Great powers. But it seams to be talking about the Great powers within the G8 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 globel governance as a result. A point that I have made before -- Phoenix (talk) 09:01, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Lear 21 (talk) 22:15, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Conclusion

1. Evidence has been provided to support the view that claims in the introduction of this article are not sufficiently addressed and would be improved/updated by the inclusion, the mentioning, due to an image of the G8. It has been rejected by the accounts Nirvana888 and Phoenix79 without counter arguments

Really??? Have you ever checked the talk page before? Each one has been countered 16:48, 10 October 2009 Nirvana888 19:27, 17 October 2009 Phoenix79 and from what I can tell those two times are the only time that you have posted sources, aside from the one that I have just now replied to! -- Phoenix (talk) 09:01, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

2. Credible evidence to justify G8 inclusion, has been rejected by the accounts Nirvana888 and Phoenix79

WP:BURDEN is upon you and up until now you have provided sources that violate WP:OR WP:SYN and are about other subjects entirely. -- Phoenix (talk) 09:01, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

3. Majority consensus by three editors has been rejected by the accounts Nirvana888 and Phoenix79 without counter arguments

Wrong Two editors agree (yourself and KJohansson) two editors disagree and one editor is trying to work at a compromise (Viewfinder). There is a distinct difference. -- Phoenix (talk) 09:01, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

4. Comparable articles layout such as superpower as model for visual representation have been rejected by the accounts Nirvana888 and Phoenix79 without counter arguments

This article is about Great Powers not Superpowers... If you have images containing ,modern Great powers together please provide them. The Special Relationship article does not show the G8 in it even though both the UK & the US are in the G8... It just does not make sense. -- Phoenix (talk) 09:01, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

5. Several compromise attempts have been rejected by the accounts Nirvana888 and Phoenix79 without counter arguments or alternative proposals

See post 1. Alternative proposal has been given before but you rejected both. -- Phoenix (talk) 09:01, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

6. Inconsistent and arbitrary argumentation, sometimes pro image, sometimes contra G8 on a varying base of standpoints have been conducted by the without answering

Consistent. Your referring to your Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point tactic, saying that if the G8 cannot be included then the academically sourced images of the Congress of Vienna and UN Security Council needed to be removed also. Very uncool. (Talk:Great power/Archive 11#Image Congress of Vienna Talk:Great power#2. proposal - Arbitrary section break - Part I Talk:Great power#G8 Talk:Great power#G8 image Talk:Great power#Outdated and insufficient article) Talk about answering your charges... Damn we have spent the last few months doing that! -- Phoenix (talk) 09:01, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

This leads to the following conclusion, the edits of the mentioned 2 accounts have prevented this article from being updated on a factbased, rationale argumention which would be in line with all Wikipedia policies and even more important would be in line the introduction the article itself.

The two accounts violating several policies and Manual of style recommendations of Wikipedia and can be considered disruptive. These actions seem unlikely to change because of fundamentalist opposition. User Lear 21 will ensure therefore a constant update on this article in the upcoming months and asks all responsible editors to do so as well. Lear 21 (talk) 14:56, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

To be quite frank, your account of what has happened is only true in your head. There can be also very strong statements made about your continuing to edit war and push a POV. I suggest you cool down and try to resolve this by discussion not unilateral edits. Remember disputes are not settled after you think you are right or after you leave a message on the talk but after consensus is reached. Nirvana888 (talk) 15:19, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

The changes are not unilateral, instead the changes are backed by majority, backed by endless references, backed by common sense, backed by flexible argumentation and proposals. Because all possible attempts have been initiated to convince the accounts Nirvana888 and Phoenix79 a change of mind is not likely. Lear 21 (talk) 15:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Lear, please could you reproduce specific passages from the above references which, in your opinion, support your claim that the G8/G20 are relevant to this article. I realise that you may have done this already in earlier discussion, but some of us are still not convinced. That the G8 membership does not accurately match our list of Great Powers today does not necessarily render the G8 irrelevant. Viewfinder (talk) 08:40, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

In the context of this article, all of these references support the thesis of a global governance conducted by the major/leading/great/decicive/economic/industrial powers of the time from 1975-2007.Lear 21 (talk) 11:09, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

A vague answer. Please supply specific passages in support of your case instead of pushing your case in the article; this unilateral edit, which put the G8 image right at the top of the article, was not helpful and I too would have reverted it. Come to think if it, I would have reverted you even if you had restored the G8 image to the status section because you have not supplied the material requested. Viewfinder (talk) 12:43, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Give it up Lear, these guys piss at your ref and laugh their ass off. You could bring 100 sources written by Nobleprize winners talking about the G8 as a concert of great powers, they would reject it. You could proof 1 + 1 = 2 , they would reject it. These guys don´t even understand how to handle pictures including a caption. The only way is to put the pic in on a regular basis. KJohansson (talk) 18:24, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Cultural dimension is missing

The introduction claims a cultural impact as a hallmark of a Great power. This is not addressed in the article. Lear 21 (talk) 16:00, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

We are going round in circles this argument has already been stated. If you are not a WP:Troll, please do not create multiple topics that will only lead to a rehash of a previous discussion. Future occurrences will be re-factored or removed. Frankly, we've been very patient with your disruptive behavior. I am a little surprised you've not been given a long-term block already. I think the best course of action is not to get embroiled with this further. Request third party mediation if you feel like you have a strong point. Nirvana888 (talk) 12:49, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

The problem has been solved. The unreferenced claims form intro are removed. Therefore the need to establish a culture section is dissolved. all the best Lear 21 (talk) 21:33, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Economic dimension is missing

The introduction claims an economic impact as a hallmark of a Great power. This is not addressed in the article. Lear 21 (talk) 16:00, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

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

The problem has been solved. The unreferenced claims form intro are removed. Therefore the need to establish a culture section is dissolved. all the best Lear 21 (talk) 21:33, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

The EU is missing

The European Union is often cited as global power, emerging superpower, major power, influential power, economic superpower. Yet the article does not recognize this status in an updated manner. Lear 21 (talk) 16:07, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

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

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" [10] 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: [11] 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 [12]. 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 [13] 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)