Talk:Great power/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

Possible addition as Japan and India as Great Powers?

Okay, for a while, I've been doing more research for the Potential Superpower page to add more for the Subsections. During that time, as I've been reading books by Parag Khanna and Fareed Zakaria, they all seem to mention India or Japan as big or major powers in the world. Here are some sources, [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]. Just some sources to consider, there are probably more reliable ones including books. So, should we include India and Japan as great powers, or just keep it the way it is now? Deavenger (talk) 20:48, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Japan is already listed as a great power (albeit more so in the economic sphere). Of the sources you posted, only Robert Kagan seems to lump India as great power. However, it is unclear how he defines "great power" as he also groups Europe, Iran, Brazil and "other powers" as great powers. It appears that he terms any power with regional influence as a "great power". We should wait for more experts to acknowledge the existence of other great powers. By this same token, the consensus is that the US is still the sole superpower and thus this is reflected on the superpower article although Parag Khanna believes that the EU and China are current superpowers. Nirvana888 (talk) 01:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

This diff may be useful. --Joshua Issac (talk) 20:32, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll look into it and as Hobie. Though some of the great powers that are listed aren't listed any more, perhaps we can bring in some subsections to the article. Deavenger (talk) 21:00, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Made some additions/changes

I've made some additions and changes to the article, effectively establishing a coherent timeline of great powers since 1815. David (talk) 02:48, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Would people mind if I changed the timeline so it started in 1648 with the end of the Thirty Years' War because that's when the Swedish Empire officially became a great power and I think that we should list every state considered a great power ( plus I'd do a favor for my country:P ) Swedish pirate (talk) 20:37, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

It says at the top of the page: "This article is about great powers in the modern (post-1815) world. For nation-states wielding similar power before 1815, see Historical powers." Therefore, mention and discussion of Sweden should be included in that article. Nirvana888 (talk) 20:50, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Okey Swedish pirate (talk) 20:55, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Add Italy and Canada to list of "economic great powers"

Surely their membership in the G8 along with Germany and Japan (which are listed) and the permanent UNSC members (excluding China) qualifies them as "economic great powers"? Fishal (talk) 07:35, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

This article is quite simple in its Goal, it is about Great Powers. It is not about Superpowers, not about Middle Powers and it is not about potential Great Powers. We are not here to Create our own opinions and post it on Wikipedia, it is actually officially banned:

Wikipedia:No original research : Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position

we must also avoid creating our own conclusions by doing research here and drawing our own conclusions from them:

Synthesis of published material which advances a position : Material published by reliable sources can inadvertently be put together in a way that constitutes original research. Synthesizing material occurs when an editor comes to a conclusion by putting together different sources. If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion, or if the sources cited are not directly related to the subject of the article, then the editor is engaged in original research.

We should also not post opinions about what may happen in the future, because one can never know what tomorrow brings:

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball : Articles that present extrapolation, speculation, and "future history" are original research and therefore inappropriate. While scientific and cultural norms continually evolve, we cannot anticipate that evolution but must wait for it to happen. Of course, we do and should have articles about notable artistic works, essays, or credible research that embody predictions. [..] "Future history" is welcome at Future Wikia, where original research is allowed to some extent and fact-based speculations are welcome.

As you see official policies are in agreement. We should only use Academic accredited sources that we can cite via Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability. Do you have any sources that back that opinion? -- Phoenix (talk) 08:51, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Italy and Canada are no where near the economic might of either Japan (world's second largest economy) or Germany (world's largest exporter). Further, Germany and Japan are being mentioned in the proposed expansion of permanent membership of the UN Security Council, something which neither Italy or Canada are. David (talk) 14:38, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

My thought was simply that the "Group of 8 major industrialized economies" is certainly an exclusive group limited to the most influential economies in the world, and that membership in that group represents a certain level of economic power. Including some G8 members but not others strikes me as more subjective than including the entire group. Fishal (talk) 02:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

It's not our thoughts that matter. I haven't yet seen a single source that says Italy is a great power. India and Saudi Arabia were part of the g-20, something that's very influential. Saudi Arabia can easily control oil prices like other countries, but it's still not considered a great power. It's not our thoughts that matter. Deavenger (talk) 02:59, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Wikipedia's main task is to be an encyclopedia and to help those that so wish to do further research via the sources given. If the sources are unreliable or not verifiable they should not be used. Personal opinions or drawing conclusions from other sources to prove a point are also not allowed via WP:OR & WP:SYN.

It is not for us to report on personal opinions drawn from anecdotal evidence. We are merely here to report what the experts believe. -- Phoenix (talk) 03:12, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Relax - I merely proposed something I thought was relevant. I know how Wikipedia works and do not need the policy lectures. If I happen to find a source equating the G8 with "economic great powers" I will include it. Don't worry about my making vast unsubstantiated changes to the article. Fishal (talk) 04:43, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

No worries, if you read the history you will see that there have been endless debates around similar situations before. If it sounds like were lecturing, that was not our intent; we only wish to educate those that may be unaware of whats appropriate in an encyclopedia :-) -- Phoenix (talk) 05:27, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Germany, Italy, Japan and India

Forasmuch as today economic power is more important than military power and the competition is mainly through soft power, Germany, Italy and Japan are current great power and not only economic great power. India is a current great power too. I work for this. Poti —Preceding undated comment was added at 09:31, 25 November 2008 (UTC).

Sorry Poti, but your new source does not indicate that Italy is a current great power. It says, "During the Cold War it was possible (though difficult) to argue that the behavior of great powers such as Britain, France, Japan, Italy, and West Germany did in fact represent balancing". Furthermore, there are recent statements from reliable sources that corroborated that Italy is not a great power. Nirvana888 (talk) 09:50, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Nirvana, but this is your (respectable or not) opinion. But we should only use accredited sources as those, very numerous, produced in these discussion pages, thanks to overtime of ACamposPinho, Lorenzop, - Izzo, HadrianX, Potito m. petrone, Chanakyathegreat and many others. Atlantix —Preceding undated comment was added at 11:54, 25 November 2008 (UTC).

This is getting ridiculous. Italy is not a great power. The recent edits are bordering vandalism of what is otherwise a concise and descriptive article. Suggesting that Italy is a great power because it has the world's 8th highest quality of life or whatever - how is that anything to do with being a great power? Being a member of the G8 does not make one a great power, only one of the top 8 industrialised nations of the Western world. Further, Italy has only the world's 10th largest economy. Etc, etc. This edit war frankly needs to stop and I will request "outside help" (wiki admins and the like) if it doesn't. David (talk) 12:32, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

sr dpaajones your ignorance doesn't know limits.Italñy is a power economy and military, the seventh gdp in the world 1 United States 14,330,000 2 Japan 4,844,000 3 China (PRC) 4,222,000 4 Germany 3,818,000 5 France 2,978,000 6 United Kingdom 2,787,000 7 Italy 2,399,000 8 Russia 1,757,000 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)

, the fifth country for export volume superior to Great Britain,

1 Germany 1,530,000 2008 est.

2 China (PRC) 1,465,000 2008 est.

3 United States 1,377,000 2008 est.

4 Japan 776,800 2008 est.

5 France 629,700 2008 est.

6 Italy 566,100 2008 est.

7 Netherlands 537,500 2008 est.

8 Russia 476,000 2008 est.

9 United Kingdom 468,700 2008 est

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2078rank.html

the eighth military inversor

1 United States 547.0 2 United Kingdom 59.7 3 China 58.3 4 France 53.6 5 Japan 43.6 6 Germany 36.9 7 Russia 35.4 8 Saudi Arabia 33.8 9 Italy 33.1 10 India 24.2 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2034rank.html http://www.armscontrolcenter.org/policy/securityspending/articles/fy09_dod_request_global/ http://www.scribd.com/doc/5207716/Budget-Difesa-ITALIA-2008

and the ninth country for arm trade

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

and you tell me about vandalism?where are you from?American?where are the guns sold to the supermarket and its roads they seem bagdad?or English the state with more homicide than the whole European union?what a shame of page..however i change the page another time..India and Italy are economic powers and for more I believe that Italian navy and air foirce are superior to german navy and air force. and if WE wanted indeed to give a sense to this page I ask the intervention of a moderator that considers the article of encarta or that at least turns on The TV.Italy Results to Be The Sixth Country Of the G8 Ed it Has The right To Be classified As Economic Power. NIRVANA 81

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.35.9.14 (talk) 11:59, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there is vandalism here, but there is plenty of nationalist POV pushing on both sides. The term "Great Power" is peacock and archaic. The List of countries by military expenditure shows that there is one superpower and several middle powers. Viewfinder (talk) 13:13, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

How is there "nationalist POV pushing on both sides"?! There's some pro-Italy-is-a-great-power users and then there's everyone else who recognises that Italy is not a great power (in the present era). As for "great power" being peacock/archaic terminology, that's only partially true. There are definitely countries which still wield considerable, independent power in this day and age, which can be differentiated from those countries that do not. The five permanent members of the security council, which are also more-or-less the five largest economies and have (legal) nuclear weapons, are today's great powers. And the article does recognise the superpowers (and changes to which countries are described as being such) since WWII - Britain, USSR and USA in 1945 to just the USA in today's world. David (talk) 13:32, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I see pro-British POV pushing too. See the positions of Japan and Germany at the List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal). I doubt if legal nuclear weapons and permanent UN security council membership gives significantly more clout in the modern world. Viewfinder (talk) 13:47, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

That the power wielded by the United Kingdom and France can be "definitely differentiated" from Germany and Italy is a point of view, even though the authors of some external sources agree with that point of view. Viewfinder (talk) 14:00, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

One more comment: it would be better if the pro-Italian POV pushers could list the sources that support their claim here on the talk page, instead of incorrectly editing the main article. Viewfinder (talk) 14:27, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Again, per Wikipedia policy that Phoenix and others succinctly referred to in the above discussion, our personal viewpoints (whether one is nationalistic or not) do not have any merit in terms of what states are and aren't considered great powers. We are listing states as great powers based solely on expert opinion from reliable sources. Unless you have credible source and explicitly states that a nation/entity is a great power, please do not start further discussion on why you think Italy or Canada or India or any other state deserves to be a great power. Nirvana888 (talk) 16:46, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Viewfinder it is not a point of view, it is reality that Britain and France wield more power. The fact that they are UN Security Council members means they can veto any significant international agreement. They have nuclear weapons and defence budgets and capabilities that far exceed Germany or Italy. Try to open your eyes to reality. Colliver55 (talk) 16:50, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Also if you think the term Great Power is archaic that is your point of view but is of no consequence, as most academics and experts do use the term. Colliver55 (talk) 16:53, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Until a state is a permanent member of the UN Security Council - the world's most powerful organisation, it cannot be a great power. Colliver55 (talk) 16:56, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

At that point there, on the UN security council, I think that it takes more then membership on the UN security council to be a great power. It just happens that the permanent members of the UNSC are great powers.

Anyway, the sources that are being posted do not say that India or Italy are great powers. It's easy to make like a country is a great power like this.

This country has the 9th largest military in the world by active troops (larger then Japan, Germany, Italy) and 15th overall (larger then the countries listed here). This country also has made N-11, or the next 11 largest emerging economy. It also has a higher growth rate then Japan, Germany, Italy, and France. This country is also an elected UNSC member.

Second country has the 10th largest economy in the world, beating Russia. In growth rate, it beats all other Great and Superpower countries except for China and Russia. This country has the world's 17th largest military by active troops, and 10th overall, and is part of BRICs.

Can you guess what countries these are? First one is Turkey, second one is Brazil. These look like great qualifications for Great Power status. I could throw in sources that say that these two countries are Major powers (which I'm guessing is more like Regional Powers), CIA world factbook, and basically make it look like the facts are right without a single expert saying that Turkey or Brazil is a great power. I have yet to see a source that say Italy, Turkey, or Brazil are great powers. India is not a great power. It's considered both a potential superpower and a potential great power, but from what I read, I'm going more towards potential great power. Deavenger (talk) 00:48, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

It just happens that the permanent members of the UNSC are great powers. I agree and we are not here to say what is or isn't, that is WP:SYN. We are only reporting what the experts say and lets keep it at that. Thanks Deavenger for the example of what WP:SYN can create :-) -- Phoenix (talk) 00:57, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

• "It just happens that the permanent members of the UNSC are great powers." That is your POV which some writers share. Not all experts agree, see [9].

• "most academics and experts do use the term". Colliver, can you substatiate that claim? I often listen to the BBC World Service but have never heard the term Great Power used there, at least not in a modern sense.

• "(Britain and France) have defence budgets and capabilities that far exceed Germany or Italy". Go back to List of countries by military expenditure and substitute "United States" for the former and add Britain and France to the latter.

• "Try to open your eyes to reality". An unnecessary and unhelpful sentence, Colliver, and an example of the disrespect that some contributors to this page show towards those who take positions other than theirs. These contributors are using threats and accusations of vandalism to suppress such positions.

Viewfinder (talk) 01:30, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

That is your POV which some writers share. Not all experts agree, see [10] I never said that was fact. It's my own personal opinion. Oh, and [11].

I often listen to the BBC World Service but have never heard the term Great Power used there, at least not in a modern sense. BBC is a news source. Articles like these require Academic sources written by academics and experts on the subject. On certain cases, we use news sources because some expert might actually write about that. But otherwise, we use academic sources. It's even stated in Wikipedia's reliable sources page.

Go back to List of countries by military expenditure and substitute "United States" for the former and add Britain and France to the latter.. One, U.S is a superpower, SUPERPOWER. Britain and Francea are considered Great Powers, then you look at his sentence again of "(Britain and France) have defence budgets and capabilities that far exceed Germany or Italy", it would be correct according to the link you provided.

and an example of the disrespect that some contributors to this page show towards those who take positions other than theirs. These contributors are using threats and accusations of vandalism to suppress such positions. And you're doing the same thing. When we say something you don't like, you accuse us of pushing POV. Like David, he stated something, and you accussed us of pushing British POV. Guess what, the people trying to add Italy as add as a great power were told, those sources explicity state Italy as a great power, let's discuss this on the talk page, please get consensus. They still have yet to put any reliable sources. You also accuse this page of being Great Power" is peacock and archaic term when you said in the same comment that there's only one superpower and many middle powers, which is also a peacock and arachaic term. Deavenger (talk) 05:47, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

"You're doing the same thing" With all due respect, Deavanger, I am not accusing my adversaries of vandalism or threatening to report them. Can you supply evidence that "most academics" use the term Great Power in a modern sense? Perhaps superpower is also peacock but in the post-1945 world it was applied by commentators to the USA and USSR far more often than Great Power was applied to any country. Viewfinder (talk) 06:13, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Viewfinder: the term "Great Power" is peacock and archaic.

However if must be used, in according to many sources that were brought in these discussion pages, today Italy is a Great power - and not only Economic great power (and so also Germany and Japan are Great powers just right as UK and France) (.....) mass forum conversation deleted by Phoenix per WP:NOT - Poti

Thank you for your contribution Poti; in my opinion, if my country is a Great Power, then so is yours. But Wikipedia is not about our opinion, it is what is stated by respected sources. Until you can find a respected source that states that Italy is a great power, then I do not think other editors will accept your claim. Viewfinder (talk) 10:01, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Per WP:NOT and the notification on this talk page listed above stating This is not a forum for general discussion of Great powers. Any such messages will be deleted. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. Mass WP:OR conversation removed, please don't get upset, and please keep this in mind in the future and not use this talk page as a forum. -- Phoenix (talk) 10:08, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

For Viewfinder. [12], article was reviewed by Peter Howard. Ignore the title, [13], as he calls Russia a superpower in the title then continually refers to it as a Great Power. [14]. I read this book, the authors continually talk about how America needs to work the the great powers in the world. In the book, she calls them both Great and Pivotal powers. [15]. A CFR debate, talking about shifting Global Power Dynamics. They talk about the idea of how all the great powers and U.S should form a G-6 or something of th likes. [16] Book reviews by the new America foundation. Go down to where they're reviewing Robert Kagan's pamphlet. Just some sources.

And Poti, those sources do not say Italy is a great power. It is just a bunch of facts made to look nice and leading to WP:SYN. I could easily make it look like Turkey, Brazil, or even South Korea look like Great powers. But does that make them great powers, no. It takes more then us to say, hey, it's part of NATO, it has a good economy, it's part of G-8, it looks like it has a good military, therefore, it's a great power. You need to have actual academics and experts saying, let's look at the facts here, _______ is good while _______ is good, etc. etc etc. Otherwise, it's WP:SYN. Deavenger (talk) 14:16, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Obviously there must be a mistake.

I would like to thank ACamposPinho, Lorenzop, - Izzo, Hadrian1, Philip Baird Shearer, Kayac1971, Chanakyathegreat and many others for the important research material produced in these discussion's pages - Great powers. I would like to thank Viewfinder too for your reason.

Thanks anyway to everybody – in particular UKPhoenix79, Nirvana888, Colliver55, Deavenger (in Italian Language Commarelle) – for the kind assistance. I go to work. Potito m. petrone (talk) 16:36, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I gave up since there are too many British nationals here and they seem to run the place. Also one of them said "if the country is not on the UNSC, it's not a great power". So how do I argue with that? Personally, the UNSC is just the victors of WW2 and won't change until the next big one. HadrianX --76.67.13.253 (talk) 01:04, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Someone here says that being part of the G-8 is being one of the countries with more quality of life and it isn't about power. This is false, quality of life isn't issue to be part of the G-8, because Russia wouldn't be in the group and many countries could aplly, like Sweden, Netherlands, Switzerland and so on.

G-8 is about power, at least economical power.

Other says that Turkey could be also a Great Power, because it's part of the G-20, but then you are enlarging the group. Great powers are only a few- not 20, next we could have the G-33, the G-77 or all the nations that are on the UN.

And you can't compare Turkey to Italy. Turkey has a relativelly small GNP/GDP, specially for a country of more than 70 million people. Before Turkey could be considered a Great Power, we would have Spain, South Korea, Mexico, Australia and others.

Turkey is definitely a case of a middle power-economically, militarlly and in power projection.

You also says Italy isn't a candidate for the UNSC like the G-4 but it managed to block the G-4 bid for permanent seats and only Japan, Germany and probably India in a near future could be members by own merit. Brazil was more of a candidate because of it's position and relative regional power, it was a great candidate of South America but globally Italy is more important, in terms of economic size, export power, number of multinational big companies and even militar power- Italy is a big contributor to Nato and UN Peace Keeping missions. ACamposPinho 01:09, 3 December 2008

Then bring some sources that with experts saying Italy is a great power. If we do it the way the other people wanted to do it, we could MAKE it look like half the world is a great powre. Like you said, Turkey and brazil aren't great powers. Brazil at most would be a potential great power while Turkey is a middle power. But using Cia world factbook, which lists a whole bunch of facts like quality of life, economic growth,whatever. It doesn't do any analysis like saying, hey, ______ has great potential to be a ____ due to ____,____, etc. ________, an expert in Polisci, IR, geopolitcs also believes that this country is a _______ power due to _______, ______, etc. Otherwise, using CIA world factbook it's all WP:SYN. We could believe whatever we want to believe, as I'm pretty sure that if I put Turkey as a great power, majority of the readers who go to Wikipedia would go "hey, turkey's a great power, cool." While those who actually know something on the subject would go "wait, no. That's not right. Turkey is definatly not a great power due to _______,_______,_______. If we don't bring some actual and reliable sources, and just our own opinions with facts to back it up, this wouldn't be an encyclopedia like Wikipedia is supposed to be. Like I said before, India in my opinion is a potential great power that's basically a great power anyway. But I've don't have enough reliable sources to back it up. Deavenger (talk) 01:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

In 1914 the GDP of Italy was 1/6 of the GDP of UK and Italy was considered the “Least of Great Power” but somehow a Great Power; in 1939 the proportion between GDP was 1/3 and Italy was recognized fully a Great Power; now that Italy has ...roughly the same total and per capita output as France and the UK (CIA World Factbook) and her GDP is greater than the one of Russia, Italy is not even considered among the economical major powers! It is ridiculous that not sources can be founded in english, it is the usual prejudice of Anglo-Saxon press against the southern countries (for example when an English newspaper called Portugal, Italy, Greece and Spain the group of PIGS countries).--79.10.115.196 (talk) 17:04, 30 December 2008 (UTC)Nemesis

Whatever the logic of your analysis, no source has been found in support of Italy, but a source has been found in support of the UK and France. It will be difficult to find a source in support of Italy, because hardly any sources make specific individual claims about today's great powers. Despite all the sources that we have listed that mention Great Powers, only that one source, Encarta, makes the claim that the UK and France are Great Powers today. By contrast, several other sources that we have found directly or implicitly reject the Encarta author's POV, and include clauses such as "Britain and France have declined from their former great power status" and "there is a tendency now to refer to Britain and France as middle powers" (which is not historical). The article states that there are differences of opinion, but other editors continue to resist the introduction of the above sources into the current powers section. I am not happy about that. In particular, WP:SYN is being quoted. If a source supports A>B, and another B>C, can we use WP:SYN to claim that the citation of the two sources in support of A>C is WP:OR? I suppose that, technically, we can, but to do so is pernickety.

Incidentally, we British are not all prejudiced against "pigs" countries. Some of us think that the Greeks and Romans contributed to our civilisation and values. Viewfinder (talk) 15:02, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Belgium , Netherlands , Spain

these 3 powers at the beginning of the 1900s were considered great Powers just as the 8-nation alliance because they were paid by China during the boxer rebellion . See Boxer Protocol, this protocol was also called "Treaty of 1901, Peace Agreement between the Great Powers and China" , so Spain , netherland and Belgium should be included--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 23:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a source that directly indicates that these 3 states were considered great powers. Otherwise, your argument would only be based on OR. Nirvana888 (talk) 23:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Nirvana888. EuroHistoryTeacher: as I've mentioned to you on your talk page and some other article pages, it doesn't matter what you think is true, it matters what the reliable sources say. You are engaging in original research by interpreting the title of a treaty and extrapolating that these countries were great powers. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 00:47, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Not only that you keep on re-inserting Russia as a Great Power that has never lost its status... Are you saying that Russia was considered a Great Power in 1918? -- Phoenix (talk) 02:22, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Subsections in 'Change of great power section' need citations

The expansions to this section have gone mostly unreferenced since their creation about a month ago. Could some of the more regular (and knowledgeable) editors please work on gathering reliable sources? Thanks, Emw2012 (talk) 03:07, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok added some. Please check and add more citations if possible. Also if you wish check out Paris 1919 is actually a very good book and quite an eye opener on how the 20th century turned out the way it did. -- Phoenix (talk) 05:41, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay. I'll see if I can add more citations.Deavenger (talk) 02:10, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Again a very British POV

Many times I tried to evidence a not neutral and very British POV of this article, in fact here the Great Britain status, not only can't be absolutely discussed (even with the proof of many sources, as the Canadian Encyclopaedia, that clearly affirms that today no one among the single EU countries can be considered any more as a great powers), but Britain is always marked and evidenced more and more, over than others.

My opinions were ignored, the sources removed and I was even insulted!

Now we have two more example of this behaviour:

1) the insertion of the map where GB is signalled as the third Superpower after WWII

Why we have to insert it ?? in fact here we are speaking about Great Power…remove it please! There is an article about the Superpowers…read it if you like to see your country in a so bright place and you adore to feel great

2) Also the phrase :

“Of the five original great powers recognised in 1815, only France and the United Kingdom have maintained that status to the present day, although France was conquered and occupied during World War Two”

it is another clear indication of the POV

We know that your country was a Great Empire, but please! you have to be less entusiastic about it and more neutral, please!--87.9.48.161 (talk) 16:21, 15 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.9.48.161 (talk) 16:19, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the pro-British POV at all. How is "Of the five original great powers recognised in 1815, only France and the United Kingdom have maintained that status to the present day.." a "clear indication of the POV"? It's a fact. The UK remains a great power, as does France, to this day. The EU isn't a sovereign entity, so being a member of it doesn't diminish or remove its member states' power status (actually if anything, it allows the large EU members - Britain, Germany and France - to exert influence over the other, smaller EU member states). If the EU were a sovereign state, rather than a voluntary union of member states, then Britain and France would no longer be great powers (as they wouldn't be powers at all) and the EU would be the world's second superpower. But that's not the case. David (talk) 16:31, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Yet again I must point out that it is not a "fact" that the United Kingdom is still a Great Power. It is a subjective point of view that is supported by some authorities but rejected by others [17]. The "Great Power" concept is archaic and peacock. Viewfinder (talk) 18:01, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Moreover, an examination of the history of the article points to the possibility that it has been heavily influenced by a clique of pro-UK POV pushers, who have positively assessed the article in order to promote it. Viewfinder (talk) 18:12, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

And yet again, so is "superpower", yet academics still use it. And guess what, half the concepts on wikipedia for half the concepts on wikipedia are archaic and peacock. If you went through the actual article, then you sould know it's not a peacock term. We have sources stating great power, why it's a great power, etc. In fact, in your source, they use middle powers, another archaic and peacock term. Yet we have a page on that with sources stating middle powers and all that. If the article on the artic ocean says the artic ocean is the smallest ocean in the world. That's a peacock term according to WP:PEACOCK, yet as the page says, if it's supported by a reliable source, it's not a peacock term. As the peacock article says 'Peacock terms often reflect unqualified opinion, and usually do not help establish the significance of an article.' Seeign how it's not users coming up with this term, but academics are using it. And since there have been plenty of great powers, and they have had significance influence in International relations, it's another reason why it's not a peacock term. Since the term is used in modern day, it's not archaic. And since people are saying that it's UK POV because UK is listed as a great power, we could go find a editor working on good article review from South America or Africa to edit it to make sure they don't have any American, UK, French, Chinese, and Russian if people are so worried. Deavenger (talk) 01:02, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Everything's sourced with reliable & verifiable academic sources. Your comment about the canadian encyclopedia has been brought up before check /Archive 9 and Talk:Middle power#Delete self created list. Like I said in August Please read the article it is specific about what happened directly after WWII not the current state of nations [...] the Canadian Encyclopedia is used for France and the United Kingdom being "Current Middle powers", while the article itself clearly states it is about the early postwar years after WWII. I guess it didn't take that long for it to be brought up again. -- Phoenix (talk) 03:04, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Citations can be found in support of many peacock terms, but they are still peacock if they merely show off the subject without imparting real information. Great Power is infrequently used in a modern sense by academics. I have never heard it on the BBC. Re the Canadian encyclopedia, I responded, and will do so again: Be sure that I read the article carefully, although I concede that I missed the above thread, thank you for drawing it to my attention. Yes, the article is about what happened after WWII but it ends "there is a tendency now to refer to Britain, France, Germany and Japan as middle powers" which I take to imply that they were no longer great powers. And if they were no longer great powers "as the two superpowers emerged", surely there is an implication that they are not great powers today. Therefore I stand by the article as a valid source. This 1961 source source has also been provided, referring to a time when Britain still ruled much of the world. Read paragraph one. It states: Chancellor of the Exchequer Selwyn Lloyd, wrestled with a new economic crisis. At a luncheon of the Association of British Chambers of Commerce last week, Lloyd tacitly confessed that Britain could no longer afford the economic strain of behaving like a great power, and must cut its military expenses. Phoenix, are you going to argue that Britain is more of a great power now than it was then? Viewfinder (talk) 09:09, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again Phoenix for the link to Archive 9. It is stated here that "the UK and France have declined from their former great power status". Anyone who still thinks that Britain is more powerful now than after WW2 should also read this. So long as the pro-British POV pushers continue to aggressively, and at times without regard to civility, close ranks against those who regard UK Great Power as POV, these issues will continue to be resurrected. Viewfinder (talk) 09:30, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Aside: it seems to me that most UK politicians now recognise Salisbury's splendid isolation (a primary seed for WW1?) as history, and that their best chance of influencing the world is through the European Union and NATO. Come to think it, when did a UK politician last claim that the UK is still a great power? Viewfinder (talk) 09:36, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Your sources are speculation on what the future may hold at the time and are as valid as predictions that people have on the united states current status as a superpower. Even though these articles are in the past they are not valid since they are predictions on the future. As I have said before:

Wikipedia:No original research : Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position

Synthesis of published material which advances a position : Material published by reliable sources can inadvertently be put together in a way that constitutes original research. Synthesizing material occurs when an editor comes to a conclusion by putting together different sources. If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion, or if the sources cited are not directly related to the subject of the article, then the editor is engaged in original research.

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball : Articles that present extrapolation, speculation, and "future history" are original research and therefore inappropriate. While scientific and cultural norms continually evolve, we cannot anticipate that evolution but must wait for it to happen. Of course, we do and should have articles about notable artistic works, essays, or credible research that embody predictions. [..] "Future history" is welcome at Future Wikia, where original research is allowed to some extent and fact-based speculations are welcome.

Don't forget the large conversation also located in that archive page /Archive 9#Fascinating Convo on Viewfinder's talk page. But this is becoming a forum conversation now Bring Academic accredited sources that we can cite via Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability about the subjects otherwise this is just a WP:SYN conversation and not actually helping this article. P.S. Even though everything is sourced, I still have no idea, how is this British POV when there are other nations listed. -- Phoenix (talk) 10:19, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I reject your claim that my sources are invalid. If the UK was not a great power in 1961 then it is clearly a valid source of such a claim today. The modern Canadian source states "there is a tendency now (my italics) to refer to Britain, France, Germany and Japan as middle powers". The other two sources are near enough current.

And to repeat my question: when did you last hear the BBC or a UK politician make the claim that the UK is still a Great Power"?

Another point Phoenix - the "convo" you mention, which admittedly does contain some OR material, was on personal pages. I did not add it to the talk page of Great Power, you did. Viewfinder (talk) 11:34, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

There are sources given on the main page, do you dispute them? How can you claim that an article given in 1961 has relevance now without breaking WP:NOTCRYSTAL. If that is valid I can get a citation from 1913 saying that the UK is the most powerful country on earth with only the evil Hun to fear... Do you see my point! I did not make any claim on that convo on way or another. I said where I go it from when I originally posted it.

The BBC does use the term Great Power for current Great Powers and prospective ones and it is used by UK politician's (including the UK when he said How are we going to prevent nuclear proliferation in the world if the great powers of the world don't stand together to stop it?) now this was just a quick search and like I said before they are not academic in nature so please don't add them to the main page. -- Phoenix (talk) 21:15, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

In 1913 the UK ruled one third of the world. In 1961 she still ruled much of the world. Now she rules only a few outcrops. Whatever the letter of the technicalities you are clutching at, if the UK's great power status was being questioned by its Foreign Secretary in 1961, how can it possibly be argued that it is now undisputed? The two articles you dug out only use the term in a vague sense, without applying it to any specific countries. Hague could have been referring to the US and the EU (acting collectively, the latter is at least a Great Power). Maybe in the future US hegemony will decline and we will revert to the 19th century state of affairs, with multiple powers competing for hegemony, in which case "Great Power" will be more applicable, although imo its use will still be peacock puffery. Viewfinder (talk) 22:00, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

This is just becoming an WP:OR conversation. The UK held only a few territories in Africa 1961 and they were actually given self rule in lines with what happened in India over a decade before. The quote your citing is similar to ones that I have found that say that there is only one single great power left when they are erroneously associating Great Power with Superpower. By 1961 the UK was no longer a Superpower proven after the events of the Suez Crisis. But since the MP in question said Great Power you will never believe me. It just comes down to this Do you dispute the sources given on the article or not? -- Phoenix (talk) 22:26, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

There was considerably more territory over which Britain had sovereignty in 1961 than there is today, see [18]. The Encarta source is valid but is still the author's POV. Other authors take a different view and should also be cited. If, following the rise of the USA and USSR as superpowers, Britain became a Middle Power, then she is a middle power now. The article's relevant paragraph compromises by recognising differences of opinion about this, but, as was pointed out by the creator of this section, other parts of the article tend to present the UK's great power status as fact. I entered this conversation not so much in response to the article, but in response to claims by other contributors that the UK is an undisputed Great Power. That seems to me to be POV pushing.

Regarding my question about the BBC and UK politicians, there is still no evidence of either making a claim that Britain is still a great power, which raises questions about the "Top Importance" rating that has been given to this article. "Great Power" is subjective and the experts are divided. It is therefore a difficult subject for Wikipedia. Viewfinder (talk) 07:45, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Umh I think you are confused it is a Top Rated [Power in international relations] article and when would you ever say subjects in International relations are not disputed? The subject its self leads to contention. I haven't done anything but say give an academic accredited source that backs up your claims. So far you have brought an article regarding the post war period and a post Suez crisis article almost 50 years old. Otherwise your just making conjecture and its not keeping in line with the policies mentioned above. But I will say thanks for keeping this in the talk page and not making an edit war over this :-) believe me it is truly appreciated. But, why the focus on the UK? That still confuses me. -- Phoenix (talk) 10:17, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

The section is about the UK but the contents are more or less equally applicable to France. Here are the sources again: [19] [20] [21] [22]. I guess it is time for others to decide if they are all wholly historic and of no relevance to the present, and are therefore invalid. Viewfinder (talk) 10:48, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

The times article, it is from 1961. Since this is about U.K as a great power in the 'post cold war era', that source won't work. The one about royal navy declining is basically tlaking about the army the entire time. The only time he mentions it as a global power is at the end, and only says it can 'expect' to decline. Not that "Britain is not a great power". We all know the U.K is losing it's sphere on influence, as well as other European countries like France, but that's my opinion.

Canadian encyclopedia is refering during to the time of the Cold war, and not the post cold war which is why the conversation was started.

Out of the sources you posted, the only one that would be accurate is [23]. However, the definition given is from A dictionary of World history, and if we're going to be using this source, cite it from there, as the site it's on now seems kind of sketchy to me. That's the only source that you posted that disputes France's and UK's claim to great power status. We could make a note about that in the article. But we also have to remember something very important the the current article states 'While some nations are widely considered to be great powers, there is no definitive list, leading to a continuing debate.'. Deavenger (talk) 01:20, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Viewfinder good edit. If the sources are about the UK back then then thats where they should be placed. -- Phoenix (talk) 06:19, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

A disused and peacock expression

The expression Great Power is archaic, disused and peacock, it is still properly used only in history and can’t be applied to the world of today. You can see it in TV and newspapers, but also academics agree about that. If you still want to use it, you can’t reduce it only to the countries in the UN Security Council (in fact it represents a situation of fifty years ago). Today, in a world that is changing rapidly, we have a Superpower (sometimes also called a Hyperpower) the USA and in a quite far distance a group of still influential countries, that more or less are on the same level. If you want to find them, they are in the top ten of the major economies, and in the top ten of the military expenditures: Japan is the second economy (nominal) in the world, Germany is the third or fourth in economy (nominal) and the major exporter, India is the second for inhabitants and the fourth in GDP (PPP), Brazil and Canada are continental size countries and among the ten major economies with enormous natural resources, Italy has ...roughly the same total and per capita output as France and the UK (see CIA world factbook) and roughly the same military expenditure of Russia… --87.13.90.43 (talk) 11:13, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

In the light of recent currency fluctuations, someone might like to revise the UK's USD measured military expenditure relative to Germany, Japan and Italy. Viewfinder (talk) 14:00, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

If you think that Great power is an archaic, disused, and peacock, then you need to do some actual reading into PIIR. [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32]. And that's just some sources. I haven't even got out books yet. If you believe it's peacock, so is terms like middle power, superpower.

And for those who actually read about peacock, "peacock terms which merely promote the subject of the article without imparting real information". This is sourced article, made GA status, and imparts information. Because you believe it's a peacock term, doesn't mean it is. As for Italy, the CIA world factbook is a great source. Except for saying what's a superpower, great power, etc. It gives a whole bunch of facts of the country like economy, military, etc. If getting you're getting facts from the CIA world factbook to say what country is a great power, then it's synthesis. Bring some reliable sources saying that Italy is a great power, and we'll add it.

To the IP, India may be the 4th by PPP, but it's the 12th largest nominal. It may have the second largest population, but having a large population is an advantage and disadvantage. Some academics agree that the UNSC permanent members are great powers, some don't. Because they have the 10 largest economies doesn't mean they are great powers. It takes more then an economy to be a great power. As for military, no, Italy does not have the same military budget as Russia. If you look at it by GDP, Russia is estimated about 3.90. Italy, 1.80. If we're talking NATO members, then Italy as the smallest military budget compared to the other great powers that are NATO members. Deavenger (talk) 03:01, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Superpower is much more often used with reference to the post-WW2 and modern world, and middle power is less peacock in that it does not show off the subject to the same extent. Some of the above sources use great power in a vague sense; none of them quote a news agency or politician making the claim that the UK is a great power. Incidentally, the first source makes the claim that Japan is now a military "Great Power", in which case Japan should be promoted to the main current list of Great Powers. Great Power imparts no information in itself. It is better to state facts and let readers make up their own minds. Also, as I have earlier indicated, I get the impression that the article was given GA status by its own writers or their meatpuppets. Viewfinder (talk) 15:03, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

And there are academics who use the word great power instead of middle power instead. Because you believe it's a peacock and archaic term, doesn't mean it is. The sources I posted weren't meant to say what c ountries were great powers or not, though some of them might. You were still complaining that politicians or news sources using it. 5 of the sources I posted were from news media (one of the them is from fareedzakaria.com, and it's one of his previous articles from newsweek.)Not to mention, that because news media doesn't use it, doesn't mean the academics don't. And seeing how the articles states what's a great power, what makes a great power, and history of great powers, it wouldn't even come close to being a peacock term according to Wikipedia's definition. And considering, that in order to get GA status, you have to nominate it, and people who have worked on it cannot assess it. And since so many are complaining that they think this article is biased (or just suffer from jealousy that their country isn't up there )(see, isn't this fun, just accusing each other of being jealous, meatpuppets, etc.) I'm going to ask for a community reassessment. Deavenger (talk) 15:47, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Deavenger. He has also addressed your odd claims of "peacock" working and bias. I am one of the editors who helped make the article a GA. All important facts have been cited and effort was made to make it as neutral as possible (hence the GA). If you look back in the archives, you will see that the article was assessed by an independent editor. Nirvana888 (talk) 16:13, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Still, I'm going to ask for a community reassessment to put an end to all the "GA was awarded because it was biased." If it get's delisted, that just means we're going to have to work on the page to get it back up to GA status again.Deavenger (talk) 16:14, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Re GA status, perhaps I went further than I should have done based on what I can substantiate, in which case I apologise. But even if it is a GA and everything is referenced, the term can still be peacock if, in itself, it reflects opinion and imparts no real information. I still maintain that it is infrequently used in a modern sense. Viewfinder (talk) 21:30, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

And that's your own personal opinion. Other people might not agree. Like me and Nirvana don't agree, while the IP agrees. And we could spend years discussing if this is peacock, archaic, whatever, and not accomplish anything.Deavenger (talk) 21:35, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Great Powers is a very good article, but it maintains a very single great fault: the attempt to apply the historical meaning of Great Power to the world of today and the pretense to determine definitely a situation that is not at all determined and is very debated and still in change. It generates lots of disputes and even flames. If you remove the preposterous and so debated final list of “current great powers” probably all the controversy will end.--79.10.116.35 (talk) 22:00, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

All these articles are controversial. However, there have been plenty of academics to have used the great power to today's power, whcih is why we used it. If anything, we should say that in current day, some of the great powers are called major powers, as I've seen both of them used interchangeably. Deavenger (talk) 22:13, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Don’t you know the philosopher Popper and his “principle of falsification” ? It affirms: “You don’t have to find all the proofs that confirm your theory, but the only one that contradicts it!” Well…we have two sources above (The Canadian Encyclopedia and an History Vocabulary) that contradict you and that affirm that today the old great powers are no more. Many of us debated so much about it, but at last, you has no doubts and our position is completely ignored. Well... You can be satisfied of yourself, but if today France, UK and also Germany Italy or Japan, can be considered great powers as they where before WWII …I’m the emperor of China! You live in the present, not in a glorious past. The situation is very changed! But you still want to maintain your so debated position, even if it generates so many discussions, only to see that to your country can be granted the term “Great” in an online encyclopedia! It is only nationalism. I prefer to live in reality.--79.44.118.48 (talk) 22:58, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, too bad your reality is distorted. First, my country is America, which is a superpower according to the article, not a great power. You have two sources. I posted 9, that confirm my so called theory. I haven't even gone to books yet. The Canadian encyclopedia referred to directly after WWII, not the modern day. Because your country doesn't make it in the current great powers list doesn't mean you have to complain, and come up with some lame excuse of the entire article, especially when you, know nothing on the subject, and I doubt you even read on the subject. When you catch up to the present, and actually come to reality, come back, and maybe we can actually discuss it. You have nothing to back up your own points, and viewfinder is the only one that actually argued, and didn't post something like "I prefer to live in reality". Me and other users debated with viewfinder, and stated our reasons, and we even used the sources that viewfinder gave us. So when you come again, be sure you're in more of a civil mood, and actually help, and maybe do some actual reading into the subject from more then 2 sources. Deavenger (talk) 23:08, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure about the civility of when you, know nothing on the subject. By the way, the sources I gave were originally posted by another editor, against whom similar incivility was directed. Viewfinder (talk) 09:41, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I know I wasn't being civil when I said that. I'm pretty sure nobody on this page has been civil in the last couple of days. From one guy going I prefer to live in reality. Or another guy just accusing other editors of pushing POV, then calling the term archaic and peacock, while continually using another term that people could consider peacock and archaic for UK and France, and calling us meatpuppets. Despite the fact that only one editor is from Uk and the rest are from the U.S. None of use have been civil. And we explained why some of the articles work and why some of them don't work, and we used some of the ones that were posted by another editor. Deavenger (talk) 18:02, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm graduate in history and geography, I know very well the international affairs and the subject. A good and neutral end for the article could be: today the term is quite dated, if you want to apply it, as some still use it, can be referred generically to the group of major world economies, to the countries with the major military expenditures and the countries in the UN security Council, and stop! But not! You want the list, and the flags, you are exclusive, you want the top club, to characterize some countries in a first line and others in a second, with this behavior you generate an endless debate with the others users, that don’t agree with you, but they have lots of reasons! In fact we are inclusive and want to be vague, because the situation in the world is not at all so defined as you want, and… about the reality where we live: the next G8 will be extended in a G8+5 because it will represent better the situation of power in the world of today, and it is not our POV, but the POV of Sarkozy and many others world leaders that are organizing the event.--79.41.117.171 (talk) 11:13, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes the world is changing. The EU's pratically a superpower, China is becoming a superpower. The world is getting warmer, who knows. the world might start spinning the other way. Members on CFR are all International Relations, Political Science, Geopolitics, Economic experts, as well as other fields. They all use the term to describe certain current day powers. Fareed Zakaria has a PH.D in political science, and he uses the term great power to talk about certain powers of today. And the UN Security council, they might be expanding their permanent membership, and guess what. 2 of those members are already listed as great powers. And guess what, We don't choose the Great Powers. If we did, it would be a totally different list. We never chose the list in the first place. If it was up to me, it would be India, Brazil, Russia, and China. And post the EU as a superpower. But this page isn't about our personal opinion. We looked at reliable sources written by experts on the subject. I posted 9 sources above which were made quite recently. Several of them being from this year and the oldest 1 being from 2002. So that's 9 sources. Out of the 4 that Viewfinder posted. Only one of the them could be applied to current great powers.

It doesn't matter if we take down the current great powers to avoid debate. There's always going to be debates. Half the world thinks that their own country is a superpower, when it's not a superpower. But maybe we should get rid of that, because according to you, that's the top club, we want lists, and flags, and characterize some countries in a first line, and others in second. So according to you, we should get rid of the superpower article. There's going to be endless debates among users, and they have their reasons. Guess what? We have our reasons too. And here's some thing that you need to learn. Wikipedia:Verifiability. A second time. Verifiability. And one more time, Verifiability. You have posted not one reliable source to back your points. You just say "Just look" I know what's happening around the world. And I could easily say that the whole world is going to be sumerged, and say look at the icebergs and whatnot. But how many sources do I have backing me up written by academics in the field. Viewfinder brought sources. While the sources save one couldn't be used to talk about modern day great powers, they are being used in the article for past great powers. If you want to see this so called "archaic and peacock term" used to describe modern day states, just do a google book search. Deavenger (talk) 18:02, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

RFC

Since there is current debating on whether the term Great Power should be used for today's states or not, and we aren't getting anywhere. I'm requesting an RFC to settle this once and for all. Question is, should the term Great power be used for modern day states?Deavenger (talk) 07:54, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

No. I have been following international affairs for most of my life and often listen to the BBC World Service. My father often discussed them with me. I have often heard the term "superpower" used in a modern sense, but I had never heard the term "Great Power" so used until I noticed attempts were being made to add it to the lead section of United Kingdom. As I considered the term to be peacock and subjective and that the section should stick to hard facts, I joined the many editors who were opposing the term. Viewfinder (talk) 09:50, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

[33] this is the "Middle Power" article in a modern encyclopedia; there appears to be no "Great Power" article. If, as has been repeatedly alleged, the article is only about the past, does it not follow that the author does not think Great Power is relevant to today?[34] "The UK and France have declined from their former great power status". [35] [36] These two sources, when examined simultaneously, clearly contradict the oft cited Encarta article, whatever the technicality of WP:SYN. I am not calling for the deletion of this article, or its present day section, but I think that an NPOV discussion of the power status of today's powers, rather than a formal list, would be better. A formal list provokes supporters of those countries that are not included. Viewfinder (talk) 12:40, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Specifically, the version that Viewfinder pointed out in the assessment. [[37]], as it goes into more detail of the history of the current great powers and why they're great powers. And I've been listening to CNN, and I've heard the term. Not to mention, members on CFR and Fareed Zakaria's new show use it to describe current powers like Russia. And I think there's plenty of information to make the term so it's not peacock. But seeing how both me a viewfinder, and the IP, Nirvana, and the Phoenix have all been working on this page. I think we should wait for some outside opinions. Deavenger (talk) 17:26, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

No. Great Power has applied to periods when there have been a number of Great Powers. The use of superpower reflected the situation post 45 when there was really only the US, the USSR and perhaps China. I don't consider this to be a big deal though.Dejvid (talk) 17:41, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

No. Great Power is historical and can be properly used especially for the period between 1815 (Congress of Vienna) and 1945 (end of WWII, or perhaps 1956, the year of Suez Crisis) in fact it reflects a terminology and a situation of balance of power among countries, that ended in the second half of XX century. --79.44.115.31 (talk) 20:19, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes. As the term is very much in use today in academic and popular literature and media. The listed current powers also largely represent the consensus among today's most widely cited experts. Nirvana888 (talk) 20:41, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes A quick search of Google Books reveals the term is still used today. I spent about 60 seconds on this, but two examples are (1) a chapter titled "Great power politics in the 21st century" in [38] (2) a book [39] "After the collapse: Russia seeks its place as a great power" The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 23:43, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes. I have said what follows before but let me say this for the 3rd time. This article is quite simple in its Goal, it is about Great Powers. It is not about Superpowers, not about Middle Powers and it is not about potential Great Powers. We are not here to Create our own opinions and post it on Wikipedia, it is actually officially banned:

Wikipedia:No original research : Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position

So it is simple, are there sources backing these claims? So are the following sources disputed If these sources are disputed then there is good good reason for this discussion... But they have never been disputed... So please can we get back to the article at hand? -- Phoenix (talk) 08:04, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes. This article is a very valuable and well-written resource. The term great power, although not used as much as superpower is still relevent. The history of great powers can be traced to the modern day. The term can still be seen in such resources as recent books and Fareed Zakaria's tv show. --Hobie (talk) 13:57, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Numerous references including those listed above. Axl ¤ [Talk] 17:30, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes. The concept is still valid. Witness Spain's recent efforts to join the G8 summit. Colonel Warden (talk)

No. The name refers to the powers around WWI. Certainly it shouldn't apply to modern countries. 'Superpower' should be used for the overwhelmingly powerful, and 'major power' should be used for those which are a step below the superpowers. Diderot's dreams (talk) 05:24, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes - The introduction makes clear that use of the term today gives rise to debate and before the list it explains how and why certain countries are considered "great powers". Its useful information to see what countries maintain such status after reading about 200 years of history. Surely if this ended at 1945, many readers would ask "who are considered great powers today". I see no reason for its removal (just for the record, posting this after seeing Request for Comment) BritishWatcher (talk) 03:12, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments

See nothing you say or do will matter. The verdict was known before the trial. I have been down this road before and spent days and weeks researching materials, only to see my references posted here without acknowledging my point or my own effort. That is this group in this article. You will conform or made to be irrelevant. They always win because they make rules. (removed uncivil text). HadrianX --76.67.13.253 (talk) 03:37, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I have restored the above contribution that was deleted by Phoenix and regard its deletion as unreasonable censorship. I do not think HadrianX's tone is helpful, but there has been plenty of similar tone from the other side of this debate too. As regards the references, I have pointed out on this page that it was not I who originally posted them. Viewfinder (talk) 11:40, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Well at least somebody respects my right to freedom of opinion. HadrianX--76.67.13.253 (talk) 22:43, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

You have the freedom to do much in the world, but insulting people is not one that will gain any respect and wikipedia is no place for personal attacks. Please read the Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines if you are unsure. -- Phoenix (talk) 07:21, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I will not restore the incivility this time, but I must point out the restoration by Phoenix of an earlier insulting comment directed at me. We are all equal before Wikipedia's guidelines. Viewfinder (talk) 11:36, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Another comment: this edit reverted an addition that may be correct but is not supported by its given source. The editor was therefore correct to remove the addition. But the addition was not vandalism, so the revert should have been accompanied by an edit summary or talk page comment. Viewfinder (talk) 12:48, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree I should have probably left an edit summary regarding the addition of Ottoman Empire (Turkey) - though it was obvious the information was erroneous. Please note, however, that the first edit I reverted (the edit I intended to revert) was a removal of text without any edit summary and could be interpreted as vandalism. Nirvana888 (talk) 16:50, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I personally did not take that as an insult because anyone who edits regularly on wikipedia has too much time on their hands... It kind of goes without saying. Also I do not believe that I have made any disparaging comments about you here so please don't make it look like I have. If you thought that it was insulting you should have contacted me or did like I did and say that was not cool. But don't forget that you did try to re-open a conversation that was already finished and was already apologized for a week before. If Chatya wanted to remove the comment I would have had no problems with that. But some editors like insults to be shown others do not... Who knows maybe next time I will wish for the world to see. But lets not make that open season on insulting people... Ok? -- Phoenix (talk) 22:55, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Some of us edit Wikipedia because we think that time taken to improve a much used encyclopedia is time well spent. Viewfinder (talk) 01:17, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

While true, the time needed to do so does designate our ability to have spare time in real life to devote to this project. -- Phoenix (talk) 01:26, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

My comments were not an insult directed at Phoenix but merely picked at random and because I had arguements with him before and he is the most active on this page. It seemed the logical choice to make my point. I could have picked anybody here and said the same thing, not just Phoenix. Pretty strong reaction when I didn't even call him a name. --76.67.13.253 (talk) 00:25, 27 December 2008 (UTC) HadrianX

If it was directed at someone else I would have let them decide if they wanted to just comment on it or remove. Since it was directed at me I decided to remove said comments. But this is an encyclopedia, and if you wish to bring accredited sources to back claims please do so, otherwise it is just personal opinions. So lets stop this and get back to the article at hand :-) p.s. HadrianX why not make an WP:ACCOUNT? -- Phoenix (talk) 01:09, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment from RFC: My initial reaction was that the term "great power" is primarily a historical one, used predominantly in reference to the 19th century and first half of the twentieth. However it seems from various sources that the term is also in use for more recent periods and even the present day - but in an oddly uncomfortable relationship with related terms superpower and hyperpower. Encarta's Section IV encapsulates the confusion [40]: the Great Powers split into opposing superpower camps 1945-91, and since then the US is the hyperpower; but it still talks about "today's great powers" (the Security Council permanent members) as if they were of equivalent importance. My conclusion: "current great powers" should be a separate section which explores these issues in more detail (more descriptive, less definitive-listy), possibly under a slightly different title (not sure what, but I mean something less conclusive). Also, for "economic great power"(? sounds odd to me), Germany (+France, UK) should probably be linked with some discussion of the EU. Rd232 ^talk 12:59, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Italy and india

The encarta article is cñearñy

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

well actualy italy is the 8th major defense inversor,your navy is superior to the german that don't have aircraft carrier and italy has 2..,the air force are similar and the econo,mig gdp of italy is the 7th of the world..Italy is a g8 member and is considered an econom,ic power..stupid fucking english idiot..study

nirvana 76...

India, which now has nuclear weapons capability, and Brazil are regional giants that have the potential to become great powers in the 21st century. So India and Brazil are considered potential great powers, not actual great powers. Now, as for Italy Italy and perhaps India, neither of which has the global outlook or military strength to qualify as a great power. The encarta article even says that India or Italy are NOT great powers. Also, even if it did say that, the intro the article has is fine enough, and you can't copy paragraphs from encarta and just put them into the article. Because Italy is _____, ____, _____ doesn't mean it's a great power, unless the reliable source states directly that Italy is great power, and isn't some one liner sentence in the article, Italy can be included. However, the encarta article clearly states that Italy and India are not great powers.

Lastly, if you make another personal attack like stupid fucking english idiot..study, you will be blocked. Deavenger (talk) 16:42, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

To the IP making edits: There may be jusitification for more of a mention of Italy on this article but it depends what sources back up that claim. No matter if Italy does or doesnt belong on this article it does not justify making edits which could be seen as vandalism. Removing countries which are clearly sourced just because you dont get your own way is vandalism and will be reverted. If you continue to make changes to these different articles without getting agreement i will report you. If you really feel Italy should be described as a Great Power the ONLY way thats going to happen is if you engage in debate. Otherwise your edits will be reverted and your actions considered vandalism. Please stop BritishWatcher (talk) 12:29, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

The case of nirvana 81 and its recuest are accepted..Italy is without dude an economic power..why deny the reality?The greatest shame is stop the page..this not the spirit of wikipedia.Italy deserves to be classified as a to great economy.Immediately to decontrol the article and we need the aid of a moderator is immediately .The future proposel will be that to cancel the actual page and to engrave in full only the page of encarta.This way other quarrels anti-italy will be avoided .these discussion are more similar to a debate of kindergarten that of informed people...that shame

edoardo 1981 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edoardo1981 (talk • contribs) 19:20, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I moved your comment to the bottom of the page, where new posts should be made. If you can provide the sources that say Italy is a "Great power" then it should be added to the list, but at the moment the only sources ive seen which were used to justify the recent change (and the edit war) "Nirvana 81" provided did not say Italy was an economic great power. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:26, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

The discussion can be kept civil. The quote from Encarta "The only other states of comparable economic size are Italy and perhaps India, neither of which has the global outlook or military strength to qualify as a great power. India, which now has nuclear weapons capability, and Brazil are regional giants that have the potential to become great powers in the 21st century." states that India and Italy are economic powers. The same list as Germany and Japan. Since this section of the article is written long back, it states, India and Italy don't have the global outlook or military strength to qualify as a great power. Regarding Italy, they do have a good Navy. I don't have much info about other aspects of Italian military, so I will stop commenting about that. Now Regarding India, they have the world's third largest military. So I don't understand how Encarta reached the conclusion that India don't have the military strength to qualify as a great power except that the Encarta article is very very old. India has the Second largest army, the Fourth largest Air Force and Fifth largest Navy in the world. The next statement states that India and Brazil have the potential to become great powers in the 21st century. Since we are already in the 21st century, India and Brazil may be or may not be great powers. But no one can tell they are not, since this is the 21st century. It seems may be or not yet is the right term.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 15:21, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball : Articles that present extrapolation, speculation, and "future history" are original research and therefore inappropriate. While scientific and cultural norms continually evolve, we cannot anticipate that evolution but must wait for it to happen. Of course, we do and should have articles about notable artistic works, essays, or credible research that embody predictions. [..] "Future history" is welcome at Future Wikia, where original research is allowed to some extent and fact-based speculations are welcome. -- Phoenix (talk) 08:54, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Since Wikipedia is all about sources and addition based on that rather than logic or common sense, leaving the futuristic aspect let's look at the present status from the Encarta article. The quote from the above Encarta article states "The only other states of comparable economic size are Italy and perhaps India, neither of which has the global outlook or military strength to qualify as a great power.". So according to Encarta India and Italy are not great powers but are economic great powers. Hence these two nations can be included in the list of economic great powers according to Encarta article.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 03:14, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

And since Wikipedia is all about what's on the sources, and considering the source says "neither of which has the global outlook or military strength to qualify as a great power." And according to the source, it says Italy and India are not great powers, while it says Japan and Germany are great powers "Japan and Germany—with huge economies and relatively large military forces but no nuclear weapons—also qualify as great powers.", however, it does not say that India or Italy is a great power. So according to the source, neither Italy or India are economic great powers. Deavenger (talk) 03:49, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I will point out certain errors in your response. "neither of which has the global outlook or military strength to qualify as a great power." Reply:-This section from outdated Encarta says about military strength. So not required. The second point "And according to the source, it says Italy and India are not great powers" Reply:-So be it. India and Italy are not great powers according to the outdated Encarta article. Third point "while it says Japan and Germany are great powers "Japan and Germany—with huge economies and relatively large military forces but no nuclear weapons—also qualify as great powers."," Reply:-This section is not about India or Italy. Since in Wikipedia we are not supposed to compare, there is no need for this part. Let's stick to India and Italy. Fourth point "however, it does not say that India or Italy is a great power." Reply:-That's it according to the outdated Encarta article, so no discussion on that as well. Fifth point "So according to the source, neither Italy or India are economic great powers.". Reply:- Here you go wrong. The article states "The only other states of comparable economic size are Italy and perhaps India". So we have to add India and Italy to the list of Economic great powers. So there are only two options left. 1.Add Japan and Germany to Great power list and add India and Italy into the Economic great power list or 2. Add India and Italy to the Economic great power list without making any changes to the present list.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 05:34, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:No original research : Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position

Synthesis of published material which advances a position : Material published by reliable sources can inadvertently be put together in a way that constitutes original research. Synthesizing material occurs when an editor comes to a conclusion by putting together different sources. If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion, or if the sources cited are not directly related to the subject of the article, then the editor is engaged in original research. -- Phoenix (talk) 07:16, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't know why you put this up there. May be you are considering Encarta as original research. The Encarta article states India and Italy are economic great powers like Germany and Japan.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 15:45, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

no, actually it doesn't. Considering it says neither India or Italy qualify as great powers, unlike Japan, Germany, UK, France, U.S, China, and Russia. "The only other states of comparable economic size are Italy and perhaps India, neither of which has the global outlook or military strength to qualify as a great power." It says that Brazil, India, and Italy have the potential to be great powers, and seeing how potential great power ≠ great power, you're going to have to find another source if you want Italy or India added as great powers or economic great powers. Deavenger (talk) 22:39, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Deavenger, please don't divert and please don't put your own assumptions. Just concentrate on Encarta article. 1.Considering it says neither India or Italy qualify as great powers, unlike Japan, Germany, UK, France, U.S, China, and Russia. Reply:-Not required at all. We are neither discussing about any other nation other than India or Italy being economic great powers and not great powers. I clearly mentioned in the above part that Either add Japan and Germany into Great powerlist or leave it. It's different from Addition of India and Italy to Economic great power list. Encarta says India, Italy, Japan and Germany and economic great powers. The other aspects like Military and Political need not be discussed else India and Italy will be great powers. We must just add India and Italy to the list of Economic great powers, stated in the Encarta article according to Wikipedia policy.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 02:00, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Before you tell me to concentrate, actually read the article. It clearly says India and Italy are not great powers, due to the fact that they do not have a global outlook or significant military power compared to the other great powers. Here, I'll put it down again, "The only other states of comparable economic size are Italy and perhaps India, neither of which has the global outlook or military strength to qualify as a great power.", and a second time, "The only other states of comparable economic size are Italy and perhaps India, neither of which has the global outlook or military strength to qualify as a great power.", and a third time, "The only other states of comparable economic size are Italy and perhaps India, neither of which has the global outlook or military strength to qualify as a great power.", and a fourth time. And according to the encarta source, Germany and Japan are economic great powers, and the only other countries that can compare is India and Italy, neither of which has the global outlook or military strength to qualify as a great power. Again, it does not say India or Italy are great powers, or economic great powers, so according to the encarta source, India or Italy are not to be added as if we add them, it will be OR. Another thing, Japan and Germany are already on the economic great power list as the encarta source clearly says they are great powers. Deavenger (talk) 02:17, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Deavenger,no more unnecessary discussions. The point is that from Encarta. They statement from Encarta even printed thousand or infinite times states "The only other states of comparable economic size are Italy and perhaps India, neither of which has the global outlook or military strength to qualify as a great power." No one (Neither you, nor I) has the right to question the inclusion of this article and this statement since this is from an article from Encarta and hence is a source in Wikipedia and sticks to Wikipedia rules. So the above statement "The only other states of comparable economic size are Italy and perhaps India, neither of which has the global outlook or military strength to qualify as a great power." states that India, Italy, Japan and Germany are economic great powers and India and Italy and India are not great powers due to political and military aspect. Why you are worried about the military and political aspects, just add India and Italy to the economic great power list according to the Encarta article. No comparison, speculation etc like Japan and Germany are also added into the Great power list and hence .. etc. That's not required since we are discussing about India and Italy and such comparison are not allowed in Wikipedia. Let's stick to rules and just add India and Italy to the list of Economic great powers as stated in the Encarta article. Since certain people here have opposition to the inclusion. Let the intelligent readers and participants decide on it.

This is not an unnecessary discussion. You cannot say that, hey, these countries should be added according to this source, and when other people say no, the source does not say that, you cannot go, this is an unnecessary discussion. Me, Phoenix, Viewfinder, Nirvana, and Britishwatcher all undid the IPs edits when he said Italy and India were included in the encarta article as economic great powers, when they actually weren't. Hobie went through the entire encarta article multiple times to get the list of great powers and economic great powers when he temporarily got it promoted to GA status, and he did not include Italy or India because the source says they are not great powers, in the economic or fullfledged way. And guess what, if you took the time to actually think, you'll find out something is up. Why, if according to you, India and Italy are economic great powers, why would it say Germany and Japan are economic great powers, but India and Italy it says are not great powers. hmm, oh yeah, because having comparable economies does not mean they are great powers. Spain has a larger economy then India, so should we add Spain, no. Another thing, do you even know what global outlook means? It includes economics, political, and military. If the source said Italy and India are economic great powers, it would say, Germany, Japan, Italy, and India are economic great powers. Not go, Germany and Japan are economic great powers, Italy and India have comparable economies, but fail to qualify as great powers. Now go read the rules of wikipedia, because what you're doing is SYN and OR, and not following the information according to the encarta article. Deavenger (talk) 04:55, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Since this has been said many times before I will just copy and paste my response, after all this has been discussed with Chanakya WAY too many times to take this request seriously -- Phoenix (talk) 05:35, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

This article is quite simple in its Goal, it is about Great Powers. It is not about Superpowers, not about Middle Powers and it is not about potential Great Powers. We are not here to Create our own opinions and post it on Wikipedia, it is actually officially banned:

Wikipedia:No original research : Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position

we must also avoid creating our own conclusions by doing research here and drawing our own conclusions from them:

Synthesis of published material which advances a position : Material published by reliable sources can inadvertently be put together in a way that constitutes original research. Synthesizing material occurs when an editor comes to a conclusion by putting together different sources. If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion, or if the sources cited are not directly related to the subject of the article, then the editor is engaged in original research.

We should also not post opinions about what may happen in the future, because one can never know what tomorrow brings:

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball : Articles that present extrapolation, speculation, and "future history" are original research and therefore inappropriate. While scientific and cultural norms continually evolve, we cannot anticipate that evolution but must wait for it to happen. Of course, we do and should have articles about notable artistic works, essays, or credible research that embody predictions. [..] "Future history" is welcome at Future Wikia, where original research is allowed to some extent and fact-based speculations are welcome.

As you see official policies are in agreement. We should only use accredited Academic sources that we can cite via Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability. Do you have any sources that back that opinion? -- Phoenix (talk) 08:51, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

To all the opponents of the inclusion, the statement from Encarta "The only other states of comparable economic size are Italy and perhaps India" makes us to add India and Italy to the economic great power list similar to Japan and Germany in keeping with the Wikipedia's NPOV concept. If we don't add it then the NPOV will not be met. For all those who like comparisons a separate section is opened.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 02:26, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

And the article says that India and Italy are not great powers. Do you not understand that? If we add Italy and India, we will be adding OR. If you do not understand that, stick to the military articles. Guess what, does it say India and Italy are great powers, no. it says they have comparable ecomonic size. However, their economic does not have the global outlook like Japan and Germany. And if we add India and Italy, we break NPOV, and are adding OR and SYN. And this is not a forum or a blog, so I'm deleting the comparison section as it will not add any new reliable sources except for SYN and OR and more POV. Deavenger (talk) 02:44, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

1."And the article says that India and Italy are not great powers. Do you not understand that?" Reply:-The article states India and Italy are economic great powers like Germany and Japan. 2."If we add Italy and India, we will be adding OR. If you do not understand that, stick to the military articles." Reply:-You take care of yourself. 3"Guess what, does it say India and Italy are great powers, no. it says they have comparable ecomonic size." Reply:-It says India and Italy are economic great powers like Japan and Germany. 4."However, their economic does not have the global outlook like Japan and Germany." Reply:-Nowhere in the Encarta article, I can find it. It's your inclusion. From the article it states "The only other states of comparable economic size are Italy and perhaps India, neither of which has the global outlook or military strength to qualify as a great power." Economic great power like Germany and Japan. Don't have the global outlook (This means the political outlook to go global) or (notice the or, hence they have got either one of these as well) military strength to qualify as a great power. 5.And if we add India and Italy, we break NPOV, and are adding OR and SYN. Reply:-If we don't add India and Italy according to the Encarta article, it goes against wiki policy of NPOV. 6."And this is not a forum or a blog, so I'm deleting the comparison section as it will not add any new reliable sources except for SYN and OR and more POV." Reply:-Good that you understood it and will not continue with compare with Spain, compare with that this etc. And if you still feel like comparing add a separate section to discuss it and don't disturb this section with your comparisons. So the end result is that since Encarata states India and Italy are economic great powers, we have to add it into the Economic great power list.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 03:24, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. It states that India and Italy have comparable economy size, but are not great powers. Read the damn artcle 7 different editors have said this already. Global means political, military, hard/soft power, and economy. And it's four to two, so India and Italy are not to be included. Now bring a reliable source saying that India is a great power, as the encarta source does not say this. Deavenger (talk) 03:31, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

With regard to the Encarta source, the charges of synthesis and original research seem like they're being inconsistently applied by those opposed to the recognition of Italy and India as economic great powers. For example, I don't see how it isn't original research to claim that Germany and Japan are merely economic great powers when the Encarta article explicitly calls them great powers: "Japan and Germany—with huge economies and relatively large military forces but no nuclear weapons—also qualify as great powers." Of the two other sources allegedly supporting the inclusion of Japan as an economic great power, nowhere does the phrase "economic great power" appear. In fact, one of the articles about Japan is titled "Asia’s Overlooked Great Power" ([41]), and the author emphasizes the unwarranted dismissal of Japan's defense policy. The other cited article ([42]) only mentions Japan in passing, but does not relegate it to the status of only an economic great power ("among the four great powers of the Pacific-Russia, China, Japan, and the United States").

Given the fact that an appreciable amount of synthesis is occurring, I don't think it would be an inappropriate stretch to deduce that Italy and India were economic great powers (although not great powers more properly) from the statement "The only other states of comparable economic size are Italy and perhaps India, neither of which has the global outlook or military strength to qualify as a great power." I am leaning towards support, but will withhold registering my support for the inclusion of Italy and India as economic great powers so that those opposed have a chance to change my opinion.

As a sidenote, the fourth, fifth and sixth support votes (from Hobie,By78, and BritishWatcher, respectively) seem like they're opposing the idea of including Italy and India as great powers. I agree that reliable sources don't say that, but the question being voted on is whether, based on reliable sources (specifically, the Encarta article here: [43]), Italy and India should be included as economic great powers. Emw2012 (talk) 04:29, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

We are merely reporting what the academics seam to agree. We are not here to create opinions since we are not experts in the field. In this case no new discoveries have been made, and the same old facts and articles are being argued. Do the sources back up the claims without violating WP:SYN or WP:OR? They do not. -- Phoenix (talk) 12:25, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree that we are to report expert opinion, and not insinuate our own. My point is that it seems reasonable within WP:OR policy for the quote in question ("The only other states of comparable economic size are Italy and perhaps India, neither of which has the global outlook or military strength to qualify as a great power") to be summarized as "Italy and India are not full great powers, because of their lack of global outlook and military strength, but economic great powers, due to their comparable economic size to the great powers." Note that this is not WP:SYN, which describes combining information from multiple sources. Rather, it is a rephrasing of a single source, the Encarta article.

One may plausibly respond "the article doesn't explicitly say Italy and India are 'economic great powers', so they aren't." However, to reiterate my previous post, the very non-strict interpretation of "economic great power" (the definition of which is uncited, and seems like an obvious example of original research) being applied to Germany and Japan makes it inconsistent at best to not allow a similar level of interpretation for Italy and India with regard to economic great power status.

My first recommendation is this: find a source for what an "economic great power" is, and replace the current definition, which seems like a textbook case of WP:OR. Otherwise, if it isn't defined or explicitly linked to a nation (e.g. "Country x is an economic great power"), then the 'Economic great powers' section doesn't have a basis in the sources, and should be removed. Second, based on the fact that the Encarta article explicitly defines them as great powers and mentions nothing of economic great powers, remove Germany and Japan from the 'Economic great powers' section and add them to the list of 'Current great powers'. Third, if the future reference for the definition of economic great power says something along the lines of "economic great powers are nations which are comparable to great powers in economic size, but lack the global outlook and military capacity of the great powers", then add Italy and India to the 'Economic great powers' section per the Encarta article. Emw2012 (talk) 14:40, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree. The economic great power section should be rid of, and Japan, which has two sources saying it's great power status should stay, and maybe Germany. And try to find a source that list India and Italy as great powers. Because the encarta article says that "while India and Italy have comparable economies, neither have the global outlook or military power to be great powers." Yet, the sentence before said, " Japan and Germany—with huge economies and relatively large military forces but no nuclear weapons—also qualify as great powers." Then the last sentence says that "India, which now has nuclear weapons capability, and Brazil are regional giants that have the potential to become great powers in the 21st century." If India or Italy was said to be a great power in the article, 1. It wouldn't say that Germany, Japan, China, U.S, Russia, UK and France are great powers, while Italy and India fail to qualify as great powers due to global outlook and military power, and then say that India is a potential great power in the 21st century. Also, while By78 might not be judging it on the source, Britishwatcher said that the source being used clearly does not say that India and Italy are great powers. Deavenger (talk) 23:32, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

What is in question is whether Italy and India are economic great powers, not great powers in the full sense -- that was my concern with the rationale in votes 4, 5 and 6 in the opposition column. The point, however, is moot, since the definition 'economic great power' hasn't been addressed in the sourced literature. I'd like at least one more editor's input before removing the 'Economic great powers' section per the issues noted in the previous five posts. Barring significant opposition, I will also merge Japan and Germany into the list of current great powers per the Encarta source. Emw2012 (talk) 01:56, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll look at some books and academic sources and see if there are any actual great powers, as well as some research of India as a great power. Right now, many sources I look at indicate India as a potential great power instead of a full fledged great power. Deavenger (talk) 05:05, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I tried to be clear in my previous posts, but let me reiterate this important point: I am not suggesting that India is a full-fledged great power. Perhaps it is, but this is not even remotely what my previous several posts have been concerned with. The question at hand, again, is not whether Italy and India are great powers (that is, fully-fledged great power, great powers in the broad sense of the word, great powers in the proper sense, or however else one phrases it), but, instead, whether Italy and India are economic great powers. Although it doesn't make any explicit claim about their status as economic great power, the Encarta article seems to suggest that they are so. Please note that "great power" and "economic great power" should not be conflated in any of my recent posts. Emw2012 (talk) 05:23, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

But you're right. the source says Germany and Japan are great powers, not economic great powers. And until I or someone else find a reliable source that indiciates economic great powers, we should leave that section out. So I'll be merging economic great and full great together. Also, I need to rewrite the intro for current great powers. Deavenger (talk) 05:34, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Hopefully that looks good, just changed it now. Deavenger (talk) 05:36, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

At minimum, the map of current great powers should be revised to indicate that the 'economic great powers' is at least temporarily deprecated and that Japan and Germany are great powers. I would also suggest merging the two lists of great powers, and making a note in the paragraph above the list that Japan and Germany are the only two countries on the list which don't have nuclear weapons. Emw2012 (talk) 07:22, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Voting

'Result: Consensus to not add India or Italy as great power. However, the economic great power section has been removed, and Germany and Japan have been added to the normal list of great powers per the source. Deavenger (talk) 20:08, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Support

Those who support the inclusion of India and Italy into the Economic great power list based on the Encarta article vote here.

1. Chanakyathegreat (talk) 04:16, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
2. ACamposPinho (talk) 01:30, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
3. India only. Many people underestimate the relevance of Indians in foreign countries. India is as much a Great Power today as he UK, they just don't use their potential with the same aggressiveness. Lastdingo (talk) 13:14, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment. Besides there's a clear consensus, we're not doing on whether we though India is a great power, but based on the source that was given, as reliable sources need to state that India is a great power, otherwise, it's OR. Deavenger (talk) 20:04, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

Those who oppose the inclusion of India and Italy into the Economic great power list vote here.

1. For reasons I stated above. Deavenger (talk) 04:58, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
2. Abundantly clearly that source indicates they are not. Nirvana888 (talk) 04:57, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
3. Until an accredited academic source can be found that we can cite via Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability it is WP:SYN and WP:OR therefor a definitive no. -- Phoenix (talk) 05:35, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I still don't understand why this article in Encarta Encyclopaedia is used as a dogma, but the article in the Canadian Encyclopaedia, that clearly affirms that Britain, France, Germany and Japan are now middle powers, is not even considered...--79.10.116.182 (talk) 13:39, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

because while the encarta encyclopedia writes about the great powers today, the Canadian encyclopedia writes about the middle powers immediatly after WWII. And seeing how this is 2009, not 1945, this is why we are using hte encarta encyclopedia. Deavenger (talk) 21:05, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

No it does not. It ends with "there is a tendency now to refer to Britain and France as middle powers". Viewfinder (talk) 21:16, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

4. Still no, India and definitely Italy do not have the global outlook or assets to be considered great powers. --Hobie (talk) 23:46, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

5. No, Italy and India do not qualify as great powers. The reason Chanakyathegreat says otherwise is simply a ploy to link Italy and India together, hoping that people would raise less objection to Italy being included, thereby improving the chances of India being included in the article as well. Clever, but transparent. No, Italy is NOT a great power, and India is NOT a great power by even a greater margin. By78 (talk) 03:42, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

6. They shouldnt be added for the above reasons stated. The source that is continued to be used by some to try to justify their inclusion, clearly does NOT say they are great powers it simply says they might be the closest thing to them. Im stunned how much this issue has been gone over. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:19, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

7. Everyone here have already said what needs to be said. Just read the statements above. Swedish pirate (talk) 18:05, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment

The Encarta article is the POV of its author. Viewfinder (talk) 21:11, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah. And what about Fareed Zakaria, Richard Haas, Sam Huntington, John J. Mearsheimer, George Friedman, James Spelling, Jurgen Greve, Max Otte, Robert Birnbaum, Romeo Dallaire, Yong Deng, Thomas G. Moore, Martin Kramer, Elliot A. Cohen, Kim Richard Nossal, various of other members on the Council of Foreign Relations, Dimitri K. Simes, Jeffrey W. Legro, and Benjamin Miller are just some of the many academics/Geopoli/IR/Political Science experts that classify certain modern day countries as Great powers. Deavenger (talk) 23:32, 6 March 2009 (UTC)