Talk:Great power/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

China "diplomatically connected with North Korea,[39] a fellow nuclear communist country"?

I'm no expert in China or North Korea, but Bush did state publically that "China doesn't want North Korea to have a nuclear weapon" and that seems true to me, as I have little doubt the Chinese would not be among the first to invade North Korea if its dictator launched a nuke the wrong way. For that matter, I don't think NATO or the UN have verified North Korea's nuclear capabilities yet. I've also heard that the Chinese government only likes/tolerates North Korea because they don't want a flood of unwanted illegal immigrants.
I haven't been keeping up on the North Korea situation lately, so delete this comment if I'm wrong - I just thought I might help a little by flagging this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.33.200.201 (talk) 01:49, 27 January 2007 (UTC).

Ottoman Empire

Ottomans (1299-1922) should have included in this page, but you know they are muslims... Who cares about how muslims ruled the world for centuries... They suck today anyway. User: Ltimur

Perhaps it was, but you need to provide a source. All the other nations are sourced, any additions to the list need to be as well. At the moment this page provides a pretty accurate summary (although without exhaustive depth) of current scholarship in this area. If unsourced material is admitted then this page becomes a simple collection of individual biases and opinions, utterly useless to one and all.

Xdamr^talk 16:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Ruling 'the world for centuries' is beyond the scope of this article, since it only starts in 1815. Certainly I don't think the Ottoman Empire was ruling the world from 1815 to 1922; in fact I don't think it was a Great power per the definition of this article in that period. (It was almost certainly a historical power, though; perhaps you should look at its section in the article there, or add it). If anything this article needs fewer Great powers, not more. CRGreathouse (t | c) 20:14, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

That is the most ridiculous comment I've read. Great power is not the same as superpower. Superpowers essentially rule the world. Great powers control some aspects of the world. This is why Spain, Portugal, and now the Ottoman Empire should all be on this page. Casey14 22:57, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

You misunderstand the definition of Great power. Your definition is that of a regional power, not a superpower. On the regional power page I've been arguing that Turkey is the regional power (though I may be mistaken there, other countries have claims as well). Please reread the definitions of Great power and regional power, as well as some of the key references on both pages. CRGreathouse (t | c) 01:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

The Ottoman Empire was a great power from 1815-1918, as I have cited sources in the past, which have been accepted by the other authors of this page. I don't know why you now feel these sources to be irrelevant, unless you overlooked thim. They are in the article history Casey14 22:53, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

The Ottoman Empire was more of a power in 1900 then India and Italy are today, thus showing the biasness of the editors of this page (since myself am no longer one, since my thoughts do not count). Casey14 22:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Myself, I don't think that Italy is a Great power and I'm not sure that India is one either (though in the latter case, they are growing with sufficient rapidity that one would be hard-pressed to argue that if they are not one now they won't become one soon). Why don't you get some figures (military spending, GDP, etc.) to argue this point? CRGreathouse (t | c) 01:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Stop whinging, bring reliable academic sources, me and Xdamr aren't the only ones that visit this page and are dictators you know... Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 23:02, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Have you not understood that? I have given sources, you've or Xdmar have said those were reliable sources. Now, since you change your mind, they arn't reliable. Look back in the history. Casey14 00:35, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Here is something you have written yourself, Nobleeagle...

This Source presents a list of Great powers in the late 19th century and an analysis of their positions in affairs during this time. Nobleeagle (Talk) 07:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC) The link to the source is four pages back

Also, here is another source, by a professor at the University of Michigan: http://www.lib.msu.edu/sowards/balkan/lect10.htm

You people are ignoring certain links, that you had previously agreed upon. You cannot be a hypocrite. Casey14 00:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

That page says (their words):

The Ottoman Empire was the weakest of the Great Powers. As an ally of Britain and France when the 1856 Treaty of Paris ended the Crimean War, the Turks gained a legal status that was beyond their real powers. Ottoman Balkan policy was simple: to prevent the loss of additional territory in the Balkans. In many instances, the sultan had to be satisfied with nominal control: the lands of the disobedient ayans like Ali Pasha of Jannina or the purely legal vassalage of Serbia and Romania come to mind as examples.

Now this is the only source I've ever seen that mentions the Ottoman Empire as a regional power in the 19th century, and even it says that they are a borderline example (only 'legally' a Great power and exercising only "nominal control"). Somehow this doesn't seem to make your case! Not to mention the fact that these are essentially lecture notes rather than a peer-reviewed work. CRGreathouse (t | c) 01:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

You've hit upon a vital point there - "...lecture notes rather than a peer-reviewed work" - in other words WP:RS. This page now extensively cites such reputable peer-reviewed work—it cannot be allowed to revert to its previous poor state. If the Ottoman Empire belongs here then there should be no difficulty in finding a source of this quality; those of us who have put in the effort to improve this article have not come across such a source—good luck to you in finding one.

Xdamr^talk 01:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

If Austria-Hungary or Italy included in this page, Ottomans are definetely should be included. I think the only reason why they are not included is because of the nationalistic (even religional) biases. Don't worry though, I will get the sources and write a paragraph for you guys to delete... User: Ltimur

By the way [[1]]

Just 'because country X is included' is no justification for adding country Y. By and large, academics in the field seem to disagree with you—without their support, expressed in a reputable source, we cannot add the Ottoman empire. If we do then this is OR. By and large, there seems to be no belief that the Ottomans possessed the mixture of power, spatial, and status characteristics to be reckoned a Great power. If you are able to find a (reputable) source identifying it as a Great power then we will consider it; however every published writer who has attempted to derive a list of Great powers (Organski, et al) has omitted the Ottomans.

This is the simple and impartial criteria for adding countries to the Great power list—applicable to all, regardless of nationalism and religion. Please try to avoid any unnecessary dispute and conflict on this page.

Xdamr^talk 14:54, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey, there is no improvement if there is no conflict... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.92.170.142 (talk) 17:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC).

The question boils down to the end is "Was the Ottoman Empire considered then (which is the basis for this article) or looked back now (not the basis)as a great power?" It seems most academic sources looking back today don't and the nations between 1815-today treat it as such. Was the empire a great power? During the 1400's-1700's it was, but this article is from 1815-today (this also invalidate your link, thats 1683). From 1815-today it neither had or treated as a great power. Italy got in because the nations back then was treated as a great power, sure it was quite... weak... during the World Wars, but it was viewed (still view?) as a great power. Now if it was viewed and treated as an equal power by the confirmed great powers, then it should recieved a mention. From my knowledge, Europe see and treated the Ottamans as the "sick man of Europe" who have lost its strengh years ago. That part of the reason why the Allies underestimated the Ottomans when they were defeated in the Battle of Gallipoli. DarkGhost89 05:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

European Union

Shouldn't the European Union be also considered a Great Power now? Somethingoranother 02:32, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

While I think that it will eventually be a Great power/superpower, at the moment it doesn't have enough cohesion to qualify ad a power at all—the real power is held by its member states. Once they have a common military and surrender autonomous use of their militaries, it will surely qualify as a Great power at least, considering that its economy is roughly the same size as the system's Superpower, the US, and its population is significantly greater. CRGreathouse (t | c) 09:09, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Good Article Candidancy

I don't know what to do with this article so I was thinking about Peer Review, but based on the last one, looks like no one turns up. So I put it for GA, might even get it, either case we'll get a good comprehensive review. Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 03:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't object to giving PR another chance, but then again it may well turn out to be another waste of time. At any rate, I think the article at present is GA worthy—probably the best choice, and at least you're almost guaranteed a response.

Xdamr^talk 06:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree this article is current GA material. As I wasn't involved in the re-write so I went ahead and promoted it. 78 References! That's certainly very, very impressive. Regards, Signature^brendel 07:02, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Well since many of those references are not on topic or by reputable sources there is nothing to be impressed about. Casey14 22:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Well we have GA! Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 22:27, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Well done all round. Current disputes aside, this page has seen quite a turnaround during the past few months. Let's keep it up.

Xdamr^talk 00:09, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Italy

I still feel that italy is not truly supported and should be removed.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.184.97.24 (talk • contribs).

Insofar as it was a Great power up to 1943, I think that this is well enough established. Whether it is regarded as being a Great power today is debatable—I'd certainly be open to considering sources which touch upon the question.

Xdamr^talk 14:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

China should be removed

Citations 30, 31, 35 are both again from books, and no evidence is currently provided that these state that “China is a great power”. Matthew White (citation 32) stated on his site, “I do not release my work into the public domain. I do not allow my work to be distributed under GNU Free Documentation License. (This means you, Wikipedia.)” Also found on Matthew White’s site “The Long A: My academic credentials are pretty slim -- a couple of years of college and that's about it. I'm not a university professor or anything like that, and I currently earn my living as a librarian.” Hmm, that seems hardly Wikipedia content at all. Since when has the “Great Leap Forward” (citation 33) of China constituted it as a great power? The article states nothing of China being a great power, and gives no statistics. Anyways, who is Satya J. Gabriel, really? Are we assuming she’s a professor (she could be a student), which nevertheless means nothing, since Stephen Sword’s opinions don’t count being a professor. Why does Taiwan’s situation matter in China’s great power status? (citation 34). Why does the amount of people in China matter towards its great power status (citation 36)? Citation 37 is an article from MSNBC, and states nothing about China’s status other than its population and economy. Besides the fact, MSNBC, like CNN and Fox news in the US are overly biased stations. Citation 38, like all the previous citations, does not state China as a great power, while only stating the military is growing. Citation 39 states that China has a larger influence on North Korea with South Korea. First, how is that relevant to being a great power? Second, isn’t it obvious, since both are communist nations. Citation 40 states nothing about China being a great power, accept the China can make friends with certain Middle Eastern countries, due to their US opposition. Citation 41 is about how China needs more oil. What does that have to do with being a great power? With the most people in the world, China would need the most oil. Lastly, Citation 42 states nothing at all about China, since the link has since been updated. China needs to be removed since no real sources are given. Casey14 21:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what your continual complaint is with inclusion of China, Italy, and India, nor do I much care. Taking a seriously detailed examination of your claims, I conclude that you are spinning the facts from each citation faster than a pinwheel in a tornado and attacking the authors as if everyone source needs to be a Rhodes Scholar. You lack any neutral point-of-view given the suggestions you are making. Finally, additions to the talk page should be made to the bottom of the page for better readability. Please don't edit just to make a point, particularly if you are being overly judgemental about other countries because of the exclusion of your favorite for lack of sourcing. ju66l3r 21:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

So do you propose all books be removed from Wikipedia? I have nothing more to say. Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 21:56, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Your very funny. I have never had a continual complaint with any of these nations, but when some other nations, who fell under the same circumstances as these were deleted from the page, the page needs to become equal. Delete all powers that are questionable, not just the hand few you dislike. And my point is non-neutral, your's isnt'. I'm the one scrutinizing these citations, as all the other members did of my sources found for the Ottoman Empire, Spain, and Portugal. Don't tell me every source needs to be a Rhodes Scholar, tell Xdmar and Nobleagle, they are the ones scrutinizing Stephen Swords, a professor, while still letting freelance writers on the page. Casey14 22:17, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Who? Me? Maybe you misread what I said? Or maybe you mis-indented intending to respond to Casey14 and not me? ju66l3r 22:00, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah...yes I did. Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 22:04, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Wait, wait, are you serious? China is not only a Great power, it is very nearly a superpower—I could imagine it rivaling the US directly on the world stage in a decade or two. It has an economy second only to the US, the largest military in the world (although admittedly less advanced than those of France and the US, the latter of which also uniquely outspends it), good relations with Russia and India, permanent membership on the UN Security Council, ... What else could a country have? Its geography is favorable, with great land area and reasonable barriers against its enemies and good climate for crops and transportation.

If China is not a Great power, you must be using a strict definition indeed—probably more like that of a superpower.

Are you sure you aren't pulling my leg? I have a feeling I'm going to be laughed at for taking this seriously, like the April Fool.

CRGreathouse (t | c) 03:01, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Casey 14 your ignorance shocked me, china is a great power, first of all it is an unsc permanent member, second of all it's gdp is the world's fourth largest and by the way did you hear that china is able to shoot down satellite from space? i think instead of removing china we should remove your comments.

This topic was not in correspondence with China's real status (as I really believe it is a great power), but I was challenging how members here disagree with others using the same diction and defense. Casey14 16:31, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Italy should be removed

None of the citations from 58-63 have websites where we can view facts that state “Italy was or is a great power”. The cia world factbook (citation 63) is an encycopedia, and other encyclopedic articles I showed were not counted, as they were not “substantial enough”. Besides it only states about Italy’s economy, nothing else. Why does Italy’s maritime security matter (citation 64)? Citation 65 states Italy is a middle power, not a great power. Please show substantial evidence, or else Italy should be deleted as well.Casey14 21:04, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

You should first read the reliable sources guidelines to better understand what makes a good source. I don't see anything wrong with these sources. Not every source needs to be online or accessable to everyone if it includes the pertinent information to sourcing a fact for an article. ju66l3r 21:47, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

How come all these citations work, yet whenever I have reasonable sources towards other nations, they are discredited for the very same reasons!?? Please give a logical reason, not a biased reason given to you by some wikipedian god. Casey14 22:07, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree with you on Italy, though I'm loathe to remove a borderline case without support. Italy is close to being a Great power, though I believe it fails the test. The best thing would be to have an academic paper discussing the issue and coming in strongly in favor of the Middle power designation. This isn't required for all countries, of course; that Bangladesh is not a Great power is fairly clear and the lack of evidence for it suffices ('great claims require great proof' or the like).

Still, if not for the objections of other editors, I would remove Italy now. As it stands I hope to source this better in the future and remove it. CRGreathouse (t | c) 03:05, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Do you think that Italy's case as a pre-1943 power has been insufficiently made, or are you simply saying that you think that present-day Italy is a Middle power?

Xdamr^talk 01:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I defer to your judgment on pre-1945 Italy: I don't question that it was a Great power, though I can't support it either. I claim only that it is not currently a Great power. I have no serious problems with the Italy section now, since it discusses the issue fairly well (though if I were to wrote the section it would come out a little harder against the case of Italy as a modern Great power). CRGreathouse (t | c) 23:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Germany and Japan are considered middle powers too in the Middle Powers Initiative link. Are they middle powers today?I don't think so.

ACamposPinho 23:19, 11 January 2007

Indian Bias- Needs to be removed

Why does Firdaus Ahmed’s (citation 53) opinion count, while he is just a freelance writer? Bloomberg.com (citation 54) does not state India as a great power, it only stated that it’s economy was growing rapidly. That does not constitute great power. And another C. RAJA MOHAN (citation 55) is an Indian, thus having a bias towards India. He also states India is on the verge, not yet. This is truly biased towards India. Only one of the sources is good (citation 52), but yet, when I only state one, I'm turned down. India needs to be removed from the page because of biasness, and lack of citation. Casey14 20:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

India constitutes one sixth of the world's population, does that mean those one sixth aren't allowed to be notable citations? Anyway, most Chinese superpower articles are written by Chinese people but as long as their in suitable locations (not in blogs for example), they are fine. Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 21:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

It is the inclusion of all of these different sources of information on economy, army power, and other factors that push India above the threshold for being a Great Power state and that is why each of these sources is important to establishing it as a newly emerged Great Power. The context of each link provides that crucial information in the article itself and it reads fairly well actually. I disagree with your characterizations and spin on these sources. ju66l3r 21:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

South Korea, Spain, Canada, and Brazil all have larger GDP's than India. Yet somehow India get's in because of it's supposed large economy. 20 countries have larger armies than France, yet they are not all included. I have looked at all the citations, and none of them are relevant. Yet whenever I find a good source, they are scrutinized beyond belief. This Hypocracy Needs to Stop! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Casey14 (talk • contribs) 22:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC).

I will go back through the archives and look at the sourcing provided, but if I remember correctly, your sources were frequently self-published webpages rather than reliable secondary sources. There is a difference between a personal webpage and a freelance article on a reputable website. If you can't distinguish the reliability and utility of those two things, then I guess there's nothing left to discuss, because you haven't taken WP:RS to heart and only want to see the issue your way (again, not a neutral point of view). You also continue to make reductum straw-man arguments as points for discussion. India is a Great Power because others have said it is AND it has a large economy AND it has nuclear capability AND it has extra-regional influence AND it has military power...not any one of these things alone makes it a Great Power. It's not France's military status alone that makes it a Great Power. Some articles may comment on Italy's economy, others on its military, others yet on its extra-regional influence...and actually if you read the section on Italy, it's pointed out that discussion still abounds with some claiming it to be a minor Great Power while others claim it to be the biggest Regional Power...not absolutely certain which category to put it in. When I search for the same "is it or isn't it" discussions on Spain or South Korea, no sources appear for either side, because they are not noted as Great Powers so nobody of note is having these discussions about them. I will look again at your sources, but I tend to remember them not being as strong as anything currently used to establish the facts about Italy, China, or India. ju66l3r 22:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for reviewing some of my sources I have given. The one thing is that it is aggrivating that whenever I posted sources, members would do exactly what I just did. I have nothing against those three nation being on the page, but I want it to be fair for all nations of the same status, which some members on this page do not want. If some nations that arn't allowed are not on the page, then I do not believe some others should be either. Casey14 22:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Look back at the talk page archives and I challenge you to find a single instance where anyone has failed to consider your sources. The problem is that we have considered them, finding them to be insufficient to satisfy WP:RS. The Ottoman empire, etc, etc, are not Great powers because you see grounds for comparison between them and the nations already listed, they are Great powers because we find a reputable source which states that they are.

I've tried to be patient and to answer your allegations and complaints. I haven't hitherto regarded you as a troll because you seem to be doing good work in other areas of WP. Having said that, when I read that you object to sources taken from books, because "...[none of the sources] have websites where we can view facts that state “XXX was or is a great power”", I am staggered beyond belief. Good faith or bad faith aside, as a fully signed up Wikipedia editor you may, of course, edit this page as you please—however be aware that any detrimental edits, or edits which violate policy will be reverted.

Xdamr^talk 00:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid that this edit ([2]) is, in my judgement, thoroughly unbecoming.

Xdamr^talk 00:21, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, that is what I believe. Many users have been turned away from this page because of hypocracy and a no-discussion policy. Tell me why Stephen Swords is not reputable, but a freelance author is? Also, Nobleeagle also posted a link with the Ottoman Empire and other powers, and now that link isn't considered? There are two links that have been previously ok'd. And by the way, you fit the troll model just as much as I do. I have been editing this page before you, and I was progressing with it. You have done some amazing work for this page, but I disagree with you in the addition of other nations. Casey14 01:49, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, now you know how I feel. My sources don't stand a chance, nor anyone's else. But when your sources get criticized you attack the person criticizing them. The status of Italy and India are debeatable, but yet we cannot have the Ottoman Empire an Spain which are both debeatable. Have you seen me giving this page any detrimental edits? I have not, because I know the hard work that goes into these pages. Do not mistake me for a troll, because, like I said, I am not. A troll would not care. Casey14 01:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

{reset indent) Please, keep it Civil. The nations on the page are there becuase we have sources meeting WP:RS standards for them. There is no need to resort to childish declarations of hate and name calling. Please if an unsuspecting readers looks at this discussion page our reputablitiy is going right down the toilet- so please let's keep this professional. Regards, Signature^brendel 01:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

France

I wanted to break out this quote from Casey14 into its own section:

South Korea, Spain, Canada, and Brazil all have larger GDP's than India. Yet somehow India get's in because of it's supposed large economy. 20 countries have larger armies than France, yet they are not all included.

According to the latest CIA World Factbook, all four of the countries you mention have GDPs lower than India, and in fact India's GDP is closer to the sum of the other four than to any of them individually. I'm not sure of the manpower of the French armed forces, but as I recall they are the number 3 spender in the world on military (after the US and China). [Edit: the numbers back up my memory here, although to be fair I will note that Japan is nearly as large a spender as France.]

Now I'm not claiming that these figures alone prove that India and France are Great powers (though they are significant), but they do support the assertions that these two are Great powers. Do you actually feel that these two are not Great powers, or are you just acting as a devil's advocate?

CRGreathouse (t | c) 03:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

The CIA factbook only uses GDP PPP and omits nominal GDP. The difference in the case of India is quite large, as with China. According to GDP PPP China has the world's second largest economy. According to nominal GDP it's economy is smaller than that of the UK! Both are equally as esteemed-we need to take both into account. That said, I trust our sources that the world's second largest nation is a great power! Regards, Signature^brendel 06:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

That is what I referred to, Nominal GDP. If you look at List of countries by GDP (nominal), Canada, Spain, and South Korea all have higher nominal GDPs than India. Casey14 23:46, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

So you're arguing that having a devalued currency is actually a disadvantage? Interesting. Certainly the US Congress doesn't seem to think the same, given how much they've stumped on that point. CRGreathouse (t | c) 00:22, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but that's really besides the point here. There is nominal and PPP GDP, each equally acredited, so both need to be considered. This article is not the page for discussing the ramifications of currency devaluation. Regards, Signature^brendel 06:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

They aren't "equally acredited", that's silly. Even totally ignoring PPP, though, India makes her strength known in other ways: military, technology, politics (look to recent Chinese concessions), and so on. CRGreathouse (t | c) 23:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Stating that PPP is better than nominal is like stating that apples are better than Oranges. BTW: I agree that India, the world's second largest nation, is a great power. Regards, Signature^brendel 00:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Surely, if they're apples and oranges, then saying that they're equal (or 'equally accredited') is similarly wrong. Actually, I believe that PPP is better for most purposes, but then again I pass judgment on apples vs. oranges as well. CRGreathouse (t | c) 02:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

"Surely, if they're apples and oranges, then saying that they're equal (or 'equally accredited') is similarly wrong", no because they're both fruit and are deemed equally healthy -I think now you should see my point ;-) Anyways, I'm gald to see that you realize that if you "believe that PPP is better for most purposes... [you're passing] judgment on apples vs. oranges as well" Besdies, we seem to agree on India being a Great Power. Regards, Signature^brendel 03:03, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

(realign above discussion left) Who says apples are exactly as healthy as oranges? But yes, I agree that India is a Great power. CRGreathouse (t | c) 04:16, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Who says they arn't? We'll need to agree to disagree on PPP vs. nominal, but at least we can agree on India- which is after all the vocal point of this discussion ;-) (It's fun getting side-tracked, isn't it.) Signature^brendel 06:15, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I feel that India is not a great power, but France yes. I was being a devil's advocate. However, India will become a great power, and leave it on the list. I just want justice for some past powers that are overlooked because when they were powers communication systems were not as advanced as they are today. People didn't write about biggest economies or armed forces in 1850. And if they did, where can you find that info? Casey14 03:21, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, they did. Geo-politics is as old as civilization and people in the 19^th. century were quite nationalistic and therefore would have jumped at the opportunity to portait their countries as powerful and wealthy. The problem is, as you said, "where can you find that info?" Signature^brendel 06:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Sourcing

I wanted to break out another quote from Casey14 for discussion:

Also, Nobleeagle also posted a link with the Ottoman Empire and other powers, and now that link isn't considered?

I recently removed one of Nobleeagle's sources (I think—one of the Danilovic cites) with a different, 'better' source. As the article evolves, we (the editors of this article) hope to bring the quality of the citations up, so that old references are replaced with more apt ones. There was nothing wrong with this particular Danilovic reference, but I had found an online copy of (the start of) a famous article devoted entirely to the point in question, rather than a few sentences in a broader book.

CRGreathouse (t | c) 03:36, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Perfectly sound practice—if you find any more propositions which would benefit from being supplemented with, or replaced by, a better source then I'd be more than happy to see them brought up.

Xdamr^talk 01:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I brought that source thinking it was pretty good, but turns out it wasn't. I have nothing against the Ottomans or anything so I don't know where you are getting at Casey. Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 06:52, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

National sub-sections - turning into too much of a potted history?

I've become vaguely concerned by recent edits to some of the national subsections, edits which have expanded them considerably. I'm loathe to wade in and start removing content before raising an important question here—when is enough enough?

This article, inasmuch as there are criteria, identifies the Power, Spatial, and Status dimensions as being of importance. Logically, therefore, discussion should be confined to these three heads. We should also structure these sections with a sense of historical perspective—the past is as important as the present. As a corollary, the minutiae of present-day events should not be included here. Without intending to deprecate good faith edits, statements re. the French being the only nation to operate nuclear aircraft carriers, US-India nuclear tech deals, etc seem to lose this necessary objectivity.

Content is a difficult to grapple with, clearly a new power such as India will have differing content from an ancient power such as the UK. Nevertheless, I think that we need to seriously consider this, before some national sections turn into potted histories rather than a brief summary. An ideal length, in my view, would be that currently achieved by the Austria-Hungary section.

Any views?

Xdamr^talk 02:23, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that modern developments are extremely important. If the sections get too long (and I agree with you—they may have already done so) we may have to look into spinning the extra content off into its own article(s). Thoughts? CRGreathouse (t | c) 04:13, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Most nations already have a pretty comprehensive set of pages dealing with economy, armed forces, etc. Any spinning off can therefore be quite easily done—although I'm sure that such content will already be present in these pages.

Just to clarify though, in case I seemed obscure, I wholeheartedly acknowledge the importance of modern events—I simply like us to keep a proper sense of historical perspective. 100 years from now, will people look at the propulsion system of France's aircraft carrier and say Gosh, France was truly a mighty power!—I think not. It is probably more significant to focus on the broad themes, ie France has largely eschewed military might, power projection etc in favour of multilateralism.

This isn't exactly a new problem, the old Major power page also suffered from this sort of 'fact creep'—I played my part in this, until I got a better idea of what the main thrust of the page was. Up until recently, the table format left us largely immune, but with the rewrite complete, we will have to decide on an acceptable level.

Xdamr^talk 04:31, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Spain and Portugal

I believe Spain and Portugal should be mentioned as former Great Powers, for obvious reasons. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Agimcomas (talk • contribs) 17:15, 25 January 2007 (UTC). .Along with Sveden, Turkey, the islamic Empire, Persia, Aksum, the Roman Empire, Meroe, the Mongolians, etc. What else?

Missing source

Who is this Danilovic source that provides so much doubtful and half-researched info? Wandalstouring 19:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

It's there in the 'References' section—what do you consider to be doubtful and half-researched? Nine times out of ten any problems are probably more a case of misguided editorial interpolation rather than a faulty sourcing, but nevertheless...

Xdamr^talk 21:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

You didn't understand. This source is not verifiable. I want to read what he heck Danilovic is. Where is the book/essay listed? the title? the ISBN? nothing. I can rename it Dracula and verifiability won't be worse. Wandalstouring 21:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd have to agree. Many sources on this page are irrelevant to the page, but as I stated before, it dosn't matter what the sources are like, it only matters who the members backing those sources are.Casey14 00:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I rather think that I did understand :) But nevertheless, look at note 4 in the References section and you will find the relevant details.

Xdamr^talk 21:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Germany claims officially not to be a great power

Sorry for the guys reverting my edits, but i quoted various newspaper and government officials(head of state) stating that Germany is a middle power. This is an essential position of German foreign politics. Unless someone provides recent German sources saying Germany is a great power you create pseudocitations and vandalize the sourced content. Wandalstouring 00:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Those are some accusations. First, what do you mean by "pseudocitations"? Second, what in particular do you mean by "vandalize" and who do you accuse of this?

More importantly, you haven't made your point sufficiently in your citations. "Mittelmacht" need not mean "Middle power" in the technical sense meant in this article. Do you have citations from these politicians disclaiming a global reach (one of the key qualifiers of Great power status in contrast to Middle power status) for Germany, or alternately quotes from a German political scientist either stating the PoiSci definition of Mittelmacht or explicitly equating it (in technical terms) to the English "Middle power"?

CRGreathouse (t | c) 00:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Germany as Middle power?

There's something of an edit dispute going on, so I thought I'd put this here to allow discussion.

One of the contentious issues is the mechanics of the determination of Great powerdom. Xdamr wrote in an edit summary:

Government statements not conclusive-academic opinion and nature of relations with other Powers are also vital considerations.

Actually I think this doesn't go far enough: a country's statement has no real bearing on their status as a Great power. Their actions and capabilities are the sole measures. If the United States claimed to be a Middle power but continued to act as it does now (fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, hosting talks between India and Pakistan, brokering peace between Israel and its enemy du jour, taking Iran to the UNSC, et. al.) it would still be a Great power/Superpower.

Now I'm not opposed, as such, to the discussion of Germany as a Middle power; there is basis for that in the literature. But it would give a wrong impression to mention only Germany in that light, as there are other countries that are surely Middle powers if Germany is one itself (Italy and France immediately come to mind).

Thoughts?

CRGreathouse (t | c) 00:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Produce a scientific German source stating that the country is a great power. Media as well as leading politicians and all parties state middle power, none great power. There is pretty much consensus on this topic. Wandalstouring 00:39, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Even if what you say is true (which I dispute, see the section above) this has no bearing on the question of whether Germany is in fact a Great power. It's perfectly ordinary for Great powers to claim Superpower status or conversely Middle power status. CRGreathouse (t | c) 00:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't care who is a great power, but you can not fail to mention that someone fights with teeth and claws not to be a great power such as in the case of Germany (some lost wars, pissed off neighbours that tend to rally if you remind them of some nasty experience in the past and you understand perhaps why German diplomats bit their tongue before saying the g*** word.) Wandalstouring 00:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

This seems a strong argument for Germany's status as a Great power. Putting great effort ("teeth and claws") into convincing the world of a particular status would not be needed if the status was obvious. CRGreathouse (t | c) 00:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I would have to agree with Wandalstouring. He has provided sufficent evidence, which overrides any the page currently provides. I would also like to see a German academic source that states it is a power, as all the sources on this page are English language-centric. Casey14 00:49, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

The problem is just that I want to point out we should mention this.[3]

Is an academic essay why it is so difficult for the Germans to be a great power. It immediatly leads to extreme reactions in foreign countries and within the country. So Germans do keep their official state of denial on all levels (politics, media, science) and the best you can get is that they discuss possibilities of being a great power. Main argument against being a great power is the lack of nuclear warheads. Yes, I can understand the arguments of the article and I didn't just move it to middle power. Wandalstouring 00:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

The fact that the Germans, as a people, no longer wish to assert power is understandable. However, this reluctance is not conclusive in the academic/objective assessment of whether it is a Great power in this academic sense. I agree that it has some bearing—the policies that an 'isolationist' nation may pursue could have a detrimental effect on its international power—but the statement alone is not conclusive. Regardless of the lack of an aggressive foreign policy, there is still the fact that it is the 3rd economy of the world, for example.

There is certainly scope for mentioning this reluctance to exercise power in the article, but many academics have classified Germany with Japan/UK/France etc so we can't just disregard their opinions.

Xdamr^talk 00:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

So I guess American free write journalists, who know nothing about Germany, have more validity than German academics? Casey14 01:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I speak of academics, not of journalists—you can easily go down to your local library and check these out yourself. --Xdamr^talk 01:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

That's why there are multiple free write journalists and other non-reliable sources cited on the page. I also doubt that you will find any German language books in a local library Casey14 01:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

If you have a particular accusation to make, please make it. CRGreathouse (t | c) 01:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, and what is a 'free write' journalist anyway?

Xdamr^talk 01:14, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Let's take break. Provide some recognized sources (scientists), but still there is no reason to object that we mention the German élite refusing to state being a great power. I do by no means object someone's classification system, but you have to mention alternative opinions if they are sufficiently sourced. I searched the web, besides the dkp (German communists) there is none (scientific or else) who states Germany is a great power, the most is they argue Germany could be. They lack a blue water navy, they lack nukes and their economy is extremely dependant on nice neighbours.Wandalstouring 01:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Middle power vs. Great power

Wandalstouring's recent edits have brought up the question of where to draw the line in terms of power. Personally I feel that the article has too many Great powers at the moment, relative to the number I see cited in various PoliSci books (see the Talk archives for my previous discussion of this, though alas there are fewer than perhaps five citations there), so I'm not opposed to the idea.

Anyone with good sources discussing the status of Great powers is welcome to list them here, with a brief mention of which countries and why. I'd like to build consensus, but through a good comparison of reliable sources rather than personal feelings (like Wandalstouring's feeling that Germany is a Middle power or mine that Italy is).

CRGreathouse (t | c) 01:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

We can maintain a list of all previous great powers or delete Austria. A clear definition was an invitation to the Berlin conference (although the Netherlands, Turkey, Sveden and Portugal can be discussed) under Bismarck for example and I think during the Marrocco crisis there was another meet-up of the great powers. Japan then became one because it beat up the russians, who were one and the US was big enough with the third largest fleet. Wandalstouring 01:28, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

It is important to rembmer how Wiki policy works. It is not up to us to decide who is and who is not on the list. If there are sources out there stating a nation to be a great power we must include it. If there are other sources out there who make statements to the contrary we must state them as well. Let me make one thing clear. One source may not jusitify the removal of information referenced through another source. So if source A states Japan to be a great power but source B does not. We must present them both, regardless of our opinion. Signature^brendel 03:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Are you joking? Show me any source considering Austria today a great power? None existent, so let's list them all who once upon a time where considered great powers by someone. Wandalstouring 05:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm bound to say that I'm rather surprised at this. One thing that I am certain of is that all the countries listed in this article are sourced. If you take the time to read the relevant section you will see that no-one is stating that Austria is one of today's Great powers—it is explicitly stated that this power ended after World War I. Austria pre-WW1 has been authoritatively sourced as a Great power, as such there is little justification for its removal.

Xdamr^talk 13:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I am not picking on any particular example but merely describing how Wikipedia works. Signature^brendel 05:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

It is us who decide what about we write an article. So make it a clear rule. All current great powers according to someone or all great powers ever existing. Is it that hard? Wandalstouring 05:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

You are over-simplifying this. If a source A states nation X to be a great power we will mention that nation here. If source B states nation X not to be a great power than we add a mention of that here (but we will not remove the material referenced through the first source). Signature^brendel 05:34, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Once again. Write a who is who of the contemporary great powers or write a complete who is who of contemporary and former great powers. Having things somewhere in between is no acceptabel solution. Wandalstouring 06:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Seeing it as the term is relatively new I don't see why having a list of former and current great powers in one is "no acceptabel solution." I certainly think that Xdamr's lay-out is working very well. Signature^brendel 06:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

There are three academic sources provided which state that Germany's a great power. If media or politicians state it as a middle power, then it could be mentioned as such, but that shouldn't mean that the first view of academics, which should be the most important view on Wikipedia, be ignored or downsized. — Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 06:27, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't have said it better myself! Excately. Signature^brendel 06:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Who the heck doubted that some academics consider Germany to be a great power? This is no pissing contest where one own them all. It is about the differing perception in differing fields like science, politics and media. The term great power is absolutely not new even Mani (prophet) used it in 200 AD(Kingdom of Aksum). and it gets used backwards on political entities such as the Assyrian Empire. So there must be a longer list or a clear definition. In 1918 when Austria was still among the great powers so were Italy and Spain (the smallest of them). We do have prove because the great powers did hold conferences before the war to solve their issues (mainly that the German Empire and the French Third Republic didn't get along). So where is your clear definition or is the article incomplete? Wandalstouring 13:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

"It is about the differing perceptions in differing fields"- exactely. So how can there be a "clear definition" on such a subjective issue. There is an article for ancient powers, this article covers great powers since the industrial revolution (recent history). And as the article is only 60kb I don't see a problem with that. Regards, Signature^brendel 16:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

The article is titled Great Power, not Great Powers in Industrial Time. Maybe you should rename the page. Casey14 21:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I would prefer even a more extreme solution: only current Great powers are discussed in their own sections. The title isn't "Past and present Great powers", after all. CRGreathouse (t | c) 23:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

With respect, I'd disagree. This page deals with the concept in its entirety, from past to present. We mustn't lose sight of the fact that this might also be of interest to people approaching this from an historical POV, not just those with an IR mindset. If including past powers increased the page size hugely, then I might agree with you, however at the moment we have 10 nations listed, only two of which (Austria-Hungary and Italy, possibly also the US—depending on your view) are past powers. Getting rid of these two sections, neither of which are particularly verbose would reduce us to 8 sections. As far as I can see, this really doesn't result in any practical advantage, and does lead to the loss of potentially useful information.

Casey14's argument is a thorough red herring. The question of industrial/pre-industrial Great powers does not arise—as presently sourced, the diplomatic/academic usage of the term dates post-1815. We must be careful to note this definition, it is the entire basis of the page. 'Great' is not used in a subjective, adjectival sense—'Great powers' as discussed in academia are the province of this page.

Xdamr^talk 23:41, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

But the title isn't "Present Great Powers either". I would be fully for that idea if Germany, Italy, and France were all not included, however. Casey14 23:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

But you have no business demanding that certain countries are excluded—they are properly sourced after all, furthermore they are sourced as present Great powers (bar Italy).

Xdamr^talk 23:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

You have no business saying that those countries are sourced correctly. All the sources I've found on those countries are debateable, and biased, nonetheless. I'm not demanding them, because they are not current great powers. Casey14 00:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Casey, this is a non-facutal issue. That means that there is no right or wrong. We are not talking about whether or not the sky outside is blue or grey (that would be a factual-issue). All sources are going to be debateable. You can't say that "they are not current great powers." Some beleive Italy is a great power and others don't. If both sides can bring forth references, then we will need to include both sides. Again, this is not a "ture or false" question. It's debatable. And that's what we document, the debates and concepts in academia and politics. Also, I agree with Xdamr, this article should remain where it is right now, as it deals with the entire concept of a "great power." Regards, Signature^brendel 00:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)