Talk:Great power

Table of Great Powers: India, Italy and others...

About the table "Great Powers by time": -Older versions of this article only show Italy as a Great Power after WW1 until WW2. -Also, recent changes added India to the table as a Great Power on 2010 and 2020. - I also remember a very old version of this article that shows Ottoman Empire and Qing Empire.

My point here is how is the actual consensus about those 3 topics for the majority of editors? Thank you. B777-300ER (talk) 21:05, 17 January 2020

Even on sources 1 to 3, there's no sustainability for Italy and India claims to be current Great Powers. B777-300ER (talk) 23:18, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

That table is Template:List of great powers by date with its own talk page and discussion (dead-locked). I (and most high quality reliable sources) share your opinion about Italy and India. I would rather not mix the Ottoman Empire and Qing Empire among post 1815 Great Powers. Core issue here is, the template in question is independent on this very article, so it is easier for some editors to push their POV regardless of sources. Pavlor (talk) 06:40, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree with @Pavlor:and B777-300ER with Italy. I don't know about India because even though India is still a poor country in many aspects, it is also potential great power due to its huge population. But since there is consensus that Italy is by no means a great power in 2020, can anyone delete Italy for 2020? James343e (talk) 21:38, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Sweden? Seriously?

This piece names Sweden as a super power. I can't say if it's serious or just rethorical for the situation at hand.

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/sweden-new-superpower-megan-penhoet

\\ Working from home (talk) 07:50, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Not a reliable source... Pavlor (talk) 08:35, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Powers in the table...

I see after Italy and India, our poor table has a new regular: Brazil. It is obvious anyone editing the template doesn´t care about discussions on this talk page (or even the talk page of the template itself...). I don´t think this table - in its current state - adds any value to this article. Removal would be a best course of action. In the meantime, I will tag respective section. Pavlor (talk) 15:24, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

@Vcardozobr:. Pavlor (talk) 23:25, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

The table is well based on great sources from diplomats, experts and institutes around the world. Today, the biggest political actors are: US, China, Russia, UK and France, plus India, Germany, Brazil, Japan and Italy. The world of 1945 no longer represents the current world where new powers have emerged, and they have drastically changed the global balance of power. This is called globalization, and the only thing we can do is accept and move on.

I will put it bluntly, sources supporting inclusion of Italy, India and Brazil are cherry-picked and of low quality. High quality sources (respected peer reviewed journals) see them mostly as "not yet" great powers. See archive 15 for list of higher quality sources to the topic (definition of a great power). I will repeat myself: There are powers nobody disputes (US, China), or are usually recognized as such (Russia, UK, France, Germany, Japan). Main problem is the blurry space between "great" and "middle" powers (Italy, Brazil, India etc.). Great power status of such countries has support in some RS, but is disputed in many other high quality sources. Pavlor (talk) 06:10, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

India and Brazil are the main candidates with Germany and Japan to be made permanent members of the Security Council, they form the G4, and are formally supported by Russia, France and the UK, and several countries around the world. They are economic, agricultural and natural resources powers, they produce their own nuclear submarines, frigates, conventional submarines, fighters and armaments, the same with Italy, if that doesn't mean being a great power... I propose to keep these countries on the table, the sources are from highly qualified diplomats and world-renowned institutes, and the countries are members of P5 and G4, plus Italy. Recognized as the countries of a future Security Council. Vcardozobr (talk) 12:07, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

If these countries were members of the Security Council, nobody would dispute their great power status. In brief, I don´t share your assessment of sources you provided. High quality sources - not our love for some country - is the judge here (again, I recommend to read short review of several sources from the last 5 years in the archive 15 of this talk page). Pavlor (talk) 14:28, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

I totally agree with @Pavlor:. I support deleting Italy due to weak references. The references for Italy are compeltely unreliable, it says "references for Italy in 2020" and includes 7 references, yet none of them is from 2020. It is highly debatable that Italy is a supposed global power nowadays, and not other countries close to its status like Spain. Italy is much closer to Spain than to France/Germany in terms of economic and global power. Either we include both Italy and Spain, or I see no reason to include Italy in 2020. The current undisputable/clear great powers of the EU are the UK, Germany and France.

Pavlor, since there seems to be consensus that the sources for Italy are outdated, unreliable and disputable/controversial, can you delete Italy from the table? Thanks.James343e (talk) 21:31, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi@Pavlor: I think the best solution for now it is the removal of the table. I would rather not mix the pages, they are different pages with its own talk page and discussion. maintaining neutrality and productive discussion of classification of great power here is big job!.LuigiPortaro29 (talk) 06:49, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Yeah! This template is used only in two articles (this one and "List of modern great powers" - with its own share of faery tales... Romania!). It is obvious main source of contention here is a status of powers after 1945, so maybe a solution could be to trim the table (leaving only entries up to 1945) and add new states only with broader consensus. I will add a note to the template talk page about this discussion. Pavlor (talk) 08:50, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

I think the template is useful but should only be looking at dates or time periods that academics have reached consensus. The addition of 2010 & more problematic 2020 to the list has made this template rather unstable. The article should never have countries listed as of today. Academics can only know by looking in the past who were great powers so 2020 would be impossible to know. The sources for Brazil and India in 2010 & today talk about the BRICS countries and how they have the potential to be Great Powers. That does not mean nor does it say that they are great powers, only that they will most likely be in the future. So from the sources given nothing has changed since around 2000.

Also, can I point out that this template has become rather ugly as of late. A revision to one that is visually more refined like what I just shared would be better aesthetically going forth. So I was Bold and removed 2010 & 2020 for the reasons cited above and fixed its presentation. As for the ottoman empire I will have to read through the sources and I'll post what I found below. I am open one way or the other, I have schematism that it was seen as a great power back then for the reasons mentioned above, but I am open to it being included if there are high-quality sources saying it is. 51.7.116.245 (talk) 13:11, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

This table is good for historical factuality, but the 21st century powers need to be updated. There are major superpowers recognized by everyone (i.e. the United States and China), and there are the "Great Powers" such as Germany, Japan, Russia, France, and the U.K. I would classify Italy (along with Brazil and India) as an "Emerging Power", a country that isn't globally dominant, but still has enough influence to be respected on the global stage. While obviously not dominant now, the Ottoman Empire was a large power, and perhaps should be shown as such from 1815 until 1919. SwensonJ (talk) 19:51, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Reviewing what the cited sources for the Ottoman Empire as a Great Power in 1815 & 1880 said:

• 1815

1. Macedonia and the Macedonians: A History
   1. on page 51 : It talks about how the Ottoman Empire "gained great power and wealth" in the region. Notice it is in lower case and it does not mean "Great Power" as in a member of the club of Great Powers, but as in it had regional strength.
   2. On page 59 (cited) : it says "At the beginning of the nineteenth century, the Ottoman Empire was still a great power.” I do not believe they were talking about is being a Great Power (with capital letters) but as it being a regional power. I do not believe this backs up the claim
2. The Balkans Since 1453 –
   1. on page 204 : it talks about how in 1815 the ottoman empire was a great power in the near east, suggesting it was a regional power.
   2. on pages 319-320 it talks about how the UK in the 1840’s refused to let the Suez canal fall under the control of another great power so it ensured the integrity of the Ottoman Empire.
   3. on page 215 (cited) : The says “From the purely territorial viewpoint the Ottoman Empire in the early nineteenth century was still a great world power. One of the largest states in Europe, it also sprawled over vast areas … this facade of empire was impressive but substance behind the façade was very different.” It then has a sentence about how it was in decline and then I cannot read the next page. To me this is talking about how it looked like one through its size but was not one, though the next page should give clarity. From the other sources I cited inside this book I believe it was not saying it was a Great Power at the time.
3. Islam in History: Ideas, People, and Events in the Middle East
   1. on page 150 (cited) : it says “which in the nineteenth century meant the Ottoman Empire, the last surviving Muslim great power.” It is a Muslim great power, another regional power then.

• 1880

1. Conversion and Apostasy in the Late Ottoman Empire
   1. on page 24-25 : "Although I firmly believe that the fate of the Ottoman state was ultimately decided by the Ottomans themselves, we cannot deny that they operated under severe constraints, the main constraint being the claim of the Great powers to be the protectors of the Christians in the Ottoman Empire." This says that the Ottoman Empire was not a part of the Great Powers.
   2. on page 67 (cited) : “In the geographical area spanning much of what is now the Balkans and the Middle East, on one side stood the "Club of Great Powers", imbued with the ideas of the "White Man's Burden" and the "mission civilisatrice", and on the other the Ottoman empire, the only non-Christian Great Power in the region.” It appears to show that the Ottoman Empire was not seen by other nations as a Great Power at the time. Again it appears to be talking about it being a great regional power.
2. A History of Ukraine: The Land and Its Peoples
   1. on page 491 (cited) : “By the end of the nineteenth century, Europe’s great powers included Great Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Russia, and Austria-Hungary. Another power was the Ottoman Empire … Each of the great powers was afraid that its rivals would take advantage of the weakened Ottoman state, and therefore all were willing to come to the aid , at least diplomatically, of the proverbial "sick man of Europe." The cited page goes go a long way to prove that the Ottoman Empire was not a Great power. Not a good source to back this claim up.
3. Islam in History: Ideas, People, and Events in the Middle East (again)
   1. on page 150 (cited again) : it says “which in the nineteenth century meant the Ottoman Empire, the last surviving Muslim great power.” It is a Muslim great power, another regional power then.

From the sources cited I do not believe they back up the claim raised that the Ottoman Empire was seen then or now as a Great Power during these time periods. I am unsure if it was seen as such earlier but my guess would be it was. Nonetheless, the authors whose work has been cited all appear to contradict the claim that they have been used as evidence for. I am open to be proven incorrect, though I do believe other sources would be needed. 51.7.116.245 (talk) 14:06, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Pavlor, maybe we should just remove the table completely. After all, there is not really a consensus on what countries are exactly great powers as the article says. Whoever made that table found the sources for those countries, but I have the suspicion that it can be expanded or even reduced to just a few countries (like US, Russia, China) depending on the source one finds. One source claiming France as great power perhaps does not include Germany and vice-versa. For Italy the term "least of the great powers" has been used to describe it, that can count as great power or not depending on the source. "Emerging superpower" or "new great power" has been used to describe India, that can count as great power or not depending on the source. Same with Brazil, I guess. IMHO we should just remove the table completely. Otherwise there isn't much we can do. It's always going to be a problem. No academic encyclopedia gives a list of the great powers, as if one can make a list of such things. It's a term variably used, there isn't much of a consensus to have an actual definitive list.Barjimoa (talk) 12:16, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Keep the table. Historians largely agree on the matter with various lists that include or drop a few marginal cases. Fact is historians and their textbooks use the term all the time and Wiki users are well served. It is not Wikipedia's job to announce the "real" listing or to erase all this work. Rjensen (talk) 12:32, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

In what form? Ending with 1945? Or 2000? Or even later? What powers include then? Even dubious ones like Italy and (name your favourite regional power here...)? Should we continue to use this template (which may anynone rewrite without changing a single bit in the article itself), or should we create our own table for this very article? (note this template is used only in two articles) Pavlor (talk) 12:59, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Rjensen, the table is good. Just make sure that those sources are reliable. I think up to the year 2000 works. An emerging great power is not a great power, it is a potential one. So they should not be included. As for Italy, please go through the sources cited as I did above and review what they say. If it isn't from a reliable academic source or if the source does not back up the claims then please remove it. It also does not matter how many pages use that template, that is not an argument for its exclusion. It is harder for people who do not know Wikipedia to edit templates, so using one is a good way to try and reduce edit wars, even though they can still occur. 51.7.116.182 (talk) 18:54, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

I have both this article and that template in my watchlist and I can assure you both have their fair share of edit-warring. This is the very reason I started this discussion. Pavlor (talk) 04:18, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

I did say that it's a good way to try and reduce edit wars, even though they can still occur. Looking over the edit history of the page and the template it appears that this was an edit war on the main article that got brought into the template. If you question the validity of the inclusion of a country during a time period cited, then look at the sources. I read through the cited books on the Ottoman Empire as I was genuinely curious what they said and reported my findings above. 51.7.116.182 (talk) 04:44, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Italy c.2000

I noticed you brought up objections to Italy being included for the year 2000. Would you be willing to do the same for the sources on Italy to see if they are indeed correct for the cited year and of academic quality? If they pass both then I am unsure what objection you'd have. If they don't agree that Italy was a great power around the year 2000 then they should be removed. If you question the academic weight from the sources used, then I think that is a discussion that should be had. 51.7.116.182 (talk) 04:44, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

I mentioned this topic earlier in the discussion. In archive 15, you may find my brief research of recent academic sources concerning the Great power topic (that was during a sock-puppet-infested 2010+ Great powers discussion). Inclusion of Italy is carefully cherry-picked. There are some sources claiming Italy is a Great power, but for most high quality sources Italy lost Great power status during WW2. Pavlor (talk) 05:01, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

I looked through it but I did not see a discussion that goes through the Italian sources. I believe I must have missed them and I apologise for that. Can you bring those findings here so we can have a discussion? You say that some do support its inclusion, but you do not believe they are high-quality sources. I hope that my analysts of the Ottoman Sources might help end that topic, let's figure out the Italian one then. 51.7.116.182 (talk) 14:38, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

First , we should do not mix pages. that topic belongs to the Template:List of great powers by date

Second, Wikipedia is not about the truth, but about reporting what reliable sources say. Wikipedia's job as well is not to announce the "real" listing powers. note that all High sources are nothing when comes to diplomacy between countries. every Academic have its own opinion; I have also Doubts if Japan is a great power, Recognition is stronger than capabilities. and as for Italy the problems started when Italy was added in the year 2010 not the year 2000.LuigiPortaro29 (talk) 17:46, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

We have no other choice than to discuss this issue on one place. The table (template) is meaningless without this very article (it is used only in ONE other article). Note I posted link to this discussion on the template talk page, so watchers/interested parties may be aware of it. Pavlor (talk) 04:23, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

I will restate, it does not matter how many pages use a template. The number of pages that use a template is not a reason to remove a template. As was stated above by LuigiPortaro29, Wikipedia reports what reliable sources say. One's personal opinion should not come into play, only what the evidence shows. I am fully open to either side on this argument about Italy in 2000. Facts and evidence provided should decide it's inclusion or exclusion. Make your case one way or the other about it and let us see what the evidence provided shows. We should also verify if they are indeed from reliable academic sources that can be trusted. 51.7.116.182 (talk) 00:23, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

I don´t think you got my point (my English language skills are rather limited). That template and this article are inseparately intertwined - in its current state, the template exists only to allow changes independent on the consensus in this article. That is why it makes sense to have a centralized discussion about its form and place in our article. As of your request, I recommend to (re)read what I wrote in archive 15 ([1] direct link for your convenience). Most important part: Italy is mentioned only once (as a Great power until 1943...). Pavlor (talk) 04:30, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

You might want to re-check the cited sources for Italy in 2000 as none that you commented on in the link were listed in the current citations. Please can you talk about the ones currently cited? Unless they are pertinent to your argument against the current sources cited for Italy in 2000 and if that's the case please state why here so we can discuss that. Thanks. 51.7.116.182 (talk) 05:18, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

First, sources I listed are of higher quality, 2) sources in the table (only first three are really useable) are a prime example of cherry-picking (you may find similar sources mentioning India or Brazil). The core issue here is due weight: you may find few somewhat good sources supporting inclusion of several countries in the blury space between "middle" and "great" powers, but most high quality sources would not call these countries "Great powers". This was the very reason for my brief research of recent scholarship in this area of study: to see broader consensus. Pavlor (talk) 06:01, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

I went through the trouble of reviewing all sources cited for the Ottoman Empire and posted my findings above. Can you do the same for Italy? I'd rather not do that again. If you believe they are of undue weight then please let's talk about that. 51.7.116.182 (talk) 12:40, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

I fear I´m not able to express myself good enough. In the first three sources (first 3 references for Italy), Italy is mentioned among Great powers and these are OK sources. My point is: much more sources keep quiet about Italy or openly dismiss its great power status after 1943. So - in my POV based on brief research of recent scholarly sources - there seems to be quite broad consensus Italy is not among the great powers. Clear now? Pavlor (talk) 13:33, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Ok, so you believe the sources are good, but you do not believe there is academic consensus for Italy in the year 2000. Ok, I'm not sure what we should do if that's the case. If the sources are good and from (as I stated earlier) "reliable academic sources" then while it goes against what I would personally expect, I would lean towards Italy being included. If I understand correctly, your argument is that the sources do not show academic consensus. I was going to ask if you could provide other "reliable academic sources" that directly talk about Italy in the year 2000 and say it is not a great power. But that would be quite hard and I am unsure what it would accomplish but to show that Italy is/was disputed. Maybe it can be shown as disputed on the table if that is so? 51.7.116.182 (talk) 21:51, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Proposing to move and continue the above discussion to Template:List of great powers by date. I think I possess very good sources and arguments for the version I chose except for Italy. Regards Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 15:07, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

This discussion was announced on the template talk page, better to continue one centralized discussion on one place than jumping from one talk page to another (and back). Others may disagree of course. Pavlor (talk) 15:32, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Understand that, though still, template dispute and tag was supposed to take place on template itself and not a page where it's being used. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 03:50, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Pavlor Further on topic, we have sufficient sources for countries I've placed for 2010s and 20s. US, Russia, China, India, France, UK, Japan and Germany though I'm still ambiguous about Italy. And there are no other countries than these with significant coverage in sources.

• Sufficient sources suggest that Ottoman empire was still a significant power in early 19th century.
• There hasn't been much coverage of Italy for 2010s but there is no source or event either suggesting it's decline either. Same for 2000s.
• In case of United Kingdom, sufficient sources cover it's decline with emerging new sources as well. We may review it for 2020s but later.
• I chose to restore Republic of India and not Brazil (India was earlier there as well) for the sufficient sources. Index rankings at CINC and closed gap of economic and military power has led to depletion of ambiguous status and more mentions in RS. Reliable sources suggest Brazil to be a potential great power and India as a potential superpower while it's status as a great power is having widespread coverage with disputes.
• Except for United States, Russia and China all other countries have sources suggesting their ambiguous status.
  • Germany and Japan for their strong economies but limited strategic capabilities and low growth.
  • India for a large and still expanding economy and strategic capabilities with weapons of mass destruction and expanding clout. But still poor socio economic conditions and more focus on regional politics (and more of coverage as a regional power).
  • UK and France for their sizable economies and strategic capabilities but declining power.

The major 3 (US, Russia and PRC), have more of their coverage as superpowers. And as great powers we see being covered are all significant powers throughout timeline, we can't cover only benevolent powers. For example, British empire will become probably only single one in 1910s and 1920s. Sources there are already in article. I hereby support the version I restored for template. Regards Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 05:47, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

If you read our discussion above (and older discussions on this very talkpage), there is no strong consesnsus in high quality reliable sources for inclusion of Italy, India or Brazil. As of India, I fear your summary above is close to original research (it is much easier to find high quality sources stating India is NOT a great power than otherwise). As of the Ottoman Empire, it is not usually bundled with "European Great Powers" (same for Qing China) in the sources, so more elaborate discussion about non-European powers may be needed. There is also a question, where (when) to end the table, even 2010 is way too recent for a rigorous scholarly evaluation. Myself, I would end it in 2000. Pavlor (talk) 06:41, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

I have been well around through your discussions earlier and that's why chose to state so and recommend you to be through sources for India and Ottoman to have an overview. The sources cited throughout stating "India is NOT a great power" are about India's "posturing" essentially and not materialistic power what easily can be deemed as an opinion piece and even those are older publications. Plenty of sources there, mostly recent ones though as well to contradict them regarding India's posturing (not my OR) and that's why India is in 2010s and not 2000s. Citing those of 90s and 2000s against existing ones would be obsolete. I still agree with you that India's status is still ambiguous as compared to contemporary great powers with at least relative limited coverage, though by far most prevalent among all "candidates" here and repeated comparisons with contemporary great powers (be them confirming and non confirming). As for timeline to end table, I would recommend to keep 2010s as it's recent past, is supposed to be covered with available sources to reflect positions just era which passed away. We may later update according sources which emerge further. For 2020s, must be removed for a couple of years. It might have coverage in middle of next decade while sources emerging for now may be used for further updating 2010s. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 07:29, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

There are entire books explaining status of India: eg. Bharat Karnad, Why India Is Not a Great Power (Yet), New Delhi : Oxford University Press, 2015. (note I read only a review in "Political Studies Review" journal) Removing India would mean entries for 2000 and 2010 are the same (well, why not). Maybe in few years there will be a scholarly consensus India was already a great power back in 2010, but there is no such consensus as of now. Pavlor (talk) 08:15, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

I support the removal of the table from the article, its an extremely subjective thing to quantify a 'great power' (especially in recent history) and the constant debate about what eras should be listed, who to include, what sources are reliable, etc. (as demonstrated on this talk page) is not worth the time and effort to support a questionable minimum value template. Leotext (talk) 22:20, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

I like the table and suggest that you keep it, but perhaps add the caveat (already included in the main Great Power page) that the term "great power" is more than a little subjective. The references include numerous mentions of Italy being listed as a great power, and so to my mind that is enough to show that Italy is in the conversation, which is all such a table can hope to do. If you like, you can add this quote from Kenneth Waltz (1979, p. 131): "Any ranking [of great powers] at times involves difficulties of comparison and uncertainties about where to draw the lines. Historically, despite the difficulties, one finds general agreement about who the great powers of a period are, with occasional doubt about marginal cases." Regarding India, my use of the term is that great powers are less than superpowers, and so certainly using the term for a nuclear power with the population and other resources to become a superpower by the end of the century is entirely reasonable. I would also agree with others who have said that India is a much less questionable addition to the table than Italy...although I would also point out that nobody is questioning Russia's inclusion on the list, and its GDP is somewhat less than Italy's (I would also refer to John Mearsheimer's description of economy and population as the main factors of his "latent power" concept; see chapter 2 of Tragedy of Great Power Politics). (I hope I'm using this right; apologies if not. Came here for a source for an article I'm writing on the difference between superpower and great power (I know...I tell my students not to use Wikipedia as a source :)