Talk:Great power

For old version, see: History

G8 image

The G8 summit is a decadelong established gathering of the most potent economic powers in the world. Even more, the issues discussed in this forum deal with all global questions and international tasks, Climate change for instance. It is the premier forum of the last decades for decision making. An image representing the summit has been added. Because the UN security council wields less competence in several power spheres, the G8 has been installed at top of the article. Lear 21 (talk) 08:48, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Please stop adding this image and adding the EU. The G8 is not a group of great powers. The importance of the G8 has also been highly questioned in recent years with the exclusion of China, arguably the second most important power in the world. I say this without bias as my country is a member of the G8. Nirvana888 (talk) 19:50, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The G8 includes France, United States, United Kingdom, Russia, Germany, Japan, Italy, and Canada... Yep it excludes China and includes Italy, and Canada? Are you trying to make an argument that Canada is a Great Power? Are you trying to make an argument that China is not a Great Power? The G8 has as much to do with the Great Power structure as the WTO does... which is nothing. -- Phoenix (talk) 19:55, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The G8 gathers 6 of the major powers. It is out of question the most visible forum for great powers in the last 30 years. China is not in it because it became an economic power only in the last 5 years. The caption under the image not even directly claims a great power status. More important is that the image comes along WITH the UN image TOGETHER. It is a usefull completion of the picture of major powers. The introduction prominently claims, economic power /strength to be a cornerstone. The G8 image visualizes that in a perfect way and enriches the understanding of the article. Lear 21 (talk) 10:22, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

What academic source backs up your claim that the G8 represents Great Powers? Is there a time that Canada was considered a Great Power? Having a permanent seat at the UN Security Council is recognized as such by academic sources. Having the image included in the Great Power Article implies that there is a relation, caption or not. -- Phoenix (talk) 11:26, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

@Phoenix79: [1] Choose one of the endless references concerning Great powers in G7/G8 meetings. Just by scanning the several lists I count more than 30 sources which directly name great power status with the G8 gatherings. Many of them in high profile magazines or IR expert foundations. Honestly, the reverts of this image and putting the G8 as a major power forum in question signalizes the real lack of competence in terms of International relations. The image in combination with the UN Security is ideal. Lear 21 (talk) 11:40, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Phoenix. Just because some authorities consider some G8 members to be great powers does not equate G8 membership with great power status. Anyway is not the G8 getting phased out in favour of the G20? Does anyone consider G8 country Canada to be a great power? Did anyone find a source in support of claims that Italy is a great power? Also the term "real lack of competence" is used above in a context that breaches WP:CIV. Viewfinder (talk) 13:40, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

No one is saying that there aren't Great Powers in the G8. What we are saying is being a member of the G8 does not make you a Great Power. Adding that image into this article implies exactly that. -- Phoenix (talk) 22:40, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Why is a G8 picture unfitting? This meeting is the most prominent regular summit of great powers. Its a no nobrainer. I don´t want to put in to much heat here, but this pcture does make sense, so I reverted it. KJohansson (talk) 10:50, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

It is unfitting because not all the G8 participants are great powers. You call it a no brainer but you have not addressed the objections. PLease do not reinstate again without consensus. Viewfinder (talk) 13:18, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

@Viewfinder and others: I suggest recognizing the unnumerable sources describing the G8 summits as Great power forum. Right now the article transports the message that only a seat in the UN security council and its implications stand for great power status. This is insufficient and wrong. The introduction claims several spheres of influence, the first mentioned is Economy ! The G8 image perfectly transports this message. Even more important; the caption explicitely does NOT claim great power status but economic status, which accurately describes the situation. In combination WITH the UN image it clarifies the power dimension visually. Lear 21 (talk) 13:01, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Then why not the G20, which includes India and Brazil, let alone China, and becoming more important than the G8? Stop using block capitals, which are the written equivalent of shouting down those who disagree with you, and stop reinstating contested edits until you get consensus. Viewfinder (talk) 14:52, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

@Viewfinder: Because G20 has not been cited as forum of Great powers. Plus, you start contradicting yourself. On one hand you are asking to favour future formats (G20) which haven´t built reputations or have been backed by sources. On the other (see topic above) you and others defy any current reality and available sources of the recent past. This is contrary to any serious referencing methods at Wikipedia. The concusion of your argumentation is simple: 1. No change of the article at every cost. 2. No acceptance of reliable expert sources. Shaky and arbitrarily change of viewpoints. I suggest you and other tackle the first 50 sources that have been provided citing the G8 as great powers, then we discuss again. Until that, the image remains. Lear 21 (talk) 15:17, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

G8 is history. Officially replaced by G20.G8's history, G20 to call the shots now, Global Economic Forum to Expand Permanently Bcs09 (talk) 14:12, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Let discuss this by providing reliable sources instead of engaging in a never-ending disagreement. Any further unilateral edits and we will have to ask for article protection and a potential block of disruptive editors. Nirvana888 (talk) 16:13, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean, Nirvana ? Weren´t there plenty of sources ? I found the claim that G8 is not a place for major powers so unbelievable that I´m almost speechless. I don´t want to be personal, but I think this is so ridiculous that I don´t even to discuss such stupidity. In the light of endless sources even more so. You don´t have to be an expert to judge the G8. As someone argued before, the written text under the picture does not point out the term great power. This picture very useful. The article before was not up to date. KJohansson (talk) 22:02, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Credible references citing the G7/8 summit as gathering of great powers:

Academic evidence:

1.It explains how a group of great powers—the G-7—replaced the US as the hegemon

not published

2. 'Leading in the Concert of Great Powers: Lessons from Russia's G8 Chairmanship

Clearly says it's from the Russian perspective

3. The Great Powers in Denver The G-7 powers became the G-8 in Denver in summer 1997

only mentioned "G8 great powers" in that context without describing what the qualifications are for a great power

4. the great powers now have a club of their own—the so-called G-8,

Not an academic peer-reviewed publication or book

5. ...were under any illusions, after the previous twelve years, that the UN could cope without major support in many forms from the G8 great powers...

only mentioned "G8 great powers" in that context without describing what the qualifications are for a great power

Media evidence:

• All irrelevant since not academic Nirvana888 (talk) 16:48, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

1. Great powers' summit targets 15-billion-dollar farm support

2. What if the great powers held a summit and no one cared?

3. group of powerful states possessed with great powers of decision-making

4. Risto Penttila, a Finnish security expert, calls the G-8 a "concert" of great powers

5. The assembly of the eight great powers

6. representatives of the world's "Great Powers", the so-called G8

7. reading the impassioned press releases of the "great powers

Lear 21 (talk) 14:12, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Extra comment: This article is rated B-class a mediocre status. By now the majority of references are not academic or can´t be read. The vast majority of Wikipedia articles include credible sources outside of academic reputation. The given G8 references here match or supersede the quality standards at this article. Lear 21 (talk) 20:24, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Seems pretty reliable (the list of sources). The G8 pic is without a doubt enhacing the quality here. The understanding of great powers in the last 30 years will become tangible. KJohansson (talk) 22:43, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

2. proposal

Inserting the G8 image in top position under the UN image, or, as replacement for the map of great powers in the section "Aftermath of the Cold War". A division of great powers in economic and UN security council members is outdated, inaccurate and insufficiently focuses on security measures as a factor of great power status. Lear 21 (talk) 12:37, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Please answer this directly this time. Are you saying that Italy and Canada are Great Powers? Are you saying China is not a Great Power? Having a permanent seat in the United Nations Security Council has many references to being a Great Power including the UN charter. -- Phoenix (talk) 15:24, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I argue that the G7/8 next to UN security council was the premier forum for great powers (6 out of 8) in the world for over 30 years. Because this has been proven by references AND common knowledge it seems to be useful to add an image at this article. The caption of the image should not mention the "great power" term in order to avoid misinterpretations concerning the status of Canada and Italy. Lear 21 (talk) 20:58, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Based on the views of at least several long-term editors of this article, we are not doubting that the G8 contains great powers. What we are saying is that the G8 is not a group of "great powers" unlike the P5. There is a distinct difference between those two cases. By adding the image, one would imply that all G8 members are great powers. Moroever, you will notice that the G8 is not found anywhere in the article prose thus already inappropriate on that basis. There are reliable sources which suggest that the P5 was created as a group of great powers. To this day, the P5 still are still the five most influential powers in the world in areas such as diplomacy and military and are thus accorded unique recognition. Moreover, you cannot add something that is "based" on common knowledge as that would be original research. Everything in this article should be backed up by reliable sources. Nirvana888 (talk) 21:47, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the G8 IS a group of Great powers, 3/4 of it. Thats more than enough relevance. No, the UN SC 5 are not anymore the only Great powers, as simply stated in the list. No, China was not even considered a complete Great power before 1995 even as a member of UN SC because. The lack of presence of the G8 only demonstrates how outdated and insufficiently this article is constructed. If there are no serious complaints, I´m going to add this significant content to the article tommorrow. Lear 21 (talk) 22:22, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

There IS a serious complaint among Pheonix, myself and most editors here. Please do not make unilateral changes again to this page. Your statements show a disarming desire at trying to push your own POV. To clarify and reiterate again, the P5 is a group of great powers (See sources in the article). The G8 is not because reliable source stating that it is a group of "great powers" has not been provided. China was considered a great power in 1945 as you can see from the list. You seem to feel you are right based on "common knowledge". Unfortunately reliable sources instead of common knowledge guide editing policies here. Nirvana888 (talk) 22:35, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I oppose any major additions or changes to this article without agreement being reached here first, especially on this matter of the G8 or Europe which has been gone over for days and was the cause of the lock for edit warring. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:39, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Lear, please can you supply your content addition here before you consider adding it to the article. Then perhaps we can find some content about which we can agree. Viewfinder (talk) 04:59, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Here is the G8 pic.

Economic influence and status is displayed at G8 summits (Heiligendamm, Germany)

I fully support the picture in this article. I´m still shocked about the ignorance here. Even more shocked I am by the blunt ongoing promotion of the stupidity. The article cites several conferences in history where great powers gathered. The G8 is an institution for more than 30 years now. The massive amount of references are credible. I just googled "major powers" AND "G8" the list of sources there are endless and credible as well. Sorry to say, but the discussion against this image is absolute baseless. I suggest, that the opposite site now has to proof that the G8 is explicitly NOT a forum of Great powers. Otherwise the given sources should be taken as credible. KJohansson (talk) 11:35, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I´m still shocked about the ignorance here. Even more shocked I am by the blunt ongoing promotion of the stupidity Wow Calm down. That is uncalled for and not helping ANYTHING. Please re-read WP:Civility and WP:Assume good faith.

Lets be clear here. No one is saying that there are not Great Powers in the G8... Can we all agree on that. What is in Dispute is if being a member of the G8 makes you a Great Power. If that is true then we are having the discussion about the inclusion of Italy and Canada to the Great Power article.

If your argument is the inclusion of the G8 because there are Great Powers in an international organization even if other countries in the organization are not Great Powers then we have another problem. NATO is a great example. It includes all the Great Powers save for China and Russia. What about the WTO??? Just like the G8 it's only missing one Great Power, Russia. Realistically the G8 has as much to do with Great Powers as NAFTA, APEC, the World Bank, the IMF or for that matter the G20 does.

The argument is broken down into a few parts:

• There ARE great powers in the G8.
• There ARE countries included that are NOT great powers in the G8.
• The G8 does NOT include all the Great Powers.
• There are many international organizations that include Great Powers.
• The picture does not represent the current or past Great Powers.

Because of these reasons the picture brings little to the article since it is not representative of the Great Powers; thus it should not be included in the Great Power article. -- Phoenix (talk) 12:26, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

It is not decisive that every image displays ALL so called great powers. The UN SC image does not include Japan & Germany either. The significant value of the G8 image for this article is that it ADDS content about where the economic powerful states used to gather in an institionalized summit. The introduction claims economic power FIRST as a factor of great power status. This is visualized by the G8 image. AGAIN, the caption does not even claims great power status (although it has been proven by references). KJohansson made an interesting point by demanding sources that proof the G8 are not a Great power forum. Lear 21 (talk) 11:54, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

By there being Great Powers in the G8 that makes it hard. what we would need would be an academic source that says that if you are in the G7/8 you ARE a Great Power. I know of no such document. There are MANY sources that say that if you are a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council you ARE a Great Power. If economy was the primary reason for a country to be a Great Power then we have another problem... Italy has a higher GDP than Russia and it is not considered a Great Power, or even a potential superpower! Heck if you check the GDP per capita we would prove that Luxembourg is the Greatest Superpower around.... But as we know economy alone does not make one a Great Power, and the G8 is only about those countries economies.

So you admit that the G8 does not represent the past or present Great Powers & it really only displays content relevant to another article... So I think its clear that that image is not relevant to this article.

p.s. I Googled "Great Powers" G8 and I got 18,500 hits

I also Googled "Great Powers" NATO and I got 170,000 hits.... Did I just prove that the members of NATO are Great Powers??? I think not... -- Phoenix (talk) 05:15, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

@Phoenix: It seems that you have not yet understood the purpose of an encyclopedia or an article or the purpose of images in an article. This article, "Great power", describes the term, the measures (though insufficiently) and the historic develepoments of great powers as nations or empires or states. Your frequently repeated rationale to include only the image of the UNSC to demonstrate the contemporary era is naive, incomplete and does not address the introduction either. The introduction claims a comprehensive set of power dimensions. One of the dimension is visualized by the G8 image. Lear 21 (talk) 13:45, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

That is your opinion... Ok lets restate this, I will cut and past a past message (edited down a bit though):

Wikipedia:No original research : We are not here to Create our own opinions and post it on Wikipedia, it is actually officially banned

Synthesis of published material which advances a position : we must also avoid creating our own conclusions by doing research here and drawing our own conclusions from them

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

We should only use Academic accredited sources that we can cite via Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability.

Ok now that we have this said that your previous statement violates all three of those main points especially WP:OR & WP:SYN. The reason that the UNSC is included is simple, multiple academic sources state exactly this.

Please lets be clear on this what academic source says that you are a Great Power if you are in the G8?????? -- Phoenix (talk) 05:36, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

New perspectives on global governance: why America needs the G8, page 40 [2]

I searched through this text, it talks about the Great Powers in the G8, even talks about the Great Powers in the UNSC... but it does not say that one is a Great Power if they are in the G8. It only makes sense again is someone here trying to say that Canada is a Great Power??? -- Phoenix (talk) 19:27, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Bailin, Alison. "Explaining G8 Effectiveness: The Model of Group Hegemony" [3], this is now the second time this ref has been presented. There are a manifold of others which have been already provided. I think this discussion can be considered finished by now. The evidence is overwhelming and credible. Lear 21 (talk) 12:00, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

There is a problem with this, its an unpublished document. We have no clue what it actually says. You cant really use a source if you can never read it :-( Your belief that this is overwhelming is just not true and for good reason. No one is saying that members of the G8 are Great Powers. But people have said many times that members of the Congress of Vienna and the UNSC are Great Powers. Source you dont believe me about the Congress of Vienna, please read that article and come back to us... please. -- Phoenix (talk) 19:27, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I also think the time for reflection has come to an end now. The opposition has no arguments anymore apart from hypocritical chitchat. Why should there be a problem with the sources, 79Phoenix? Half of the sources at the article can´t be read. I have noticed your (and Nirvanas) reverts in an other issue, where Lear21 tried to removed non reliable sources. You and Nirvana have exposed dishonest intentions and contradictionary arguing. You claim academic sources (G8 pic) and at the same time you keep old non academic sources. I insert therefore the G8 pic again. I´m looking forward for any neutral arbitration process. KJohansson (talk) 10:58, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Kindly refrain from hot-headed accusations and stop being disruptive. If you unable to discuss issues in a civil way then I suggest you take a break from this article. Nirvana888 (talk) 17:21, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Umh if you would check the revert you would see that it was because they were links to quotes [4]. And Nirvana noticed that I reverted something that should not have been re-introduced [5] and actually said this source is not academic and does not discuss great power status. So please don't say things that are just untrue. -- Phoenix (talk) 02:24, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

The discussion about the G8 image has come to an end. Several high quality references provide an academic evidence, that the G8 summit is a forum for contemporary great powers. Editors who previously took an opposite stance have not proofed the contrary. From my point of view the case is closed. all the best Lear 21 (talk) 20:22, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

The discussion has certainly not ended and you have no right to try to close it in the above manner, and there will never be consensus so long as the personal attacks that I have been reading on this page continue. You cannot list both EU and some of its member states as Great Powers because you cannot have Great Powers within a Great Power. Viewfinder (talk) 21:22, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

@Viewfinder: The reality, the academics and therefore the references proof that both opinions exist at the same time. The reality that single nation states wield power AND the EU as political union. This is acknowledged by international organizations such as the IMF and finds most evidently its reality in the G8 summit where at the same time the EU and nation states are represented. This reality has to be mirrored here as well. Lear 21 (talk) 21:47, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Right now I am very upset about the personal attacks and incivility that I have been reading on this page. Therefore I would prefer to wait until tomorrow before responding. Viewfinder (talk) 21:54, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

You have reverted several content extensions backed by a number of academic references at the article Great power. The references have been laid out at the discussion and are not answered by your account. You recent reverts are disruptive editing and violate Wikipedia policy. This is a first warning. Do not revert multiple, scientifical backed additions without discussing. Lear 21 (talk) 21:22, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect you will continue to be reverted so long as the personal attacks from you and Johnansson continue and you continue to unilaterally impose material without consensus. The best course would be for you to start dispute resolution proceedings. Viewfinder

This was a neutral warning and a reminder of official Wikipedia policies. The content which has been added has been backed at different times by 4 editors. The content was also backed by several high quality references and academics. Your account and others have cited not one credible academic to proof the opposite. This is a neutral assessment of the reality. Lear 21 (talk) 21:39, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect the content that you are adding has been supported by one other current editor and opposed by four current editors (BritishWatcher, Nirvana, Phoenix and myself). I will not reconsider my position so long as the personal attacks by you and Johansson and your attempts to close discussions without consensus continue. Viewfinder (talk) 21:45, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

You are fantasizing, I have not conducted any personal attacks. Its an illusion of your mind. And honestly, Wikipedia in my eyes is a place of arguments, facts, reality and reliable sources and not not a place of personal vanity. I can fully understand KJohansson who seems fed up by the massive ignorance of the fundamentalist deniers of reality. If imagined personal attacks are the only arguments you have to justify your reverts, than goodnight Wikipedia. Lear 21 (talk) 22:31, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

It is not helpful to accuse other editors of "massive ignorance" and a real lack of competence, and it is surely not helpful to try to steamroll discussions before allowing other editors time to respond to your positions. And the personal attacks by Johansson (example) were definitely not imagined. Viewfinder (talk) 22:56, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

If there is somebody who feels still attacked, I´m sorry. With sugar on the top. KJohansson (talk) 11:21, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

2. proposal - Arbitrary section break - Part I

The G8 image needs to be included as useful addition in order to enhance the understanding of the economic power dimension. It is in line with images like the Congres of Vienna where several participants are visualized which at the time where not recognized great powers. Lear 21 (talk) 21:59, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

The Congress of Vienna image is a historical image and the leading participants subsequently became known as the Great Powers. And yet again you are annoying other editors reinstating material into the article without consensus. So long as you continue to breach Wikipedia policies in this manner, you will not be taken seriously and there will never be consensus. Viewfinder (talk) 22:20, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

You cannot argue FOR the Congress of Vienna pic while claiming SOME Great powers are participating, while at the same time arguing the G8 pic are not 100% acknowledged Great power. Don´t you see this contradiction ? The point is, that the G8 like the Congress gathering major powers in the specific historical context. Either the G8 is going to be introduced or the Congress image is going to be removed, very simple. KJohansson (talk) 14:29, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I see no contradiction because the five main participants at Vienna became the five Great Powers listed in the article. The eight G8 participants are not all great powers, and China, which is generally acknowledged to be a Great Power, is not in the G8. Viewfinder (talk) 17:47, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I will attempt to answer your question..... again...

There is a huge difference between the Congress of Vienna and the G8

1) There are many academic sources that state as much. And we have provided only a few of the links for you to research this yourself.

2) The Congress of Vienna article a page that to my recollection I have never edited before has even more academic sources backing up this very point Though it would be silly to list them all here.

3) a casual search has brought even more sources backing this up.

4) And most importantly. Its the origin of the term "Great Powers"!!!!! Are you saying that the origins of the term that this article is talking about is irrelevant to the article as a whole???

a) taken from the article - Lord Castlereagh, the British Foreign Secretary, first used the term in its diplomatic context, in a letter sent on February 13, 1814: "It affords me great satisfaction to acquaint you that there is every prospect of the Congress terminating with a general accord and Guarantee between the Great powers of Europe, with a determination to support the arrangement agreed upon, and to turn the general influence and if necessary the general arms against the Power that shall first attempt to disturb the Continental peace."

the G8 is just like NATO or the WTO when it comes to Great Powers. There are some in both of them. The Congress of Vienna was the origins of the term... and you think that it's not worthy of an image??? -- Phoenix (talk) 06:41, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

G8

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Great Power and Superpower

Hello...There seems to be a lot of misunderstanding in these comments regarding the compatibility of 'superpower' with 'great power'. Insofar as both terms are difficult to define, they probably mean the same thing. After the Napoleonic wars, the term 'Great Power' was used by various commentators to give special emphasis on a new breed of exceptionally powerful European State, most evidently Britain and Russia, who supported the status quo (i.e. were not revolutionary powers). It was a way of reinforcing the legitimacy of the post-war era, and delegitimising revolutionary forces. This term continued well into the twentieth century, until Profs. Spykman and Fox began using the term 'superpower' to refer to an exceptionally powerful and vast State, often with intercontinental military, political and industrial reach. They put Britain, America and Soviet Russia into this category. It therefore becomes very difficult to ascertain precisely whether the two terms are any different. A country like Britain was relatively more powerful when it was at its apex in the mid-late nineteenth century, and could easily have been called a superpower at the time, even though it was 'only' referred to as a great power. My point being that a superpower is automatically a great power, although it is uncertain in current discourse whether a great power is automatically a superpower. In many respects this is a political question, rather than an academic one, as very few people would agree on any particular ranking.

If I were to compile a list based on the current academic literature, I would probably suggest the following:

Superpower: United States, European Union

Major Power: Japan, China, India, Russia, Brazil

Middle Power: Canada, Australia, South Africa, Thailand

Minor Power: All the others

However, I know this would be considered 'original research' and not compatible with Wikipedian policy. But I thought I'd make the point all the same. Imperium Europeum (talk) 12:43, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

With regard to the European Union—which seems the focus of much contention—I would say that the issue seems to relate to the legal status of this entity. Currently, it is not a State, and most literature would demand that this status be met in order for any polity to be described as a superpower or great power. This is very, very important and should not be dismissed readily. Just because the EU can muster immense power to push forward its agenda does not necessarily mean that it is a superpower/great power. However, the EU is itself in a special category of sui generis international actor; not quite a State, but certainly not just another international organisation. It certainly has many State-like capabilities, which will be reinforced quite substantially with the passing of the Treaty of Lisbon (which is almost certain to pass next month). Its ability to project power over distances and on an intercontinental scale is also hard to question; the fifteen-warship strong naval armarda fighting piracy off the West African coast is evidence of that. So, I think the EU can legitimately be placed into the 'superpower/great power' category, perhaps with the qualifier 'sui generis' in front to refer to the fact that it is not legally a proper State. Imperium Europeum (talk) 13:00, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Well argued, indeed. Isn´t the EU getting a legal personality with the Lisbon treaty ? I also think in the current era Brazil and India qualify as major/great power. I´d like to add though, that even with the Lisbon treaty I would see the major national powers of Europe as single powerful actors. France, Germany, UK still act on their own agenda with very powerful diplomatic staff, globally. KJohansson (talk) 20:55, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Seems logic to assume that superpower references equal great power references. It also seems appropriate to accept other terms and recently published media.The Quiet Power of Europe Quote: "Europe, in other words—despite its nature as an often bickering club of nations—has already become a global power." This is the reality. And the current state of the article has to acknowledge that. Lear 21 (talk) 02:34, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

G8/G20

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

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

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

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

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

Officials: G-20 to supplant G-8 as international economic council Leaders of the G-20 economic summit will announce Friday that the group will become the new permanent council for international economic cooperation, senior U.S. officials told CNN Thursday. The move comes in the wake of a major push by President Obama, the officials said. The G-20 will now essentially eclipse the G-8, which will continue to meet on major security issues but carry much less influence. "It's a reflection of the world economy today and the players that make it up," said one senior official. Nations like China, Brazil and India -- which were locked out of the more elite G-8 -- will be part of the larger group. The Group of 20 -- leaders of 20 countries representing 90 percent of the world's economic output -- are meeting in Pittsburgh for a two-day summit, focusing on the financial crisis and how to avoid a future repeat. The gathering is Obama's first time hosting a major international summit... -- Phoenix (talk) 06:49, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ref1[6]

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

ref2[7],

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

ref3[8],

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

ref4[9]

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

ref5[10]

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

ref6[11]

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

ref7[12]

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

ref8[13]

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

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

ref9[14]

Wow out of the 9 you provided this is the only other one that talks about Great powers. But it seams to be talking about the Great powers within the G8 this analysis shows that actors well beyond the G8's great power governments are not only increasingly involved and influential at the global level but also work together with one another and with G8 governments to produce better globel governance as a result. A point that I have made before -- Phoenix (talk) 09:01, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cultural dimension is missing

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

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

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

Economic dimension is missing

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

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

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

The EU is missing

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

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

Removal of all uncited claims

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

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

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

Removal / Renewal of Great power map

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

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

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

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

Brazil?

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

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

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

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

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

Before he left, Deavenger was working on two things:

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

Solution

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

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

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

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

India is a great power

I am very surprised that the article does not list India as among great powers. If China is counted as one, so must India. India has many things that support her status as a great power:

1. It is the world's largest democracy.
2. It has the world's largest middle class.
3. The demographic dividend means that India has a largely young working population.
4. India has the brain power. Many NASA scientists, doctors, researchers are of Indians.
5. India's IT industry is the second most powerful after the U.S.
6. India's economic growth rate is the second highest in the world.
7. India is already the 4th largest economy in the world.
8. India has nuclear weapons and missiles to deliver them.
9. India has the most powerful navy in Asia. It has nuclear submarines and three aircraft carriors.

India's increasing improtant is recongized by all. Even the U.S. has signed a nuclear deal with India. India is on track to be a superpower by 2020. Many many people list India and China together and even use the term Chindia. I am very puzzled why this article does not list India as a great power. V.Chowla (talk) 21:55, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

See talk archive. It has the potential to be a great power this century. Nirvana888 (talk) 22:03, 14 November 2009 (UTC)