Talk:Great power/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Consensus

Since User:Lear 21 and User:KJohansson seem to feel they have obtained "consensus" and that other editors are "hypocritical" in not agreeing to their views, I will attempt to dispel the baffling conclusion they have drawn.

• Support G8/EU

User:Lear 21 and User:KJohansson

• No Support

User:Viewfinder, User:Phoenix79, User:Dpaajones, User:BritishWatcher, User:Imperium Europeum, User:Emw, User:Nirvana888

It seems quite clear to be that consensus for these controversial edits has not been obtained. Nirvana888 (talk) 01:16, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Why, oh why, must Lear and Johanson continue to antagonise other editors by continuing to reinstate contested material which the majority of other editors are opposing? Why, oh why??? All they are doing is fuelling bad feeling, contravening WP:BRD, and obstructing consensus. Application of the many dispute resolution procedures that are available would be better.

I reaffirm my opposition to the G8 image and addition of the G8 to the lead section because the G8 includes Canada and Italy but excludes China.

Regarding the EU, I do not oppose the addition of the material to the EU paragraph, and other changes to the introduction, but I oppose the listing of the EU alongside EU member states as demanded by Lear and Johanson because it creates a contradictory situation which will confuse readers. If it were up to me neither the EU nor any of its member states would be listed. The EU has no military forces, was divided down the middle over Iraq, can by paralyzed by any one of its member states and has cultures which primarily belong to its member states. The Encarta source does not even mention the EU. If other academic sources claim the EU is a great power then this should be mentioned. We are agreed about that. If we list both the EU and EU member states, then it should be made clear that that is because of differing academic opinion, not that the EU and its member states can be great powers at the same time. You cannot have great powers within great powers. Viewfinder (talk) 14:01, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

My position is very similar to Viewfinder's. I oppose the G8 image and the inclusion of EU in the table for the same reasons. I support the inclusion of the EU paragraph in its current state and I am also willing to consider adjustments to the paragraph provided reliable sources are listed on the Talk page and consensus is reached BEFORE adding/reverting questionable material. Nirvana888 (talk) 14:34, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Please stick to the respective talk topics. Lear 21 (talk) 21:55, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Full protection / Edit war

 Administrator note I've fully protected this talk page because of edit warring. Please take this to dispute resolution. If this continues after the protection remember that 3RR is a limit, not an entitlement. Understand this does not imply that reverting three times or fewer is acceptable. people can be blocked for edit warring or disruption even if they do not revert more than three times per day. Three revert is not to be construed as a defense against action taken to enforce the Disruptive editing policy. --Hu12 (talk) 18:40, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Editor User:Nirvana888 has probably violated the 3RR policy. These edits should be further investigated. 4 reverts happened in less than 24hours. [1] [2] [3] [4]. KJohansson (talk) 22:38, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

The Nirvana888 edits are clear cut case. The Wikipedia 3RR regulations have been breached. Lear 21 (talk) 12:00, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I would not like to revert any more edits since as you point out I have already done so 4 times. Though I should point out that User:Lear 21 and User:KJohansson have reverted and been reverted by other editors probably over 10 times. Let's try to settle this dispute and obtain consensus before making any change OK? This is the purpose of the page protection of the article that I requested - to cool down the edit warring and allow us to settles things by discussion. Now, as you can see there is already a paragraph on the EU in the article which I support. Does everyone else support it?Nirvana888 (talk) 15:27, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I support the EU paragraph as it currently stands. Viewfinder (talk) 16:36, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I support most of the EU paragraph and think thats enough, i dont like the bit about the "permanent president" i think that needs to be more clearly defined because it will make people jump to conclusions. Also the source for that final sentence need improving, it looks like a blog of some description to me, it needs a more reliable source. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:57, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

What an earth are you talking about? That source is written by Professor Jolyon Howorth, one of the leading—if not the leading—authority on European security and defence policy in the English-speaking world! I urge you to look him up if you don't know anything about him!! Imperium Europeum (talk) 01:06, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

transposed from above, addressing Lear's proposal:

Let me be clear: I support mention of the EU's great power status in the article prose. Buzan's book clearly states that the EU can be seen as a great power. This also means, that the Britain, France, Germany's great power status would be increasingly in doubt. However, I do not see the rationale of the added text in the article. Sentences like "As a centralized institution and a state-like entity the EU governs the single European currency, the Euro and the respective Eurozone" and "Because of its hybrid sovereignty [sic] and sui generis characteristics, the European Union has become an important source of legislation for the 27 EU member states" are uncited and also not backed by a source that relates these features with great power status. The same can be said with the sentence on the proposed Lisbon Treaty. Now I am not saying that the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty won't help to consolidate EU great power status; however, I have yet to come across a high-quality academic source which confirms this. Thus, I don't think it should be included for time being. Nirvana888 (talk) 21:58, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Why was there nobody, who put the of 3RR violations of Nirvana to an official complaint ? KJohansson (talk) 11:41, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Ref removal

Several non academic references have been removed. Lear 21 (talk) 11:54, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I support the removal and when I see the argumentation of Nirvana and Phoenix I´m hundred percent that these users have to agree as well. Otherwise they find themselves in a very uncomfortable position of contradicting their own demandings for academic-only sources. KJohansson (talk) 11:17, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

If you review the history, you will notice that Phoenix and I have been very accepting of removing non-academic and non-relevant sources. Therefore, I hope you realize that we have a consistent standard for notable sources across the board and there is quite honestly no hypocrisy here. Hopefully this addresses your prognostication of being in a "very uncomfortable position of contradicting their own demandings for academic-only sources." Nirvana888 (talk) 02:26, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Nirvana, I actually stated as much earlier, actually showing you reverting an edit I made. -- Phoenix (talk) 03:26, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Right, just responding to yet another vigorous accusation leveled against us. I'm pretty sure we have the same views on preferring academic, high-quality sources. So just want to categorically state there is no double standard. Nirvana888 (talk) 03:51, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Map of Great powers

The Map of Great powers shows a biased, unjustified focus on the permanent UN security council members. The distinction of two colors also contradcits with the list of great powers. Because of many power dimensions the focus on the UNSC (military) is without balance. The map should be removed or the countries on it should become even colored. KJohansson (talk) 14:19, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Outdated and insufficient article

The article Great power does insuffiently address its scope which is laid out in its introduction. The introduction claims Great powers characteristically possess economic, military, diplomatic, and cultural strength . This set of power dimension is neither explained nor are examples integrated in this article to proof the different capabilities to be correct. The article does not provide written content, sources or visual content to illustrate the economic, cultural power dimension for instance. This appears to be a massive lack information. Instead, to illustrate the contemporay era, only an image of the UN security council and a map of Great powers on the globe is included in this article. This appears to be insufficient and does not provide a comprehensive set of information to address the scope of Great powers. The article has to be extended in a relevant fact based manner. Lear 21 (talk) 16:15, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Now that the edit warring and incivility has died down, let us try to move forward. First let me make a disclaimer: although I have been a follower of international politics for more than 30 years, and my father (who was strongly pro-EU, incidentially) often talked to me about them, I have never been a student of international relations. Therefore I am less familiar than other editors with what the academic sources are saying. I can only go on what I hear from and read in the general media.

The general media seldom mention the term "Great Power" in the context of the current state of affairs, and it is evident that the academics are very divided. This is reflected in the frequent arguments on this page and edit conflicts in the article. At Middle Power, which is mutually exclusive from Great Power, we list China, France and the UK, citing academic sources. We do not list Russia, but given that Russia is ranked 9th at List of countries by military expenditures and 8th at List of countries by GDP (nominal), its great power status looks tenuous. About the only thing about which everyone agrees is that the USA is a superpower. The term "great power" was coined at a time when they were easily defined and there was no superpower. Could the lack of mention of "Great Power" by the general media in a modern context reflect the view that the term is archaic and not applicable to today's world?

We should try to cater for all possible viewpoints on this very difficult subject. I am coming round to the view that we should list the EU, but with a note, also applied to the UK, France and Germany, linked to the paragraph about the EU. There may also be a place for the G8 mention and image in a section about the economic dimension, although imo the G8 is being eclipsed by the G20. Viewfinder (talk) 23:35, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I too am happy there has no edit-warring for a day (hey, gotta start somewhere). I hope this will continue and I encourage other editors to discuss issues calmly on the talk page. To address your questions Viewfinder, the term great power is certainly not archaic; it is widely used in IR journals. I admit with a tinge of regret that those not versed in IR literature may not be aware of the term. You bring up a interesting point that the definition of a great power can often been confusing. In fact, major power or global power etc. are often coterminous with great power. It is important to verify that those terms are used in the same context and connotation as how great power is generally defined in the academic literature.

Regarding the E.U. as a great power, there have been experts who have suggested that the E.U. could be considered a great power albeit one with unique characteristics and constraints. As the E.U. becomes more integrated though, we may see a day when it is widely recognized that is has completely consolidated its great power status. It would result in Britain, France and Germany becoming relegated to regional power status. However, it is important to keep in mind that Britain and France still retain their UNSC permanent seats which are indicative of great power status and that continued integration is not a sure bet.

The term superpower (a state that has global preeminence/hegemonic influence) was probably more widely used during the bipolar Cold War period which may explain why great power had a lesser importance during that time. It is widely viewed in the literature that the U.S. remains the sole superpower due to its political, economic, military and cultural dominance. China and the E.U. could emerge as potential mid-term challengers. Both, however, face significant constraints to achieving superpower status. Nirvana888 (talk) 02:18, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

A miracle has happened, the first sensible statements from Viewfinder and Nirvana. After 2 weeks of double talk and defending double standards. However, to the regular media consumer and part time IR observer, the term Great power seems indeed outdated. Accurately used probably after WW2. After that the superpower era was dominating. Today, as correctly observed terms like leading powers, major/industrial/important powers are widespread. Thats why sources using these terms are credible as well. It doesn´t make sense to reject those sources. Viewfinder made a true observation as well, when claiming that the time of G8 is almost superseded by G20. Nevertheless it is (was) an important meeting among the most influential powers from 1970ies-2005. The EU (addressing Nirvana) is rather building up its great power status next to France, Germany etc. For the time being national influence remains vital and global. While the pooled sovereignty of the EU is already acting on a global level as well. There is no either EU or the European nations as power. Like the G8 or G20 where the representatives are recognized parallel.

While talking is one thing and acting or changing is another thing, I still havent read about future solutions from those who constantly revert the updated versions.KJohansson (talk) 20:52, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think I like the comment "first sensible statements from Viewfinder and Nirvana", unnecessarily and unhelpfully implying that our previous statements were not sensible. Still, we are moving forward. Let's see what Phoenix and Lear have to add. Viewfinder (talk) 22:44, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

The introduction has deficits, the economic dimension is not addressed or visualized and the EU in its semi sovereign nature is not explained. The vast amount of references citing the EU as major/great/super/emerging power should be recognized. Lear 21 (talk) 14:45, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Wow Viewfinder its nice to read about your father. It's a shame he is no longer with us. What I find rather funny is the fact that most of us here are Europeans, and we cant even agree on the EU. If that's true, then it is obvious that the EU is not truly there yet. But really we must take our personal bias out of the equation and allow the experts to tell us.... and they cant agree... So the prose is the only place that the EU belongs. the reason I created the chart saying "c. 2000" was because I did not want it to say "today" since we would get into the debacle that we are in now. We must await for the EU to emerge. Until then this Outdated article that has become a subject of much debate must await. If one has sources saying that the EU could be a superpower or anything other than a Great Power, take those sources to the correct article, this one is about Great Powers after all. I am unsure if I have ever seen any sources about Great powers that say that a semi-sovereign state can be a Great Power so I don't know if I would agree to changing the intro... but let us know what you were thinking give an example and we can work on it :-) -- Phoenix (talk) 03:03, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

If sources claim that the EU is a Great Power then they are implying that a semi-sovereign state can be a Great Power. But we don't seem completely sure that the sources say that the EU is a Great Power. Viewfinder (talk) 11:05, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

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: [5] 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 [6]

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" [7], 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 [8]. And Nirvana noticed that I reverted something that should not have been re-introduced [9] 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)

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)