Talk:Great power

For older discussions, see archives:
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7
History

Italy

I had added a mention of Italy in the article, due to an academic source (Stanford University) I read and I linked, T.V. Paul, J.J. Wirtz, M. Fortmann, Balance of Power: Theory and Practice in the 21st Century. It states that Italy is a great power. In addition to this I had mentioned Italy among European powers at the end of the Second World War, but someone expunged the word.

I am afraid this is a very biased behaviour, inconsistent with the Wikipedia policy: I added a sentence supported by various reliable, verifiable, official and academic sources and it is unfair and inappropriate erasing it. --Lorenzop (talk) 13:58, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Germany and Japan in the list

Germany and Japan is in the list of Great powers. Both are economic powers only. There need to be a separate section for the Economic powers. Else there need to be lot of Addition to the list. The list will have to accommodate all the economic powers. A separate section will be created for the economic powers.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 03:32, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Italy should be added, it is in the same league of Germany and Japan, it is a economic power and it is influent on World stage, Lebanon War, Afghanistan War and many more. AcamposPinho 00:00, 20 May 2008

I can't believe this. I just posted an article from the Washington Quarterly stating point blank Italy is in the same league as Germany and Japan, and instead of adding Italy to the list, they demote Germany and Japan to economic powers only and still keep Italy off the list. This is blantant bigotry! Even on the list of economic powers Italy is not there. The seven or eighth largest economy and it does not make the list. This is total BS! With a capital B and a capital S. You disgust me utterly. HadrianX--76.67.14.102 (talk) 03:09, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Japan and Germany there in the economic list since they are at the top in the GDP list.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 15:10, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Italy is not a Great Power - full stop. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Colliver55 (talk • contribs) 18:20, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Even if Italy is not a Great Power, why do you say that way? Have you any good proof to sustain your claim? This is not about our personal opinion. I could ask why India is a great power or why Brazil is a possible great power. The future is the only who can tell if this will happen. ACamposPinho00:58, 31 May 2008

I have no doubt that Italy is a major player in European affairs, but it lacks the cultural and military capabilities to be a Great Power. Just look at Italian performance in all the conflicts it has been involved in - they are hardly the achievement of a Great Power. Do you really believe Italy plays as an important role in international diplomacy as Britain and France? Or even Germany or Japan? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.206.30.107 (talk) 12:28, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I do not believe that Italy has the same pull in the world as Britain or France but I do believe they have a lot more than most other countries except for a select few. As far as military performance aside from losing WW2 when did they lose? They won every war up to that point. The unification war, war against Turkey, 1866, 1870. I might add their forces are currently in Lebanon, Afghanistan, and the Balkan with sector level control. Surely incompetence is not a prerequisite for leading a divisional command. And I would like to point out other things, Italy is the only former Axis power currently actively supporting the USA in the field unlike the other two. Mainly because the Italians see the US as its ally and friend and wants to help. The Italians were Iraq not France and Germany. But I can't find something the states point blank that Italy is a Great Power yet. The only thing I can find are articles which allude to it through deduction and inference. Plus I have a double whammy of Italian economic performance not being exactly stellar lately and a rash of extremely bad press even for Italy lately. So who would back me up given the circumstances? My sincerest view is that even when I find an article that says Italy is a Great Power, the people here still will refuse to list it because it fundamentally shakes their belief system in this world. Further the Italians themselves are the first to cry to everyone about how bad things are like Beppo Grillo who proclaimed for someone to invade Italy. If I was the government, I'd show him door and tell him to live in a third world country to have a real taste of economic hardship. But I have argued here for two years and will continue to do so until I get it listed because it is my deepest belief that it should be. HadrianX --76.67.14.102 (talk) 00:50, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree that Italy did win those wars but they were against very weak enemies. To my knowledge the Italians defeated the extremely weak Turkey and gained a Libya. It was defeated by the Ethiopians at the end of the 19th Century. It then nearly lost the First World War as only British and French troops prevented the Germans and Austrians over-running the capital. It then eventually defeated the extremely feeble Ethiopia and bullied powerless Albana with a population of about 2 million. The Second World War was, at the very least, a fiasco for the Italians - the Allies landed in Italian territory with hardly any resistance. It struggled to defeat even much-weaker Greece, only doing so with German help. It's hardly the stuff of Great Powers. Italy is an influential power, but firmly belongs in the Middle rather than Great Powers.

It should also be noted that the Italian unification wars were won by the German and French defeats of the Austrians. To my knowledge, the Italians had little to do with it.

I know my posts will be angering alot of Italians! This is not my intention but I cannot understand how Italy could be included. Yes the Italians have an economy roughly comparable to the UK and France, but the UK and France possess considerable military capabilities. Italy lacks a nuclear deterrent. The UK and France also hold permanent seats on the UN Security Council, meaning they have the power to veto any internationally important event. Just as importantly, the UK and France, due to their historic roles as colonial powers have great cultural influence. Most countries in the world, particularly smaller, developing nations base their structure and education on British and French models. English and French as a language also have much greater coverage internationally than Italy. I do believe that Italian influence can be considered almost comparable to Germany and Japan, although German and Japanese economic influence is greater. This is because Germany and Japan, while having great economic influence, have only modest cultural, or military influence. To be a Great Power, you have to have more than money - you must have cultural and military influence on the rest of the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Colliver55 (talk • contribs) 10:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah now I see your hand. Because Italy never defeated a Great Power solely on its own, it has never proved its worth to be in the club. Because Greece in World War 2 successfully defended itself until German's helped the Italians, how can Italy claim great power status. I would like to make the point that France doesn't have an exactly stellar record since Napoleon. Also I dispute your claim about the First World War. The English and French help was not that substantial and it occurred when the Central Powers decided to defeat Italy in a combined German and Austrian offensive at Caporetto which culminated in an Italian victory at Vittorio Veneto. All of these events occurred when even here in Wikipedia the country was considered to be a Great Power. As far as military power, Italy has the 4th strongest navy in the world, its in Wikipedia, and its army is well equipped, though recently reduced to a smaller all volunteer army. True Italy has not developed a nuclear deterrent but was developing one in the 70's to counteract the nuclear development by Yugoslavia, only to be discouraged by the US on the agreement that Italy would have a nuclear sharing arrangement with the US where they store and can deploy that deterrent in case of Soviet attack. So Italy does have a nuclear deterrent just not a home-grown one primarily at the urging of the US. I am glad of one thing though, at least you acknowledge Italy's soft power in the world which I believe is self evident. The Italians go a long way to promote their culture around the world and it shows in that every time I say bigotry or prejudice, the person says I love Italian stuff. I lay forth the proposition that Italy has been active in global affairs as of late and its relative position in maintaining world security has grown tremendously over the last decade and a half. It is actively peace-keeping in many places around the world and in significant numbers not just in a token way. But you want an article from reputable sources so the search continues. Again once I find it, I want an unbiased review if Wikipedia wants to maintain its position that it is a free and unbiased encyclopedia for everyone to use and contribute to. HadrianX --76.67.14.102 (talk) 00:33, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Independently of Italy being a Great Power or not, what I see here is talking about past. This is about present. If it was about past, the Austro-Hungarian Empire would still be a Great Power, portugal and Spain would also be Great Powers and Russia/USSR would be a Superpower. We are not talking about Italy's past victories and defeats, that is for history. For current Great Powers we should talk of today. And besides all the debates what I can say is that unlike someone said above Italy is not less involved in world and regional affairs than Germany and Japan. Japan is only involved in regional aspects of geopolictics, ecomically it's more important than Italy, but Geo-politically and in military aspects it isn't more important than Italy and even Germany who is in the nuclear Iran problem talks it hasn't more international clout than Italy. Italy has more troops abroad, is more diplomatically involved and even in the Iran nuclear case it wishes to be part of the today called P5+1. ACamposPinho 00:33, 6 June 2008

It is just as arguable that Italy is less powerful now then she was between 1890-1943. So even based on the evidence now, Italy does not qualify as a Great Power. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Colliver55 (talk • contribs) 15:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

As a german, I'd probably feel a bit coaxed to see Germany on the great power list. But it's pointless to argue about which country is a great power or not. History will show. According to research on military expediture, [1], Japan may be a considerably greater military power than India or even Russia. Considering Italy's severe social, political and economical problems and eventually also it's record in world war 2 (where Italy had to change sides due to humiliating defeats by the british), I really doubt Italy should be considered a great power. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.171.178.249 (talk) 17:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

As I said this is not ab out history. And if it was Italy would be a Great Power, it was betwenn unification and 1943, with peaks of power after the WWI until the late 30's. It shouldn't have entered WWII anyway, it wasn't in great conditions after Abissinian War and Spanish Civil War. But in the 30's it had an Empire, great expansion plans and an international power and diplomacy of some importance. Before WWI as was said Italy was the least of the Great Powers, but was one. After WWI, with the victory and conclusion of the Unification process, was more important and gained respect. With the fascists this respect was more assertive and the plans were big. After the armistice it losted many of these respect but you shouldn't forget that Germany lost the war adn was in Allied control without being even sovereign. It was a shame either, a bigger one. But with time Italy, Germany and Japan beggan to develop economically and politically, becoming great countries with big economies. ACamposPinho 01:25, 13 June 2008

Back to the German guy, Severe??! In what context? According to who? Why because Italy is not growing at 3% like Germany? Mostly due to the fact of a high euro which the Bundesbank, sorry, the ECB refuses to lower interest rates to bring the Euro the down a bit. And we didn't lose to the British, we lost to the Americans. It was American firepower that pushed Italians out of the war. Remember Operation Torch. Furthermore Rommel was in command. So who lost the Africa campaign? I wish people would get their facts straight. BTW, Germany lost too. Amd your own generals tried to kill Hitler to end a lost cause. The Italians knew this and ended a lost war in order to save something. Or would you rather have Italy stay in and see its cities razed to the ground or perhaps nuked. Considering that the Americans are reasonable when victorious, which is the better option? Obliteration or a reasonable peace? Another thing, OT, how come you guys never mention all the other countries in your alliance that switched sides in the war, Romania, Bulgaria, Croatia. HadrianX --74.14.97.133 (talk) 02:16, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

It was the British that defeated you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Colliver55 (talk • contribs) 20:05, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Riiiiggghhhht. Sure you did. You didn't need the Americans at all.

HadrianX--74.14.97.133 (talk) 01:50, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Look the only reason Hitler lost the war was because Italy was so pathetic. Romania was a more reliable ally. Italy is a joke. Get over it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Colliver55 (talk • contribs) 09:32, 17 June 2008 (UTC) In no way can Italy be considered more powerful than Spain - and Spain is not a Great Power. In fact, I would say Spain would whip Italy's arse in any conflict. What a joke! I also like the way you call yourself Hadrian, like the Roman Emperor. The Roman Empire has long gone and is never coming back! Mussolini tried to bring back the Roman Empire - struggled to defeat Ethiopia. Hillarious! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.209.171.94 (talk) 09:55, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Do I sense some bitterness? If you're trying to start a flame war, forget it. Otherwise, explain to me how the British defeated the Italians by themselves. Oh and BTW, don't forget we caused Japan to lose too. And that's Mr. HadrianX to you! HadrianX --74.14.97.133 (talk) 00:08, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Don't lost your time with kids trying to enfuriate us. For this kid Spain is a Middle Power a big Middle Power but a Middle Power anyway. Italy is also more, I don't know if it is the greatest of the middle powers or the weakest of the great powers, one thing is for sure, it is an Economic Power, it possibly isn't so important as other but in economy is, it had untill recently 5th biggest GDP, even today it has the 7th highest GDP and if we consider the undergroud economy it can have the 5th biggest already. Its not for a case that Italy is on the G8 and posssibly will enter in the P5+1+1 Nuclear Talks with Iran. Canada is also on th G8 but its economy is smaller than that of Spain nowadays and the difference between these countries GDP and Italy is bigger than the difference between Italy and France or UK

ACamposPinho 03:22,18 june 2008

Look we don't need to argue about this. Any person with any grasp of reality knows Italy is not a Great Power so lets not argue about it. I've tried to argue my point sensibly why Italy is not a great power but it has just been swept aside. There is nothing to suggest Italy has any more influence in the world than Spain. You have provided no adequate sources to suggest Italy is a great power and your anti-British stance just amazes me. It is well known that British commonwealth forces defeated the Italians and if your pride is so big you have to think the Americans defeated you because you believe they are a more worthy opponent to be defeated by, then get on with it. I'm pretty sure most Americans don't consider Italy a great power either. You think I'm bitter?? - what have I got to be jealous about Italian history? The Spanish have a much more interesting and glorious history than a country barely 140 years old. Stick to what Italy knows best - pasta and football. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Colliver55 (talk • contribs) 09:14, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm not anti-British, I didn't mention the UK at all and it's well know that UK is a Great Power. Why? It's part of G8, UNSC Permanent Member, has the 2nd or 3rd big defence spending in the World, huge connections in the World stage, the 2nd biggest number of soldiers in peace keeping missionsand the 5th biggest economy in the world. This is why it is well aknowledge that UK is a Great Power and why Germany is more questioned its stance as a Great Power. But it's one too, only without being do powerfull. This reasons are the same that can apply to the difference between Spain and Italy. And of course this doesn't matter to you. For your comments you are an incredible stupid and ignorant person. If it was for history, Portugal would be so great as Spain and one of the greatest powers in the World, with the biggest one, USA being a tiny power, since it has 222 years of story...... And Italy has 147 as a united country in the present form, because in reality it's one of the oldest civilizations of the world, do you have heard of Roman Empire? And other great powers of history like Venice, Genoa, Papal States? But this is about present. So for you Spain is in the G8? It has suceeded in canceling the bidding of the G4 for the UNSC and it's in the condition of entering the UNSC as a permanent member? It has the 3rd biggest contingent in peace keeping missions? It has huge multinational corporations beside services?Replying to you I would say, stick to what Spain knows best- paella and bullfighting. Grow up, this is not a forum of kids and simple minded opinion persons. And I surelly knows Spain better than you. And I'm not anti-Spain, quite the contrary. ACamposPinho 19:35, 18 June 2008

Oh I didn't know I touched a nerve there Colliver. If you signed your statements maybe I would know who was writing. Jeez, you really are touchy about WW2. But you still didn't respond to my question. Secondly, this is not the WW2 forum. And third, I really don't remember when you "sensibly" showed why Italy isn't a great power, unless of course saying my evidence doesn't count that it is, is your "sensible" arguement. Have a nice day Colliver. Oh, BTW, you still have to call me Mr. HadrianX --74.14.97.133 (talk) 01:21, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Look it doesn't matter how stupid you two are, Italy is not a Great Power. Why argue about this point? What I am saying is perfectly true. To be a Great Power you have to 1. have a nuclear detterent and 2. be a permanent member of the UN Security Council. Germany's leaders have admitted that Germany is a middle power - Italy is in no way as powerful as Germany. I believe you two are allowing your passion for Italy cloud your judgement. HadrianX as for your touch a nerve thing you are right about one thing I hate it when ignorant and blind people like you belittle the achievements of the UK. For a nation as small as we are, we have achieved an awful lot and Montgomery did defeat the Italians AND Germans at El Alamein, which is widely regarded as one of the turning points of World War II. So, yes, I can be proud of my nations past. I doubt you can say the same for Italy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Colliver55 (talk • contribs) 13:55, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Anyway I am walking away from this argument. If you really believe Italy is a Great Power then just back it up with references and there will be nothing to argue about. Colliver55 (talk) 14:13, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Well I never! Ha. So Sir Colliver, there's the rub, eh. To be a great power you must be on the UNSC and have a nuclear detterent. After two years of making case for Italy and finally somebody comes out and gives the criteria. Well Colliver, if these are agreed upon criteria then you're right. But if not, then it's a whole new ball of wax. But when this little project which started many moons ago, I don't remember that specifically being the criteria. And if you are right Colliver, then remove Germany, Japan, Brazil, and India. For none of them are on the security council either. If you want to include them, put a link to a page about the G4, and keep them off this page. Be consistent or expect to hounded by the likes of me forever. Why, because I like to bug you. It invigorates me. There's nothing more satisfying. Alas, Montgomery did win at El Alamein...with American equipment, and the Australians, Indians, and other parts of "glorious" British Empire. Unfortunately Colliver, that was the past, and the empire is gone. So you see Colliver, it was a phyrric victory. You sacrificed all, and saved nothing except for a seat at the table. You're at the table. For how long, we'll see. Have a nice day Colliver, enjoy the sun. HadrianX--74.14.97.133 (talk) 02:37, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I have a link where it is mentioned Italy in the same category of France, UK, China, Japan, Germany, Brazil. Even if Italy isn't a Great Power, the talks about Italy are the longest ones about a specific country, that isn't for nothing. If someone woudl brought here the case of Netherlands,Canada or even Spain being Great Powers the talk wouldn't be so long because that is very clear they aren't Great Powers.ACamposPinho 20:32, 22 June 2008

The link is this: page 29 http://www.queensu.ca/cir/files/Martello22.pdf ACamposPinho 04:19, 29 June 2008

T.V. Paul, J.J. Wirtz, M. Fortmann, in Balance of Power: Theory and Practice in the 21st Century, Stanford University Press, 2004, page 174, describe Italy as a "great power", along with Britain, France, West Germany and Japan, during the Cold War. And being a great power then, it should undoubtedly be considered as a great power now. Or, at least, it should be considered in the same band as Germany and Japan. Any opinion about that? --Lorenzop (talk) 20:37, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

New Map

I'd just like to say kudos to whoever added the new map. It's much better than the old one. You could barely tell the categories apart on the old one. --Hobie Hunter (talk) 18:14, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Glad you like :-) -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 18:56, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm beginning to think that maybe we should use red instead of green since it might show up better. After all the countries are rather small on that map. What do you think? -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 07:49, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Just a matter of personal preference, but I like green better, but if you want to make the countries to stand out more, you could make the green brighter. --Hobie Hunter (talk) 00:06, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Russia Superpower Consensus

An attempt to achieve a consensus about the superpower status for Russia.

• Do include your opinion starting your message with either support, neutral or oppose.
• Do try to keep your reply civil, short and to the point.
• Do not bring other countries including Italy and the United states into this discussion.
  • Species8473: Boy that really sounds racial to me, no United States or Italy? What is it about Russia has got you so upset for? I mean you go on a rampage on posting warning alerts on anyone who posts about a Kommersant article but you don't want to talk about the United States as a possible former superpower? Do you just want to get your anti Russian friends to bash Russia some more? I think you are on a mission to downgrade Russia is not a superpower, you obivously have the time to waste and post warning alerts on everyone you can find and etc. Is this free of charge? Are you for hire? Can I hire you to write good things for once? If so, what is your fee?--24.205.234.250 (talk) 23:29, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposal by Species8473

I believe we cannot conclude it being a superpower, nor can we conclude it is not. And propose Russia is stated to be the following in the article:

• Former superpower (Generally seen to have lost superpower status since fall of the Soviet Union 1(p4), 2
• Re-emerging superpower (Noted as possibility/opinion not fact) 1, 2, 3
• Regional superpower 1(p27), 2(p10)
• Nuclear superpower (Notable for Russia has the largest amount of nuclear warheads) 1(p91), 2(p12) 3(p95),
• Energy superpower (Notable for Russia has the laregest fields of natural gas) 1, 2, 3(p115), 4

Support

1. Support This maybe not a Superpower article but when you post the US as a superpower on this article, what does that say about Russia? Maybe both countries should be taken out then. If you want to bash Russia not being a superpower but you won't bash the United States as a possible former superpower with the new 2008 articles[2], sounds like a lot of hate to me on what country is and isn't, that is selective critizism and not a foundation of facts for each 2 countries. Either you eliminate both Russia & USA off great powers or we shoot to eliminate the article on hate speech. If you hate Russia so much, don't sit here and make bias comments over the sources, write your own book then.--24.205.234.250 (talk) 22:30, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose I oppose calling Russia a great power simply because the definition is under the article superpower sources that if countries can destroy the world with its power is defined as a superpower[3] In the opinion of Professor Paul Dukes, "a superpower must be able to conduct a global strategy including the possibility of destroying the world; to command vast economic potential and influence; and to present a universal ideology". Although, "many modifications may be made to this basic definition" [4]. This has been repeated many times on the Superpower discussion and I believe with the issues other members have bought up John McCain defining superpowers recently in thee last month on his televised conference about Russia and the USA on their nuclear missile programs, I believe his statement is a direct indication Russia is an achieving superpower because of it's role in the middle east situation. The USA does not have enough control and needs NATO as a counter partner to act as foreign country to mediate in foreign affairs (even that has not been enough to handle the situation with Iran) with Middle East countries where Russia is not a NATO member as they have more control with Middle East countries without the assistance with NATO intervening control. John McCain has said Russia has too much influence in controlling its relations in the Middle East situation as the US has or does not have the power to intervene control they would like to have to halt the Iran nuclear energy & nuclear missile programs. Listen this is big discussion but my point is, the US simply does not have the aid in controlling the Middle East, too many conflicts are with the US, which is a very critical right now; Russia has not created any new enemies since they left Afghanistan in 1989. The European Union nor Great Britain, France, Germany countries have even themselves as Great Powers simply cannot controlled the situation with Iran, Russia along with China both have but Russia has that influence. This lifts the level of Russia from being a Great Power but between Superpower or potential superpower. Many will argue Russia is a potential superpower than a superpower but not a great power. I support Russia as a superpower because the United States government has made their decision to call it a superpower by a US government official Daniel Fred who is the U.S. Assistant Secretary of State as he has the position under the Bush Adminstration to call the country a superpower because of his role on US foreign policy.[5]--66.17.49.165 (talk) 22:27, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

   My proposal is not to call Russia a great power, but to list certain aspects as provided in the proposal. The title of the article you cite is misleading for it's content, and so is what you claim the article says. It quotes Daniel Fred saying "Russia has restored its position of a large political and economic force recently." He does not say Russia is a superpower. Besides providing a basic definition of what a superpower is, has Professor Paul Dukes also stated Russia is one? The references you make to the Middle East countries are the reason Russia is recognized as regional superpower. It's not plausible to conclude Russia is a world superpower only because it has some influence on bordering countries such as Iran. And even there the biggest influence could simply come from the two countries being trading partners.Species8473 (talk) 23:55, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

2. I oppose calling Russia a re-emerging superpower, at best it is a potential superpower. No one has been able to find any sources on Senator McCain's speech that have him categorically stating "Russia is a superpower". There is no definition as a superpower as "a country that can destroy the world." The definition is and I quote "A superpower is a state with a leading position in the international system and the ability to influence events and project power on a worldwide scale; it is traditionally considered to be one step higher than a great power." Simply put, Russia does not have this ability. The United States is the world's sole superpower (at least right now). The best sources pro-Russian nationalists have been able to dredge up is a blatantly incorrect, biased non-mainstream news article. Russia is only a great power. --Hobie Hunter (talk) 23:42, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

   In my proposal I have noted the re-emerging superpower status should (if there is a consensus) be listed as possibility or opinion, not as fact. Your statement that the "a country that can destroy the world" definition doesn't exist, goes against the superpower article where it is cited. It's not really important though, as if the definition exists, it's not a source for stating Russia is a superpower or not.Species8473 (talk) 00:09, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

   Oh, okay. But if you're going to state Russia as a possible re-emerging superpower, isn't that the same as a potential superpower? --Hobie Hunter (talk) 17:45, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

   What are you affaid of if Russia is called a superpower? Why is it that you take such offense to Russia? nuclear superpower, energy superpower, space power, military superpower, is there something wrong not give them any superpower credit?--24.205.234.250 (talk) 21:57, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

   • Is the United States a Superpower? No, this is why:[6] [7]: A superpower presumably is able either to impose its preferences on other states or to elicit their support

   • The United States does not meet this test
   • Yet the United States remains a formidable global power

   1. Its military is the most powerful relative to the forces of other states

   2. Its economy is still the largest at $13 trillion in GDP

   3. Its population is well educated and creative

   4. It has impressive hard and soft power to negotiate a global environment favorable to its interests, but it cannot command others to do its will absent concessions to their interests and power [:[8]] (Russia has major control in the middle east as I agree from the above comment[9])

   United States as a formidable global power, but NOT a superpower[:[10] listen to the news.--69.239.171.174 (talk) 04:07, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

   This is on Russia. Not the US. As stated above please do not bring other countries into this. --Hobie Hunter (talk) 17:45, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

   Excuse me Hobbie Hunter aren't you the one who's been making these claims about the USA and Russia on superpowers arguments? The above says "formidable global power" the USA that is, you defend the US all the time; why now only Russia? Russia should be the discussions for potential superpowers but you argue about Russia on Great Powers, Superpowers, Potential Superpowers on all these articles too. Because this is an issue of Russia, it should be listed as a superpower because the sources say it is and the US government........ I consensus to either we eliminate both the USA & Russia out of the great powers article please...... or leave it to discuss on potential and superpowers..... or .....we allow the sources such as your favorite article Kommersand and others to post by Russian Federation titles on Great Powers. Only speaking about USA as a current superpower on Great Powers is not fair to allow users to say Russia should have their links listed too. It isn't fair to the readers not able to view the sources when they are in fact the right sources.--24.205.234.250 (talk) 21:48, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

   Oh thankyou for your block warning Hobbie Hunter, that's a nice note--24.205.234.250 (talk) 21:48, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

3. Oppose This is not the Superpower article but the Great power article. These variances of definition of superpower needs to be listed in that article and not this one. The only time that the definitive term of superpower should be used in this article it has to have the same criteria for adding another country to the Great power list. Academic accredited sources. Baring that this term should not be used. Setting up new criteria for different countries is not the way wikipedia does things we need to only report what scholars agree upon (or mostly agree upon) not create those definitions. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 18:52, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

And you are changing articles without reaching any consensus on your move, flouting the basis agreed upon norms. You moved India from the list altogether, without taking into consideration the articles links. Your dislike must not be presented in this article. Let the Admin lift the restriction. I will revert the article to the version by HobieHunter. Then discuss and agree on changes and make the change. Personal opinion of yours will not be considered to be put in the article.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 02:17, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I concur here but Hobbie Hunter, I think your using some hate comments here, everything you say is anti Russian something. If I posted 10 new articles saying Russia was superpower I am sure you would find every reason to bash the information anyway you can. So we're never going to agree on something here when I read your records say just what you like to do on Wikipedia about Russia--24.205.234.250 (talk) 22:35, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know who you are talking too but I would like to step in and say that I strongly disagree with a revert to that version. It is the same as starting to dedicate more space in this article about superpowers. This article is about Great Powers not superpowers or potential global powers. Potential Great Powers are not Great powers and should not be listed on the map as such. But I believe that since the article that you were so keen on editing was recently deleted it might be worth a mention in the article. Now since predictions are funny things and wikipedia is not a fortune telling website they should be treated with a grain of salt. But like I said they should not be listed with other current global powers. Don't forget that their addition to the list only happened a couple of weeks ago and after the redesign of the great power list we have had this page protected at least 3 times since then. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 05:04, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes after your changes, someone has changed it. Unknown user 24.205.234.250.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 05:11, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not following. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 05:39, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Chanakya's referring to our resident troll, unknown user 24.205.234.250, and his edits to the article. --Hobie Hunter (talk) 13:50, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I can go on and on where I see more of your racial statements Hobbie Hunter again and again. Wow who are these trolls? Are they Russian? This is all the anti Russia crap piling on to your Russian biasness on the comments you go on and on about on how Russia is nothing to talk about? I am wondering if you just hate Putin or despise the USSR or anything it stands for. So I think this discussion is should be eliminated, we should just eliminate the whole entire thing, not start over but find other articles to talk about on other subject than this superpower, great power articles as it is all cross fighting all the time. No matter what sources they are, there is constant anti cross fighting here.--24.205.234.250 (talk) 23:16, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

A troll isn't a racial slur. Nobody's brought race into it. A troll, in its usage on the Internet means someone who deliberately stirs up conflict (for instance calling someone a dumbass (sound familiar) ). We can't "eliminate this whole thing" because superpower and great power are notable academic articles and thus meet the criteria. --Hobie Hunter (talk) 12:23, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Potential Superpower

Hi, on this article, it mentions India and Brazil as potential great powers. But, should we also mention (when the article becomes unprotected) that to some, India is considered a Potential Superpower. India is already mentioned on the potential superpower page, and is considered one by IHT and newsweek. So when this page becomes unprotected, shouldn't we add a note saying "to some, India is considered a potential superpower, but this is disputed" or something long the lines like that. Deavenger (talk) 21:00, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

If its brief and links to the proper full discussion on Potential Superpowers that should be fine. But we shouldn't loose the fact that its currently not considered a great power. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 18:56, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, tat's all we need to do. Just add a link, saying according to some sources, India is considered a potential superpower (link here) while others consider it a potential great power.Deavenger (talk) 21:29, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

You can't be a Superpower before becoming a Great Power, so it's important to say that India has yet to reach the first goal before it reaches the second one. I was thinking we might say something like:

Both Brazil^refs and India^refs are thought to be possible future great powers. There is also much academic speculation about China, the European Union, India and/or Russia becoming new superpower during the 21^st century. But the record of such predictions has not been perfect; as in the 1980s when some commentators thought Japan would become a superpower, due to its large GDP and high economic growth at the time^ref.

What do you think? -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 05:11, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Brazil and India is in two different leagues. Brazil is surely is a potential great power. But India is already a great power. But since the process is not completely complete, it is already being called as an emerging great power. India is not a potential great power. It is a great power or else an emerging great power and hence will be in the list of Emerging great power. Chanakyathegreat (talk) 13:47, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

That is creating a definition. That is not what we are here to do. It is also your opinion that India is already a Great power but that has not been academically verified. The future is an amazing thing one that we can put all of our hopes into and by watching the trends of the current world it can become quite intoxicating... But we have to be wary of this since humans have never been able to accurately predict the future and we are only here to represent the future. Just because it looks like India will become a Great Power and and because the trends that lead it to become a Great Power are predicted to continue at a high rate that people believe that it will become a Superpower int he future, does not mean that it will happen. We can report what people believe might happen and give sources as such but we cannot state predictions as fact and we must not create arbitrary levels because we believe one is better than the other. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 18:56, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

You cannot keep an elephant in a cow shed. India at present belongs to the emerging great power list. These are not arbitrary levels created by you or me. It is already used by experts to define the power of nations. India will not fit into the potential great power since it is above it and whether it fits into a great power is debated by you and me long back. This debate is going on in major political forums. Hence the experts consider India as an emerging great power and a potential superpower. Whether you like it or not, it is the truth. Chanakyathegreat (talk) 06:53, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Is India a Great Power? No

Is Brazil a Great Power? No

Are they believed to be POSSIBLE future Great Powers? Yes.

They are both in the same boat neither are currently a great power but believed that they MIGHT become one in the near future. The future is unpredictable and as such saying that one has a higher rank in the category of NOT YET is not encyclopedic. For all we know Brazil might overtake India and become the next Great Power or it might be the EU, Mexico or South Africa... We just cannot tell what the future holds. As such we give the great research that you have provided and let people read up on what the academics think might happen in the future. Until then they are both in the same category of not being Great Powers yet. Not one being potential and the other emerging Just one or the other either they are BOTH potential or they are BOTH emerging. Otherwise we are creating a False sense of what the future holds and we CANNOT list predictions as verifiable fact! I don't care one way or the other if and or when either nation becomes one I just care if this page represents nonacademic and unaccredited sources violating Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Reliable sources, Wikipedia:Verifiability, etc. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 07:41, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Is India a potential great power?No. India is an emerging great power. If you did not understand the term. You must read more. Who is asking you to predict the future. The sources point out India is an emerging great power. So it is an emerging great power. It's present and not future. Now regarding India as a potential superpower, the present capabilities and growth point in that direction. That's why we hear experts making comments about India and China becoming superpowers.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 16:49, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Is India a potential great power? Yes. India is an emerging great power? Yes. Both mean the same thing possible but not yet in existence. The thing about English is we have many words for things that are essentially the same. But by listing them as different we are creating that difference ourselves. Just because one country is believed to be closer than the other does not mean that in the future that is a definitive fact. Neither are yet Great Powers so they must be listed as potential ones with no categorization levels differentiating them. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 21:14, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Is India a potential great power. No is the answer. India is an emerging great power. Yes is the answer. You cannot combine these two. There is big difference between the two. Let us consider an example. Consider a person has to move from point A to B in two different territory. If he can travel there is a possibility of he reaching Great power territory from the potential great power territory. India has not only crossed the border but is in the Great Power territory with a few distance from the point B. The only reason India is not added into the great power list is just because it cannot challenge the U.S outside of Indian ocean region (South Asian region in 2001).[11] From the article "India is not a great power in the classical sense. It cannot challenge American military or economic power outside of South Asia, although it is increasingly able to resist American intrusion in its own region" If we go by the criteria that we use to to measure the great power status for India, I would like to say that neither the U.K, China or France can be considered as great powers. They all lack power in multiple areas. But still we can keep India off the list Until 2012 arrives, when noone will have to agree and debate whether India is a Great Power, but by statistics alone India will be a Great Power. Chanakyathegreat (talk) 03:44, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Yet it is a guess if India would become one first or if it would be the EU or Brazil or one of a half a dozen other countries that might become a Great Power. We should not say anything except that while they are not Great Powers, they are likely to become one in the future and leave it at that removing all arbitrary levels. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 07:28, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

If you have objections, then you can provide credible articles stating that India is not an "emerging great power". I will not have any objections if that is provided. Tens of credible articles proving India as an emerging great power can also be sidelined. And if you cannot do that, I would suggest that Wikipedia articles must not be used to represent personal opinion. I know that You know the reality very well. For some reason that is only known to you, you are opposing putting the reality in the article. I don't agree with such a tendency. It's bad and had to be corrected at the earliest. I hope you will do that.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 14:12, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

French Empire

File:British Empire Anachronous 8.png

British Empire

File:Superpower map 1945.PNG

Superpower map

German Empire

Axis Powers

File:Location-Austria-Hungary-01.png

Austria-Hungary

OttomanEmpire

One can make arbitrary categories for almost everything here and have sources to back them up I will make a few examples:

• Continuous Great Power since 1815
• Continuous Great Power since 1815 and once considered a Superpower
• Great Power once considered a Superpower
• Country once under direct rule from a Great Power now independent
• Great Power under federal rule
• Great Power under a parliamentary system
• Superpower that might not be a Superpower
• Great Power that is a possible Future Superpower
• Great Power that is on the verge of becoming a Superpower
• Great Power that is loosing power
• Could have been called a Great Power before 1815 but never got its act together after 1815
• No longer a Great Power but people in the country still act like it is.

You get the point. I was being a bit cheeky with the last one but I hope I was clear. Arbitrary classifications is not Encyclopedic its only a way to boosts one ego. Look at this from a WP:NPOV way and you will see that is rather clear. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 06:49, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

"No longer a Great Power but people in the country still act like it is." You must be mentioning about Britain.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 05:49, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

No India :-P hehehe no was mentioning country that has been said many times before in archive and not included in list. I wont confirm what country it is though.

So if you like arbitrary classifications I suggest that we start to make more classifications...

• Ok now we should list all of the territories controlled by France but are now independent

  Done, Doesn't that look nice

• Now we MUST include the British Empire since it too controlled a lot of territory after 1815

  Done, Now don't you love how India is in a shade of Red ;-p

• But lets not forget that The UK was once considered a Superpower so it would have to be in the special superpower colour to signify that it was once surpassed by no one.... then it was surpassed by two others...

  Done, This might work

• But lets not forget that Germany and Japan had an empire also and they had territories also

  Fascinating how much of the globe they controlled at one point.

• So we definitely should list all territories directly controlled by them to show how the Great Powers had a direct impact to societies that still last till today.
• Ok so now we simply must include countries once considered Great Powers since they had direct impacts on the past and they are well sourced and must simply be included in all lists.

  So that would be the Ottoman Empire and Austria-Hungary

Wow looks like all of Europe and most of Africa will be included now.

Ok So now We must use academic and reliable terms for all lists and try to consolidate all into a simple list and colour code for all of them

• Continuous Great Power since 1815 (France)
• Continuous Great Power since 1815 and a former Superpower (UK & Russia)
• Country once under direct rule from the British Empire
• Country once under direct rule from the French Empire
• Country once under direct rule from the German Empire
• Country once under direct rule from the Japanese Empire
• Great Power that is a possible Future Superpower (China)
• Great Power that is on the verge of becoming a Superpower (Russia)

Obviously there is some overlapping but some places we can use a plaid of colours to show the mix. But since everything is academic in wording and verifiable it must be included and this nit picking in no way will dull down what we are trying to accomplish here. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 10:26, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Whatever you say or add or delete, one thing is sure India is an emerging great power and a potential superpower.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 16:17, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

No that is just an arbitrary category that you have created to push a POV that you have. Please realize this. You have a nationalistic view that you wish to make India stand out more than it is. There are only 3 categories here:

1) Superpowers & Great Powers; they are listed in ONE category since Superpowers are an advanced Form of Great Power

2) Possible Future Great Power; Countries that are not currently believed to be Great Powers but academics think that they are likely to become one soon, this includes all predictive phrases that describe this including potential and emerging

3) Not listed; Other countries just shouldn't be mentioned since they are not academically relevant to this page.

As you see we don't have a special category for the USA, We don't have a special category for Russia or China since they are predicted to become a Superpower. We don't have sub categorizers because they are not relevant to the task at hand reporting the facts about Great Powers, Not superpowers, not Potential superpowers, and definitely not countries that are not yet Great Powers but might become one sooner than another country that is not yet a Great Power. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 19:26, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

UKPhoenix79, you are trying to push your version and denying the reality to be presented. Why? Why not India cannot be there as an emerging great power list. No one cannot keep India out since it will be hiding the reality from the article. Your accusation of me being nationalist or non-nationalist or believer or non-believer or anything else has nothing to do with India being an emerging great power. India is an emerging great power and that's fact. India is far capable than the two listed great powers Britain and France. I strongly feel if these two are there in the list India can be added to the great power list. The emerging great power India can be now considered to be in the Great power list. If we are supposed to talk about capabilities vis a vis India and France and Britain, I am ready for it.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 04:39, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Sources, please. It doesn't matter whether we think that India is emerging and if so into what. What do the sources say? Itsmejudith (talk) 20:39, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Source already exists. No one removes it without providing sources countering the claims.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 03:09, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I see your avoiding the conversation below so I will bring it here. Sources are found all over but Chanakya is cherry picking them and drawing conclusions from those sources. He is saying because someone arbitrarily chose Emerging over Potential there is a quantifiable difference to what the future holds when he already knows that Wikipedia is not a Crystal Ball.

encarta India, which now has nuclear weapons capability, and Brazil are regional giants that have the potential to become great powers in the 21st century.

As I have said before Your creating your own position by using one word that is arbitrarily chosen to signify a specific difference between the two nations. That is OR. This has all been talked about in Talk:Great power#India Dispute Resolution and I suggest that the convo continues there. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 04:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Encarta. I had said that the article is a very old one. But you have insisted on its correctness. Good. Now lets consider what you have just said quoting Encarta. India, which now has nuclear weapons capability, and Brazil are regional giants that have the potential to become great powers in the 21st century.

Now the question is are we in the 21st century?

Now what you have to say? No more arrogant/unreasonable answers. I expect an answer that is very mature. Thank you. Chanakyathegreat (talk) 04:09, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Reference to Superpowers

Partially in response to what is said at the Russia Superpower discussion above. Quote: "This is not the Superpower article but the Great power article" User:UKPhoenix79

I propose we take out the line stating the United States being "also referred to as a superpower" and replace the recently changed map at status with the old one. Especially the latter I believe is troublesome, as there are also reliable sources for stating the current U.S. is not a superpower.12

Please express your opinion, with solid arguments if possible. Species8473 (talk) 14:21, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

The two articles you gave are not any good. One links to a source that would not be considered reliable and the other was published in March 16, 1992 Talking about Bush Senior & the 1^st Gulf War. Are you saying that people didn't call the US a superpower in the last 16 years? From what I remember the US was considered the only superpower after the fall of the USSR. Those sources would not be good ones to use. But yes the discussion on superpower should be argued on the superpower article. We are only reporting the consensus there. If the consensus over there changes due to academic accredited sources then this page should reflect that, and if people disagree change what that article says (by discussion, academic accredited sources & consensus btw) because it is where that discussion belongs not here. Not only that the previous map should not be used because it has countries that are not Great Powers on it and we should not try to predict the future and represent those predictions on a map reporting the list of current Great Powers. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 18:56, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Wow. The criteria for reliable sources has really slipped. Those aren't academic pages, they're opinion pages. Anybody can spout off anything, like that George W. Bush, Hillary Clinton, Tony Blair, and the British royal family are space aliens.. The United States as a superpower is conventional wisdom, with the world's most powerful military, world's largest economy, and cultural and political influence around the world. The US is a superpower by definition. I like the current map. Wikipedia should not predict the future on a map showing current great powers. --Hobie Hunter (talk) 19:20, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

UKPhoenix79, it appears you are not standing by your own point that: "This is not the Superpower article but the Great power article". Stating the U.S. is a superpower, as fact, is uncited, and one sided. I stand by the following sources as being reliable sources for another side to the U.S. superpower status 123 The map change was introduced at 00:30, 19 June 2008, changed without prior discussion, and used in an edit war. Species8473 (talk) 22:37, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I really am being consistent. This argument belongs on the Talk:Superpower article and not here. We should not be talking about this situation since that is completely off topic from this article. If you can find academic sources proving your point then convince the Superpower article not us!

Take your sources to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard and see what they think. As you know we have already done this for Russia Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Great power. But your sources are opinion pieces even labeled as such not academic.

• 1 - counterpunch.org fails WP:QS as a non-notable website with questionable material.
• 2 - nytimes.com fails Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#News_organizations Says that US is no longer a superpower... Like the others this was an opinion piece (says so with big black letters in this case) written in March 16, 1992.
• 3 - austinchronicle.com fails WP:QS as a non-notable website... It might be a paper but hard to tell.

I wish to point out Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#News_organizations Which says:

However, great care must be taken to distinguish news reporting from opinion pieces. Opinion pieces are only reliable for statements as to the opinion of their authors, not for statements of fact.

(the article bolded it not me, thats how important that is)

Also the map was added first 19:06, 29 May 2008 and lists only the current powers. This is an article that is not predicting the future, only reporting the present. Australia, Brazil, Canada, EU, India, Italy, Mexico nor South Africa should be added to that map until they have become a Great Power. That doesn't mean that well sourced accredited academic pieces shouldn't be mentioned as potential great powers (thats why only 2 are listed currently) but we must keep a wary eye on Wikipedia:No original research since this page seams to attract that a lot. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 06:05, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

No I don't believe you're being consistent. When we discuss how Russia should appear, and there are good sources for it being a Nuclear and Energy Superpower. You state: "This is not the Superpower article but the Great power article" and at another point "This article is about Great Powers not superpowers or potential global powers." Following that you should have no objection with removing "also referred to as a superpower" at the United States. I tend to agree with it being better to not put potential or emerging great powers on the map. It's no big deal to create one that lists only current great powers. The United States "also referred to a superpower" is uncited in the article, and even in the U.S. itself there are sources that say it's not a superpower. If you want to keep it, the burden of evidence is on you. Species8473 (talk) 06:54, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

If you think things should change, change it on the Superpower page. Until then this page is to be about the Great Powers. Please take this convo to the Talk:Superpower page. Please make your argument there. Please source your arguments with sources that comply with Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Reliable sources, Wikipedia:Verifiability, etc. I have already shown that your sources are invalid. Yet, if you strongly believe otherwise, your barking up the wrong page. Please take your beliefs there and find sources to back them. Don't take it here where it just doesn't belong. If you can convince them by undeniable proof then this page would reflect that and if people think that changing the page to reflect that is wrong then they should take that argument to the Talk:Superpower page and leave this page alone. We are only reflecting consensus on that page not creating another superpower article. That doesn't mean that we should reflect vandalism or get in the middle of an argument, which we are. If you want people to join your convo on the superpower talk page just create a new topic here ask for comments and link to it on the superpower talk page. Until then I say that we should not be dragged into this quarrel and only report verifiable academic and accredited sources. Does that make any sense? Can you not see that I have been very consistent this whole time? Just like someone watching a married couple fight, I just don't want this page to get involved with that argument. It just belongs someplace else. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 07:41, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

This discussion does not have to be brought to another article, as the issue is here. My proposal is to remove the mention of United States also referred to as superpower. It would be in line with your other arguments to support that. I'm not going to quote you again. The information in the article is uncited, so even if the sources I presented have limitations, they still have a bigger weight then no sources. I believe the recent article at the University of Illinois 1 is a good source. Titled "U.S. no longer superpower, now a besieged global power, scholars say". Based on the work of editors and contributors from 10 nations. That challenges presentation of the United States as superpower in the map used in THIS article. Species8473 (talk) 08:34, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

That source is about the Current administration and is very critical about what it has done to the USA. Does that mean that once a new administration enters into power things would be different? I would like to point out that actually America was not included in this article before the end of May because it was a level about Great Powers. But I fear now that if we say that the US should not be listed at all others will start to say that this country or that country shouldn't be listed because it too is a superpower and not a great power. I suggest that you ask for some comments on this because this conversation looks like it is not going anyplace. Since I believe that your saying that this is getting close to WP:OR I think that asking for help at Wikipedia:No original research/noticeboard might be a good idea. If not at least go to Wikipedia:Requests for comment for some more assistance. Hope I was of some help this time. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 08:49, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

The source reflects the current situation, it's possible things change in the future, but to quote you again: "predictions are funny thing and wikipedia is not a furtune telling website". My proposal is not to remove the United States from the list, but to state both in the article and in the status image that it's among those that are considered to be a great power. I think that is the best solution. Species8473 (talk) 10:41, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

You don't understand. Get the Superpower page to change its tune then this will be sure to follow. Until Experts start to believe different this page should be consistent with the academic consensus reflected on that page. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 20:55, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

The superpower article states that: By most popular belief, the U.S. remained as only superpower after the Cold War. Followed directly after with a statement that the U.S. may currently not be a hegemon, and may be losing it's superpower status. That is something different then presenting in a map, as fact, that the U.S. is a superpower. Adding to that, there is a very recent and reliable source 1, based on the work of scholars from many countries. That states the U.S. currently is not a superpower. I consider the wordings used at superpower acceptable, but the map you created not. The superpower article also states that it's a matter of debate if Russia currently has the status of a superpower or potential superpower. I believe there are two possible solutions 1) give the same/similar presentation that superpowers does, or 2) refer to both the U.S. and Russia as being among the great powers, without any reference to superpowers.

I'm going to request a third opinion on this issue, with the hope that will help us come to a solution. Species8473 (talk) 09:05, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I see that your not understanding what I am saying so I would love for you to get more people involved. Just link the discussion here, Thanks :-) -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 06:49, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Reference to Superpowers 2.0

A request was put in for a Wikipedia:Third opinion however three editors have expressed opinions here: User:UKPhoenix79, User:Species8473 and User:Hobie Hunter. For alternatives see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 09:14, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

user:Species8473 left this message on my talk page, if User:UKPhoenix79 is in agreement I'll express a third opinion/mediate. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 11:08, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure go for it I will also ask User:Hobie Hunter if he would be willing to give his input again. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 10:27, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, its important to draw contrast to other levels of power ie. superpowers. That being said, I think that the US alone should be included. There haven't been any adequate sources stating the US as a former superpower. NY Times articles from 16 years don't count. --Hobie Hunter (talk) 18:55, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Hobie Hunter, I have presented a source that I belief is reliable.1 The book is written by Roger E. Kanet (professor of international studies), and Edward A. Kolodziej (director of the Center for Global Studies). Both reputable on the subject. Other involved editors were drawn from 10 nations. Another source I provided, uses the words of an also reputable person. James Chace, professor of international relations at Bard College. And this was published by the New York Times, the most reputable paper of the U.S.3 You on the other hand have only presented an anonymously written weblog.2 Again, I don't think it's acceptable to present as fact that the U.S. is a superpower. There are reputable people who think otherwise. If you then, for example, check out this image on statistics of the U.S. public debt. And take into account the dramatically dropping U.S. dollar. You may have to acknowledge that there indeed is quite a large economic issue going on, for a few decades now. While the military power the United States has, and events such as the war in Iraq, are simply funded out of Chinese and Japenese pockets - together holding over 40% of the U.S. public debt. That for some background ;) I have presented my points, and will await the third/fresh/neutral opinion by PBS =Species8473= ^(talk) 19:43, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

On reading of this article and the superpower article, I think that this article should sidestep this issue. The term Great Power was a reasonable one to use from about 1700 (War of the Spanish Succession) up until 1945 when shifting alliances between Great Powers meant that different combinations of powers could and did shift the balance of power. The term is certainly useful post WWI, think for example of how the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact altered the balance of power, or the political calculations involved in reviewing the potential changes in the balance of power in the interbellum with the naval treaties.

However unless there are very good references for the use of the term Great Powers after 1945, I would terminate the page (with a brief mention of the Suez Crisis that drove the point home) with a short section post 1945 stating that the term fell out of use in the bi-polar world of the Cold War and mention in a couple of sentences new analysis involving Superpowers, First World, Second World, Third World, regional powers middle power United Nations etc.

It may be in the future that with the rise of China and India and the resurgence of Russia that the term Great Power and the Great Game will become useful terms again, but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 20:22, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Unless UKPhoenix79 and/or Hobie Hunter can establish that the views of academics like Roger E. Kanet, Edward A. Kolodziej and James Chace are those of a tiny minority. Presenting as fact, that the current U.S. is a superpower (in a map or any other way) is a clear NPOV violation by my judgment. =Species8473= ^(talk) 15:19, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

My point was that whether the US is or is not a superpower is irrelevant to this article. If the section status is removed and this article stays predominantly focused on 1815-1939 which is when the term was in vogue and was a useful tool when describing interstate relations and where one would find many sources agreeing on which states were great powers in any particular decade. At the moment this article is too focused on post WWII with a bunch of POVs and quite poor sources. Eg this opinion piece is used to justify Japan as a great power but it also trashes China and India and it does not say Japan is a great power but a regional partner (against whom?) which is not quite the same thing. As I said before better to junk the "Status" section and side step the POV issues. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 17:44, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

How about these sources? : [12] [13] [14] [15] --Hobie Hunter (talk) 19:32, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

How about these sources for what? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 19:58, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

How about these sources for the US being a superpower. --Hobie Hunter (talk) 20:04, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

How about discussing removing the status section and removing this marginal issue completely? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 20:15, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

The first source is a decade old, refers to even older material. And acknowledges that there already were reputable people back then of opinion that the U.S. was in the process of losing it's superpower status. While the author, Kim Richard Nossal, disagrees. She may have a completely different opinion today. The second source (BBC), is of unknown authorship, and has only one line on the subject, without reference or citation. Even though the BBC is a reputable news source, this article is slippery as a reliable source. The third source is on an entirely different subject, and doesn't even use the word superpower once. The last one has superpower in it's title, but is mostly a review of history. Subjects such as the cold war and 9/11 are discussed, while it does not state the current U.S. is a superpower. Is it possible that you didn't read all the material yourself? And do you agree that this does not establish that the current view of reputable scholars such as the ones I presented is a minor one in the academic world?

I am not against removing the status section entirely, but I do believe it is notable to have the current views. =Species8473= ^(talk) 20:49, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

It has been at 29 June that I requested evidence showing that the views of Roger E. Kanet and Edward A. Kolodziej are those of a tiny minority within the academic community. The only thing brought up so far is a ten year old article by Kim Richard Nossal. And even in that article it can be read that other scholars back then such as Samuel P. Huntington thought the U.S. was in the process of losing it's superpower status. In our article we have a map that presents as fact that the current U.S. is a superpower. I have expressed that to be in violation of WP:NPOV, and inserted tags in the article at June 30. So Hobie Hunter, can you explain with what justification you removed them? You didn't explain the edit in a summary. I don't think the issue has been resolved, we have not reached a consensus. =Species8473= ^(talk) 02:10, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

If the convo is still going on then I guess it should be returned. But please take this to the Superpower article since that is where the conversation needs to be changed, after all that is where people that are interested in this are. If the article changes saying that the US is not a current superpower then this article would change also... till then, please go to talk:superpower and get the ball rolling there. We will reflect those changes. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 02:39, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The conversation halted with my reply being unanswered for over a week. Followed by removal of article templates without discussion or even edit summary.

I don't believe this discussion has to be brought to another article, because the issue is here. And I believe the Superpower article you want to reflect has an entirely different approach. It states on the U.S. "it is a matter of debate if it currently is a hegemon and if it is losing its superpower status". And on Russia "there is a debate regarding Russia's status as either a superpower or as a potential superpower".

The Great power article we have here presents as fact that the U.S. is a superpower, while ignoring that there is a debate about it. As well as ignoring that there is a debate about Russia being a (potential) superpower.

I believe the best step would be to leave the superpowers issue to Superpower, while ignoring it here. As Philip Baird Shearer, who provided a third opinion, also said: "On reading of this article and the superpower article, I think that this article should sidestep this issue." =Species8473= ^(talk) 04:55, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, its important to draw distinctions in the article. I apologize that that I didn't get back to you, Species. I had taken a hiatus from editing. However, the sources that I added have been used in other articles, such as the United States, regional power, and superpower articles. They've already been vetted as reliable sources and I beieve that if sources are good enough for multiple other articles, there're good enough for this one. In addtion, this article is under the jurisdiction of Wikipedia:WikiProject Power in international relations, which list as a consensus: "The United States is a superpower". Just putting that out there. Also, I could have sworn I provided an edit summary. --Hobie (talk) 19:08, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I have presented the other important points of view on the status of the United States in the article. One line directly copied from Superpower, the article we should reflect according to UKPhoenix79. And another line on the scholary source I presented at 29 June on this talk page. I belief this part of the article now reflects all significant views as it should according to official policy. In addition, I have updated the status map. Showing the United States as great power makes most sense, because it is primarily listed as great power in the article. While showing it as superpower conflicts with other significant views and as such is a violation of NPOV.

The WP:PIIR consensus list, appears to be the work of one editor. And instead of consensus, the list is stated to be composed of uncontested facts. While if you browse through the archives of this page and Talk:Superpower you will find they are constantly contested. On the talk page of the consensus page, someone has suggested over a year ago that sources or references to the specific discussions should be included. I belief the list is good for the opinion of one (now retired) editor, but nothing more.

There also is no jurisdiction of WikiProjects towards articles. They can help with forming collaboration, but that's it. =Species8473= ^(talk) 06:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I will point you to what the actual superpower article says. Taken from Post Cold War (1991-)

In the words of Samuel P. Huntington, "The United States, of course, is the sole state with preeminence in every domain of power — economic, military, diplomatic, ideological, technological, and cultural — with the reach and capabilities to promote its interests in virtually every part of the world."

Most experts argue that this older assessment of global politics was too simplified, in part because of the difficulty in classifying the European Union at its current stage of development. Others argue that the notion of a superpower is outdated, considering complex global economic interdependencies, and propose that the world is multipolar. According to Samuel P. Huntington, "There is now only one superpower. But that does not mean that the world is unipolar. A unipolar system would have one superpower, no significant major powers, and many minor powers." Huntingdon thinks, "Contemporary international politics" ... "is instead a strange hybrid, a uni-multipolar system with one superpower and several major powers."

Additionally, there has been some recent speculation that the United States is declining in power. Citing economic hardships, Cold War allies becoming less dependent on the United States, a rapidly declining dollar, the rise of other great powers around the world, and decreasing education, some experts have suggested the possibility of America losing its superpower status in the distant future.

No place does it say that the US is not a current superpower only that it might not be one forever (that goes without saying since nothing lasts forever). But now is not the time to use speculation about waning powers to state as fact. I believe it is totally reasonable to say that there is debate but it is not a fact that it is no longer a superpower. As such I am reverting the article and I am going to ask that the editors of the Superpower article take notice on what is going on here since you refuse to take the conversation there. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 08:22, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

The version you reverted doesn't state facts, it presents all significant views on the issue. That's what we are to do according to WP:NPOV (offical policy). The third opinion provided by Philip Baird Shearer on it, was to sidestep the issue of superpowers in this article. That's fine and supported by me too. But I don't see any reason to have this/your revision. In what only one of the significant views is presented. While the view that the current United States is not a superpower, is completely ignored. 1234 Especially the opinion of the group of scholars from a number of nation, including Edward A. Kolodziej (Research Professor of Political Science and Director of the Center for Global Studies at the University of Illinois) and Roger E. Kanet (Professor of International Studies at the University of Miami) is notable. But also George Soros who was a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and is currently the chairman of Soros Fund Management and the Open Society Institute. Can you tell me with what reason you have the right to reverse my work, and for what reason I should not simply do the same, while my reversion clearly is in line with official policy at WP:NPOV? =Species8473= ^(talk) 11:32, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Adding to the previous, the edit summary you provided with your revert is false. You state "rv. not supported by superpower article and sources speculate about the future not the present. They say that its presently weakened and diminished but not no longer a superpower". I have posted a link to this article a number of times now at this talk page. And it was cited as reference. First in the title you can read "U.S. no longer superpower". Followed by in the article itself: "..the unfounded assumption underlying the Bush Doctrine that the United States is a superpower..". And directly quoting Edward A. Kolodziej: "The book also rejects the counter liberal argument that the United States is, indeed, a superpower.." and "..misguidedly assumed to be the continued superpower status of the United States..". =Species8473= ^(talk) 18:42, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I was using the superpower pages' references which have been vetted and approved over much debate. I am sorry that I didn't notice that one. I have read it before when you posted it here. Why is it that that article is not listed on the superpower site? Why bring that here and not to the main article? Why is it that the superpower page has the section I have posted above saying that it is still a superpower?

Oh on a personal note I would like to give you a very sincere thank-you for actually following the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. I find it a very nice change to the recent activities that have occurred on this article so thank-you for that... thank-you... -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 05:12, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Page protection

I have protected this page for 36 hours because an edit war is in progress. Please use the next 36 hours constructively and discuss the dissagreements here on the talk page so that a Wikipedia:consensus can be reached. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 21:04, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

India Dispute Resolution

Okay, thanks to edit warring the page has been protected for 36 hours. If I've learned anything from working on Wikipedia:WikiProject Power in international relations it's that disputes can paralyze progress on an article for days, weeks, or sometimes months. To advance this article we need to have consensus. Here's the place to discuss India's status. We need to have an agreement. --Hobie Hunter (talk) 23:17, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I still do not see why we need to have a list of Great Powers. We can simply list countries that are commonly referred to as great powers--that, in my opinion, is more in common with Wikipedia's role as a tertiary source. TallNapoleon (talk) 01:44, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

The emerging great power India can be now considered to be in the Great power list. If we are supposed to talk about capabilities vis a vis India and France and Britain, lets start a discussion on it.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 04:40, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

As you might have noticed the Great Powers of China, France, Russia, and the United Kingdom are all grouped together with the only remaining superpower The United States. The reason for this is because the US is a form of a Great Power just at a higher level than the others. Did we place this in another category? No, simple because that is not what we set out to do here the article even talks briefly about this and links to the appropriate article.

Now when it comes to countries that are not Great Powers there is a very good argument that they should not be listed at all. But I find it rather helpful that well sourced academic opinions are mentioned and countries or areas that are not sourced like Australia, the EU, Iran, Italy, Mexico, South Africa, etc. are not included because there is little to no academic talk currently listed backing such claims. Now Brazil and India are sourced rather well and I think it that they should be mentioned as possible future Great Powers, But I do not think that we should PREDICT which ones are to be listed at a higher position than the other. Not only that I don't think that they should be listed on the map since they are not Current Great Powers. Doing either is giving the impression that it is a verifiable fact that it is a Great Power when such conclusions are incorrect.

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

As you see official policies are in agreement, but I still think that Brazil and India should be listed. But we must be careful not to exaggerate the future because once can never know what tomorrow brings... if you can please let me know what the lotto numbers are because that would just be Great :-) -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 05:11, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

The above rule is applicable on you. You cannot deny the articles that has information on India being an emerging great power and push your own version or opinion without solid proof of India not being an emerging great power. On what basis are you denying India not being an emerging great power. What articles you can provide to state that India is not an emerging great power. This kind of a discussion without any solid proof or evidence from your side is just waste of time. If you are trying delay this as long as possible, it is for the other users to decide and Admins to take note. Also for the stringent criteria put for India to be a great power, then China which in many articles claim to be an emerging great power will cease to exist as a great power. It's similar for Britain and France. Chanakyathegreat (talk) 02:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Thats simple enough all I had to do was look in google and it was in the first place I went and ironically a source that we are currently using as a reference.

encarta The only other states of comparable economic size are Italy and perhaps India, neither of which has the global outlook or military strength to qualify as a great power. India, which now has nuclear weapons capability, and Brazil are regional giants that have the potential to become great powers in the 21st century.

Your creating your own position by using one word that is arbitrarily chosen to signify a specific difference between the two nations. That is OR. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 05:51, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

No, you are doing it. It's your opinion that it need to be removed. What sources you have to prove that what has been said in the articles is wrong. Just twisting some words and saying it again and again and changing thins according to your wish not not right. It's a violation of Wiki rules when you remove lines with sources without any valid reasons. Chanakyathegreat (talk) 13:40, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

The line that "record of such predictions has not been perfect" is purely original research. Even though the article makes some predictions, it doesn't state that "the record of predictions has not been perfect". And also presents points to why Japan will not become a superpower, for example: "Some Japanese argue that even if the country wanted to become a military superpower, it could not. They contend that the country is physically too small and is too easily suspectible to bombing and blockade." So far it seems, that has been correct. So with some more original research you could even use it to show that predictions are accurate.

I haven't read all the articles that are used for India being an emerging great power. But encarta seems to state that it already is a great power. In the timeline of the article, during the period that it had just achieved becoming a nuclear power, it was not. But since then: "the growth of nuclear proliferation and the potential spread of nuclear weapons to new states has provided the opportunity for a second-tier power, India, to claim great power status". While the period it was not, can be dated back to the years shortly after 1974, when India did it's first nuclear weapons test. Currently the country has nuclear technology for over 60 years, and nuclear weapons for over 30 years. =Species8473= ^(talk) 01:36, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

It was the test that happened in 1998 that they were referring too since it was so unexpected. Lets not forget that int he 70's South Africa also had nukes. But everyone thought that India and Pakistan gave them up due to pressure from the UN and the cold war superpowers... it was the tests that made everyone re-aware of those countries potential for destruction internationally. But we must also avoid making future predictions about how these potential great powers are listed. Please refer to Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 04:51, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

The discussion is Not about future and you are deliberately trying to do so. The articles and links that are provided call India as an 'Emerging great power' that's a status which you did not understand. Regarding your thoughts, Wikipedia has nothing to with it. Provide source to counter the point that India is not an emerging great power. If it can be done, then better. Anyway in reality wiki crystal ball applies exactly to Germany and Japan and their removal from the list. India being an economic, military, political and cultural power is an emerging great power. If you don't understand it, I cannot help you. I can keep on explaining but what can I do if you did not understand it or act in a manner that you have not understood the point.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 04:39, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Chanakyathegreat, please refrain from further editing this page to support your POV. Your nationalistic tendencies clearly do not comply with Wikipedia's standards. India is firmly a middle, regional power when the evidence has been carefully and impartially considered. I agree India shows exceptional promise to advancing to great power status in the future but as has been discussed there is no guarantee that it will emerge as a full-fledged one. Therefore, we should maintain a NPOV that is congruent with this fact. -- Nirvana888 (talk) 14:38, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

On what basis is your analysis? Seems you are confusing with the term Great power and Potential super power. Satyameva Jayate.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 02:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I actually have a clear idea of what distinguishes the two. Great power = present. Potential or emerging superpower = possibility in the future. Herein lies the distinction. This has already been discussed extensively by another user. Nirvana888 (talk) 04:35, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Nirvana, your nationalism has hurt this page and by my count has forced it to be protected at least twice. --Hobie Hunter (talk) 18:49, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Absurd. First you don't try to understand the issue. Then you accuse me of being nationalistic. No problem. But being nationalist or not is not the issue. The issue is about India being an emerging great power. India has got the economic, political, military and cultural strength. So why not include India even tiny(not in size in all areas compared to India) like Japan and Germany are added to the Future great power list. Chanakyathegreat (talk) 03:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think I fully understand you but I am assuming you believe that India is equal to Japan and Germany in power; unfortunately that is not true. After analyzing the sources referenced, it is pretty clear that India does not have the political, economic, cultural, military, soft influence as the other great powers at present (USA, China, UK, France, Russia). I have a feeling you might disagree given your stance in the past and I would be open to new evidence that convinces me otherwise. I'm personally sympathetic to India and like I said do forsee it being a great power one day but for the purposes of this issue, I believe we should maintain the status quo. Nirvana888 (talk) 04:35, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

What I meant is that India comes third after U.S and China in overall capabilities. I am unable to assess the Russian Capabilities. The others lack capabilities in one or multiple areas. Also I would like to mention that India is considered as emerging so is China. This viewpoint is a new one that started with the rise of India and China. In this viewpoint the old list i.e the nations with nuclear weapons will become obsolete. There is a big change after the Pokhran-II test.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 04:12, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Usually there are two or more people needed to get a proper edit war started. The version that User:UKPhoenix79 reverted to, with some help of User:Colliver55, has a clear violation of WP:OR. I'm also still not sure what the viewpoint of the encarta article is on India being a great power. At the final paragraph it states that: "The growth of nuclear proliferation and the potential spread of nuclear weapons to new states has provided the opportunity for a second-tier power, India, to claim great power status". In other words, it states that because of circumstances India has become a great power. And on a bit of a different subject, I wasn't entirely happy with this edit from User:Hobie Hunter either. I believe we were still discussing those sources, and had not yet come to some sort of consensus. My latest reply still is waiting for a response. Especially the second source is no good, it doesn't even use the word superpower, and with that can not be used as source for also referred to as a superpower. But no matter who is right and who is wrong, the edit warring has to stop. If it happens again I will report all involved users at WP:3RR or WP:ANI. On india being/becoming a great power/emerging great power. Why don't all parties write one clear reply stating their point of view including sources and citations from them? And unless there are no reliable sources for a viewpoint, or they can be proven to be a tiny minority view, we may have to present more than one. Quote WP:NPOV: "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." =Species8473= ^(talk) 22:00, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I apologize that that I didn't get back to you, Species. However, the sources that I added have been used in other articles, such as the United States, regional power, and superpower articles. They've already been vetted as reliable sources and I beieve that if sources are good enough for multiple other articles, there're good enough for this one. I think that his proposal is an excellent one. We should have eveyone's opinion clearly stated. That said, "emerging great power" means that a country is coming into being a great power, that it could be; that's the same thing as "potential great power". --Hobie Hunter (talk) 23:40, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Encarta article, it was added by UKPhoenix79, even though I had objected to its inclusion. You can check the archives on Great power discussion.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 04:15, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

One more link for India as an emerging great power based on Pentagon report.[16] Chanakyathegreat (talk) 03:55, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

The article has been updated with the exact wording used in the articles according to wiki rules, i.e Emerging great power. No more personal opinions and edits without proper sources.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 16:13, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Your just not listening to reason. The reason you argued against Encarta was because you were saying that India is a current Great Power. It took you threatening to get an admin to block me and ironically an admin coming into the convo and tell you to not threaten people and the source was actually good for you to back down. You are cherry picking your sources and ignoring sources that disprove your hypothesis. Why have you not gone and sourced all the articles that say that Brazil is an emerging Great Power[17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27]??? Why because you wish to show that India is different than Brazil, when it is actually the at same level. You undoubtedly with do your usual retort and spout your own OR and try to prove with your own conclusions but that is not for wikipedia. Remember Emerging & Potential = Possible, they are not Great Powers yet and might never become one so they must not be listed as anything other than being in the same position. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 00:36, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Let's look at each article. This one says.[28] "China, India Brazil the impact of the Emerging countries". Do you agree with the addition of India and Brazil into the Great Power list?

This article [29] says "emerging powers like China, India, and Brazil (as well as the re-emerging power of Russia)". Now Do you agree on adding India and Brazil to the Great power list.

From this[30]. article "BRIC" So can we add India and Brazil to the Great power list?

Now can we add India and Brazil to the list of Great powers? I think you will not have any objections.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 04:50, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

No the articles say that they are BOTH emerging great powers and I have provided many examples that they are BOTH potential great powers Yet you still list India as an Emerging Great power and list Brazil as a Potential Great Power!!! You are trying to list something that is pure OR so please stop it. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 05:29, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I know that you understood it, but still tried to distorted it. What I meant is that you saw China, India and Brazil. If they say China, India and Brazil as emerging powers, Since China the emerging power is in Great power list of Wikipedia, why not add India and Brazil to the Great power list. Where is Britian and France. Time to demote them as well.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 14:19, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

"Emerging" great powers

In the interests of ending this edit-war, I have simply removed the section entirely. Rather than an interminable edit war over exactly what they should be called, and whose country might become a great power in the future, using material that wholly violates WP:SYNTH anyway, I have removed the section. I would love it if people left it at that. Neıl 龱 12:46, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Sounds fine. I hope Chanakya agrees. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 20:50, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I did not agree. It did not reflect the realities. If the Emerging great power list is removed, India must be added to the Great power list or else we have to remove U.K, France and China from the great power list.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 02:54, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

The thing is, I think I was one of the few that wanted to list well sourced predictions on countries that are thought to be future great powers. We just couldn't agree on how to do it. Now neither of us get it included... now thats funny :-D -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 04:09, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Keep aside predictions. I had explained to you in detail about the reason for keeping India in the emerging great power list. You have tried to disregard this suggestion calling it prediction. In reality it was just because India has not matched capabilities to match the U.S. Going by present realities, If India is not considered as a great power, We have to remove Britain and France from the list. While India is on the rise, these two nations are on the decline especially Britain. Can you list great power capabilities of these nations that is better than that of India. Chanakyathegreat (talk) 08:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

G8 and the UN Security Council

As I said above I do not think that this article should emphasise who is or is not a "Great Power" post 1945. Since then the measure has been more to do with permanent membership of the UN Security Council (for military matters and most of the areas that traditionally were the areas of interest to Great Powers) and more recently membership of the G8 in the economic sphere. Those are two concrete measures that can be used to identify status. This data mining of articles to argue who is or is not a Great Power in today's world is detrimental to the article, and detrimental to Wikipedia's reputation (because it makes articles like this appear amateurish and emphasising trivia, in the way the press like to point out the biographies on pokemon characters are many times larger than biographies of historically very significant people). I think it would be best to concentrate on the period from the end of the Napoleonic wars to the start of World War II, and wrap up the article with a mention that other indicators such as membership of these organisations have largely replaced the old rather fuzzy ideas about which states were "Great Powers" before World War II. It will be when India, Brazil and other counties join these organisations that they will be Great Powers, but even when they do, they will not usually be called as such, instead they will be called "permanent member of the UN Security Council" or a "member of G8". --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 13:40, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Support -- I expressed previously to be mostly neutral towards your proposal of removing the status section entirely, pending further discussion on it (that didn't follow). After having given it some more thought, I vote for it. The sources for other countries like France, the United Kingdom, and even the United States are (also) very poor. It seems that within the worldwide academic community there is no interest of debating who are current great powers/superpowers and who are not. So there really isn't much to reflect in this article. If there would have been, we would not have been stuck with only an encarta article that is vague on parts, and an article from the bosnian institute that is not a reliable source for great powers, because it's an article about the Srebrenica genocide. =Species8473= ^(talk) 16:45, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

G8 has very little to do with ones status as a Great Power. After all Canada is a part of the G8 and it is not a great power, while China is, yet it's left out of the G8. The term Great power is a relevant term today, while the new classification of Superpower has overshadowed the pre-WWII might of the great powers they are still talked about in todays news and in academic circles for modern states. By creating our own standards for what is and isn't a Great power we are putting ourselves in the place of accredited experts in geopolitics which is WP:OR. In wikipedia we must not construct facts by conjecture and our own synthesis of thought, only list referenced materials from experts. We must not go down that road and ensure that wikipedia is only reporting the facts and not creating them. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 20:45, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Your search supports my statement using you search:

todays:

• about 550 for Great-power
• about 30,697 for security-council
• about 23,927 for G8

news:

• about 193 for Great-powers
• about 30,710 for security-council
• about 23,924 for G8

Which means that Great-Power(s) is used in about 2 ½ Google news articles for every 100 that use Security-Council. That is not a very high hit rate. Searching on a new country (so not many pre-WWII) "about 3,040 for East-Timor great-powers OR great-power", "about 1,060 for East-Timor G8", "about 7,660 for East-Timor Security-Council" give a better proportion, but it is still only about 40% of the number mentioning Security-Council. If we remove articles which mention both Great Power(s) and Security Council "about 1,270 for East-Timor Great-Powers OR Great-Power -security-council" "5,890 for East-Timor -Great-Powers -Great-Power security-council" the number falls to a ration of less than 2 to 10 of scholarly articles mention "Great-Power(s) and East-Timor" compared to "Security-Council and East-Timor". --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 22:03, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

As you see from Google news everyday a news piece talks about the current great powers [31] this is a current term (here is one from 11 hours ago). Not only that the G8 has nothing to do with the Great powers. Do you think that Canada is a Great Power? It has been a member of the G8 and its predecessors for a very long time now yet it is only considered a middle power, the same goes for Italy. So you think that China is a Great Power? Well it isn't a member of the G8 only invited to tag along occasionally. Heck it wasn't until 1997 that Russia was included in the G7 (it then became the G8) and only a decade before hand it was a superpower. It is not our place to synthesize facts only to report them. Leave this to the academics that specialize in geopolitics after all I doubt that we are published authors in this field. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 22:27, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I think you are missing the point of what I am trying to say. The concept of Great Power is not of much use on its own. The point of the articles you have pulled out is that they define Great power by Military/Economic/Political power. There are better measures of these attributes (like having a veto on the UN security council (as the Soviets learnt to their cost in the Korean War)) than in the more traditional term Great Power. Further it is much easier to quantify international influence by the international clubs a country belongs to than by a nebulas fuzzy concept like Great Power that does not have a clear meaning. The list of countries that might be called a great powers usually includes membership of the UN security council and/or G8. BTW A look at this article List of countries by military expenditures shows how if one is measuring military expenditure then there is only one Great Power, as would a similar List of countries by GDP. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 00:29, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Your argument was that it is not a term that is used about current countries in current context. I showed that this is not the case. You also said that the G8 is a req for bing a great power I showed you that 2 countries not considered as great powers are included in the G8 another country that is a great power is not included and another country was only included 11 years ago after 40 years of being the only other superpower on the planet save for the US. So the G8 should not be listed as a REQ in any way.

I also have fears that wikipedia dictating what is and is not included as a great power is WP:OR and WP:SYN and is to be avoided at all cost. It is not for us lay people to make up criteria for our belief on what is/isn't a great power. We are an Encyclopedia and we should leave that for the experts to debate. I know that some of us have college degrees here and some of us might even have a poly-sci degree but unless we can source accredited academic papers on the topic this is to be avoided. Please it is not for us to decide, only to report and inform the world. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 00:43, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

It is not that it is not used but that it is not commonly used compared to other terms. (also note the "and/or" in what I wrote above). I am not suggesting that we make up our own list of current Great Powers quite the contrary. I am saying that it is not a label that is currently used very much in comparison to other measures of a State's international influence and as such to try to create a list of Great Powers in the 21st century falls under WP:UNDUE and probably WP:SYN. This has become a conversation between two people and I will not say any more on the subject unless someone else contributes something new as you clearly disagree with the other people who have to date contributed to this section. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 01:06, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you decided not to reply to my comments, and yes it is obvious that I disagree, but it is not WP:UNDUE nor WP:SYN when one can find its easily reported every day using the term in the news. Papers are also being written on the subjects not only about the historical Great powers but about current ones. I did notice that you placed and/or but it is simply not true; G8 is not a standard for great powers and should not be listed as such, there are many economic groups out there including the G20. If we were to try to figure out what is a great power by using our own criteria (the security council, G8, military expenditure, economic growth, etc) we would be creating wikipedias idea on what a Great power is. That is forbidden by many official policies. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 01:21, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Support - It's been five months since I last edited this article, and (other than reverting vandalism) it was mainly about India's "Great Power" status then. Let's avoid speculation and nationalistic opinionating about who is or isn't currently a "Great Power". -- Donald Albury 21:10, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

What is nationalism to do with India becoming a great power? It's known reality. If there is talk/debates/opinion on the rise of India and China is that because of nationalism? I will only say "Think". Chanakyathegreat (talk) 03:04, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Are we really going to do a straw poll??? -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 21:27, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The security council and G8 did not reflect the current realities and hence there is debate going on about the inclusion of India and China into the G8[32] [33]and permanent membership for India in the security council.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 03:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

The Bahamas a Great Power of the 21st Century

I'm starting this topic on the Bahamas as a re-ermerging great power. They have a living standard that exceeds that of most Carribean countries. People from around the world come to the Bahamas for its beautiful beaches and oceans. Billions of Ammericans visit the Bahamas each month. Some of their superpower status has rubbed off on us. They're a sportfishing great power and a Junkanoo superpower and don't forget about handicraft great power status. They have a militaruy budget of over 20 million dollars!. The Bahamas were also part of the British Empire, the worlds first superpower. We were also part of the ancient superpower of Atlantis Bimini Road They have a population of a whopping 300,000 people. Also check out these sources for its superpower status (as a compromise for all you non-believers we can list it as a great power) : —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.35.120.84 (talk) 23:28, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Its nice to see that someone has a good sense of humour here :-D Though I did remove the link to the ads -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 03:37, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Criteria to become a great power

This is going on for a long time, without any end. Now it's time to set criteria for a Great power. What Criteria need to be used for a great power and how to measure the power of a nation. Means what metrics to use. Once we set the Criteria based on the metrics it will be easy to classify countries based on their Power.

Let me start. The basic definition given for a great power is [34] One of the nations having great political, social, and economic influence in international affairs. and "nation with extensive influence: a nation that has a far-reaching political, social, economic, and usually military influence internationally". Now what metrics to be used to measure Political, Social, Economic and Military influences. Chanakyathegreat (talk) 14:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Bosnian Institute

This article: http://www.bosnia.org.uk/news/news_body.cfm?newsid=2301 is about the Srebrenica genocide, and not a good source for what countries are to be considered great powers. I already removed it once, but it was added back. So let's discuss it. Basically this source only uses the words great power as an easy reference to some countries. While the article is not about what countries are considered great powers at all. Instead it is about the Srebrenica genocide. The author also is no reputable or authorative person on the subject of great powers, and is only noted to be a former spokesperson of the UN International Criminal Tribunal for former Yugoslavia. Interesting as source for the Srebrenica massacre, but not Great power. =Species8473= ^(talk) 19:08, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry that was me, I didn't notice the change in my edit. Unless others have any objections I understand you logic and I have no problems if it was removed. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 04:57, 11 July 2008 (UTC)