Talk:Great power

For older discussion, see archives: 1

India on the list?

Why is India possibly on the list of Great Powers? The criteria we use, clearly stated on the main page:

1. The capacity to contribute to the international order
- Contribute to "International" order? India? very little, if at all.
2. Internal cohesion to allow for effective state action
- big fat zero here.
3. Economic power, such as high levels of economic growth or a large market.
- India has ok GDP numbers: $3.611 trillion (2005 est.), but with a population of 1,095,351,995 (July 2006 est.) and growing (even though we obviously see the World's resources shrinking!), the GDP - per capita is a paltry $3,300 (2005 est.). This with a quarter of the population living below the poverty line, which from my experience is a very, very conservative number. The words "hell hole" come to mind.
4. Military power, with the ability to compete with other dominant powers in a conventional war
- Yes, like all Third World countries, India likes to make a big Army. Can it compete with dominant powers in a conventional war? Absolutely not. It would be utterly devastated. Unlike Canada, France, Japan, Italy, Germany, and the UK, the United States would hardly rush to its aid.

So I think we can give India maybe 1/4 of a point for 1., 0 of a point for 2., 1/2 a point for 3., and 1/4 of a point for 4. So being extremely generous here, India scores at best 1 out of 4 points. Should be dropped from Great Power -- ASAP.

Oh yeah, I saw Nobleagle how you list yourself as a "Proud Indian". I'm sure you will come back with some very entertaining (*snicker*) comments. I love the Third World mentality of pride. Gives you a lot of hope for humanity maturing one day, yeah right. It is a deadly sin also, you know? 71.106.171.199 07:05, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Simply and civilly, please look at India as an emerging superpower, it has more than enough points (all sourced heavily, the article as over 100 sources) to support India's position. Also search India emerging superpower and you get quite a lot of articles on India's spectacular growth, similarly you get a number of articles on India major power. Search Italy major power and you get NOTHING. Search Italy great power and you get NOTHING. The media coined some terms now used in geopolitics and the media is often the one that shows status of nations. That is all for now. Nobleeagle (Talk) 00:40, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Utter nonsense. By the way, did Italy Great Power in Google, 56,000,000 hits. What a scientific approach you use. *yawn* India is a backwater, and seeing your attitude, here is wishing it stays that way. 71.106.195.5 06:37, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Please abstain from such references they violate WP policy. You may be blocked for such activity. Signature^brendel 06:39, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Just in case you are unfamiliar with search engines. 56,000 hits doesn't mean anything, it's the content that matters and when none of the first 10 hits in Italy great power suggest that Italy is a great power. It shows the media's opinion. Nobleeagle (Talk) 06:41, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Italy on the list?

Frankly, I don't think Italy meets the criteria of being a major power nowadays. She is no doubt a middle power or regional power, but her international significance and influnce can hardly be comparable to that of USA, UK, France, Germany, India, China and Russia.

• First, you should sign, to know who you are.

Then if you look at the archive you will see many links and sources about Italy having the capacities of a Great Power.

Also in your list you missed Japan either. Italy is in the G-8 from the begining, when it was G-6, so it's one of the Major Industrialized Countries of the World. It's GDP was the 5th in the world from 1986 to 1998/9. Don't you think that to be a Great Power? So why is Germany or even Japan? They only have powerfull economies, isn't that enough? They have a strong military and strong participation on Peace Missions and they are major contributors to UN.The second and third net contributors and since USA doesn't pay for almost 15 years they are first and second, Italy is fifth or sixt net contributor to UN budget and is much more involved in UN and other missions. In the past 60 years, Italy was in many International Missions and Wars. Japan and Germany because of WWII have more restricted Constitutions than Italy, altough Italy Constitution is a bit restrictive about wars. Japan cannot atack anyone, Germany first participation in a war after WWII was in 1999,while Italy since 1970 could participate in International Wars.

The World created after WWII isn't the same anymore, so UN should be renowed, specially the Security Council. But India for eg. has any International clout? It has many troops in missions because of it's huge population and it's deployement of troops is proportional, but economically is India so huge? It has a growing GDP, but because it has more than 1 Billion people. For that population it has a very tiny GDP.And its importance as a Global Player it's more regional; it's importance in the World is growing but more in economy due to it's cheap labour.But economically Italy is much more important.Italy's production it's a self-production, with Know-how, while China and India are in the major part production of multi-nationals. They have a good industrial output only due to the fact of cheap labour. When someone buys a Philips TV or a Kodak camera made in China, do you think that person associates the TV set as being a Chinese product? Of course no. They associate with China and India low quality trademarks and know that many things are done there because of costs.
Made in Italy is very different, it has quality and even if clothes of italian brands are made in other places they are regarded as italian ones.
In terms of economy, industry, World awareness Italy is years ahed of India, China or Russia, it's on the same league of France, UK and Germany.

In World Geopolitics, it's more important than India too. It is as I said a major contributor to UN, in troops, peace missions and to it's budget. It's a rich country, not a receiver of anything. Inside EU Italy is the third major contributor to EU budget, so it has Power inside the major International Bloc of Trade and Economic/political integration of different Nations. You have the vision that anglo-saxon and germanic press makes on people, a close-minded one. If you looked at many more articles, papers and many other sources you would realise Italy's dimension, but the fault it's not yours, it's of the media and propaganda. For these media Italy is only a good country to go on vacation, with friendly people but that is very bellow France, UK, Germany and now even India, China or Russia. For them it's a sort of Greece, only a little bigger. Even when Italy was the 5th major economy on earth, that fact was rarely mentioned or even taked into account.
And if we consider the undeground/shadow economy, Italy's GDP is bigger than that of France and maybe UK.

And in military terms, Italy is a strong player too, it has the World's sixht most powerful Navy, has indigenous military products like ships, helicopters, aircrafts, missiles and participates in Major International consortiums and projects like MEADS and ASTER missiles, Panavia Tornado, Eurofighter Typhoon, F-35/JSF, as matter of fact, Italy was regarded as the european constructor of F-35's and is the third major contributor to this aircraft, that will be one of the most sold in the world, it will replace in Air Forces through the World the F-16.

Even in space Italy is important, besides being one of the major shareholders of ESA and it's Ariane rocket, it has it's own rocket-the Vega, 65% of the project belongs to ASI-Italian Space Agency, the other 35% to other countries. It was also the third country to put a satellite on space, had a nuclear program, that was abandoned but gave the ground to the Vega rocket and has the Know-how to built Nuclear Program in two years if it wanted to. People talk a lot of Iran Nuclear, but if Iran continues to pursue that objective it could only have Nuclear weapons by 2015, unless some other country helped it. Italy is different-doesn't want, but has the capability to built one in 2 years or even less time.

Think on all this and say me that Italy is not a Great Power. ACamposPinho 4 August 2006, 19:18

Yes, I would agree any G7 country should obviously be included as a Great Power; this includes Canada. To include some but not all G7 countries is ridiculous. I believe any sensible outside critique would agree with this simple criteria. Now if India should be listed as a Great Power, I've added this discussion. I have heard that "our interpretation of things can be affected by our political alignment and our nationality.". I guess we'll have to see. 71.106.171.199 07:04, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I have told you this many times Campos, our interpretation of things can be affected by our political alignment and our nationality. We need someone from some random non-Great power and non-Possible Great power country to make a true neutral statement. Are India and China sources of cheap manual labour or sources of skilled effective cheap thinkers. It's a matter of opinion. Nobleeagle (Talk) 03:12, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I can see China being an emerging power and a Great Power, but not India. India is an utter backwater having visited. It's economic numbers are coming from families popping out children like popcorn. This is increasing numbers (at the expense of the world's environment) and will backfire into a huge human catatrophy in the coming years due to these methods being unsustainable. This combined with all the religious in fighting, the discusting caste system which exists even today, the usual "i think i'm sneaky" attitude of Indians, will just blow up. 71.106.171.199 05:58, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

See India as an emerging superpower, I can't be bothered replying to something like that. Caste System is fading away, as is religious violence (did you see any communalism after the Mumbai bombings). Nobleeagle (Talk) 06:03, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Of course you can't bother responding, because you are a "proud (i.e. blind) indian". The caste system is far from fading away. Maybe you can say that (I wonder what caste you come from), but the ones at the bottom would not agree. Indeed, seeing India listed as a Great Power is a joke. Emerging power, possibly, we'll see. But Great Power? Ridiculous. It definitely does not meet the four criteria. 71.106.171.199 06:16, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

India as a emerging superpower, what a self-righteous joke. I can see you edit it quite a bit. Well, I suppose you hope publishing b.s. on Wiki will make things come true. I seriously doubt it, ever. Emperor's New Clothes indeed. 71.106.171.199 06:18, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Interesting, you accuse me of trying to keep Italy out of the Great Powers list becuase of nationalistic bias, perhaps you'd like to explain what you are trying to do with India. Signature^brendel

I not only edit that, my uncivil friend, but I added much of the tables to this page, Superpower, Regional power and even started the upcoming Power in international relations WikiProject, but have stalled because my life is getting more busy. But note that it is not only me that looks at these pages, if everyone thought of me as you do and reverted my edits, I would've quite Wikipedia ages ago, but they don't, so it is obviously simply the fact that I reverted your edits that has caused this sudden issue with my nationality and apparent bias. By the way, the bottom-caste Indians are getting the easier way of things, as the government has initiated a quota for such people in universities. Nobleeagle (Talk) 06:28, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, "uncivil", you say. Resorting to name calling and personal attacks because others don't share your views/dreams; now I'm really LOL. Do I care about your personal issues. No, not one bit. Do I feel your Nationalistic biases effect the neutrality and criterias of the Wiki project: absolutely. You didn't answer yet on the level of your caste. I'm sure the "bottoms" appreciate your telling us how much better off they are now. Looking at your page, I see many have critized you. Instead of meditating on this and seeing if you do maybe have some issues, you brush it off. Very mature. 71.106.171.199 06:41, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Add dishonest to that. You said in your revert comments consensus was reached months ago. Looking at the archives there was a vote: No Consensus Reached : For - 2, Against - 2. Hardly a large turnout, or a consensus. Hmm, the Indian culture of honesty holds true once again. -sigh- My dear Nobleeagle, you would of loved the Indians I had the displeasure to meet in Graduate School. It is really uncanny. 71.106.171.199 06:48, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Looking at the archives, me and Xdamr didn't vote, neither did Trip the Light Fantastic and Nixer. Because any comments we made were treated as an attack on Italy. The only two people that voted for Italy were the two propagators of the idea. This is after I, the evil Indian put notice of the debate on the Italian Wikipedians Noticeboard so that we could get some more Italian opinions. So that's decent consensus in my opinion. Nobleeagle (Talk) 00:33, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

• NobleEagle you say India and China as a source of cheap labour is an opinion? I'm not saying you and Chinese aren't skilled. You are skilled as the "ocidental countries" are. It's no difference.
  

What I say is a fact- the labour cost in India and China is cheap. Look at these two countries GDP per capita and you will see it's a fact, if it wasn't for that Indians and Chinese could be more skilled, more intelligent that industries would never allocate it's factories there. They are there because of the globalized World of today. You think Philips, HP, Japanese companies and many many more are there because of your skills? No,because of costs of labour.

If each country were more closed and the World less "globalized", the products Made in China or Made in India we would get, would be a few ones of your own companies. Believe me, very few ones.But don't get offended. It's a matter of costs.

Did you know that USA automobile workers are much cheaper than the ones of Germany, Japan, Italy or France? It's also a fact that was in the Wall Street Journal. That's why many japanese auto companies have factories in USA and there are some Germans too- some models like Mercedes ML are all manufactured in USA. It's not a question of opinion, are facts. ACamposPinho 5 August 2006, 23:32

Let's stop the personal attacks, please calm down. We diagree about whose a great power but there is no reasons for the insults above - "Hmm, the Indian culture of honesty holds true once again. -sigh- My dear Nobleeagle, you would of loved the Indians I had the displeasure to meet in Graduate School. It is really uncanny." My Gosh, are we in high school or something. Signature^brendel

Great Power - the criteria

I have found a source listing what a great power is and how to know when a country is one. The following is an excerpt.

The Idea of “Major Powers”

Although major powers have been shaping international events since ancient times, the phrase major powers or great powers did not appear in the official diplomatic or scholarly discourse until the early nine- teenth century. Leopold Ranke’s seminal essay “The Great Powers,” published in 1833, established a precedent for historians to use this phrase, but Ranke was merely following of‹cial diplomatic usage. For their part, diplomats did not use the term before the Congress of Vienna (1814–15), when “Great Powers” were recognized for the first time through the establishment of “The Concert of Europe.” The diplomatic precedent for using the term appeared in Castlereagh’s cir cular letter sent to British ambassadors on February 13, 1814, where Castlereagh announces a great victory for his policy of building the post-Napoleonic peace through the Concert of Great Powers

'It affords me great satisfaction to acquaint you that there is every prospect of the Congress terminating with a general accord and Guarantee between the great Powers of Europe, with a determina- tion to support the arrangement agreed upon, and to turn the gen- eral influence and if necessary the general arms against the Power that shall first attempt to disturb the Continental peace. (Webster 1931, 307}'

When the Stakes Are High

Only a month later, the distinction between the great powers and other states was formally recognized by other powers as well in the Treaty of Chaumont (Webster 1931, 229).

The expression major powers has come into a common usage more recently, replacing the original phrase great powers. However labeled, it is important to understand the meaning that is directly or implicitly attached to this term. In this respect, major powers are usually specified through one or more defining elements.

1. The power dimension reflecting the sheer size of a nation’s capabilities. Despite a number of methodological disagreements, such as those over the amount of capabilities necessary for a nation to qual- ify as a major power, power potential is nevertheless routinely acknowledged as a necessary de‹ning requirement for major powers.

2. The spatial dimension that refers to geographic scope of inter- ests, actions, or projected power. Although often neglected in the liter- ature, the spatial criterion is especially significant for distinguishing major powers from regional powers.

3. The status dimension indicating a formal or informal acknowledgment of the major power status. Since the official or unofficial status of a major power also requires the nation’s willingness to act as a major power, it is the most subjective and thus a more difficult criterion to establish empirically. Although some of these elements require more subjective assess- ment, particularly status, a fairly reliable list of major powers can be developed by evaluating states consistently along each dimension. Moreover, the spatial dimension that gives states some degree of global reach seems to be a more appropriate indicator of the upper layer of great powers, often labeled as global contenders (or superpowers). The chapter concludes with the listed composition of major powers and global contenders for the period from 1895 to 1985. This list of powers is developed from a historical survey of each nation that is generally considered to meet one or more of the above criteria during most or some part of the observed ninety-year period. The concluding list of major power composition will then provide the pool of nations for the empirical analyses in subsequent chapters.

Reference: http://www.press.umich.edu/pdf/0472112872-ch2.pdf

Hadrian1 02:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Well done! That is a brilliant catch and will greatly help this article's growth. But I'm afraid there's an issue with it, it doesn't support the stance on Italy that you've been taking all this time. In fact it reads clearly Italy's short history as a great power ended dramatically with Mussolini's fall in 1943. Unlike France or West Germany, it never succeeded in reestablishing itself as a great power in the postwar order. It states that Italy was a great power from 1895-1943. Nobleeagle (Talk) 05:58, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

If France, Germany, and Japan are listed as current Great Powers because of "economic power". Italy is in the same league, perhaps Canada too. Italy is very close to France in economic strength. The Big 4 of Europe are indeed France, Italy, Germany, UK. 71.105.96.238 06:16, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• Finally someone who knows and views the truth. I and Hadrian1 posted here lots of facts, links, articles that showed Italy as a country with all the characteristics of a Great Power.
  

But people asked more and more sources, saying they were never enough, while for the other countries I didn't see any sources. Some said the other countries were in the list because everybody knew they were Great Powers. Well, that is very subjective. If people wanted sources for Italy, should give sources for other countries too.
And if they want more I have read more articles and sources that proof Italy's status as a Great Power. If they don't consider Italy, so Germany, Japan, India or even other traditionally considered Great Powers like UK or France shouldn't be included either.
And for these above mentioned countries were are all the sources? France and UK were always considered Great Powers because they won WWII and were allowed to have a strong military and international influence during the Cold War. But in the French case it is even harder to get thru with this argument, since France was occupied by Nazi Germany and what war did Free French Forces really fight and won? Of course they were an Allied Nation and fight alongside USA and UK, but almost only to liberate France.Poland, Brazil, Australia, Canada and India(part of Bristish Empire) fighted too and not to liberate themselves only, they fought to liberate all Europe. Italy changed sides and fighted alongside Allied troops to liberate itself too, but was only considered co-beligerant while France was an Ally with all that this implicates thru today, like having Nuclear Weapons, major military forces and UN Security Council Permanent Seat.
And for the ones who say that Italy has no international clout; where was the Meeting of UN and Major Nations to talk about Lebanon crisis? In Berlin? Tokyo? No, in Rome, because Italy has for more than 30 years an history of mediator and has strong ties with Arab World. The meeting didn't resolved the problem, but Italy hosted it and tried. Others have tried too after that and failled too, the issue is that Italy has international clout and it's involved inmany missions and italian troops are well regarded by UN and the World in general.

ACamposPinho 3 August 2006, 1:21

well, to be blunt: as if they are going to trust the British, French, or Germans. Italy globally leaves very few people with a bad taste in their mouth. I have seen this from travels to Asia, from Japan to Taiwan, people have a good impression of Italy, the culture, warmth, etc. 71.105.96.238 06:22, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

• That's because of Italy different aproach, a more diplomatic one and it has a huge Soft Power, the other countries mentioned are more agressive and tend to dominate, while Italy tends to mediate.

ACamposPinho 4 August 2006, 19:21

Exactly! What you wrote above about the Anglo/German bias against Italy, et al. is absolutely true. Racism is still deep, deep in their cultures. 71.106.171.199 07:29, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Please stop adding points on Italy's economic miracle in the 70s when this source, based in 80s (from memory), claims otherwise. Nobleeagle (Talk) 05:56, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Everyone knows there was an economic miracle in the decades after WW2. This began with milestones such as the Vespa, Fiat 500, etc. Did an Italian steal your girlfriend? Were you pissed off when Sonia Ghandi was going to be PM? 71.106.171.199 07:29, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

• NobleEagle, the fact is really that-the source is from the 80's, is India mentioned? No,because the world changed drastically after that. Italy is really a Great Power since 70's. In 1985( the source is from mid 80's) it wasn't awared yet, plus the fact that Anglo-Saxons didn't want Itally to make noise and Italy, regardless of it's true status didn't make noise because latins have a different view of the world. Latins are people of extremous- or we have someone like Mussolini or De Gaulle-people very proud of their countries that take their pride to extremous or people who prefer to use Soft Power rather then Hard Power.
  

But in the 80's the situation started to chang in Italy with Bettino Craxi being a man who said no to USA when US insterests collided with that of Italy. Then in the 90's Italy experienced a political storm, that brought many changes. Berlusconi for eg. stoped Italy to be the "yes" country to USA and to the Franco-German Axis in EU. His a man with many doubtfull deals, but due to the political storm that brought it to power, he was a different leader. And even Prodi, an-Eurofanatic is different of italian politicians of the 50's through the middle 80's. And why? Because Italy, slowly but growing fast, has became more aware that it is a Power the World had to deal with. Italy and even Germany where considered economic giants with midget politicians. Germany since reunification regained self-pride and Italy after the political storm. And the thing that brought this major awareness of their status was economic miracles-in Japan, Germany and Italy- the countries that grew more since 1945 untill the 70's/80's.

Other thing, is that in the 80's we still were inthe Cold War period. Considering Japan a Great Power was not important, because the bomb was much more important than the Yen or the huge indutrial output of Japan. For Germany the same reasons, plus the fact that the country was divided and wasn't full sovereign- the Four Powers still controlled the country militarly. As for Italy, it was different, Italy was more like France, France was considered winner of WWII, but in fact was liberated, Italy was considered looser,but since 1943 that Italy changed sides and so it's constitution was different from the other two countries, as well as it's status-since 1970 Italy could enter on military conflicts, Germany only was granted that condition in 1991 and Japan still hasn't that condition-can only participate on peace missions.

So with this, plus the fact that a strong political leader could arise and change the "status quo", Anglo-Saxons relegated always Italy to be only a Middle/Regional Power. They couldn't risk the rise of another De Gaulle. It would have destroyed Nato and inthe Cold War that was unthinkible. And in Italy the strong leader could easilly be a communist. Think of what it could do to Nato and Europe during the Cold War...... ACamposPinho 5 August 2006, 23:17

Missing Section Near East/Southwest Asia

Europe is listed as incomplete but barring the Holy Roman Empire or maybe Venice it covers pre-modern Europe pretty well. What actually is missing is the Near and Middle-east. No Sumerian, Babylonian, Assyrian, Egyptian, or Persian empires are listed prior to Alexander the Great and no Muslim powers except for the Ottoman Empire. Dates and exact membership in lits like this are tricky, of course, but, IMO, this is a major oversight. Eluchil404 14:14, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that Europe (especially Southeastern Europe), the Near East, and North Africa had a level of cultural, political, and economic exchange that they basically formed a single area of larger civilization until the Islamic Empire, at which point that larger civilization finally splits into "European" and "Middle Eastern". Unfortunately for our purposes, that happened long before 1500. The best solution I could think up would be to simply rename the Europe section as Europe and the Middle East and lump them all together.

I'll also say that that section should have the following added (including your suggestions here): Carolingian Empire, Holy Roman Empire (at least the Ottonian Dynasty), the Islamic Empire and likely some of its successor states, the Ilkhanate, the Golden Horde, the Persian Empire (in all its incarnations), the Parthian Empire, Venice, Babylon, Chaldea (as in the neo-Babylonian Empire), the Hittites, the various Egypts, Assyria. Sumeria is up for debate, I'd think. It was perhaps the first and most advanced civilization of its age, but how much "power projection" did it have that we know about? The article says some of its early rulers may have had territories approaching the Mediterranean, but it seemed speculative. The Akkadians might be on the list, though. Other possibilities may be the Medes, the Mittani, and possibly some of the Greek city-states (they did ward off the Persians, after all, and I do seem to remember the term Athenian Empire . . .--RemiCogan 06:39, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

A section on Pre-Columbian American would be nice to help fight systematic bias, but would be quite difficult given the limit records that are availible. Aztecs, Incas, Teotihuacan[1], Tikal, Calakmul, Chichen Itza, and Mayapan would be good candidates to evaluate. Eluchil404 14:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to add them...I was actually thinking that once this list gets a bit long we move it to List of pre-modern great powers. Nobleeagle (Talk) 22:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan. The page has a tidiness problem, after all.--RemiCogan 06:56, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Portugal on list?

I was the person who created this list, and have came back finding Denmark, Poland-Lithuania, and Portugal removed from the list. I can see why people debate about Denmark and Poland; however Portugal was a major great power during the age of exploration, and deserves a spot on the list. Casey14 01:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I Agree both countries used to be great powers during the age of colonization and do belong on the list as former great powers. Signature^brendel 01:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand why Japan is listed as a present Great Power. Just because of "economic power"? In that case, any and all G7 nations should be listed as Great Powers, and for the reason of economic power. For example, France, Germany, and Japan, but not Italy? One could even make the argument to include Canada. 71.105.96.238 06:14, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I think it is even debatable if the UK is still a so-called Great Power. One can argue that UK has fallen to being no more powerful than France, Italy, Germany, and Japan. Arguably the nation is a servant to the US. Not trying to start a political discussion or get the Brit's knickers in a knot, but it is a valid argument. 71.105.96.238 06:25, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Well Germany is great power, and more powerful than the UK. No Western European country is a servant to the US as they are developed themselves and the economic interdependcies between industrialized countries run both ways. Many experts say that in this world there two types of countries, those who consume and own and captial and those who support the lifestyle of the consumer/owner nations. Indeed all of Western Europe, just like the US and Japan are consumer nations and not supporter nations. Mexico is a supporter nation but not the UK. Besdies, don't understimate the economic clout of any of the countries on the list of great powers. The UK is still able to influence US policy much like the US is able to influence the domestic policy of other countries. In other words only Western Europe is powerful enough to influence the US-rember steel tarrifs? The EU literally forced the Bush admin to repeal them. Yes the UK is less powerful than Germany but still very powerful and it is a consumer nation with a high degree of Economic freedom and thus not a servant to anyone. Signature^brendel 07:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm a European as well, but I don't share your opinion. Perhaps I am more cynical. It's fine, we'll agree to disagree. Thanks for taking the time to reply, I'll think about your arguments. 71.105.96.238 07:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• Brendel you say Germany is a Great Power, you're right but more powerful than UK? Based on what? GDP and exportations. Germany is a bigger Economic Power than UK but not a more powerfull Great Power, because a Great Power is more than economy. If that was the case; Russia which is a Great Power and almost a SuperPower again wouldn't be more than a Regional Power, because of it's GDP being far lower than that of UK and it's exportations that are growing but are still well bellow any of the G-7 countries level of exportations/importations, plus the fact that russian exportations are almost of energy and raw materials.

ACamposPinho 1:01, 3 August 2006

That's right Russia is a Regional power in IMHO. Also consider this, after world war 2, the US swore to protect Germany. So, in the unlikely scenario that Germany was attacked in traditional warfare, the US would defend it. Yes, GDP and the ownership of resources is really the only thing that counts. Counting the military is useless for three reasons:

• The days of traditional warfare are over (example: Afgahnistan, Iraq)
• Germany and Japan have the US as their body guard, so who would attack them
• All four, the US, France, the UK, and Russia have enough arsenal to destory all of mankind (are they all superpowers then?)

Regards, Signature^brendel 03:30, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

• The GDP and GDP/capita of Germany is not exactly in a league of itself either:
  

Canada: GDP: $1.114 trillion (2005 est.); GDP - per capita: $34,000 (2005 est.)
France: GDP: $1.816 trillion (2005 est.); GDP - per capita: $29,900 (2005 est.)
Germany: GDP: $2.504 trillion (2005 est.); GDP - per capita: $30,400 (2005 est.)
Italy: GDP: $1.698 trillion (2005 est.); GDP - per capita: $29,200 (2005 est.)
Japan: GDP: $4.018 trillion (2005 est.); GDP - per capita: $31,500 (2005 est.)
UK: GDP: $1.830 trillion (2005 est.); GDP - per capita: $30,300 (2005 est.)
USA: GDP: $12.360 trillion (2005 est.); GDP - per capita: $41,800 (2005 est.)

If Germany goes down $2.3 trillion, is it out of the Great Power club? If you look at GDP - per capita of the EU countries, it is almost within numerical noise. What is more interesting from this discussion is you see some cultures (no offense Germany, France, etc.) that must shout out, "we are a great power!". Emperor's New Clothes perhaps? Bizarre. 71.105.96.238 06:18, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

• Just to add one thing, see the Official Gold Reserves by country. Italy is in fifth position and if we don't count IMF it's on 4th position. And look that the ECB has Gold Reserves too, as Italy is one of the major shareholders of ECB with a 14% quota, that % could be added too, as the same for Germany, France and all other countries shareholders of ECB.

ACamposPinho 20:05, 4 August 2006

Are we looking at the same numbers? Italy is fith but Germany is three with a GDP of nearly one trillion more- 1,000,000,000,000 more GDP- it is the only country with a GDP between two and fou trillion and its per capita is above the 30k mark-so yes its in a class of its own. We have to draw the line somewhere and there a lot of difference between Germany and Italy. There are only three countries in this world with more than 2 trillion GDP, the US, Japan, and Germany, that's it. And yes if Germany goes down 2.3 trillion it would be out of the great powers club. German companies own a huge share of this world. The RWE own the water main underneath many US cities, people in cities such Pueblo, Mexico depend on VW and other German companies for jobs. How much of this world do Italian investors and compnies own? Germany doesn't need to shout its one of only three that has a GDP of over 2 trillion (an not just a little more, but half a trillion more), NATO membership w/ US as its body guard and G8 membership. This is ridiculous. Italy and France are comparable but Germany has a GDP 47.05% higher than that if Italy-this way of arguing => if "1" applies to "A," it must also apply to "B" is not the best way to provide our readers with high quality information. Regards, Signature^brendel 03:25, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I am absolutely sure you being a German has nothing to do with your "opinion" on this subject. You are arguing about this on incomplete information, you yourself do not have a formal comparison of Italy vs. Germany with regards to international investment. The 2 trillion GDP number is pulled frankly out of the air as some sort of goal post. I think you need to relax a bit, you seem to really take this personal. I.e., having to "shout out" Germany is so great. It is really bizarre. Accoring to the criteria on this page, most of these countries don't mean the criteria of a Great Power, including Germany (whose influence is dwindling). 71.106.171.199 05:50, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Wow, lets cut down on the personal attacks. Also, yes, in my case dual nationaility has something to do with my "cultural mentality" but nobody is attacking the US here, so... What are you saying there is no difference between a GDP of 2.5 trillion and one of 1.7 trillion. Clearly the cut off is between those with a GDP of less than two trillion and those with more- there are only three: Germany, Japan, and the US. Signature^brendel 19:47, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

"Wow, lets cut down on the personal attacks." LOL. Where is this personal attack that so wowed you? So you are proposing Canada, France, Italy, and the UK are out because of cutoff is 2.5? Japan and Germany still do not meet the four criteria of the first page. You seem very confident the US will defend Germany, but with the political attitude of Germany vs. US recently -- I don't quite share that confidence. 71.105.99.145 20:16, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

The US would depends on German-American trade-it is economically fesable for the US to defend Germany. Also, one fith of Americans trace their heritage back to Germany, inlcuding such historical figures as president Eisenhower (commander of the allied forces-that's why Heidelberg didn't get bombed) plus NATO is NATO. Also, trust me Americans receive Germans very well, quite frankly its nicer to be a German in America than a German in Germany ;-) Signature^brendel

and what I meant to say is if Germany's GDP goes down -to- $2.3 trillion, is it still in? What is the magic cutoff for GDP. $2.0 trillion? $1.7 trillion? By the way, I loved how the German press made all those racist comments about Italians during the WC; was great to see those two last minute goals send the bigots back home. To me Germans should stop shouting how great they are and take some time for a little bit more inward reflection. Seems two World Wars still hasn't changed the 'tude. 71.106.171.199 07:47, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Keep this nice and friendly everyone - WP:NPA.

Xdamr^talk 13:09, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Trying to. The two point five trillion is not out of thin air-its Germany's GDP. Also, I am not taking this personal- consider that I have dual nationality and can claim to be an American as well. I cannot understand how one can argue that Germany is not great power if Italy isn't-there is over a trillion GDP difference. Also, remember when Turkey stopped capital punishment in their country? Why? Becuase the German government required it in order for Turkey to move closer to the EU. Signature^brendel 17:34, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I've got an idea. Why don't we remove everyone as Great Powers, and just list Germany! *rolls eyes*. Dual nationality means nothing to a cultural mentality. Anyhow, Germany influenced Turkey? So you are saying that Germany is a Regional Power then? Where do you get over a trillion GDP difference? 2.5 and 1.7, mathematics doesn't say this is over a trillion. You did not answer the questions. What is the cutoff? 2.5? 2.0? 1.7? 1.5? How are you really quantifying things? You are not, is the answer. Obviously any G7 nation should be listed as a Great Power, this is common sense. Your obsession to keep other nations unlisted is quite disturbing -- and appears to be very personal. 71.105.99.145 19:42, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Hhmm, sacrasm. Signature^brendel

It was sarcasm, actually. I suppose you will consider that a personal attack as well. *rolls eyes* 71.106.195.5 06:48, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

You say the gap between Germany and the other three main economies of Europe-France, Italy and UK is so huge, that it is in a category of it's own.

In the first place the gap is not that huge, it is in nominal terms but in % it isn't.If you call the GDP per capita as a condition for Germany huge potential, so you are shoting at yourself- the GDP per capita is the same for Italy and that of France is bigger and that of UK even bigger. As for the difference, the GDP of Japan is much more higher than that of Germany.And of course you will say GDP isn't higher because of East Germany, so italian one isn't bigger because Southern Italy is much poorer than North and Central Italy.

So Japan is on a league of it's own, it's a Superpower.... I don't think so, UK or France count much more on the world than Japan. Germany and Italy are in the same league of Japan, Germany comes firts, then Japan or Italy of course. I'm not saying that Italy has the same importance of Germany, but it is a simillar country, it looses in economy but in military missions it wons, and so on. In some things Germany is greater, in others Italy is greater. But thinking Germany is on a league of it's own is being very nationalist, chauvinist and close-minded.

France and UK are overall stronger, but even these two countries are in the same league.

It's like a competition league, there are different stages and the only country here that is in a different stage are the USA. The others are all on the same league. Some have more poits of course, but that is not sinonimous with being in other league, they are on the same,just above. Italy could be the least Great Power, but if India is a Great Power, Italy is muchmore.

We aretalking of 2006, not of 2050- many says that India is a Potential Superpower. Only becuse it has a huge population and besides that we cannot predict the future. India has many languages, religions, who knows if India is still around as we know it in 2050.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia in the net- it isn't Goldman Sachs to make previsions that are doubtfull and could be totally different in the future, for real, not in papers based on actual growth. Do you think any country can have growth taxes of 8-10% for 45 years. It is impossible.

We had in the past not a Potential, but a real Superpower- USSR and I read more than 15 years ago that today USSR population would be 350 million people and it could surpasse USA. Where are USSR now? Divided in 15 Republics, with the most important- Russia trying to maintain it's Great Power status. With population shrinking for 700000 people each year and still counting much in the world due to it's inheritance of military and geopolitical from the USSR ( since Russia was considered the legal sucessor) and economically doing well in the past 6 years because of natural reosurces and change in political strategy. ACamposPinho 5 August 2006, 20:25

Germany is not in the same league as Italy. GDP per capita has nothing to do with power. Luxemburg and Norway have a higher GDP per capita than the US, yet the US is more powerful. Why? Because it is nominal that counts. Germany is one of the by far three biggest powers in the world, US, Japan, and Germany. Ture if the UK had 300 million residents it would be the most powerful country on earth, but it doesn't and it isn't. I am not talking 2050 either- right now Germany is the most powerful country in Eruope and the third biggest power in the world. True, the UK and France have nuclear weapons, but Germany has the US as a body guard and NATO membership, making it indefeatable from a military point of view. Signature^brendel 19:39, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

You are wrong, Germany is in exactly the same league as Italy, and as a German, you seem not to be able to comprehend this. Even if Germany is "more powerful" in your eyes, they are in almost equivalent. Regardless, you have not shown that Italy is so small it should not be listed -- as your obsession seems to be. 71.105.99.145 19:44, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

So you would like to include all of the G8, I can understand that but we there has been consensus (see archives that Italy is not a great power) Signature^brendel

Consensus is by no means clear with a group of people you can count on your fingers. Also, 100 of your friends could come and vote, does that mean this is right? Encyclopedias are not written by democractic vote. 71.106.195.5 06:48, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay lets gets this straight- I am arguing to keep the status quo- you want to implement change. Look at the GDO figures-look at the vote, am not the only one doubting Italy's status as a great power. We had a compromise add a note that ITaly's status is under debate and add this mention only to Italy. Why can't we just go back that compromised version of the article. OH and FYI: You're playing my nationality as well-you chose to say "If Germany is a great power than Italy is too"-you could have chosen France or the UK, but no you had to chose Germany becuase yu knew that's what would get me goin' Regards, Signature^brendel 19:53, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

That is not a balanced compromise. This is not a war, this is an encyclopedia. Change and improvement are the fundamentals of this project. Keeping the status quo, no offense, is one of the silliest arguments I've heard yet. I looked at the vote, it says no consensus reached. Even if that Indian fellow brought 20 of his Indians to come vote against, what does that matter? That wouldn't mean things are correctly done. If you say Italy's status is under debate, then I say Germany, Japans, etc. are under debate as well. It is either all or none, singling out Italy is offensive. You have the mindset, "obviously Germany is a great power, therefore". Well, sorry pal, I do not agree, and obviously others as well. Japan and the Euro 4 (France, Italy, Germany, UK), all G7 members, are all in the same league. It seems as a German, you can't take the company of some other nations. Very disturbing attitude that becomes more and more clear. By the way, Case New Holland is an Italian owned company. Gives plenty of work overseas, including in the US. Italy is actually a major investor and provider of jobs in the US. Surprised? Your inferior neighbors to the South actually do some work. Gives work and a lot of $$$ to a German -- Michael Schumacher -- as well, when the Ferraris pound the BMWs and Mercedes every weekend. What you want to drive in Europe? An absolute class-leading Fiat Grande Punto, or the out-of-date B-segment cars produced in Germany? Want work done in the space industry? You go to Italy -- definitely not Germany. I've worked for NASA, this is FACT. Hmm. 71.105.99.145 20:09, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually I prefer Lincolns and Cadillacs. (also, since when are we talking about cars???) Signature^brendel

Hey, can't debate you on your bad taste, what can I say. :) 71.106.195.5 06:48, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

You are really obstinated, you only read errors in the others, never recognizing your own faults.It was you who mentioned GDP per capita-the fact that Geramany has a GDP per capita of more than 300000$ , I only said Italy have the same, because for you that was a factor for Germany being on a League of it's own.

You want to maintain the status quo here, because the reality isn't that.

And by the way if you want to maintin things like they were, you should add in Italy status as a Great Power is debated since it has the capacities or most of them required to be a Great Power

I wanted to but your anon ally didn't want that. Signature^brendel

Regarding Turkey, it wasn't a German decision, it was a condition EU imposed if Turkey wanted to acess EU. Germany could have been the country choosed(I don't know), because of different factors: in Germany there are 2000000 Turks, German is one of the Great of EU and the Franco-German Axis inside EU was the driving force of the bloc. Normally would be France to intermediate, probably was German because it's more involved with Turkey.
On the other hand since when Germany is the most powefull country of Europe and the third inthe world.GDP isn't the only factor. If it was, you would be shooting at yourself again. Why? Because Italy has an huge GDP, much higher than that of India, Russia and if we take into account shadow economy equal to that of France and UK and even China. China said that it's GDP was bigger than it was tought, because it wasn't taking into account the real amount of Services it produces. Well, China is a dictature and I think the numbers China gave can't be taken very seriously. They are like the ones USSR gave and USA accepted very well. The USA and occidental countries are doing the same with China for one reason: to make China power and threat more real and more frightning.

And for the case of Germany being the third most powerfull country on the world, you probably are joking. Where is UNSC Permanent Seat, Nuclear Weapons, strong and powerfull military capable of deployments all over the world?

I read recently in a News Magazine that Germany and specially Schroeder were being like puppets on the hands of France, because of the UNSC Permanent Seat. Why? Because Germany wanted that seat,France wanted it too(because it would be a good and strong ally) so Schroeder was being a puppet of Chirac. Then the article mentioned that Merkel was being more prudent and more independent even if she didn't pursuited that goal so hardly, at least Germany was more independent towards G-4 and France.

I'm not anti-german and I think Germany is really a Great/Major Power, but one must be reallistic, Germany isn't the third most powerfull country in the world,only onit's economic dimention.
By the contrary you are very anti-italian and very chauvinist, you think Germany is the greatest. Why isn't Germany involved in every conflict, every issue on earth if it is the 3rd most important Nation? UK for eg. is much more involved. Even in military spendings Germany is well bellow UK and France and not much above Italy and that is because Italy didn't had a reunification that made defence budget grow faster.

It's not me that are against Germany, it's you that are against Italy. If you think that those Turkey issue was so important, why wasn't the first meeting to solve Lebanon war held in Berlin? It was in Rome and altough it was like a UN meeting, the most proeminent talkers were Kofi Annan and Massimo D'Alema. Italy wasn't the stage only because of it's location.

In my country we use to say to a thief, a thief and an half.
And it will be held and UE-Africa summit, do you know the countries inside EU who promoted and maked it reality: Italy at first and then France, Portugal and to a lesser extent Spain. Do you know what Allied troops said when Rome and Berlin respectively were to be liberated. To Rome they were very happy and it was almost like liberating the capital of the world, Berlin? Most of them couldn't locate it properlly on the map....When Rome had things like water services, public baths, civilization, what you germans were? Barbarians that were centuries bellow.

But this was only to be like you. You are rude with people who think differently from you and we only talk of facts, never insulte you or Germany and you answer always like a stupid.

I know the facts I'm talking and I provide sources, facts, things you don't even heard. You what you provide- a few lines of indignity towards me and other persons. Be more educated , less chauvinist and open your mind-read the facts. Aren't lies. ACamposPinho 5 August 2006, 21:34 Please refrain from using personal attacks. I do not have a nationalistic agenda but simply beleive, along with other editors (see archives) that Italy is not quite a Great Power. Regards, Signature^brendel

Fantastic, and you and those editors are entitled to your "opinion", which happens not to be shared by all, or even a majority. 71.106.195.5 06:48, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Bravo ACamposPinho. You speak with a real intellectual maturity, in fact. Your last sentence is dead on. By the way, I also love Alfa Romeos. Certainly more than the horrendous looking BMWs of this decade. Anxiously awaiting their return to the US. Will love to see the 8C Competizione roaring along the West Coast. The A4, 3-series, c-class have all become mind-numbing cars. I'm waiting for a 159 Q4 to finally replace my current vehicle. 71.105.99.145 21:01, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Your point being (inslut German car makers and piss off Germans in the process) Signature^brendel

--- Hang on one second. Brendel, you state you are a US and a German citizen? As far as I know this is not possible. The US allows for dual citizenship, but Germany does not. I know for a fact from naturalization proceedings I visited; Germans having to give up their citizenship to obtain US citizenship. This was not the case with other countries, but with Germany it was. I saw some Germans crying their poor little eyes out. 71.105.99.145 20:24, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Father is American, mother is German. You can have dual citizenship only if your born under these circumstances. True you cannot change from one to two nationalities but you can be born with two-I am a US birth abroad-I can become US president. Also, I assume that this particular post was merely meant to insult me. I'm I under the correct impression? ...Thought So, thank you. Signature^brendel

No it was not meant to insult you, I don't even see how you came to that. It appears you are a bit paranoid though perhaps. I'm truly happy for you that you can become a US president though... My goodness. 71.106.195.5 06:48, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

• Fortunately, here we have Alfa Romeos, altough people influenced by press and other things like the showing of German cars in American movies and for imitation of the neighbour buy lots of BMW's, Audi's and Mercedes. I have driven an Alfa 159 and a new 3-series and the Alfa is really better on handling and pleasure of drive.In quality it is very good too, equal to germans, BMW 3-series probably has some better quality but only on a few things.
  

And of course the design isn't comparable. Italian design is very well known, but once again I'm not agaisnt Germany. German design was not so beautifull, in the other hand was a simple and clean design. And I read in AutomotiveNews something I've noticed for a wild. German design, altough different from Italian one had a proper style. Look at the origianl VW, Porsches, Mercedes- they had a school of clean and simple design. Not so passionate like the Italian but a very good design too. Now they lost that "school", BMW fromthe 70's till 90's had a good and pleasent design, now (specially thenew 3-series) they have a design that looks very common- the rear of the 3-series looks the 1995 generation of the Honda Civic Sedan sold through Europe.The best designed cars of BMW nowadays are the 6-series and Z4. As for VW it didn't performed very bad in terms of design- only the Golf IV had a dull design, the 5th generation is a little more dynamic. The Audi A4 had style when it was launched in 2001,but the restyling made the car uglier. Generally all restylings make cars became more modern but also more ugly. One car I think became much more beautifull with a restyling was the Citroën C5 (first was very dull and common) and Citroën has a tradition of innovative cars.
Mercedes has lost some of the quality it had and it's design has become much equal to other makes. S-Class of 1979 for eg., it was a car ahead of it's time in everything, even today it looks actual, next S-Classes were uglier and the 1998 generation had some plastics that were good for a supermini car, not enough for a Passat less to an S-Class. The new one has a more distintive "German" design and has an excellent quality of materials and assembling. Anyway I think the Mercedes saloon with more style is the CLS.

My favourite cars have been Italian, but I've also liked German cars. Unfortunately I've seen a downward trend in many of the German cars I love. On the flip side Italian cars have just been getting better and better. As an overall package, I would love an Italian car over its German and Japanese competitions. Overall with the design, driving enjoyment, and pure emotional appeal, they are tops. With German cars, the Chris Bangle BMWs are horrendous. Mercedes has become boring. Volkswagen, unfortunately sells garbage in the US, etc. Friends and relatives with both Mexican and German made VWs have just been burnt one too many times. 71.105.99.145 22:30, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

ACamposPinho 5 August 2006, 22:25

• I've read what you said about Italian space industry. It's true, after France, Italy has the major space industry of EU. And the aircraft industry? B-787 will have many parts made in Italy like DC-9/MD-80/90 and B-767 had in the past. Of course Germany makes part of Airbus consortium, Italy was invited too, but declined to be more independentand work with other companies. Alenia is working with France in Turboproops regional planes, with Russia in the internationalization of the Sukhoy Regional Jet and with Boeing assembling parts.
  

UK want's to sell it's Airbus quota of 20% to have more cahnces with american companies too.
Now EADS, major shareholder of Airbus and considered a Franco-German company is with some troubles and German shareholders and geovernment are upset.Why? Because like in other cases, it is supposed to be a Franco-German or European company, but who really wants to command? France. EADS was formed through the merger of a French, a German and a Spanish aerospace companies (the spanish one was a minor partner in EADS). Its "de jure" headquarters are located in Holland, to be in a neutral country but its "de facto" headquarters are in Paris, France. French government which has 15% of the company and other french shareholders wanted in the past to merge EADS with french defence company Thalès, in order to balance EADS shareholding to French side. Germans didn't accept it, now with delay in A-380 Germany managed to change the president Noël Forgeard, but even with this the situation isn't clear. I don't know what will happen, but I know what French wants. Want to make it totally a french company, as "de facto" it is considered. It is called in international newspapers an European or French company and sometimes a Franco-German.
In Fortune it's considered a Dutch company, because they look at leagal/juridical headquarters, but in WSJ for eg. it cames as a French company inthe stocks by country. Airbus is the same. Germany has an equal shareholding to the french one, but Airbus is even juridically a French company. In the end it could happen what happend to Gec-Alsthom, was a joint venture between UK and France, registered in Netherlands too. When GEC of UK and Alcatel-Alsthomof France decided to make it pubblic,what happened? The company was renamed Alstom, registered in France and altough the bristish Gec(latter Marconi) held 25% like Alcatel,it became a French company in everything. With EADS they are trying the same and probably they will manage to make it a French company and change it's name, what the Germans should do if that happens is buy-back the German parts of the company and Spain do the same, altough for them is diffrent because they only hold 5% of EADS compared to 30% of France and Germany. ACamposPinho 5 August 2006; 22:51

I as well have no problems with Germany actually, and have a few drops of German blood as well. Same goes with France and the UK. However, that said, the chauvinistic cultures leave a fair bit to be desired. It is just disappointing in the end. Obviously there is ignorance on the part of Brendel. Fine, we live and learn. But it is no excuse to taint the World in one's image. 71.105.99.145 22:30, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

End of discussion

Okay => "the chauvinistic cultures leave a fair bit to be desired" is kind of a personal attack- I am not the only one who thinks that Italy isn't a great power, see the archives (I think you already have). But that aside you are never going to convince me that Italy is a great power and I am never going to covince you that Italy is not a great power. We can bang heads here for next decade. So here my proposal:

• I am going to stop arguing with both of you-this is sensless
• This article is on my watchlist and will revert the addition of unsourced info
• I will allow Italy being added until there are sufficient authorative resources provided and you find other neutral editros that agree with you.

Finally, stop the insluts. Seriously, I will report both of you to the admins-this is Wikipedia not a high school hallway. Signature^brendel 00:57, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh look, Brethel wants to take his ball and go home. I'm going to run and tell my Mommy that you don't play nice with me or accept my "facts". I'm going to unilaterally close the discussion and report you to the Gestapo. Give me a freaking break. This is the most childish comment I've ever seen on Wiki, bar none. 71.106.195.5 06:39, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Has this page matured

I remember the earlier, horribly Eurocentric versions. Great evolution fellows!