Great power was one of the Social sciences and society good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones Date Process Result October 15, 2006 Peer review Reviewed August 1, 2008 Peer review Reviewed August 19, 2008 Good article nominee Listed January 2, 2009 Good article reassessment Delisted August 14, 2009 Good article nominee Not listed Current status: Delisted good article

This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Power in international relations B‑class (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Power in international relations, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Power in international relationsWikipedia:WikiProject Power in international relationsTemplate:WikiProject Power in international relationsPower in international relations articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. International relations B‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Politics B‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16

For old version, see: History

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present.

Latest report on Britain being a great power.
Cameron insists Britain still great power
Cameron to defend 'great power' Britain .Bcs09 (talk) 16:48, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While that is reassuring, I must point out that what a politician does or does not say is of little consequence here. It is the academic consensus that is of importance. -- Phoenix (talk) 04:41, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The academics are saying this Britain in decline? Divided we fall Joseph Nye on global power shiftsBcs09 (talk) 15:55, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think what's more notable is the fact that the term "great power" is still being used, as some regard that term outdated. But it does live on! David (talk) 11:24, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The first set of articles, describing India as a great power has started to emerge.

• Emerged India: enter a great power
• India is not simply emerging; India has already emerged

Bcs09 (talk) 02:48, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst I agree that India is becoming a great power, it would not be acceptable to add it to the c. 2000 part of the table as in c. 2000 it was not a great power - in 10 years perhaps, when a c. 2020 is added to the table, India can be added. For now it is in transition... for now, at most possibly a single sentence in the article noting India starting to being mentioned as a great power would be acceptable to me. David (talk) 11:29, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the articles, It states emerged and not emerging. These are the first articles that talk about emerged. So India has emerged in 2010 and no more is emerging. Let's check some more articles.Bcs09 (talk) 01:12, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, it hasn't necessarilly emerged. It just means that India is at such a point in it's development that now we're just waiting for India to be accepted as a Great Power. Now, I'm not sure of the credibility behind this statement, but I found this with a quick google search: 'India sees itself as an emerging great power in a multi-power world, which will maintain a strategy of poly-alignment.'. That to me reads as if India still doesn't believe it's a great power and believes it's still in the process of becoming one. Comics (talk) 01:33, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very recent trend, only after december 2010. No google search prior to this date may give anything more than emerging. So it's better to keep a watch.Bcs09 (talk) 02:34, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with David and would back a sentence on the subject. Also, David, your input is needed over at BW navy. Thanks, G.R. Allison (talk) 11:37, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No personnel opinions, please.Bcs09 (talk) 01:12, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

India is not yet a great power, although it is likely to become one over the next few decades. The primary halmark of a great power in international diplomacy is permanent membership of the United Nations Security Council. India will be internationally recognised as a great power when it attains such membership. There are a very many academic sources which support my claim that permanent membership of the United Nations Security Council is the primary halmark of a great power, just as this article itself states. This is without even mentioning how can India be considered a great power when its nominal GDP and/or military budget are less than that of other non-great powers such as Canada, Spain, Italy, Brazil and Saudi Arabia? Bcs09, I've been watching you discussions on many articles and you must learn the difference between reliable academic sources and cherry picked websites. For example, an article from Harvard University would be considered a reliable academic source while an article from some unheard of website called opendemocracy.net would be considered a cherry picked website. The problem is almost anyone can find some website supporting their claims if they search hard and long enough. People do this when they won't accept the word of the most reliable academic sources. Note that cherry picked websites carry no weight on Wikipedia, only reliable academic sources. Quite vivid blur (talk) 15:18, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No personnel opinions, please.Bcs09 (talk) 01:12, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now if I had to respond to your comments, Permenant membership for India is an agreed one by the other Great powers except Communist China which turned nuetral recently.(Which is in conflict with India, hence there stance is not a surprise), hence don't have a belief that India is not a great power. Where do you get statistics of Spain from? Nominal GDP, you can see India is similar to that of Russia which is a great power. India maintains the largest military in the world, next to the United states and China. So only the stamp of Hardvard is reliable? How stupid. Cherry picked website? Just look at the author. [1]. Bcs09 (talk) 01:43, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bcs09, please keep comments in a linear order without splitting them up, it makes the discussion flow hard to keep up with. Speaking of India though, I don't think we can just make a clear cut distinction between 'emerged' and 'emerging' at this stage of development. It's my opinion that only when it becomes hard to doubt India as being a great power it will truly have that status, India has a lot of problems just now and seems to be still emerging given all the recent articles and reports on its development. G.R. Allison (talk) 06:19, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No India does not have permanent membership of the United Nations Security Council. Permanent membership of the United Nations Security Council for India is far from agreed. For years and decades the notion of including more permanent members to the United Nations Security Council has amounted to nothing. Hence, as of 2011, India does not have permanent membership of the United Nations Security Council, and with many countries such as the Uniting for Consensus group opposing the bids of India and others it is likely to remain that way for at least some time yet. Inability to attain permanent membership of the United Nations Security Council is clear indication of a given country's inability to project great power influence over the United Nations General Assembly. My earlier comparision of India's nominal GDP and military budget to those of Canada, Spain, Italy, Brazil and Saudi Arabia is quite correct. India's nominal GDP and military budget are less than or similar to those of the middle powers I mentioned. India does not have a nominal GDP or military budget equivalent to those of great powers such as the United Kingdom, France, China, Japan or Germany. India's nominal GDP and military budget is approximately only half that of the said great powers. India may very well have a nominal GDP similar to that of Russia but India does not have the military budget, permanent United Nations Security Council seat or remnants of a superpower military and nuclear forces like Russia does. Despite your nationalist sentiment for India, Bcs09, India remains a middle power. India possesses the traits of a middle power, namely no permanent United Nations Security Council seat, and a nominal GDP and military budget similar to those of other middle powers and significantly less than those of great powers. As for military man power, in an era of technology focused militaries it has accounted for little in quite a while now. In the 21st century 1,000,000 conscript illiterate peasant farmers can be easily beaten by 100,000 professional well trained and well equipped troops. Countries such as North Korea, Iran, Vietnam and Pakistan possess some of the world's largest militaries in terms of man power but they are far from being great powers. Quite vivid blur (talk) 01:11, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mr, The above comments by you are totally absurd and illogical beliefs of yours leading to POV pushing in Wikipedia. That's the only way to describe the above description provided by you. But since it's necessary to debunk those myths and put the right stuff in the right manner for better understanding, I will try my level best to educate you. First in your own personnel opinon, you said the permanent membership for India is far from agreed. The permanent seat for India at the security council has been agreed upon and supported by the permenant member of the security council like France, Russia, U.K and the U.S. China has a nuetral view of the same. And even the cofee club don't oppose India per say and the members in it is supportive of India[2]. And in the recent election for the non-permanent seat at the U.N security council, India won 187/192 votes.[3]. This emphasizes the political power of India. Regarding economy, India's economy is the second fastest growing major economy in the world after China. It's nearly equivalent to Russia in terms of GDP nominal and the fourth in terms of GDP PPP. India's economic power can be judged by the fact that during the recent visit to India, President Obama went home with deals that created a lot of jobs in the U.S and India has become the net job creator in the U.S[4]. Not just the U.S, but in many parts of the world as well. From Afghanistan to Germany[5], India's economy is creating infrastructure to jobs. This shows it's wide reach and power. Thirdly the military aspect cannot be judged by mere dollar spend. India's military is not only numerically superior but also technologically advanced military in the world. Having all the capabilties including political, economical, military and soft power[6][7], India is a great power. Let me tell you, that your views are pathetic. Regarding peasants, fact is that the peasants were able to beat a technologically superior military in Vietnam.Bcs09 (talk) 04:13, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The point remains that India does not have a permanent seat on the security council. India is also the second largest country by population in the world. As such, it can afford to have the same GDP as Russia, but the people can still be poorer and they are. Therefore, despite India having a similar GDP to Russia, it has not reached the same level of advancement. A better country to compare it to might be China, which similarly has a billion strong population but also has an economy about what, 3 or 4 times the size of India's. I think it's also interesting to note that in Vietnam they had help from the technologically advanced Soviet Union, which supplied much of the military hardware of the North Vietnamese forces. Also, those peasant farmers were exactly that because they were fighting a war to unify a country of peasants. It was in their best interests to create empathy between themselves and the South Vietnamese. To speak in the terms of ye olde Great Powers, I think what we have is the established powers of the G7 (not all of them, but they're also not moving forward that well) and the emergent/re-emergent powers of the BRIC/BASIC liason. India is still trying to gain influence in the world, and perhaps the greatest two examples of that to date have been it's nuclear treaty with America and it's efforts at Copenhagen; however at Copenhagen it also had the support of China, Brazil and South Africa. To be honest, I don't know if we'll have the academics to support any particular view until we start to look back on events/have a war that really shakes up the balance of things/reform the Security Council. Also, no labelling other people's views as pathetic. We're here to constructively debate for the betterment of this article, not lash out at people who have qualms with your suggestions. Comics (talk) 05:22, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First and foremost "1,000,000 conscript illiterate peasant farmers killed" is in poor taste. A farmer knows better than anyone here in terms of his knowledge about farming. Never ever try to look down on people because of the work they do. Learn to respect and then gain respect. If those who don't have it and the ones who support such pathetic outright stupidity dont deserve respect either. Try to be constructive. Now the points you raised. A country will not gain permenant membership in today's world just by being a bully or a winner in a coalition like in the 1945's. A country will not become a great power after gaining the seat, but be a great power and then gain the seat. So if India is being supported for permenant membership in the security council, it shows that India is a great power. Poverty is a point that has been heard a long time. How long you people will be able to hold on to this stupid view of India that India is poor etc. India is not poor in any areas except for economic reasons it was when the British left India. From that day of 100 percent poverty to reducing it to the level of 20 percent through democratic process is no mere acheivement. It's India's strength and India's economic progress will see that India will keep reducing it's poverty and ultimately eliminate it. Indeed India can only compared to it's true equivalent China and may be to a certain extent the United States of America in the coming years. In what area you say advancement has not been made? I do see India making advancement in all areas from food production to Space exploration. Indeed China is ahead. They started early and hence obviously they are ahead in terms of statistics, and India has to do the catching up with respect to the China and the U.S over a longer period of time. The defeat of the super power by the farmers (obviously the military gear was supplied by SU) is a fact. No country in the world can stand alone and dictate terms today. Those days of cold war when U.S and SU called the shots are over. Today it's all about cooperation, including for the sole superpower (then think of what great power can do, surely will have to cooperate between themselves). Anyone can agree/disagree with a point but constructively (not just in words but action as well) as you said, but not by unruly/uncivilized methods and views.Bcs09 (talk) 06:46, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bcs09, the issue of including India in the article has been raised times before and rejected each time. Once again you are the only one who supports your proposed changes whilst everyone else opposes them. Perhaps it has something to do with that fact your proposed changes are blatantly biased? The fact is the economic, military and diplomatic power India possesses as of 2011 is no more than that of most other middle powers, hence it remains a middle power. You should read the Middle power article. As for India's "agreed" permanent Security Council seat where is it exactly? I don't see India with a permanent seat on the Security Council in 2011 so when will we see it? 2020? 2030? When exactly? India having a permanent Security Council seat is far from "agreed". You could be argued with until the cows come home as it is like trying to argue with a stuck record of Indian nationalism. I would also like to add that it is hard to understand your broken and sometimes rambling English and that you appear threatening to other users and it is unlikely to be tolerated for long. Quite vivid blur (talk) 01:28, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You better keep your personal views for yourself. And you can agree on your personal views which are not needed here. Let me remind you that this is not a forum to express personal opinions. I had replied to your views by picking and busting each of that myths. I have nothing more to say for your personal belives and views that that run contrary to stark reality.Bcs09 (talk) 02:50, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh jeez. So. Judging from most of Bcs09's views, we should add Brazil in here too. India is definately a very influential country in the world. Then again, so are such countries as Italy (mostly through the G8 forum). India's highest level of recognition globally is in the G8+5, and even then the '+5' suggests India is outside the bubble as opposed to fully integrated into it. The other two big +5 countries (Brazil and China) are also emerging, but China is accepted because of it's inclusion in the P5 for the past forty years and influence throughout the world through alliances like the SCO. Yes, there are sources that suggest India is a great power. There are also sources that suggest that suggest Iran is a closeted superpower, but you do not see Iran listed on the superpower page. The point is, most sources suggest India is still in a state of ascendence and has still not reached the comparable level of advancement that the other Great Powers have reached. Comics (talk) 04:03, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That can also be discussed why not? Is there restrictions on discussing whether Brazil is a great power or not? I hope not. U.N Security council, G8, G20 etc are different groupings. Don't mix it together. It will not mix. If you can prove with valid sources then yes, Iran can be included as a superpower in the superpower list, and I dont think there exists such valid souces to state Iran as a super power hence we cannot add it to the list. Don't say other great powers. Surely not China and the U.S in terms of statistics. That's for sure. But that never means India is not a great power. Think about it.Bcs09 (talk) 02:36, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bcs09 Personally I was really offended by your statement "India is not poor in any areas except for economic reasons it was when the British left India. From that day of 100 percent poverty to reducing it to the level of 20 percent" especially after you scolded Comics for his/her "poor taste". even going on to say "Learn to respect and then gain respect. If those who don't have it and the ones who support such pathetic outright stupidity dont deserve respect either. Try to be constructive." I found your comments to be insulting, hypocritical and it shows that you have a limited view of world history or of the social/economical situation of India before the 1800's. Don't forget that India has lost over $462 Billion due to corruption alone from 1948 to 2008, and 68% of that loss was after 1991[8][9]!

But my main point. 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.

There is no academic source out there that says that India is a Great power but there are many speculating about it being a future Superpower. This is not the Superpower article nor the Potential Superpower article. We should also not post opinions about what may happen in the future, because one can never know what tomorrow brings:

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. We should only use Academic accredited sources that we can cite via Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability and please know that this article is not a forum. -- Phoenix (talk) 05:55, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Phoenix is right. Corruption and mismanagement in India are primary reasons why India trails far behind China in development. This was demonstrated by the enormous disparity between the 2008 Beijing Olympics and 2010 Commonwealth Games in Delhi. Many, including the media, have mistaken what has occured in China since 1978 as seemingly being synonymous with what is occuring in other developing countries. China is governed very differently to other countries and this is why the enormous development seen in China since 1978 has been for the most part limited to China. This is why in 2011 China's GDP is the second largest in the world while India's GDP is only 11th, not in the top 10 and even behind such middle powers as Brazil and Canada. India's military budget is the 10th largest in the world, behind Saudi Arabia and Italy, while China's is the second largest. Is having the 11th largest GDP and 10th largest military budget, ranking behind such countries as Canada, Brazil and Saudi Arabia, the kind of economic and military clout of that of a great power? India's GDP rank isn't going anywhere fast either, having only moved up one place from 12th to 11th in the past decade, while China's moved up 5 places from 7th to 2nd in the same space of time, confirming what I stated at the start of this comment. In addition, Comics is right that this article is not a list of future great powers and as soon as one middle power is included on this article as a great power then others like Brazil, Mexico, Italy, South Korea, Spain, Canada, Australia, Saudi Arabia and so on would be included too, which would make the article erroneous. Quite vivid blur (talk) 13:39, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

True, but I think that you missed the main point of my post. We need to use this talk page to help build this encyclopaedia and improve this article. Lets try to go back to that agenda and allow the original user bring accredited academic sources about India as a Great Power, and if none exist this conversation should not continue because it can only get father off track. -- Phoenix (talk) 23:22, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah Phoenix, that's the spirit of a Wikipedian. After hearing emerging, then on the verge of emerged, finally in last months of 2010, there was this emerged comment by non other than the U.S president. Now President of a Super power nation (usually will have scores of academic pandits as advisors) saying "India has emerged". Now should we treat him as a credible source or put him below the carpet as untrustworthy and not enough source, capable of judging which is a great power or not. I dont think so. And also for a normal academic source, the Opendemocracy article is there.Bcs09 (talk) 03:37, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@ Quite vidid blur: India is not run by communist government and Indian economy is not based on communism nor based on dictatorship. It's a democratic nation and it's economy is a free economy. The corruption exists in the government and the government is not the one that is taking India's economy forward, it's the private companies that thrive in India. So don't compare the Chinese model of caged labour with Indian version of progress based on entrepreneurial skills. The Chinese olympics and the Indian commonwealth games went with full satisfaction of the athletes. The problem with Commonwealth games was indeed corruption, but in India to counter these corruption we do have something called a free media, which is non existent in China. And the credit for exposing the lacunae and the deficiencies can be given to the Indian media. They broke the story on corruption for the countries leadership to take stock of the situation and work in such a manner so that during the time of commonwealth, things were put in place and the commoncealth games became a success. India and China can only be compared in terms of statistics. Now take the statistics, the nation that is in competition to the U.S is not a simple competitor for India. China is a great competitor. Now for economic statistics you just take the imf data and see for youself.[10]. Now since you're repeating your points again and again, let me ask you something simple. Can you provide the source that says "Military spending is propotional to military power". Do there exists any theory that says that more spending will result in being a better military power than the one who spends lesser amounts? Source please. It has been told that you can stop posting your belives here. No need for that.Bcs09 (talk) 02:27, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please check all official wikipedia policies provided above: WP:No original research; WP:Synthesis; WP:Wikipedia is not a crystal ball; WP:Reliable sources; WP:Verifiability and WP:Forum. A politician is not considered an accredited academic source, because a politician will say or do what is best intrust to sway voters or to get people or other politicians on his/her side. While it is fine for academics to make arguments one way or another; that is not our job. Please allow Academic consensus to sway the vote here. When the consensus agrees we will report that. Until then we will await their verdict. -- Phoenix (talk) 08:56, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Obama get's elected by Indians and don't think American voters will vote because he say's something good about Indians. So the point that Obama's views are not policy based and more vote based seems having a mismatch. Indeed it's quite interesting to see the latest articles that emerge/emerged that describe India as a great power. Here is one more[11] which says "The growing convergence of ideas and interests with the peer group of great powers has promoted India’s gradual rise by a process of co-optation and co-operation into institutions of global governance and great power status.". Bcs09 (talk) 11:05, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think Obama is however trying to improve the tarnished image of America abroard, which makes voters happy, and a way to do that is to suggest that the US is a benevolent superpower that accepts other countries as having an important role. This gets him happy Americans, because they are being given the image of a humble president who is not above accepting more input in global affairs. I hope I phrased that right. Comics (talk) 11:37, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Any source buddy? India is not a Iraq for U.S president to improve the tarnished image. It's policy of the United states in accepting India as a great power.[12] Nothing less than that. Bcs09 (talk) 15:13, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's a big difference between a country having "emerged" and a country being a great power. The countries of the G20 are considered to be emerging powers but that doesn't mean all countries of the G20 are great powers. Do any of your sources, Bcs09, specifically state that India is a "great power"? Until that time I can't see you gaining consensus on this talk page, no matter how much you attempt to imply that a source implies India is a great power. Plus, sources you do find will have to be considered by users here as reliable and academic or else they won't be accepted. Quite vivid blur (talk) 12:26, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It says Emerged India: "enter a great power". By the way, who told you that all countries in the G20 are emerging powers? Any source to validate your point? Why should there be no consensus when the articles are there, clearly stating India as a great power? Is there anything present in this discussion forum, something invisible? Bcs09 (talk) 15:11, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bcs09, it seems that due to the reasons other editors have given, your proposal has been defeated. The consensus to add India as a great power will not be achieved by the sources you have given and political speeches tend not to make good sources for obvious reasons. It's my own opinion that sources can be attained for nearly any viewpoint and this is no different. This is not a forum and we should only be discussing the proposal and since that has now been defeated, either present reliable sources or stop carrying this on. G.R. Allison (talk) 15:32, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can set aside your personal opinon and try to be constructive. That wil be appreciated.Bcs09 (talk) 16:54, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion was not used to justify a point, merely to help you understand. G.R. Allison (talk) 17:01, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You never justified any of the points that you made. Bcs09 (talk) 01:22, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Point: The sources you provided were not accepted by the greater Wikipedia community. Personal opinion: You can find sources to support any viewpoint. I think that the opinion justified the point G.R. was making. Comics (talk) 02:10, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bcs09, do you know what hypocricy is? It's telling someone to set aside their personal opinion and be constructive when you yourself are being told by everyone to do just that. Quite vivid blur (talk) 18:05, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No comments. But I would like to point out that my opinions are based on articles and academic sources whereas yours are plain personal opinions.Bcs09 (talk) 01:22, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My source = Search, where only one of the first page of articles suggests India is a great power and about 6 others (one perhaps of questionable authority) suggest that it is still ascending. The others seem to be forum posts. 6 in favour of 'India ascending', 1 in favour of 'emerged'. And that one is OpenDemocracy. Comics (talk) 02:15, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From the days of google? Just take into consideration the recent article of Opendemocracy and German Institute for International and Security Affairs article along with the U.S policy. Don't take into consideration things like blogs etc. Funny are the ways of google. When I clicked on latest from the link your provided, it showed me this article.[13] Bcs09 (talk) 04:08, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that I just posted the link to the google page, you'd have to actually look at the blogs to see if they're actually from noted academics. Considering we take tweets from film directors as credible sources on the making of a movie, blogs from notes academics should perhaps be treated in a similar fashion. Now, I'm not saying that I've looked into them in any depth but seeing as that's only page one, chances are that the other pages will have a similar setup. Comics (talk) 06:47, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In that sense film director and Obama have something in common. Both know what they talk about. Anyway Obama is not a flim director trying to promote his film and hence can be credible as you said. Bcs09 (talk) 13:45, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is, Obama is not a source. Obama is complementary reference material. If there are sufficient sources from academics to first suggest that India is a great power, then the approach of politicians to the issue can be used to add a bit more weight. Otherwise, from the way the US acts at times, you'd think we've got a bipolar world with China already a superpower and Iran and NK it's evil little minions. The problem that seems to be eluding you is that you have not provided a significant number of sources for peer review, merely suggesting a handful and resorting to OR. Comics (talk) 13:55, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So the sources are

• Emerged India: enter a great power
• India is not simply emerging; India has already emerged
• India’s Gradual Rise
• ASEAN and Strategic Rivalry among the Great Powers in Asia

Bcs09 (talk) 13:51, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now what's the conclusion. Can we add India to the list with the above four articles.Bcs09 (talk) 01:36, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I find it odd from a historical perspective that there isn't a specific article in WP about the "Big Three" - such an influential series of conferences and the FDR/WSC/Stalin, followed by Truman/Atlee/Stalin meetings were decisive for the following 40 years. Does anyone know if this has been considered before? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 12:01, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We've had one editor (perhaps rightly so) suggest that Japan and Germany may not be without a permanent SC seat in the near future, citing our G4 article (and the sources at such) to add credence to this. While I support the notion, I think this might lead to some editors (no names to be mentioned of course) reheating notions for India to be in the article for similar reaons, and perhaps even Brazil. Perhaps what we need is a small paragraph, similar to the EU one, suggesting that the G4 nations themselves (particularly India and Brazil, seeing as they're the ones perhaps most debated) are contentious (I believe there are sources suggesting Germany is a middle power? perhaps those could be mentioned, since the article suggests that some merely believe them to be 'economic great powers'). Comics (talk) 01:14, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree fully on this, you have my support on this and I'll help when I have the time. G.R. Allison (talk) 07:30, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I propose a discussion for a constructive argument for the removal of Britain from the great power list. I invite all to take part in it. We can do it over this week and the next. But let's all make it constructive with valid arguments and sources. Thank you.Bcs09 (talk) 01:38, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Any editors willing to engage in this should note the discussions and incidents here, here, here and here (an admin indeed placed a block on this user for such things) as they all show a motive behind the proposed removal of Britain as a great power by this user and that it seems to be an on going campaign with this user after having their proposals defeated on other pages relating to removing Britain as X or Y power. It is my opinion that he is simply retaliating due to the Indian Navy being removed from the Blue water navy article. The very aim of his discussion, building an argument to remove a country from the list, smacks of POV pushing and I don't think he should be engaged on this subject given recent situations as detailed above.

Also, Bcs09 you were advised by an admin;

"I'd strongly suggest they (Bcs09) find something else to work on when the block expires (out with these type of articles); their claiming not to understand what's going on after so many explanations about WP:OR, WP:SYNTH etc smacks of WP:IDHT at worst; WP:COMPETENCE at best. If Bcs09 can take a step back and perhaps edit articles they don't feel strongly about, I hope they can find a way of working within our policies. If not I anticipate longer blocks in the future."

Thanks for your time editors. G.R. Allison (talk) 03:11, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also it seems this has been proposed in retaliation to the inclusion of India being rejected. Especially if it's noted who started this discussion here. Tune was changed. G.R. Allison (talk) 13:28, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let's look at some easily sourced facts: Britain has a permanent seat on the Security Council. Britain is an important player in Europe (G6) and is a part of international movements such as the EU3 (which is involving itself in the Iranian Nuclear Issue). Britain has one of the highest GDP's in the world, and has a legacy lasting from the days of Empire (influence culturally in the Commonwealth realms, the English language is the most prominent language globally) whilst also influencing the world globally through recent cultural trends (the Beatles were what, the best selling artists of the 2000s I think? Harry Potter was, and probably still is, a global phenomenon that HAS had an impact on popular culture, Doctor Who and other British productions have audiences worldwide, the James Bond franchise is one of Britain's most recogniseable film series). Britain also is very well noted for it's universities (Cambridge and Oxford particularly), which suggests that it is seen as a country that provides quality academic institutions. It has a moderate population size, but maintains a technologically advanced military and navy that, while nothing really compared to the former navy under empire, is still one of the most potent at projecting force globally (Falkland's War, which suggested in the 1980's I suppose that Britain was still a Great Power). I believe that all of these are easily verified, Mr GRA? Also, perhaps due to familiarity, alot of people in the Anglosphere show immense familiarity with America and Britain, suggesting that those two are strong cultural movers in the Anglosphere. That last part is OR, but the rest of my post I believe can be verified without too much hassle? Comics (talk) 14:24, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you fully Comics, I just think it's a waste of time engaging Bcs09 based on his arguments (you've seen the relevant talk pages where he caused weeks of futile discussion) and his motive for this proposal. G.R. Allison (talk) 15:11, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, a suggestion and a request for debate to remove great Britain from the great power list has been met with wild accusations, personal opinions and unwanted comments. What's happening? Is this what the admins were calling as constructive discussion and for which they blocked me. Brilliant.Bcs09 (talk) 16:23, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]