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

	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.

While the ROC was a permanent member of the UNSC immediately following World War II, neither of the sources listing it as a "Great Power" explicitly name it as a Great Power. The Chinese Republic after World War II was still in a state of civil war between the nationalists and the communists, its economy was in shambles, its currency hyperinflated. I don't think China at this point exerted very much international influence. If someone can find a source that actually calls the ROC a Great Power, and explains why, then I would be happy to withdraw this complaint, but I don't think inclusion in the Security Council automatically makes you a great power. That seemed more an attempt at nation-building than anything else. Any comments or rebuttals would be most appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Icetitan17 (talk • contribs) 21:51, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone else think the article is ready for the GA nomination again, as we dealt with most of the problems identified in the article. Deavenger (talk) 12:08, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reminder. I'll get right on that :-) Ok. Its now nominated here. -- Phoenix (talk) 04:55, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's hope that if it gets nominated, it'll stay a good article so we can work towards A and FA class articles. Deavenger (talk) 19:11, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Several news articles refered to the BRICs (wich includes Brazil and India) to be emerging powers after their first official summit. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] And this article still excluding them... Felipe Menegaz 20:51, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh this article excludes them? Erm, no. Russia and China ARE Great Powers, as stated in this article. India and Brazil may be great powers in the future, but are not yet. We've been through all this before - see the discussion archives. David (talk) 10:23, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the article should display a section or just few sentences about the emerging of Brazil and India. Felipe Menegaz 15:50, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If Japan and Germany are listed as great powers, then India and Brazil also deserve a place in the list. India and Brazil are two of the G4 nations seeking a permanent seat at the UNSC, the other two being Japan and Germany. The G8 will cease to exist next year, when the G14 (with India and Brazil) will take its place (G8 summit could be the last as rising nations want their voices heard, G8 is dead, long live G14, Leaders favour conversion of G-8 and G-5 into G-14). Brazil and India were the two countries who pressured for the G8 expansion. According to President Barack Obama "Tackling global challenges in the absence of major powers like China, India and Brazil seems to be wrongheaded" (Forbes: G8 pledges $20 bln in farm aid to poor nations). Nicolas Sarkozy has said that "no-one could imagine resolving problems today without involving China, India and, of course, Brazil" (BBC: Brazil and EU leaders hold summit) The joint statement issued after the 1st BRIC summit (between Brazil, India, Russia and China) specifically mentions the importance of the "status of India and Brazil in international affairs" (Joint Statement of the BRIC Countries’ Leaders). Several sources name Brazil as a "great power" (or at least a "potential great power") and some even "potential superpower" (USA Today:Booming Brazil could be world power soon, Brazil Is the Next Economic (and Political) Superpower, Brazil Does Have the Potential to be a Great Power, StanleyFoundation: Rising Powers: Brazil, etc). The reason why most sources don't agree on what to call Brazil is due to the country's recent economic "boom", more "aggressive" foreign policy, stability (both political and economic), drastic reduction of poverty, etc. Several years ago no one would even dream of Brazil at a G14 or being one of the leaders of the Doha Round or the G20 (which was created under Brazil's initiative) (Brazil and the G20). We could go on and on. Conclusion, Brazil and India are - or at the very least "have the potential" to be - at the same level as Germany and Japan (who lack size and population) a great power. So we should either exclude Japan and Germany from the list or add Brazil and India. A better alternative would be to add a section on potential great powers (and before you start on about WP:Crystal ball, see: Potential superpowers). Limongi (talk) 00:49, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've been trying to find a couple of academic sources listing Brazil and in India as great powers. The sources that people keep trying to bring up to add these countries are newspapers, which usually talk very little about that specific country being great powers, or OR and SYN of , "These countries held this and this and this conference, therefore they are great powers. All people have brought up are newspaper article where si has maybe one sentence like the one above. Ass for the superpower article you have brought, the only one that could even come close to working is the Next economic and political superpower, and yet the entire article, it calls it an economic superpower. And an economic superpower ≠ superpower. Difference between India and Brazil compared to Germany and Japan, we have academic sources listing them as great powers, 2 for Germany, and 4 from Japan, and the one newspaper article for Japan is written by a well known IR expert, who is the president one of the largest IR think tanks in the world, and has even gone to congress to talk about the changes in specific places like the middle east, and the newspaper article talks about of why Japan is a great power by that same guy.

Like the potential superpower page, a potential great power page or section just creates lots of trouble. The entire thing turns into an OR/SYN page, WP:Crystal ball, and nationalistic pushing war, and the editors who actually try to be neutral get in the middle of it and get shit for it. For example, a user tried to add Brazil in the potential superpowers. However, all his sources were OR or from SYN, and was saying how Brazil is completely perfect compared to any other country in the world. One, if the user brought good reliable sources for Brazil and actually brought it up before bringing it up, I would have been fine about it. After all, I have removed an overwhelming amount of bad sources that turn out to be complete SYN or OR from the India and other sections. Other users and I even explained to this to the other user that he needs to bring in some reliable sources that don't turn out to be OR or SYN, and we did it very nicely. What happens instead, the user vandalizes the page, specifically the Indian section (looking back at his history, he's been really racist towards Indians). And since I'm of Indian origin, he starts giving me shit because "I obviously believe that India is a superpower" though it would take five seconds to look through my past history to realize that I don't think India can be even considered a potential superpower, and the only reason I keep India there as there is still enough reliable sources that aren't OR/SYN. And whenever the user came to visit the page, he gave me shit for being Indian, and now, he's finally left the page, and stopped bothering me that I'm Indian. That's what having a potential page gives you. If I add Brazil on the page with a couple academic sources, I would be fine. If I add India though, I'm just going to get shit because I'm of Indian origin. For you guys, it would be vice versa because you guys are from Brazil or of Brazilian origin. However, if you want to work on a potential page like that, I have one in the works on my user page, though I'm not sure if I want to create it.

Also, the potential page is already a mess. It talks about the potential superpowers right now, but not about them historically. For instance, the Great power page does not talk the entire time about what the great powers now, it talks about what makes a great power, the history of great powers, etc. I'm pretty sure when people thought Japan was going to become a superpower, they started to embrace Japan more, take action against them, or bring them into more institutions. Like George Friedman noted, there were people predicting the rise of United States and Russia before they were strong powers, and the prediction of the rise and fall of Germany. Before we make a potental great power page, the potential superpower page needs to be fixed big time.

Also, I might have some academic sources to add Brazil and India, however, it lists the two countries as Major powers, not great powers, and I'm not sure if we're also using the term major powers. Deavenger (talk) 16:00, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of the five original great powers recognised at the Congress of Vienna, only France and the United Kingdom have maintained that status to the present day, although France was conquered and occupied during World War II.

Should Russia also be included in the list of those that maintained that status to the present day, given that it is still counted as one (according to the list of "Great Powers by Date")? Ok, there were several years when it wasn't one, but presumably France wasn't a great power while it was occupied by Germany, so if it can be listed as "maintained that status to the present day", should not Russia? Wardog (talk) 14:22, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can see where you're coming from. France was conquered and occupied for four years, though was a great power immediately prior and immediately after that occupation and is described as one of the victors of World War II. During its occupation France was still recognised and had its own Free French government-in-exile and armed forces (thanks to Britain). Other than those four years, its great power status has not been interrupted. Russia on the other hand is a little different. Arguably it lost its fight in World War I and that together with the communist revolution initially reduced it to below that of a great power for at least a decade. It had regained great power status by the beginning of World War II. I would therefore argue that Russia's great power status is not continuous, whilst France's is - despite the four years of occupation during World War II. David (talk) 15:07, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

World leaders signaled the demise of the Group of Eight wealthy nations club on Friday, saying only a forum that included the major developing economies could decide on important global issues.

"One thing that is absolutely true is that for us to think we can somehow deal with some of these global challenges in the absence of major powers like China, India and Brazil seems to be wrongheaded," U.S. President Barack Obama told reporters.

French President Nicolas Sarkozy also backed the G14, which represents 80 percent of the global economy. "We will put the G14 in place in 2011 when France chairs the G8," he said.

(Reuters) Felipe Menegaz 22:29, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Great power/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Commencing review

I will, with a little trepidation, undertake this second round of review, following an initial listing, and a GAR that resulted in delisting. I am a pol sci expert, but not in international relations and, for better or worse, I do not reside in a country that could at any stretch be regarded as a 'Great power'. :-)
I will be back after some further reading and consideration. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:02, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The subject of the article

The very last comment during the GAR, by User:Geometry guy, was a good one: "My suggestion would be to shorten an tighten the article to focus on how the term has been used by historians and other reliable sources throughout history." The article should be about the concept of a "great power"; what nations might be great powers is a secondary matter. As such, the current first section, "Characteristics", is right on track. Although the prose is clunky at times, the content is the right kind of material. Subsequent sections on occasion drift into a talking about which countries are great powers - for example, "Of the five original great powers recognised at the Congress of Vienna, only France and the United Kingdom have maintained that status to the present day..." (under the "History" heading), but from the heading "The Great powers at war", it stays broadly on track.

Maintaining an analytical focus

I think the sections beginning "History" will be improved by a stronger focus on the arguments made, by academic sources in particular, about what a great power is, and how the nature of that power is changing. For example, in the paragraph that follows the heading "Aftermath of the Cold War", there is reference to how there are differences of view regarding how Germany and Japan should be regarded. I suggest that this WP article should be discussing the arguments put in those sources about why they should be considered 'great powers', or 'great economic powers', or 'middle powers', or whatever. In other words, what is of most interest is the arguments around the application of the concept of "great power", rather than which country is/was 'in', and which is/was 'out'.

It seems to me also that "great power" appears to have been superceded, both as language and perhaps as concept, with discussion of superpowers and middle powers, of hyperpower and of the capacity of states (and non-state actors) to resist major powers' intent. I think there shouold be some acknowledgement of the historical and geopolitical specificity of the term as associated with later imperialism and the west (and Japan), in the period 1815 to 1945. This is hinted at in the last section, which remarks "China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States are still occasionally referred to as great powers, although there is no unanimous agreement among authorities as to the current status of these powers or what precisely defines a "great" power..." I would assume the literature discusses this. At the very least, there needs to be some discussion of the interchangeability (if they are, as Danilovic p. 27 suggests, interchangeable) of the terms "great power and "major power".

I think there needs to be reference made to capacity to resist great / major powers (if the literature does so). Consider the realist AJP Taylor's "test of strength for war", and similar definitional approaches. How should one interpret the capacity of some small states or alliances successfully to resist superpower aggression or lower-level beligerence (if I can put it that way) - the Taliban against the Soviets in Afghanistan for example; Vietnam; or limited superpower / major power capacity to influence the politics or regional ambitions of Iran, India, Pakistan or North Korea. Again, this should be discussed in terms of interpreting what "great power" means, rather than using it as evidence to debate whether or not any given country is or is not a "great power"

There is another issue that I'm going to mention, but am still thinking about how it can be tackled. At present in the article, the concept of "great power" is applied only to recent (post-1815) events, presumably since that is when the term was first used by actual historical actors. Pre-1815 major civilisations are dealt with in a separate article, Historical powers. As a corollary, or a consequence, it is western-centric. If we are to treat the term as an analytical concept based on the three dimensions of power, then there is no reason not to apply it to pre-1815 circumstances. The concept having been developed, surely the literature has applied this concept to deal with pre-1815 geopolitics? That being the case, where is the Ottoman Empire, perhaps the Chola Empire and Incan Empire, certainly the Ming dynasty, or for that matter the Roman empire etc? The split between two articles does not address the important analytical questions that should affect how the article is structured, and what is included. I think the fact that the term was in 1814 used for the first time by historical figures, in primary sources relating to diplomacy, should not be allowed to confust the analytical application of the concept. If however none of the scholarly literature applies the terminology to pre-1815 geopolitics (which would surprise me, but this isn't my field), then that alerts us to an important issue, sketched above - that the term has more historical specificity than the analytical 'dimensions' model suggests. I realise the preceding may not be a model of clear prose, and I am happy to elaborate further / have another go at explaining myself if required.

Secondary issues

UN

• There was an interesting interchange on the talk page (archive #11 here) about the UN's own use of the term "great power" in discussing its security council (the example given in that discussion relates to this: http://www.un.org/sc/members.asp). I think this should be included as an example of the application of the concept in the post World War 2 era. Hopefully, it will also be discussed in secondary sources, but regardless of that, it is a significant use of the term that should be explicitly noted.

sources

• The referencing needs significant tidying. There are many different formats used, and for refs that are linked online, many publication details are missing. If a style is going to be incorporated that uses "op cit" , the term can only be used after the reference has been initially cited, however this style is not supported on Wikipedia: see Wikipedia:Footnotes, so it should not be used. The alternative is a list of references, and then short refs in notes (however that is not the approach taken in this article overall).
• During the review that resulted in de-listing, the reliability of Black's Academy as a source was raised. If there has been further discussion of this elsewhere, can a user please draw my attention to it. If there has not, then my initial view is that this is a 'black box' website, that says almost nothing about how it works; I have no idea where its material comes from; a superficial google search supplied me with no immediately apparent external sources that would explain what Black's Academy is, and its own website does not exactly encourage such curiosity. My conclusion is that it is not a suitable source, but I am open to being enlightened or corrected. We could also take that particular issue to Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources.
• The following paras are seriously under-referenced (as well as possibly needing some re-consideration in light of the above discussion):

During the Cold War, the Asian power of Japan and the European powers of the United Kingdom, France, and West Germany rebuilt their economies. France and the United Kingdom maintained technologically advanced armed forces with power projection capabilities and maintain large defence budgets to this day. Yet, as the Cold War continued, authorities began to question if France and the United Kingdom could retain their long-held statuses as great powers.[34][35]
China, with the world's largest population, has slowly risen to great power status, with large growth in economic and military power in the post-war period. By the 1970s, the Republic of China began to lose its recognition as the sole legitimate government of China by the other great powers, in favour of the People's Republic of China. Subsequently, in 1971, it lost its permanent seat at the UN Security Council to the People's Republic of China.

Comments

Well. I think the Black's Academy source could go if needed as every instance it is used, it is supported by 2 other sources that have had no complaints. I'll remove the source, and let the other user try the fix the references and notes as I'm not too good at working with references. Deavenger (talk) 05:38, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow what a response. Are you sure your not trying to skip WP:Good Article all together and make this into a WP:Featured Article? Personally I believe that it’s a good thing that you’re not from a country considered a Great power. The last reviewer got comments of personal bias due to his/her nationality. Well let’s try to reduce your comments into something a bit more manageable.

The subject of the article

• "History" will be improved by a stronger focus on the arguments made, by academic sources in particular, about what a great power is, and how the nature of that power is changing. ... what is of most interest is the arguments around the application of the concept of "great power", rather than which country is/was 'in', and which is/was 'out'.
• "great power" appears to have been superceded, both as language and perhaps as concept ... there shouold be some acknowledgement of the historical and geopolitical specificity of the term as associated with later imperialism and the west (and Japan), in the period 1815 to 1945.
• reference made to capacity to resist great / major powers (if the literature does so).
• the article ... is applied only to recent (post-1815) events ... Pre-1815 major civilisations are dealt with in a separate article, Historical powers. ... The split between two articles does not address the important analytical questions that should affect how the article is structured, and what is included. ... If however none of the scholarly literature applies the terminology to pre-1815 geopolitics (which would surprise me, but this isn't my field), then that alerts us to an important issue, sketched above - that the term has more historical specificity than the analytical 'dimensions' model suggests.

Secondary issues

• There was an interesting interchange on the talk page (archive #11 here) about the UN's own use of the term "great power" in discussing its security council (the example given in that discussion relates to this: http://www.un.org/sc/members.asp). I think this should be included as an example of the application of the concept in the post World War 2 era. Hopefully, it will also be discussed in secondary sources, but regardless of that, it is a significant use of the term that should be explicitly noted.
• The referencing needs significant tidying..
• ... a superficial google search supplied me with no immediately apparent external sources that would explain what Black's Academy is, and its own website does not exactly encourage such curiosity. My conclusion is that it is not a suitable source, but I am open to being enlightened or corrected. We could also take that particular issue to Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources.
• [a few] paras are seriously under-referenced (as well as possibly needing some re-consideration in light of the above discussion)

I'll try to get on this. Sorry about the wait. I only hope I can get this finalized before the weekend as I am going to be out of town after that. -- Phoenix (talk) 01:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Yeah, sorry about the essay. There's lots of good stuff in the article, and I had trouble articulating why I thought there was a 'big picture' issue with it, rather than letting myself get bogged in details like missing refs and format issues. Your summary is more like what I wish I had written in the first place. Re your comment about leaping to FA, you may have a point. My concern is that it may not sufficiently meet the criteria of addressing the main aspects of the topic unless this issue, about the nature of the term and its historical application, is sorted out a bit better. But let's see how things go and I will be mindful of not seeking to go beyond the GA criteria in assessing revisions in coming days / weeks. I will stick this on hold for a while and keep tabs. Cheers. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:26, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't apologize for the prose it is actually very helpful. I would only recommend that next time you should try to bullet point the main suggestions and then put the more verbose description of your ideas below. It will help to have individual tasks that allow people to focus on one issue at a time & give the necessary specifics needed to fulfill those requests.

I hope that you are willing to place this on hold for about a week+. I originally believed that the page was ready to be a Good Article with only a couple of minor tweaks needed. After your review it looks like it's going to take a bit longer than expected. Whats worse is I am going to be without my PC for about 1-2 weeks after tomorrow. Currently Deavenger and myself are the main editors to this page and I do not wish to offload all this on him/her. But I know that we are both REALLY eager to get this page to GA status again. I can only hope that you are willing to wait until I am back. Pretty please! -- Phoenix (talk) 07:23, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. This is about my twentieth GA review this year, and a few were on hold for well over a month, as I knew there were editor(s) with definite plans to respond to issues, or who were going to be away etc. As long as there's a plan, my view is the WP norm of 'one week' just doesn't take sufficient regard of 'real life'. See you and Deavenger around this article over coming weeks. Cheers. hamiltonstone (talk) 10:43, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I think I fixed the citations and added a notes section due to the fact that we had all those notes. On with the rest of the improvements. Deavenger (talk) 21:59, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, can I ask one last favor. During the review, I was out of the country for most of the time. In a couple of days, I'll be leaving out of the country for a longer period of itme. Can the final decision be waited until August 15th? Deavenger (talk) 03:59, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We might be setting a record at GAN for a hold, but it's fine with me :-) hamiltonstone (talk) 12:15, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. For sure, end the GA review on August 15th, and it'll hopefully be passed by then. Thanks again. Deavenger (talk) 18:31, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

At five sentences across two small paragraphs, the lead section is quite sparse (even for this relatively short article). Consider expanding it to be a more comprehensive, stand-alone summary of the article. Emw2012 (talk) 22:44, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would turning it into one paragraph work? Deavenger (talk) 03:33, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Each paragraph seems to deal with different topics: the first with characteristics of great powers (i.e. the first section of the article) and the second with their history (the second section). That seems like a good structure, but each paragraph could probably be expanded by at least two sentences. Emw2012 (talk) 04:05, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've expanded the lead by two sentences and tried to make it more comprehensive and representative of the article material. Some more work may be needed. Nirvana888 (talk) 16:41, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also expanded the sentence a little bit. However I can't think of what to add to the second paragraph. Deavenger (talk) 18:01, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

British English and American English

The article currently commingles the two. I noticed by searching for instances of "ise" and "ize" and finding a singular use of the British "ise"; but also found an instance of the BE "favour". There article should be consistent in either using American English or British English. See American and British English differences for more examples. Emw2012 (talk) 22:54, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Let's go with American English. Nirvana888 (talk) 16:20, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great Britain has been a great power far longer than the United States has, and much of the article's history section regards European powers, so I would argue that the article should be in British English. Though I'm not terribly bothered. David (talk) 09:16, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

conclude review

Owing to a lck of changes, and the inability of a key editor to return to the task, I will fail this GAN for now. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:27, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brazil should be added. Its 191 million population is the 5th in the World. It is the 10th largest economy, larger than India at nominal prices. But, contrary to India or Russia, it is an stable, cohesive and structured nation, much homogeneus as millions of immigrants from the rest of the World have been assimilated into the Portuguese culture (something not happening anymore in America, where an increasing percentage of Hispanics are not being assimilated)--79.146.210.235 (talk) 21:41, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a recurring topic in connection with this article. The short answer is no, Brazil should not be in here, nor India in most opinions. This is not an article about what any of us thinks makes a great or big country, but about a concept from the academic and international relations literature in relation to the action of nation states in international affairs, particularly in the period 1815-1945, though also through to the present day (the historical scope is a topic of discussion in the GA review). In any case, it is a question of what the reliable sources being used say, not what any of us otherwise think. Cheers. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:37, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We've been through this on this article and its talk page re: Brazil, India, even Italy. Lots of people and mining stuff from the rainforests do not make a great power. There needs to be a powerful international influence, be it militarily, culturally or commercially. Brazil is not at great power level yet (might be in the long term future) rather it is a regional/middle power. David (talk) 09:09, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't the Qing Empire be a great Power then ? They were only weakened after the Opium War . :) --69.157.65.49 (talk) 00:39, 26 July 2009 (UTC)UnKNown[reply]

What do the relevant reliable sources say? hamiltonstone (talk) 01:18, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The name be "Chinese Empire" or "Qing Empire" instead of "Qing Dynasty" which is the ruling dynasty, not the empire name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.143.32.147 (talk) 21:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a typo in reference no. 37. A blank is missing in the quote of the title: "German dream: "Hat Eure Bundeswehr_eine Seele?"

Why is it not possible to edit such things directly? Is this wikipedia or not...!?

I've changed it to "Hat Eure Bundeswehr Eine Seele?" - is that now correct? As for not being able to edit the page - this is because this article is protected, due to vandalism/petty nationalism, and so only established users may edit it. David (talk) 10:49, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A new article titled The Last Gasps of the British empire and Forget the great in Britain in the Newsweek magazine contains details of the present great power status of Britain.Bcs09 (talk) 15:09, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the only thing is that it's just typical journalistic rubbish. The fact that it bangs on about the empire says it all - no one in the UK has notions of imperial (i.e. superpower) might anymore. It's an article stuck in the past, written by a journo stuck in the past. See here for the counter argument David (talk) 15:49, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Britian shouldnt be a great power in 2000s [17]--69.157.68.144 (talk) 14:24, 13 August 2009 (UTC)Unknown[reply]

The Suez Crises was more an expression of America's superpower status (and the loss of Britain's superpower status/imperial power in the 1950s) than the loss of Britain's great power status. If Britain isn't a great power, then neither is France, Germany, or Japan. The article also overdoes the whole "here endeth Britain" - clearly Britain became regarded as an inferior power to the US after the Suez Crises, but it continued to be one of the most powerful countries on the planet to the present day. David (talk) 15:17, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article makes clear that there is no precise science in what is and is not a "Great power". This articles goes out of its way to list some of the factors which have a role in determining it, such as a seat on the United Nations Security Council and Nuclear weapons. Its there for perfectly reasonable to list the UK and as said above, if the UK can not be listed then others would have to be removed from this article too. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:04, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Should the European Union just simply be added in C.2000 and the European states removed?

Err... what? David (talk) 15:30, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, not yet. It will take some time and the Brits need to stop balking at it. We'll have an update on the article in 2030. --Wulf Isebrand (talk) 00:15, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Found a quote from the Pentagon (perhaps a more direct source to whoever made the comment could be found?) which a) uses the term "great power" in a modern context and b) uses it for Japan.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/japan/6174814/Incoming-Tokyo-government-threatens-split-with-US.html

The Pentagon reminded Japan of the expectations it faced as a "great power and one of the world's wealthiest countries".

Perhaps this could be used in the article itself to demonstrate that the concept of great powers is still alive and well in the contemporary world and/or as a reference for Japan's present status as a great power? David (talk) 21:25, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The European Union is a permanent member of the G8, G20 consultations. It manages the second largest reserve currency in the world and is the most significant player at WTO talks. The EU is a prime source for the legislation of 3 great powers (France, Germany, UK) which are listed here. Even militarily the EU has become an international actor: [18] It is a great power on a global and on a European scale. The entry has been added to the list. Lear 21 (talk) 09:58, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RV edit. This has been talked about ad nauseum on this talk page. Here is a link to the last discussion on this topic Talk:Great power/Archive 11#Where is the European Union ?. Since I havent said this in about 3 months I will cut and past a past message:

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.

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. -- Phoenix (talk) 10:28, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The entry is backed by the provided source. The source seemed to be a longterm part of this article and can be therefore considered to be credible. It is an academic source from the US in 2003. It reads: The current system is presented as one superpower and four great powers (China, EU, Japan, Russia). Everything accurate and justified to include the EU in the list. It acknowledges the situation 6 years ago. By now it is rather common knowledge that the EU has become a global player. Lear 21 (talk) 11:59, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There should be a whole section talking about the European Union, but it shouldnt be listed as a great power in the tables as the current version shows. The great powers listed are sovereign states, something the European Union is not. "A great power is a nation or state that has the ability to exert its influence on a global scale." If the EU is to be included the intro needs changing. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:24, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The EU is a union of sovereign states. If you can include the EU on the list, then why not NATO, NAFTA or any of the other countless international unions and alliances in existence? Sure, the EU has greater integration than most unions, but it's not a sovereign entity. Further, if you include the EU on the list, then would Germany, Britain and France have to be removed? You cannot have a great power with a number of its constituent parts as further great powers. That would be a nonsense. Finally I will add that whilst the EU has substantial economic power, it has very limited foreign affairs and defence roles. These are the main aspects of what great powers are about. (The article actually states that the EU can be thought of as an economic great power.) So, for these and many other reasons mentioned, the EU should not be included in the main list of great powers. It can of course be mentioned otherwise, and is. David (talk) 14:24, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First, I should note that I can't find where in Aydinli and Rosenau's book "Globalization, security and the nation-state: paradigms in transition" that the EU is considered only an economic great power. The current reference (reference 40) cites page 59 of the book, but running searches on "EU", "European Union" and "economic" return no hits on that page when searched on Google Books. It may be that Google Books doesn't include that page in search results, but that would seem odd to me since other pages omitted from the preview are returned in hits. Could someone please verify that page 59 of Aydinli and Rosenau's book says what its being used to support (that is: "the supranational organisation of the European Union is increasingly being seen as an economic great power"). It makes me somewhat wary that the link in that reference brings up page 177 in the same book, which states the situation in a notably different way: "The current system is presented as one superpower plus four great powers (China, EU, Japan, Russia)".

So, if upon verification page 59 does not say something close to "the EU is an economic great power, but is not a fully-fledged great power", then I think editors here should take the unmodified claim in page 177 of the book. The different claims that the EU is a great power and that traditional nation-states like France, Germany and the United Kingdom are great powers seem to have roughly similar support in reliable sources. Here I'm taking Encarta, a tertiary source that is slated to become quite unavailable sometime this month, to have significantly less weight than the academic, secondary source by Paul et al supporting the claim that the sovereign European nations are great powers. Considering that, both claims have about one reliable source respectively supporting them. I notice in the previous post and the series of posts linked above by Phoenix79 that editors are providing a lot of their own rationale to not include the EU as a great power. Rathering than prioritizing our own analysis, I think we should be deferring to reliable sources on the matter of whether the EU or its constituent states should be considered a great power. Emw (talk) 15:45, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you. If we can find two or more academic primary RS that state that the EU is a great power and preferably describe how it is a great power with a list of comparable great powers then it could definitely be listed. Nirvana888 (talk) 15:47, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And what do you make of the idea that the two different claims -- 1) that the EU is a great power and 2) that some constituent nations of the EU are great powers -- have essentially the same amount of support in reliable sources? (See the message immediately above yours for some elaboration on this point.) If that's the case, then shouldn't this approximately equal weight be more closely reflected in the article? As it currently stands, the statement in this article that Aydinli and Rosenau's book is being used to support ("...the supranational organisation of the European Union is increasingly being seen as an economic great power") doesn't at all seem to be what the authors are stating in the cited material, p. 177: "The current system is presented as one superpower plus four great powers (China, EU, Japan, Russia)..." [emphasis mine]. Emw (talk) 18:33, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Globalization, security, and the nation-state: paradigms in transition seems to suggest the EU may be a great power in that sentence but it also goes on to state that "The question of whether the European complex contains a great power is a tricky one" (p161) thereby questioning whether France, Germany, and UK are indeed great powers. I agree that the text referring to the EU in the article should reflect the source. Are there any other sources that comment on whether the EU is a great power? It would be helpful to review other sources. Nirvana888 (talk) 15:44, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As you seem to acknowledge, Aydinli and Rosenau claim that the EU is currently a great power. Thanks also for noting the bit about the EU/constituent nation question being called "tricky" on page 161 of Globalization. Reading that paragraph, I think you'll see that the authors clarify the issue somewhat: "Because of the salience of the center-periphery pattern, it is most helpful to take the picture with the EU as the power as the starting point of analysis and only remember the complexities created by the dual nature of powers in Europe." Given that, and the fact that they more explicitly state as much on page 177, it seems safe to say that the authors consider the EU and not its constituent nations as the primary 'great power' designee. Emw (talk) 22:49, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of the claims made by sources, the problem with the EU being listed is that it is neither a nation nor a state. If we list the EU, the first line of the article would need to be amended. Viewfinder (talk) 16:05, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What's being used to support that first sentence? In any case, if reliably sourced claims (as we seem to have here) conflict with the existing state of an article, then we should probably change the article so that we aren't forced to omit what's being said in reliable sources. Emw (talk) 22:49, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've edited this section. I think it now reads better and takes into account most of the views expressed above. Imperium Europeum (talk) 17:18, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted the edit because it relies on synthesis of materials, personal opinions and predictions of the future. If you check Balance of power: theory and practice in the 21st century page 59. It states that the Great powers are Britain, China, France, Germany, Japan, Russia & The United States and then goes on to detail all countries and their interactions. Not that this really matters but it was published in 2004. This section is purposefully vague being c.2000 so the country of the month doesn't keep on getting added. It does not say Today's Great Powers... because only the experts can tell us and it takes them years to agree on anything. -- Phoenix (talk) 02:07, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps some of the confusion here is due to reference 40 mistakenly citing page 59, which is the page correctly cited in the book used for reference 43, "Balance of power". Page 177, not page 59, should be the one cited in reference 40. Please see that page (available immediately upon accessing the link in reference 40) and let me know what you think, given whatever changed impression of my previous post that new information leaves you with. I've just changed reference 40 to reflect the correction. Emw (talk)

The provided reference seems to be credible. For the editors who still have a lack of understanding what the EU does and where its global/European influence is founded should listen to this....Danish ambassador to US (Oct/2008) The European Union as a Rising Superpower. For those who need help to understand the global military involvement of the EU, please click here European Union’s geopolitical footprint. Correct me if I´m wrong, but it appears that the EU military missions on the globe supersede the capabilities of China and Russia (combined). And: The new G8 image adds to the understanding of a great power, which is, backed by several experts, foremost underlined by economic power. all the best Lear 21 (talk) 09:42, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The EU doesn't have any military capabilities as it's not a sovereign entity with its own armed forces - it's member states are the ones with the sovereignty and the armed forces. NATO (which, like the EU, is an alliance/union of sovereign states involving close co-operation and a sharing of their capabilities) sends forces here and there - by your measure can we include that in the great powers list? No, of course not. David (talk) 10:06, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@David: The longestablished reference from this article is clear about that. It specifically names the EU as great power [19]. Find evidence, sources or experts who cite NATO or whatever as geopolitical, classical great power and it can be discussed. I doubt you will be able to find one. Your assessment about the military actions of the EU has been proofed wrong. Plain Wrong. I´m not inclined to present the cited map a third time. The EU is by all measures including expert assessments a new type of great power in its own right. This does not mean that the 3 national great powers (UK, France, Germany) can or should be removed. These countries still hold enough souvereignity and influence in the world to be called "great power". Lear 21 (talk) 10:42, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Your assessment about the military actions of the EU has been proofed wrong. Plain Wrong." - erm, what? Where do you get that impression? And where did you get the impression from that I wanted NATO to be included? I'm using NATO as an example of why the EU has no place on the list of great powers! You fail to respond to some basic and obvious arguments put forward here on this discussion page against the EU's status as a great power, the main one being that it is not a sovereign state. You hold up just one source for the claim that the EU is a great power.

I will let other Wikipedia contributors attempt to change your mind, because I can't be bothered to argue against what seems to be dogmatic arrogance on this matter. Sorry. David (talk) 15:28, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The inclusion of the EU as a single entry in the current list of great powers is based on the following arguments:

1. An academic reference from 2003 naming the EU "great power"

More sources back up the claim that other countries not including the EU are Great powers even one from 2005 Balance of power: theory and practice in the 21st century. It is also clear that since the section talked about is dedicated to the possible future of Great power/Superpower interaction that he has used the EU as a simpler way to define his arguments assuming that in the future the EU becomes a more integrated entity. -- Phoenix (talk) 19:48, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When you say "the section", which source are you referring to -- "Balance of Power"? If so, note that this isn't the resource being used to support the claim that the EU is a great power. The source being used is Andiyli and Rosenau's book "Globalization, Security and the Nation-State: Paradigms in Transition", page 177, where the authors state: "The current system is presented as one superpower plus four great powers (China, EU, Japan, Russia)..." [emphasis mine]. As I mentioned in my first post in this section, I think this claim should be taken as it stands, rather than using our own analysis to change the claim that is clearly being made by Andiyli and Rosenau that the EU is a current great power.

Also reiterating what I've previously said, I think that Encarta -- the second source being used to support the claim that the constituent EU countries are great powers -- is of negligible weight by virtue of it being a non-academic, tertiary source slated to become unavailable this month. In my opinion the first source being used to support the claim -- a relatively academic text by Paul et al -- has much more weight. Thus the two claims being debated here have roughly equivalent support in reliable sources: one each. Emw (talk) 16:07, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2. Several other sources claiming the EU IS already a superpower (Obama advsisor on foreign policy) or an emerging superower. This would logically lead to the conclusion that the EU is at great power level today.

Since when are highschool students considered Academic accredited sources that we can cite via Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability? -- Phoenix (talk) 19:48, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3. Evidences of the global power projections are manifold. The European Union is a permanent member of the G8, G20 consultations. It manages the second largest reserve currency in the world and is the most significant player at WTO talks. The EU is a prime source for the legislation of 3 great powers (France, Germany, UK) and 2 G20 countries (Spain, Italy). It has supranational powers and influences.

Synthesis argument. -- Phoenix (talk) 19:48, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

4.Militarily and in terms of development aid the EU has become an international actor: [20]

Since when have blogs been included as a reliable source? -- Phoenix (talk) 19:48, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

5. The EU sets global industry standard and has the singular ability to fine international corporations (Microsoft) because of competetion violation.

Synthesis & Original research argument. -- Phoenix (talk) 19:48, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

6. With the assumed ratification of the Lisbon Treaty, the EU will have a legal personality (souvereignty), a Foreign Relations staff with embassies around the world and a President. Experts expect the treaty to come in force in less than 6 months.

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. -- Phoenix (talk) 19:48, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusion: Comprehensive evidence has been provided to support the claim that the EU is a great power and therefore needs to be listed here. Lear 21 (talk) 09:07, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry but your arguments are based on conjecture and the majority of academic sources do not agree. Not surprising as that is actually stated in the article itself. But please in the very least use the Bold, revert, discuss cycle if people revert your changes. It doesn't help others trust your edits if you keep on re-inserting your opinions while its being discussed. -- Phoenix (talk) 19:48, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lear 21, please obtain consensus before making large scale changes such as the inclusion of the EU. Do you have an academic source which describes the EU as a great power and equally as important how and why it is a great power. Nirvana888 (talk) 19:54, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the European Union was a sovereign state, it would be an economic and military superpower. Im sure thats something us europeans are all very proud of, however at the moment the European Union does not fit the definition of a great power which is in the introduction. It is not a nation, and it is not a sovereign state and there are not the reliable sources describing it as one like the other nations listed. The European Union deserves a mention on this page in its own section, and i think it deserves a mention in its own section on the superpower page, but it just does not make sense to list it along side Germany, France and the United Kingdom in the list of great powers. If we add the EU there is little reason not to add NATO which is without doubt the most powerful and advanced military power on the planet. Either way the edit warring cant continue, we need agreement here first. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:03, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The presented references are credible and were, in part, longterm installations at this article. The consequences of the definitions must be drawn therefore. A compromise version has been installed to credit the state of power concerning the EU.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lear 21 (talk • contribs) 10:14, 7 October 2009(UTC)

Please do not make changes to the article itself until you have gained consensus. Please place your suggestions here. Now lets try to comment on your edits. I see no reason why the EU should have its own section at this point. currently it is talked about in the prose of the text. What is your suggestion on changes to that text? What is it missing. Please place your proposal here. Thanks -- Phoenix (talk) 11:21, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A compromise version has been offered. If there is no alternative instead of reverting every credible reference, the EU has to be re-installed in the list. I have no problems of discussing this for next couple of months. Lear 21 (talk) 11:44, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop POV pushing/edit warring. Discuss things here if you disagree but do not make any major change to the article without having obtained consensus. Reminds of the Chanakyatehgreat dispute and those of us that went through that saga know how well it ended up. Nirvana888 (talk) 19:38, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've made three posts in this thread, all of which seem to have been ignored to this point. Emw (talk) 05:16, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The recognition of the EU as a great power is overdue. The media is speculating about a rise of the EU as emerging superpower next to China and the US. But here, at a lower level even great power is questioned. It seems absurd. So if there are reliable quotes (and that seems the case) the EU belongs in the table. A seperate section would be also useful. KJohansson (talk) 10:44, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The first line of the article states that a "Great Power is a nation or state..". The EU is neither. Viewfinder (talk) 13:39, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The EU is recognized as a great power in the sources. It is a major global actor in several international organizations and significantly wields power over 3 European great powers. It has accumulated several important policy fields and spheres of souvereignty. Right now it also seems that a majority in this discussion wants an accurate description of the reality today. Lear 21 (talk) 13:07, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If we add the EU we must change the first line of the article, otherwise the article is contradicting itself. The EU is neither a nation nor a state, has no military forces and cannot take key decisions without the agreement of all its member states. Viewfinder (talk) 14:49, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The member states ARE the EU, and vice versa. So if the member states within the EU institutions decide, it is than an EU decision, pretty simple. The EU is state-like. Even more with the new Lisbon Treaty coming in force and the newly introduced legal personality. An amendment of the introduction should be no problem to address the current situation.

(The above unsigned contribution was from Lear21.)

The Lisbon Treaty is not yet in force. Could you please propose an amendment to the first line? Viewfinder (talk) 15:45, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lear 21, dispute repeated warnings not to make major changes to the article until you have obtained consensus, you have done just that by edit warring and offering what you see as a "compromise" version that is clearly not. Clearly you have read these repeated warnings since you've replied to this thread. Any further unilateral edits and we will have to ask for article protection and a potential block of disruptive editors. Nirvana888 (talk) 15:50, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The model of Wikipedia is not concerned with editors' analysis of subject matter, it's concerned with reliable sources' analysis of the subject matter. Given that, many of the supporting and opposing arguments that have filled this discussion are peripheral.

We should not be discussing whether the EU is sufficiently centralized to be considered a nation or state or whether it yields power over three constituent nations. Instead we should be discussing what is said in reliable sources. There has been a high-quality academic source (Aydinli and Rosenau's book) provided which says that the EU is a great power. This claim may be in conflict with another claim that some constituent nations of the EU are great powers. Note that this conflicting claim is also supported by one (and thus far, only one) high-quality academic source -- Paul et al's book. The other source supporting the conflicting claim -- Encarta, a tertiary source that is scheduled to be discontinued this month -- ranks significantly lower in status compared to a high-quality academic source. Thus both claims in question have roughly equivalent support among the sources thus far provided.

Let me try to be clearer. I'm dismayed that almost a week into this discussion we are still including statements like "It is a major global actor in several international organizations and significantly wields power over 3 European great powers" (Lear 21) or ''The EU is neither a nation nor a state, has no military forces and cannot take key decisions without the agreement of all its member states" (Viewfinder). It seems clear to me that, while perhaps correct in their own right, these kinds of statements are procedurally invalid. We should be strictly focused on what is said in reliable sources, and reflecting in the article the relative weight of what is said in those sources. Emw (talk) 15:57, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken that if reliable sources support the EU's Great Power status then we should list it. But do you not then accept that we then have to review the first line of the article, or do you maintain that the EU has become a nation and/or state? I don't see how that can be so when any one of its constituent states can veto its decisions. Viewfinder (talk) 16:16, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further to the above, we are claiming at sovereign state, to which the internal link at the top of the article under state is directed, that "A sovereign state is a political association with effective internal and external sovereignty over a geographic area and population which is not dependent on, or subject to any other power or state." (my italics). That is surely not the EU. Viewfinder (talk) 16:31, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let me ask... Emw: What are your proposals for the article ? I don´t see your statement, clearly. Are you moderating or commentating the discussions ? What is your goal ? Just curious. Viewfinder, let me ask a question too: France and Germany have no souvereignty over their currency anymore, do you think we should remove these countries because the lack of it? To my knowledge Britain does not even have a constitution and one its "countries" Scotland has an independent football team. So where is the souvereignty here? Nirwana, what enables you to warn somebody. Right now it rather appears that the "We block everything fraction" should be warned. These editors have so far deleted useful alterings to the text concerning the European Union. The arguments and sources appear reliable, sometimes it is common knowledge (EU handling the Eurozone). I think it should be no problem to modernize the introduction as well. I now tend to include the EU in the list including an elaborate explanation. KJohansson (talk) 22:28, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As there are still no new proposals to find a modification of the article it seems sensible to acknowledge the given references and to install one of the 2 versions provided by myself. Lear 21 (talk) 14:20, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to re-instate the section about the European Union. According to Prof. Barry Buzan (one of the foremost scholars of international relations in the world) of the London School of Economics, the EU can and should be seen as a great power. As he puts it in his 2004 book 'The United States and the Great Powers':

During the nineteenth century. great power rank was possessed by Germany, the US and Japan [Britain and France being superpowers]. After the First World War it was still held by Germany and Japan, and France dropped into it as a declining superpower [with the British and Americans both as superpowers]. During the Cold War, it was retained by China, Germany and Japan, with Britain and France coming increasingly into doubt....After the Cold War, it was held by Britain/France/Germany—the EU, Japan, China and Russia [with the US as a superpower]. India was banging hard on the door, but had neither the formal capability, the formal recognition, nor the place in the calculations of others to qualify. (p. 70).

This clearly states that the EU is a great power in the post-Cold War era. Imperium Europeum (talk) 14:55, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a good source that clearly describes when power shifts occur. However, upon review the source, it is decidedly ambigious as to whether or not the EU has emerge as a true great power. If you had bothered to include the text between the ellipses I wouldn't have had to check the source. I quote: "Here there was the difficult question of how to treat the EU, which as time wore on acquired more and more actor quality in the international system, and was by the 1970s being treated as a emergent great power, albeit of an unusual kind, and with some serious limitations still in place." Moreover, "Britain/France/Germany—the EU" and the next paragraph seems to suggest that Britain/France/Germany can be represented by the EU as a single great power and thus would drop these three states from great power status. Nirvana888 (talk) 16:58, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is a very good source. I draw your attention to the fact that it states 'by the 1970s', implying that these issues have come closer to being resolved. As someone who has read the book from cover to cover, I can assure you that Buzan not only sees the EU as a great power, but also as an emerging superpower. His definition of a great power is a political community (normally, but not necessarily a nation-state) with the means (capability and ideology) to become a superpower and challenge the dominant power for its hegemonic status. The only two political units he puts in this category are the United States, the European Union and China. The latter is the dominant great power, so automatically has great power status. The other two are not yet superpowers, and may never become so, but the fact that they could become superpowers also places them in the great power club. There is ambiguity as to whether or not Russia or India really are great powers, for the simple reason that they will never be able to match the vastly superior and potential power of the US, EU and China. So the EU reference does hold and should be installed in the article, albeit with the caveats I added previously. 89.243.214.36 (talk) 17:18, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you are Imperium Europeum? Thank you for your well reasoned and rational response. We could use more of this rather than the POV pushing/edit warring that has been going on lately. After reading the chapter, I agree with the gist of your comments. A description of the EU in the article prose of its plausible great power status is definitely warranted with caveats as you stated. Nirvana888 (talk) 17:26, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was me! I was having issues with saving my comment and it must have removed my username... Glad to hear that we're reaching a consensus on this. I agree with you that the G8 map should not be included, although I concur with Lear 21 that the G8 has traditionally been seen as the world's principal great power club. It's a little archaic though, and reflects the world powers of the 1970s when it was constituted than today... 89.243.214.36 (talk) 17:41, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It did it again! Third time lucky!! Imperium Europeum (talk) 17:42, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you find a more high-quality reliable source (i.e. academic or book from a reputable press) that suggests that ratification of the Lisbon Treaty will further support the EU's great power claim? The current citation is a little weak. Nirvana888 (talk) 21:41, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What an earth are you talking about? That source is written by Professor Jolyon Howorth, one of the leading—if not the leading—authority on European security and defence policy in the English-speaking world! I urge you to look him up if you don't know anything about him!! Imperium Europeum (talk) 01:03, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, calm down a bit. I am not doubting that the author is an acknowledged expert. What I am suggesting is that there is no causal link between "great power" status and the entry into force of the Treaty at least from that specific source. This would make it synthesis of ideas not attributable to the source. Nirvana888 (talk) 17:29, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just in the news...[21]. BTW, Nirvana...you violated the 3RR rule. This could end in blocking your account ! KJohansson (talk) 22:38, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an academic source from an IR expert. Moreover, it does not say anything about Lisbon Treaty and great power status. This page has now been fully protected due to a couple of editors constantly making unilateral edits without consensus. Please discuss any changes on the Talk page and once again, do not make any controversial change until consensus is obtained. Nirvana888 (talk) 23:24, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So you dispel a comment from the highest EU Foreign Relations authority in office? I think you need a time out because of your endless reverts and the 3RR violations. Hopefully somebody bothers. If not I will report you. You need to cool down. KJohansson (talk) 23:55, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. proposal

Inserting an updated text on the EU:

With continuing European integration, the European Union is increasingly being seen as a great power in its own right. ^{[1] [2]} Most notably in areas which it has exclusive competence, such as representation at the WTO and at G8 and G-20 summits. As a centralized institution and a state-like entity the EU governs the single European currency, the Euro and the respective Eurozone. Because of its hybrid souvereignty and sui generis characteristics, the European Union has become an important source of legislation for the 27 EU member states. However, it has limited (but growing) scope in the areas of foreign affairs and defence, which remain with the union's member states including France, Germany and the United Kingdom. With the Treaty of Lisbon expected to be implemented in early 2010, the European Union's role these remaining areas is likely to be expanded, not least with the creation of a permanent president, a foreign service, and 'permanent structured cooperation' in military affairs.^[3] Lear 21 (talk) 12:36, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

I oppose this proposed change, the current paragraph is good enough except for the point i mentioned at the bottom of the page. Some of that text proposed above i have concerns about. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:30, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence about the Eurozone specifically examplifies the sovereign power of the EU as a state like entity and needs therefore to be included. Lear 21 (talk) 13:57, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3. proposal

Because of the established list of multiple experts, claiming a great power even superpower status of the EU, it seems necessary to update the current list with a new entry including an EU flag. Lear 21 (talk) 13:50, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Still unclear whether EU is a great power; and whether Britain, France Germany are as well. Nirvana888 (talk) 14:02, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lear, please could you reproduce the "list of multiple experts" here, or somewhere linked to here? Thanks. Viewfinder (talk) 17:03, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Viewfinder, Please list them :-) -- Phoenix (talk) 05:37, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Europe: The Quiet Superpower, Andrew Moravcsik, Professor of Politics and Public Affairs, [22]"Europe is and will remain for the foreseeable future the only other superpower besides the US in a bipolar world"

European Superpower, McCormick [23] McCormick argues that the European Union is nothing less than "a superpower -- the new pole in a post-modern bipolar international order."

The European Dream: How Europe's Vision of the Future Is Quietly Eclipsing the American Dream, Jeremy Rifkin, In a related article in European Affairs magazine, he writes that the E.U. "is, indeed, a new superpower that rivals the economic power of the United States on the world stage," a new reality that "America is unaware of and unprepared for." [24]

The United States of Europe: The New Superpower and the End of American Supremacy, T.R. Reid, "We need to recognize and accept the plain fact that the planet has a second superpower now, and that its global influence will continue to increase as the world moves toward a bipolar balance of economic, political, and diplomatic authority." [25]

Why Europe Will Run the 21st Century, by Mark Leonard a British foreign-policy thinker with the London-based Center for European Reform. In Europe as well as America, many intellectuals and some politicians view Europe as the world's second major pole in two respects.[26]

Parag Khanna, Second World, page XV Introduction [27](directly copied from the book I´m currently holding in my hands): "The world´s superpower map is being rebalanced- ...., the EU and China have engineered a palpable shift toward three relatively equal centers of influence: Washington, Brussels and Bejing."

I assume the answer to these academic references is, that it only cites the EU as a superpower and not directly as great power, right ? Lear 21 (talk) 12:32, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

@Phoenix79: [28] Choose one of the endless references concerning Great powers in G7/G8 meetings. Just by scanning the several lists I count more than 30 sources which directly name great power status with the G8 gatherings. Many of them in high profile magazines or IR expert foundations. Honestly, the reverts of this image and putting the G8 as a major power forum in question signalizes the real lack of competence in terms of International relations. The image in combination with the UN Security is ideal. Lear 21 (talk) 11:40, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Academic evidence:

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

not published

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

Clearly says it's from the Russian perspective

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

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

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

Not an academic peer-reviewed publication or book

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

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

Media evidence:

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

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

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

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

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

5. The assembly of the eight great powers

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

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

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

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

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

2. proposal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here is the G8 pic.

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

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

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

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

The argument is broken down into a few parts:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New perspectives on global governance: why America needs the G8, page 40 [29]

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

Bailin, Alison. "Explaining G8 Effectiveness: The Model of Group Hegemony" [30], this is now the second time this ref has been presented. There are a manifold of others which have been already provided. I think this discussion can be considered finished by now. The evidence is overwhelming and credible. Lear 21 (talk) 12:00, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

I think we need to modify the introduction. It is not clear enough. It implies a necessary similarity between a great power and a global power. I accept that they are often coterminous, but not always. A great power, according to most definitions, is a power able to hold its own during war against all other potential powers. Clearly, this probably applies only to the United States, and perhaps, to a lesser degree, Britain, France, Russia and China. A global power is a state that is able to exercise power on a worldwide scale. This does not include China or Russia. It does include Britain, France and the United States. All of those have an international—indeed, thoroughly global—military presence and extensive trading and diplomatic infrastructure, as well as colonies and territories in almost every continent. Can we not make this clearer? Imperium Europeum (talk) 15:14, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have sources for those definitions? My understanding from the way these terms are defined here is a that a superpower (i.e. United States) is a power able to hold its own during war against all other potential powers. A superpower is sometimes referred to as a great power in academic publications and can be confusing. A great power as this article defines it is one that has global influence but it not as powerful as a superpower. Nirvana888 (talk) 18:14, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm probably being a little pedantic, but I was attempting to draw a distinction between global great powers and regional great powers. Take Britain, for example: it is a small island state off the coast of mainland Europe, yet it has extensive territorial holdings around the world. It is a dominant power in Latin America through its possession of the Falkland Islands and Caribbean holdings; it is a major power in the Mediterranean and North Africa through its possession of Gibraltar and Sovereign Base Areas in Cyprus; and it has major reach into the Indian Ocean and Middle East, through its possession of bases in Oman, Diego Garcia and Singapore. Its alliance systems with NATO and the Five Powers (Australia, New Zealand, Singapore and Malaysia) give it a leading position in the world's major international structures too. France and the United States are also global great powers: they have, like Britain (and in America's case, exceeding Britain) a global military and economic-political presence (or, at the very least, can amplify their power in any given region within a few days or weeks). China and Russia—maybe even India, Germany and Japan—are also considered great powers, yet their global reach is no-where near as extensive. Russia's reach extends not far beyond Eurasia; China's is limited to the South China Sea and its 'string of pearls' through the Indian Ocean. As for Germany, Japan and India, while they can hold their own in defence of their homelands, their military reach is extremely limited beyond their own peripheries and can only be mobilised if slotted into a US- or EU (UK/French)-led coalition. So we have two types of great power: regional powers and global powers. Again, Barry Buzan talks of this in his book, already mentioned. As does Paul Kennedy in his seminal 'Rise and Fall of the Great Powers'. Halford Mackinder, Nicholas Spykman and Alfred Mahan also discussed this difference at length in their various publications in the previous century. Imperium Europeum (talk) 20:27, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me you're assessing powers by their territorial possessions/influence not by the broader and overarching factors of political, economic, and military influence that is characteristic of great powers. In Buzan's apt book, he defines three categories of power: regional power, great power and superpower. This is also how categories of power are structured here in terms of articles. He asserts that middle power is a subset of regional power and is far less important. I agree that that the academic versus lay distinctions between great power, regional power, global power can be confusing and often overlap. For the purposes of this article though, I don't see the need to make such distinctions. Nirvana888 (talk) 20:35, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@IE:Although this has almost has nothing to do with change at this article, it has to be mentioned: Germany´s global power indeed is based on its political, diplomatical influence. The establishment of EU structures is credited to Franco-German initiatives. The UK for instance has chosen to have almost no influence or personel at EU institutions. Global issues like the acknowledgement of climate change or global financial supervision (already before the crisis) has been massively conducted by German politicians. German trade connections and its development aid (2nd highest in the world) ensure special relations with major powers like Russia, Iran, Israel for instance. Great powers have a whole set of influences. Military is one of several spheres. Concerning the intro I would add "political community" (Buzan) to the "nation or state" term. Lear 21 (talk) 20:51, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The view that Germany is a great power is implicitly denied by Chancellor Merkel. More generally, I think that we are agreed that changes to the article are desirable and consensus is emerging, as it usually does on Wikipedia when editors present their cases on talk pages instead of unilaterally imposing their positions on articles. For example, if we have found a good source in support of the claim that a political community can be a Great Power, then the case for the EU is strong. Viewfinder (talk) 23:12, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Editor User:Nirvana888 has probably violated the 3RR policy. These edits should be further investigated. 4 reverts happened in less than 24hours. [31] [32] [33] [34]. KJohansson (talk) 22:38, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

transposed from above, addressing Lear's proposal:

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

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

Ref removal

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

The image of the Congress has bee removed. During the Congress the majority of participant nations where not considered Great powers. It is therefore not suitable to represent Great power status. The image has no reference as well. Lear 21 (talk) 11:52, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]