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'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]

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]

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: [21] Choose one of the endless references concerning Great powers in G7/G8 meetings. 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]