Talk:Great power

For older discussions, see archives:
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8
History

Edit warring

Following a suggestion by east718, I'll be opting to stop edit warring via blocking individual users from editing, rather than by protecting the page. I may be applying something akin to WP:1RR in this regard, for editors who revert day after day. Please be careful and make good use of the dispute resolution process, instead of trying to force through changes against consensus. – Luna Santin (talk) 19:21, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Britain no longer a great power

Britain: CrisisChanakyathegreat (talk) 12:09, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

No offense Chankya, and I know you've been pushing this very hard, but Great Britain is still a great power. A Time article from 47 years ago does not count as a worthy sources. I know somebody will post "but Time is a reliable source". It is, but not it's articles from half a century ago. ----Hobie (talk) 15:26, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

The decline must have started 47 years before. Today it is complete[1] "The UK and France have declined from their former great power status". The state of the Navy.[2] "The report concludes that with an “under-resourced” fleet comprised of “operationally defective ships”, “the Royal Navy would be challenged to mount a medium-scale operation in accordance with current policy against a technologically capable adversary.” The report’s findings echo comments made last year by Admiral Sir Alan West, the recently-retired First Sea Lord, who accused the government of turning the Armed Forces into “a tin pot gendarmerie”."Chanakyathegreat (talk) 07:38, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Your just making a fool of yourself. Idiot. Colliver55 (talk) 11:29, 20 July 2008 (UTC) Maybe you should rejoin the conversation when you have rejoined the real world. Colliver55 (talk) 11:30, 20 July 2008 (UTC) Make no mistake about it France or the UK could defeat India pretty easily. The last time India tried to face a Great Power it took on China, and lost miserably. Colliver55 (talk) 11:34, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, no personal attacks! Colliver, just calm down he's looking for a fight. He's simply mad that we haven't listed India, so he's lashing out at who I am assume to be UKPhoneix, because he's from Britain (duh); along with the entire community here. I'm tired of whose country is better. --Hobie (talk) 12:55, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeh your right. I apologise for my outburst! Colliver55 (talk) 13:47, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

This idiot knows some things that are realistic and is against the perception of some people. Again I did not write those articles. The rise of India and China is inevitable so is the decline of Britain. Regarding France and Russia, I really don't know. I have not read much more about their capabilities, so it will be unwise on my part to write about France and Russia. Words did not make someone win or lose. And I don't think that India is going to war with France or Britain. This section is to discuss about the capabilities of nations based on realism and decide on which is a great power and not. If you have any objections to what has been reported in those article you can express it here.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 03:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Mr.Hobie Hunter, this is a weird way to look at things. I don't have anything to do with UKPhoneix. I want reality to be presented. My opinion is that The U.S is the sole superpower in the world. There has been a decline of U.S power but has not affected the Superpower status of U.S. The reason for the U.S to be the Superpower is because, there is no power that can challenge U.S single handedly. Their political power is slowly declining, but still wield great influence. Regarding the other nations, the other P5 has very limited power at present. After the cold war the capability of the P5 has declined. Just after the cold war Russia went Kaput. It's better to say the P5 went Kaput. The main reason can be attributed to the rise of other powers. The specification for P5 power was measured using nuclear weapons. Everyone used to say, hey they had nuclear weapons and hence is a great power. This has changed since India blasted nuclear weapons in Pokhran and became a nuclear weapon state. Now when we look at overall capabilities sidelining nuclear weapons we see a large number of nations that are on better/par with the earlier P5 in capabilities. Russia has reemerged from the economic crisis. India which was considered an outsider of P5 for many many years has become a nuclear weapons state and an economic power. The economic liberalization and military capabilities have given India great political clout in the developed world as well. We are also seeing the emergence of new economic powers like Brazil. There are other strong economies like Italy, Mexico, Spain etc.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 04:09, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Let's all take a deep breath. We're having a civilized discussion here and there's no need for name-calling. Chanakya, you state that, "It's better to say the P5 went Kaput". Just before, you admitted that your still believe that the U.S. is the sole superpower. Therefore, how does the P5 have "very limited power at present" if it includes the U.S. The UNSC still represents the most powerful institutional organ of peace and security and therefore each member of the P5 yields enormous political influence. No one is arguing that India is growing in power and will likely continue to. Like you said we're seeing an emergence of possible great powers such as India and Brazil. However, I fail to see how India has more influence than the U.K under the factors that you have specified (militarily and economically). GDP (nominal) in millions of U.K. is 2,772,570 compared to India at 1,098,945. For 2008-09, the U.K. will spend $68,911,000,000 and India's will spend $26,500,000,000 on military expenditures. Those are a pretty large gaps there. I want to hear your thoughts on this. Nirvana888 (talk) 04:24, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

If you consider GDP (PPP) - (thought you might counter with this): India is at 2,818,867 and the U.K. is at 2,137,421. Even so, it is not nearly as great at the difference in nominal values between the U.K and India. Nirvana888 (talk) 04:43, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I said the P5 went Kaput and not U.S went Kaput. The U.S is still the Super power in the world. Why do you think the discussion on expanding the U.N security council is taking place. It's because the P5 grouping has went Kaput and did not represent the present world. So it becomes necessary for the P5 members themselves to include the new powers into the block. That's why we hear the P5 leaders talk in favour of welcoming India into the Permanent member block. Regarding the comparison you make, on military spending. How much of this money is utilized in modernization of the forces, for paying pension, for other utilities and what capabilities are being added with that money. All these counts rather than just comparing in dollar terms.Army, Navy and RAF say their lives are at risk from poor equipmentNearly half of British soldiers consider quitting: survey. Now regarding GDP (PPP) do you see the difference closing or widening with each passing day and what you make out of that?Chanakyathegreat (talk) 07:51, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Look I have no problems with listing India and Brazil as emerging or future great powers, but there has to be some grip on reality. The fact that the UK, France, Russia, China and the US are great powers is known fact. Colliver55 (talk) 09:04, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey Chanakya, I hope I'm not offending you but I get the sense you are cherry-picking statistics and recent news that point to the declining trend in some of the current great powers and the rise of India. It is pretty clear though, currently the overwhelming majority of factors concerning influence favour members of the P5 over India. I know you are very patriotic about India but for the article we are trying to be as neutral as possible - not playing up India or understate India. I hope you realize that. Nirvana888 (talk) 14:14, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Your viewpoint on me is totally wrong. I am a patriotic person, that's true and I whole heartedly support the great ethos and values of Indian tradition. I want truth to be told and upheld be it in Wikipedia or anywhere else. Your view that people other than westerners view point is based on patriotism (i.e patriotism imposes some kind of restrictions on them to project their nations as like..) is a wrong one. In reality it is the reverse. People like you tend to stick to a belief system that make you to disbelieve others just because they are the others. As I had explained in detail that considering a nation as great power since it is a P5 member is not valid and is not reality. Chanakyathegreat (talk) 05:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

You are wrong this time. I am not judging anyone. Despite your patriotism/nationalism, I still consider all your arguments with an open mind. I never said that being in the P5 guarantees that a nation is a great power although it definitely provides it with more influence. India, by and large, is a regional power at this point given a plethora of reason some of which I've noted above. If you read some scholarly work on political science, international relations and the global order, not shoddy or nationalistic press, perhaps you will see where all of us are coming from when we consider India from an impartial perspective. Nirvana888 (talk) 13:07, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Regarding my Patriotism/So called Nationalism I can tell you that it has not effected my edits in Wikipedia. It's solely based on Truth. The membership in P5 cannot prevent things done by other great powers. Like Russia cannot prevent U.S from setting up ABM in Europe. Similarly U.S cannot prevent Russia from resuming Air patrol from Cuba. The U.N is ineffective against another great power. Also there is difference of opinion within the P5 itself. The scholarly work is all true before Pokhran. After Pokhran it's all changed. You can read about it. Britain has lost the Great power status. It has become more of a regional power in Europe that ventures out with U.S whenever U.S requires it.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 14:52, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Nirvana I think you may as well leave Chanakya to his own single-minded judgements. He is not going to compromise so I think we may as well ignore him. Colliver55 (talk) 15:08, 22 July 2008 (UTC) Chanakya I don't know what ridiculous nationalist newspaper you read but I am afraid the UK has infinitely more influence in the world than India. Fact. Colliver55 (talk) 15:19, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

You are incorrect. What ever has been put in this section is provided with sources, that also from British news sources. Seems nationalism is making you to say things beyond any dignity. Chanakyathegreat (talk) 10:49, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

India - great power

I have found sources for adding India to the Great power list. Charting a New Course in India-EU Relations Putin a Good Word India is a global power: Bush US only supporting 'global power' India: Rice Kissinger regrets India comments. If any one has objections it can be described here. Chanakyathegreat (talk) 11:35, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I totally agree that Indi ashould be added. another thing why have germany and Japan been stated in this article. This aricle is of Great Powers not Economic Powers. If Economic powers are mentioned then so should Military Powers be mentioned that should be Pakistan and Israel as Pakistan is a nuclear power while Israel is supposed to have mentioned that they do but haven't tested nuclear weapons. North korea and Iran could also be included.Enthusiast10 (talk) 11:00, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Germany and Japan are considered as "economic great powers" not full-fledged "great powers" given their economic strength. Power is not determined by solely economic clout or military strength which are indeed very important. It is a combination of many different factors such as political influence, diplomatic ties and other more subtle factors. Therefore, possessing nuclear weapons does not make a country a great power by any means. Nirvana888 (talk) 04:38, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

You are saying that Germany and Japan are "economic great powers" and not "great powers". The Wiki Great power articles has this to say "With considerable economies and military forces the following countries are often considered to be great powers despite a lack of nuclear weapons." Are you for removal of this to accommodate reality i.e "Germany and Japan are economic great powers".

Regarding nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons provide enormous military capability for a nation. You know what a nuclear weapon can do. Can wipe out cities. It's true that Nuclear weapons alone will not make a nation a great power, but is a necessity for any great power. Read Deterrence theory. Chanakyathegreat (talk) 07:59, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Germany and Japan are listed because in addition to being the the third and second largest economies in the world, repectively, many scholars consider them to be full-fleged great powers. However, because they don't have permenant UN Security Council or nuclear weapons, most experts do not consider them complete great powers. As a compromise, we list them as economic great powers, but they have strength outside the realm of economics. Hence, we list hem and do not list Pakistan and Israel because they have little influence outside of their region. --Hobie (talk) 12:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

~ Hey Hobie, just a minor quip. Full-fledged basically means complete. As a result, Germany and Japan are probably not full-fledged great powers. Although some sources may conclude that they are - they are as you point out not "complete great powers". Nirvana888 (talk) 14:09, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Hobie, Japan and Germany is nothing without nuclear weapons. Do you know why Japan surrendered in the second world war. So they don't have the nuclear deterrence capability even though they have good conventional military capability. In a conventional battle they can defeat China since their navy is a highly capable navy and in the regional conflict, they have an upper hand in terms of technology and can match the Chinese in numbers. Regarding Germany you cannot club them in the same class as Japan. Regarding military capability, Germany is a regional power in Europe. They can support major U.S military operations with their limited military capability but operations on their own is impossible to conduct.

Chanakyathegreat (talk) 05:32, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) Maybe we should make a compromise and include India and Brazil under the category 'Future' or 'Potential' or 'Emerging' Great Powers. I believe this is fair. Colliver55 (talk) 09:42, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Either 'possible' or 'potential' is fine with me because it is consistent with other WP articles that I've come across on power in international relations. WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and 'emerging theory' would be Wikipedia:BALLS Nirvana888 (talk) 13:07, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

India is great power and there are links to prove that so I think it should be included ASAP, all wiki articles should be up to date, so whoever has taken the responsibility so pl. add India fast.Enthusiast10 (talk) 15:06, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

India is not a verified Great Power. As we were discussing potential great power is the best compromise. Colliver55 (talk) 15:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Enthusiast, please read up on what has happened for the past few months. POV pushing is not a WP policy. Nirvana888 (talk) 15:54, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Colliver55, I find your comment very stupid. Who is going to verify whether India is a great power or not. There is no such verifying agency as such. One thing that comes to notice is the Great powers accepting India as a Great power and that's what all those sources point to. Nirvana, I had to say the same thing to you. Your belief is not what is reality. I had provided sources to state that India is a great power. Chanakyathegreat (talk) 10:57, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) Chanakyathegreat has links to prove that India is a super power so I just think that India should be included. I also suggest that we should write some guidelines that can be used to determine if any country is or not a superpower, I suggest the guidelines should be - economically strong, military wise strong and has influence, And by following those guidelines Russia, China, France, UK, US and India are. India is the second fastest growing economy- 12th largest and 4th largest by purchasing power. India's military is the second largest in the world and it has nuclear weapons and army presence in Central Asia, Suriname and Sri lanka. It also has influence over other countries, economic influence in Central Asia, as Arcelor Mittal and Tata Steel have a lot have steel plants there and India has funded numerous educational and development projects and has airfields in Tajikistan and Uzbekistan. Has funded 7 billion dollars in aid and free doctors and teachers that work in remote areas in Afghanistan. It trains Iran, Suriname, Bhutan and Bolivian armies and also controls much of Indian Ocean and has assisted aid services to isolated islands in the pacific along with US navy. It is also funding construction of roads and other urban development projects in Iran, Central Asia, South America, Sri lanka, Afghanistan etc.. And has also joined the league of nations like US, UK etc. by selling weapons and aircrafts to other countries like Bolivia, Algeria, Iran, Nepal, Bhutan etc. "Like any state, India's capacity to affect others and to resist undesired influence results from the country's various forms of hard and soft power. These forms of power include military strength, social cohesion and mobilization, economic resources, technological capacity,..." - Perkovich, George Enthusiast10 (talk) 15:35, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Chanakya has simple googled India+great+power and posted several links that push his POV. In most cases, they do not even describe India as a great power and are sensationalistic. We've discussed what constitutes a reliable source and you should probably read up on that some more. Nirvana888 (talk) 14:57, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is all about finding sources and putting it. Whether you use Google or Yahoo or anything else did not matter. The articles clearly mention India as a Great power/Global Power. So what's the problem you guys have.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 06:19, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Enthusiast10, a small correction, India is a Emerging Super Power and a Great Power. And I agree with you on the other things you mentioned. It's tip of an iceberg.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 06:25, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

As I see it, the present list of great powers includes only the P5, which is quite an unambiguous listing. However, the article will not be complete until it OBJECTIVELY verifies why these deserve great power, by comparing objective parameters like GDP, Military spending and Power, etc. in a table form. As of now, it just gives a list of "great powers" at various times without explaining why. There is also no talk about the G8, which can be mentioned. Overall, this page needs a more academic workup

Coming to India, I absolutely think it should be included (and not just because I'm Indian). For one, it has a large sphere of influence stretching over South Asia and the Indian Ocean, and has been a leader among nations, with its founding of the Non-Aligned Movement. Its economic strength is also a big factor, and the growth rate of its economy that is pushing other nations as well. If it comes to military might, we can easily agree that India's military is among the top in the world. Lastly, there is a considerable soft power dimension as well.

All in all, India does satisfy all the criterion to great powerness, or is on the road to it. Everyone acknowledges it - the Big 5, the Economic Powers, all other nations. If they were able to admit to the obvious, I think it wouldn't be a problem for wikipedia to do the same.

I think the page needs a whole lot of improvements, for eg, there is no section for Other Great Powers or Potential Great Powers (although that wording might become controversial). We ABSOLUTELY NEED a section on the BRIC Nations (maybe not the R & the C). Individual sections for each of the great powers is also needed. Also, a discussion about Regional Powers such as India, Brazil, South Africa, Iran, Australia, Israel, etc is needed.

Hope that helps. Cheers. Sniperz11_@^CS 06:25, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

There should be some mention of past great powers as well 67.169.0.250 (talk) 07:08, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Please see Historical powers, Middle power and Regional power. As to making qualifications to how we believe countries should be added, that would be violation of official policy, wikipedia is a tertiary source only, not until accredited academic sources say otherwise would it be included. So far no accredited academic source says it is (really chanakya), they only list India as a middle power and a regional power. India's influence is not world wide yet. Just wait and if trends continue then I'm sure time will include it. If you believe otherwise (chanakya) take your sources to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. -- Phoenix (talk) 08:13, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

See also: BRIC Nirvana888 (talk) 12:48, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

UKPhoenix79, you still live in the past. The present is totally different from the past. Look at the nuclear deal. What you make out from this deal. If India is a mere middle power, do you thing that this kind of deals must have happened if India is a middle power. It recognition of India's role and capability by the world. I am not asking for the change in this place itself. The world has changed, and I hope that you have the capability to realize it. None of you dared to tell me why you did not consider India as a great power. Anyone? I assure you that I will answer to that clear your doubts.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 14:49, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

BRIC is an economic grouping of four nations, Ever heard of Rainbow coalition. There are many.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 14:52, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Nirvana, the BRIC statistics state that by 2050, India and China will become superpowers beating the U.S. In PPP terms the Superpower rise is expected to be much more faster. Seem to be in 2020-25. Anyway we are not adding India to the list of Superpower but to the list of Great power.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 15:45, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but predictions (especially long-term predictions) can often be incorrect (e.g. everyone thought Japan would be a superpower in the 60s to 80s). The main fact is that India is not currently a great power; and whether it will be a great power in the next decade is still up for debate. You are correct though that it is likely that India and China's GDP will increase greatly and there is ample evidence for this future scenario. Nirvana888 (talk) 16:07, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is prediction that India and China will overtake the U.S to become a superpower. But what made you think that this prediction will go Kaput. There is no reason to think otherwise, since the two countries GDP are growing at high growth rates. Regarding Japan, you guys have an assumption that Japan is a meak power. It's not economically it's very much better than the other Great power. The only reason for their assumed failure (it's not actually a failure) is the rise of India and China shadowing Japan.

And we are supposed to discuss India as a great power and not India as a Superpower. If you have any apprehension on considering India as a great power, provide the reason. Chanakyathegreat (talk) 02:37, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

In the interest of everyone trying to ameliorate this article, I will not debate you further. It is regrettable that you cannot come to an agreement and instead want to push a point that everyone else disagrees with. Any further discussion on India's merit (which by the way is verging on OR discussion) can be continued on my Talk page if you must. Nirvana888 (talk) 17:50, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Until now, you have not said what is the reason for your opposition to India's inclusion into the great power list. You must know that your personal opinion's don't count in Wikipedia. If you have anything constructive to talk do it.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 07:59, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

It looks like you will not get the answer you need here. You have yet to provide convincing evidence to support your claims, yet you believe otherwise. So like I have said before please take this to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Hope that was some help. -- Phoenix (talk) 08:15, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't have any problem with the sources. If you have any you must have taken it to check the reliability. I did not posted links from some Christian evangelical or any religious website for you to disbelieve it. Any way tell me which one is the source that you have problem with I will post it there.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 05:06, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Do anyone has objection to addition of India into the great power list, they can report it here with the reason. UKPhoenix79, if you have objection with the sources, you can provide which one you have objection to and the reason. Thank you.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 15:07, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Simple none of the sources state that India is a Great Power, but aside from that point most fail many ways

from Wikipedia:Reliable sources#News organizations

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

Putin a Good Word - Opinion piece, nothing about Great Power

from Wikipedia:QS#Questionable sources

Such sources include websites and publications that express views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, are promotional in nature, or rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions

Charting a New Course in India-EU Relations - promotional in nature

US only supporting 'global power' India: Rice - promotional in nature, not notable, doesn't say its a Great Power only quoting US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice saying that India is becoming a global power. what does Global power even mean? The Washington post says its the United States, China, Israel, Iran, Islamists & Russia?

from Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable sources

Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Reliable sources are necessary both to substantiate material within articles and to give credit to authors and publishers in order to avoid plagiarism and copyright violations. Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require high-quality reliable sources.

India is a global power: Bush - who the heck is indiatraveltimes? Fails Questionable sources, nothing about Great Power

You have to realize that a few of us have tired of this conversation, sorry but its true. Your trying to hammer in your belief that India is almost a Superpower and you cannot believe that India isn't yet considered a Great Power... but its true, otherwise the EU would be listed here. But as you noticed it is not, thats because neither are a cohesive enough power yet to be considered such in a global stage. You have to understand that predictions of the future are not enough to justify entry of nations or supra-national states that might be something in the future. Predictions are just that and are only held up by belief. Now predictions have known to fail and they have been known to come true. So we cannot, and should not, make a definitive answer assuming the prediction of the future is accurate. I'm not sure If you actually have been to India or not, but you know that India has many challenges to overcome internally before it can really look outwards, the same goes for the EU. That is not a diss in any ways because India has one an amazing job in the past 20 years. But When India is ready it will make its place felt in the world more than it already has. Until then please realize that the time is not now. -- Phoenix (talk) 23:16, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

UKPhoenix79, what the hell are you saying. indiatraveltimes is a news website and what they are doing is reporting about President Bush's visit and reporting what he said. Even U.S president has no problem in considering India as a great power. And what do you know about sources. Nothing. Wiki rules is that sources must not be from personal pages (People like you may create pages to express personal opinion, but please not in Wikipedia), religious websites etc. Other sources are considered valid. If you have anything to consider anything constructive I will support it. Also express your opinion in detail.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 02:56, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Well after another disrespectful response I will no longer participate with this conversation. I have been talking to you for months now and you just refuse to listen or take any advice from people willing to talk to you, even admins. Note that your not arguing my point that your sources don't actually say Great Power! Please take this up with Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. -- Phoenix (talk) 03:13, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree this conversation doesn't seem to be going anywhere. Colliver55 (talk) 08:21, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I can't believe this has gone on for this long. Let's just agree to disagree. Nobody will budge, and the subject is very murky. This is minor and there are much better ways to improve this article to GA status. --Hobie (talk) 15:47, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

You guys are dragging this discussion without allowing any constructive discussion. If you have any objections on India being a great power, you can express it here in a constructive manner, which can be debated. Otherwise it is like you don't have any objections based on reality but you have objections due to your belief which is wrong.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 06:30, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

UKPhoenix79, you are trying to hide under a Burkha. All the sources provided is about India as a great power/global power. Even though you know it, why are you trying to divert the discussion with future etc. I had repeatedly explained to you that we are discussing India as a great power and not India as a Super power, which is future. If you have anything constructive to discuss you can explain it here, else your personal opinion cannot be taken at face value.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 06:35, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:No personal attacks please, Chanakya. To everyone else: Don't feed the troll. He's just looking for attention and someone to lash out. This ridiculous discussion has been going on for months and months (far, far too long). We've obtained consensus as far as I'm concerned and we seriously need to move on. Nirvana888 (talk) 07:08, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

So no one has any specific objection to addition of India as a great power based on realities and since your objections are based on personal opinions and no reasoning provided for those objections, it has to be discarded from consideration. So according to Wikipedia rules and With the sources, I am adding India to the Great power list. Thank you. Chanakyathegreat (talk) 08:34, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

According to specific rules cited above and specific objections stated by at least 4 other users this has been reverted. Please stop. You are venturing towards trollish behavior. -- Phoenix (talk) 09:45, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

UKPhoenix79, what is your objection. You cannot remove an edit without specifying your objection and valid reasoning. You have not done that yet. I request you to be constructive and put your objection here that can be discussed. But no removing without reasoning. I can give you more time to reply. Chanakyathegreat (talk) 02:32, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

You are being trollish Chanakya. People have tried to explain to you many times why we refute your conclusions. Because you cannot get your own way you are deliberately asking the same questions over and over again and then manipulating the answers given to try and justify your aims. Please stop it. Colliver55 (talk) 09:37, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the status of India being a great power is at least debatable. India has the third largest military in the world (after China and the US), with almost as many nuclear missiles as the United Kingdom, over six times as many tanks as and more fighter aircraft than either the UK or France. Economically, India is fourth in terms of GDP (PPP). As most people know it's the second largest by population. India is also higher than France and the UK in terms of energy consumption. Given these factors, I think India's great power status is most definitely on the table for discussion; the fact that it isn't even mentioned in the article seems like a conspicuous omission. Emw2012 (talk) 22:30, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey Emw2012, thanks for the peer review reply by the way - it definitely helped to improve to article. We had a long-drawn out discussion with Chanakya that has stretched over a few months. I suggest you read the archives if you are interested. The consensus was that we include Brazil and India as future/possible/potential great powers. This was properly cited but Chanakya seems to feel he knows better and thus we had to maintain the status quo. He has so far been unable to provide reliable sources supporting his POV. The facts that you have provided are true and may support India as a great power. By the same token, it is also true that there are statistics that suggest that India has a very low level of development and does not have much influence outside its regional area. The bottom line is that we cannot engage in OR and must rely on reliable sources. Nirvana888 (talk) 23:12, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Nirvana, the consensus even before you came to the discussion page was between me and UKPhoenix and we had an agreement in which until we find sources that states "India is a great power", we will keep India in the emerging power list. That was not adhered to. Now I have provided the sources. But none of you have objections for considering India as a great power. Everyone here is more interested in expressing personal opinions like I don't think so etc etc. But none of you have explained Why? This is not a NPOV. Again I request you to express why you don't consider India as a great power. Let there be a constructive discussion. If you are failing to do it, your objections will become invalid and I will have to add India to the list to represent NPOV of the article. Thank you.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 05:01, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Lol. There was no consensus to list India as an emerging great power until you find sources that state "India is a great power" - (which you haven't, mind you). Either you have trouble understanding English or you are deliberately being a troll. If it is the latter, I think we are justified in ignoring you and needless to say all edits that you make will be reverted. Like was pointed out earlier, you are repeating the same questions that have been asked and answered over and over again to elicit some sort of reaction. By doing so, you are only alienating yourself from the other editors and making us feel you are here to cause trouble. Nirvana888 (talk) 05:30, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment - I've come across this from a message that User:Chanakyathegreat at WP:AN. After a coursery look, I have to agree with Nirvana that none of the sources that have been provided a) show that India is a great power, and more importantly, are b) reliable sources. Until this can be found, the compromise of "emerging great power" seems like a good solution. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 18:55, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Jauerback. Sadly, you are not the only admin who has tried to intervene. There have been several over the months. Chanakya could not seem to accept the fact that India was not a great power and repeatedly tried to push his POV, ignored the views of other editors and been blocked several times for edit-warring. The last admin User:Neil suggested that as a compromise we leave out possible future great powers out until they become great powers (that is assuming that they will eventually). Nirvana888 (talk) 19:56, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

There are two versions. One is the reality which I am trying to represent at present in the Wikipedia page. If we compare the present great powers capabilities and Indian capabilities, surely India will be in the list. The other is about Emerging great power, which many here opposed because they wanted their POV in here.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 06:48, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

In two sentences you just said that India is and India isn't a current Great Power! I thought that was an interesting comment. -- Phoenix (talk) 07:06, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Could we please just agree to disagree!!! Chankya, make yourself useful and do something besides pushing India as a great power. Every other user disagrees with you. I've been away a little while and I can't believe this is still going on. There are much more important things to do, like getting this article back to GA status, I've already nominated it. Please, let's just end this pointless discussion. --Hobie (talk) 21:34, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Improving the article

I've noticed that lately the discussion has degenerated into general discussion on random topics and pure opinion and heated debate over nothing, like the meaning of the word "emerging" or the satus of Italy or India or even the Bahamas as great powers, instead of meaningful discussion on ways to improve the article. Here is the place to get back on track and for proposals for improving the article so that it can hopefully re-attain good status. --Hobie (talk) 03:10, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

One way to make the article better could be to expand. Right now there is an expansive section on the history of great powers past and present. We could add that to the article. --Hobie (talk) 03:20, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I really want to see this article regain is GA status. Could we get a peer review to see what issues need to be addressed to meet GA requirements? Nirvana888 (talk) 04:47, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I think itt might already qualify for good article status. It says that the article was delisted on April 2, 2007. I've gone through the archives and it looks like the article was having a turbulent time back then. The only part of the article today that would drag it down would be the status section, because of the near-constant disputes. I'd definitely go get a peer review, but I wouldn't know where to go. If you do get one please to it by day's end. --Hobie (talk) 18:09, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I've submitted a peer review request. We'll see what kind of feedback we get. Nirvana888 (talk) 18:22, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

OR and SYNTHESIS; we cannot decide who the great powers are.

It is OR and synthesis for us to be attempting to determine WHO are great powers. There is no standard list today. The best we can do is define what a great power is, perhaps list some nations that are commonly considered to be great powers, and perhaps list past great powers (a more well-defined set). These constant, ongoing and ridiculous arguments about who is or is not a great power have no place on Wikipedia, because we are a TERTIARY source. WE cannot say that Country X is a great power--we can only say that many historians/scholars/construction workers believe that Country X is a great power. TallNapoleon (talk) 15:31, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Napoleon I agree with you to a certain extent. But it is well known that the permanent members of the UN Security Council are referred to a Great Powers. Colliver55 (talk) 15:33, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Please read up on the discussion that has been going on for the past few months; it will answers your questions. First, there is already an article called Historical powers which discusses all of that. Secondly, we are doing exactly what you are stating by remaining neutral and using scholars and experts as sources. Nirvana888 (talk) 15:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The page has a list of Great Powers, and Economic Great Powers (an arbitrary category that smacks of OR). The appearance based on the page and the debates here is that we on Wikipedia are attempting to decide who is to be considered a great power. Again, the most we can possibly do is list countries that are considered to be great powers, and to note the controversies surrounding each claim. That's all we can really do. Long debates about whether this or that country is or is not a great power don't really belong here. TallNapoleon (talk) 06:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I would love to have a section in prose talking about potential future great powers I just think we should leave it at that and not get into the trap of listing future predictions as fact to what will occour and remind readers that predictions have been wrong before. -- Phoenix (talk) 23:23, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:No personal attacks

Chanakya I know that Colliver did insult you before Your just making a fool of yourself. Idiot. and recanted it by saying Yeh your right. I apologise for my outburst!; But that doesn't mean that you should do the same Colliver55, I find your comment very stupid; Guys please read up on WP:NPA and remember to be civil. -- Phoenix (talk) 23:23, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

What I meant was the comment not the person.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 03:30, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up, but mine was a general comment on how the conversations seam to be deterioration and seam to be only a hairs length away from an all out insult feast. Just remember Wikipedia is meant to be fun, where anybody around the world can access a free encyclopedia and they can edit those articles and join in with an online community. Personally I think we would like that community to be a nice and welcoming one. Lets try to get back to those essential values :-) -- Phoenix (talk) 03:49, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Potential Great Powers

Colliver, I hope you don't mind I separated your comment into a new category. -- Phoenix (talk) 09:22, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I think we should go ahead and make a compromise. India and Brazil should be included in a seperate category. Colliver55 (talk) 09:09, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I have already done something similar before.

Possible future great powers

Both India and Brazil are thought to be possible future great powers. But the record of such predictions has not been perfect; as in the 1980s when some commentators thought Japan would become a superpower, due to its large GDP and high economic growth at the time.

Any suggestions? -- Phoenix (talk) 09:22, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that is fine. I don't understand why someone has removed it. I know Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, but you have made it clear that such predictions are not perfect. I support its addition. If it is removed again, we can take it from there. Thanks. Colliver55 (talk) 10:00, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Buddy, this will not suit since India is already mentioned as a potential, emerging Super Power. There are people against the creation of potential section, stating that it is future, Wikipedia is not Crystal ball etc etc. So it's better to close the discussion on creating Potential section. But I feel Brazil can be added in that section, I don't have a problem with that. Brazil surely belong that category and they need to be there.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 11:23, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Phoenix, the term used is Emerging great power, then Why are you using Possible, Future etc. What's the problem with Emerging. Let me clarify, If India is to be added into the category of Emerging, the the whole Great powers except U.S will come down to this category. If India is to be included into the great power list, Brazil will be in the Emerging great power list. That's simple.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 11:26, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

"Let me clarify, If India is to be added into the category of Emerging, the the whole Great powers except U.S will come down to this category." Wow! That's a pretty big statement Chanakya. Only the U.S. is a great power if India is not listed?? Please be rational. What makes you feel you are justified in wanting to "to close the discussion on creating Potential section" because you disagree? That seem like a pretty pointed, unconstructive statement. I appeal to you to at least compromise. India is a "possible" or "potential" great power and an even less potential superpower in the future; no matter how much you try to spindoctor it. Now, when it becomes a great power it will be listed as one! I feel this is going back and forth and the only people who seem to support you view are Indian nationalists who want to play up India and conveniently neglect the myriad of factors that preclude it from being a great power. I think I've been pretty reasonable with you so far...but you just keep pushing it. Have a good day. Nirvana888 (talk) 14:35, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Chanakya, I don't know which India are you talking about. It definitely does not seem to be the country where I live. Make no pretensions, India is not a Great Power as of today. This article talks about Present Great Powers and does not include the past or future. In any case, we cannot predict the future. So, the sensible thing would be to accept the reality. Shovon (talk) 14:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Shovon. Finally we have someone new with common sense who's in touch with reality (and an Indian too!). Nirvana888 (talk) 14:50, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what else can be done. I believe the suggestion made by myself and others including Phoenix is completely reasonable. I don't dispute India is considered a potential future superpower, but that does not automatically grant it the status of a current Great Power. As permanent membership of the UN Security Council is considered one of the hallmarks of the current Great Powers, India cannot be given the title without much contention. Surely it is better to make a compromise and include India and Brazil in a special category rather than not mention them at all? Germany and Japan are given such recognition. I do whole-heartedly believe India is a special case, but it would be very controversial to say India has reached the status of Great Power. Colliver55 (talk) 17:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I think Phoenix's statement/category is reasonable - India and Brazil as possible great powers. I hope Chanakya agrees. An admin actually determined that it was best to remove India and Brazil from the list but I am willing to make a compromise in order to appease our Indian friends. Nirvana888 (talk) 17:12, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I just don't understand the hang up on synonyms... "Emerging great power" = "Potential great power" = "Possible great power". They mean the same. If you wish for both of them to be called Emerging great powers I have no issue with that. It would be the same if we were to list deities & spirits by Good, Neutral or Evil. We wouldn't put:

• Good: Jehovah, Brahman, etc.
• Neutral: Zeus, Odin, Shiva, White Lady, etc.
• Bad: Devil, Poltergeists
• Demonic: Baphomet
• Maleficent: beelzebub
• Evil:Mephistopheles

As you see each word is repeated over and over again. It would make a bad list. We must not do the same here. -- Phoenix (talk) 19:37, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Emerging, potential, passable while synonyms connote different meanings. One must be careful with the terminology and not bend the definitions even if done in good faith. "Potential" is consistently used in the Power in international relations wiki project (e.g. Potential superpowers). So in the interest of consistency, it is probably most appropriate. "Possible" and "future" are other candidates but are not widely used in other related pages. In any case, judging by Chanakya's previous statements, he will not be happy even if India is listed an an "emerging great power" as he personally believes, however improbable, it is a full-fledged great power on the brink of superpowerdom. Nirvana888 (talk) 20:02, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I am in favor of maintaining the status quo until more evidence is available for Brazil or India to be considered or adding Phoenix's statement of possible/potential great powers. Nirvana888 (talk) 20:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

India need to be included into the Great power list and Brazil must be included into the Emerging Great power list.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 06:16, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the status quo will have to remain then. Colliver55 (talk) 08:35, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree. -- Phoenix (talk) 08:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, you people did not provide the reason. Just because you guys dislike India you don't want India in the list. Very bad. Very bad. The sources are provided, the detailed explanation is given then what reason you have to say to maintain the status quo? Chanakyathegreat (talk) 07:14, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I hope I can draw an end to this lame discussion. The main issue here is that you do not have any reliable sources to back up your claims. Whatever sources that you find are always both unscholarly and not credible. Based on what has transpired, there is no reason to believe that we dislike India and hold any sort of distinct bias against it. If anything, we've been more than reasonable in considering India's influence in the global world. In fact, the contrary is markedly clear for yourself. Even if we don't consider your edits on this page, looking at your short-term and long-term edit history, you have demonstrated a clear agenda and have repeatedly tried to push Indian nationalistic POV in glorifying its status on many articles related to India, the Indian Navy, the Indian Armed Forces, the Indian Air Force, India and weapons of mass destruction, the Indian economy and numerous other India-related articles. Do you see the trend here? I'm sorry to say but your edits are not welcome here. Nirvana888 (talk) 12:26, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Absurd, those sources are reliable sources. You can have any illusion about what is reliable and unreliable. I am not under any illusion. What I feel about you guys objecting India's inclusion is either you people dislike India or you are ignorant about India. It may be either one. The ignorance factor may be because of the perception that you have after seeing and hearing about the poor India and Indians. Am I right. You accuse me of being a nationalist. I am not the kind of nationalist you think. I am a person who stand for truth not POV pushing, which you seem to do. Similarly your edits based on some ignorant belief system is not welcome to me.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 14:39, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I've been away for a while and I see that this has gotten out of hand. We removed the potential great powers section because of edit warring like this. This is wasting our time that can be better used to improve the article. I believe that it was a compromise to just leave them unlisted, since Brazil is definitely not a great power and India may be or may not be. I hope we can move beyond this and focus on more pressing issues, and Chanakya, please do something else besides push India as a great power. It will build your reputation, and you might get India listed later on. --Hobie (talk) 16:42, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree, your stubbornness has wasted a lot of time that could've been better spent improving the article. Let's please move away from this lame issue and discuss how we can get this article relisted as GA. I've already fixed the great/Great cap inconsistency. Some other minor changes (listed from the peer review request at the top of the page) are still needed and hopefully I or someone else can work on that. Nirvana888 (talk) 17:45, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

<sigh> -- Phoenix (talk) 02:09, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

My stubborness. Good, you guys waste my time and accuse me of being stubborn. I support constructive discussion. I hope you guys will be able to do that.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 08:03, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Got the guide lines

"Any state should have the capacity to affect others and to resist undesired influence from others, defines a major power. Major Power should have good relations with other states which results from the country's various forms of hard and soft power. These forms of power include military strength, social cohesion and mobilization, economic resources, technological capacity,..." - George Perkovich One of the Wiki articles state that a great power must have strong political, cultural and economic influence over other nations Enthusiast10 (talk) 14:26, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Quiet Please! Thank You. :-)

Chanakya, your rantings are not doing any one any favour. Accept the reality that, as of today India is not a Great Power.

Others, instead of throwing stones at each other, let all of us try and improve the article. Thanks. Shovon (talk) 16:50, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Amen to that, Shovon. --Hobie (talk) 20:01, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Any suggestions on how to improve the article? -- Phoenix (talk) 05:54, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Make sure all references are properly referenced and get it relisted as a Good Article. Nirvana888 (talk) 07:11, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I removed reference 16, it had nothing to do with the preceding sentence. We only have to format 29. I nominated the article for GA status on the 27th. There's a backlog so it may be a while until its evaluated. --Hobie (talk) 14:35, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Hobie. Nirvana888 (talk) 14:37, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. --Hobie (talk) 17:59, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Great power/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

I am currently reviewing "Great power" for "Good article" status. Axl (talk) 17:23, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The second sentence in the lead section: "Great powers characteristically possess economic, military, diplomatic, and cultural strength, which may cause other, smaller nations to consider the opinions of great powers before taking actions of their own." Cultural strength? What does this mean? Does this really influence smaller nations? Axl (talk) 17:34, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

From the "History" section: "The Congress of Vienna consisted of five main powers: the United Kingdom, Habsburg Austria, Prussia, France, and Russia." "Habsburg Austria" links to "Austrian Empire". Which is the correct title? Axl (talk) 17:40, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

From the "History" section: "Others, such as Russia and Austria-Hungary, slowly ossified." I know what "ossified" means, but it is unnecessarily colourful. Axl (talk) 17:43, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey Axl, I think I can help explain some of your own questions.

• Cultural strength would generally equate with soft power. Culture could be attractive to other states. For instance, Americans value democracy, freedom and human rights. These are all attractive to other people and states. States with similar cultures, such as Western countries are more inclined to work with each other.

  Is that really "strength"? It seems to me that cultural similarity allows better diplomatic relations, hence greater power. Axl (talk) 18:09, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

• I suppose that Habsburg Austria and Austrian Empire are interchangable.

  My concern was that the linked page ("Austrian Empire") does not describe "Habsburg Austria" as a synonym. If you have no objection, please change "Habsburg Austria" to "Austrian Empire", to be consistent with the linked article. Axl (talk) 18:11, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I see your point, we can remove, but wouldn't you consider the global spread of English a byproduct of the cultural strength of the British Empire and the U.S. --Hobie (talk) 18:21, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, good point. Axl (talk) 18:29, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

• Ossified can easily be replaced with declined in power or stagnated. --Hobie (talk) 17:58, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

  Thanks. Please change it. Axl (talk) 18:12, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

From "Characteristics": "Largely the question has been treated as 'an empirical one, and common sense can answer it'.[13]" This appears to be a quotation. However I have to look at the reference to find out whose quote it is. There doesn't seem to be anything particularly special about this quote. Perhaps change it to to paraphrase the author: "These characteristics have often been treated as empirical, obvious to the assessor."? Axl (talk) 18:20, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Done. --Hobie (talk) 18:31, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm shortly going off-line (overnight) but if you have some more time (Hobie), perhaps you could expand on the significance of nuclear power? It has barely a single sentence in the article. Axl (talk) 18:36, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

There are several quotations in the "Characteristics" section. These should use the same format, preferably the quote template that I added to the "History" section. Axl (talk) 07:33, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

The second half of the "Status dimension" section contains no in-line citations. Axl (talk) 07:36, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

The status of "Great power" correlates with the degree of technological advancement, most notably military technology. The development of steam power, industrialization and Industrial Revolution are particularly relevant to the early 19th century. In the 20th century with the World Wars, there has been a greater focus on new military technologies: fighter planes, submarines, tanks, rockets, etc.. The great powers show a greater investment into these technological developments, hence consolidating their position. This leads to arms race as other countries/states try to compete. In the modern era, nuclear technology and nuclear weapons have become one of the most prominent aspects of "Great power" status. Rival countries may attempt to outperform each other in this field to show superiority, e.g. India & Pakistan. These aspects need to added to the article, and in quite some depth. Axl (talk) 11:58, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to implement all those changes yourself. I'm going to busy for a little while. Some other regular editors should be able to help. --Hobie (talk) 15:49, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, let me get this straight, this is the to-do list?

• References that need to be fixed (e.g. current references 25, 28)
• ISBN numbers for sources
• Create quote consistency
• Add citations to second half of status dimension section

I already trimmed out the redundant wikilinks. Once again, feel free to fix some of this yourselves. I can't do it on my own. --Hobie (talk) 19:36, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I just made all the quotes consistent. --Hobie (talk) 20:11, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I fixed reference 25 --Hobie (talk) 18:52, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

What's wrong with reference 28 that we need to fix. --Hobie (talk) 18:17, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Reference 28 was bumped to reference 29 by the addition of the UNSC reference. It's missing a URL, probably the most important part of a web citation. Emw2012 (talk) 19:58, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Can't we just delete the faulty reference? It's in German and has two other references. --Hobie (talk) 20:23, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• There are still a few unaddressed concerns from the recent peer review, namely

• References that need to be fixed (e.g. current references 25, 28)
• ISBN numbers for sources
• Redundant wikilinks (see PR)

• The quote formatting needs to be made consistent. I would suggest the format used for Lord Castlereagh's quote in the 'History' section. And if quotation marks are used, they should be consistently either single quotation marks (') or double quotation marks (") throughout the article. Emw2012 (talk) 18:40, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

• Since membership on the UN Security Council is "a hallmark of contemporary great power status", shouldn't that be included in the 'Characteristics' section? I understand the section to be (although not entirely concrete) a set of criteria for great power status. Emw2012 (talk) 05:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

There needed to be an image at the top of the page, and since it is one of the most important qualifiers for great power status I think it belongs. I added a reference for the caption. --Hobie (talk) 12:55, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

And I agree that it belongs there; but some variation of that caption should also be included in the 'Characteristics' section. Emw2012 (talk) 14:45, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I added a sentence about the UNSC permanent membership in the Characteristics section. I will try to look up the ISBN numbers but they are not necessary for GA. Anything else? Nirvana888 (talk) 21:01, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't think so. I looked it up and ISBN numbers aren't even necessary for citations. We've done a lot, this should be enough to qualify for good article status. --Hobie (talk) 22:01, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Hobie, thank you for improving the article. However I still think that it should include a section on how countries/states attempt to outmaneuver each other in order to gain "Great power" status. Also, there should be a section on how the recognized Great powers have changed over time. Therefore I'm going to submit the article for a second opinion. If another reviewer considers the article ready for GA status, then so be it. Axl (talk) 14:40, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

We can try to add a section on arms races and the like. However, I'd like to point out that we already have an article depicting your second request, historical powers. --Hobie (talk) 15:04, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. "Historical powers" refers mostly to Empires that existed prior to the Congress of Vienna, although some of these persisted beyond 1815 (Prussia, British Empire, etc.). What about the power shifts in the later 19th & 20th centuries? Axl (talk) 15:25, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

They're already included in the article it describes and I quote,

"Ever since the term was first academically used in 1815, numerous powers have rotated between the status of great power, middle power and superpower. These are listed below. Major power shifts occurred in the aftermath of the First and Second World Wars. Austria-Hungary, the Russian Empire and the Ottoman Empire all collapsed after World War I; after World War II, the United States and the Soviet Union emerged as the only two superpowers.

After World War II, the European powers of the United Kingdom, France, and Germany managed to rebuild their economies, and China had built up to great power status during the post-war period, with large growths in economic and military power.

There are other sections of text that describe the history of great powers, such as the whole first section. --Hobie (talk) 16:23, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you're quite right. Sorry, I should have explained better. What I meant is: what are the causes of the changes in power? The World Wars clearly did so. The collapse of the Russian Empire and the Ottoman Empire are in the section "Current great powers". This discussion would be better in a separate section, perhaps entitled "Change of great powers", including a mention of which specific factors led to the change in power. Axl (talk) 17:23, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we should add a whole other section, at least not when the article is under a microscope. I added a sentence in the current great powers section exlaining that and I quote, " Austria-Hungary, the Russian Empire and the Ottoman Empire all collapsed after World War I. The Ottoman and Austria-Hungarian empires were divided into new, less powerful states; the Russian Empire fell to a communist revolt." that should suffice. --Hobie (talk) 15:18, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks Hobie. I have renamed that section "Change of great powers". We have achieved a fair compromise. The article qualifies as a "Good article". For future improvement, the article would benefit from a longer discussion about the factors that lead to change in great power status. Axl (talk) 17:07, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah! Thank you very much. When you were talking about creating a different section, I was a bit skeptical, but I think it's much better now. It flows more nicely and the paragraph above is better suited as a paragraph about change than a foreword for the current great powers. Once again, thank you! --Hobie (talk) 18:00, 19 August 2008 (UTC)