Talk:Great power/Archive 14

I think we have an old 'friend' back - the same POV edits are being made as were made that led to the page being protected before - I know all reverts/edits will be reverted by this vandal - and so this page needs protecting AGAIN. David (talk) 13:57, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

stop making personal attacks , just because you have a fictional "point" that doesnt mean your edit war version needs to be protected , you already broke several guidelines including WP:POV , WP:VER and Wikipedia:Verifiability . your accuasations are baseless and is not allowed on wikipedia ,does any of the sources explitcitly tell "the fact is that japan and germany are middle powers in all ways" because that is a synth . 95.199.138.200 (talk) 14:24, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I can't be bothered to argue with you. The facts speak for themselves. David (talk) 16:05, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Looks like I was vindicated. More sock puppetry, now dealt with (thanks), which always starts with annon-IP attacks. David (talk) 11:59, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Once again, a 'thank you' for locking this article: really this article and many others like it should be permanently locked, at least from "annon IP" editors. I'm getting sick of the attacks - see Talk:EU three. David (talk) 23:58, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

"A great power is a state that has is [my emphasis] recognized as having the ability to exert its influence on a global scale." We need to remove the "has" from the first sentence in this article.

Thanks!

Done. David (talk) 15:17, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

France has been defeated twice by Germany in the last 150 years, with German troops marching through Paris both times - so how did France maintain her Great Power status continuously, from 1815 to the present day? --IIIraute (talk) 22:36, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I see your point. I believe that although defeated on both occasions, France was still regarded as a great power by the other great powers (or at least a majority of them) even whilst defeated/occupied. (Don't forget that at the time of the very origin of great power status in 1814/5 France was a defeated power yet was regarded without question as one of the five original great powers. Arguably it has been defeated THREE times during its two centuries with the status!!) This is in contrast to Russia, which was disregarded completely by the other powers from around 1917 to the late 1930s. Of course, the only great power to both maintain its status as a great power and not be defeated is the United Kingdom. Perhaps you could suggest a rewording of that part of the article to reflect all this? David (talk) 23:49, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

1. On January 30th, 1871 the French Government had surrendered. The Prussian Army held a victory parade in Paris on February, 17th. The complete German victory marked the downfall of Napoleon III and the end of the Second French Empire. As part of the settlement, the territory of Alsace and part of Lorraine was taken by Prussia to become a part of Germany.
2. France was defeated and occupied in May, 1940, with one third of the country being set aside as "zone libre". By November, 8th. 1942, the Germans had occupied the rest of the country. France was completely liberated by December 1944. France was under German control for 4 1/2 years.

...so how did France maintain her Great Power status continuously, from 1815 to the present day? - while not a single Allied soldier had set a foot on German soil during WWI !! and the same country (that wasn't a Great Power anymore) managed to conquer most of Europe and North Africa only 20 years later, and it took the collaboration of half the world to stop the German advance. --IIIraute (talk) 01:59, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I think France should not be in this sentence.--IIIraute (talk) 03:28, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I know the history, and you ignored the main point of my previous comment! "France was still regarded as a great power by the other great powers (or at least a majority of them) even whilst defeated/occupied." We know France had been defeated and how they came to be defeated. There's no need to provide a summary of the facts. The crux of the matter is that France retained great power status despite being defeated. Now that may sound odd to you, but that's what happened, on both occasions. (The Foreign Office in London didn't suddenly go "oh France has been defeated... it's no longer a great power" as they recognised that France had been defeated by another great power and once the dust settled would become a functioning great power again.) Indeed, as I just pointed out, this was the case on no less than three occasions, for France was a defeated country at the time it was granted great power status! David (talk) 11:03, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

France was treated as a serious power after the Napoleonic Wars and was included in the artificial system of power established in Europe and dedicated to repressing revolutionary sentiment. In the aftermath of the 1848 Revolutions, France found herself again an empire (1852?) and the foreign policy of the European powers changed to regard France with healthy suspicion - during this period France also amassed the second largest colonial empire (after Britain) and maintained a high economy. They lost the Franco-Prussian War, but at the same time they recovered considerably and showed off their economic prowess by making the completely unnecessary Eiffel Tower because they could, while Germany suffered preliminary economic issues as a result of unification that somewhat muted their victory in 1871.

Germany was CRIPPLED after WW1. No soldier stepped on German soil - the fighting took place in France and Belgium - but if the Ruhr Crisis showed anything it was that Germany was an economic mess post-Versailles. It was not a Great Power. People went to buy bread with wheelbarrows of worthless money. This happened again in the early 1930's, with the onset of the Great Depression. France, meanwhile, was somewhat comfier and was included as a permanent member on the League of Nation's version of the Security Council, whilst also maintaining their colonial empire (like Britain). The Great Depression caught everyone by surprise. If the recent elections in Greece are evidence of anything, it's that radical parties benefit from crisis.

This is what happened in Germany that allowed Hitler to rise - his party was radical, and German politicians preferred a right-wing radical to mediate power than a left-wing radical. Hitler was able to oversee economic reforms that forced women out of the workplace and filled their positions with men - cutting 'unemployment' rates in the process. He also put focus on industry, particularly in resurrecting the restricted military (a result of the Treaty of Versailles that crippled Germany - their army was almost nonexistent - but as a result the army was filled with well-trained quality troops that allowed for rapid expansion because those men could easily fill out the higher ranks). By 1939, Germany had completely turned around and was an undisputed Great Power again BECAUSE the government had instigated 'reforms' that turned the Great Depression into a benefit for the country. France and Britain didn't want another war - hence the policy of appeasement. The military of both countries was more defensive and less offensive. Germany was armed to the teeth and had seen an incredible increase in the size of the military wings (wermacht, luftwaffe and kreigsmarine).

The reason France is included in that sentence is because, unlike countries such as Germany, Russia and even Japan, it was reasonably stable and didn't see its global power fluctuate like a yo-yo. The article states that World War 2 saw the great powers divided into Allied and Axis powers - the table down the bottom even provides a link backing up the view that Germany had, by 1939, regained its status as a great power. During the period after WW1, Germany stagnated until the Depression and rise of Fascism. Only then did it recover enough to then take over much of Europe and North Africa such that half the world had to band together to take down Hitler and his funny mustache. France's power was stable and the article even points out IN THAT SENTENCE there were only two, brief, periods where its status was diminished (after the Franco-Prussian War, which was brief and France recovered quickly, and during the Nazi Occupation, after which it was elevated to the status of one of the dominant powers in the war's aftermath by the US). Comics (talk) 08:21, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree with your stance on the matter in hand - France was regarded as an occupied great power. But one which, once liberated, became a functioning great power with immediate effect. The US, the UK and the USSR didn't have to recognise France or China as great powers in 1945/6 but they nonetheless did. And the P5 of the UN Security Council was settled. And that's what matters. David (talk) 11:03, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I am open to changing the sentence - reflecting that France had been defeated twice during the period and only maintained its continuous great power status by the will of the other great powers. But it should be clear that we are dealing with three different orders with regards to Russia, France and the UK in terms of continuous great power status. The UK has held it without fail. France has held it but has been defeated twice during the time and only has "continuous" status because the other powers allowed that. And Russia lost the status properly for around 2 decades. David (talk) 11:15, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

"France was a defeated country at the time it was granted great power status! ... was regarded as an occupied great power. ... maintained its continuous great power status by the will of the other great powers. ... because the other powers allowed that." ...well, I guess that says everything about the bias of this article. Of course, then we also don't need Germany, India or Japan in it! You don't get owt for nowt.--IIIraute (talk) 14:47, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

What? Seriously, what?! What's Germany, India or Japan got to do with this discussion? Where's the bias? What bias are you even suggesting? Honestly, I thought we were have a serious discussion about how to deal with France's inclusion in a particular sentence. Can any one else please explain to me what on earth IIIraute is on about? David (talk) 16:49, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that the granting of great power status over the last two centuries is "biased"? Because that's pretty much true. But that's the reality of human affairs. And this Wikipedia article reports the history of the status, NOT who ought to have had great power status at a certain point in history (and I think this is why you have problems with France's continuous status - it may not seem right to you BUT it was the case... it's historical fact). I await other editors opinions on this matter. But ultimately Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, and cannot include original research/thought about what ought to have been the case in the past! David (talk) 16:55, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I think some of the article's interpretations are heavily misguided. For example, the following sentences:

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

...

Over time, the relative power of these five nations fluctuated, which by the dawn of the 20th century had served to create an entirely different balance of power. Some, such as the United Kingdom and Prussia (as part of the newly formed German state), experienced continued economic growth and political power. Others, such as Russia and Austria-Hungary, stagnated."

The main question is not France, but Russia. Russia was the state which dominated the Sovietunion, its tanks were all over Europe for nearly half a century. Russia is a great power even now, has nuclear bombs, it is a member in the UN Security Council, etc. Why should we say that Russia hasn't maintained its power status to the present day?

Russia was weak only for some decades at the beginning of the 20th century. Even about that decades historians say (I don't have a source, I am just an educated surfer) that the young Sovietunion was far more powerful than it was recognized. It was a misconcepcion, they say, that Italy was considered as a great power, and the far more powerful Sovietunion wasn't.

I would propose to change the article like that: "Some of the five original great powers recognised at the Congress of Vienna haven't maintained that status to the present day." It is a diplomatic statement, and it is true: Austria and Prussia ceased to be a great power. It doesn't speak about continuity.

As for the United Kingdom and France, and Russia, I think the important is not that they are still great powers, but that neither of them is a superpower. So even if they maintained a high status, they couldn't maintain a status so high as theirs were in 1814. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.92.28.175 (talk) 01:18, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

The statement "Some of the five original great powers recognised at the Congress of Vienna haven't maintained that status to the present day." would be incredibly weak and devoid of substance. The article is quite clear that Russia is today a great power. In fact, the article is very clear on the matter of "who was a great power when" from 1814 to the present day. Russia/USSR was only not a great power c. 1917-mid 1930s. Russia therefore has not been a continuous great power: only the UK and France have managed to do that since 1814 (and with France - as has recently been discussed on this talk page - it's a bit contentious). I don't see the need for any change. As for the question of who is a superpower, it is also already expanded upon in the article - in fact it clearly states when the UK and Russia lost their superpower statuses and why. David (talk) 10:37, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I really like the idea of stating "Some of the great powers have retained some of their powers somewhat into the present day". Y'know, because it's really crystal clear what we're talking about. And I wrote a lovely paragraph about Russia that even drew on some of the literature used in the article that established that great powers are only great powers when recognised, giving them influence (which the Soviet Union was not, at least until the talks were underway to divide Poland into German and Russian zones of interest in the late 1930's). It's like how Iran, Brazil, India, South Korea, South Africa and Mexico could all easily be included in the great power club (though Brazil and India probably have the best claims by a wide margin), but without recognition they're comparatively politically isolated and less capable of influencing global decision because they don't have that same sway as the other great powers. Besides, Italy was on the League of Nations council and eventually found itself one of the leaders of the European Fascist movement (until Germany turned it into the fat and funny sidekick) throughout the 1930's, giving it some political influence. Comics (talk) 12:10, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Why is there no article devoted to the subject of what were "historically" called the "Great Powers"? Why is this article now cast under the guise of absolute bullshit and literally useless information on what a "great power" is by Wikipedia's standards (or really the activity of specific editors that have so designated this to be the case)? By doing so, you have taken history and remodeled what has actually occurred in the human past and cast it in a new mold. If you did not study human history than you should really not be a part of writing it. It is pretty simple (there are plenty of other topics that you can work on). This article could not be more absurd or historically misleading than it is... And it ought to be changed back to what it was originally as an earlier article in Wikipedia...Stevenmitchell (talk) 11:56, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

What? "Great power" is a post-1815 term which is covered, both historically and for the present-day, comprehensively by this article. What do you mean "historically"? Pre-1815? That's got an article too: Historical powers.

This article is heavily referenced and is not "bullshit". Care to explain what your concerns are? (And actually back it up with evidence, not the usual "oh but my country isn't on the list" crap we're used to around here...) David (talk) 19:33, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

"Japan and Germany are sometimes classified as middle powers. However, they are also referred to as great powers and grouped with the other great powers. Despite their lack of permanent seats and veto power on the UN Security Council, nuclear weapons, or strategic military reach, Japan and Germany do have great economic strength, being the third and fourth largest economies respectively."

The text states exactly what is in the sources - however, User Lachrie repeatedly changes the content to his own POV version -- why -- because you are British?

see also: National Power Index --77.181.226.218 (talk) 16:40, 14 October 2012 (UTC)--IIIraute (talk) 05:48, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

The military strength of a country is based on its military potential which is based on the economic power it has. Having the world's fourth largest economy (twice that of Russia) and by far the most powerful in Europe, and being the the world's third largest arms exporter, Germany could switch from cars to tanks and merchant ships to war ships and out-produce the UK and France in weeks. Germany is among the powers which possess the ability to create nuclear weapons within days, but has agreed not to do so. Germany is in possession of about 60 tactical B61 nuclear bombs for use by Germany under a NATO nuclear weapons sharing agreement. Germany is one of the most technologically advanced countries in the world and is the world market leader in producing components that can be used for creating deadly agents, chemical weapons, and other WMD (BASF, for example). The German chancellor, Angela Merkel, is seen as the 4th most powerful head of state and most powerful women in the world, leading the table six times in the last seven years.--IIIraute (talk) 17:41, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I just added a further source to the text: James Wirtz & Michel Fortmann, Balance of Power: Theory and Practice in the 21st Century, 2004, Stanford University Press.--IIIraute (talk) 18:06, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Merkel herself defines Germany as a "Middle Power". Your arguments trying to connect a national economy with military potential, especially in the nuclear age, are implausible and ill-informed and poorly supported. They aren't relevant as they appear to be your own ideas and based on original research. Your attempt (through sockpuppets and anon ips) to promote Germany and Japan unambiguously as Great Powers doesn't reflect the ambiguity of their actual diplomatic and military standing. It amounts to pov-pushing. The article already reflects a range of views and is more balanced as it is. Lachrie (talk) 01:22, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

You were the editor that changed a stable article a short while ago! I would also like to kindly ask you NOT to delte sources - especially such as: James Wirtz & Michel Fortmann, Balance of Power: Theory and Practice in the 21st Century, 2004, Stanford University. Please also explain what exactly it is, that is wrong about the text above. What Merkel says, does not matter. The facts are very clear. The military argument was only one aspect, as Germanys huge influence on the whole world can hardly be denied - far more influential than any other European nation. Also, please note: you should be very careful with your sockpuppetry accusations - as otherwise this might have consequences for you. Otherwise, why don't you open a SPI?? --IIIraute (talk) 01:45, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Merkel's opinion carries more weight than your own unsupported assertion, which is very weak. Your dismissive attitude of any evidence contrary to your pet thesis is in itself an indication of your unbalanced approach to the evidence, which is mixed. There's no problem with you adding sources if you can explain their relevance to the claim you're inserting, but you haven't done that. I'd invite you to that here, with a specific quotation and page number we can verify to test the validity and justify the change, before you insert it again. The article would be stable but for your repeated efforts to destabilize it.

I think it's obvious enough that you're a sockpuppet. You've been trying to introduce identical textual changes relating to Germany under a variety of guises for months, and when called on it by various editors, your tactic is to try to sow confusion by mirroring the accusations against you. But the article edit history is enough to disprove you. If you persist it's probably inevitable that we'll be opening an SPI.

As it happens, I think the wording about Germany could be improved, but it should be discussed here first, rather than edit-warred in the article. Since there's never been any consensus among other editors for your desired change, and it still seems objectionable now, we have sufficient cause to revert it. Lachrie (talk) 04:50, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Other than the last 24 hours, I have not been editing on this article for months - before that, only as IIIraute and not any other IP or username - your accusations are ridiculous and just serve to distract from my argument and show that there are several other users that object your POV changes. And since I do persist, please open a SPI - you are more than welcome - do it now, or what is it you are waiting for?? --IIIraute (talk) 05:32, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

SPI is a time-consuming process and shouldn't be necessary so long as there's no more disruptive editing. It's the article content not the tedious games and posturing that's important. I've just been restoring the article back to the long-standing consensus wording, not changing it. The article acknowledges a range of views and was therefore less POV before you changed it to try to exclude the prevailing view of Germany as a middle power, which better reflects the IR literature, e.g.: "It is considered as a middle power in Europe by Chancellor Angela Merkel, former President Johannes Rau and leading media of the country." I'll add some more references from the IR literature to that effect. Lachrie (talk) 06:03, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

1. A Great Power in Denial: Bringing Germany Back to Reality [5]
2. No more Hypocrisy: Germany is a Great Power [6]
3. World’s fifteen most powerful countries in 2012 [7]
4. The Anxious Great Power: Germany's long road to world politics [8]
5. Chancellor Schroeder signals shift, calls Germany a `great power' [9]
6. Europe's Superpower: Germany Is The New Indispensable (And Resented) Nation [10]
7. Germany looks confident of becoming EU's economic superpower [11]
8. The Coming European Superpower [12]
9. Germany – the new mini-superpower [13]
10. Germany: The reluctant superpower [14]
11. Germany's Rising Economic and Political Power [15]
12. Great Powers [16]

...and regarding your latest edit - Germany's "low diplomatic profile":

1. German Foreign Policy: Global Power [17]
2. EU Strengthens Germany’s Global Power [18]
3. German Foreign Policy: Global Power [19]
4. Obama's political fate could rest with Europe's economy [20]
5. Obama’s Fate May Depend on Europe [21]
6. The German people will decide Europe's fate [22]
7. Fate of euro zone lies with Germany [23]
8. Germany's Power 'Is Causing Fear' in Europe [24]
9. Germany Becoming Global Power [25]

...also: Japan and Germany are both G4 nations, and are regularly elected to two-year terms on the Security Council as non-permanent members. --IIIraute (talk) 18:18, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Most of these links are cherry-picked to sensationalist media with varying political agendas, not to serious IR literature. The article already acknowledges the range of views and Germany's ambiguous position, and so all this is already taken into account. Lachrie (talk) 01:25, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Please don't try to force through these recent changes you and your sockpuppets made on the basis that they form some kind of established "consensus". The discussions on the page have exposed them as unsupported and insupportable: they weaken the article and will have to be reverted. Lachrie (talk) 22:10, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

you added the "low diplomatic profile" part on October, 15th → [26] without consensus. Please check previous versions first! --IIIraute (talk) 22:15, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

It's directly supported by a reliable source from IR literature, so you have no reasonable excuse to remove it. See WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. Lachrie (talk) 22:20, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

yes, I do. apart from the 3RR rule you are breaking, there was agreement to not change the text any further without consensus. But you did change it on October, 15th. → [27] I did add IR literature that was removed by you for the very same reason. I really think we should integrate this IR literature; so why don't you try to be of any help? →→

1. A Great Power in Denial: Bringing Germany Back to Reality [28]
2. No more Hypocrisy: Germany is a Great Power [29] --IIIraute (talk) 22:26, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

In effect, what you're trying to claim for yourself is a personal veto over any changes, even perfectly legitimate changes with evidential support from reliable literature, which you've reverted again without valid excuse, in a clear abuse of procedure: instead of offering a reason, you bring up edits of yours that were previously reverted. These are a separate matter and not comparable: for the record, they were edits pushing an exclusive point of view that was contradicted by the evidence already cited in the article, and were therefore reverted with reasonable cause. Lachrie (talk) 22:34, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

your latest edit also pushes an exclusive point of view - I have given you IR literature that claims different - but you choose to ignore it.... and instead of taking this IR literature into account you bully other editors and accuse them of sockpuppetry. --IIIraute (talk) 22:41, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

That's also clearly false: the edit doesn't push an exclusive point of view: it helps to balance alternative opinions also presented and retained in the article. The emphasis in the article should be that Germany's standing is ambiguous (not that it is one thing or the other), and its low diplomatic profile obviously should be mentioned as being one reason why this is so. Your sources weren't of comparable quality or value: they were examples of vague usage from sensationalist journalism, not academic assessments from serious IR literature. I do believe you are using sockpuppets to try to manipulate the page;

...yes brainiac, I am using sockpuppets and IP's from all over the world to try to manipulate the page... so why don't you open a SPI instead of accusing me? Otherwise, why don't you just f**k yourself! --IIIraute (talk) 23:16, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

however, that's been an issue with you and this article for months, if not years, and at this stage it may be more constructive and less time-consuming simply to point out the errors in your reasoning for the benefit of other users. Lachrie (talk) 22:50, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

"...and its low diplomatic profile obviously should be mentioned as being one reason why this is so." is your very own analysis and conclusion. That's why it should be brought to the talk page first. Could you please explain why the following two papers are not to be regarded as "serious IR literature"?

1. A Great Power in Denial: Bringing Germany Back to Reality [30]
2. No more Hypocrisy: Germany is a Great Power [31]

But at the end it doesn't seem to matter because it looks like you own this article. Your defamatory statements and patronising personal attacks and bullying of other editors succeeds - I really don't give a f**k! --IIIraute (talk) 23:04, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

These sources are examples of advocacy journalism taking an openly dissenting view, and therefore are not grounds for deleting from the article more conventional established interpretations based on authoritative sources. The pattern of editing clearly suggests manipulation; users have a responsibility to point this out; nonetheless the priority here is and should be the article content. Enough time is already wasted on the talk page repeatedly pointing out the obvious deficiencies in recent edits, the content of which is more important than establishing the identity of whoever happens to be behind such clumsy and poorly-supported POV-pushing. Lachrie (talk) 23:49, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Since when is Germany seen "as having a low profile" in diplomatic terms? Germany has become the most influential European state during the last decade and especially through its influence in the Eurozone and the EU. Welcome to Berlin, Europe’s new capital, Germany and Merkel hold Europe's fate in their hands

And why are Japan and Germany are mingled anyway ? Whereas Japan is certainly an island with few hard power or influence in the region, Germany occupies a very strong position in Europe. When China, Russia or the US wants a partner a Europe, these countries contact Germany first, because of the influencial German voice in the Eurpean Union. The article is very outdated in terms of the current status of Germany. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.231.204.223 (talk) 12:31, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Germany may be strong within Europe (or rather, the EU, even just the Eurozone) but it's not as strong as Britain or France on the wider global stage, either in diplomatic or military terms. As for your assertion that "When China, Russia or the US wants a partner a Europe, these countries contact Germany first" - erm, what? Really? Do you really believe that? Look, in truth, Germany, France and the UK are all more-or-less equal powers, each a little stronger than the other in particular areas (economic, military, diplomacy, cultural, etc). But ultimately the test of status of great power is a global one and Germany does lag behind (though not greatly) both Britain and France. Within the "European institutions" it is the strongest of the three, but on the global stage it's alongside Britain and France (and of course Russia, which is after all a European country too!) as great powers, but the UK, France and Russia have had longer/more opportunity to make an impact. (Germany will slowly achieve this globally, but it does take time.) I agree that Germany and Japan shouldn't be always seen together in this debate as they are quite different countries, though their exclusion from the UN Security Council (permanent 5) has the same root: the Second World War. (Which really shouldn't affect their credentials for being a great power/Security Council permanent member today, but that is ultimately why they were left out in the first place, and as there's been very slow - if any - progress on Security Council reform, that's how things remain.) David (talk) 20:41, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Germany is a military featherweight that exercises soft power diplomacy and appears only to be able manifest itself economically through the EU dynamic. On a global scale (with the exception of the G9 and G20) the Germans are largely irrelevant... who remembers Libya? A conflict with direct European interests and intervention yet the Germans were nowhere to be seen or heard. France and Britain are Europes only traditional Great Powers. Wrong neither Russia, China or the US contact Germany first when seeking a "partner a Europe". By "partner a Europe" I assume you mean negotiating trade with the European Union? China maintains trade relations with the European Union as well as individual European states.Obscure Reality ^{Ping me} 18:07, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

ObscureReality, you have obviously no idea what's going on in the world - but why should you. I don't blame you for it.

...by the way- did you know that the Germans do own half of your country -- not only do they own Rolls-Royce Motors, Rolls-Royce Motor Cars, parts of Rolls-Royce plc, Bentley, MINI, The BOC Group, Boots UK and Exel, etc. - but the UK also owes €380 billion to the Germans →[32] --IIIraute (talk) 19:00, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

US Foreign Policy Magazine/ 2011: Deutschland, unter alles… Quote:" But what is clear is that after the United States and China, with Japan sidelined with its own multiple crises, Germany has become the world's third most important power and, in terms of many of the day's most pressing question, it may even play a role more central than that exalted position implies. "

European Council on Foreign Relations/ 2012: CHINA AND GERMANY: WHY THE EMERGING SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP MATTERS FOR EUROPE Quote: "Europe’s future relationship with China – one of its most important “strategic partners” – will be determined to a large extent by Germany’s rapidly evolving bilateral relationship with China."

New York Times/ 2012 Berlin Starts to Test Its Ties With Russia Quote: "Germany is Russia’s most important trading partner and a loyal ally in the European Union."

Please rewrite the part on Germany as this appears to be highly outdated. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.179.79.211 (talk) 19:50, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

The German chancellor, Angela Merkel, is seen as the 4th most powerful head of state and most powerful women in the world, leading the table six times in the last seven years. → → National Power Index

Germany has the world's fourth largest economy and is the third largest exporter and third largest importer of goods as well as the world's third largest arms exporter, a G8 member and has a network of 229 diplomatic missions abroad and maintains relations with more than 190 countries. Germany has the largest and most powerful national economy in Europe and is the largest contributor to the budget of the European Union (providing 20%) and the third largest contributor to the United Nations (providing 9%). 1/10 of the world's 500 largest stock-market-listed companies companies are headquartered in Germany.

...but of course, on a global scale, the "Germans are largely irrelevant..." indeed! --IIIraute (talk) 20:17, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Germany is not the third- but the second largest exporter, and Angela Merkel, is seen as the 2nd most powerful person and most powerful women in the world, leading the table six times in the last seven years.--77.181.219.83 (talk) 22:41, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I've just reverted recent edits (by a single editor) to Template:List of Great powers by date - can editors who are keeping an eye out on the Great power article also keep an eye out on this template too? David (talk) 21:42, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

And once again some Indian nationalist is editing the template to include India. Please can we deal with this? David (talk) 08:47, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

An anon. IP editor has suggested changes - please can others join in the discussion?

Template talk:List of Great powers by date

This is quite important, so input is strongly invited. David (talk) 07:48, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

An anon IP 24.106.230.219 has been arbitrarily removing Germany and Japan from this article and from the template List of Great powers by date‎ claiming some consensus was reached some years ago! I am starting this section to see if any one supports(or opposes) this actions. Strike Σagle 07:00, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, a consensus was reached to NOT INCLUDE regarding Japan and Germany. See discussions for Great Power article for this. In any event, I'm not denying that both countries are economic great powers, but since their military dimension is lacking (i.e. no nuclear weapons), they are not considered 'Great Powers' in the capitalized sense. This is standard PolySci text book stuff, really. Moreover, both Japan and Germany were the defeated powers of WWII, after which a new international power configuration was reached amongst the VICTORS (i.e. permanent UN security council seats, WITH nuclear weapons). Sure, both Japan and Germany have since risen from the ashes and grown to be great economic powers, but the status quo should not be tossed out so willy nilly. Moreover, both counties are still under the security/nuclear umbrella of the United States, this coupled with their burdens of the past, mean that their ability to "exert influence on a global scale", which is the CONSENSUS definition of 'GREAT POWERS' as stated at the top of the 'Great Powers' article, remains severely limited. So seriously now, this horse has been beaten a gazillion times, and it is truly and well dead. Just let it go. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.106.230.219 (talk) 07:19, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry but your points only seem to be complete Original Research.......if consensus was reached to remove it as you say, then why do they still stay in the article? Please clarify..also please provide some academic sources proving Germany and Japan are not great power. Thanks, Strike Σagle 07:24, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

No, I said the consensus was reached on not to ADD. And what original research? Please read the section under 'Aftermath of the Cold War', with all of tis attendant sources and then reread my above comment. As to why did those get left up there? I don't know. Maybe someone added them, and the rest of us didn't notice? Having been left there hardly seems a good reason for them to be left there, as they were, is it? I mean logically, your argument doesn't make sense, does it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.106.230.219 (talk) 07:33, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Please point to the archives(I'm lazy) where there was a clear consensus to remove them. Strike Σagle 08:50, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Germany and Japan stay. They are Great powers and their addition to this article is well sourced with academic citations.Antiochus the Great (talk) 09:20, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Of course they stay.--77.181.219.83 (talk) 14:49, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Germany and Japan are great powers - different than the other five (in that they are not P5 nor have nuclear weapons) but are great powers nonetheless. David (talk) 20:47, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Great power/GA3. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Retrolord (talk · contribs) 11:06, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I will review. ★★KING RETROLORD★★ 11:06, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

1. "Great powers characteristically possess military and economic strength and diplomatic and soft power influence which may cause small powers to consider the opinions of great powers before taking actions of their own" Run on sentence, doesn't flow very well, please rewrite? ★★King•Retrolord★★ 13:22, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
2. "However, this approach has the disadvantage of subjectivity. As a result, there have been attempts to derive some common criteria and to treat these as essential elements of great power status." Ref? ★★King•Retrolord★★ 13:22, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
3. "As noted above, for many, power capabilities were the sole criterion. However, even under the more expansive tests, power retains a vital place." Remove this sentance please. ★★King•Retrolord★★ 13:22, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
4. "written in 1833" rm, ★★King•Retrolord★★ 13:22, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
5. "Other important criteria throughout history are that great powers should have enough influence to be included in discussions of political and diplomatic questions of the day, and have influence on the final outcome and resolution. Historically, when major political questions were addressed, several great powers met to discuss them. Before the era of groups like the United Nations, participants of such meetings were not officially named, but were decided based on their great power status. These were conferences which settled important questions based on major historical events. This might mean deciding the political resolution of various geographical and nationalist claims following a major conflict, or other contexts.

There are several historical conferences and treaties which display this pattern, such as the Congress of Vienna, the Congress of Berlin, the discussions of the Treaty of Versailles which redrew the map of Europe, and the Treaty of Westphalia." Ref please ★★King•Retrolord★★ 13:22, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

1. "Other powers, such as Spain, Portugal, and Sweden were consulted on certain specific issues, but they were not full participants. Hanover, Bavaria, and Württemberg were also consulted on issues relating to Germany." Ref please ★★King•Retrolord★★ 13:22, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
2. "only France and the United Kingdom have maintained that status continuously to the present day" Ref please? ★★King•Retrolord★★ 13:22, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
3. "The victorious great powers also gained an acknowledgement of their status through permanent seats at the League of Nations Council, where they acted as a type of executive body directing the Assembly of the League. However, the Council began with only four permanent members—Great Britain, France, Italy, and Japan—because the United States, meant to be the fifth permanent member, left because the US Senate voted on 19 March 1920 against the ratification of the Treaty of Versailles, thus preventing American participation in the League." Ref please ★★King•Retrolord★★ 13:22, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
4. "The end of World War II saw the United States, United Kingdom, and Soviet Union emerge as the primary victors. The importance of the Republic of China and France was acknowledged by their inclusion, along with the other three, in the group of countries allotted permanent seats in the United Nations Security Council." Ref ★★King•Retrolord★★ 13:22, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
5. "and according to him, there were three superpowers: the British Empire, the United States, and the Soviet Union. But by the mid-1950s the British Empire lost its superpower status, leaving the United States and the Soviet Union as the world's superpowers.[nb 2] The term middle power has emerged for those nations which exercise a degree of global influence, but are insufficient to be decisive on international affairs. Regional powers are those whose influence is generally confined to their region of the world." Ref ★★King•Retrolord★★ 13:22, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
6. "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. After 1949, 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." Ref ★★King•Retrolord★★ 13:22, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
7. "These five nations are the only states to have permanent seats with veto power on the UN Security Council. They are also the recognized "Nuclear Weapons States" under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and have the five largest military expenditures in the world." Ref ★★King•Retrolord★★ 13:22, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
8. "After the dissolution of the Soviet Union, its UN Security Council permanent seat was transferred to the Russian Federation in 1991, as its successor state. The newly formed Russian Federation emerged on the level of a great power, leaving the United States as the only remaining global superpower[nb 3] (although some support a multipolar world view)." Ref ★★King•Retrolord★★ 13:22, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
9. "Permanent membership of the UN Security Council is widely regarded as being a central tenet of great power status in the modern world; Brazil, Germany, India and Japan form the G4 nations which support one another (and have varying degrees of support from the existing permanent members) in becoming permanent members. There are however few signs that reform of the Security Council will happen in the near future." Ref ★★King•Retrolord★★ 13:22, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Retrolord has been indefinitely blocked, so this article will need a new reviewer. I'm closing this review so that this nomination will return to its spot in the queue. Though this will show up in the article history as a "fail", the close is purely on procedural grounds and not a judgement on the state of the article. Thanks for your work on it! Sorry for this delay in your review, but at least RL's comments above will give you points to consider in the meantime. -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:19, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

EU can be considered a true great power (and a Superpower too) as well its members France and UK. Germany any and Japans lacks in military. Canada and Italy with a similar size economy of UK and France could claim to be a great power. They've Nato sharing program like Germany. The idea of great power is now dated. The real greatest powers in the world are today USA,EU and may be Popular Republic of China. The UN veto power is today meaningless.(see many wars or whatelse).151.40.7.192 (talk) 08:52, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Yadda yadda yadda. Got academic sources? No? Then it's no more than your personal ideas. 86.154.21.122 (talk) 10:36, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Write english.Really an original research this article.151.40.120.248 (talk) 11:42, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

WP:FORUM
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Check Canada and Italy articles (and all articles to them related) in Wikipedia and check all datas.Articles can't be written in contrast each other.They can claim to be great powers if Germany and Japan can do it.Otherwise there's something wrong in other Wikipedia articles.You have romenian IP and you already described my writings as personal opinions in Superpower (with an awful description of meaning of supwerpower) talk ( those opinions were from "University of Florence" -hahahaha- that has the greatest today historician in the world).You are reporting to attack me the same words here too,but this time i cited all articles to read.151.40.18.30 (talk) 12:25, 23 September 2013 (UTC) Cue Michael Palin in Monty Python... "what a strange person". Are you seriously suggesting that Canada is a great power? Oh dear. Your university of Florence either isn't very good or you're its worst student. 81.158.18.28 (talk) 13:26, 29 September 2013 (UTC) Oh dear lord. As can be seen in the table, appropriated from another Wikipedia page, Japan and Germany nominally outstrip every other Great Power (except the United States and China) economically. Japan has almost twice the GDP of France and Germany twice that of Canada. Economically they are incredibly influential (reflected by their seats at the G8) and they are crucial contributors to the UN's budget.[1] That the UN Security Council is obsolete is the reason why Germany and Japan, in addition to India and Brazil, have pushed for reforms of the veto system and an enlargement of permanent members of the Council in the form of the G4. The Coffee Club meanwhile has its own grievances against the agenda of these countries and last I heard both movements had mostly fizzled into something that comes up from time to time. As can be seen in the table I've provided, Italy and Canada do have large economies comparable to many major nations. What I hope you can see, however, is that the CIA world factbook does not recognise that these economies are sized similarly to the UK or France - the UK's nominal GDP is so much larger than Canada's that you can fit the entire nominal GDP of Iran in the space between them. Italy's position is perhaps more comparable to that of Russia, but look at the recent histories of these two countries economically. Over the period from 2000-2009, Italy's GDP doubled - peaking in 2008 with an economy comparable to that of Brazil in the table. On the list of countries by current GDP Italy, on three of the four lists, has a smaller nominal GDP than that listed for 2009. The only list in which it is larger is on the UN's list, dated at 2011 (two years ago), which sees it marginally larger than in 2009. Using this data I would infer that the GFC has hit Italy pretty badly and slowed down its economy in comparison to what looks like a boom period from 2000-2008. By contrast Russia's economy grew by 5 times over the period from 2000-2009 (peaking, again, in 2008 and shrinking back in 2009) but by 2009 it's nominal GDP was still only comparable to that of Italy in 2002. That means that its nominal GDP has almost doubled in the space of four years; a stark contrast to an Italy that's still stuck in the same spot. By means of comparison France's GDP is still stuck at around 2009 levels, but the 2011 UN figures suggest that its nominal GDP spiked up again in 2011. This suggests that, in the post-GFC climate, France's economy is still stuck but is more stable and capable of performing in contrast to Italy which, according to the figures at hand, doesn't have the same GDP spike in its favour. Looking at the data, sourced from our other articles, it would appear that to suggest Italy and Canada are on a similar level to the UK and France would be a contradiction with these statistics. Canada seems more economically healthy than Italy, however - its economic growth seems to reflect Australia's in some regards, but that means little - Australia is big, but small; by that same token, and looking at how Canada is trailing that list of economies, it would seem Canada is that happy little engine chugging along stably. TL;DR. Italy's stuck, Canada's chugging along well, Russia's economy is terrifying and Italy/Canada aren't comparable to the Great Powers in the article. Comics (talk) 00:04, 30 September 2013 (UTC) {{| style="font-size:95%;"
List by the CIA World Factbook (2003–2012)[2]
Rank Country/Region GDP (Millions of $US) 1   United States 15,680,000 2012 est. 2   China 8,227,000 2012 est. 3   Japan 5,964,000 2012 est. 4   Germany 3,401,000 2012 est. 5   France 2,609,000 2012 est. 6   United Kingdom 2,441,000 2012 est. 7   Brazil 2,396,000 2012 est. 8   Russia 2,053,000 2012 est. 9   Italy 2,014,000 2012 est. 10   India 1,825,000 2012 est. 11   Canada 1,819,000 2012 est. ^ "Germany's financial contributions to the United Nations". ^ "GDP (Official Exchange Rate)". CIA World Factbook. Retrieved June 2, 2012. 86..... please avoid offensive actions.Respect Wikipedia rules and EU law. The power of a state isn't based on GDP but mainly on national net wealth.China is different from other BRIC because has a considerable net wealth(more other things like demopgraphy). GDP is the "wage" in a year of a state .Net wealth is all the net wealth owned in a state.It takes decades or more to build it.And BRIC except China are totally out of this scale.In the G7 in fact are the true economical powers.The story of GDP isn't correct at all.Italy has NATO sharing and was a Great Power.Military of Italy is totally comparable to the german one or it's even better. Or Germany and Japan aren't Great Powers or Italy is a Great Power. Comparing it to France or UK there are 0 differences.This article isn't at all clear.I realize that is difficult do explain Canada and above all Italy position.In the article "Middle powers" they are conisdered like others states that are ridiculous.It's propaganda. The old concept of Great Power was linked to the permanent 5 seats of the UN.If it has changed in the sense you described Italy is a Great Power.Economical size of Italy is very similar to France and UK at every level and its military level it's even better than the german one.See above all the fleet.This article makes you understand the economical weight in the world List of countries by national wealth .Please read the references of this article,ALL.If you read the sources Italy is the 7th world richest state and 6th as developed state (China is developing)G7 .Russia is totally out,it's just a developing country with not considerable national net wealth.Italy has a net wealth 7.5 times larger than Russia....and is just behind UK and France in the scale.Net national wealth is much more important than a GDP in economy.GDP is like a "vogue" last times even if it's a main thing after net national wealth.If Japan and Germany enter as Great Powers by those criteria ,some other states must be added or other that were in must be considered out,this is sure.It seems that in Wikipedia economy is based only on GDP and it's typical of the last years to with the story of BRIC (that seems slowing a lot),but the true economical power is in the states with the higher national net wealth.I just read that many people wanted (with right ideas) to remove Brazil and Russia from "Potential superpowers" article and even India is in a shadow position.In many above all US media,financial intitutions and people minding Italy is the pizza and spaghetti country (that were invented in reality in China).They want to copy the german minding.In reality Germany and Japan are there to justify Russia, UK and France as Great Powers.Or the Great Powers are th 5 states that wan WWII and have the veto power and a permanent seat or this article is wrong.The concept of Great Power is anyway dated in this sense and is part of an old world.Checking all datas or you leave the 5 Great Powers as the countries that wan WWII and are steadily rapresented in UN or you must consider all aspects to decide what is a Great Power today.In this case Italy and even India too should be in the list.UN weight is today trascurable (see wars and other situations).Many people (from all over the world) that read this article doubted a lot of Wikipedia criteria to fix the status of Great Power.A lot.Original research they said. 151.40.84.105 (talk) 08:03, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Please don't begin another of these nonsense discussions. Statistics regarding GDP or number of tanks or any other such random information is completely irrelevant here on Wikipedia. We function as per secondary reliable sources, which means that we list countries as great powers in accordance to what the secondary reliable sources lists as great powers. Personal interpretations of individual editors based on statistics cannot be used, so there is no need to carry this discussion any further as per Talk pages are not discussion forums --Saddhiyama (talk) 11:34, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Analysts have recently stated Australia is no longer a middle power, and is in fact now a great power and a regional superpower in the southern hemisphere. Discuss here, if no one answers I assume people will be in agreeance.--Collingwood26 (talk) 04:31, 10 October 2013 (UTC) http://www.smh.com.au/comment/dump-middlepower-tag--australia-carries-bigger-stick-than-that-20131009-2v8hr.html

You will need more than a single opinion piece from a newspaper to back up such a claim. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:01, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

If no one responds to this thread you absolutely cannot assume people agree with your assertion.Antiochus the Great (talk) 11:32, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

There's only one source saying if Australia can be regarded as Great power, although i really doubt, since there military is very low, and they got no WMD either. OccultZone (talk) 18:05, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

South Korea is listed as a Great Power in the circa 2012 grouping. This seems a vast overestimation of their influence, and only one source is cited ("The Rise of Russia in Asia", I believe). Vandalism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BriFerUl (talk • contribs) 01:54, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Done. --IIIraute (talk) 02:36, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

It's obviously been commented here by the person who added it: Template_talk:List_of_Great_powers_by_date#South_Korea_in_2012. – Ove Raul (talk) 00:11, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Great power/GA4. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 21:46, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

I'll be glad to take this review--sorry you've had to wait so long for one. Comments to follow in the next 1-5 days. Thanks in advance for your work, Khazar2 (talk) 21:46, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

This article does a good job of defining the limits of a nebulous term while also exploring the limits of those definitions. I'm concerned by the quality of the sourcing at points, however, as well as some sections that appear to provide analysis while lacking citations. Specifics are below, but as a general note, I'd suggest this article would benefit from moving away from quick Google searches and into more in-depth reading; many of the sources appear to be snatches of text from faculty websites or minor newspapers (e.g., the Washington Times) opining that this or that country has this or that status. In contrast, Paul Kennedy appears to have written a whole book on this subject that could presumably provide more glue to hold these disparate opinions together, and is clearly a more authoritative source. The Encarta article and Danilovic book chapters are good steps in this direction; I'd suggest the article find more sources that address the subject as a whole.

It seems to me that this article will need some substantial rewriting for neutrality (for example, to put Brzezinski in context to avoid his voice dominating the article) and better sourcing/research, particularly in the section discussing approaches/criticisms of the great power concept. I'm therefore not listing it as a GA at this time. I realize you've had an unfairly long wait for this review, however, and I'll be glad to put in a word at WT:GAN when you renominate to make sure someone picks it up more quickly. Good luck, and thanks again for your interest in this one, Khazar2 (talk) 17:16, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Specific suggestions are below:

• ""India: Emerging Power", by Stephen P. Cohen, p. 60" -- is this a book? If so, it should be italicized, not in quotation marks, and ideally the publisher should be given.
• " and have the five largest military expenditures in the world." -- is this correct? The linked wiki article says that as of 2013, Japan is the 5th biggest spender (over France).
• "All states have a geographic scope of interests, actions, or projected power. This is a crucial factor in distinguishing a great power from a regional power; by definition the scope of a regional power is restricted to its region. It has been suggested that a great power should be possessed of actual influence throughout the scope of the prevailing international system." -- can this be cited to a more recent source than Toynbee (90 years out of date)?
• "These positions have been the subject of criticism" -- the nature and source of this criticism should be explained.
• "Acclaimed political scientist, geo-strategist, and former United States National Security Advisor, Zbigniew Brzezinski" -- this big buildup seems like clear peacocking, especially the "acclaimed".
• "according to P. Shearman, M. Sussex, European Security After 9/11, Ashgate, 2004, both UK and France were global powers now reduced to middle-power status." -- needs page number
• Should "Peng Er Lam" be written as Er LP?
• Quotations shouldn't be in italics per MOS:QUOTE (though this isn't a factor for GA)
• "The Great powers of 1914" -- this seems like irregular capitalization
• " The newly formed Russian Federation emerged on the level of a great power, leaving the United States as the only remaining global superpower[nb 3] (although some support a multipolar world view)." -- this appears to need citation.
• It seems to give Brzezinski's views extremely undue weight to give him an entire subsection of his own. Is he considered the sole major figure on this subject? Does no one dispute or respond to his claims?
• "List of great powers by date" -- this table is interesting, but appears too precise after the article has said that no definitive list is possible. Could some sort of disclaimed be added, at least explaining the methodology of how it was assembled?
• "appraised the current standing of" -- should be reworded per WP:REALTIME
• " from superpower cited by Klug, Adam; Smith, Gregor W. (1999). "Suez and Sterling, 1956". Explorations in Economic History 36 (3): 181–203. doi:10.1006/exeh.1999.0720." -- I don't understand this citation. Is "superpower" the title of another work this second work quotes? Also, the page number will be needed for this second work.
• " However, this approach has the disadvantage of subjectivity." -- this opinion/analysis should be sourced
• " Iggers and von Moltke "In the Theory and Practice of History", Bobbs-Merril (1973)" -- I'm having trouble parsing this one, too. Is "In the Theory..." the title of a work? Looking at other citations, it looks like Iggers and von Moltke may have had an essay in a book called "The Theory and Practice of History", but that's not what this citation says.
• "Peace, War, and the European Powers, 1814–1914. Books.google.com. Retrieved 2011-06-12." -- ideally, a page number should be provided for where this quotation appears.
• It's confusing that Bismarck's quotation is sourced to four different places--why not just one?
• Reference 20, a downloadable word document from a faculty page [36], seems unlikely to be a reliable source--has this been published? If so, please give the published copy's information instead.
• The term middle power has emerged for those nations which exercise a degree of global influence, but are insufficient to be decisive on international affairs. Regional powers are those whose influence is generally confined to their region of the world. -- needs citation
• This text appears to be original research, pending inline citations: "As a nation will seldom declare that it is acting as such, this usually entails a retrospective examination of state conduct. As a result this is of limited use in establishing the nature of contemporary powers, at least not without the exercise of subjective observation.

Other important criteria throughout history are that great powers should have enough influence to be included in discussions of political and diplomatic questions of the day, and have influence on the final outcome and resolution. Historically, when major political questions were addressed, several great powers met to discuss them. Before the era of groups like the United Nations, participants of such meetings were not officially named, but were decided based on their great power status. These were conferences which settled important questions based on major historical events. This might mean deciding the political resolution of various geographical and nationalist claims following a major conflict, or other contexts. There are several historical conferences and treaties which display this pattern, such as the Congress of Vienna, the Congress of Berlin, the discussions of the Treaty of Versailles which redrew the map of Europe, and the Treaty of Westphalia."

• Project Syndicate seems unlikely to be a reliable source, as does a world crunch op-ed. http://post.queensu.ca/~nossalk/papers/hyperpower.htm seems to be another paper downloaded from a faculty site rather than published. http://www.courses.rochester.edu/stone/PSC272/lectures/05-Pro%20Waltz.ppt is a deadlink to a professor's powerpoint. http://www.gresham.ac.uk/printtranscript.asp?EventId=302 appears to be a dead link to a lecture transcript, which while perhaps permissible as a WP:SPS, still doesn't quite meet standard RS guidelines (which require editorial oversight).
• I'm not sure about "UW Press: Korea's Future and the Great Powers" used as a source to support claims that a nation is a Great Power, when the book's specific language is "the struggle over a new regional order among the four great powers of the Pacific—Russia, China, Japan, and the United States." It's not clear to me if the source is saying these are Great Powers that are situation in the Pacific, or these are "Great Powers of the Pacific" (i.e., the biggest regional powers). And I'm also just not sure it's a good idea to cite a publisher's web summary as a RS instead of the book itself.

I think old discussions at Template talk:List of Great powers by date ought to be archived and that it should be done by bot. Please state your view there. Harold O'Brian (talk) 07:00, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

There are always some people who think that this or that country is or is not a great power. Here, Greg Satell states that "Russia is no longer a great power": http://www.forbes.com/sites/gregsatell/2014/03/01/5-things-you-should-know-about-putins-incursion-into-crimea/ - Cecil Huber (talk) 21:33, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Which considering current events is clearly nonsense. Russia is certainly a great power. Even in its weaker 1990s period it was one. Argovian (talk) 22:48, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Italy has 2 aircraft carriers, 3 LHDs, aerial refueling tanker aircraft, etc. Italy is a part of both the F-35 JSF consortium and the Eurofighter consortium.

Italian Navy

•  
  Italian aircraft carrier Cavour (550)
•  
  Italian aircraft carrier Giuseppe Garibaldi (551)
•  
  San Giorgio class LHD/LPD (3 in service)
•  
  Orizzonte class destroyer

Italian Air Force

•  
  Boeing KC-767 tanker aircraft (4 in service)
•  
  F-35A and F-35B
•  
  Eurofighter Typhoon
•  
  Panavia Tornado

81.214.204.134 (talk) 20:35, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Italy produces the world's most prestigious and exotic cars (which require the highest technology) such as Ferrari, Maserati, Lamborghini, Pagani, Alfa Romeo, Lancia, etc. FIAT has purchased the Chrysler Group, including Jeep. Italy also produces high technology trains, ships, aircraft and satellites. Italy's fashion designers such as Armani, Versace, Gucci, Prada, Valentino, Trussardi, Cavalli, Paciotti, Bulgari, Dolce & Gabbana, MaxMara, etc. are the world's top brands.

While countries like China and India sell "large amounts of cheap products", countries like Italy sell lesser amounts of "the most expensive and highest quality products" and make more money (similar to Germany.) China and India still have a long way to go for becoming "great powers" because the vast majority of their populations are poor. Their democracies and state systems as a whole (including education, healthcare, social security, rights and freedoms, rule of law, etc.) aren't developed enough to qualify them as "great powers". Italy is a fully developed country in any detail you can think of; has always been, will always be. 81.214.43.179 (talk) 12:07, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

The degree of luxury in what you make has nothing to do with wether you are to be considered a great power or not. Italy may have advanced military equipment, but has not been known to exercise any strong views on the global arena since the 1940s. It's not enough to have the ability to be a great power, you have to want to be a great power too. As far as I am aware, Italy has no intention to be a great power. Cecil Huber (talk) 01:09, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Italy is clearly not a great power. Indeed, its former great power status (pre-WWII) is dubious. Argovian (talk) 09:20, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Actually, in 1987, Italy's GDP surpassed that of the United Kingdom and became the 5th largest in the world; and in 1991 Italy's GDP surpassed that of France and became the 4th largest in the world, before slowing down and being overtaken again by France and the United Kingdom. 81.214.47.130 (talk) 14:23, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Leftist parties have been very strong in Italy following the pain and tragedies caused by World War II. Ever since, all sorts of megalomania, imperialism and jingoism have been rejected by the vast majority of the Italian people. It's not that Italy (a G-7, G-8, G-20, OECD, EU and NATO member) can't intervene in the political, economic or military affairs of other countries in the world; the Italians prefer not to do it because it reminds them of the arrogant and ugly policies of the Mussolini years. Similarly, after the Chernobyl disaster, a referendum took place in Italy and the overwhelming majority of the population voted for the closure of all nuclear reactors in the country, at the cost of more than €50 billion. Italians of today are peace-loving, friendly people, with a strong support for left-wing and green political parties (the Mussolini years never befitted their character.) This doesn't mean they are weak: Italy has more "power projection" tools than Germany (e.g. 5 aircraft carriers (2 carriers and 3 LHD/LPDs) currently in service.) Their military inventory is very similar to that of the United Kingdom, especially in terms of Navy and Air Force platforms and projects. However, Italy prefers to use its strength for "humanitarian aid purposes" nowadays, similar to Japan. 81.214.45.136 (talk) 17:37, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

You're seriously saying that the Italian navy and air force is comparable to the Royal Navy or RAF? Yes, the Italian inventory includes many vessels and aircraft which also feature in the UK's (such as the Eurofighter and the F35) but not in the same numbers. And Italy does not have some of the serious power projection tools, including nuclear weapons of course. Got any SSNs or SSBNs for a start? And to suggest that the Italian navy has 5 aircraft carriers is laughable - the 3 LHD/LPDs are tiny - and the other two carriers are not exactly comparable to the Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carrier. The Royal Navy is a blue-water navy whilst Italy has a (decent) green-water navy. In the end, this all comes about because Italy's defence budget is only just over half the UK's - see list of countries by military expenditures.

Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carrier will "maybe" enter service in the "2020s". I'm talking about the "current" aircraft carrier inventory. The current ships of the U.K. are very old, many of them are dating from the Falklands War. 78.181.132.85 (talk) 12:06, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Italy has major issues around its economy and perhaps more severely its demographics. Any European country - whatever its size - can be a EU, OECD or NATO member. Argovian (talk) 09:12, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

The U.K.'s industry is actually the one that's dying (e.g. Rover, MG and BMC are history; Land Rover and Jaguar are purchased by TATA of India; Lotus is purchased by Proton of Malaysia, etc.) while the Italians have purchased the Chrysler Group of the United States. 78.181.132.85 (talk) 12:13, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Post-WWII Germany and Japan have also refrained themselves from meddling too much into the affairs of other countries, due to their bad reputation and lessons taken from the Axis era (the same is valid for Italy.) Interestingly, these countries have become more humanistic and less arrogant than the permanent members of the U.N. Security Council, which still pursue imperialistic goals and bossy attitudes. This doesn't mean Germany, Japan and Italy are less powerful today. They don't possess nuclear weapons, but "no country" will ever use them (Hiroshima and Nagasaki were mistakes, there will probably never be another nuclear attack.) So the "conventional weapons" are the ones that matter in the "real world". The aircraft carriers and LHDs of Italy (especially Cavour) are more modern than the ones currently used by the United Kingdom. Italy's military equipment is very similar to those of the U.K. and France. But it's the "soft power" that matters the most nowadays: The power through "popular culture", such as "brands", "products", "music", "cinema", etc... Italy has more famous brand names (Ferrari, Maserati, Lamborghini, Alfa Romeo, Lancia, Fiat, Gucci, Armani, Versace, Prada, Valentino, Dolce & Gabbana, MaxMara, Bulgari, Paciotti, Trussardi, Cavalli, etc...) than the United Kingdom. The U.K.'s industry is actually dying (e.g. Rover, MG and BMC are history; Land Rover and Jaguar are purchased by TATA of India; Lotus is purchased by Proton of Malaysia; etc...) while the Italians have recently purchased the Chrysler Group of the United States. 78.181.132.85 (talk) 11:50, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

WP:NOTAFORUM, I am not getting why you are discussing about the cars or military strength of Italy. OccultZone (Talk) 14:30, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Italy is still a major industrial power, with significant political, economic and military "power projection" capabilities. Many people are ignoring the fact that in 1987, Italy's GDP surpassed that of the United Kingdom and became the 5th largest in the world; and in 1991 Italy's GDP surpassed that of France and became the 4th largest in the world, before slowing down and being overtaken again by France and the United Kingdom. Since the 1990s, however, British brands started to go bust, while Italian brands are still thriving. 78.181.145.206 (talk) 14:37, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I'm not going to bother any further debating with this anon. IP (who seems to think car brands/companies are the principal matter) except to say 1) soft power ranking - you might notice the positions of Italy and the UK - which was even #1 in 2012, and 2) Royal Navy vessels - how many date from 1982? None of the submarines, frigates and destroyers. And from the carriers/amphibious vessels only Illustrious, which is being decommissioned this year. So you really don't know what you're rambling on about. Argovian (talk) 19:56, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

An anon. IP user keeps changing Prussia to the German Confederation for the 1815 column in the template.

Template:List of Great powers by date

This I feel is wrong. The Confederation was not a sovereign state. Prussia continued to be a sovereign and great power even with its formation. And if Austria is included in 1815 then Prussia should too.

Further, the 1815 column specifically refers to the great powers as recognised at the Congress of Vienna. The Confederation was formed after the Congress.

Thoughts? Argovian (talk) 12:00, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

You are right and have good understanding of this template's purpose.

German Confederation was a loose entity comprising dozens of small German states, and thus it cannot be considered a state in the same meaning as are the other listed entities, e.g. France or UK. Prussia and Austria were the two biggest states of the Confederation, which fought wars against each other and gained allies in nothern and southern part of the German Confederation, respectively. Well, it was just a Holy Roman Empire v.2 - absolutely not a STATE/COUNTRY.

Ernio48 (talk) 00:28, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the agreement. Could I ask that those who are "watching" the Great power article also put this template onto their watchlist if they haven't already done so. Argovian (talk) 09:58, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Joshua Baron is the source cited for a major section of this article. How credible is he? Is he an academic? Is he a reputable IR scholar? I'm inclined to say not. Therefore, we should find other sources to back up his claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.75.63.254 (talk) 21:00, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Joshua Baron is a professional in his field, so I guess he is fairly credible? Also, his publication is well within the guidelines of WP:V and WP:RS. I am not aware of any policy which strictly states a small section of an article cannot be single sourced. Indeed sometimes, there may only be one or two reliable publications available which tackle a specific subject, therefore we may have to rely on a single source from time to time. That being said, by all means, if you or anyone else dig up some new credible sources, then add them. It would be most welcome. Antiochus the Great (talk) 10:02, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

[Redacted sock comments] Glc72 (talk) 08:58, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

You will need to find some reliable secondary sources which specifically claims Italy to be a great power. We cannot ourselves determine who is a great power based on statistics and other circumstantial information as that would be original research. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:45, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

[Redacted sock comments] Glc72 (talk) 10:54, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

There is a broad consensus among the academic community that China, Britain, France, Russia, Germany, Japan, and the United States are the worlds contemporary 'Great Powers'. Likewise, India is considered by several prominent academics to either to be emerging as or having already emerged as a Great Power in its own right (due to its rapidly growing economic, political, cultural and military influence around the globe). Traditionally Great Powers are the worlds most influential and powerful states "having the ability to exert its influence on a global scale" (quoting from article). So ask yourself; Where does Italy meet this criteria? And on what major international forums of discussion is Italy present so it can exert its influence? The answer im afraid is it doesn't and it isn't. Italy does not exert global influence and power like a true Great Power - in fact, beyond the borders of the European Union Italy is largely ignored and its opinions irrelevant. Look at the recent talks with Iran last month - the BBC reports Iran "will meet six major world powers at the UN this week to discuss Tehran's nuclear programme... Britain, China, France, Russia and the US - and also Germany (the P5+1 group)". You see, when tough decisions are to be made that affect every nation in the world it is the Great Powers which are consulted, and it is their opinions and decisions that the worlds listens to, not Middle Powers like Italy. Consider this too, within the European Union, it is Germany, Britain and France which are considered the leaders and most powerful states of Europe (they are described as the EU three!!) - so even within the borders of the European Union Italy is only considered as a Middle Power.Antiochus the Great (talk) 13:09, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

[Redacted sock comments] Glc72 (talk) 13:36, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi. You'll have to achieve broad consensus before any inclusion(or omission) is made from the article. and by broad consensus, I mean atleast 15 editors from the whole world. Not 3 or 4 from a same country and region^{sarcasm intended} This article is seen by hell lots of people from around the world so what we do will directly affect the minds of all of them. And yes, you do need scholarly references to support Italy. Mere statistics won't do. If only military statistics are considered, then I fear the UK and France are puny compared to Russia or China or even India! Another important requirement for a great power is shamelessly needlessly interfering in other countries' sovereign affairs in the name of world peace which I'm afraid both India and Italy won't usually do..Don't you think? Thanks, ƬheStrikeΣagle ^sorties 14:52, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

[Redacted sock comments] Glc72 (talk) 15:04, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

I mean not extremely strong. Look at UK and France? Removing Nukes, how strong are they? The thing is you will have to exert force outside your country with the small forces you have, like UK or France does. Although India has a larger military than UK or France, the reason it's called a second-tier power is because of it's non-aggressive attitude. Atleast to be called a great power, you will have to exert hard power on others, something Italy and India seem to be missing. As I earlier told, my statement doesn't endorse anything. You will have to get consensus and the discussion must be closed as successful by an admin. Only then you will have a chance to add Italy. A few months ago, there was a mis-adventure when 3 UK-US users established consensus among themselves and removed Russia and Brazil from the Potential Superpowers list. This was later revoked. ƬheStrikeΣagle ^sorties 15:15, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

[Redacted sock comments] Glc72 (talk) 15:27, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Glc72, I don't necessarily think military power alone defines a Great Power. Neither Germany or Japan use their militaries to exert influence around the world and China can only exert military power in its own region, yet these three nations are strongly considered Great Powers. The academic community tend to cite both hard and soft power when it comes to power in international relations and currently the overwhelming opinion of political scientists and historians who have published material on this subject do not consider Italy as a Great Power and agree that its influence post WW2 is that of a Middle Power. For the record StrikeEagle I agree, I don't think comparative military size directly translates into military power - For example, while India's, China's and Russia's armed forces are significantly larger than those of Britain or France, it is Britain and France who maintain globally deployable armed forces (E.g Britain maintains the capacity to deploy 30,000 troops anywhere in the world at short notice on a peacetime budget, while Russia in the 2008 South Ossetia War struggled to deploy just over 10,000 troops into a country it shares a land border with!!!). Glc72, I suggest you take peoples advice and try and gain a consensus when you have provided adequate academic citations supporting Italy as a Great Power. Merely quoting statistics and giving your own personal opinions will get you nowhere.Antiochus the Great (talk) 16:12, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

[Redacted sock comments] Glc72 (talk) 16:56, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

• Comment :- See, I agree about India, in fact I had added India into "Great Power" template here, but I got to know that these subjects needs consensus. India is the great power. There are many reasons, but I would note some right here:-

Regarded as Great Power for over 40 years. Nuclear weapon, Aircraft Carriers, 3rd largest populated military, etc. 3rd Largest GDP PPP, being 4.7 Trillion, Others like USA we know that they got high debt, and China is already alleged so many times to have faked it's GDP[37], [38], India has no such crisis, nor it's alleged with such allegations. Recently, the Cyclone handling of India was impressive too.

There would be many more reasons, but really, I don't find much about Italy. OccultZone (talk) 03:22, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

[Redacted sock comments] 151.40.64.80 (talk) 08:41, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Considering, Germany is regarded as great power, while Italy has lower amount of crisis than Germany has, i am sure Italy can be considered as a great power. How many reliable sources you have got to push this statement? Write them down here. OccultZone (talk) 05:05, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

[Redacted sock comments] Glc72 (talk) 07:10, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

[Redacted sock comments] Glc72 (talk) 07:58, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

[Redacted sock comments] Glc72 (talk) 08:34, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

[Redacted sock comments] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Glc72 (talk • contribs) 08:45, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

[Redacted sock comments] Glc72 (talk) 08:51, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I have a horribly busy academic schedule and I'm too lazy to study the whole essays you have written above. So I'll keep it short. Taking a mike and shouting won't help you a bit in this issue. Believe me. Personal attacks on other users will take you no where. And Yes, we also ignore people when we feel they have not been making too much sense..won't we Antiochus the Great? ƬheStrikeΣagle ^sorties 16:06, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Like you Strike Eagle I too am bogged down with University and have little time for this discussion. Enjoy your studies!! Antiochus the Great (talk) 16:20, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Italy is what Italy is, say what you will. A regional power to be kind, she lacked influence to alone deal with conflicts on her doorstep with either the Yugoslavian disintegration or the Libyan uprising. It must be frustrating not accepting one's limitations. Doyna Yar (talk) 04:18, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

[Redacted sock comments] Glc72 (talk) 11:20, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh for goodness sake, Italy is not a great power. Live with it or live in your fantasy, but either way stop ranting and wasting electrons on Wikipedia talk pages! 81.135.128.178 (talk) 11:57, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Ah, I see he's actually been banned from Wikipedia - there shall be peace! (For now, until another loony turns up on these pages, as they always do...) 81.135.128.178 (talk) 12:03, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Italy has 2 aircraft carriers, numerous LHDs and LPDs, AWACS, aerial refueling aircraft, etc. (power projection toys which Germany doesn't have.) It is a part of both the F-35 JSF consortium and the Eurofighter consortium. It produces the world's most prestigious cars like Ferrari, Maserati, Lamborghini, Pagani, Alfa Romeo, Lancia, etc. FIAT has taken over the Chrysler Group, including Jeep. Italy's fashion designers such as Armani, Versace, Gucci, Prada, Valentino, Trussardi, Cavalli, Paciotti, Bulgari, Dolce & Gabbana, MaxMara, etc. are the world's top brands. 78.181.152.137 (talk) 19:25, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

How the amount of famous brands can affect the status of Italy as a great power? Hyundai is a famous South Korean car manufacturer, which sells vehicles all around the world and it doesn't make South Korea a great power. You're totally missing the point. Besides, Italy is characterized by significant presence of organized crime (Sicilian Mafia, 'Ndrangheta, Camorra, Santa Corona Unita) which gather thousands of people. It lacks a stable government and changes it frequently. Ernio48 (talk) 21:40, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

[Redacted sock comments] 151.40.15.156 (talk) 14:48, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Sincerely, nobody gives a fuck until you provide a good number of academic citations to support your claim. Just your personal opinion isn't valid. I hope you get the point and start searching for academic citations. Thanks, ƬheStrikeΣagle 15:03, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

[Redacted sock comments] 151.40.15.156 (talk) 15:19, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Blah blah blah. There are five great powers, with Germany and Japan as the two other "Great Powers-ish". India is on the cusp of being a great power. Italy is clearly below all 8 of those nations in international power, in a band of middle power countries that is quite numerous (equivalents are Brazil, Mexico, S Korea, Turkey, etc etc). In any case, Wikipedia is based on academic references. We can discuss this for ever but it matters not. I'm merely outlining why you won't find any reliable sources out there that state Italy is a great power in the present day (though it was only just a great power in the late 19th/early 20th centuries). Regarding the G4 - the real reason they aren't able to become permanent members of the UN security council is absolutely nothing to do with Italy or San Marino, but because it would only happen as part of wider reforms of the UN, which are not happening because of disagreement not only amongst the great powers but also across the world more generally. Cheerio. Argovian (talk) 16:16, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

[Redacted sock comments] 151.40.127.211 (talk) 16:43, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

• *And as the IP here is a block-evading long-term disruptive editor on this topic, page protected. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:56, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Redacted all of them now. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 07:21, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

In August this year, Swedish Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt called Sweden a "humanitär stormakt" (a humanitarian great power) because Sweden gives much to poor countries and welcomes many refugees from all over the world. Where in the article about great power should this be noted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.144.248.157 (talk) 12:58, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

No where. This article is about proper great powers. Argovian (talk) 13:44, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

You should put   Australia,   Austria,   Belgium,   Brazil,   Bulgaria,   Canada,   Czech Republic,   Denmark,   Egypt,   Hungary,   India,   Indonesia,   Israel,   Italy,   Luxembourg,   Malaysia,   Mexico,   Netherlands,   New Zealand,   Norway,   Poland,   Portugal,   Romania,   Saudi Arabia,   South Korea,   South Africa,   Spain,   Sweden,   Switzerland,   Taiwan and   Turkey. These are proper great powers too. --178.128.52.118 (talk) 16:29, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Regional power is not same as Great power. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 16:46, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Of these, the only ones that I would consider to be 'nearly' great powers are Brazil and India. South Korea and Mexico might also be headed in that direction. The rest, as Occult said, are regional powers.

My personal opinions constitute OR, however, and without proper sources your list is as well. Comics (talk) 02:27, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Hungary a great power? Ha. Made my day... Argovian (talk) 11:58, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

If you look beyond yesterday's Guardian, it actually is. Le Grand Bleu (talk) 19:15, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Russia was NOT a great power in 1919? It didn't influence huge social reforms all over the world, including other great powers? The October Revolution didn't force them to either start huge anti-communist campaings (like USA where it led to rise of Edgar Hoover and the FBI) or implement drastic changes in their society (like UK)? It didn't inspire socialists and communists all over the world? Anyone who excluded Russia from the list in 1919 is, at best, delusional. Le Grand Bleu (talk) 19:18, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Influencing the world is not per se great power. Lots of small countries (and companies, universities, etc) have always influenced the world in many ways and to varying extents. A great power is a sovereign government at its heart and in 1919 the Russian state was very weak. Argovian (talk) 11:06, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Then again, why am I bothering? Reading above it seems you think Hungary is a great power? Hmm. Either you don't understand the subject at all or... nope, you just don't have a clue. Argovian (talk) 11:07, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

The traditional approaches to great power status - the intuitive criteria, an emphasis on warfare, and system-/global-level capabilities - have serious limitations. These approaches have ignored the implications of the expansion of the European states-system into a global one along with the simultaneous regionalization of world politics. Therefore, a threefold criterion for great power status is proposed - the presence of security-related and economic interests outside of a state's home region, the requisite capabilities, and the demand for this status and its acceptance by other great powers and the regional states. India has emerged as a great power because it meets these criteria in Southeast Asia. India's transformation from a South Asian power into one capable of shaping the regional order in Asia is of theoretical significance. (extract from Is India a Great Power? Understanding Great Power Status in Contemporary International Relations - Manjeet S. Pardesi - ASIAN SECURITY, Volume 11, Issue 1, 2015) 91.182.214.69 (talk) 22:55, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Article is out of date (citations date back to 2012 with too much weight given to perceptions of former United States National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski. How about balancing the article with a more global perception of Great Power and not just a US-centric perception ? Power perceptions of Germany, Japan, India, Brazil reflect the situation of 2011-2012 period and are a far cry from latest transformations which are ongoing in Europe and Asia/BRICS. The table "" draws on academic publications which are of the 2000-2005 era and are increasingly irrelevant in the current scheme of political, economic and geostrategic power-play in Europe & Asia. 91.182.214.69 (talk) 23:42, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I must protest about the unwarranted and overuse of maintenance templates in this article. Much of it doesn't even appear to be applicable anyway. For example, please explain how the article "lends undue weight to certain ideas, incidents, or controversies"? The article is filled with Western (not just American) academic publications, all considered to be a WP:RS. If your problem is that the article is mostly filled with English language Western publications, then you should consider that this is the English Wikipedia. However, nobody is going to stop you from adding academic citations from other parts of the world.

As for the article being outdated, well, I don't think it is. In fact, there is a 2014 academic publication by Joshua Baron and several others all dated within the last few years. Considering it takes a substantial amount of time for an author to write and publish his work, and that there isn't a great many authors who deal with this subject matter - then it is understandable that this article will be a little behind the "global perception" (as you put it).

As I said here, it doesn't matter who you think is a great power, or what criteria you think a great power should meet. I mean really, who do you think you are to say that it isn't "sufficient" to mention Germany and Japan as great powers, just because the writer is an American academic? And that they "don't fit the bill" because they are non-"UN veto-wielding P5 members".

The latter strongly suggests you clearly have a POV agenda to push and are attempting to spam the article with maintenance templates to discredit reliable sources. If you do not provide an unbiased and coherent reason/s for your issues with this article, then I will remove the templates. Thus far, pretty much all you have said amounts to "an american wrote it, so I don't like it" - not good enough.Antiochus the Great (talk) 08:51, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I've removed the tags. An article of this nature is supposed to take a historical viewpoint and the IP seems to advocate WP:RECENTISM and WP:CRYSTAL. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:06, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Hear, hear. Argovian (talk) 10:02, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

The discussion under this headline is moved to Template talk:List of Great powers by date 09:18, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Great power. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060830054642/http://www.press.umich.edu/titleDetailLookInside.do?id=16953 to http://www.press.umich.edu/titleDetailLookInside.do?id=16953
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071026215121/http://www.gresham.ac.uk/printtranscript.asp?EventId=302 to http://www.gresham.ac.uk/printtranscript.asp?EventId=302

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

 Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:37, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Great power. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110608075917/http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/polisci/faculty/trachtenberg/cv/SCHROEDE.doc to http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/polisci/faculty/trachtenberg/cv/SCHROEDE.doc
• Added archive {newarchive} to http://www.globalautonomy.ca/global1/glossary_entry.jsp?id=EV.0003
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090303131625/http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com:80/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=A1ARTA0005274 to http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=A1ARTA0005274
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20131127053340/http://www.futuredirections.org.au:80/publications/associate-papers/137-indias-rise-as-a-great-power-part-one-regional-and-global-implications.html to http://www.futuredirections.org.au/publications/associate-papers/137-indias-rise-as-a-great-power-part-one-regional-and-global-implications.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

 Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:15, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

my changes there ^[1] were reverted because it was "Better before, changes would need consensus anyhow"!! I did not add new material to the article, I only organized it better in my opinion, making a division in more paragraphs to ease the reading to a very long article and to highlight the particular status of some countries ---kayac- (talk) 18:22, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Your edits were poor form, breaking up a well written section into several unnecessary, misleading and messy sections. Seek consensus on this page to better implement your changes.Antiochus the Great (talk) 19:38, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Great power. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060830054642/http://www.press.umich.edu/titleDetailLookInside.do?id=16953 to http://www.press.umich.edu/titleDetailLookInside.do?id=16953
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071026215121/http://www.gresham.ac.uk/printtranscript.asp?EventId=302 to http://www.gresham.ac.uk/printtranscript.asp?EventId=302

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

 Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:06, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

China gained international formal recognition as Great Power only during and primarily after WW II by granting permanent membership in UN Security Council. Ottoman Empire during 19 and 20 century never held internationally recognised Great Power status. If we admit Ottoman Empire as Great Power, then we will have to admit also United States as Great Power from 1815 on. In 1815 US won over UK (battle of New Orleans), subsequently won a war with Mexico, gaining large new territories (plus Louisiana Purchase in 1803) and thus acting virtually as sole great power in Americas, plus economically much better than declining Ottoman Empire, and despite this United States are not counted as Great Power until 1900 in our chart.

Germany gained formal internationally recognised Great Power status after losing WW I in 1926 and new-created Soviet Union in 1934. In that years these countries became permanent members of the League of Nations Council.Lucullus19 (talk) 22:19, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Key historic events at formimg of officially internationally recognised group of countries held Great Power status:

• 1815 - Vienna Congress. 5 officially recognised Great Powers (all european)
• 1878 - Berlin Congress. 6 officially recognised Great Powers (all european), 5 of Vienna Congress plus Italy.
• 1900 - Eight-Nation Alliance at Boxer Rebellion. 8 officially recognised Great Powers. 6 of Berlin Congress plus 2 non-european (USA, Japan)
• 1919 - Paris Peace Conference. 5 officially recognised Great Powers.
• 1926 - Germany permanent member of League of Nations Council. 6 officially recognised Great Powers.
• 1934 - Soviet Union permanent member of League of Nations Council. 7 officially recognised Great Powers.
• 1946 - Permanent members of UN Security Council. 5 officially recognised Great Powers Lucullus19 (talk) 23:09, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

• • Disagree** Atleast with China allegely not being a early modern Great Power. First, there is two problems. One is that congresses, conferences, and informal organization is ONE way to identify Great Powers, but not the ONLY way. Other aspects that cannot be captured by participation in a conference such as national power relative to others in the region (especially if the Chinese are well outside European continental affairs in 1814), so Great Power status must be examined on a case by case basis relative to it's peers it normally interacts with. Second problem is that the modern era does not start in 1814, but starts well before 1814, which divides into the early modern era (1500-1814) and high modern era (post-1814) period, so for example, the Chinese empire is an early modern Great Power, but not an high modern Great Power until formal recognition after WW2. That is more inclusive than saying: "China isn't a great power (sic) AT ALL until WW2" because it misses the granularities of the early modern period which isn't captured by an 1814 modern era starting date. Vienna Congress date is somewhat Eurocentric interpretation of modern Great Power status over the entire modern era history, which excludes the oriental empires which are definitely Great Powers in the early modern period.Rwat1 (talk) 04:35, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

• Disagree* First can you explain what you mean by "officially recognized* when listing the GPs and the assemblies that recognized them (for example one could make the argument that the Ottoman Empire was a GP since it was represented in the 1878 Berlin Congress). However, the larger problem that this system has is that, logically, there should be a formal grouping on the current GPs for them to be represented here. And, interestingly enough, there is no formal group that includes the P5+Japan and Germany. There is the G7 (and 8), as well as the Iranian nuclear deal that officially recognized some GPs. Although, no matter what, this system of reliance on official groupings is not compatable with what is listed under current GPs.

The Ottomans were present at the congresses of Paris and Berlin, the given sources also consider the Ottomans as a GP despite being in decline 86.89.163.211 (talk) 14:03, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Great power. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.gresham.ac.uk/printtranscript.asp?EventId=302

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:10, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Please do not list the G7 members in the lede, not only is it unnecessary, but it is also entirely misleading. The sources which refer to the G7 as a formal/informal concert of great powers are clearly not suggesting every member of the G7 is considered a great power. Also, the sources refer to the now defunct G8 as a great power concert too - so it appears a little strange to see you stubbornly listing all G7 members (including Canada which is not a great power) but exuding the G8 which includes Russia (which is a great power).Antiochus the Great (talk) 19:30, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

My view is that the UN Security Council's P5 is the *only* formal recognition (by all the world's sovereign states) of great power status, although it is accepted that it is not a "complete" picture of the actual great powers (this situation arising because of lack of reform of the Security Council, meaning it is "stuck" in 1946). The lede should not be bogged down with contemporary lists of great powers, except mention those five which are the undisputed modern-day (post-WWII) powers. Sumorsǣte (talk) 19:45, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

I totally agree to delete all lists and also the part referring to G8 that is ended.G7 is now a formal meeting.UN power is less than G7 power.151.40.127.62 (talk) 19:47, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

The question asked on my Talk page (just keep it here, please): "Why listing UN and not G7?"

My answer is simple - the UN is a body of all sovereign states of the world and its charter formally recognises five states as being pre-eminent in power, hence the P5. Meanwhile, the G7, G8 etc etc are self-selecting "clubs" of states. Any states can club together - and do, hence for example BRICS. It means nothing. Sumorsǣte (talk) 19:52, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

G7 isn't BRIC like NATO isn't BRIC.G 8 is suspended sine die.They aren't clubs,now they are an every year official meeting.Antiochus greetings for your very perfect english.151.40.127.62 (talk) 19:54, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

You cannot compare the UN to the G7. And obvious NATO isn't merely a "club". Again, if you cannot see the difference between these organisations (a diplomatic body of all sovereign states v. seven countries who have their heads of government meet up once a year for a good chat v. a very formal military alliance)... hmm. Sumorsǣte (talk) 20:04, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

G7 has the money (more than the 64% of the world net wealth) and the military power to influence in every moment on every part of Earth.UN is just a world parliament that many times nobody cares.See the many resolutions never respected.I think now article is good.151.40.127.62 (talk) 20:07, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Could someone please give exact page in the book (by Donald Quataert) used as reference there? I read few pages from linked preview, but found nothing supporting the Ottoman Empire as great power in 1900. Pavlor (talk) 14:15, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

India is an economy larger than Russia in nominal terms(and pretty soon will cross France and UK) and Larger than every EU country as well as Japan in terms of PPP. It has a large enough military as well as a respectable contributions towards Science and Technology, should it be included now or in the near future?? Daiyusha (talk) 09:40, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Who knows. One thing is certain: India has no vote on the Security Council, and an economy that is uncomparable with Japan or Germany.Ernio48 (talk) 13:49, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

incomparable?? Both Japan and Germany have stopped or slowed down their GDP growth, India on the other hand is an economy almost as large as France and is still growing at about 7% annually. 4 UNSC permanant members approve of India to join the UNSC, while china is ready to approve if India stops its support for Japan. Daiyusha (talk) 06:29, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

I meant simply the size of GDP, not its dynamics.Ernio48 (talk) 02:28, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

India is already mentioned in the article and described accurately - namely a rising power/growing country that is either a great power now (supported by only some academics etc) or one in the future. Sumorsǣte (talk) 20:21, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I have noticed the graph on this page (at the bottom) seems a little misleading. It lists most major changes in other states but doesn't, for some reason, make any note of the numerous regime changes in France (ie, fall of the Second Empire and the French Colonial Empire). Would it not make more sense to include these, in the same manner as has been done for the other countries? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:1696:D500:6830:59E:2897:17D6 (talk) 03:11, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

These events are treated as Fall of France during WW2, or Germany, or Italy.Ernio48 (talk) 02:29, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Great power. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060830054642/http://www.press.umich.edu/titleDetailLookInside.do?id=16953 to http://www.press.umich.edu/titleDetailLookInside.do?id=16953

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:08, 24 March 2017 (UTC)