Talk:Great power/Archive 13

China
China was a great power in 1820 (30% of world GDP). There is a problem with the table. Polylepsis (talk) 09:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Unless you have an academic source that can back that up. It is just WP:SYN. -- Phoenix (talk) 10:43, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * List of regions by past GDP (PPP) Polylepsis (talk) 13:38, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Wiki pages aren't sources. G. R. Allison (talk) 16:56, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


 * In any case, the overall size of an economy does not necessarily translate into power. Look at the table of economies in 1820 - the UK had a far smaller economy than India, for example, but still managed to overpower the Indian rulers over the next century. China is a good example of a large country which, due to weak government and lesser technology, amongst other reasons, couldn't translate their large populations and total economy into power. By the end of the 19th century China was on the verge of being carved up by the Europeans and America, like Africa. It also depends on what sort of economy we're talking about - hundreds of millions of rural peasants growing rice all day (I exaggerate to make a point) may have a substantial economy combined, but is nothing when it comes to war or trade or such than a smaller country with industry, invention and effective government. David (talk) 19:10, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

This article is stupid, anyone with minimal history knowledge knows that China better qualified as a great power 1815 than 1946, just take a look at the GDP, difference in military equipment. The only reason why its put there sometimes is cause it worked as a weight on the Sovietunion side in the security counsile. And David, yes China was pretty weak and easly crushed by the europeans in the 1850:s and so on, but I doubt the weakest (Austria) was stronger than China 1815 90.237.217.36 (talk) 15:30, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * China certainly embodied the status of great power of in 1815 more so than it did in 1946. In 18151946 China a. was reeling from 15 years of attempted japanese domination, b. embroiled in a hard-fought and bloody civil war which the ruling government would lose, and c. had no ability whatsoever to project power beyond its shores. The permanent seat it received on the UN security council was due to the fact that it was one of the principle victors of WWII64.223.107.178 (talk) 02:04, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Order of the section List of great powers by date
In my opinion, the order of the section 'List of great powers by date' is too suggestive, by which I mean that under the year 1939 France is placed between the Axis powers (Japan, Germany and Italy) and then a gap is followed because of the place of the Republic of China, suggesting that France is included in the Axis-powers. France was indeed incorporated by Germany, but at the time 1939 France was with the UK against the Axis powers. Now can be said that the list is not divided in Axis and Allies, because the Soviet Union is among the UK and the USA, but I still think that China should be placed at the bottom of that list to make it really clear to the reader that it's a list of great powers by date. This will remove any suggestion that the list is divided into Axis/Allies (and France is Axis), while doing no harm to China's position (the list is clearly not a ranking system and the introduction of the USA early 20th century is also placed on the bottom). I haven't changed it yet, because I can't, but I think it should. —Preceding unsigned comment added by A law student (talk • contribs) 17:08, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * For A law student your making a lot of assumptions from an alphabetized list. -- Phoenix (talk) 17:14, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Great Power Status Republic of China 1946
I question the placing of the Republic of China as a Great Power in 1946. While its position as a permanent member of the UN security council gave it some of the trappings of a great power, in 1946 the Chinese Civil War had already resumed (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/chinese-civil-war.htm) and it would lose that war by the end of 1949. Surely a nation already on its way to being overthrown and relegated to a small portion of its former territory cannot qualify as a great power. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WanphilipII (talk • contribs) 05:12, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It is backed up by two academic sources. At that point most believed that Mao's rebellion would never conquer the "civilized" urban areas... While time proved them wrong, in 1946 Chiang Kai-shek was the one the world dealt with as the leader of the Chinese people. -- Phoenix (talk) 05:56, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Well they wouldnt come very far without enormous help from other countries, alone they were in fact weaker than for an example Spain. 90.237.217.36 (talk) 15:47, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Mexico
I'd like to point out to editors here that the Mexico article keeps falsely stating Mexico is a great power by a handful of ultra-nationalistic editors on there who've turned the article into little more than a platform to compete with the United States (see its contribution history). Mexico is clearly a middle power and is listed on that article as such. I don't think Mexico has ever been mentioned as a great power by any reliable academic sources. Bambuway (talk) 16:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * You're right - Mexico is not and never has been a great power. David (talk) 17:03, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree, Mexico shouldn't be listed as a great power. G. R. Allison (talk) 18:56, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Well ask them to cite academic sources stating such. If they cant find any then it might just be WP:OR or WP:SYN -- Phoenix (talk) 23:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The literature does not describe Mexico as a great power or as a potential great power in the foreseeable future. Nirvana888 (talk) 23:57, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * There's an editor on the Mexico article who still keeps listing Mexico as a great power in the article lead and seems convinced Mexico is a great power. I've written on his talk page why Mexico is not a great power and the need for academic sources stating otherwise.Bambuway (talk) 17:45, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Japan and Germany
What are Japans and Germanys claim tow Great/World power status in 2010? Japan and Germany have large economic weight, but in terms of miltary and political influence or being active in global affairs both Germany and Japan surely can no longer hold on to Great Power status.Rademire2 (talk) 20:11, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Japan and Germany are both referenced as current great powers. Notwithstanding their lack of permanent seat in the UN Security Council, both have economic weight being the second and fourth largest economies respectively. Both also have diplomatic and political heft in the world and contribute heavily to international economic and political organizations (UN, Bretton Woods orgs, G7, etc.) as well as issues of peace and security. Both also have relatively large military budgets and technologically advanced and capable militaries. Nirvana888 (talk) 23:42, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Whilst their military influence on the international stage is not so great (due largely to their foreign policy/constitutional restrictions) their militaries are none-the-less considerable and technologically advanced. I also believe that a recent report from the Stockholm Institute states that Germany is now the third largest arms exporter, after the US and Russia! David (talk) 10:43, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I feel those sources regarding Germanys and Japans status as Great Powers are a little out dated. Germany and Japan are more economic Great Powers. While USA, France, UK, Russia and China are the full on Great Powers of our era. Rademire2 (talk) 22:07, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The article does state that "In addition, despite the lack of a permanent seat at the UN Security Council, Germany and Japan are occasionally considered to be great powers, although Germany and Japan are referred to by others as middle powers or economic great powers." David (talk) 22:32, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, exactly - Germany is primarily an economic great power. David (talk) 18:25, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

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

I've added Russia, since Russia was considered a Great Power then and is still considered one by most accounts (and certainly outweighs France today). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.164.61.46 (talk) 21:05, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It was not considered one after WWI. -- Phoenix (talk) 03:54, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Russia was defeated in the First World War. Russia signed the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, handing over Finland, the Baltic states, Poland and Ukraine to Germany and Austria. Russia was in a state of revolution for years afterwards, with around 200,000 troops from the United Kingdom, the United States, Japan, France and Italy deployed in Russia after the First World War. See Entente intervention in the Russian Civil War. 88.106.95.87 (talk) 04:31, 3 April 2010 (UTC)


 * What happened to France during 1940-45 is more serious still. France lost not only the respect of other countries as a Great Power, but her actual sovereignty.  France was included among the German occupation and UN security council powers only because the UK wanted a counterweight to the USSR on the continent.  If you're going to be consistent (it appears that the original sentence is intended to mean "continuously considered a Great Power from 1815 to the present", which I hadn't realised), France deserves exclusion as much as Russia.

128.164.60.165 (talk) 21:52, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

We should remove both France and Russia, only Great Britain has kept its Great Power status, also shouldnt Ireland be included also? They were part of the United Kingdom for many years and formed part of the most powerful nation on earth. Rademire2 (talk) 21:54, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Do you have any sources that cite Ireland as a Great power? -- Phoenix (talk) 05:38, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Brazil as a global power.
Until recently, Brazil was worldwide considered an emerging power, as I believe anyone knows. However, Thomas A. Shannon, Jr., the U.S. Ambassador to Brazil, declared that the U.S. Government recognizes Brazil not as an emerging power, but as true global power. In an interview to the Brazilian newsparer O Globo when inquired if Brazil was considered an emerging country, he remarked that it has already emerged. See here. Does his opinion count for something in this article? Regards to all, --Lecen (talk) 17:50, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Politicians, probably not. Do you have any academic reliable sources that say that? -- Phoenix (talk) 06:41, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


 * No, I don't. That's why I asked, because politicians are capable of saying that even the smallest and weakest country is a great power if there are interests behind. Thank you! --Lecen (talk) 10:53, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok no prob. -- Phoenix (talk) 05:50, 8 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes Brazil is a Global Power, but a Global Power is very different from a Great Power. For example, Italy, Spain and Canada are Global powers with strong economies and good military forces and they act on the global stage. However they like Brazil are just not as powerful and as influential as the Great Powers. Recon.Army (talk) 16:34, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Brazil is not a great power, nor is India nor Mexico nor any other country not listed on this article, as has been brought up on this talk page many times before. Brazil, as with India and Mexico are middle powers, which are also emerging powers, which are the countries that form the G20 alongside the G8 members. Great powers have moderate global influence, which requires such aspects as being a permanent member of United Nations Security Council with veto power alongside being a recognised nuclear weapons states under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty with a fully fledged nuclear arsenal, a large nominal GDP (see List of countries by GDP (nominal)) and a large military budget (see List of countries by military expenditure). Countries require most of these aspects or some of these aspects in abundance to be considered a great power. The United States has all these aspects in abundance as it is a superpower. China, the United Kingdom, and France have all these aspects. Russia has all these aspects except a large nominal GDP. Japan and Germany have only large nominal GDPs and large military budgets but they have very large nominal GDPs and large military budgets, which makes them great powers too. Brazil nor India nor Mexico have nominal GDPs or military budgets which are comparitive to the majority of great powers and importantly they lack permanent membership of United Nations Security Council with veto power alongside being recognised nuclear weapons states under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty with fully fledged nuclear arsenals. Consequently they are middle powers. Space25689 (talk) 23:13, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Austria
Austria is the only county who used to be considered a great power and no longer is? As an economic power, however, it may be considered to include her due to her regional influence...specifically in Eastern Europe through the Austrian banking system. Certainly the countries that comprise the former Austrian/Austro-Hungarian Empire would be a great power were their GDPs summed. Furthermore, it is interesting to see that Austria has large economic investment and interest in its former vassal states to the point that it is questionable whether some of these states could exist without her economic backing and assistance (Bosnia, for example).--63.203.236.254 (talk) 04:54, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No Italy was also one for a while. Do you have any academic sources that say Austria is a Great power? -- Phoenix (talk) 04:10, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * What century does this guy think he's in? David (talk) 20:36, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

UK and the British Empire in 1939
I think this footnote: "After the Statute of Westminster came into effect in 1931 the United Kingdom no longer represented the British Empire in world affairs" is misleading. The UK entered World War II with direct control of a very large empire (and League of Nations protectorates). While the Dominions had autonomy in declaring war and on most other issues (a fact that pre-dated the Statute of Westminster), to pretend that the British Empire in 1939 was then anything link the Commonwealth of Nations is misleading. Even regarding the Dominions in 1939 the Footnote would have seemed odd to the Australian government, and New Zealand government's position was formally slightly different but in practice the same as Australia's (1939 New Zealand declares war on Germany) So I would suggest either the footnote is expanded or removed. -- PBS (talk) 03:01, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * By 1939 it was the UK and its colonies not the British Empire that declared war and it was the UK that was seen as a Great Power. Please read Statute of Westminster 1931 as it will explain a lot. -- Phoenix (talk) 05:31, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Republic of China and People's Republic of China
List of Great powers by date Is it correct to present in a manner such that the former appears to had replaced the former? Polarana (talk) 16:23, 24 July 2010 (UTC)


 * You mean if the former was replaced by the later? Yes, it was. Both were China and in a sense they both still are, but while the People's Republic of China did not really exist before 1949 it is the PRC which can be considered a great power in our days. The transition of the status of great power between the two can however be said to not have gone from one day to the other but have come more gradually. The Republic was still seen as the legal China by most countries as late as in the early 1970s and held China's permanent seat in the UN Security Council.

Academic source confirming European Union as a Great Power
http://www.delaus.ec.europa.eu/News&events/speeches/2010/JR_DefenceAcademy19042010.pdf

I will add the European Union to the article. Recon.Army (talk) 18:57, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Your change is pretty big and will be controversial. It is likely to be reverted and require more debate here. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:05, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Also it does not make sense when it is next to a map which does not have the EU coloured in as a great power. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:07, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Controversial or not, people cannot deny the fact the EU is regarded as a Great Power by people who are far more academically qualified to do so than wikipedia editors. People will only find it controversial because they simply don’t like it. Same reason people try and remove the EU from the List of countries by GDP (nominal), they simply don’t like it. Even when the EU is sourced by World Bank and the IMF. This is an encyclopaedia, peoples dislikes cannot over-ride factual reality. Recon.Army (talk) 20:41, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It will require a lot more sources to ensure its inclusion can not be challenged and i do not think people will accept that one reference linked above. Of course if we looked at the EU to give it some form of status like sovereign states have then it would be a superpower, not a great power. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:45, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


 * There is nothing more official or reliable than a delegation of the European Union confirming the EU as Great Power. Recon.Army (talk) 20:53, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I dont believe that the conclusion is a clear cut as you thought
 * "So, can we reach any judgements about whether the EU qualifies as a 'great power'? I think we can, but in a nuanced way. As we have seen from the above, the EU comes out rather well even using the conventional comparators... Overall in today's world we should perhaps regard the EU as a ‘modern’ power, but one that gets results. And the question whether the European Union is a ‘great power’ is one I feel I can safely leave in the hands of the audience."
 * The author backtracks in the end and says that it is almost a great power. Not only that I dont believe that a politicians speech is considered academic, even if it was at a school ;-) -- Phoenix (talk) 21:11, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * (EC) Euhm no, this is a clear example of a primary source. Following your example into absurdis you could rephrase as "There is nothing more official or reliable than a delegation of Liechtenstein confirming Leichtenstein as Great Power", (or replace with North Korea as they may actually say something like that.) hardly convincing I would say. Although I have to admit the argument is clearly made in the speach. Arnoutf (talk) 21:13, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Phoenix, re-read the argument, then make clear what he says. He/she confirms it’s a great power, though not in the traditional sense (in this context nuanced = minor, subtle, slight or small difference from the traditional great power). Thus going on to term the EU as a 'modern' power (reflecting the modern world, the way its changed and the EUs place in it). So no the author doesn’t backtrack. He only makes it clear that the EU is unique among great powers.
 * Arnoutf, Europe isn’t North Korea or Liechtenstein. I seriously doubt any one would take a speech by a North Korean delegation to Australia claiming NK is a great power serious. You cannot compare NK and the EU. It just degrades this debate. You said your self the argument is clearly made in the speech. This should be the focus of the debate.

I wont be on for 3-4 days, so take your time please. Recon.Army (talk) 21:43, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I feel Recon.Army and Phoenix are both correct. Phoenix, a speech is a primary source and not 'academic' like you said. However, this is no mere political speech but A Delegation from the European Union, the speech is also structured academically. The information provided in the speech and its argument clearly states the European Union is a Great Power, but not only that, but it dominates the worlds in many areas. The only area it doesn’t dominate is in military terms but still remains 2nd to the USA. The speech is factually correct and it would be a shame that the EU would not be included in a list of Great Powers when it dominates every other great power in every aspect, except only the USA on military terms. I am no wikipedia fan, but do enjoy the better articles. I am surprised the EU hasn’t been added to this article a long time ago. 194.46.164.225 (talk) 23:40, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh for goodness sake, we go through this argument again and again. The EU isn't even a sovereign entity - it is a union of sovereign states, two or three of which are by their own right Great Powers. If the EU were added to the list then what happens to France, Germany and the UK? Are they no longer Great Powers? They are the sovereign states, with militaries, etc, not the EU.


 * In any case, the EU is mentioned in the article, which points out that in those areas where it exercises "exclusive competence" (given to it of course by its member states) - most notably in economics and trade - it is a great power. But it cannot be a proper great power when it isn't even sovereign! Honestly, I am sick and tired of having to spell out exactly the same points every few months on this talk page. Look through the archives in future.


 * Also, the source in question seems to ignore the fact that the EU isn't a sovereign entity when comparing it to other great powers, all of which - past and present - are of course sovereign entities. It's all very well adding up the populations, militaries, economies, etc, of the 27 member states and then concluding that it's all very impressive... of course it is! But what does it matter? I could add together the populations, militaries, economies, etc, of a number of inter-governmental/supranational organisations and conclude that they are great powers too. Of course the EU is different and is at a further stage down the route of integration, but it simply isn't a single, sovereign entity, acting together internationally (other than in trade and related areas). The main stage of great powers - military, foreign affairs, etc - is not something the EU readily takes part in, instead its 3 great power member states are still the main players there. And the EU only takes part in that field when its member states allow it too. It's not much different than a NATO operation, where the member states of NATO field a military operation. David (talk) 14:40, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

The source provided by Recon.Army is certainly insufficient to deem the EU a full fledged great power. We already have a high quality source in the article prose which mentions the EU's great power features. I don't see the need to make major changes unless the literature deviates from this view. Nirvana888 (talk) 23:35, 9 August 2010 (UTC)


 * This is really an example of a debated point and material about the debate could be included in the article, but there is such a wide diversity of published views on the issue that it will probably not be definitive for a long time to come and therefore can't just be written in to the article here as if it were a fact. By the way, Wikipedia already has excellent, detailed coverage of this debate at Potential superpowers and I recommend people read some of the sources linked from that section as they explain it all pretty well. Next topic. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 18:12, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Before 1815
The historical literature certainly deals with the idea of European great powers in the eighteenth century. There are many works dealing with the way the list of great powers changed: Spain and Holland were generally included at the beginning of the eighteenth century, but fell off; Russia and Prussia inserted themselves into the list. Certainly the period after 1763 is normally taken to be a period of great power competition among the same five great powers that would assert themselves more clearly after the Napoleonic Wars. H. M. Scott has a book on European international relations between 1740 and 1815 called The Rise of a Great Power System, for instance. Prior to the eighteenth century, things are much dicier, but I think it's wrong to begin the discussion with the Congress of Vienna. The Treaty of Utrecht might mark a more useful starting point. john k (talk) 18:03, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

New report
New report by National Intelligence and the European Union's Institute for Security Studies (EUISS) has some interesting observations. There seem to be some big error in the report.Bcs09 (talk) 12:34, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Someone needs to inform them that the EU doesn't have a unified military, let alone a unified foreign policy, indeed let alone unified much at all (beyond "internal market" matters... and even there the EU has still various currencies operating, etc). Unless they think that by 2025 Europe will somehow become a federal entity with one polity, one military, etc. Erm, lol. Does the report have any "power percentages" for NATO as a bloc, or indeed Britain, France, etc, as countries (which they of course are)? David (talk) 19:22, 28 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Indeed. They collectively put the EU as a block and it's power rather than individual nations like Britain and France. Also there are surprise entries as well. How is it possible. Let's hope that atleast in the next report the experts in EUISS did not make such mistakes. Anyone got the full report document?Bcs09 (talk) 01:24, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Here is the full report. I stand corrected. Initial reading suggests that, this article is not propaganda but some kind of research and studies of high standard is carried out. This is a collective report by the U.S and EU. So reading it may give a glimpse of powers of the world.Bcs09 (talk) 01:42, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Ah, a joint report by the EU and the US... so that's why the EU is mentioned but none of the actual sovereign powers which make up the said EU! The Eurocrats in Brussels really do live in a parallel reality of their own making. David (talk) 11:38, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

A joint report by US and EU estimated India only a little behind the entire EU cartel. They deserve to be just cast aside with a smirk at Eurocrats! And yet, Britain with its invisible aircraft carriers and 50 Typhoons is a true world power. First of all, the term world powers seems to say that the world powers are on an even keel. Really? Is Britain really anywhere near comparable to China, Russia or USA? Japan waltzes in...so does Deutschland in the list, but they are not in P5 and are not nuclear states. But India is excluded because it is not in P5! Russia is ahead of India despite a smaller economy because of its military power. But same criterion does not allow India to outpace Deutschland! Earlier Archives point out that India must be excluded because its economy is smaller than Canada or Spain. Not any more. India is excluded because its economy is 10-20% smaller than UK. Somehow UK is on even keel with China with an economy 150% smaller. It seems the standard India must satisfy varies constantly! Fortunately, Wikipedia editors cannot stop reality. When will jealous Brits realise that it is a losing battle? A rant about Eurocrats will not alter the fact that the US now doesnt even see Britain as a sovereign entity, but just a constituent of EU. The best one on this forum is when a Brits says Britain is powerful because of Dr. Who and James Bond. Did you know Bollywood movies are watched as far as Djibouti (yes... I was surprised when a taxi driver from Djibouti told me that)? Its over..it really is. All Empires die. 184.57.3.235 (talk) 13:15, 1 October 2011 (UTC)itsoverforQueenie

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

So, when Cameron calls his own country a world power, it is credible evidence. But when Obama, President of the United States(!!!!!) calls India an emerged power, that doesnt count at all, does it? how come the name India sparks more hatred than anyone else? It seems British folk have a problem with India. It is my pleasure to inform you that the Empire is over.


 * While that is reassuring, I must point out that what a politician does or does not say is of little consequence here. It is the academic consensus that is of importance. -- Phoenix (talk) 04:41, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The academics are saying this Britain in decline? Divided we fall Joseph Nye on global power shiftsBcs09 (talk) 15:55, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I think what's more notable is the fact that the term "great power" is still being used, as some regard that term outdated. But it does live on! David (talk) 11:24, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

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

India
The first set of articles, describing India as a great power has started to emerge. Bcs09 (talk) 02:48, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Emerged India: enter a great power
 * India is not simply emerging; India has already emerged


 * Whilst I agree that India is becoming a great power, it would not be acceptable to add it to the c. 2000 part of the table as in c. 2000 it was not a great power - in 10 years perhaps, when a c. 2020 is added to the table, India can be added. For now it is in transition... for now, at most possibly a single sentence in the article noting India starting to being mentioned as a great power would be acceptable to me. David (talk) 11:29, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Please read the articles, It states emerged and not emerging. These are the first articles that talk about emerged. So India has emerged in 2010 and no more is emerging. Let's check some more articles.Bcs09 (talk) 01:12, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No, it hasn't necessarilly emerged. It just means that India is at such a point in it's development that now we're just waiting for India to be accepted as a Great Power. Now, I'm not sure of the credibility behind this statement, but I found this with a quick google search: 'India sees itself as an emerging great power in a multi-power world, which will maintain a strategy of poly-alignment.'. That to me reads as if India still doesn't believe it's a great power and believes it's still in the process of becoming one. Comics (talk) 01:33, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * This is a very recent trend, only after december 2010. No google search prior to this date may give anything more than emerging. So it's better to keep a watch.Bcs09 (talk) 02:34, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with David and would back a sentence on the subject. Also, David, your input is needed over at BW navy. Thanks, G.R. Allison (talk) 11:37, 1 January 2011 (UTC)


 * No personnel opinions, please.Bcs09 (talk) 01:12, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * India is not yet a great power, although it is likely to become one over the next few decades. The primary halmark of a great power in international diplomacy is permanent membership of the United Nations Security Council. India will be internationally recognised as a great power when it attains such membership. There are a very many academic sources which support my claim that permanent membership of the United Nations Security Council is the primary halmark of a great power, just as this article itself states. This is without even mentioning how can India be considered a great power when its nominal GDP and/or military budget are less than that of other non-great powers such as Canada, Spain, Italy, Brazil and Saudi Arabia? Bcs09, I've been watching you discussions on many articles and you must learn the difference between reliable academic sources and cherry picked websites. For example, an article from Harvard University would be considered a reliable academic source while an article from some unheard of website called opendemocracy.net would be considered a cherry picked website. The problem is almost anyone can find some website supporting their claims if they search hard and long enough. People do this when they won't accept the word of the most reliable academic sources. Note that cherry picked websites carry no weight on Wikipedia, only reliable academic sources. Quite vivid blur (talk) 15:18, 1 January 2011 (UTC)


 * No personnel opinions, please.Bcs09 (talk) 01:12, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Now if I had to respond to your comments, Permenant membership for India is an agreed one by the other Great powers except Communist China which turned nuetral recently.(Which is in conflict with India, hence there stance is not a surprise), hence don't have a belief that India is not a great power. Where do you get statistics of Spain from? Nominal GDP, you can see India is similar to that of Russia which is a great power. India maintains the largest military in the world, next to the United states and China. So only the stamp of Hardvard is reliable? How stupid. Cherry picked website?  Just look at the author. . Bcs09 (talk) 01:43, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Bcs09, please keep comments in a linear order without splitting them up, it makes the discussion flow hard to keep up with. Speaking of India though, I don't think we can just make a clear cut distinction between 'emerged' and 'emerging' at this stage of development. It's my opinion that only when it becomes hard to doubt India as being a great power it will truly have that status, India has a lot of problems just now and seems to be still emerging given all the recent articles and reports on its development. G.R. Allison (talk) 06:19, 2 January 2011 (UTC)


 * No India does not have permanent membership of the United Nations Security Council. Permanent membership of the United Nations Security Council for India is far from agreed. For years and decades the notion of including more permanent members to the United Nations Security Council has amounted to nothing. Hence, as of 2011, India does not have permanent membership of the United Nations Security Council, and with many countries such as the Uniting for Consensus group opposing the bids of India and others it is likely to remain that way for at least some time yet. Inability to attain permanent membership of the United Nations Security Council is clear indication of a given country's inability to project great power influence over the United Nations General Assembly. My earlier comparision of India's nominal GDP and military budget to those of Canada, Spain, Italy, Brazil and Saudi Arabia is quite correct. India's nominal GDP and military budget are less than or similar to those of the middle powers I mentioned. India does not have a nominal GDP or military budget equivalent to those of great powers such as the United Kingdom, France, China, Japan or Germany. India's nominal GDP and military budget is approximately only half that of the said great powers. India may very well have a nominal GDP similar to that of Russia but India does not have the military budget, permanent United Nations Security Council seat or remnants of a superpower military and nuclear forces like Russia does. Despite your nationalist sentiment for India, Bcs09, India remains a middle power. India possesses the traits of a middle power, namely no permanent United Nations Security Council seat, and a nominal GDP and military budget similar to those of other middle powers and significantly less than those of great powers. As for military man power, in an era of technology focused militaries it has accounted for little in quite a while now. In the 21st century 1,000,000 conscript illiterate peasant farmers can be easily beaten by 100,000 professional well trained and well equipped troops. Countries such as North Korea, Iran, Vietnam and Pakistan possess some of the world's largest militaries in terms of man power but they are far from being great powers. Quite vivid blur (talk) 01:11, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Mr, The above comments by you are totally absurd and illogical beliefs of yours leading to POV pushing in Wikipedia. That's the only way to describe the above description provided by you. But since it's necessary to debunk those myths and put the right stuff in the right manner for better understanding, I will try my level best to educate you. First in your own personnel opinon, you said the permanent membership for India is far from agreed. The permanent seat for India at the security council has been agreed upon and supported by the permenant member of the security council like | France, | Russia, | U.K and the | U.S. | China has a nuetral view of the same. And even the cofee club don't oppose India per say and the members in it is supportive of India. And in the recent election for the non-permanent seat at the U.N security council, India won 187/192 votes.. This emphasizes the political power of India. Regarding economy, India's economy is the second fastest growing major economy in the world after China. It's nearly equivalent to Russia in terms of GDP nominal and the fourth in terms of GDP PPP. India's economic power can be judged by the fact that during the recent visit to India, President Obama went home with deals that created a lot of jobs in the U.S and India has become the net job creator in the U.S. Not just the U.S, but in many parts of the world as well. From Afghanistan to Germany, India's economy is creating infrastructure to jobs. This shows it's wide reach and power. Thirdly the military aspect cannot be judged by mere dollar spend. India's military is not only numerically superior but also technologically advanced military in the world. Having all the capabilties including political, economical, military and soft power, India is a great power. Let me tell you, that your views are pathetic. Regarding peasants, fact is that the peasants were able to beat a technologically superior military in Vietnam.Bcs09 (talk) 04:13, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The point remains that India does not have a permanent seat on the security council. India is also the second largest country by population in the world. As such, it can afford to have the same GDP as Russia, but the people can still be poorer and they are. Therefore, despite India having a similar GDP to Russia, it has not reached the same level of advancement. A better country to compare it to might be China, which similarly has a billion strong population but also has an economy about what, 3 or 4 times the size of India's. I think it's also interesting to note that in Vietnam they had help from the technologically advanced Soviet Union, which supplied much of the military hardware of the North Vietnamese forces. Also, those peasant farmers were exactly that because they were fighting a war to unify a country of peasants. It was in their best interests to create empathy between themselves and the South Vietnamese. To speak in the terms of ye olde Great Powers, I think what we have is the established powers of the G7 (not all of them, but they're also not moving forward that well) and the emergent/re-emergent powers of the BRIC/BASIC liason. India is still trying to gain influence in the world, and perhaps the greatest two examples of that to date have been it's nuclear treaty with America and it's efforts at Copenhagen; however at Copenhagen it also had the support of China, Brazil and South Africa. To be honest, I don't know if we'll have the academics to support any particular view until we start to look back on events/have a war that really shakes up the balance of things/reform the Security Council. Also, no labelling other people's views as pathetic. We're here to constructively debate for the betterment of this article, not lash out at people who have qualms with your suggestions. Comics (talk) 05:22, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * First and foremost "1,000,000 conscript illiterate peasant farmers killed" is in poor taste. A farmer knows better than anyone here in terms of his knowledge about farming. Never ever try to look down on people because of the work they do. Learn to respect and then gain respect. If those who don't have it and the ones who support such pathetic outright stupidity dont deserve respect either. Try to be constructive. Now the points you raised. A country will not gain permenant membership in today's world just by being a bully or a winner in a coalition like in the 1945's. A country will not become a great power after gaining the seat, but be a great power and then gain the seat. So if India is being supported for permenant membership in the security council, it shows that India is a great power. Poverty is a point that has been heard a long time. How long you people will be able to hold on to this stupid view of India that India is poor etc. India is not poor in any areas except for economic reasons it was when the British left India. From that day of 100 percent poverty to reducing it to the level of 20 percent through democratic process is no mere acheivement. It's India's strength and India's economic progress will see that India will keep reducing it's poverty and ultimately eliminate it. Indeed India can only compared to it's true equivalent China and may be to a certain extent the United States of America in the coming years. In what area you say advancement has not been made? I do see India making advancement in all areas from food production to Space exploration. Indeed China is ahead. They started early and hence obviously they are ahead in terms of statistics, and India has to do the catching up with respect to the China and the U.S over a longer period of time. The defeat of the super power by the farmers (obviously the military gear was supplied by SU) is a fact. No country in the world can stand alone and dictate terms today. Those days of cold war when U.S and SU called the shots are over. Today it's all about cooperation, including for the sole superpower (then think of what great power can do, surely will have to cooperate between themselves). Anyone can agree/disagree with a point but constructively (not just in words but action as well) as you said, but not by unruly/uncivilized methods and views.Bcs09 (talk) 06:46, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Bcs09, the issue of including India in the article has been raised times before and rejected each time. Once again you are the only one who supports your proposed changes whilst everyone else opposes them. Perhaps it has something to do with that fact your proposed changes are blatantly biased? The fact is the economic, military and diplomatic power India possesses as of 2011 is no more than that of most other middle powers, hence it remains a middle power. You should read the Middle power article. As for India's "agreed" permanent Security Council seat where is it exactly? I don't see India with a permanent seat on the Security Council in 2011 so when will we see it? 2020? 2030? When exactly? India having a permanent Security Council seat is far from "agreed". You could be argued with until the cows come home as it is like trying to argue with a stuck record of Indian nationalism. I would also like to add that it is hard to understand your broken and sometimes rambling English and that you appear threatening to other users and it is unlikely to be tolerated for long. Quite vivid blur (talk) 01:28, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You better keep your personal views for yourself. And you can agree on your personal views which are not needed here. Let me remind you that this is not a forum to express personal opinions. I had replied to your views by picking and busting each of that myths. I have nothing more to say for your personal belives and views that that run contrary to stark reality.Bcs09 (talk) 02:50, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh jeez. So. Judging from most of Bcs09's views, we should add Brazil in here too. India is definately a very influential country in the world. Then again, so are such countries as Italy (mostly through the G8 forum). India's highest level of recognition globally is in the G8+5, and even then the '+5' suggests India is outside the bubble as opposed to fully integrated into it. The other two big +5 countries (Brazil and China) are also emerging, but China is accepted because of it's inclusion in the P5 for the past forty years and influence throughout the world through alliances like the SCO. Yes, there are sources that suggest India is a great power. There are also sources that suggest that suggest Iran is a closeted superpower, but you do not see Iran listed on the superpower page. The point is, most sources suggest India is still in a state of ascendence and has still not reached the comparable level of advancement that the other Great Powers have reached. Comics (talk) 04:03, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That can also be discussed why not? Is there restrictions on discussing whether Brazil is a great power or not? I hope not. U.N Security council, G8, G20 etc are different groupings. Don't mix it together. It will not mix. If you can prove with valid sources then yes, Iran can be included as a superpower in the superpower list, and I dont think there exists such valid souces to state Iran as a super power hence we cannot add it to the list. Don't say other great powers. Surely not China and the U.S in terms of statistics. That's for sure. But that never means India is not a great power. Think about it.Bcs09 (talk) 02:36, 5 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Bcs09 Personally I was really offended by your statement "India is not poor in any areas except for economic reasons it was when the British left India. From that day of 100 percent poverty to reducing it to the level of 20 percent" especially after you scolded Comics for his/her "poor taste". even going on to say "Learn to respect and then gain respect. If those who don't have it and the ones who support such pathetic outright stupidity dont deserve respect either. Try to be constructive." I found your comments to be insulting, hypocritical and it shows that you have a limited view of world history or of the social/economical situation of India before the 1800's. Don't forget that India has lost over $462 Billion due to corruption alone from 1948 to 2008, and 68% of that loss was after 1991!
 * But my main point. This article is quite simple in its Goal, it is about Great Powers. It is not about Superpowers, not about Middle Powers and it is not about potential Great Powers. We are not here to Create our own opinions and post it on Wikipedia, it is actually officially banned:
 * No original research : Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position
 * we must also avoid creating our own conclusions by doing research here and drawing our own conclusions from them:
 * Synthesis of published material which advances a position : Material published by reliable sources can inadvertently be put together in a way that constitutes original research. Synthesizing material occurs when an editor comes to a conclusion by putting together different sources. If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion, or if the sources cited are not directly related to the subject of the article, then the editor is engaged in original research.
 * There is no academic source out there that says that India is a Great power but there are many speculating about it being a future Superpower. This is not the Superpower article nor the Potential Superpower article. We should also not post opinions about what may happen in the future, because one can never know what tomorrow brings:
 * Wikipedia is not a crystal ball : Articles that present extrapolation, speculation, and "future history" are original research and therefore inappropriate. While scientific and cultural norms continually evolve, we cannot anticipate that evolution but must wait for it to happen. Of course, we do and should have articles about notable artistic works, essays, or credible research that embody predictions. [..] "Future history" is welcome at Future Wikia, where original research is allowed to some extent and fact-based speculations are welcome.
 * As you see official policies are in agreement. We should only use Academic accredited sources that we can cite via Reliable sources and Verifiability and please know that this article is not a forum. -- Phoenix (talk) 05:55, 4 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Phoenix is right. Corruption and mismanagement in India are primary reasons why India trails far behind China in development. This was demonstrated by the enormous disparity between the 2008 Beijing Olympics and 2010 Commonwealth Games in Delhi. Many, including the media, have mistaken what has occured in China since 1978 as seemingly being synonymous with what is occuring in other developing countries. China is governed very differently to other countries and this is why the enormous development seen in China since 1978 has been for the most part limited to China. This is why in 2011 China's GDP is the second largest in the world while India's GDP is only 11th, not in the top 10 and even behind such middle powers as Brazil and Canada. India's military budget is the 10th largest in the world, behind Saudi Arabia and Italy, while China's is the second largest. Is having the 11th largest GDP and 10th largest military budget, ranking behind such countries as Canada, Brazil and Saudi Arabia, the kind of economic and military clout of that of a great power? India's GDP rank isn't going anywhere fast either, having only moved up one place from 12th to 11th in the past decade, while China's moved up 5 places from 7th to 2nd in the same space of time, confirming what I stated at the start of this comment. In addition, Comics is right that this article is not a list of future great powers and as soon as one middle power is included on this article as a great power then others like Brazil, Mexico, Italy, South Korea, Spain, Canada, Australia, Saudi Arabia and so on would be included too, which would make the article erroneous. Quite vivid blur (talk) 13:39, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * True, but I think that you missed the main point of my post. We need to use this talk page to help build this encyclopaedia and improve this article. Lets try to go back to that agenda and allow the original user bring accredited academic sources about India as a Great Power, and if none exist this conversation should not continue because it can only get father off track. -- Phoenix (talk) 23:22, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah Phoenix, that's the spirit of a Wikipedian. After hearing emerging, then on the verge of emerged, finally in last months of 2010, there was this emerged comment by non other than the U.S president. Now President of a Super power nation (usually will have scores of academic pandits as advisors) saying "India has emerged". Now should we treat him as a credible source or put him below the carpet as untrustworthy and not enough source, capable of judging which is a great power or not. I dont think so. And also for a normal academic source, the Opendemocracy article is there.Bcs09 (talk) 03:37, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * @ Quite vidid blur: India is not run by communist government and Indian economy is not based on communism nor based on dictatorship. It's a democratic nation and it's economy is a free economy. The corruption exists in the government and the government is not the one that is taking India's economy forward, it's the private companies that thrive in India. So don't compare the Chinese model of caged labour with Indian version of progress based on entrepreneurial skills. The Chinese olympics and the Indian commonwealth games went with full satisfaction of the athletes. The problem with Commonwealth games was indeed corruption, but in India to counter these corruption we do have something called a free media, which is non existent in China. And the credit for exposing the lacunae and the deficiencies can be given to the Indian media. They broke the story on corruption for the countries leadership to take stock of the situation and work in such a manner so that during the time of commonwealth, things were put in place and the commoncealth games became a success. India and China can only be compared in terms of statistics. Now take the statistics, the nation that is in competition to the U.S is not a simple competitor for India. China is a great competitor. Now for economic statistics you just take the imf data and see for youself.. Now since you're repeating your points again and again, let me ask you something simple. Can you provide the source that says "Military spending is propotional to military power". Do there exists any theory that says that more spending will result in being a better military power than the one who spends lesser amounts? Source please. It has been told that you can stop posting your belives here. No need for that.Bcs09 (talk) 02:27, 5 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Please check all official wikipedia policies provided above: WP:No original research; WP:Synthesis; WP:Wikipedia is not a crystal ball; WP:Reliable sources; WP:Verifiability and WP:Forum. A politician is not considered an accredited academic source, because a politician will say or do what is best intrust to sway voters or to get people or other politicians on his/her side. While it is fine for academics to make arguments one way or another; that is not our job. Please allow Academic consensus to sway the vote here. When the consensus agrees we will report that. Until then we will await their verdict. -- Phoenix (talk) 08:56, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think Obama get's elected by Indians and don't think American voters will vote because he say's something good about Indians. So the point that Obama's views are not policy based and more vote based seems having a mismatch. Indeed it's quite interesting to see the latest articles that emerge/emerged that describe India as a great power. Here is one more which says "The growing convergence of ideas and interests with the peer group of great powers has promoted India’s gradual rise by a process of co-optation and co-operation into institutions of global governance and great power status.". Bcs09 (talk) 11:05, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I think Obama is however trying to improve the tarnished image of America abroard, which makes voters happy, and a way to do that is to suggest that the US is a benevolent superpower that accepts other countries as having an important role. This gets him happy Americans, because they are being given the image of a humble president who is not above accepting more input in global affairs. I hope I phrased that right. Comics (talk) 11:37, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Any source buddy? India is not a Iraq for U.S president to improve the tarnished image. It's policy of the United states in accepting India as a great power. Nothing less than that. Bcs09 (talk) 15:13, 5 January 2011 (UTC)


 * There's a big difference between a country having "emerged" and a country being a great power. The countries of the G20 are considered to be emerging powers but that doesn't mean all countries of the G20 are great powers. Do any of your sources, Bcs09, specifically state that India is a "great power"? Until that time I can't see you gaining consensus on this talk page, no matter how much you attempt to imply that a source implies India is a great power. Plus, sources you do find will have to be considered by users here as reliable and academic or else they won't be accepted. Quite vivid blur (talk) 12:26, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It says Emerged India: "enter a great power". By the way, who told you that all countries in the G20 are emerging powers? Any source to validate your point? Why should there be no consensus when the articles are there, clearly stating India as a great power? Is there anything present in this discussion forum, something invisible? Bcs09 (talk) 15:11, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Bcs09, it seems that due to the reasons other editors have given, your proposal has been defeated. The consensus to add India as a great power will not be achieved by the sources you have given and political speeches tend not to make good sources for obvious reasons. It's my own opinion that sources can be attained for nearly any viewpoint and this is no different. This is not a forum and we should only be discussing the proposal and since that has now been defeated, either present reliable sources or stop carrying this on. G.R. Allison (talk) 15:32, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You can set aside your personal opinon and try to be constructive. That wil be appreciated.Bcs09 (talk) 16:54, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * My opinion was not used to justify a point, merely to help you understand. G.R. Allison (talk) 17:01, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You never justified any of the points that you made. Bcs09 (talk) 01:22, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Point: The sources you provided were not accepted by the greater Wikipedia community. Personal opinion: You can find sources to support any viewpoint. I think that the opinion justified the point G.R. was making. Comics (talk) 02:10, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Bcs09, do you know what hypocricy is? It's telling someone to set aside their personal opinion and be constructive when you yourself are being told by everyone to do just that. Quite vivid blur (talk) 18:05, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No comments. But I would like to point out that my opinions are based on articles and academic sources whereas yours are plain personal opinions.Bcs09 (talk) 01:22, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * My source = |Google Search, where only one of the first page of articles suggests India is a great power and about 6 others (one perhaps of questionable authority) suggest that it is still ascending. The others seem to be forum posts. 6 in favour of 'India ascending', 1 in favour of 'emerged'. And that one is OpenDemocracy. Comics (talk) 02:15, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * From the days of google? Just take into consideration the recent article of Opendemocracy and German Institute for International and Security Affairs article along with the U.S policy. Don't take into consideration things like blogs etc. Funny are the ways of google. When I clicked on latest from the link your provided, it showed me this article. Bcs09 (talk) 04:08, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Considering that I just posted the link to the google page, you'd have to actually look at the blogs to see if they're actually from noted academics. Considering we take tweets from film directors as credible sources on the making of a movie, blogs from notes academics should perhaps be treated in a similar fashion. Now, I'm not saying that I've looked into them in any depth but seeing as that's only page one, chances are that the other pages will have a similar setup. Comics (talk) 06:47, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * In that sense film director and Obama have something in common. Both know what they talk about. Anyway Obama is not a flim director trying to promote his film and hence can be credible as you said. Bcs09 (talk) 13:45, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem is, Obama is not a source. Obama is complementary reference material. If there are sufficient sources from academics to first suggest that India is a great power, then the approach of politicians to the issue can be used to add a bit more weight. Otherwise, from the way the US acts at times, you'd think we've got a bipolar world with China already a superpower and Iran and NK it's evil little minions. The problem that seems to be eluding you is that you have not provided a significant number of sources for peer review, merely suggesting a handful and resorting to OR. Comics (talk) 13:55, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

So the sources are Bcs09 (talk) 13:51, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Emerged India: enter a great power
 * India is not simply emerging; India has already emerged
 * India’s Gradual Rise
 * ASEAN and Strategic Rivalry among the Great Powers in Asia

Now what's the conclusion. Can we add India to the list with the above four articles.Bcs09 (talk) 01:36, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I will quickly state my position on India: 1) it should be mentioned with perhaps one or two sentences in the article, along the lines of it showing some elements of great power status, which have largely emerged fairly recently. (Similar to how we include the EU.) 2) It simply cannot be added to the list as the most recent timeframe is "c. 2000" and c. 2000 India was/is not a great power. As I've already written, in 5-10 years time, when we have a "c. 2020" box India will more than likely be in there. But right now India is not a great power - albeit it is headed there - and it certainly wasn't one around the year 2000. So in summary: quick mention of India in the article, not stating that it is a great power, but is showing signs of being accepted as one/gaining the elements needed to be one. The big test is UN Security Council permanent membership. If/when India gets that then that will be more solid proof that the world has accepted the country as being an extant great power. David (talk) 02:29, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see this morning Bcs09 has met his doom. David (talk) 11:49, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

G4 Nations
We've had one editor (perhaps rightly so) suggest that Japan and Germany may not be without a permanent SC seat in the near future, citing our G4 article (and the sources at such) to add credence to this. While I support the notion, I think this might lead to some editors (no names to be mentioned of course) reheating notions for India to be in the article for similar reaons, and perhaps even Brazil. Perhaps what we need is a small paragraph, similar to the EU one, suggesting that the G4 nations themselves (particularly India and Brazil, seeing as they're the ones perhaps most debated) are contentious (I believe there are sources suggesting Germany is a middle power? perhaps those could be mentioned, since the article suggests that some merely believe them to be 'economic great powers'). Comics (talk) 01:14, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree fully on this, you have my support on this and I'll help when I have the time. G.R. Allison (talk) 07:30, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Removal of Britain from Great power list
I propose a discussion for a constructive argument for the removal of Britain from the great power list. I invite all to take part in it. We can do it over this week and the next. But let's all make it constructive with valid arguments and sources. Thank you.Bcs09 (talk) 01:38, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Any editors willing to engage in this should note the discussions and incidents here, here, here and here (an admin indeed placed a block on this user for such things) as they all show a motive behind the proposed removal of Britain as a great power by this user and that it seems to be an on going campaign with this user after having their proposals defeated on other pages relating to removing Britain as X or Y power. It is my opinion that he is simply retaliating due to the Indian Navy being removed from the Blue water navy article. The very aim of his discussion, building an argument to remove a country from the list, smacks of POV pushing and I don't think he should be engaged on this subject given recent situations as detailed above.


 * Also, Bcs09 you were advised by an admin;


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


 * Thanks for your time editors. G.R. Allison (talk) 03:11, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Also it seems this has been proposed in retaliation to the inclusion of India being rejected. Especially if it's noted who started this discussion here. Tune was changed. G.R. Allison (talk) 13:28, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Let's look at some easily sourced facts: Britain has a permanent seat on the Security Council. Britain is an important player in Europe (G6) and is a part of international movements such as the EU3 (which is involving itself in the Iranian Nuclear Issue). Britain has one of the highest GDP's in the world, and has a legacy lasting from the days of Empire (influence culturally in the Commonwealth realms, the English language is the most prominent language globally) whilst also influencing the world globally through recent cultural trends (the Beatles were what, the best selling artists of the 2000s I think? Harry Potter was, and probably still is, a global phenomenon that HAS had an impact on popular culture, Doctor Who and other British productions have audiences worldwide, the James Bond franchise is one of Britain's most recogniseable film series). Britain also is very well noted for it's universities (Cambridge and Oxford particularly), which suggests that it is seen as a country that provides quality academic institutions. It has a moderate population size, but maintains a technologically advanced military and navy that, while nothing really compared to the former navy under empire, is still one of the most potent at projecting force globally (Falkland's War, which suggested in the 1980's I suppose that Britain was still a Great Power). I believe that all of these are easily verified, Mr GRA? Also, perhaps due to familiarity, alot of people in the Anglosphere show immense familiarity with America and Britain, suggesting that those two are strong cultural movers in the Anglosphere. That last part is OR, but the rest of my post I believe can be verified without too much hassle? Comics (talk) 14:24, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with you fully Comics, I just think it's a waste of time engaging Bcs09 based on his arguments (you've seen the relevant talk pages where he caused weeks of futile discussion) and his motive for this proposal. G.R. Allison (talk) 15:11, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Ah, a suggestion and a request for debate to remove great Britain from the great power list has been met with wild accusations, personal opinions and unwanted comments. What's happening? Is this what the admins were calling as constructive discussion and for which they blocked me. Brilliant.Bcs09 (talk) 16:23, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Let's go through this carefully: yes, there was a request to /remove/ Great Britain from the Great Power list. This is a very bold and radical move. Your past reputation for bold and radical moves precedes you, and you have been blocked before for suggesting such motions and not accepting community consensus. The difference between this motion and your India motion is that with India, you provided a handful of sources which the community felt did not accurately present India's situation. Here, you provide no sources suggesting Great Britain is no longer a Great Power. This immediately seems like a personal opinion. My former post, though unsourced, contains many elements that a simple search can verify quite easily. That is not personal opinion. Unwanted comments? No. They are comments that present Britain's current reality. What kind of comments would you want, Bcs09? Comics (talk) 22:55, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Bcs09, This is not a forum. Creating a section to remove a country from the list without any particular reason other than that you simply want to remove that country is a very questionable thing to do. Creating a section to find arguments and justification for the proposal is again, questionable. G.R. Allison (talk) 17:35, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I advise editors read this second ANI filed by Bcs09 and the response. Comics, you put that quite well but it's wasted on Bcs09, I think we'd have a more productive time not engaging him. G.R. Allison (talk) 23:38, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I oppose removing the United Kingdom from the great powers article. The United Kingdom is quite clearly a great power and this is supported by the majority of academic sources. The United Kingdom is as much a great power as France and more so than Germany and Japan. The United Kingdom, alongside France, possesses all the typical characteristics of that of a great power. This is obviously just more POV from Bcs09 as the user has recently been banned for POV and edit warring. Quite vivid blur (talk) 00:01, 13 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment:Note that User:Bcs09 or (User:Chanakyathegreat) has a well-established history of persistently ignoring consensus especially on this article. Check the article history and talk archive. Bcs09, if you want your points to be considered seriously, I suggest toning down the nationalistic rhetoric and supporting your points through calm discussion. Nirvana888 (talk) 00:16, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

1939
Shouldn't the Republic of China be under the "c. 1939 (World War II)" section? China was a major player during World War II. CuboneKing (talk) 17:47, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * China was a major player during World War II, but specifically the Pacific Theatre which didn't open up until about 1941. Even then, it was only recognised in 1945 with the SC seats. Comics (talk) 02:34, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Major parts of China was occupied by Japan by 1939 and the rest was politically unstable. While China was a significant ally of the Americans and British during the war, by 1939 France was more commonly considered a great power (even if it was run over by the Germans the next year and perhaps shouldn't be considered a great power again until after the war, but the template only give momentary images).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Not Really Great (talk • contribs) 14:25, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Nazi Germany in 1815?
Why is Germany, in the list of great powers by date, under 1815, represented by Nazi Germany? Is there something I've missed? 83.233.121.239 (talk) 22:30, 17 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, the "c. 1939" heading between "1815" and "Germany"... David (talk) 22:45, 17 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Not only that, but 'Germany' was represented by Prussia at that time. Kind of. Long story short, Prussia eventually formed 'Germany', so the entity is known as Prussia at that time, not Germany. Comics (talk) 00:50, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It was also inhabited by mostly germanic tribes, which is where the name germany comes from. Millertime246 (talk) 02:29, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Italy
There is a discussion HERE regarding Italy's status c. 1880 David (talk) 10:45, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Edits by Xaxosax
Japan and Germany are usually grouped in a slightly different (economic) category from the Permanent Five on the UN Security Council, which the new edits by Xaxosax only serve to obscure. Reliable sources are cited in the long-standing unedited text to support this conventional distinction, whereas Xaxosax's edits are unsourced and apparently obfuscatory, and appear to be based only on personal opinion. I can't see how these new edits make constructive contributions to the article. In my opinion, these changes should be reverted, and unless Xaxosax or someone else can present a plausible case, it is my intention to revert them within the next 24 hours, if they aren't reverted by another editor sooner. Lachrie (talk) 14:16, 27 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree that Germany and Japan need to be treated differently - they are not widely accepted as great powers, as they do not have permanent seats on the Security Council and do not have nuclear weapons or a blue-water navy. David (talk) 16:50, 27 September 2011 (UTC)


 * On the other hand, Germany and Japan are great powers in just about every other regard. They should be listed but with caveats about their status, such as not having permanent Security Council seats and primarily being economic great powers. David (talk) 18:09, 27 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I share that view and believe it to be relatively uncontentious. The unedited text better reflected that long-standing consensus and had the support of cited sources, whereas Xaxosax's unsupported edits do not. I intend to revert Xaxosax's edits shortly on those grounds. As for the final sentence in the section, I intend to remove the non-essential adjective clause "which include great powers France, Germany and the United Kingdom", for exactly the same reason, because the bald assertion is too emphatic and inconsistent with the foregoing discussion of Germany's contested claim in the same section, which also renders it redundant. As for the EU, Tony Blair's reference to the EU as "a superpower but not a superstate", enjoys much wider currency than the EU as a "great power", sourced in the article merely to one Barry Buzan; "superpower" also better reflects the EU's true weight in the world economy; for balance, some acknowledgement ought to be made of that. Lachrie (talk) 04:18, 28 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The alternative of trimming the clause about EU members to say "which include great powers France and the United Kingdom" could also be considered more problematic than just cutting it out entirely, since the EU remains primarily just an economic bloc, with Germany contributing the largest share to the EU budget and sovereign bailouts. Moreover, within Europe, France and the United Kingdom exercise their military leadership - the traditional criterion for great powers - either independently or through NATO, not through a primarily economic organisation like EU. Lachrie (talk) 04:40, 28 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The article needs to make it clear that the EU is as you describe it - a description of affairs which I believe is correct. But surely it is an important thing to note, in outlining the reasoning and explaining what it all means in practice, that 2 or 3 (if you count Germany) of the EU's member states are themselves great powers? It is something that is perhaps not immediately obvious to a reader who has skipped the bulk of the article and gone straight to the European Union bit. David (talk) 13:26, 28 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Apples and oranges. It's problematic because, unlike NATO, the EU as an economic group lacks an effective aggregate military identity which such a linkage implies. Military power isn't fungible, yet the text suddenly equivocates by using the term 'great power' in an unconventional sense without the kind of careful qualification outlined previously in the article. Lachrie (talk) 14:17, 28 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry, are we still discussing whether to include "which include great powers France, Germany and the United Kingdom." ? I don't see how what you've just written has any bearing on whether to include that sentence or not... all I'm suggesting is that it should be noted that some (2 or 3) of the EU's member states are great powers in their own right, never mind what status the EU is given (be it an economic great power, a superpower, whatever). It is surely important to note that - as things stand - the EU's status (whatever it may be described as) does not negate or subsume the great power statuses of its members, notably Britain and France. (The reason being principally because foreign affairs and defence matters rest with the sovereign powers that are the member states.) David (talk) 17:05, 28 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The problem is that here the wording commits a fallacy of equivocation, because it's conflating two differenct senses of 'power' which have only just been differentiated — 'power' in the ordinary military sense with respect to France and the UK, and 'power' as 'wealth' in the more dubious economic sense with respect to Germany and the EU — in a rather confusing way. Perhaps, to avoid committing ourselves and any appearance of self-contradiction, we should be trim the final sentence to say simply 'which include France, Germany and the United Kingdom'. Lachrie (talk) 06:32, 30 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Yep, okay. Do you also want to expand the EU section with some of your observations (referenced of course)? I think it is important to differentiate (and point this out in the article) between all-round great power status (which really only 'the 5' have) and other power status derived from economic strength and/or a union of sovereign states. David (talk) 08:20, 30 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I'll restore the text now, minus the apparent contradiction in the final sentence. I'll elaborate on the economic identity of EU when I have more time. Lachrie (talk) 14:35, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Ottoman Empire
Surely the Ottoman Empire was one of the Great Powers in 1815. I mean of course they were in decline, but they were still very powerful and had a massive empire and lots of vassal states. I mean if you compare that with say Prussia, Prussia didn't have any empire, it was a powerful country in Europe with a great army, but it had little or no world-wide influence, the Ottomans controlled an empire that stretched over three continents, yet they are not considered as powerful or important as Prussia? I think that's just incorrect, they should be listed in the 1815 category, though not in the 1880 category (which would show their decline). --Hibernian (talk) 16:41, 21 October 2011 (UTC)


 * If the Ottomans were a great power c. 1815 then why were they barely (if at all!) involved with the Congress of Vienna? They may have controlled a vast territory, but were clearly technologically and militarily very weak compared to the newly industrialised European powers. David (talk) 16:59, 21 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Probably because it was a European conflict which they were only peripherally involved in and because they were Muslim and didn't have good relations with the other Great Powers. If you're going by who was at the Congress of Vienna then that automatically makes it entirely Euro-Centric, surely it should be based on the size of the country's economy and military and it's influence in the world. By those criteria I think the Ottomans would definitely still qualify in 1815. --Hibernian (talk) 17:40, 21 October 2011 (UTC)


 * If you can find a reliable source for Ottoman Turkey it could be considered, but it's not usually included, purely as a matter of historical convention. There was no objective criteria for membership of the Great Power club beyond recognition by the established Powers. A European emphasis is unavoidable because the Great Powers concept was a European concept. It originated in Europe after the Congress of Vienna, and later spread to include emerging powers in other parts of the world: the United States and Japan (whose place was later taken by China). Lachrie (talk) 19:28, 21 October 2011 (UTC)


 * It could be viewed in this manner: that great power status started with the first industrialised powers (of considerable strength/size) and was later extended to new industrial (strong/large) powers. David (talk) 21:37, 21 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The British Empire in 1815 was the only nation in the world that could have been called 'industrialised' and undoubtedly the Greatest Power at the time. Prussia was a close ally of England at the time and possessed a powerful military, during those years fighting France and shortly after victory, Prussia wielded significant influence as an ally of England. The Ottomans were regarded as a backward nation, militarily weak, economically not important and were a minor consideration in the foreign policy of the Great Powers. Lawardsday (talk) 10:49, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * To be that guy, England =/= UK. G.R. Allison (talk) 15:49, 23 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Oops! Sorry, don't want to offend any British here, its so easy for those out-side of the UK to call it England even tho we mean the whole of the UK and not just England. Lawardsday (talk) 16:05, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't worry about it, no offence taken. I tend to be 'that guy' in any setting! :) G.R. Allison (talk) 16:57, 23 October 2011 (UTC)


 * To say that the Ottomans weren't a great power because they were backward, well what would you describe Austria or Russia as? Where they not backward compared to Western Europe? Of course they were. As for "militarily weak" well they still had a massive army and the third largest navy in the world (see Ottoman Navy). Maybe in comparison to the really powerful countries they couldn't compete, but they were still a major foe to their neighbours, Austria and Russia. And I don't think the Ottoman Empire was considered unimportant by the Europeans, remember there was nearly a major European war over the Oriental Crisis of 1840 and there was a major war (the Crimean War) which was all about the Ottomans. The Ottomans may have been the weakest of the Great Powers, but they still were one in 1815. --Hibernian (talk) 23:40, 23 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I think it's important to note though that Austria also seemed to hold a kind of 'senior' position among the powers in 1815. They weilded quite strong political influence which probably masked many of their shortcomings, and Russia seemed incredibly intimidating even until 1917 even though it really was one of the poorest of the great powers (until Italy came along). I personally think the Ottoman Empire clung on as a great power for a brief time that overlapped with the Vienna Powers, but I'd need quality sources by historians that hold it up to still have been a great power. Comics (talk) 23:52, 23 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Austria's level of economic development in 1820, based on estimated per capita GDP, was above the Western European average, although its rate of growth was lower. Austria was far ahead of Russia, or Turkey, which had fallen even further behind Western Europe than Russia. As a Great Power, Austria couldn't rival Britain or France, but the dominating personality of Metternich helped Austria to punch above its weight diplomatically.


 * The conventional criteria for a Great Power are more military than economic. The Turkish army was underrated, but even its main Egyptian fleet was obsolete, and the Ottoman empire survived the nineteenth century mainly because the Great Powers couldn't agree how to carve it up. Turkey's position by the nineteenth century was marginal and ambiguous. It was outside the concert of Europe, and by the end of the century, the Great Powers were calling it the Sick Man of Europe.


 * But it's not up to us to decide for ourselves if Turkey was a Great Power, based on our own made-up criteria. If someone can find serious sources explicitly defining and analysing Ottoman Turkey as a Great Power, we would have to consider its inclusion. To make concrete changes to the page, we do need reliable sources. Lachrie (talk) 03:04, 24 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I've found a few sources which claim it was, but I'm not sure how credible they are. Comics (talk) 03:34, 24 October 2011 (UTC)


 * So far, all the academic sources I've found agree that Turkey wasn't a Great Power in the nineteenth century, when the term came into use. For example:


 * Moul (1985) treats Ottoman Turkey as a 'smaller state', at war or in coalition with Great Powers, and not as a Great Power itself.


 * William B. Moul, 'Balances of Power and European Great Power War, 1815-1939: A Suggestion and Some Evidence', Canadian Journal of Political Science / Revue canadienne de science politique, Vol. 18, No. 3 (Sep., 1985), pp. 481-528.


 * Singer and Small (1972) explicitly classify Ottoman Turkey as a 'Non-great power foe' in the Great Power wars of Navarino Bay in 1827, the Russo-Turkish War of 1828, the Crimea in 1853 and 1854, the Russo-Turkish War of 1877, and the Italo-Turkish war of 1911.


 * Singer and Small, The Wages of War 1816-1865: A Statistical Handbook (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1972), Table 4:2, quoted in William Brian Moul, 'European Great Power Pacta de Contrahendo and Interstate Imperial War, 1815-1939', Canadian Journal of Political Science / Revue canadienne de science politique, Vol. 16, No. 1 (Mar., 1983), p. 87.


 * Levy (1982) only includes the Ottoman Empire as a member of what he calls the 'Modern Great Power System' from 1495-1699, and excludes it thereafter.


 * Jack S. Levy, 'Historical Trends in Great Power War, 1495-1975', International Studies Quarterly, Vol. 26, No. 2 (Jun., 1982), p. 283, Table 1.


 * So far, on the basis of reliable sources, we have solid grounds to exclude Turkey from the list of Great Powers. Even if we find other comparable sources contradicting that, at best Turkey's position would be ambiguous. Lachrie (talk) 04:09, 24 October 2011 (UTC)


 * From A Dictionary of World History, Oxford University Press, 2000: 'Great power. A state seen as playing a major role in international politics. A great power possesses economic, diplomatic, and military strength and influence, and its interests extend beyond its own borders. The term is usually associated with the emergence of Austria, Russia, Prussia, France, and Great Britain as great powers in Europe after the Congress of Vienna in 1815; they worked together under a loose agreement known as the Concert of Europe.'


 * Turkey seems to have been excluded by its relative military weakness—which made it dependent for defence of its territorial integrity on the friendly intervention by Great Powers—and because the concept of Great Powers was originally tied to the Concert of Europe. Lachrie (talk) 04:53, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Germany and japan
i have included many sources in my edits, it was the same sources as with section "great powers by date" i do not know how to use those sources a second time so i used thema as new sources , and in the talk page section "edits by xaxosax" people agreed that the original version plus some improvement is the consensus 111.250.59.164 (talk) 13:51, 24 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Kudos for including sources. I looked through them though and thought some of those didn't apply to the text 100% - the text said 'referred to as great powers, with major economies, and grouped with...' but the sources didn't support that exactly, so I took two of them down. Sure, they agreed they were great powers but they didn't support the text that 'they're great powers with big economies so they're grouped with the others'.
 * I also reverted the wording back to the old text of '"economic" great powers' because really, what better reflects the reality: 'economic great power' (a great power because of its economy) or 'a great power with a major economy' (a great power with a big economy - which could apply to any of the other great powers on the list, really)? I also re-added in the nuclear weapons bit, because that's another thing - the others are great powers because they have big economies, they're P-5 members and they have nukes. Germany and Japan are great powers because of their economies.
 * Also, before you make any other edits bring them up here. Don't just say 'I made a section on the talk page, now I'm editing' - this is a delicate area which requires precision wording and bringing it up on the talk page before editing is better. Okay? So if you want to do a change, bring it here and say exactly what you want to change and show us how it would look before someone else says 'okay' - when you get the okay, then make the change. Cheers. Comics (talk) 14:42, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Confusing wording on the status of current great powers
some people changed germany's and japan's status from great power to great economic power, for those who read the article on wikipedia it is very confusing wording , because the version implies that germany and japan have no great political powers in the world but merely powers involving international trade and business (economic great powers), so can somebody please fix that problem on this article Sociald43 (talk) 20:33, 4 December 2011 (UTC)


 * User is brand new (only three edits; two here, one on my talk page in an almost exact replica of this message). I think it's likely they made this account so they could be involved in some of the discussions here, particularly on this issue that they think needs to be changed.
 * Anyways, the way I read it is that Germany and Japan are great powers because of their economic standing. They don't have a strong military influence (like the US, Russia or China) or nuclear weapons (like the other great powers) or a permanent seat on the Security Council (which may change if the G4 proposal goes through). I don't think the wording implies they have 'no' great political powers, it's just mentioning that their great power is a result of their economic standing. Comics (talk) 00:45, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 5 December 2011
wouldn't it be simpler if we use great power without security council votes just as it previosly was ?! i mean what was wrong with that, it was included by a very long time until it was removed , and the two sources which support the great power status they dont support the phrase "However, they are occasionally referred to as "economic" great powers and grouped with the other great powers" wouldnt a simple compromise be to restore the original long term version before the apparent edit war , can somebody do that ?!

Sociald43 (talk) 12:49, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed.  Puffin  Let's talk! 18:08, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

UK's great power status disputed
Wikipedia should not ignore that there are a great many opinion pieces, written both by Western and non-Western writers that raise serious questions regarding the status of the United Kingdom as a "great power". It has been 20 years since the Cold War ended. Simple examples are:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/sep/27/britain-decline-military-superpower

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/apr/26/britain-super-power-will-hutton

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/edmundconway/6278611/Britain-can-still-be-a-power-in-a-changing-world.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1322030/DEFENCE-REVIEW-Britains-pretensions-world-power-blown-away.html

A simple google search will reveal numerous such examples in news articles in major newspapers spanning all shades of political opinion. Currently, Great Britain lacks:

1. A top 5 economy. 2. An aircraft carrier 3. A space programme

One can say that the UK is still a major military spender, but Canada also spends more than Israel. Yet, few would suggest Canadian military power exceeds that of Israel.

Further, the fact that Britain's claim to "great power" status is indeed hotly and very appreciably contested is rather well acknowledged, even at the highest level of the British government; see, for instance, Cameron's insistence that the UK is "still" a great power:

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/e145a5a6-f0fb-11df-bf4b-00144feab49a.html#axzz1aP5niWBg

Statements such as these indicate a very clear appreciation of the fact that there is a very rational and cogent case for arguing that Great Britain can no longer be considered a world power. I think it is only fair that Wikipedia should accommodate this fact with at least a sentence to say that the UK's status as a "great power" is far from a consensus position among academics, governments (including the British government) or the general public. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aban1313 (talk • contribs) 18:19, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


 * This isn't a forum for general discussion about the subject. Your own personal criteria are quite arbitrary and unsupportable. Newspaper opinion pieces aren't the best source for this article. British newspapers have domestic political agendas. The specialist international relations literature has more informed analysis. According to the sources quoted in the article, with the apparent exception of the United States, the status of every great power - Britain, China, Russia, France - has been "questioned", a point which, if anything, may already have received over-emphasis in the article, anyway. Lachrie (talk) 18:46, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I am not sure the 3 criteria mentioned above can be considered "arbitrary". There can only be so many "great powers". There has to be a cut-off point. At least, one

must have a top 5 economy to qualify to be one, unless, of course, like Russia, UK can demonstrate sweeping military capabilities of the highest order. The absence of an aircraft carrier suggests loss of basic power projection capabilities and the absence of a space programme betrays a serious technological gap. Hence, if Britain is not distinguished economically, militarily or technologically, it seems difficult to see what exactly qualifies it for great power status. Once again, we need to remember that there can only be so many "great powers" and 7 certainly seems too big to be true. If there were as many as 7 great powers, the world would be vaporised by a great war. Its human nature. 7 great powers cannot co-exist. Among the 7 listed in the article, Britain's case is the weakest of all. Aban1313 (talk) 20:06, 10 October 2011 (UTC) Aban1313


 * It is indeed a real shame that the UK has fallen so considerably in recent years. Their status as the 6th largest economy in the world truly is woeful, as is the fact that they have an aircraft carrier they plan on removing from service by 2014. The fact that all their space program endeavours is by a civilian agency is also an obvious fact that Britain can't be a great power any longer in the modern world, since they have neither a top-five economy, an aircraft carrier or a space program. On these grounds I really do support your decision to remove Britain, because it is quite obvious that it isn't a great power anymore. Comics (talk) 20:46, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh God, not this discussion again. Of course Great Britain is a Great Power. If it isn't then neither are France, Germany, Japan and even Russia. Try distinguishing between a superpower (which Great Britain obviously isn't anymore) and a Great Power (which it is). Until its permanent seat is removed from the UN Security Council, it remains a Great Power. As for military might - 3rd or 4th largest expenditure, full nuclear deterrent (only the other four UN powers have this) and a blue-water navy... yes, it is still one of the principle military powers on Earth. (As for aircraft carriers... well, I guess you've conveniently forgotten about having two 65,000 tonne carriers under construction..)


 * And btw you can't just "remove it" from the list... you'd need actual references (and not from media sensationalism or vested interest whinging articles) that support such a move. David (talk) 21:20, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Added to which, so-called criteria suggested above such as mere level of activity in the domestic economy, not mothballing a carrier or having a "military" space programme are just absurd and made-up. They ignore more meaningful measures such as taxable per capita wealth (which is a better gauge of war potential, as seen among other concrete measures by actual defence spending and defence assets), foreign aid, and institutional influence in world bodies. Since the criteria being put forward are here so obviously random and spurious, it's difficult to avoid the conclusion that the real motivation is simply anti-British prejudice, or Anglophobia. The UK easily meets all the traditional criteria for a Great Power, as the article already makes perfectly clear. It can project military power further and more easily than any other nation except the United States: just ask the Libyans. The UK does have a space programme too; it sent a mission to Mars not that long ago; it just co-ordinates its projects with the ESA. Space programmes cost relatively little and aren't a conventional criterion for a Great Power; even a backward developing country like India which has been taking foreign aid from Britain has one. Moving the goal posts by making up your own criteria for what makes a Great Power isn't a valid form of argument. Lachrie (talk) 22:45, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Dude Lachrie... I think India is completely dependent on UK aid. This year, India provided $2 billion of aid to EU, of which the UK is a member. India received nearly $500 billion aid from UK. Some Indian newspapers have misreported this number as just $500 million and not billion, but it clearly does not make sense. how else could India have provided $2 billion aid to EU, if it received just $500 million?

http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2011-08-03/india/29846212_1_bailouts-economies-debt-crisis

Now that I concur with you folks, may I please have my name cleared of the sockpuppet accusation? I promise never to dispute the status of the UK. As Libyans now know, Britain (with US and French support, of course) can, in the space of just 5 short months, beat any country whose economy does not make the top 50 list. Over the years, I have learned that the most effective tool for a professor is to let students find out factsfor themselves. Professors who try to push students to learn and lose their pre-conceived notions end up with poor student evaluations, just as I did on Wikipedia :) Aban1313 (talk) 04:45, 14 October 2011 (UTC)Aban1313


 * You can start by not confusing AID (ie gifts of money to a government or NGOs for use in education, health etc) with BAILOUT FUNDING (by way of share purchase, loans or guarantees to banks or international institutions) - and stop mixing up (and seemingly making up) figures, including your billions and millions! I just don't believe you're a professor with such a lack of understanding. (Or perhaps India has very bad universities which give such titles to people like yourself?!) No, you are a troll/sockpuppet/whatever and I claim my fiver. David (talk) 09:23, 14 October 2011 (UTC)


 * This aid to India debate in Britain is a perfect reflection of British society today. Brits are busily making the big decision: whether or not to give aid to India. Meanwhile, this big decision about

India's future that Brits are supposed to be making hardly registers on India's radar. It's like the mice on a farm having a debate over whether to let the farmer stay. One British mouse wants to kick the farmer out of the land. Another British mouse begs the society of mice to have pity on the poor farmer and spare his livelihood. The mice dont even realise that the farmer is in charge, not the mice. lol! Long live your imaginary superpower. Btw, I am sure self confessed monarchists like you have made perfectly NPOV edits to Wikipedia. Aban1313 (talk) 20:14, 14 October 2011 (UTC)Aban1313


 * You're just resorting to juvenile trolling on a talk page now. It's not constructive and it's irrelevant to any discussion about how to improve the article. These anti-British rants are bizarre and illogical and suggestive of an inferiority complex. The analogy you try to draw is also clearly false because in this case the 'mouse' is richer and more powerful than the 'farmer'. That's some giant super 'mouse'. More like a lion. India's not much of a 'farmer', unless it's an ant farm you're maybe thinking of. The reality is that India contains a third of the world's poor and has higher child malnutrition than sub-Saharan Africa. India's per capita income is only a third of China's. British aid to India saved half a million people from dying from TB in 2007 and 2008. So if you're an Indian and genuinely concerned about the welfare of your fellow Indians whose lives depend on British aid, you probably shouldn't be biting the hand that feeds them, if you genuinely want to show your Indian patriotism and moral solidarity. Lachrie (talk) 22:02, 14 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The reality is that your politicians manufactured this aid to India debate to let your population feel like a superpower because Cameron had to travel to India to shine our shoes with his tongue. Camerons letter to India sounds hardly like that of the roar of a lion. Its a pattern of behaviour with British politicians; when you cant run aircraft carriers any more, they tell you they will be back in 10 years. When Britain falls sorely short in military hardware, your politicians tell you that you are the best trained. how many years more do you intend to continue this bizarre state of denial? If you have honestly convinced yourself that our 1.8 trillion economy runs on your $500 million, you may want to re-evaluate your sanity. Moreover, you send your  aid DIRECTLY to PRIVATE charities in India  over which we have no official control. If India is so starved, weak and irrelevant, it seems your beloved Queen must be really stupid to declare she wants a new special relationship with us. Why do you just want to teach me...1 random person... how weak and worthless India is? Presumably, you are British, why dont you tell Cameron and your beloved Queen not to pleasure our behinds and seek a special relationship with our weak and worthless country? As you can see, India is poor, starved, diseased and worse than sub-Saharan Africa. As such, the conduct of your Prime Minister and Queen towards India must really puzzle you :)

Aban1313 (talk) 03:35, 15 October 2011 (UTC)Aban1313


 * The only country that wants its people to feel as if the country is a superpower is the United States. (Russia and China are debatable cases and China at least seems to be in denial that it can be a superpower just yet).
 * It's also interesting to note that the CIA world factbook lists Britain as having a 2.2 trillion economy compared with India's 1.5 trillion (2010 GDP figures). Of course, the factbook admits India has a 4 trillion economy by PPP compared to Britain's 2.1 trillion. By capita, however, Britain has 36, 000 (GDP) compared with India's 1300. Assuming that Britain is a power in the world, even if not a great power (which Britain is more likely to be than a superpower) then a very powerful middle power, if that country wants to act in a dignified and yes, perhaps 'stupid', manner it makes sense to offer aid when your people have almost 30x the amount of money to their name. Considering that India is home to over 1 billion of the earth's people, don't you agree Aban it makes sense based primarily on numbers to have a special relationship with them (particularly if you're a little island with 62 million people on it)?
 * I'm not sure that arguing like this and referring to politicians as 'pleasure[ing] [India's] behind' is the best way at trying to create community consensus on anything, really. Comics (talk) 04:41, 15 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure there's any point in debating with this troll. I mean, lots of countries give aid to India. Are they all pretending to be superpowers? Or is it the case that India is a very poor country? Methinks the latter. Leave the anti-British troll to fester away behind his computer, wherever that may be. David (talk) 08:53, 15 October 2011 (UTC)


 * India is up to 1.7 trillion now, sorry. I did not know the Brits had not lost hope yet. Wikipedia has been a nice surprise. I can only tell you that if you folks continue to harp on your imperial horse, your path to abject submission worldwide will be a really difficult one indeed. Accept it, Britain is in terminal decline and live with that reality in peace, like Macedonia. Sure, Britain may have a sliver more than us at 2.2 trillion, but its a nearly dead duck. In terms of the world economy, I am sorry to break it to you, but British and Indian economies are very comparable in size. The difference, of course, is that Britain is drunk on the blood of the oppressed and with no one left to oppress now, the British have worn out. And moreover, India provides a LOT of aid to other countries and India provides MORE aid than it receives. Sorry, we dont need a penny from you. We provided more aid to Burma last WEEK than Britain provided us last YEAR. Aban1313 (talk) 00:35, 21 October 2011 (UTC)Aban1313


 * You know the worst part about British aid to India? Aid...the word implies charity, is a moral act, a noble act that shows the better nature of humanity. Instead, the purpose of British aid is to humiliate India, and reinforce imperialist pride in Britain.

Why all these half truths, why this desperate attempt to project to the British people that India is dependent on your aid when you KNOW we couldnt care less? When you provide a measly $500 million to an economy of 1.7 trillion, you act humbly if you want to be reciprocated with respect and best wishes. Its a drop in our bucket, but every drop of kindness is appreciated if provided in a noble spirit. Instead Britain put a drop in our bucket and spat a hundred times on our face and went to town on a drumbeat about that one little drop. Even Sierra Leone is welcome to provide aid to India, anyone with a heart for the poor is welcome; but Britain has turned an act of nobility and kindness into an act of imperialism. And, with the history of its imperialist sins and robbery of Indian wealth, it is positively grotesque to watch Britain revel and burnish its imperial ego having provided an insignificant amount of aid to India. Be humble, dear Britain, you will REALLY need it. You just dont have what it takes any more. Your world power act is up. You cant masquerade as the 51s state of America forever...we all see you for who you are: No. 6 economy and trending downwards at breakneck pace. Aban1313 (talk) 01:10, 21 October 2011 (UTC)Aban1313


 * Please stop your personal POV rant and start looking for internationally respected academic sources in support of your claim that India is a great power. Viewfinder (talk) 02:46, 21 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I have to agree with Viewfinder. These endless disruptive rants are as irrelevant as they are self-defeating. Personal opinion isn't relevant, and anyway the reasoning is fundamentally flawed. To only point out the obvious, GDP isn't the yardstick of national power: a large underdeveloped economy with low productivity will also have a low revenue base. In the 18th and 19th centuries, Great Britain had a much smaller GDP than either India or China, and yet easily outclassed and overpowered both. National power is based on a combination of national resources, national performance, and military capability, and also has to be related to a specific political outcome. In the absence of such specifics, the discussion leads nowhere, and Wikipedia is not a soapbox nor a discussion board. Kindly lay off the preposterous, ill-reasoned insults and limit future comments to suggesting improvements to the article based on verifiable, reliable sources from the international relations literature. I want to reiterate the concern raised by several other editors that User:Aban1313 is a sock of banned user Chanakyathegreat, and if he insists on being a pest, his conduct ought to be investigated, with a view to another blocking. Lachrie (talk) 03:29, 21 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I did not ONCE say India is a great power. Show me ONE place where I CLAIM that India is a great power. I just said the UK is not a great power. The racist imperialist in all of you Brits on the board decided to unnecessarily start insulting and humiliating India. Bloody British losers. Your country is headed for the junkyard of history at breakneck pace and nothing you say on Wikipedia will change reality. The fact that you think there could be  only one human being (apparently called Chanakyasomething) on this whole planet who has noticed that Britain is tottering towards insignificance shows how silly you are. Sorry folks, the emperor is naked...or more precisely, your Queen is naked, we all see Britain for what it is. Aban1313 (talk) 17:47, 21 October 2011 (UTC)Aban1313


 * Yawn. You really do have some obsessive anti-British take on life. Why? What is Britain doing to make your life such a misery? And I'm loving what you're writing on your talk page (seriously, anyone reading this should check it out!) - the only person who's mentioning the empire (which is very much in the past) is you. Perhaps you should stop living in the past? David (talk) 18:21, 21 October 2011 (UTC)


 * There's a new one. A monarchist who accuses someone else of living in the past. Britain is not doing anything to make my life a misery, primarily because it is not capable of doing so. You should ask why a very fair questioning of Britain's "great power status" given its well known "51st state strategy" leads you to  obscenely bash a nation plundered by you and whose subsequent economic rise has not caused you harm, instead delivered thousands of industrial jobs to your country.  Aban1313 (talk) 20:26, 21 October 2011 (UTC)Aban1313


 * I think you'll find the monarchy is very much in the present. Just because something is old doesn't mean it's only in the past, nor does it mean that it's a bad thing. But I guess such sensible thinking is beyond you. And I'm not the one bashing India. If you care to actually read and consider other people's arguments you'd have learnt by now that I'm all for India being added to the great power list, but only when international/academic agreement says so. But ho hum, this is like debating with an infant, so I might as well stop. Again, one only has to read User talk:Aban1313 to get an idea..! David (talk) 21:23, 21 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I mean, a great example of this Aban's wisdom is "Britain is obsessed with its old empire. There is no other reason they still have a monarchy up and running." - Erm, this would be the monarchy that predates the British Empire by several centuries (and that applies to both the English and Scottish roots of the present British monarchy). A monarchy (okay, monarchies - England & Scotland) which have been running pretty much non-stop since the 10th century (with earlier minor kingdom roots) and has "seen" both the rise and fall of a short-lived (about 2 centuries only) empire. So a monarchy that has ruled over this island for well over a millennium, you're suggesting it relies on a short-lived (less than a fifth of its timespan) and now non-existent empire to continue... riiight. (lol) I know it may be hard for you to look back further than 70 years or so, but do try. Anyway, you might be interested to know that many European countries have similar constitutional monarchies. Like Luxembourg. And Norway. And mighty Denmark (actually, to be fair they have a decent military!) I suppose they're also still pandering after imperialism? ROFL David (talk) 21:28, 21 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Re India's current lack of great power status, it appears that we are all agreed. Regardless of our personal views about the UK, there are sources which support her great power status and others that question it. Therefore the UK is correctly listed with the appropriatee qualifications. Most of the above is pure forum material. David, I think that it would be better not to feed the troll that is inflaming it. Viewfinder (talk) 04:41, 22 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Britain does operate two aircraft carriers in the strict meaning of the word, HMS Illustrious and HMS Ocean, the latter being solely a helicopter carrier. Also, the Royal Navy plan on taking delivery of their first new supercarrier in 2016 with a view to commissioning the ship by 2020. G.R. Allison (talk) 12:12, 11 October 2011 (UTC)


 * This discussion has been had in the past and it has always been agreed that the majority of academic sources support that the United Kingdom is a great power. This discussion, as with previous discussions on this topic, seems to have been initiated by a troll or sock account. The United Kingdom clearly remains a great power, as does France, both of whom are similarly matched economically, militarily and politically. Japan and Germany are weaker militarily and politically than the United Kingdom and France, while Russia is weaker economically. A country internationally recognised as a great power by the United Nations on the Security Council is therefore a great power. Quite vivid blur (talk) 18:06, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

The comment posted by User:Aban1313 looks suspiciously similar to those made by banned sock user:Bcs09 of banned user user:Chanakyathegreat as can be seen here:


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Great_power/Archive_13#Britain


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Great_power/Archive_13#India

Quite vivid blur (talk) 20:31, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Great_power/Archive_13#Removal_of_Britain_from_Great_power_list.
 * I was thinking the exact same thing. G.R. Allison (talk) 22:03, 11 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I see the claim that UK is a great power as debatable, and a point of view of some commentators which is rejected by others. Japan and Germany are stronger economically than Britain and France, and have larger populations. Less debatable is the view that sockpuppeting editors are scumbags, whatever side of the fence they take. Viewfinder (talk) 01:14, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I had the suspicion this was old Chanakya, but I thought it best to just talk to the user in question on his talk page. He claims he's edited maths articles before but not history ones. He could be lying, but he said he's Indian and a mathematician by profession. Just trying not to aggravate the guy. Comics (talk) 02:16, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * they are a permenent member of the UN, whether or not they are more 'powerful' then other members in the list, they at least weild a large influence and should be kept in the list. Millertime246 (talk) 02:33, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

-->Sorry, i was refering to the UK. wanted to clarify.Millertime246 (talk) 02:33, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

One only has to read through User talk:Aban1313 to see the somewhat partisan and vitriol-fuelled views of 'Aban1313'.

"Dont dispute the status of Great Britain as a great power (and imaginary superpower) and it seems I will be left alone. Well, I will just leave those deluded dimwits to figure it out for themselves... Thanks a lot for your advice. I am not planning to debate that rabid crowd anytime soon anymore. They already lost an Empire. I'll let them keep Wikipedia"

I'm loving the "imaginary superpower" bit especially. Who the heck is suggesting it is? David (talk) 13:36, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Despite my difference of opinion with David about the UK's Great Power status, I am happy with the article as it is and I guess he is too. Viewfinder (talk) 14:55, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Indeed. I am open to changing the article when the situation changes in the world. I can see later on this decade India being added to the list, for example. And one day France and Germany may be replaced by some Euroland or whatever! I also recognise that out of the 5/7 great powers (whether you include Germany and Japan or not) the UK is today the smallest great power by many counts, not least population and land area! However I am always a little amazed at how people seemingly totally underestimate/underrate/simply not understand the power projection capabilities of the UK, be it diplomatically, militarily or through cultural means. Further, lots has been made of cuts in the UK armed forces in recent years... yet many other nations have been cutting back on their militaries too, especially in Europe. Even the USA may have to cut back this decade! The UK still has the 3rd or 4th largest military expenditure in the world, and thanks to its alliances with the US and France (combining with its own capabilities) the UK has mostly top-of-the-range military equipment, albeit in quite small numbers. But one only has to look at the Astute class submarines or the Type 45 destroyer to see that the UK can construct and field ships, etc, that give it the edge over 95% of the world's countries. And again, as for aircraft carriers, both Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carriers are being built, right now. Other than Britain, only the US, India and China are currently constructing 2 or more carriers. David (talk) 15:26, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * He does have a rather fuelled opinion on the subject, doesn't he? Comics (talk) 21:00, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Economy wise The UK has the worlds 6th largest economy and The City of London still remains the most important financial center in the world along-side New York. The GBP is the worlds 3rd largest reserve currency after the Dollar and Euro. For the size of our economy (not much smaller than that of France and Germany) we have far more economical clout in the world than most of the great powers listed. Our space program is the finest in Europe, and has damn right more potential than the Chinese space program who have just launched astronauts into space. Britain just has no interest in BS superficial pomp by sending people into space - (we have no interest in kidding our self's we are a superpower) - rather we are content being a Great Power and a highly successful nation with a great quality of life and a long respected history full of Empire and Glory. Our military is second to none, and current cuts are temporary rather than a set trend. We have full ability to protect our interests globally, second only to the USA - a sure sign of military power. - People must forget the long gone age where numbers matters. Industrial warfare is over (I.E WW1, WW2). Technology intensive weapons is where Britain is exceeding and undoubtedly where wars are heading (Another modern day example of Britain setting global trends). BAEs Taranis UCAV is testimony to this. Other than the UK only the USA has demonstrated like technology. The Type 45 destroyers and Astute class submarines are world beating and considered the best among their categories. 2 super carriers are also to be commissioned in future flying 5th gen fighters. ONLY the USA will be capable of fielding a more capable carrier task force. In terms of military technology Britain is arguably no1 and our potential in war time to build and commission that technology is great indeed. A capability most of the world, especially a backward developing nation like India does not have. 194.46.187.231 (talk) 16:38, 19 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Nationalist POV puffery that belongs on forums, not here. Not a single external source is offered. Viewfinder (talk) 11:02, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Mantis thinking it's a Panda.Clerkones (talk) 10:29, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2078596/Brazil-overtakes-UK-sixth-biggest-economy-Britain-falls-South-American-nation-time.html?ito=feeds-newsxml Brazil takes the place of Britain.Clerkones (talk) 16:20, 26 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Clerkones is yet another sock of user:Chanakyathegreat, just like user:Quietnoted and user:Bestquick, which have recently been plaguing British related articles, as can be seen on the Royal Navy article. Quite vivid blur (talk) 18:00, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Add mention of G4
I suggest the following (or something along these lines) should be added after the paragraph about Japan and Germany:

This lack of permanent seat at the UN Security Council may change however, with the proposed reform of the UN Security Council. It is proposed that there be more permanent members of the UN Security Council, the main candidates being Germany, Japan, India and Brazil, collectively known as the G4. Munci (talk) 07:41, 20 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Last I checked, though, that change wasn't entirely supported and has the Coffee Club opposing it outright. I'm not saying it shouldn't be added, but just saying that the way it's described there it makes it seem a little more like something that will change. I'm not sure some of your wording's proper either. I'd probably write it a little more like this:


 * Germany and Japan, alongside emerging states Brazil and India, have collectively campaigned for permanent seats on the UN Security Council, acknowledging the Great Power status of both Germany and Japan. This is contested, as some feel that the European Union should be given a seat rather than add a fourth European nation(source needed) and that Japan has not adequately apologised for war crimes in the Second World War(source needed)
 * I understand that it might be a little wordy, but the EU bit I think could be worth mentioning. Especially since it has its own little section talking about how some people see it as a great power possibly maybe depending on who's talking. Comics (talk) 11:09, 20 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes the change is not entirely supported (as far as I can tell the the only country supported by all 5 current permanent members is India, which is also supported by many other countries and opposed only by Pakistan). In fact, generally the main problem they have is opposition from other large countries in the same region. Because one of Japan's regional rivals is China, already a permanent member, they might have the most difficulty getting the equivalent place they had in the League of Nations.
 * I had thought that including "may" would show this doubt but apparently I was wrong.
 * In your version, I think "acknowledging the Great Power status of both Germany and Japan" might confuse some people. It's not clear whether you are trying to say it shows how they are Great Powers or they use their status as Great Powers as leverage in discussion of the topic or what.
 * "Germany and Japan, alongside emerging states powers Brazil and India, have collectively campaigned for permanent seats on the UN Security Council" sounds like a good start though. You could continue: "This is contested, primarily by other countries in the same regions". I think sources can already be found in the articles on the subject. Munci (talk) 19:03, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 20 December 2011
Surely this article should be reverted back to how it was before blocked user Haspratorkå edited it (6 December), or at least to how it was on 11 December (my last edit)? (With the exception of the grammar fix by Now3d, on 13 December, which is uncontroversial and can be kept.) When the page was protected it was reverted back to Now3d's edit, but that came amongst Haspratorkå's editing of the page. Please look into it. Also the date in the protection tag is wrong? David (talk) 21:32, 20 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Ah I see the page has been unprotected and so I will do it myself. David (talk) 11:13, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Germany is not a great power
some people are starting what i suspect a edit war without reason logic or argumentation, like user: Saddhiyama describes in his edit summary [] "rv rubbish" now does someone actually believe that by reverting and olny saying "rv rubbish" constitutes a constructive edit ? the main text in the "aftermath of the cold war" section of this article says:

Japan and Germany are usually classified as middle powers.However, they are occasionally referred to as "economic" 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.

why would we then contradict it in the same section by inserting it in the infobox ?

germany is not a great power by most well known politicians, profersors or academics (including german ones) supported by sources [nb 4][39][40][41] and just because "they are occasionally referred to as economic great powers" does not mean we have to contradict it in the infobox , a great power is just a great power there are no "economic" or "occasional" ones (no sources presented to this wierd concept) so i suggest we discuss it here and avoid blanket reverting Ricekrosalkl (talk) 20:24, 29 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree Germany (like Japan) is not a true great power. However they do wield significant economic power and the term economic great power best suites them. The gap between Japan and Germany in regards to other Middle Powers is too big to classify them as middle powers. &mdash; Woe90i  20:48, 29 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Your edit makes no sense. Firstly, re: the map caption - Germany and Japan are not the only middle powers so why specifically include them?; secondly why use the term "real" - as if there are "unreal" great powers; and thirdly "powers in aggregate or economic terms" is vague waffle (and why include Germany when you, in your same edit, dismiss it as a great power?) In fact you've brought back the "aggregate or economic terms" lark from a reverted edit from a while ago, which is curious... David (talk) 21:16, 29 December 2011 (UTC)


 * BTW - I am not arguing here for or against Germany/Japan being great powers, BUT I am against sloppy editing of the article!! I am also a bit wary (and frankly, tired) of a new editor coming along, like so many others, to the great power article and messing about, despite months/years of consensus-building regarding the article.... David (talk) 21:18, 29 December 2011 (UTC)


 * ofcourse it is look on sources [42][43]1][6][51][52], and i agree with Dpaajones argument "I am against sloppy editing of the article" but it seems that the current version is a collection of sloppy edits , while reading the article history i happened to find a better version , Firstly "usually classified" is inherently pov ; can't the readers of wikipedia decide themselves , the sources provided never mention this "usually classified" which is rather a "vague waffle" itself , secondly why use "economic" ( no references , please use sources not personal opinions or original concepts i mean if "economic" is such a common perception , where are the sources ?! Arab editor 9212 (talk) 18:05, 2 January 2012 (UTC)


 * It looks like in a recent edit the caption underneath the map is a little off. There are two colours (blue and green), and the legend says that blue countries are 'Great Powers with Nuclear Weapons and Security Council vetoes' (paraphrased) and green countries are 'Great Powers'. Sure, it recognises that they're all great powers. Just from the way the text lays it out, it's less a case of the US, Britain, Russia, PRC and France having more attributes than the others and more a case of Germany and Japan not having those same attributes (nuclear weapons and a permanent security council seat). Stating Germany and Japan are lesser great powers has attracted intense edit wars in the past, so is there a better way of portraying things in the legend than saying either:


 * Germany and Japan are great powers, but the others have more attributes
 * Germany and Japan are lesser great powers
 * Otherwise, perhaps we should just update the map so there is no differentiation and discuss the intricities in the text itself? Also, just throwing this out there, would adding more detail throughout the article about the interactions of great powers be a bad thing? I can understand keeping it trim to avoid unnecessary waffle, but I'm not sure the 'Post-Cold War' section adequately covers the past 20 years (even the Cold War; it just mentions that France, Britain, Japan and West Germany recovered and there were doubts about Britain and France; could we find and include some comments there? eg; 'Most historians and academics agree that Britain's status as a great power was eroding due to greater influence from the superpowers and, despite a strong leading role in the EEC, France was also losing its position. By the 1980's it is believed that France had recovered and become a leading economic power alongside Britain, with the latter regaining its former prestige in the Falklands War'. All of that waffle was OR, but would something like that (albeit sourced) be alright for the article or not really? Comics (talk) 06:47, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 6 January 2012
please consider italy among the great power.if possible consider also the top 10 most powerful countries some great powers please.

95.237.222.97 (talk) 20:20, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

please put italy instead of japan.

95.237.222.97 (talk) 20:22, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * ❌ to both. The "great powers" are the subject of much debate, and need to be well sourced to be counted as one--Jac 16888 Talk 20:29, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

European Geostrategy study
Worth a look!

European Geostrategy

Lists great powers, etc. David (talk) 11:56, 13 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Nice material, I noticed they have published quite a few interesting titles. The whole concept of Regional Great Powers is very interesting for example with the Likes of India.
 * This would be worth a read if I or anyone gets their hands on it. Published in 2011 and written by a notable academic, Justin Morris it is entitled How Great is Britain? Power, Responsibility and Britain's Future Global Role.


 * Abstract: Hedley Bull argued that for a state to be classed as a great power it must be in the first rank in terms of military strength but also recognised by others to have, and conceived by its own leaders and peoples to have, certain special rights and duties. Adopting this approach, this article argues that Britain's great power credentials are far stronger than commonly appreciated and that, while the term is no longer in vogue, within government the idea that Britain is a great power remains an influential factor in determining British foreign and defence policy.


 * Would a publication like this be enough to support the United Kingdoms Great Power status if the articles list was to be updated?TalkWoe90i 12:37, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

LOL! The lengths to which British users go to find scraps to support the tottering claim that the UK is a "great power". Ah...how the mighty have fallen :). From ruling the waves to scouring the net for some piece of text ...somewhere that uses the words UK and "great power" in the same sentence. You miss the most important characteristic of a "great power": Its "great power status" is always OBVIOUS and countries like India cannot callously spit on its face like they just did. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.254.93.47 (talk) 05:07, 8 February 2012 (UTC)


 * It's a good thing that more sources have been found (like the regional idea too), but less bitterness on the talk page? Also, I'm pretty sure more than one source would be needed for pretty much every country included on the list besides (perhaps) the US for obvious reasons. Even then multiple sources would be a good thing. Comics (talk) 05:42, 8 February 2012 (UTC)


 * You said an "important characteristic of a "great power": Its "great power status" is always OBVIOUS...". That's an interesting definition, do you have a citation for that? and "...and countries like India cannot callously spit on its face like they just did.", wow really? Look how Iran is challenging United States and the European powers? I suppose the USA is no longer a Great Power too? Oh the lengths to which the envious go to try and spread their inane rhetoric. Its unfortunate sometimes, that those who come here for the actual betterment and general interest of this article have to be subjected to such idiotic and ignorant tirade as represent by the IP comment above. I recommend that regardless of the actual motives behind those comments, the poster work on his reading comprehension and find some other venue to vent his frustrations. TalkWoe90i 09:26, 8 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Having just watched the Argentines squealing at the UN that the UK has naval and air power greater than that of all South American nations combined... yes, I think Britain's great power status is pretty obvious, at least to those who see it. David (talk) 23:18, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

AND SPAIN??
why not put the Spanish Empire and Portuguese? the world for you began when the British Empire began its strength???, the first superpower was Spain, and it seems that you do not like to admit it. (User: Zayuk, Spanish-Galician Wikipedia)


 * Read the disclaimer at the top of the article:


 * This article is about great powers in the modern (post-1815) world. For nation-states wielding similar power before 1815, see Historical powers.
 * Most sources seem to believe Spain and Portugal have not weilded that power in the post-1815 world. Since they did beforehand, they're listed in 'Historical Powers'. Which details through the Roman Empire and Ancient Egypt as well, which is closer to when history began than the Spanish Empire and Portugal. Comics (talk) 23:00, 16 February 2012 (UTC)


 * "it seems that you do not like to admit it" *facepalm*


 * Why is it we get all these nationalists popping up screaming and accusing editors of bias because their country isn't somehow mentioned or doesn't have the status they like to think it does. In this instance it gets even better because this article specifically deals with 1815 onwards.


 * I can - to the best of my knowledge - state that Spain was the first global superpower. There, does that ease the pain a bit? *rollseyes*


 * Sorry for the forum-style rant but it's getting on my wick. David (talk) 17:08, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Ottoman Empire
I think the Ottoman Empire was a great power to first world war. But the Empire istn't there why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Candeniz1997 (talk • contribs) 13:32, 17 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The Ottomon Empire had been in decline for quite some time by the First World War. There was an earlier discussion (regarding the Ottoman Empire in 1815) that could be found here:, not sure whether that might help. Some of it's just editors talking amongst themselves, but one does bring in a string of sources. I found this book on Google (discussing the Ottoman Empire and the Great Powers, here called 'European Great Powers') which treats the Ottoman Empire as an outsider and from what I've gathered very much dependent on the Great Powers (| The Great Powers and the End of the Ottoman Empire). Another book (| World War I) didn't seem to list any particular grouping, but does mention Italy (as attempting to establish it's place as one of the Great Powers), Russia and Austria-Hungary as Great Powers and does refer to Germany and Great Britain (agreed by other sources to be among the Great Powers) as having some influence on the War. Do you know if there's a book that mentions the Ottoman Empire as a Great Power in the First World War? Comics (talk) 20:52, 17 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I remember the earlier debate and it was more-or-less agreed that countries like the Ottoman Empire and the Chinese Empire had the population and perhaps even the economy (in gross terms) of a great power in the 19th century, BUT they were technologically behind the European great powers, particularly in military technology and military industries. A similar theme exists today - countries like India and Brazil have the large economies and populations, but don't (yet) have the highest-level possible in military capabilities, which the other great powers do. David (talk) 17:13, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

@David I would like to correct you. Brazil doesn't have the Military Power like other great powers.I agree.But India has.
 * World's Largest Standing Volunteer Army-More than France,UK,Japan and Germany combined.
 * World's Fourth Largest Air Force
 * World's Fourth Largest Navy Srikar Kashyap<<Talk>> —Preceding undated comment added 07:07, 5 March 2012 (UTC).


 * Srikarkashyap, size does not equate military power nor does it suggest any measure of military competence. The Indian armed forces are well known to be somewhat of a joke in the west, the Mumbai attacks for example, India's most elite forces were humiliated! Or how in the Indian Air Force countless Indian pilots have died due to crash landings - either because of poor pilot training or because of serious defects in the airframe (caused by poorly skilled Indian engineers and technicians). One issue that is of serious concern is the poor and animalistic conduct of Indian troops in rural India, such as the rape and torture of women and young girls... this is sadistic evil behaviour and a result of India's backward society. Technologically India is a backward nation too, perhaps two decades or more behind the current Great Powers. In terms of power projection and the ability to influence events abroad India is a NOBODY, thus making it impossible for India to be a serious Global Military Power even if it wanted too! India's military might is that of a Regional Power and would only manifest its self in a ground war - even then being only due to an advantage in attrition rather than military prowess.


 * On paper yes India is big and looks good, but when it boils down to it and you scratch the surface, India is nothing more than a toothless tiger.TalkWoe90i 13:00, 5 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Of course any well-cited statements about rape and torture are cause of concern but that does not make it ok to attck a society as "backward". Munci (talk) 21:30, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't care about what that racist sob tells you in Wiki. Wiki is full of such asshole racists.59.92.203.99 (talk) 02:59, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

@59.92.203.99 That's not the right language to be used here.Other user's comments might not suit you but you cannot do anything for that.Take it easy!User Woe90i always comments against India in any case. When the greatest Intelligence organs couldn't guess a catastrophe, how could you expect a nascent Indian Intelligence guess such an attack Planned and Executed by Pakistan.Indian Special Forces took so much time for Operation Black Tornado because there were hostilities inside that huge 5-Star Hotel.Clearing a 300 room hotel with armed terrorists is never easy, even for US Navy SEALS Don't say Indian Engineers and Technicians do not know how to use it. In fact 47% of Lockheed Martin employees are Indians,50% of Microsoft are Indians.In terms of civilian technology, I agree that India is backward when compared to Great Powers but not all sections of people are not backward.India has the world's third largest Internet users.So this shows that India is not 20 or 30 yrs backward.But it is backward just about 10 yrs.But to make 1.2 Billion people technologically advanced is not easy as U and I think.
 * @Woe90i So you say that United Kingdom can defeat Indian in a war?
 * So the 2 lakh UK Forces are armed with Laser Guns and Indian Army is armed with Bow and Arrows?
 * I never heard that Indian Armed Forces are known as a joke in the west.If that is so, then why would superpowers like United States and Great Powers like Russia, France conduct Military exercises with Poorly Armed and Trained Indian Armed Forces?
 * I agree to the fact that the number of crashes in Indian Air Force have been more.This is because of ageing Aircraft and not because of poorly trained Pilots.If the IAF Pilots are poorly trained,then how could they defeat the superpower's pilots in War Games?
 * Before going to 26/11, why couldn't the Intelligence organs of US and other countries guess 9/11?CIA is proclaimed as the world's best intelligence organ and has operatives all over the world.M16 is also one of the greatest Intelligence Organs.Why couldn't they guess it?
 * I agree to User Munchi.India is a multi-cultural and religious society.This are mostly rumours and necessary steps are being taken to reduce them if they do exist.That doesn't make India a backward society.Rapes and torture are even found in Developed,Upward and Industrialized Rich countries like US or UK.Why are they not being called as backward?
 * "Technologically India is a backward nation too, perhaps two decades or more behind the current Great Powers." What do you mean by technology?.Military technology?But most of India's Military technology is imported from Great Powers and Superpowers.Then how can it be backward?
 * What do you mean by Power Projection?...Invading other country and establishing a puppet regime?Intervening in the internal affair of a state
 * Invading a country that is militarily inferior and claiming that they have defeated them?
 * Restricting other countries to go ahead with their Nuclear Power Programme saying they were developing Nuclear Weapons?
 * Saying that humanitarian and development aid was meant for bagging a Military Deal?(You know what I'm talking about...Don't you?)

You might be a great patriot of your country but never underestimate other country like India on the basis of some Aircraft crash or rape. Please do remember that handling 1.21 Billion of Population is different from handling 0.06 Billion! Please note that my English will never match that of yours..or of any other person who has English as their mother tongue.English is my third language!India might be a toothless tiger but it has Titanium jaws!LOL Srikar Kashyap<<Talk>>


 * Britain may not be able to defeat India in a war, but two points to note: India can not defeat Britain in a war either, AND in any case Britain has more capability to strike at India (air/naval power) than vice versa. Power projection - global power projection actually - is what being a great power is all about. And being able to defend yourself against another great power or lesser power. Only a superpower could defeat (as in, comprehensively win a state-state war) a great power (non-superpower), eg US v France. But France could defend itself against the UK, Russia or China. Obviously nuclear weapons both complicate matters and also provide for Mutually Assured Destruction, meaning the great powers do not fight one another (directly anyway! see proxy wars..) these days.


 * As for conducting military exercises - countries like Britain and France conduct such joint exercises with all sorts of countries, big and small, developed and developing. Obviously the Western powers want to retain good ties with India for the long-term.


 * And as for size... Britain has always been small. We haven't suddenly got a lot smaller or anything... ;) Size frankly doesn't matter, as has been proved many many times throughout history.


 * btw, as I've said many times on these talk pages, I believe India is almost a great power. But not yet - certainly it needs recognition along the lines of a permanent UN Security Council seat and/or being a recognised Nuclear Weapons State (ie bearing nuclear weapons legitimately according to the Non-proliferation treaty et al.). This may - though may not - happen in the next 10-15 years or so. David (talk) 19:29, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

@David
 * Agreed In terms of a conventional war without any foreign intervention, India has advantage due to its large manforce, more number of tanks, aircraft etc..but if the war goes nuclear,UK has advantage,but practically it is neutral because both have Nuclear Weapons. I'm not supporting India!


 * I don't think I have mentioned about the size of UK anywhere in my comment.If I've mentioned, I'm very sorry for that.I agree that size doesn't matter in International Relations.In-fact UK defeated Argentina (almost 10 times larger) in Farlkands War!


 * I again agree to you that India will not be recognised as a full fledged Great Power before 2020 without certain political reforms and eradication of Corruption.But I find it amazing that everyone says that a permanent seat in UNSC ensures Great Power Status!..How does veto power make a country Great Power? Srikar Kashyap<<Talk>> —Preceding undated comment added 12:02, 10 March 2012 (UTC).
 * @David: I do not believe Britain is small considering it is above average area among the world's countries. For Britain fighting India, I think the great distance between the two will increase the likelihood of a stalemate. As for India, it seems it is the only country approved by all existing permanent Security Council members to became a new permanent member. Munci (talk) 14:08, 10 March 2012 (UTC)


 * In a war between the UK and India, it would be the UK on the offence and India on the defence. The UK is a global military power and able to fight wars and sustain them at long ranges, India would be forced to fight the war at home. Now the UK isn't going to suddenly deploy land-based fighting units in India, the UK simply doesn't have enough land-based conventional forces and would be overwhelmed by India's numerical advantage - no, instead the UK has world beating weapon systems with a variety of stand-off weapons giving the UK both a tactical and strategic advantage. The UKs objective in such a war would be to cripple India not to occupy it.


 * In such a scenario the UKs forces would be based in the gulf region and consist of naval units and air units with probably a forward deployed nuclear submarine gathering intelligence. A UK Nuclear submarine has the capability to fire Tomahawk cruise-missiles to ranges of 2,000km+ and the Astute class can detect ships up to 3,000 miles away! With 1 or 2 Royal Navy submarines in the gulf anywhere in India is a potential target (such as: military bases, command and control centres, industry etc). A handful of Daring class Destroyers and Type 23 Frigates would provide a more than adequate anti-air and anti-submarine screen if India tried to muster a counter offensive against UK forces in the Gulf. RAF Tornados and Typhoons armed with Stormshadow cruise-missiles could utilize one of the many RAF airbases in the Middle east and strike priority targets deep inside India without ever having to enter Indian airspace. Special Forces would also have a role to play but I wont go into them. Such a conflict would be an ultimate winner for the UK, as the UK has the experience, capability and a significant technological advantage over India.


 * However in real life, and if such a conflict was ever to arise, Pakistan and the UK would obviously form a mutual alliance. With Pakistan in the mix it would act as a buffer for the UK and also tip the numerical balance in favour of the UK. China is also a potential key ally and would most-likely come to an agreement with Britain regarding Chinas disputed territorial borders with India. Russia would not intervene because of China and fear of the USA as a strong ally of the UK. Anyway, knowing what the Russians are like, with a war going on they will be all too happy with the prospect of selling more weapons and munitions to China rather than India going down the pan.


 * Good job the UK and India have a friendly relationship eh? TalkWoe90i 15:38, 10 March 2012 (UTC)


 * It would most certainly be the UK on the offensive considering India has never been declaring wars on countries halfway round the world. However, as the aggressor, it is unlikely that the UK would be able to count on much support. The international community would condemn the attack and encourage a ceasefire, if necessary defending India against the foreign invasion. Munci (talk) 16:19, 10 March 2012 (UTC)


 * In this conversation I think it goes without saying that the UK and India both have valid reasons for war as opposed to a sudden impulse to fight each other. Given the geopolitical situation in Asia and the diplomatic relations the UK enjoys with western nations if the UK and India were to go to war I don't think the UK would have much opposition. India would be well and truly trumped.TalkWoe90i 17:08, 10 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't see why we would necessarily assume that. Often in a war, one side wants to go to war more than the other, defender is often defended and the aggressor ends up souring relations with countries it might have had decent relations with before. In any case, the border disputes between India and China have not actually been disputed for more that twenty years. Practically the only country that actually has a dislike for India nowadays is Pakistan. Britain, on other hand, is currently having poor relations with Russia (spying at Cold War levels is a quote from 2010) and even worse with Iran. Munci (talk) 06:00, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

eh?...stop trying to manipulate the conversation to suite your comments. If your really trying to suggest Britain is going to war with India on nothing more than an impulsive motive then that shows just how naive you are. Even in Iraq the control of Oil was the driving force behind the war. In this hypothetical scenario as with all major state vs state conflicts, both sides have reasonable justification and motives to go to war. Trying to portray Britain as the warmongering party who has attacked India for no reason is both unfair and unrealistic. The dispute between China and India is still ongoing and yes you can most certainly add China to the list of unfriendly nations towards India.TalkWoe90i 11:40, 11 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Anyway this conversation has lost all connection to the original issue regarding the Ottoman Empire. Wikipedia is not a forum. This discussion should be closed.TalkWoe90i 11:47, 11 March 2012 (UTC)


 * You're right that it has become an unrelated discussion. The discussion can be closed once I have clarified my position. First of all, you only need one side to declare war. Only the side declaring war needs to have a casus belli, however valid. Secondly, in the modern world, casi belli generally need to be really good for them to be seen as valid. Thirdly, even in previous centuries, countries were generally more likely to help an ally in a defensive war than an offensive one. Munci (talk) 13:43, 11 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Needless to say please provide reliable sources showing a consensus among academics agreeing with your position, otherwise it is just WP:SYN :) -- Phoenix (talk) 00:24, 12 March 2012 (UTC)