Talk:Middle power/Archive 1

Origin of the term
I'm pretty sure the term "middle" power was invented (or at least popularised) by Canadian PM Louis St. Laurent and I have it down in print, but I can't find an internet source on this. Anyone else know anything about the origin of the term. Kevlar67 14:47, 16 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Thinking that you have the term's source, and having a mostly-referenced article are two very different things. Beyond the source of the term, there is not definition or criteria of the term, and no explanation as to why certain countries are part of the this article as opposed to others.  Until there are references for those things, the template ought to remain.  As I said before, this article is basically Original Research at this point. &mdash;thames 20:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC) —The preceding comment signed as by Thames (talk • contribs) was actually added by Perceval (talk • contribs) -

Limiting List
The easiest way to prevent the list of middle powers from growing too big is to only include those we have references for. I found a reference for Canada in the Canadian Encyclopedia, which is here online. Please only add nations to the list that you have sources for. Kevlar67 07:32, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The problem with that is there is no defintion for middle power so to include references would be pointless. In addition while Canada is universally regarded as a middle power it not so just because the "Canadian Encyclopedia" says so. Do you realise that source is worthless becuase of it's bias. Ronan.evans 03:53, 14 April 2006 (UTC)


 * If there is no definition then we shouldn't have this article. But more to the point, Canada was the original country to be called a middle power, which is why I found the reference so easily.  If other countries are frequently termed "middle powers" then there will be plenty of references.   Furthermore the Canadian Encyclopedia is no more biased than Britannica or Compton's or World Book.  Kevlar67 08:51, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Here are some more references:
 * Government of Canada
 * University of British Columbia

Oh and here's an interesting academic paper about whether or not South Africa is really a middle power or not, and just generally about the definition of "Middle Power". I think there is much in this paper that our article should adress. See: South African Foreign Policy and Middle Power Leadership. Now that wasn't so hard. Why can everyone do that? Kevlar67 09:07, 14 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, thanks for the info. I can see where you are coming from and now that you have explained it it makes sense- but still I think you have to apply some common sense here. The list will never grow otherwise. 58.178.23.143 10:52, 14 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I quote the article, "Middle power is a term used in the field of international relations to describe states that are not superpowers or great powers, but still have some influence internationally." One could put up a fairly convincing argument that Australia has just as much- if not more- influence on the world stage as Canada. Certainly in the present political climate Australia is percieved as a closer ally to the U.S. than Canada thus having a greater influence. Also Australia's influence come's through it's location. It is certainly the most important western democracy in the whole of South East Asia which makes it a very important voice in this stategicly important region. Also where does Japan fit into the whole Super Power/ Middle Power arrangment? Ronan.evans 10:59, 14 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Here is a source listing Australia as a midlle power. http://www.ubcpress.ubc.ca/search/title_book.asp?BookID=442 Thankyou. Ronan.evans 11:07, 14 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I think your right in suggesting that Australia has a greater presence/visibility on the international stage. Canada certainly is able to be more visible but its geographic position with the US tends to promote a 'taken-for-grantedness' as its a pretty stable and benign position. - Htra0497 28th August 2006 06:10 (AET) [20:10, 27 August 2006 (UTC)]

Dig More Digging
I think I can now say why Canada thought of herself as a middle power, whether or not the title was appropriate. But I can also say with certainty that many recent writers are very critical of the term. See
 * * * * * *

Does that help? Kevlar67 22:23, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

This article should be deleted.
It is neither useful or complete and focuses too much on Canada. An appropriate title would be "Canada as a Middle Power", not a general article on middle powers. I think it should be deleted.--Sir Edgar 00:28, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


 * It is currently Canada-centric because that is where the most English-language literature on the subject has been published, and where the term was first used. However, that doesn't mean you couldn't find information on other countries, if one was inclined to look. Kevlar67 07:23, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Here, this might help. Kevlar67 07:48, 3 May 2006 (UTC) Globalize


 * You should put that on the front page of the article. Anyhow, it is a virtually useless article as you prevent others from contributing to it. --Sir Edgar 04:44, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I wholeheartedly agree with sir ed. 211.27.37.63 07:11, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

'''This article is outdated. Mexico's economy is not larger than Brazil's, nor is Italy a middle power by economic standards. Tim''' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.17.33.1 (talk • contribs) 03:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

List of middlepowers
Where did it came from? Is (for example) Finland middlepower? What base does this claim have? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.85.134.165 (talk • contribs) 14:23, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Just asking, don´t think the list is correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.85.134.165 (talk • contribs) 15:13, 30 May 2006 (UTC) ^anon^ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.85.130.131 (talk • contribs) 07:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

And Poland and Ukraine Middle Powers? Since when,they are totally dominated by foreign Nations and foreign capital. They have capabilities to be Middle Powers like Turkey is,but they don't have such independence from other powers like Turkey and less they have influence in others, only in very small nations near, like Lithuania. And if they are Middle Powers so is Sweden, Portugal, Egypt and many others. Sweden is almost a Regional Power for Scandinavia and northern Europe, Egypt the same for Arab World and northern Africa and Portugal for it's old colonies and because of all Lusophone World. Portugal has the CPLP, the equivalent to British Commonwealth. As for Italy and Brazil, if they are included in this list, they are also Regional Powers and in the case of Italy Global/Great Power. In what we stand: Middle, Regional, Global? Of course Brazil is a Regional Power in Latin/South America but it's also a Middle Power in world stage. As for Italy it is a Regional Power in southern Europe, the Mediterranean and even Europe as a whole or in EU and it's also a Global/Great Power in World stage. Middle Power it isn't or at least in the way it once was - an ally of USA, NATO and EEC(EU) that agreed always with the others. Now Italy has gained respect and power in the World and takes care of it's interests with agreement with others but in it self-interest first and showing signs of power inthe missions it's involved.
 * I totally agree

ACamposPinho 3 August 2006, 1:42 [00:43, 3 August 2006 (UTC)]


 * I tried to limit the list, but people keep adding more countries when I'm not around to patrol it. Kevlar67 05:55, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, who's right: the guy that wrote that Japan is a great power on Japan's page, or the guy that wrote that Japan is a middle power on this page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.28.148.197 (talk • contribs) 21:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

We need a definition
We need a definition for which countries ought to be included in the middle powers list. Someone added Poland. Since there is no definition, I cannot object to anyone adding any country which is obviously not unimportant to the list. I added Greece, with the rationale that it is in the UN Security Council, NATO, EU, has great influence (economic and diplomatic) in the Balkans, participated in both World Wars, and had some successes in World War II, and Athens presents some evidence of a global city under formation. NerdyNSK 17:19, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately both the friend of Poland and yourself are doing what's called ‘’original research’’. That is, you are drawing your own conclusions based on what you know.  In any other medium that would be commendable.  But not in Wikipedia.  Really the list should only consist of countries called middle powers in published literature.  I've tried to enforce that rule, but people keep adding more countries faster than I can take them off.  If I don't have support from other editors to help me keep the list down, then it's hopeless.  In fact last time I tried to keep the list down, I was accused of "preventing others from editing".  (see above).  Perhaps I'll try again.  Anyway it's not up to us to create a definition of Middle Power-hood.  It's our job to find out what published sources say about it, and act on that.  Kevlar67 18:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * You are right that we were engaging in some sort of original research. The list looks like it is based on gut feeling rather than a definition or reference, so I removed it. I added a new list based on a reference (Wood). We can add more, but we should take care not to confuse middle powers with regional powers. Better to have multiple lists like "researcher A published this list, while researcher B that list" rather than a general list. Then, with lists based on explicit references, we can resist "gut feeling original research" additions. Some open tasks for anyone who has time to improve the article: 1) add wikilinks to the new list, 2) change my Wood reference to Wikipedia's standard format for references, 3) I have no time to update my map right now, so you may like to help with it, too (perhaps multiple maps per references list, for now let's make it a map based on what Mr Wood says). NerdyNSK 09:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Middle powers in 1988
This section of the article and its list has to be deleted because has not a neutral POV as Wikipedia required, in fact it rapresents only a canadian/canadian institute POV, the same can be affirmed about many aspects of the whole article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.104.56.234 (talk • contribs) 12:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Italy is a Great Power
Italy is already in the list of Great Power. Why it is also in the list of the middle powers? Now I am confused. Italy is a great power or a middle power?? You decide yourselves: or you put it in the list of great powers or in the list of the middle powers. It cannot be in both the lists. I believe that Italy must be in the list of great powers. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.10.31.210 (talk) 15:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC).


 * I'd suggest that you take another look at the Great power page. Italy is explicitly listed as being of uncertain status.  It probably was in the past (pre WW2), it is probably a middle power today.


 * X damr talk 16:34, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * "I'd suggest that you take another look at the Great power page. Italy is explicitly listed as being of uncertain status. It probably was in the past (pre WW2), it is probably a middle power today."


 * Italy is a G8 member and it is in the Security Council of the UN (not permanent member); It is the third country in the world (after United States and United Kingdom and before other great powers like France, Germany, Japan..etc) for number of soldiers engages to abroad; It is the world seventh economic power (but, calculating also the underground economy that it is equivalent to 30% of the Italian GDP, it would be the world fourth economic power) and one of the world majors exporting countries; It is one of the majors european powers (like France, Germany and Great Britain).....etc.


 * Therefore Italy is without a doubt a great power. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.10.141.186 (talk • contribs) 09:46, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Each of these things that you say may be true, but this does not make Italy a Great power. Great power is an academic term; unless you have a sourced academic claim that modern-day Italy is a Great power it cannot be described as such here.


 * X damr talk 23:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Academic terms are made by people who use information just as the person above you did. They are no more credible than he is. And its pretty obvious they are a great power. AND great power isnt really an academic term. its like the word hyperpower. nobody uses those terms not even college professors. Its just on wikipedia to boost the egotism of France or the UK. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.170.82.197 (talk) 23:23, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Both Germany and Italy are well-placed in this list. There are sources that describe both countries as middle powers and it's also common sense that Italy and Germany do neither have the military capabilities of France or Britain nor the diplomatic skills and contacts that France and Britain could keep alive after the downfall of their empires. As a compromise, Italy and Germany could maybe be described as 'advanced middle powers'. This would be an appropriate way to distinguish them from other middle powers such as Finland, I suppose. (Even though I think Finland must not be underestimated. This country has shown great diplomatic skills in the past.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.212.53.132 (talk) 09:26, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

OR problem
The given list of 2005 Middle Powers has OR problem, if we can't find a source for it we should delete it soon. It is arbitary now. Farmanesh 19:03, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * there no such list, but editors keep changing the sourced 1988 list to suit their personal views. Kevlar67 02:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I see, anyhow if no one adds a proper reference we need to delete current list. Whether to add 1988 list again or not is another story as 1988 is too old and may be considered irrelevent to current world. Farmanesh 03:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Farmanesh, if you want to discuss an issue, please do it here. The article space is not the propper place to discuss anything. I have deleted you sentence about the 2005 list of Middle Powers. By the way, the list clearly specify that it's based on GDP and that experts also use other characteristics. However, the list is perfectly sourced. There is a link to the 2005 Top Ten countries based on GDP, according to Goldam Sachs Investment Bank. Alejcov 15:16, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I think there is a need for readers to be alerted that link does not have the followed information. As for the link, it gives list 0f 10 countries (not current list of 31 on the article page) which is different with even first 10 names on the list.


 * I really wonder if we are looking to the same link??? If you see 31 countries in the link let me know...


 * Current way of presenting is even worse than being OR, it is giving false legitimacy to an unknown-sourced list of countries. Farmanesh 17:03, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Farmanesh, you have been deleting information in several articles, in what seems to be a POV pushing. Please, understand that there are rules in Wikipedia, and one of them is that debates should take place in the talk page (like this), not in the article itself. About the list, it is well sources, both in the reference and in the List of Countries by GDP (nominal). You should read the "See also" and "References" section in each article, before tagging an entire article of OR. Sometimes, there are no inline references, but at the end of the article in the mentioned section. Thank you. Alex  Cov  Flag of Mexico.svg [[Image:Black ribbon.png|10px]] ( Let's talk! ) 19:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for reminding the rules, OR is a very serious wikipedia rule, if an article doesn't have proper reference should be deleted, please read OR policy, it is very clear. I did first mention my points in the talk page and after a while I made the suggested change. Lets also discuss each article in its place.


 * Now about list of countries in this article: Please show me where in the given reference link there is any mention of these 31 countries in this order? I don't see why we are in conflict here, either there is such a list in the given reference or not. I do not see such a list there, please tell me if I am missing something. Farmanesh 00:58, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry if you don't know how to use the references or how to follow a link. The reference is there, click it. If you continue to delete perfectly referenced information, I will report you for vandalism (deleting valid info). By the way, the link is there . Alex  Cov  Flag of Mexico.svg [[Image:Black ribbon.png|10px]] ( Let's talk! ) 12:54, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I do agree with current way article is. The link doesn provide the list in 1988 and is fine. Problem was the article claimed 2005 list which refrence do not provide the list for it.


 * As for "reporting" me :), sure go on... asking for clear citation is a wikipedia pillar policy. But I hope we can work toghther based on the policies and don't waste everyones time.


 * Anyhow current version of article is fine as far as it clearly says it is the list in 1988 (as reference gives that year).Farmanesh 14:22, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Wood’s work: insufficient and irrelevant
First of all, thank you Kevin for your work, anyway, let me explain my doubts.

The article "Middle powers in 2005" is a wrong view since finds its bases on an incomplete work, since the matter it holds must be explain, or interpreted, through many parameters and not the merely one here used: I mean GNP term. Further the term “Middle Powers” isn’t a relevant matter to have a lemma: it is single opinion, unilaterally based. To achieve its own value it needs a major support. Honestly speaking the list (once attached as a classification, as well as the one present now) and the map attached – furthermore India, China, Italy are considered major powers from the most, even they present many more lacks, put in debates, than other, as they are almost always among the first ten positions in lists per parameter, not only economical, as a matter of study with outstanding source such as the IMF and the different organizations of the UN, far to academic studies; furthermore, note that Italy is clearly in debate per Military terms but the same debate originates disputes since internationally, per presence and diplomacy ability, she’s ranked 3rd) – surely come from the work of B. Wood, so they have a some kind of support, but, the question is: may GNP itself allow a so kind of work to be made? First of all it’s difficult draw a so large pictured “hit-parade” of Nations if we think to cultural differences, political meaning even in international matters, history, population, territorial specifics such as morphology or weather, raw materials and energy availability and so on (examples from things which are the so-called "economical substratum"), anyway economists try to explain a so-called status of a Nation looking at many terms, making it easy (usually for "non-scholars") the same terms can be easily put into four general terms each of them includes a large bouquet of ways of measurement. Only one among these four general terms asks for Economy Status (or Power): and this is something giant to measure!

The GNP term quantifies the movements of budget well recognizable in the same movements explained through GNI term (someone considers GNP long to be the same as GNI or, at least, its younger brother). Surely, GNP often finds correspondences in a given Nation's status (note: in its Economy), but it's not enough: neither in case we are trying to have a "hit" or a "status picture" nor when even only a single of the a.m. four terms is needed, this means GNP is able to explain only a tone of a whole. In case of Welfare, and also Wikipedia simply explains in the page about GNP, as many other measure terms, the GNP suffers while trying to measure "life", hence, explain "indirect unpaid activities" (not paid actions which don't create short-term economical and not directly measurable changes) as well as "indirect paid activities" (paid actions whose effects are not directly/immediately measurable in economical terms). Furthermore GNP isn't able to explain what I quoted above as "economical substratum": things with a very high meaning nobody must forget in the case of work upon these sensible things. And again GNP is responsive to the exchange movements of currencies, it hasn't a large reference period while other terms has, so scholars prefer to avoid a wide use of GNP term, replacing it with ampler (such as GDP, and the related PPP, and, for Welfare, the more precise and suitable HDI term). Even, GNP is less malleable than other terms (where, for example, nominal ratios and real ratios are present, allowing better and more detailed economic measurements), and it does not explain political choices, military presence anywhere, freedom of a Nation as well as its ability in diplomacy competition (wrong, right: don't care) and so on. Wood has tried to explain through GNP terms (merely insufficient) far to the Welfare. This means Germany, despite of all, should have a lower place than UK and Italy, at the same level, or even lower if compared to a little higher France, consequently this does not match with dedicate term of Welfare’s measure like the HDI or similar. This is a further confirmation that GNP might not be considered suitable to explain all the sides of Economy, let us imagine for all the sides of a Nation.

Works, such as the one used as the base to this article (and the lemma), are supposed to be able to list nothing more than the term they obtain bases from (in this case GNP).

Recording does not allow anything out of the objectivity of a record: this means a single opinion (or work) will be never enough especially in those cases (as in the present lemma / article) in which the same opinion (or work) is not worth itself as a way to explain a whole: then it might be misinterpreted for arrogance (or so it seems). Encyclopaedia’s modern idea bore in XVIII century with the solo purpose to record well-recognized universal matters and experiences of knowledge. So this should also be the column to support Wikipedia as an encyclopaedia. A matter becomes universal when the most part (or almost the most) agrees with a unique "truth" (please, allow me using this term). Even, “universal” does not mean "you must accept" any case. Sure: studies are welcome since they allow a matter to become universal but they do not become universal when many other studies disagree with the same strength. It's a opinion: we're free to accept or not, awaiting it is universally consolidated (and differently from this case, strong enough to explain a whole) so use it as a term of comparison. I can spend my time to find the Napoleon's white horse was, instead, black. I can get an evidence of that. But I cannot issue my work, spread it as universal, and the work used to draw an entire lemma of encyclopaedia, or take it to an evening news. Only if many other opinions will agree the horse will change colour.

The article surely may be cited somewhere here in Wikipedia, first making the title different and not "Middle powers in 2005": it is illusive. But why? Did Wood and his incomplete work decide? Anyway still no sense. Who does the idea belong to? Is the Wood's work worth enough in this case? Is the Wood's strong enough (and with good foundations) to draw a list of Nations?

Request

I think the work to be ok, but merely incomplete: good as a work on GNP power, with serious lacks when we're trying to compare the Nations (thing slightly more difficult...). The work might be cited in the GNP page (and not here) as a comparison of Nation's GNP: the same, Wikipedians are doing in many other cases (..GDP, PPP, HDI and so on pages). This article in this lemma is only a spot: I claim for this matter to be verified. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lysmark (talk • contribs) 12:55, 8 April 2007 (UTC).

Australia a middle power
Shouldnt there be a article for Australia? I just recently looked at the history and found it deleted.Australia is a middle power aswell as a regional power since it has influence over the Pacific nations, New Zealand and quite of Southeast asia.It has the 5th strongest economy, biggest military force in Oceania and a stable democratic government. It has served about 6 to 8 times in the UN security council and plays a huge role in peacekeeping missions.Therefore,i think it should be added. Terrya 12:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I personaly agree that Australia is a middle power. The point is that what I and you think about who is Middle Power and who is not doesn't matter. Only if there is refrence they can be mentioned as Australia is already listed in the article here beside other countries. Question is do we want to have a seperate section for each country in the list? I am not against it but info in those country sections should be completly refrenced. The anonymous who added few sentences about Australia did not give any refernece. Farmanesh 02:49, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

list of middle power countries in 1988
PLease do not delete properly referenced list of middle power countries. If you think it is old then find a newer proper list and substitute it otherwise please do not delete it. Farmanesh 21:43, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Map
The map omits Egypt which is listed in the article as middle power. (And surely is a middle and also an important regional power.) (Peter) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.216.107.173 (talk • contribs) 09:41, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Countries bunched together with other countries out of their league
I find it laughable that Japan, Germany, and Italy are seriously considered in this article to be in the same power league as Nigeria, Colombia, Morocco, Romania, Hungary etc... If you really don't know why they're seriously nowhere near being in the same power league as each other then you obviously don't have sufficient knowledge about world economics, world militaries, and international politics to be writing an article on this subject. This article only serves to prove the reputation Wikipedia has got over recent years as being unreliable, full of political bias (especially anti-western bias), made-up content, and generally being down right crazy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.110.238.114 (talk) 21:16, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Great Powers and Middle Powers
There is a discrepancy when it comes to the term Great and Middle Powers in academia. Some people believe that there are several Great powers out there while others believe that there are no great powers and only one super power. This article lists countries and is someplace in the middle, it lists commonly associated modern day Great powers like France and the UK but leaves out China and Russia.


 * According to Encarta : "Today’s great powers—the United States, Britain, France, Russia, and China—all have large military forces and substantial nuclear weapons capabilities. Japan and Germany—with huge economies and relatively large military forces but no nuclear weapons—also qualify as great powers. These seven states control over half of the world’s economy, 68 percent of world military spending, 27 percent of its soldiers, 95 percent of arms exports, and 99 percent of nuclear weapons. The only other states of comparable economic size are Italy and perhaps India, neither of which has the global outlook or military strength to qualify as a great power. India, which now has nuclear weapons capability, and Brazil are regional giants that have the potential to become great powers in the 21st century."

Most common day knowledge would say that there are at least 5 Great Powers, United States, Britain, France, Russia, and China with the US being the only Super power. They all have Nuclear weapons, Hold permanent seats on the UN security counsel, are major players in world affairs & hold most of the worlds wealth. I think that we can find references for both Great and middle powers for all but the United states. So either the list should be updated to include the 2 missing great powers with a note stating that all 4 are also considered great powers or the 2 great powers listed should be removed. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 22:22, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Point taken about the POV of the academic that wrote the Encarta article. But the countries in the list of middle powers are also sourced, despite the overlap. So the issue is not clear cut. I therefore suggest that no countries are removed from this list, but that the overlap, reflecting the differences among experts on the issue, be point out. Viewfinder (talk) 01:17, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * If Academics disagree there is no way for anyone to have a definitive answer so making a note is the best solution, Good Idea :-) -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 02:07, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Another point - I note that the UK reference has been challenged. It seems OK to me, but even if it is not, we are accepting that the Germany and France references are OK. And if France and Germany remain listed, the UK should also be listed because its size, poulation and defence expenditure are comparable. Infact the UK's population and economy are smaller than those of Germany. Viewfinder (talk) 01:36, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * That was me and I missed the last sentence when reading it, looks good. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 02:07, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think the UK and France have more clout in the world because of their UN and nuclear status. It seems to me that in global matters, the EU countries act collectively, in effect giving the EU the status of a Great Power or even possibly a superpower. Viewfinder (talk) 01:40, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * That is hard to say in todays world, look at what happened with the invasion of Iraq, the UK, Spain & Italy supported the war and sent troops, Germany & France opposed it vigorously. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 02:07, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed about Iraq, but I still maintain that the tendency among EU countries is towards a common foreign policy. Viewfinder (talk) 02:12, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Slight correction, the France and UK references are the same. But despite its higher population, larger economy and comparable defence expenditure, the German references are solid, and removing the UK and France alone makes no sense to me. Viewfinder (talk) 01:58, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Well most scholars think of France and the UK as Great Powers and don't think of Germany as a Great Power, so that would be correct. Check out the Great Powers article for more info. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 02:07, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I am happy with the article as last edited by UKPhoenix79. Viewfinder (talk) 02:12, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Glad to help :-) -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 03:42, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I also found new edits helpful. I just wonder about the placment of this note about these 6 countries. The few sentences added are a sidenote to the whole section clarifying 6 countries of the whole list. Shouldn't it be as a footnote or sidenote rather than in its current position as the lead of this section of article?Farmanesh (talk) 14:44, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * No, I do not think so. If the note is relegated, readers will start examining and passing judgement on the list before reading the note. Viewfinder (talk) 16:32, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * We can do what was there for a while but without citation. To add a footnote to those few countries as "also called great power", it was done here . The current version is an WP:Undue weight to put a footnote for few countries in the section lead of the whole list.Farmanesh (talk) 17:52, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Middle power and great power are mutually exclusive categories. There can be differences of opinion about which category a country should be in, hence the overlap. But no country can be considered to be in both categories by any given school of thought. Viewfinder (talk) 18:41, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Russia a middle power?
I don't think Russia should be listed as a middle power. First of all, the only source used is from the mid to late 90s. For anyone who's unaware, Russia was at a low point during that period, and have rebounded quite a bit. They're currently the worlds largest energy superpower, largest nuclear power, and is the worlds second strongest military power according to US intelligence. But if all that isn't enough, even the content in the article itself barely considers Russia a "middle power". Here's what it says:


 * ''"In the 1990's, with the collapse of Soveit Russia, one might suggest that a fourth middle power has emerged....""


 * "Having established the United Nations Security Council veto as an objective criterion to differentiate between states, and regognize that veto status has remained unchanged, one must conclude that, for organizational purposes, the end of the Cold War has had little impact on power status."

So even the article contradicts the idea of Russia being a middle power, only suggesting that "some might suggest" the possibility, but then goes on to "conclude" that power status hasn't changed. I personally think the age of the article itself warrants the deletion of Russia from the list, but even the source itself doesn't call Russia a middle power. What does everyone else think?99.240.27.210 (talk) 06:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * As for your POV that this reference is old, I would disagree with you as power structures change slowly. I find your review of the reference intresting though. I would suggest you adding your view with references calling Russia a Great Power in the article as there exists for other countries like UK. Farmanesh (talk) 15:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Why would you argue to keep Russia on the list though? It's not supported by this article or any other that I could find. Whoever added it in the first place was mistaken to do so, therefor keeping Russia listed isn't justified without a relevant source.


 * I'm going to remove Russia from the list until someone can provide a reliable, accurate source stating that Russia is a middle power, citing No original research and Verifiability.


 * "Wikipedia does not publish original research (OR) 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.


 * "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that readers should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed."


 * "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation.[1] The source must be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question."


 * Also, although this is irrelevant, for arguments sake I disagree about power structures changing slowly. 20th century history gives many examples of power structure changing rapidly. Germany went from a broken shell of a country in 1918 to a economic and technologic powerhouse in the 30s. The Ottoman empire lost its role on the world stage in the snap of a finger after WWI, as did Austria-Hungary. The Soviet Union before and after WWII, as another example, went from a famine stricken third would country to one of the two leading superpowers in the span of 10-15 years. Then of course when it collapsed, it only took a year or two for them to lose superpower status, going from challenging America militarily, to being even barely able to win parts of their own country back militarily (Chechnya).


 * Imagine a report written in 1925 saying that Germany was a weak, economically crippled country, capable of projecting no power at all and barely able to provide jobs for its citizens (which was true). Now Imagine that report being used in 1936. 99.240.27.210 (talk) 23:01, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Iconsistencies
This article claims Japan is a middle power. Great power claims it is a great power. 199.17.28.15 (talk) 20:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

portugal
a middle power its so because of its role in the world.this is why several countries are not considered to be middle powers but small powers.norway as a role in the world as it is the 5th oil exporter,as are nigeria and venezuela.dificulties come when hungary or eslovenia are considered to be middle powers, because world changed a lot since 1988 and this countries are now very small powers.now explaining: portugal its a member of nato, eu and cplp, its a 10 million citizens developed country, that participates actively in peacekeaping missions all over the world, and, trough cplp, keaps a large deal of influence in several afican countries, and a close relation whith brasil (one of the bric).to show its importance, portugal interviened in guine-bissau in 1998 to rescue the foreign citizens from the war, and was the key internacional player to the indenpendence of timor.this list as to be more recent, to have some efficiency. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tasmaver (talk • contribs) 18:40, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think Portugal might be a middle power. It's language is spoken by more than 200 million people. It has until 1975 a Regional Power in Southern Africa. It has Azores islands of geostrategical relevance and many former colonies and dependencies trough the World.


 * What I can see is why Finland, Hungary, Czech Republic, Austria or even Denmark, Belgium and Switzerland are middle powers.


 * If they are Portugal and Greece are too. Or Angola, Vietnam, Indonesia, Ukraine, Israel. ACamposPinho 02:04, 4 July 2008

Middle Power Map
I have removed map as it does not show data given. Example - Russia is included in list but not shown on map. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Colliver55 (talk • contribs) 18:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Russia should not be on the list, you're the one who re-added it. Read the discussion above. 99.240.27.210 (talk) 23:25, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Look the reference state Russia is a seen by some as a Middle Power, so don't bring your bias into Wikipedia. If Russia is not included, neither should be UK, France or China. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Colliver55 (talk • contribs) 08:44, 10 July 2008 (UTC) We are sick of Russian bias on Wikipedia. Russia should accept its new position in the world with grace rather than act like a spoilt brat. Colliver55 (talk) 08:48, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Read the argument above. Actually read it, please, I'm not going to repeat the exact same argument I did two months ago. That source doesn't say Russia is a middle-power. The UK, France and China are all sufficiently sourced. 99.240.27.210 (talk) 23:24, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

A similar case can be made for the references for China as a middle power: one is from the late 90s (and quite extreme) and one is not exactly credible. Nirvana888 (talk) 23:37, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Colliver55, explain your position or this isn't going to end. The source doesn't support Russia being a middle-power. Find a credible source that does or leave the list alone. Everyroad (talk) 13:17, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * After inspecting the source, I must say I mostly agree with 99.240.27.210 and User:Everyroad on this. The article only states that "In the 1990s, with the collapse of Soviet Russia, one might suggest that a fourth middle power has emerged." (on page 78). Almost two decades old may be a bit much for Current Middle Powers, and the statement is very vague. More recently, Russia is referred to as superpower in this article. That can be seen as reliable source, the statement comes from Marshall I. Goldman - he is an economist at Wellesley College and Harvard University. And has a Ph.D. in Russian studies. =Species8473=  (talk) 07:03, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Nigeria is mentioned on the page, but not colored in on this map. JesseRafe (talk) 05:36, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Delete self created list
I think we should delete thist list, and post lists that are created by reputable experts only. Instead of creating our own, based on a selection of sources that use different criteria and even are on entirely different periods. For example the Canadian Encyclopedia is used for France and the United Kingdom being "Current Middle powers", while the article itself clearly states it is about the early postwar years after WWII. Even though I haven't checked all the other references, I'm expecting similar issues, and hope others follow this line of thought. But if not we should at least work on putting years of publication for the sources at the references section. Though my proposal remains to use lists such as this one, and with it clearly state who created it, what criteria were used, and during what year it was published. =Species8473= (talk) 09:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think it should be deleted only properly vetted. Good catch on France and the UK. The source you gave is also rather interesting. But proper academic sources from accredited experts are the best and I'm sure that there will be enough to find to back up the claims here. -- Phoenix (talk) 10:08, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean with the "proper academic sources" part, even though I agree, I'm not sure what you mean here - can you clarify? Also, besides the U.K. and France we may have to change other things as well. The Hussein Solomon article, even though only ten years old itself (1997). Uses a list published by Bernard Wood "The middle powers and the general interest" from 1988. Even though I think the list is valuable, we must clearly state it is from that year - instead of blending it all together as "Current Middle Powers". And the latter remains my main issue here. No matter how academic and scientific all used sources are, if they are being used mindlessly, it will no longer be reliable material that is being provided. But original research instead. At the very least we should make a rule to what still classifies as current, and present that in the article. =Species8473=  (talk) 11:52, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the UK, France and China should be deleted from the list. I would like others to add their opinions on this. Colliver55 (talk) 11:54, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The United Kingdom and France for certain, unless better sources are found. The source for both countries Canadian Encyclopedia reports on a period of 50-60 years ago. And that's a bit old for "current middle powers" in such a fast evolving world. I belief China can not be accurately covered with just a list item, it's somewhere in the between going from middle power / low income country to global power or possibly superpower. China is listed as middle power by Bernard Wood in his 1988 publication, but Hussein Solomon who uses that list in his 1997 article comments on it: "A second area of contention is: which China is Wood referring to? If the reference is to the People's Republic of China, then it could convincingly be argued that it is more a great power and a nascent superpower than a middle power. If Wood is referring to Taiwan, his classification is similarly problematic, as Taiwan is not recognised as an independent sovereign state by international law.". And since then China has had nothing but fast economic growth. =Species8473=  (talk) 12:48, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I have deleted the UK and France as the source has been established as unreliable. As for China, I won't delete it but I think we all can agree that China doesn't warrant the label. I will leave it to someone else to delete China from the list - but I would certainly support her removal. Colliver55 (talk) 13:14, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

yes i agree that the list should be vetted to ensure sources are credible and relevant to today. also academic are quite unanimous that china is a great/global power/emerging or current superpower. it may have been referred to a middle power perhaps 30-40 years ago when its economic growth was not high. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.71.49.8 (talk) 13:16, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

If the UK, France and China are to be removed, does anyone know how to edit that map? Colliver55 (talk) 13:21, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I do but I don't think it will go anywhere while we wait for other active editors to speak. =Species8473=  (talk) 14:19, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The map definitely need to be updated but we should also go through all the remaining listed middle powers and vet them. Nirvana888 (talk) 14:38, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree but it is going to be an editing nightmare if we try to relegate any of the listed middle powers to a lower status. While some are clearly middle powers - such as Canada, Australia, Spain etc, others are much less clear cut - such as Romania etc. Colliver55 (talk) 14:52, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I have just checked, and there is no article entitled minor powers. I can imagine there will be a very sore backlash if we tried to put any of the listed countries in this category, so how do we proceed? Maybe we should just remove China, UK and France and leave the remaining countries in this category. I have not checked the references for every country listed, but if they are legitimate, I don't see we can do much anyway. Colliver55 (talk) 14:58, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. The countries should still be vetted nevertheless to ensure that the references are legitimate. I don't see how the map cannot be updated to the current list for now. Nirvana888 (talk) 15:06, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Russia should be removed as per discussion above. Colliver still hasn't given a legit reason why it should stay, and we can only assume he has no legit reason as a result. Anyone could report him for 3rr right now and he will be blocked as he has been warned and continued to edit war. Everyroad (talk) 15:59, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Russia already is removed. The edit warring has stopped, and you were guilty too. I'm happy Colliver has joined us on the talk page. =Species8473=  (talk) 16:18, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I have retracted the last statement I made. I am going to let Everyroad make his own judgement, but my decision to keep Russia in the list was actually because the UK, France and China were also included. As Russia, UK, France and China are of approximately equivalent status in the world it seems unreasonable that one should be there and not the others. Colliver55 (talk) 16:35, 16 July 2008 (UTC) Now that the other Great Powers have been removed, I have no issue with Russia not being included on the list. Colliver55 (talk) 16:37, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm indifferent to whether or not the UK, China etc.. are listed. It's just a matter of sufficient sources - they appeared to have a few, while Russia didn't. However I strongly disagree with your assertion that Russia and China are equal to France and the UK in status. I'd argue that the EU is on par with them to a varying degree, but not any individual EU countries. Your unsupported opinion should never be a reason to either keep or remove content, it should always be based on the provided sources or lack thereof. Everyroad (talk) 18:38, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Have a nice day Everyroad :-) Colliver55 (talk) 20:38, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Just want to say thanks to Species for your constructive contributions and willingness to solve problems from a neutral perspective. If only other editors could act this way, we'd have a much easier task improving these pages. Nirvana888 (talk) 16:30, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I have updated the map to show the removal of China, France and the UK from the list. Good Job Species. Oh b.t.w. Colliver55 you might have been right about China, France and the UK not belonging on the list but Everyroad was correct about Russia not belonging without a valid source agreeing. If you honestly believed that Russia belonged that would have been one thing, but you should try to avoid disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point. -- Phoenix (talk) 20:56, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Well for your information Russia has been listed in this article for a long time. The source was completely valid, more valid than the sources for the UK and France in fact. Colliver55 (talk) 21:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

References cleanup
All down, placed citation needed template where needed, material may be available on other pages/domains
 * Removed
 * http://www.geocities.com/ibsaunb/africadosul02.pdf - Down (404 error), removed, added citation needed
 * http://faculty.arts.ubc.ca/tiberg/Poli%20322-2006-Middle%20Power%20Diplomacy.rtf - Down (404 error), removed, added citation needed
 * http://www.middlepowers.org/mpi/docs/Ottawa_A6FBrief_Final.pdf - Down (404 error), removed
 * http://www.middlepowers.org/mpi/pubs/vienna_brief.pdf - Down (404 error), removed
 * http://www.middlepowers.org/mpi/index.html - Down (404 error), removed
 * http://ssp.georgetown.edu/area.html - Down (404 error), removed
 * www.liv.ac.uk (google cache) - Down (404 error), removed

The following links are to google cache, this is not a good replacement for dead links, for google doesn't cache dead pages for long. Will look into these myself later.
 * Google cache
 * www.cpsa-acsp.ca
 * www.ony.unu.edu
 * www.aph.gov.au
 * www.fornet.info
 * www.anu.edu.au

Still in progress for more work. =Species8473= (talk) 16:16, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Huge credit to Species for cleaning up the references. Nirvana888 (talk) 20:16, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Old sources for current middle powers
I think these all are too old to use for current middle powers. =Species8473= (talk) 20:42, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * http://www.iss.co.za/Pubs/Monographs/No13/Solomon.html <- 1988 (though republished and commented on during 1997)
 * http://www.jstor.org/pss/3203171 <- 1981 removed
 * http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/mpg/mjis/1983/00000012/00000002/art00001 <- 1983 removed
 * http://www.jstor.org/pss/2503425 <- 1988 removed
 * http://mqup.mcgill.ca/book.php?bookid=930 <- 1990
 * http://www.jstor.org/pss/2706854 <- 1990

I agree. References should ideally be post Cold War era. Colliver55 (talk) 20:45, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Different subject
I want to remove this one, even though it touches the subject of great powers, it's mostly about the coast guard. And doesn't in any way point out why the selected countries are middle powers. There are much better sources around, while this is a really poor one. =Species8473= (talk) 20:52, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * http://www.sfu.ca/casr/id-coast.htm removed

Interestingly it's Canadian again. Colliver55 (talk) 20:53, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

This article is not about great powers. It does say to have selected 15 "middle powers" for their research. But it's not clear how they were selected, and the list includes Zaire (Congo) and Zimbabwe. They both have a really low GDP, over ten time lower than Algeria - a country noted to be a possible middle power in this source (p 153). I think it should be removed. =Species8473= (talk) 14:42, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * http://garnet.acns.fsu.edu/~whmoore/ipi/harmel.conf.pdf removed

These also are pages not about middle powers but on other subjects, that use the world middle power only once. Unless there are any objections I'm going to remove them. =Species8473= (talk) 18:24, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?DocId=2332570&Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=35&Ses=2
 * http://www.agenceglobal.com/article.asp?id=812
 * http://www.jhubc.it/europe-today/Chapter12.cfm
 * http://www.essex.ac.uk/ECpR/publications/eps/onlineissues/autumn2003/feature/heywood.htm

Italian reference
The title of this book is "NATO after 11/9: USA and Europe in the terrorism epoch" - so it's not primarily about middle powers. I have no idea what page to look for the notion that Germany should be among the middle powers. And I'm generally against references in other languages unless it's a very high quality source and/or there are no alternatives. I did go to #wikipedia-it and asked if someone could look into it, but one person had to leave, and the second provided a translation of the title. For both Italy and Germany we have alternative sources. =Species8473= (talk) 17:19, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * http://books.google.it/books?id=SQa05v2LRg0C removed

Pakistan
The first article describes Israel-Pakistan relations, the second is on education. Both use the words "middle power" once, to refer to Pakistan. Without describing why it is considered a middle power. These are very poor sources and we have a good alternative source. =Species8473= (talk) 18:02, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * http://www.bitterlemons-international.org/previous.php?opt=1&id=103 removed
 * http://www.dawn.com/2005/05/10/op.htm removed

Mostly done
I think I have checked all the sources for accuracy now, these ones still are problematic: These should be checked for accuracy, and until that has been done I want to remove them, avoiding the risk that they are not
 * http://www.jstor.org/pss/424829
 * http://www.palgrave.com/products/title.aspx?is=033368186X

Poor sources for various reasons Comments welcome, =Species8473=  (talk) 15:29, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * http://web.mit.edu/ISG/iaqfall04ahouie.htm <- Says Iran plays the role of a "regional middle power"
 * http://www.nsi-ins.ca/english/publications/multilateral/sweden.asp <- Article on different subject that only uses "middle power" in the subject
 * http://www.sudantribune.com/spip.php?article13601 <- Article on different subject, and very poor on Belgium being a middle power
 * http://www.international-relations.com/WbLatinAmerica/6Brazil.htm <- Says the 1990 Brazil could be viewed as middle power
 * http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showpdf.cgi?path=239001176317320 <- Article on different subject, doesn't idenity any country as middle power
 * http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmselect/cmfaff/363/36310.htm <- Down

Possible Middle Powers
I think the following countries should be checked for having a possible middle power status. They all currently have a higher GDP than Algeria (131,568) and Hungary (138,388), who did make it to the list. Greece (314,615), Ireland (258,574), Thailand (245,659), Portugal (223,303), United Arab Emirates (192,603), Malaysia (186,482), Colombia (171,607) , Chile (163,792) , Israel (161,935), Singapore (161,349) , Philippines (144,129), Ukraine (140,484). =Species8473= (talk) 11:09, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Striped out Malaysia, Colombia, Chile and Singapore as they actually are already listed. =Species8473=  (talk) 13:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Here's a source that list several of those middle powers: Nirvana888 (talk) 14:57, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposal Current Middle Powers
I have done some work on creating a proposed new "current middle powers" section. It can be viewed here: User:Species8473/Middle. I have put more focus on the 1988 list, because it is the only good and more or less complete list we have. And so it can be made clear on what criteria it is based, and it allows the notes from Solomon to be included. I have also put more focus on describing why countries are considered middle powers - unfinished but it should give the idea. The map I made a bit bigger (it fits on 1024x768 or higher with the table), and it has different colors for the 1988 list and "other countries" with an extra legend option for "great power" China. I have thought about making Germany and Japan yellow too, with the note of them being economic great powers - but haven't decided on it yet. I did forget to color Spain but that will happen in a next update. =Species8473= (talk) 17:48, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I have a few issues with your proposal. Firstly, I don't think we should give particular emphasis to Wood and Solomon's POV over other sources' especially considering their list is at least 20 years old and the commentary 11 years old. Therefore, I feel by distingusing sources on the map by grouping countries by colour based on Wood's list or on other criteria is not really appropriate. The fact that China is listed also raises a few eyebrows given its prominence in the world stage today and the aforementioned antiquated perspective. It is perhaps worth noting that Wood's pool of middle powers is explained based on the follow criteria: "Some proponents of middle power leadership use Gross National Product (GNP) as the best general indicator of national power. Thus, Wood15 argues, "GNP automatically captures aggregate economic power, wealth and/or population size, and to a substantial extent, military potential ..." On the basis of using GNP [prior to 1988] as a criterion for identifying middle powers, Wood arrives at a list of states which includes:" Given China's surge in GNP (now above all other great powers except for the US) in past years, it looks increasing clear that it does not belong on that list. Also, I don't really agree with presenting a list ranking middle powers based on GNP as it is only one method. Therefore, I think the current list of middle powers we have + other middles powers backed up by sources will work best provided that we vet all the sources (which it appears you've done). Nirvana888 (talk) 19:29, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The issues you name all exist in the current article, where they are ignored - making them even bigger. In my version they are addressed. By clearly stating the year of publication, and citing Hussein Solomon on his (critical) comments. Some particular emphasis to the list I belief is justified, as it is the only seemingly complete list we have. I agree that alphabetical order may be better, in favor of GNP ranking, even though it was simply copied from the source like that. =Species8473=  (talk) 21:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with all the countries listed, except China. Colliver55 (talk) 11:45, 18 July 2008 (UTC) I also believe listing the powers in terms of economic rank is unjustified, as wealth is not always an indicator of power or status in the world. Colliver55 (talk) 11:46, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I think we all agree that the Bernard Wood list is a bit "antiquated". China back then was a middle power, today it is a great power. A simple look at the old World bank GDP statistics is enough. During the 1985-1998 period, when Bernard Wood did his study, it was just in between the middle powers Canada and Brazil. Since then it has grown with a factor 10, and today it ranks at place four among the other great powers.


 * China GDP, showing year, GDP in million USD, and rank
 * 1985 304,911 #8
 * 1988 307,166 #10
 * 1990 354,644 #11
 * 1995 728,010 #9
 * 2000 1,198,480 #6
 * 2007 3,280,053 #4
 * Sources: 12


 * The status of China shows the 1998 list is not accurate for today. Which is why we need to publish it separately. And make clear the date of publication, and used criteria. Not silently remove China, and risk that it is not accurate either for any of the 31 out of the 39 other countries listed as "current middle powers". =Species8473=  (talk) 13:16, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with Colliver. The list of "Current Middle Powers" is supposed to reflect reality as close as possible to recently. I'm sure we all agree that a case of middle power status may have been possible to make for China 20 or 30 years ago but is no longer apt. I agree that by adding commentary perhaps in a footnote stating China may have been considered in the past as a middle power may work. Otherwise, the inclusion of China makes the list obsolete for the label "Current Middle Powers". It seems upon surface observation that China is the only significant abberation from the list. By the same token, going by nominal GDP, one would observe Russia (a purported great power) ranks #11 in 2007 with $1,291,011 million. Under the criteria of nominal GDP, it would categorically classify as a middle power. This is probably obvious given the fact the list of compiled during the Cold War and hardly relevant currently. Nirvana888 (talk) 13:32, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * One interesting thing I found out is that a year ago the Bernard Wood list was published in the article, without any other listed countries. Since then editors have damaged the article by adding any webpage as reference, as long as it had a match on middle power and the country name. That now mostly is fixed, but I still think the approach of that version is much better. Besides China, lets have a look at Algeria. During 1985 it ranked #29 on the World Bank GDP list, today it has dropped to place #48. In our list it does have two other sources12. The first doesn't say Algeria is a middle power, and the second says Algeria may be a middle power. Between 1991 and 2002 there was a major civil war in Algeria (see Algerian Civil War), with a death count of 150,000 to 200,000. Even though the list may be mostly correct for current middle powers, the used method is flawed, and prone to error. While this can be easily avoided by presenting the Bernard Wood list as 1988 list, instead of using it as reference for todays middle powers. Another good change I think would be using the title "Middle Power Status" instead of "Current Middle Powers". =Species8473=  (talk) 14:53, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Responding to request for third parties - the problem is that the categories "big, middle and little" have arbitrary limits and depend somewhat upon POV. Seems to me that either;
 * a) agreement is needed on a comprehensive and authoritative source or set of sources for these evaluations - and these will be subject to constant re-evaluation. OR


 * b) the categories be avoided altogether. Redheylin (talk) 09:39, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

1988 - 2007 GDP Changes
For a reality check and future reference I have created a list showing country GDP rank changes over 1985 and 2007. It includes all countries from the current article and the Bernard Wood list of 1988 middle powers. The GDP ranks come from the World Bank, for Czech and Romania I used the year 1990 instead of 1985 because they were not on the 1985 list.


 * Legend
 * Higher > 15 ██
 * Higher > 10 ██
 * Higher > 5 ██
 * Change < 5 ██
 * Lower > 5 ██
 * Lower > 10 ██
 * Lower > 15 ██

My personal opinion on this: Singapore, Chile and Czech are ranking a lot better, but we know they are not among the great powers - so judging from this list they simply are middle powers with a growing economy. Argentina has dropped, but still ranks well compared with other middle powers. For Algeria, Egypt and Iran I would say it's possible they no longer are among the middle powers - so we need to check what experts say about them. =Species8473= (talk) 21:15, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Besides the Wood list there are two other sources for Iran in the article 12. One identifies Iran as a "regional middle power", with in the footnotes "by regional middle power I mean a state which may rank as no more than a middle power in the global system but which is a key actor in its regional system". It doesn't say Iran is a middle power. The other article is down - even though I believe it worked a few days ago (I don't appear to have broken it with my changes, and may simply have looked over it). Iran today may not be a middle power, and if it is we need a recent reliable source. The same goes for Algeria. Quoting myself: "During 1985 it ranked #29 on the World Bank GDP list, today it has dropped to place #48. In our list it does have two other sources12. The first doesn't say Algeria is a middle power, and the second says Algeria may be a middle power. Between 1991 and 2002 there was a major civil war in Algeria (see Algerian Civil War), with a death count of 150,000 to 200,000.". Egypt is not mentioned in Woods list of middle powers, and is cited from two sources 12. The first one doesn't seem to say Egypt is a middle power, the second does but is what I see as poor source and only lists it in the footnotes. =Species8473=  (talk) 21:35, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Interesting chart. I'm curious where you accessed the World Bank GDP statistics for previous years - I have a feeling that older data may be a bit unreliable. A few things to keep in mind: it is much easier for rank to jump and fall for smaller (lower ranked) economies which is why you don't see much movement in the larger economies. Also, like we've said before GDP is not the only measure of middle power status. Geopolitics, diplomatic styles, power in international organizations (UN Security Council) all play a role. Nirvana888 (talk) 23:37, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The GDP statistics are from the World Bank, I did note that to the top of the table, but here are two links with the actual numbers 12. I don't entirely share your feeling that older data may be unreliable, the oldest list available on that website is from 1960 - so by 1985 the World Bank already had at least 25 years of experience with creating them. I do agree that using only GDP for defining middle powers isn't perfect - but the only seemingly complete list we have uses that as criteria. And if we would put it seperate from other sources, we could actually make note of such issues as they have been commented on by other academics. I will request a third opinion on that - for some fresh thought. I do think this table shows that the position of quite a number of countries has changed a lot. =Species8473=  (talk) 00:58, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

The UK is a great power not a middle power.
The UK is a great power not a middle power also how did the UK make the list but Ireland did not even though the UK is clearly more powerful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.229.230.251 (talk) 20:17, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Well. Ireland according to this list and the Great Power list is neither. While I somewhat believe that UK is a great power, it all depends on the academic. Some academics think UK is a great power, which is why it's on the great power page. And the source on this page says that UK is a middle power. Deavenger (talk) 21:34, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The constant content removal needs to stop. I've filed a request for page protection. - SimonP (talk) 12:29, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes. Hopefully with protection, the IP will stop, and possibly discuss the issue. Deavenger (talk) 23:18, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It is ridiculous that actually UK has only one old light aircaft carrier and is still classified as a Great Power, while Italy with two of them is classified as a Middle Power. The English people need strongly a bath in reality and humility... goodbye from India... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.20.116.232 (talk) 15:04, 13 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Aircraft Carriers do not define Great Powers, nor do they define Middle Powers. A Great Power is often translated as "World Power", which is generally accepted to apply to nations with leading economic, cultural, military, scientific and political influence around the globe. The UK is still by far among the top tier of Great Powers and out performs most of the current great powers economically, culturally, militarily, scientifically and politically. The UKs status as a recognized Nuclear power and member of the United Nations Security Council are major indications of its Great Power status and global importance. The fact that the UK is both relevant and present when it comes to international discussions regarding N Korea, Iran, Libya, Syria etc isn't a token of good will or down to pure chance, but because the UKs global interests, voice and opinions are as relevant and as respected as ever. The point im trying to get at is - the UK exercises all the characteristics of a Great Power and is seen by her Government and most of the world as one too. India on the other hand is largely unimportant and unable to act as a global player. Canada and Australia are consulted with more in international discussions than India. Good luck in the Olympics! You sure as hell need it. Goodbye, Great Britain. TalkWoe90i 17:17, 4 August 2012 (UTC)


 * ...indulging in wishful thinking?! --IIIraute (talk) 18:12, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Greece is a middle power
Greece is the most economically and militarily advanced nation in the balkans. Its GDP is above the EU average. It is a fundamental member of the EU and NATO. Greece has the power of veto in referance to FYROM. Its geographical position makes it a global hub for technology, industry and so on. Greece should definetly be added to the list, especially as weaker countries (algeria, austria, belgium, denmark, malaysia etc) are included. Please ammend this mistake!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.175.100.231 (talk) 12:54, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Greece is not the most economically and militarily advanced nation in the Balkans, it's Turkey. And Greece's GDP is below the EU average now. Also, Greece is not a global hub for technology and industry, it's lacking industrial production. I'm not telling these in order to argue if Greece is a middle power or not, I just wanted to correct your wrong facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.182.130.233 (talk) 21:45, 14 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Do you have a reliable source stating that Greece is a middle power (without being OR or SYN), as the so called "weaker" countries all have sources stating that they're middle powers. Deavenger (talk) 23:45, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It seems pretty obvious from this discussion that everybody just wants their own country on the list, just saying "I think my country should be on the list" without providing any sources is pretty much useless. Calling those other countries "weaker" (weaker by what standard?) is also very POV --81.164.88.254 (talk) 04:36, 25 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Grece has disproved its case for being a middle power in its recent economic collapse. I only see grece as a power when taken as a piece of a greater UE, which is steadilly becoming integrated into one political unit as a superpower.--75.185.247.18 (talk) 03:00, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Greece is 'stronger' according to you than Belgium, Austria, Malaysia and Denmark according to you, the recent economic collapse of Greece shows it is not a middle power but these nations definitely are. Mspence835 (talk) 23:58, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Great Powers should deleted from the list
GreatPower and MiddlePower are different status. it is not well 5 Countries(China, France, Germany, Japan, UK) listed in both GreatPower and MiddlePower. 112.162.197.118 (talk)
 * While some academics and scholars refer to those countries as great powers, some academics refer to them as middle powers. As the article states "The overlap between the list of middle powers and great powers shows that there is no unanimous agreement among authorities.". Deavenger (talk) 16:35, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That some academics consider those countries middle powers is well referenced, and they should stay on the list. That said, perhaps we should include a note for those countries that also have references for great power status. - SimonP (talk) 22:21, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * We do. Right before it goes into the list of middle powers, it says that the countries of France, UK, Germany, and Japan are also considered great powers by some academics. Deavenger (talk) 00:02, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I didn't notice that. That really should address any concerns that people have. - SimonP (talk) 02:17, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I committed a bad edit(including the US) but this page is really confusing. I don't think that we should put the great powers in the list. It's highly confusing whether that map considers the powers mentioned great powers or middle powers(China and Russia not colored at all, and Britain, France, Japan and Germany dark colored?).Teeninvestor (talk) 01:09, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Japan and Germany are definitely great powers. In fact, they belong there probably more than Britain or France.Teeninvestor (talk) 01:11, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, no, not in the military terms by which great powers are traditionally defined, because Japan and Germany lack the comparable power projection provided by the UK and France's air/sea lift and expeditionary capabilities. The original definition of a superpower was, after all, great power plus great mobility of power. Japan and Germany also lack strategic nuclear forces and wouldn't last very long in an all-out military clash with either of the two European great powers. The UK and France also have residual influence outside Europe, especially in Africa, and the UK in some other parts of the Commonwealth. Lachrie (talk) 03:07, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

The reason why Russia or China are not up on the map was because at the time the map was updated, we did not have any reliable sources showing Russia or China as middle powers. US definatly cannot be called a middle power at this time. I shall be requesting that the map people to add Russia and China in dark red also sometime tommorow. The great powers (save US) are colored as the academic consensus is kind of split on whether those countries are great powers or middle powers. Deavenger (talk) 04:46, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


 * It may be clearer to create one map with the middle powers and great powers both colored with the disputed nations Hatched with both colors--75.185.247.18 (talk) 03:08, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

there is a big difference between countries like Canada,Italy and even Australia
being members of the G8, top 8 export countries for most of the last decade, having gdp's over 1500 billion dollars, Canada having the 2nd highest gdp per capita in the G8, major producer of vehicles, largest trading partner of the US, being one of the main members of the francophonie, commonwealth, makes their decisions important. if middle power includes every major country outside of the US, China, France, UK, Russia, Japan then there should only be 6 middle powers. Italy, Canada, Spain, Brazil, India, South Korea. exports, nominal gdp, how reliant the 6 great powers are on the other ones for trade. Australia might make the list but its exports are a bit low. Grmike (talk) 06:44, 29 October 2009 (UTC)grmike

Forgot Germany? Bub 2009-11-03 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.224.160.136 (talk) 17:29, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Although Wikipedia cannot use itself as a source, this image here says something else:


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Exports_by_country_map_copy2.png


 * The colour code suggests that these countries all have an equal-ish export size:


 * Brazil, Canada, Mexico, Australia, Spain, Italy, Thailand, South Korea and Saudi Arabia (along with some smaller countries whose names escape me).


 * India has less exports than those countries, just.


 * By nominal GDP, not counting countries that are considered Great Powers and including only the countries you considered probables:


 * 7. Italy
 * 9. Spain
 * 10. Brazil
 * 11. Canada
 * 12. India
 * 13. Mexico
 * 14. Australia
 * 15. South Korea


 * So the GDP's of all those countries are in quick succession. Italy's is almost twice as big as Australia's, but it's only to be expected form a G8 country compared to a G20 country, and one with a third of the population.


 * I'm sorry for only using Wikipedia here, but considering that for these things we have them sourced I think we can let this slip for now.


 * Australia and South Korea are also considered Major Non-Nato Allies, something that cannot be said for Brazil - therefore, they have a more official relationship with the dominant Superpower.


 * Of Australia's main export partners (US, China and Japan), they are one of Japan's main import partners. Due mainly to geographic location the US cheapens out and goes after Mexico and Canada, with China dealing more with South Korea and other Asian nations. Japan imports more Australian stuff than they do South Korean (5% for Australia compared to 4.4% for South Korea). Japan's only other main imports are from the US, China and Saudi (most likely oil).


 * I'm thinking that we've successfully found our dominant Middle Powers, Australia included thankyou. Going by the criteria you've set, it actually shoes itself in above one of the others in each, both of which you considered clear cut MPs. Comics (talk) 05:39, 14 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Australia, Brazil, Canada, India, Italy, Mexico, South Korea and Spain are major middle powers as they all have significant GDPs and military budgets. Although significant GDPs and military budgets make these countries more powerful than ordinary middle powers they are weaker than great powers, notably due to a lack of a nuclear capability which could wreak destruction across the globe and lack of a permanent UN Security Council seat and great power veto which grants enormous diplomatic power, in addition to possessing smaller GDPs and military budgets than great powers. Japan and Germany are often cited as great powers despite their lack of nuclear capability and permanent UN Security Council seats because both countries have immense economic power as a result of their huge GDPs and massive share of global trade, and considerable military power as a result of near great power levels of military expenditure. Quite vivid blur (talk) 01:46, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Picture incorrect
I'm posting here because it seemed to request in the image discussion not to do it. According to the picture China is a middle power (which it certainly isn't) but it's not listed and as I do not know how to edit pictures I would request that someone else do it as it is clearly contradictory to its own page. Mspence835 (talk) 00:03, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I have looked at it even closer and realise that the map is not remotely in line with the countries listed as the likes of Taiwan and Philippines are on the list but left off the map. Mspence835 (talk) 00:15, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the problem is that the map is based on one particular source but the list is based on several other sources. A clearer indication that the map and list are not meant to be two presentations of the same data may be in order. --Khajidha (talk) 15:19, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I know it probably sounds out of line but if a Middle Power is defined as "having influence or international recognition". Surely Ireland has had a greater influence on major nations (USA & UK) than countries like New Zealand, Denmark or Singapore. Is there certain criteria that I'm forgetting for qualification on this list. --Jacobfrid (talk) 20:14, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Czech Republic
Questioning the removal of the Czech Republic from the middle powers list (it had a source), I recently re-added it with the source again, yet I was reverted. Could someone explain to me why the Czech Republic cannot be included in this list, despite the fact that an academic has called it a middle power? CuboneKing (talk) 04:43, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I reverted it back. On a general note, I don't think countries with one source should remain here, but until we agree on such a decision there is no reason to single out Czech Republic while it has one source.Farmanesh (talk) 15:05, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * My vote is for removing the Czech Republic from the list. Our country is small (population, GNP etc.) and its military is nearly non-existent. I realy can´t imagine any reason, why it should be on the list (source doesn´t discuss it further). However, on the other hand... Czech Republic as middle power... sounds good. --Pavlor (talk) 17:02, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you think that Czech Republic should not be among middle powers while other countries with smaller population (Austria, Denmark, Finland, New Zealand, Norway, Singapore, Sweden, Switzerland, ) or smaller GNP (Algeria, Morroco, Pakistan, Romania, Ukraine,, Vietnam) or even with smaller GNP and smaller population (Hungary, Uruguay) should be on the list ? ( Interela (talk) 18:29, 15 April 2013 (UTC) )
 * Doesn't it depend strongly on the level of influence that state is perceived as capable of projecting? Some might see Singapore as an important Middle Power because of its strategic trading position in SE Asia and important economic standing, despite its relatively small geography and population. Comics (talk) 06:39, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Remove India from this list
It seems weird to include India as a middle power based simply on one reference from 1997. One paper cannot reflect a real academic consensus or even a reasonable academic case to make India a middle power. Can you find other references that say India has attained status of a middle power on a level comparable to powerful nations like Denmark, Finland, Norway, Thailand, Sweden and the Czech Republic? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aban1313 (talk • contribs) 04:11, 14 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Stop being silly. You're not funny or clever. David (talk) 09:43, 14 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I've added references. I may add more. Lachrie (talk) 17:04, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

India most certainly belongs in the list of middle powers; India is still a backward developing nation whose HUGE uneducated population still believe in witches, hence the many rapes and killings of girls and women accused of being witches. Some as young as 4 years old! Then the fact that India is home to approx 1/3rd of the worlds poor and its GDP per-capita is one of the lowest in the world. Economically India offers nothing to the world except a growing consumer market where nations like Britain have a trade surplus selling goods and services to India's growing but still very small middle class. India's IT sector which Indians often boast about is one of the finest in Asia, but in comparison to their European, N American and even S American counterparts performs very poorly as expected. The lack of infrastructure in India is appalling and is below that of most developing African nations.

India is in receipt of $Billions of foreign aid from Europe and North America. India's GDP of 1.5 trillion is very average for middle power status, but combine that figure with India's massive population and that 1.5 trillion economy counts for nothing - India's taxable value per capita is one of the lowest in the world on par with 3rd world countries. The quality of life in India and life expectancy speaks for its self.

As for India's military it is too small to meet regional demands, with India's armed forces split between its eastern and western borders Pakistan and China would make short work of India. India's armed forces are reliant on manpower recruited from India's peasant classes who are poorly trained and equipped in comparison to other middle powers. India's armed forces are large but not powerful and woefully ineffective lacking beyond regional power and influence. Technologically India is 20 years behind and relies on Israel, France, Russia and Britain to supply weapons technology.

Culturally India is a nobody on the world stage

India is just big, not important.194.46.226.64 (talk) 10:40, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I think you misread my words. India is not yet even a middle power. India's GDP of 1.7 trillion (please correct your figures) is so small it is irrelevant to the world economy. That is why India should be deleted from the list of middle powers. Even the Indian moon probe is 60 years behind technologically advanced superpowers like UK. At best, India could be included in the list of sub-minor powers, if there is one. There have been some typos in the Queen's speech to English Parliament because of which she read out that she wants a special relationship with India. Aban1313 (talk) 13:33, 21 October 2011 (UTC)Aban1313


 * India is an emerging market and there are historic ties and a large Indian migrant community in Britain. George Osborne also said Britain has a special relationship with Ireland, for similar reasons. India is conventionally classified among the middle powers, as the sources show. Moon probes and special relationships for trade or sentiment have nothing to do with it. Please read WP:NOT and WP:SOAP and stop abusing the format of the talk pages by posting uninformed and unreferenced personal opinions. Lachrie (talk) 19:41, 21 October 2011 (UTC)


 * There is only one old reference that calls India a middle power. India is more like a minor/sub-minor/microscopic power. It is unthinkable that India is as powerful as a major middle power like Denmark! Btw, Britain doesn't HAVE a special relationship with India, in the words of Cameron, it is soliciting one "in a spirit of humility"; there is a BIG difference. Aban1313 (talk) 22:27, 21 October 2011 (UTC)Aban1313


 * It's called diplomacy, acknowledging post-colonial sensitivities in India and using flattery to get around New Delhi's emotional insecurity. If that's your evidence, you have no basis for your case, and more sources have already been added which confirm it. The security reality means that Pakistan is more important to Britain than India. Lachrie (talk) 00:36, 22 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Funny how Britain didnt need to flatter India in last 60 years. Suddenly, why? Britain has always thrown its lot with Pakistan, based on an idea of martial races that appealed to the racist core of the UK. Bombed spectacularly for you, didnt it? Now, lick Indian boots and make up for that. Economics rules, and it makes sense to be nice and polite to India, doesnt it? And who told you Britain has an independent stake in the security situation? America makes all those decisions for you... lol at you poodles and your illusions. Aban1313 (talk) 21:03, 23 October 2011 (UTC)Aban1313


 * Compliments are part of diplomacy: Churchill also flattered Nehru when he called him 'the light of the east'. That's why platitudinous press releases don't make very useful references. You're also confusing diplomacy with trade, which involves the exchange of goods and services, not compliments, which are largely immaterial to economic-decision making, except perhaps in underdeveloped countries like India where corruption is endemic, e.g. the IPL scam and Commonwealth Games fiasco. Pakistan is more important to Britain because of the size of its Pakistani community and its terrorism links.


 * It appears that you have no understanding of international relations, and no constructive contributions to make, and that you're only here to distract editors by posting silly inflammatory comments. You've been causing a major distraction, and if you keep drawing attention to yourself like this, you'll inevitably get yourself blocked again, just like you did with your last suspected sock puppet. Lachrie (talk) 01:50, 24 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Ya ya...go with Pakistan, who is stopping you... oh it could be that TATA is now Britain's top industrial employer? Btw, I hope you remember how Obama threw the bust of Churchill out of the Oval Office. Wonder why he didn't use flattery in diplomacy...lol! Now go line up outside the new Tata factory in Wolverhampton for a job. Compliments and best wishes from an underdeveloped country that doesn't matter to the world economy. Oh...and enjoy our $10 billion donation to the IMF to save your EU. And send our compliments to your masters in the US. Aban1313 (talk) 13:45, 26 October 2011 (UTC)Aban1313


 * Technically India has some of the trappings of a great nation - it's a member of the BRICS and BASIC, the G-20 (alongside other emerging economies like Brazil) and the G8+5 whilst also languishing in poverty. I think that's why it's considered a middle power in some literature and an emerging great power in others - it's got some influence on the world stage, but not the right ability to project that influence if it needs to. Like Australia - big economy (comparatively) and a level of influence globally (less than India's, perhaps), teeny-tiny population which can't really project influence around the world. Technically there are small powers, but those are countries that have a severely limited role in global affairs (like New Zealand - tiny population, small-ish economy - probably how the like it too Comics (talk) 05:20, 22 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The idea of India as a middle power is well attested in the literature. It's even part of the Nehruvian philosophical tradition. India has been talked up vaguely in some quarters as an "emerging" power since the seventies. As the saying goes, "India is always emerging, but never arrives". Makeshift claims based on membership of economic organisations or the mere size of domestic product aren't traditional or sufficient criteria; rather, they're expedient improvisations, a form of political rhetoric. Redefining a term to support an argument is a fallacy of equivocation. Every nation has aspirations, and we can always indulge in frivolous speculation, though, as you know, an encyclopaedia isn't really the place for personal POV-pushing. Lachrie (talk) 07:40, 22 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Show me one reference in last 5 years that says Indian power is comparable to Denmark or Norway or Chile or Finland or Malaysia or Poland or Switzerland or Morocco or Romania or Sweden or Venezuela or Austria. I dont know how anyone can seriously believe that India is part of this club. Show me one academic reference that says Indian economy or military is in any sense in the same club as Finland. As a special aside for you Lachrie, I must say British aspirations now by far outstrip its capabilities. You will need a lot more than your current 47 Typhoons to match those aspirations. Aban1313 (talk) 21:03, 23 October 2011 (UTC)Aban1313


 * I know, but they were only makeshift claims. I wasn't suggesting we change the article to suggest a middle power had to have representation in x number of economic forums haha, I was just using them as examples of how India isn't considered a minor power. Comics (talk) 08:07, 22 October 2011 (UTC)


 * "India's GDP of 1.7 trillion (please correct your figures)" well;


 * IMF est. India $1.6 trillion
 * World Bank est. India $1.7 trillion
 * CIA est. India $1.5 trillion

Take your pick, IMF is more reliable tho!Lawardsday (talk) 16:02, 23 October 2011 (UTC)


 * CIA does not estimate. It just collects from IMF and WB with some time delay Aban1313 (talk) 21:03, 23 October 2011 (UTC)Aban1313

Aban1313 is a disruptive troll who's been banned before. They shouldn't be considered to be a genuine user. Quite vivid blur (talk) 22:57, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Add Colombia to the list
Colombia is considered a middle power and is seen as such by all spanish speaking countries, it has carried military operations in several countries, it has military units deployed in several parts of the world in peace keeping missions and have been in several international wars including the Korean war, the War in Afganistan and a war against Peru. Its part of the UN security council also.

Economically it plays a important role in south american economy.

It has one of the highest economies in the region.

and here is a back up source.

http://mailer.fsu.edu/~whmoore/garnet-whmoore/ipi/harmel.conf.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.102.253.8 (talk) 19:59, 13 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Colombia is already on the list. Comics (talk) 22:03, 13 November 2011 (UTC)