Talk:Great power: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 04:26, 9 November 2006

Latest revision as of 17:49, 7 November 2024

Line 1:

{{Talk header|search=yes}}

{{oldpeerreview}}

{{Not a forum|[[Great power|Great powers]]}}

{{PIIR article}}

{{Round in circles|search=no}}

{{talkheader}}

{{British English Oxford spelling}}

{{Calm talk}}

{{Article history|action1 = PR

|action1date = 03:41, 15 October 2006

|action1link = Wikipedia:Peer review/Great power/archive1

|action1result = reviewed

|action1oldid = 81500203

|action2 = PR

<center><div style="background-color: #f0f0ff; border: none; padding: 5px; width: 220px;">For older discussion, see '''archives: [[/Archive 1|1]] | [[/Archive 2|2]] | [[/Archive 3|3]] | [[/Archive 4|4]]'''</div></center>

|action2date = 21:13, 1 August 2008

<br>

|action2link = Wikipedia:Peer review/Great power/archive2

|action2result = reviewed

|action2oldid = 229225975

|action3 = GAN

|action3date = 18:00, 19 August 2008

|action3link = Talk:Great power/GA1

|action3result = listed

|action3oldid = 232930830

|action4 = GAR

==Mini Peer review==

|action4date = 23:05, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

To my (& I'm sure everyone else's) disappointment the PR page seems to be attracting next to no comment. This is rather a pity - external input would have been handy. As it is, it seems like we will have to do it ourselves.

|action4link = Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Great power/1

|action4result = delisted

|action4oldid = 261459175

|action5 = GAN

I think that it might be useful if we all made a note here of our thinking as far as the future direction of this article goes. What needs adding/changing, prose, sourcing, layout, etc, etc. Perhaps then we can get some sort of direction worked out for the short-medium term. Just stick your thoughts in a subsection, your user name as the title.

|action5date = 01:29, 14 August 2009

|action5link = Talk:Great power/GA2

|action5result = failed

|action5oldid = 310070616

|action6 = GAN

So then, what do we all think?

|action6date = 16:22, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

|action6link = Talk:Great power/GA3

|action6result = failed

|action7 = GAN

[[User:Xdamr|<span style="font-family: Times"><span style="font-size:18px">X</span><span style="font-size:14px">damr</span></span>]]^{[[User_Talk:Xdamr|talk]]} 13:37, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

|action7date = 17:16, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

|action7link = Talk:Great power/GA4

|action7result = failed

|currentstatus=DGA

:I'm sorry I haven't been working here, maybe I'll get time on the weekend. '''[[User:Nobleeagle|<font color="darkblue">Noble</font><font color="darkorange">eagle</font>]]''' ^{[[User_talk:Nobleeagle|<font color="darkred" size="0.2" face="Arial Narrow"> <nowiki>[TALK]</nowiki></font>]][[Special:Contributions/Nobleeagle|<font color="darkred" size="0.2" face="Arial Narrow">&nbsp;<nowiki>[C]</nowiki></font>]]} 06:09, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

|topic=Politics and government

}}

{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|class=B|vital=yes|1=

{{WikiProject Power in international relations|importance=Top}}

{{WikiProject International relations|importance=high}}

{{WikiProject Politics|importance=mid|American=y|American-importance=mid}}

{{WikiProject United States|importance=mid}}

{{WikiProject China|importance=mid}}

{{WikiProject France|importance=mid}}

{{WikiProject United Kingdom|importance=mid}}

{{WikiProject Russia|importance=mid|pol=yes|mil=yes|econ=no}}

}}

{{User:MiszaBot/config

|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}}

|maxarchivesize = 125K

|counter = 16

|minthreadsleft = 3

|algo = old(92d)

|archive = Talk:Great power/Archive %(counter)d

}}

{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn

|target=/Archive index

|mask=/Archive <#>

|leading_zeros=0

|indexhere=yes}}

==Who Coined the Term Great Power?==

===Xdamr===

I came to the Great Power page looking for the answer to this question. According to the World Wars section of this article, "It was first coined in 1944 by William T. R. Fox." But when I checked that footnote, I was only linked to a Wikipedia biography on Fox, which credited him for coining the term SUPERPOWER. Obviously the two terms are different, and I had assumed that the term "great power" wass much older (like, Westphalia of the COncert of Europe kind of era). Please confirm and fix the error. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Defenestrator12|Defenestrator12]] ([[User talk:Defenestrator12#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Defenestrator12|contribs]]) 14:58, June 3, 2023 (UTC)</small>

* '''Pictures''' - is there any scope for adding them? General shots of the UN, seats of world power (eg Westminster, US Congress, Bundestag), etc would add to the aesthetic appeal of the page.

* '''Prose''' - decent, but a copyedit would certainly be in order. I think that we have to standardise on ''Great power'' or ''great power'' (or even ''Great Power'', although I don't think that this is much good). I favour the former - the capital is warranted as it is being used as a noun.

* '''Sourcing''' - the theory aspects of the article seem to be decently sourced (although I'd like to see the section verified, see Academic Peer Review below), but the past/present Great powers are not. I think that we're concentrating far too much on looking for internet-based sources. I think we need to face facts, sources of the quality that we require are simply not easily acessible on the internet. Books and paper journals are the best bet. As far as the use of sources go (this applies to the table format), I object to the citation of sources divorced from any sort of proposition. The endless sources after the UK and France, for example; we are left with no idea what the source says, what proposition it argues.

* '''Layout''' - the tables are pretty poor. They look awful and fail to convey any real, in-depth information. I've highlighted the problem with the tables and sources - I think that this problem is inherent with the constricted space offered by the table format. The tables also seem to lend themselves to, for want of a better term, ill-considered edits. I think that prosification is a must. As far as the content of this prose goes (per Nobleeagle's note above), I think that we should be guided by the sources that we come across. I don't think laying down a set format is useful at the moment. Make a note of the facts that relevant sources see fit to mention.

* '''Academic Peer Review''' - Easier said than done, I know. Unfortunately ours is the only wikiproject dealing with this area, so it's difficult to know where to look for help. Perhaps we need to place emphasis on recruiting editors with a background in the subject to the wikiproject?

== Merge proposal ==

:[[User:Xdamr|<span style="font-family: Times"><span style="font-size:18px">X</span><span style="font-size:14px">damr</span></span>]]^{[[User_Talk:Xdamr|talk]]} 13:37, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

{{Discussion top|result=The result of this discussion was: '''not merged'''. [[User:Theknowhowman|Theknowhowman]] ([[User talk:Theknowhowman|talk]]) 02:16, 5 August 2023 (UTC)}}

::scholar.google.com is very useful. [[User:JCScaliger|JCScaliger]] 22:36, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I propose merging [[Superpower]] and [[Potential superpower]] into [[Great power]]. The content in the first two articles largely duplicate and overlap with the content in [[Great power]]. To what extent there is a semantic difference between "superpower" and "great power", it can be described in [[Great power]] or [[Hegemony]]. A merge would not cause any article-size or [[WP:UNDUE|weighting]] problems in [[Great power]]. [[User:Thenightaway|Thenightaway]] ([[User talk:Thenightaway|talk]]) 16:55, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

:* '''Oppose''' - A superpower is not a great power. Per existing definitions, the classifications differ significantly. Not to mention, merging the three articles together will be a logistical nightmare and having all these similar sounding (but different in meaning and scope) terms in one article may confuse readers even more. [[User:Archives908|Archives908]] ([[User talk:Archives908|talk]]) 17:24, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

==Past/Present tables==

::* The definitions of great power and superpower are nearly verbatim in both articles, so I don't buy that the concepts are meaningfully distinct. Scholars overwhelmingly use the term "great power" and more commonly refer to "hegemons" (rather than superpower) to denote when one power is vastly dominant, so it makes sense to merge all content into [[Great power]] and [[Hegemony]]. As for the size problem, it's actually very easy to resolve. Most of the content in [[Superpower]] and [[Potential superpower]] is of exceedingly low quality, as it's poorly sourced (pop science books, non-peer reviewed papers and op-eds by pundits) and contains a lot of [[WP:OR]] and [[WP:SYNTH]]. A lot of the content can be deleted and it would be of no loss to readers. In fact, it would probably be good for readers. It's probably sufficient to merge two or three paragraphs into [[Great power]] and [[Hegemony]], and that's it. [[User:Thenightaway|Thenightaway]] ([[User talk:Thenightaway|talk]]) 19:45, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Now that things have quietened down a little perhaps it's time to revisit the tables. I think that there has been broad agreement that prosification is in order - I certainly think that a prose-based layout would have discouraged things like the recent Poland debacle. If we all remain in agreement as to the desirability of losing the tables, I will make a start on it within the next day or two. I have one or two sourcing leads which I'll follow up to write new Past and Present sections, I'll then cut and paste the new text in place of the tables. Anyone with further valid sources can then add their contribution to the text. Is that OK?

:*'''Oppose''' -A superpower is not a great power. If the definitions are to close, that is a failure of the Wikipedia articles. Great powers and superpowers are completely different terms, used at different parts of history. [[Power (international relations)|Powers]] in terms of international have multiple categories. The model that these terms describing incldues superpowers, great powers, [[Middle power|middle powers]], and [[Small power|smaller/lesser]] powers. These are extremely well documented in literature outside Wikipedia. [[User:GeogSage|<span style="font-family:Blackadder ITC; color:grey">GeogSage</span>]] ^{([[User talk:GeogSage|<span style="font-family:Blackadder ITC; color:grey">⚔Chat?⚔</span>]])} 00:42, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

[[User:Xdamr|<span style="font-family: Times"><span style="font-size:18px">X</span><span style="font-size:14px">damr</span></span>]]^{[[User_Talk:Xdamr|talk]]} 23:15, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

:*''' Oppose''' [[User:Simplyred90|Simplyred90]] ([[User talk:Simplyred90|talk]]) 06:19, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

:Go ahead. I simply don't have the time for prosifying but I'll definitly check up on what you add and possibly elaborate. Look at [[Global power]] for help on some information (although it's all unsourced over there). Once you're done I'll delete the contents of Global power and create a redirect to this page. '''[[User:Nobleeagle|<font color="darkblue">Noble</font><font color="darkorange">eagle</font>]]''' ^{[[User_talk:Nobleeagle|<font color="darkred" size="0.2" face="Arial Narrow"> <nowiki>[TALK]</nowiki></font>]][[Special:Contributions/Nobleeagle|<font color="darkred" size="0.2" face="Arial Narrow">&nbsp;<nowiki>[C]</nowiki></font>]]} 07:25, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

:'''Oppose''' content may overlap but they are both different topics <span style="font-family:sans-serif">&mdash; <span style="font-weight:bold">[[User:Karnataka|<span style="color:black; font-style:italic">Karnataka</span>]] ^{[[User talk:Karnataka|<span style="color:lightblue">talk</span>]]}</span></span> 21:20, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

:'''Oppose'''. Great power is a 19th century term, while superpower is a Cold war era term. [[User:Wikisaurus|Wikisaurus]] ([[User talk:Wikisaurus|talk]]) 19:30, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

{{Discussion bottom}}

== Remove middle power accusations ==

::Gonna wait and see what you write, I'm still doing research, kinda low on time because of school and work, but should be done soon.[[User:Funny4life|Funny4life]] 04:56, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

The UK, China, Russia, and France were accused of being middle powers I between the 1990s and late 2000s. These stats are no longer accurate, but apparently this requires me to go ask here. So opinions? [[Special:Contributions/14.201.77.56|14.201.77.56]] ([[User talk:14.201.77.56|talk]]) 13:13, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

I've made a sort-of start (Aust-Hungary and most of France). I had an idea of doing the whole thing in one go, but I felt tired and hungry so I left it half done. In the meantime I've commented the rewrite out and reinserted the tables - watch for that if you are editing that section. If anyone fancies looking through it you will get an idea of where I'm hoping to go (although France isn't referenced yet).

:None? [[Special:Contributions/121.45.107.215|121.45.107.215]] ([[User talk:121.45.107.215|talk]]) 05:29, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

[[User:Xdamr|<span style="font-family: Times"><span style="font-size:18px">X</span><span style="font-size:14px">damr</span></span>]]^{[[User_Talk:Xdamr|talk]]} 00:51, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

::It seems me and the other person are the only ones here. I say remove it. [[Special:Contributions/121.45.107.215|121.45.107.215]] ([[User talk:121.45.107.215|talk]]) 05:30, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

:This information is well sourced. You may provide other sources of similar or higher quality to balance this section, but it seems there is a number of scholars, who dispute power status of at least some of these states. Articles on Wikipedia reflect what the sources say, so the best course of action is to provide newer sources of the same or higher quality and propose a new wording for that section. Note even historical view of power status of some powers may be due to inclusion. [[User:Pavlor|Pavlor]] ([[User talk:Pavlor|talk]]) 06:50, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

:Sorry, I've let this slip very badly with no work since the 15th Oct. I will make a definite and concerted effort to get it done over the weekend.

::Yes, but these would have to be changed radically. For example:

::In the two decades after the end of the Cold War, the UK, France, China, and Russia were still subjected to being labelled "middle powers" by some sources.

::The problem with keeping it as it is is that, taking the example of China, it's economy has increased by more than four times in output since those criticisms. And if that's considered fine, then why don't we just use USSR statistics for Russia? That'd be fine, right? No. Of course not. The thing with China is that it has radically changed into a developed country with a powerful economy and power sphere along with it that challenges the U.S. Back then, it had an economy not much larger than Japan. I say we remove it or change it until there are reliable sources found stating that in the past ten years. [[Special:Contributions/121.45.107.215|121.45.107.215]] ([[User talk:121.45.107.215|talk]]) 11:23, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

:::For now, I added "In the two decades succeeding the cold war, some sources said that (list powers) were middle powers [[Special:Contributions/121.45.107.215|121.45.107.215]] ([[User talk:121.45.107.215|talk]]) 11:27, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

::::Looks fine. [[User:Pavlor|Pavlor]] ([[User talk:Pavlor|talk]]) 13:17, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

== "European powers" redirect ==

:[[User:Xdamr|<span style="font-family: Times"><span style="font-size:18px">X</span><span style="font-size:14px">damr</span></span>]]^{[[User_Talk:Xdamr|talk]]} 23:36, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

There's a redirect, {{noredirect|European powers}}, that points here, but I'm not sure if that's appropriate since the term "European power" doesn't appear on this page (except in a reference<ref name="Bartlett1996">{{cite book |last=Bartlett |first=C. J. |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=eVPQWWqHbi8C&pg=PA106 |title=Peace, War and the European Powers, 1814–1914 |publisher=Palgrave Macmillan |year=1996 |isbn=9780312161385 |page=106}}</ref>). I just added it as a link on [[New Imperialism]], but it feels weird to link to "Great power" in this context:

== Global power ==

{{tqb|'''New Imperialism''' characterizes a period of [[Colonialism|colonial expansion]] by [[European powers]], the [[American imperialism|United States]], and [[Empire of Japan|Japan]] during the late 19th and early 20th centuries.}}

Thoughts? I'm not much of a history buff myself, just wanted to raise this to people who might feel more strongly about it.

The redirect only has a handful of [[Special:WhatLinksHere/European_powers|pages linking to it]] (14).

There were some sourced statements in Global power, which I merged to Great power since there was no objection after a month. You can see the pre-merged version [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Global_power&oldid=81505455 here]. Some of the stuff could come in useful later on. '''[[User:Nobleeagle|<font color="darkblue">Noble</font><font color="darkorange">eagle</font>]]''' ^{[[User_talk:Nobleeagle|<font color="darkred" size="0.2" face="Arial Narrow"> <nowiki>[TALK]</nowiki></font>]][[Special:Contributions/Nobleeagle|<font color="darkred" size="0.2" face="Arial Narrow">&nbsp;<nowiki>[C]</nowiki></font>]]} 05:10, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

— [[User:W.andrea|W.andrea]] ([[User talk:W.andrea|talk]]) 17:43, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

==Brazil==

It looks like the Major power article has been brought back from the dead, at least so far as Brazil is concerned, sigh. Changes made to the [[Great power]] article, [[Template:International power]], and [[Brazil as an emerging great power]] to deal with. All cheerfully unsourced - ever get the feeling that you're banging your head against a brick wall? I almost feel like throwing in the towel and going back to writing articles on South African history (my primary interest).

{{reflist talk}}

[[User:Xdamr|<span style="font-family: Times"><span style="font-size:18px">X</span><span style="font-size:14px">damr</span></span>]]^{[[User_Talk:Xdamr|talk]]} 02:46, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

== The Return of Western Centrism ==

Some time ago I included the Ottoman, Moghul and Chinese (Qing dyanasty era) as historic great powers contemporaneous with the western powers mentioned - of which only the Ottoman has been retained. But I feel the Moghul and the Chinese (Qing era) operated in their international context as great powers as their contemporaries like Austria, Prussia and the Ottomans did in their international context. The Chinese empire projected its power outside of China proper (Tibet and Xinjiang) and operated a system of tributary states in the east. If the Ottoman is included so should the Chinese (Qing dynasty era) and Moghul empires [[User:58.84.126.240|58.84.126.240]] 05:11, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Can all these three go on the [[Historical Powers]] page. Also make sure everything that you write in is sourced because this page has a very aggesive unsourced delation policy. [[User:Aussie King Pin|Aussie King Pin]] 06:24, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

::Mughal and Qing can go to Historical powers. '''[[User:Nobleeagle|<font color="darkblue">Noble</font><font color="darkorange">eagle</font>]]''' ^{[[User_talk:Nobleeagle|<font color="darkred" size="0.2" face="Arial Narrow"> <nowiki>[TALK]</nowiki></font>]][[Special:Contributions/Nobleeagle|<font color="darkred" size="0.2" face="Arial Narrow">&nbsp;<nowiki>[C]</nowiki></font>]]} 07:40, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

== An issue ==

The Ottomans, British etc. would not have been referred to academically as "Great powers" before the Treaty of Vienna. So should we reduce the dates of the those powers to 1815-1918 or whatever the case being. '''[[User:Nobleeagle|<font color="darkblue">Noble</font><font color="darkorange">eagle</font>]]''' ^{[[User_talk:Nobleeagle|<font color="darkred" size="0.2" face="Arial Narrow"> <nowiki>[TALK]</nowiki></font>]][[Special:Contributions/Nobleeagle|<font color="darkred" size="0.2" face="Arial Narrow">&nbsp;<nowiki>[C]</nowiki></font>]]} 04:24, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

:No. Juse because a "term" was not invented, does not mean that these countries were not great powers. [[User:Casey14|Casey14]] 22:46, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

::I'm very much afraid that it does. It was a new term, invented to describe a given set of nations, therefore only those particular nations have a right to be termed 'Great powers'. '''However''', the term has now become an established part of the International Relations lexicon, other scholars from the more recent past and the present have applied the term to the most powerful nations of their own time; therefore we may safely term these new additions as 'Great powers'. In the pre-Congress of Vienna epoch there could not have been Great powers because the term did not exist.

::[[User:Xdamr|<span style="font-family: Times"><span style="font-size:18px">X</span><span style="font-size:14px">damr</span></span>]]^{[[User_Talk:Xdamr|talk]]} 23:34, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

:::That makes no sense. Since "America" wasn't called anything (by Europeans) before it was "founded", I guess it didn't exist. [[User:Casey14|Casey14]] 23:36, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

::::It certainly didn't exist as far as European scholarship and learning was concerned. Those who lived there knew that it existed, those who had been there knew that it existed, but until Columbus's discoveries Europe didn't. No particular culture has a monopoly on knowledge, no culture knows everything that there is to know. If it did then there would be no need for scholarship. Having said this, I don't really see the relevance of your point to Great powers...

::::[[User:Xdamr|<span style="font-family: Times"><span style="font-size:18px">X</span><span style="font-size:14px">damr</span></span>]]^{[[User_Talk:Xdamr|talk]]} 23:41, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

:::::It is something caled a comparison. Really. A Great power is a nation or country that controlled the world or a major section of the world (either politcally, economically, or even socially). It dosn't matter what year it was, as long as it was since the Renaissance. [[User:Casey14|Casey14]] 23:45, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

::::::A comparison which seems to have little bearing on the matter at issue. We aren't talking about a phenomenon of nature, which would objectively exist whether humanity was around or not. The term is one which is the creation of man. It exists now, it existed in the past, it did not exist in the far past (pre 1815). Why? Because it had not been created. Your philosophy smacks of OR - why the Renaissance? It seems a very arbitary point to choose, and good luck trying to pinpoint when it began/ended.

::::::[[User:Xdamr|<span style="font-family: Times"><span style="font-size:18px">X</span><span style="font-size:14px">damr</span></span>]]^{[[User_Talk:Xdamr|talk]]} 23:53, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

:::::::Before the Renaissance, the technology was not capable in sustaining a large empire, in most cases. However there are the few that were, such as Alexander's Empire, and the Roman Empire. Personally, I wouldn't mind them being on the page, but you have criticized us that have said that. [[User:Casey14|Casey14]] 01:08, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

:Complete and utter Original Research. The term Great power was not used in the early 2nd millenium and thus did not apply to any powers of that time. If you can present professional academia or scholarship which suggests that the term can be applied to powers before that period, then by all means present it. The term was also used within the capacity of Europe before globalization, which is why we don't see the Mughals mentioned on this page or anything like that. Please read [[WP:OR]], Wikipedia presents information, it doesn't create it. '''[[User:Nobleeagle|<font color="darkblue">Noble</font><font color="darkorange">eagle</font>]]''' ^{[[User_talk:Nobleeagle|<font color="darkred" size="0.2" face="Arial Narrow"> <nowiki>[TALK]</nowiki></font>]][[Special:Contributions/Nobleeagle|<font color="darkred" size="0.2" face="Arial Narrow">&nbsp;<nowiki>[C]</nowiki></font>]]} 04:08, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

::Then this article can not really state any country as a great power if the time period is before the time you select. Otherwise, you are simply picking based on your selection, and that is what this article seems to represent right now. So countries such as Habsburg Monarchy/ Austrian Empire/ Austria-Hungary[23][24], Spain[28] Sweden[29] The Ottoman Empire[23] Portugal can not have a period listed before that word was established. However, if we look at the criteria, and not the date, then there are plenty other countries that fall into the category.

While I like the article in general, I really see a lot of selective picking in selecting the nations, yet giving a criteria that needs to be fufilled in order to qualify as a great power. However, countries that have met that criteria before the term was created, are either ignored, as with Poland, or included with the limitation that the deletion of these countries is automaticly considered abuse although the time frame listed would not meet the criteria that restricts other countries.

::Not exactly sure if I'm explaining it clearly. -- I think that we currently have an article that forces some countries into restrictions based on a time line although they meet the actual criteria requirements; while other countries which either do not meet the criteria but meet the timeline are allowed in. It seems like the criteria aspect with the current selection of countries is completely useless.