Talk:Great power/Archive 7

message: :Brendel, here is the difference between an WP:OR presentation and a presentation that meets WP:V.  The current presentation states for example,
::From the accession of the Archduke of Austria to the Holy Roman Emperorship in 1452, the Habsburgs were at the centre of great power politics until their demise in 1918.
:It includes a citation to an author certainly, but the author is not attributed in the text.  Some of the following reasons for Austria's great power status are from the same author, some are from other authors.  The text presents Austria's great power status as being beyond debate--i.e. it was a great power from date XYZ to date ABC--whereas Austria's great power status is certainly debated, and the length/period of its great power status is not uniformly agreed upon.  Moreover, the various sources (three that I count) are synthesized together to support the position, rather than attributing different arguments to different authors in the text.  How to refactor these sections to avoid OR can be achieved in the following way:
::Historian Art Vandelay names Austria as one of Europe's five great powers during the period XYZ-ABC.  He cites their formidable military expenditures, which rivaled those of ??? country, their vast territorial holdings, their strategic marriages during this time, and the size of their army which exceeded that of ***.  International relations theorist H.P. Pennypacker, on the other hand, believes that a distinction between regional and global great powers is necessary, and while a number of European countries were globally relevant due to their naval strength, Austria could only be counted as a regional great power, as it lacked a navy.  Historian Joe Davola says that Austria was a great power, but asserts that it was for a briefer period, from ABC-XYZ years, due to the following reasons, blah blah blah etc etc etc."
:See how in the second example the arguments are clearly attributed to each author in the text, so that the reader knows whose theory they're reading?  The way the sections are currently presented, the reader is essentially reading The Wikipedia Theory as to Austria's great power status, rather than reading competing expert theories summarized side by side.  The former is OR, the latter is verifiable. This is the change that needs to occur.—Perceval 18:28, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes I see. That is the way I cite theories in my social class articles as I acutally agree with you that authors ought to be cited in the text. Now that I see what you consider OR (though I am still doubtful whether or not neglecting to mention an author is really OR), I'm assuming that the way to fix this article is also the way to fix the emerging superpowers text. Thanks for giving some concrete suggestions. Signaturebrendel 18:42, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep.  People need to be reading a summary of the "state of the debate", not a collection of facts that Wikipedians assembled.  Applies in both cases.  It's certainly doable, and I think the editors of these articles are up to it.  And the articles will be 100% better for it.—Perceval 18:49, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't feel that the section can be marked "OR/unverified" in good faith, even in its current state—the 115 inline references cover a lot of ground.  Still, I don't object to the changes you want to make here; I have argued for similar changes in the past, and much progress has already been made (look at the article just one month ago!). CRGreathouse (t | c) 18:55, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:OR: "It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source."  This is, in fact, textbook OR, and ought to be deleted outright, rather than simply being tagged.  However, I think the editors here are enthusiastic and have already put in a lot of work, and will be willing to put in the work to get this change made.  Until then, the tag ought to remain so that our readers are aware that they are reading a synthesis created by Wikipedians, rather than attributed arguments.—Perceval 19:05, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I didn't remove the tag; I agree that a case could be made for the section as OR.  I don't believe it is for reasons I've mentioned, but I see no reason to fight about it in light of the fact that all the editors appear to agree with you on the way the article needs to change.  CRGreathouse (t | c) 19:12, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I know you didn't remove the tag.  And I know all the editors here are proud of their hard work.  Instead of arguing about the tag, the best thing for the article and for our readers is to bring the section up to the standards set by Wikipedia's content policies.—Perceval 19:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Rewrite example

message: In this context, isn't "Great power" a proper noun, i.e. rename the article "Great Power"...?  Regards, David Kernow (talk) 09:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not always.  Depends on the author.—Perceval 20:01, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Understood; suggest, then, that the article uses one or the other ("great power" or "Great Power") rather than the mixed "Great power". David (talk) 10:03, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The last time this came up (see the archives), "Great power" was decided. CRGreathouse (t | c) 13:34, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  ...presumably as "Great power" within the text as well as the article's title. Well, I guess most folks don't find that odd when reading the article. Thanks for the pointer, David (talk) 21:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm not opposed to changing the style; I was never in favor of this style in the first place.  I do think that it's important to use a style consistently, though, so whatever is generally decided on (not just by you or me but by a broader consensus) should be applied throughout. Until there's a new consensus for style, I'll keep everything at "Great power".  (For what it's worth, I strongly dislike "Great Power" but the other two are fine, with "great power" being my preferred.)  CRGreathouse (t | c) 18:14, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Great power" is the worst of both worlds though.  One can (doing a books.google.com search) find some texts that use "Great Power", one can find many more that use "great power", but I can't find a single one that uses the mixed "Great power".  Therefore, according to Wikipedia's policies, I am changing it to "great power".  Gsd2000 22:10, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Gsd2000.  Using mixed case for a proper term is silly.  Lower case is just fine.—Perceval 04:03, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Syntax 

message: If Scotland breaks away from the UK soon and Wales follows suit would England be considered a great power considering it would account for 95% of the UK's former power. England would still be the 2nd largest economy in Europe behind Germany but ahead of France and would have the highest growth rate out of the major European economies of Germany, France, and Italy. London would be the capital of England and would still be one of the most major cities on Earth and the largest city in the EU. London would also still be the most major economic centre in Europe and 3rd in the world with the largest stock exchange in Europe and 3rd largest in the world. England would likely continue to use the Pound Sterling which is the 3rd most major currency in the world after the Dollar and Euro. England would likely continue to keep the UK's UN Security Council seat and keep all the UK's nuclear weapons because of this. England would also most likely keep the 2 new aircraft carriers being built as Scotland or Wales would be unable to afford to maintain one or have any real desire for one. England would probably keep about 90% or more of the UK's armed forces as Scotland and Wales would play no real role in the world and would probably continue to keep the defence spending as high as the UK did, which was 2nd in the world. England would also most likely keep all the UK's overseas territories as Scotland or Wales would lack any real desire or abilty to retain such distant territories, which would mean England would have the most number of overseas territories in the world as the UK does currently. England would also be likely to continue fullfil the role the UK took in overseas conflicts. In all England would be almost as strong as the UK was and would definitely be considered a Great power. Others' thoughts on this welcome.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.110.25.137 (talk • contribs) 
: Offhand I tend to agree with most of the analysis, although I would think England without Scotland and Wales to be smaller than France economically, as I thought they were very close with those two.  But what has this to do with the article? CRGreathouse (t | c) 04:09, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do have to say that is really quite irrelevant. Talk pages are not to be used discussion boards- if you like England, that's fine but this is too off-topic. Regards, Signaturebrendel 05:02, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Please see Wikipedia:Original research.  — Nobleeagle  [TALK] [C] 05:07, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Imagine if I created a section about how California would become a great-power is it seceeded from the US. It's speculation completely unfit for Wiki. England is part of the UK and CA is part of the US, we can't include these "what if" scenarios per OR policy, as Nobleeagle as pointed out above. Regards, Signaturebrendel 05:11, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  If California were threatening to secede, or Wales to break away from the UK, then perhaps an article would be in order (with citations about current facts, not speculation about what might be).  These not being the case, WP:CRYSTAL seems to be the order of the day. CRGreathouse (t | c) 05:21, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactely! Signaturebrendel 07:08, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We would have to wait until a reputable source published commentary on England's great power status.  It's not up to us to analyze shifts in the balance of power--it's up to published experts.  We merely strive to accurately summarize all sides of the debate.—Perceval 20:04, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  And in what way does this differ from what I wrote? CRGreathouse (t | c) 21:02, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not at all, it just reinforces your argument (which actually closes this discussion pretty well) IMHO. Signaturebrendel 21:32, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Retracted... I think I must have been a bit oversensitive when I posted that.  CRGreathouse (t | c) 23:51, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: England

message: I propose that we cut back on the content in the individual Great powers's sections.  These have, in most cases, expanded significantly from their initial state when the rewrite was completed.  Perceval's well made OR points aside, turning these sections into random agglomerations of trivia is not really going to help the article.  I think that it would be best if we cut these back to roughly their original state, listing the major events which affected the individual nations, which marked the ebb and flow of their power.
Any views?
Xdamrtalk 02:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well the article isn't that long, but removing the trivia (Did you know that France has a new air-craft carrier and the UK too?) is always an endavour worth while. Additionally I think pruning would make room for some quotes, such as the one I added for Germany. I just think that one small blockquote per section would build a reader's confidence in the article and prevent this from article from becoming a blog-like forum. Otherwise your above proposal sounds good. Signaturebrendel 03:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Kill the cruft. CRGreathouse (t | c) 05:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I think that Brendel is on the right track.  I think blockquotes would be too much.  But, if we stick to summarizing attributed opinions of experts from their books and articles, nationalists will have fewer areas in which to add their self-congratulatory cruft.  If we stay with random aggregates of information that we've chosen, there will be no end to nationalists hyping their own country (and no end to OR problems).—Perceval 07:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Pruning

message: There's been some question about the 'global cities' claim in the UK section.  To wit, the list 'London, New York City, and Tokyo' is being expanded by the inclusion of Paris.
I have no opinion on the matter, but have reverted the change because it deletes a reference (which backs only the three) and does not replace it with one of similar quality.  I might suggest removing all references to this, though, as I don't see it as truly forwarding the mission of this page.  What are the thoughts on this?  I'm happy to accept any consensus that appears.
CRGreathouse (t | c) 17:41, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia has a list of Alpha cities which can be used to list the most important cities in each nation listed-though I fail to see the point in listing the Aplha cities of each nation here. Signaturebrendel 18:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Sig.  I'm not sure whether listing big cities is really a value-add, unless it's central to the argument of an attributed author.—Perceval 02:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Global cities 

message: Please don't use Google cache results as sources.  The links are not stable, and they make the edit screen scroll horizontally.  Use something like  instead. CRGreathouse (t | c) 00:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Horizontal scrolling 

message: This user refuses to allow referenced information to be included in the United Kingdom section regarding London. Can other editors please see to it that they do not get away with removing referenced information from the article. Userofwiki 01:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To other editors: User:Userofwiki is a sockpuppet of User:Somethingoranother, who has violated virtually every WP rule in the book: 3RR, harassment, sockpuppetry, and was eventually permanently banned.  Gsd2000 01:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Maybe but you cannot refuse me to contribute referenced information to articles. If so I will message the Admin notice board which you are clearly breaking WP on not allowing others to contribute to articlesand reverting referenced information. Userofwiki 01:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I refer the honourable gentleman to the discussion above .  The consensus is that the type of information he is trying to add is irrelevant. Gsd2000 01:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The information is not irrelevent because it is important information and is not included anywhere else in the article. Userofwiki 01:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you please explain what this "London, the capital of the United Kingdom, is one of the world's three most major cities alongside New York City and Tokyo. London is also the world's largest financial centre according to the British High Commission"  has to do with the UK's status as a global power?  I'm not denying it's true, I'm saying it's not relevant to the article at hand.  It's relevant information if you are reading the article on London, but not if you are reading the article on Great Power.  Gsd2000 01:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is very relevent as it shows the UK's has one of the most powerful cities in the world due to it's sheer status in world finance and culture which then contributes greatly towards the UK's status in world finance and culture, which contributes to the UK's power. Userofwiki 01:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Singapore and Hong Kong are major financial centres but they aren't global powers. Moscow isn't/wasn't a major financial centre but Russia is a great power and the Soviet Union was a superpower. Therefore having a city that is a financial centre is neither sufficient nor necessary for global power status. So how are you (without resorting to original research) proposing that London's status as a global financial centre makes the UK a global power? If that is your point, where is the reference backing up that conclusion?  Where is the logical thread connecting the one to the other?  We don't need to see references stating the obvious that London is a global financial centre. And anyway, what exactly is your objective definition of "major"? It can't be population because London is way down the list by any measure. Gsd2000 02:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The point of including that London is the world most major financial centre is that this contributes towards the UK's economic status and its economic power. Singapore and Hong Kong are not as financially powerful as London hence London being the most power plus neither Hong Kong (which isn't even a country) nor Singapore have nothing else which could possible make them a powerful country e.g. military power, geographical size, population size, GDP, diplomatic power. Userofwiki 02:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also London contributes around 20% of the UK's GDP which means London is very important to the UK's economy and the UK's economic strength. The UK's economy has an unusually high percentage made from the financial sector which proves how important the City of London is to the UK's economy. Userofwiki 02:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If your point is that the size of a country's economy contributes to its ability to act as a Great Power, a large portion of the UK's economy is the financial services sector, and most of the financial service industry is located in London, I don't see how what you are adding ("London, the capital of the United Kingdom, is one of the world's three most major cities alongside New York City and Tokyo [84]. London is also the world's largest financial centre according to the British High Commission [85].")  explicitly makes that point?  Anyway, I have integrated the relevant portions of your point better into the article, in the right place (in the section discussing the UK's economy) and in the right terms.  Gsd2000 11:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: User GSD2000 Deleting Referenced Information

message: The EU as great or emerging power has to be added. Lear 21 15:06, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have a source saying that the EU is a great power?—Perceval 18:00, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The EU is commonly seens as a quasi or potential supepower, not a great power. It consists of many great powers (Germany, France, UK...). Then again, of you find a source you can go ahead and mention it. Signaturebrendel 18:10, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

text: None of those links say that the EU is a superpower.  They all state clearly that it "could" or "might" or has the "possibility" of becoming one.—Perceval 20:56, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

text: The superpower article already does mention it Superpower#Potential_21st_century_superpowers.  It's done properly there, attributing the opinion to the author in the text and summarizing his arguments.—Perceval 20:54, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, that seems appropriate.  This article (Great power) doesn't strike me as the right place for it; I think it's fair to say I have consensus on my side. CRGreathouse (t | c) 00:26, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, the information and research done by Lear 21 is great for the superpower page, but has little relevance here. The fact that the EU might possibly be superpower is a good statement for the superpower article. Signaturebrendel 01:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Lear21: Is that comment directed toward me intentionally?  I said nothing about economics vs. military power; in fact I believe that economic power trumps military power, at least in the 21st century. CRGreathouse (t | c) 17:09, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Lear21, the problem with the statement: "If there is even agreement about the EU as aspiring/emerging superpower, than the logical conclusion is that it already exerts great power", is that you came to the conclusion. What you would need to do is find a source that backs up this statement. We can't add any conclusions we come to, only those our sources come to. Signaturebrendel 19:27, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: EU as emerging superpower

message: Obviously not much of a great power now, but if Austria-Hungary can make the list, and we're citing dates as early as 1452, Spain can obviously make the list as well.
:As the header says, we're only considering great powers post 1815 Nil Einne 17:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Spain?

message: I suggest that we consider the Turkish Empire, generally recognized as a menacing power to much of Europe as late as 1700 and an entity that one challenged at great risk as late as World War I.  Even if known in its last decades as "the Sick Man of Europe" and was very much in decline (steadily losing control of its empire), it at the least deserves recognition as the inheritor of the martial heritage and to some extent the administrative and cultural characteristics of the Byzantine Empire. Even if much of the empire was satellite states, one must recognize that Turkey held onto those after 1815, and that satellite states are a form of empire.  
As late as 1830 the Ottoman Empire contained not only modern Turkey, but also the whole of what are now Cyprus, Greece, Bulgaria, Serbia, Albania, Bosnia and Hercegovina, Romania (except for Transylvania), Syria, Lebanon, Israel, Libya, Tunisia, Iraq, Kuwait, and what are the most populous parts of what are now Saudi Arabia and Algeria. 
After World War I, neither the moribund Ottoman Empire nor its truncated successor the Turkish Republic could be considered a Great Power. But even its current form it was a political entity that neither the Allies nor the Axis messed with.--Paul from Michigan 20:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ottoman Empire 

message: Its global power projection capabilities are deemed second only to the United States military, and its navy is the world's second strongest,[86] with the second largest aircraft carrier fleet.
I have a problem with these statements. The first one doesn't have a source, as for the second I found that the source is in fact the website of a UK national maritime renewal campaign and altough the site does make that statement I'm not positive it qualifies as a reliable source (it had a more propagandistic tone than a scientific one). Also the statement about having the second largest aircraft carrier fleet, altough technically correct, is misleading. The UK has only two aircraft carriers and both have a 20,000 ton displacement wich is half the displacement of the french carrier Charles de Gaulle and 1/3 the displacement of the russian carrier kuznetsov. 
What you guys think? I thought about rewording that part. Any opinions? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by RIP-Acer (talk • contribs) 19:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This whole article is riddled with POV language and OR claims, the UK bit especially. It needs clearing out, I agree.--Nydas(Talk) 20:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Indeed the above statement seems as though it is trying to make an OR point. It seems as thought its author placed it in the section to support his own hypothesis that the UK is the strongest military great power (after the US if included); thus, the statement is OR and ought to be removed (Unless of course, a reputable source shows up to support the claim this statement is meant to support). Regards, Signaturebrendel 23:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  UK military 

message: I've noticed a lot of people using headlines, news 'puffs' and book reviews to show that one or another country is a 'great power'. This is insufficient, as explained in Wikipedia's guidelines . Please only cite sources from reputable sources, such as academics from respected universities, foreign policy institutions and the like. Opinion pieces from local or regional newspapers are not good enough. Further, there is no need to provide 'sources' for statements of fact. That the US is recognised globally as a superpower, or that France, Britain, Russia, the EU, or China are recognised as great powers, is merely a statement of fact—like saying that an orange is orange or an apple is red or green. Enhancing the quality of this article depends on using reputable sources, removing nonsense and other hyperbole, and using citations sparingly. Ouip (talk) 22:00, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Quality sources

message: I've been away from this article for a few months now; things have certainly changed a lot since then, yet things are also basically the same.  I'm interested in the general consensus of opinion here as to the state of the article.  What are the views re. the OR tags?  What is the best way of going about removing them (that is to say removing them by addressing the concerns, not simply by deleting them)?  What is the view on the cohesion, style, and quality of the writing?  Can this article be raised to GA once more?
Xdamrtalk 13:30, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: there should be a list with the great powers --134.147.117.41 12:55, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: State of the article?

message: i propose the deletion of this part of the article. its too controversial. I think we should let the readers determine the state of power of a nation based on the definition and information given in the article not have them draw conclusions off of a controversial and unofficial paragraph telling of "disputed powers" which in mine and many others opinions arent disputed. Ill delete in 24 hours.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.226.67.23 (talk) 04:03, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Great Powers List 

message: I have transferred the following from User Talk:UKPhoenix79, because it belongs on this page. Viewfinder (talk) 09:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please can this matter be discussed on the talk page. I reverted the changes because they were not accompanied by any edit summary or talk page contribution. I had not noticed the above comments, but I think they should have been made on the talk page. Viewfinder (talk) 06:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You both have good points. If you can take this convo to the pages talk page that would be best. If you are correct about the translation of "Mittelmacht" it probably should still be mentioned if only so that it can be explained. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 08:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interpretation of German "Mittelmacht" 

message: Having glanced at the article there is a long history section and then apparently some kind of sub-history section again under the list.  Is that necessary? And can not that narrative be merged into the rest of the article above? Wjhonson (talk) 00:18, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The section "Current Great Powers" contain original research and unverified or debated claims. In fact two days ago I added a source  ( thecanadianencyclopedia.com ) that speaks against the list of current great powers, but someone removed it. I think is better if the list is removed because it is so debated, as we saw many time in the past. --80.104.57.29 (talk) 09:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually that is explained in the Prose of the text stating that there is some confusion between scholars. That would be a great link for that section. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 11:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Confused article

message: Um. like, I understand there is arguments about which powers included and such --- but right now the article looks really weird.  I would expect under Current Great Powers to include in big letters UNITED STATES but um, the article doesn't list it?  I don't know what compromise was arrived at based on discussion above, but this is a less than ideal resolution.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.247.219.10 (talk) 06:43, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well the US is in a class onto itself since it is the only remaining superpower. The UK & Russia can no longer be considered Superpowers but are now relegated to the lesser Great Power status. Do you think that the US should be called a Great Power not a Superpower? -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 06:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In the French, Dutch, Spanish, Italian and German Wikipedia the European Countries and Japan are no more considered as Great powers --80.104.56.188 (talk) 14:39, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Who constitutes a great power is highly debated and debatable, and Wikipedia should not be trying to come up with a definitive list. TallNapoleon (talk) 08:16, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Great Powers List

message: Is Canada a "Great Power"?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Walahi5000 (talk • contribs) 23:27, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it's usually considered a middle power.Sbw01f (talk) 21:49, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Canada, Great Power or Military Power? 

message: I would like to say that having 2 sections dedicated for regional powers that are not actually Global Powers should be avoided. There is little sense to dictate that this regional power has a different status for not being a Global Power than the other one. Please can we agree upon one name either Emerging or Potential to give to these Regional powers? -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 08:26, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Add India to the great power list and then we can merge it. Otherwise it is not possible. We have to wait until India becomes a great power from the emerging power to remove the section.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 03:59, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well India nor Brazil are Great Powers, so I cannot understand why you created "2 levels for not being a great power" (grammatically confusing I know but actually what I meant to say). I am wary about even having those two listed at all... I just cannot see any reason to having two levels shown. If they are not Great powers they should not be shown, if they are likely to be great powers in the future then that might be acceptable and that is the reason I have not removed them. But segmenting them into two levels is only to bolster one nation over the other when neither are actually great powers. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 05:44, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

text: My objections were backed up rather vigorously by other users and an admin if you recall. I am very grateful that you have cited all your sources but as we have discussed before citing sources that make future predictions of an uncertain matter is not a valid source. You have cited from many sources that both India and Brazil are on their way, but we cannot predict with 100% certainty which one will make it there first. At the moment I would also predict it would be India, but since I lack a Tardis or a Delorian I cannot back up my claims by going to the future to ensure I am correct. So  these two options are invalid and only one will do. Neither are currently great powers and they are not even close to being a superpower. The current state of them approaching the honour of being possible (yes I did say possible because again we do not know the future) great powers is enough. Please do not create sub categories because of personal bias. Please! -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 10:25, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

text: it looks like talking isn't working so I'll see if someone else can come in and help us out.
Lets just keep non-Great Powers out of the list. They don't belong there anyways... Lets not forget that in the 80's EVERYBODY was predicting the Rise of Japan as the 90's new Superpower and that never happened. There is already an article detailing the possible rise of the two Potential great powers that you edit rather frequently so please keep that article separate and link to it only. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 01:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Potential vs Emerging 

message: Seriously, why is it our job to determine who is and is not a great power? Virtually anything we say WILL be POV. Simply explain what a great power is, and let readers draw their own conclusions. If there has to be a list, it should simply be of countries commonly held to be great powers. TallNapoleon (talk) 05:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why have a list? 

message: Leopold von Ranke is written like this, with a small "v". --Soetermans (talk) 23:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: A minor typo