Talk:Great power/Archive 2

message: Why is India possibly on the list of Great Powers?  The criteria we use, clearly stated on the main page:
1. The capacity to contribute to the international order
- Contribute to "International" order?  India?  very little, if at all.
2. Internal cohesion to allow for effective state action
- big fat zero here.
3. Economic power, such as high levels of economic growth or a large market.
- India has ok GDP numbers: $3.611 trillion (2005 est.), but with a population of 1,095,351,995 (July 2006 est.) and growing (even though we obviously see the World's resources shrinking!), the GDP - per capita is a paltry $3,300 (2005 est.).  This with a quarter of the population living below the poverty line, which from my experience is a very, very conservative number.  The words "hell hole" come to mind.
4. Military power, with the ability to compete with other dominant powers in a conventional war
- Yes, like all Third World countries, India likes to make a big Army.  Can it compete with dominant powers in a conventional war?  Absolutely not.  It would be utterly devastated.  Unlike Canada, France, Japan, Italy, Germany, and the UK, the United States would hardly rush to its aid.
So I think we can give India maybe 1/4 of a point for 1., 0 of a point for 2., 1/2 a point for 3., and 1/4 of a point for 4.  So being extremely generous here, India scores at best 1 out of 4 points.  Should be dropped from Great Power -- ASAP.
Oh yeah, I saw Nobleagle how you list yourself as a "Proud Indian".  I'm sure you will come back with some very entertaining (*snicker*) comments.  I love the Third World mentality of pride.  Gives you a lot of hope for humanity maturing one day, yeah right.  It is a deadly sin also, you know? 71.106.171.199 07:05, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Simply and civilly, please look at India as an emerging superpower, it has more than enough points (all sourced heavily, the article as over 100 sources) to support India's position. Also search India emerging superpower and you get quite a lot of articles on India's spectacular growth, similarly you get a number of articles on India major power. Search Italy major power and you get NOTHING. Search Italy great power and you get NOTHING. The media coined some terms now used in geopolitics and the media is often the one that shows status of nations. That is all for now. Nobleeagle  (Talk) 00:40, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Utter nonsense.  By the way, did Italy Great Power in Google, 56,000,000 hits.  What a scientific approach you use. *yawn*  India is a backwater, and seeing your attitude, here is wishing it stays that way. 71.106.195.5 06:37, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please abstain from such references they violate WP policy. You may be blocked for such activity. Signaturebrendel 06:39, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just in case you are unfamiliar with search engines. 56,000 hits doesn't mean anything, it's the content that matters and when none of the first 10 hits in Italy great power suggest that Italy is a great power. It shows the media's opinion. Nobleeagle  (Talk) 06:41, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: India on the list?

message: I have found a source listing what a great power is and how to know when a country is one. The following is an excerpt.
The Idea of “Major Powers”
Although major powers have been shaping international events since
ancient times, the phrase major powers or great powers did not appear
in the official diplomatic or scholarly discourse until the early nine-
teenth century. Leopold Ranke’s seminal essay “The Great Powers,”
published in 1833, established a precedent for historians to use this
phrase, but Ranke was merely following of‹cial diplomatic usage. For
their part, diplomats did not use the term before the Congress of
Vienna (1814–15), when “Great Powers” were recognized for the first
time through the establishment of “The Concert of Europe.” The
diplomatic precedent for using the term appeared in Castlereagh’s cir
cular letter sent to British ambassadors on February 13, 1814, where
Castlereagh announces a great victory for his policy of building the
post-Napoleonic peace through the Concert of Great Powers
'It affords me great satisfaction to acquaint you that there is every
prospect of the Congress terminating with a general accord and
Guarantee between the great Powers of Europe, with a determina-
tion to support the arrangement agreed upon, and to turn the gen-
eral influence and if necessary the general arms against the Power
that shall first attempt to disturb the Continental peace. (Webster
1931, 307}'
When the Stakes Are High
Only a month later, the distinction between the great powers and other
states was formally recognized by other powers as well in the Treaty of
Chaumont (Webster 1931, 229).
The expression major powers has come into a common usage more
recently, replacing the original phrase great powers. However labeled,
it is important to understand the meaning that is directly or implicitly
attached to this term. In this respect, major powers are usually
specified through one or more defining elements. 
1.
The power dimension reflecting the sheer size of a nation’s
capabilities. Despite a number of methodological disagreements, such
as those over the amount of capabilities necessary for a nation to qual-
ify as a major power, power potential is nevertheless routinely
acknowledged as a necessary de‹ning requirement for major powers.
 
2.
The spatial dimension that refers to geographic scope of inter-
ests, actions, or projected power. Although often neglected in the liter-
ature, the spatial criterion is especially significant for distinguishing
major powers from regional powers.
 
3.
The status dimension indicating a formal or informal
acknowledgment of the major power status. Since the official or
unofficial status of a major power also requires the nation’s willingness
to act as a major power, it is the most subjective and thus a more
difficult criterion to establish empirically.
Although some of these elements require more subjective assess-
ment, particularly status, a fairly reliable list of major powers can be
developed by evaluating states consistently along each dimension.
Moreover, the spatial dimension that gives states some degree of global
reach seems to be a more appropriate indicator of the upper layer of
great powers, often labeled as global contenders (or superpowers). The
chapter concludes with the listed composition of major powers and
global contenders for the period from 1895 to 1985. This list of powers
is developed from a historical survey of each nation that is generally
considered to meet one or more of the above criteria during most or
some part of the observed ninety-year period. The concluding list of
major power composition will then provide the pool of nations for the
empirical analyses in subsequent chapters.
Reference: http://www.press.umich.edu/pdf/0472112872-ch2.pdf
Hadrian1 02:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well done! That is a brilliant catch and will greatly help this article's growth. But I'm afraid there's an issue with it, it doesn't support the stance on Italy that you've been taking all this time. In fact it reads clearly Italy's short history as a great power ended dramatically with Mussolini's fall in 1943. Unlike France or West Germany, it never succeeded in reestablishing itself as a great power in the postwar order. It states that Italy was a great power from 1895-1943. Nobleeagle  (Talk) 05:58, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If France, Germany, and Japan are listed as current Great Powers because of "economic power".  Italy is in the same league, perhaps Canada too.  Italy is very close to France in economic strength.  The Big 4 of Europe are indeed France, Italy, Germany, UK. 71.105.96.238 06:16, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

text: well, to be blunt: as if they are going to trust the British, French, or Germans.  Italy globally leaves very few people with a bad taste in their mouth.  I have seen this from travels to Asia, from Japan to Taiwan, people have a good impression of Italy, the culture, warmth, etc. 71.105.96.238 06:22, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly! What you wrote above about the Anglo/German bias against Italy, et al. is absolutely true.  Racism is still deep, deep in their cultures. 71.106.171.199 07:29, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Please stop adding points on Italy's economic miracle in the 70s when this source, based in 80s (from memory), claims otherwise. Nobleeagle  (Talk) 05:56, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Everyone knows there was an economic miracle in the decades after WW2.  This began with milestones such as the Vespa, Fiat 500, etc.  Did an Italian steal your girlfriend?  Were you pissed off when Sonia Ghandi was going to be PM? 71.106.171.199 07:29, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Great Power - the criteria

message: ::Okay => "the chauvinistic cultures leave a fair bit to be desired" is kind of a personal attack- I am not the only one who thinks that Italy isn't a great power, see the archives (I think you already have). But that aside you are never going to convince me that Italy is a great power and I am never going to covince you that Italy is not a great power. We can bang heads here for next decade. So here my proposal:
::*I am going to stop arguing with both of you-this is sensless
::*This article is on my watchlist and will revert the addition of unsourced info
::*I will allow Italy being added until there are sufficient authorative resources provided and you find other neutral editros that agree with you.
Finally, stop the insluts. Seriously, I will report both of you to the admins-this is Wikipedia not a high school hallway. Signaturebrendel 00:57, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh look, Brethel wants to take his ball and go home.  I'm going to run and tell my Mommy that you don't play nice with me or accept my "facts".  I'm going to unilaterally close the discussion and report you to the Gestapo.  Give me a freaking break. This is the most childish comment I've ever seen on Wiki, bar none. 71.106.195.5 06:39, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please abstain from personal attacks. Signaturebrendel 07:08, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are the one making real attacks, against anyone who doesn't agree with your opinion.  Have you thought about that?  You unilaterally decide the discussion is over and try to report everyone who disagrees with you.  I call you out, and yes, once again your feelings are hurt.  Unbelievable. 71.106.195.5 07:21, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Okay, this is ridiculous I don't know how I got cought up in this. We need partial protection. I'm removing myself from this disucssion, as I said before but this time I'll do it. Regards, Signaturebrendel 07:56, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You wonder how YOU got caught up in this?  Because of your bias towards Italy for one.  Don't pretend.  You can't have a civil discussion if it means going against your OPINIONS.  Ridiculous. 71.105.97.133 08:34, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: End of discussion