Talk:Power (international relations)

message: Hyperpower gets an article but not Great Power??
-- CJWilly
:At least not yet. You are free to write it, and connect it properly to the other articles. From the What links here-link you can see that an article of its own might be motivated, but that's not necessarily so. Some Wikipedians would maybe argue that this article is best integrated. --Johan Magnus 07:11, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I'm sure Portugal and Italy were great powers at some point in history. Portugal had a large empire around the time of the huge Spanish empire, and Italy was a great power around the late 19th and early 20th centuries.
: Italy was not a great power.  It was powerful at a time, but not a great power.  The only time Italy could be considered a great power was the years before World War One through World War Two.  But then again, Italy was a weakling, during World War One, compared to neighbors Austria-Hungary, France, and Germany.  After World War One, leading up to World War Two, France and Germany were still more powerful.  Mussolini was considered a play thing of Hitler. Casey14 00:04, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disputed Powers 

message: It would be helpful if someone could write beside each 'great power' the general period when they were or are considered great powers.
Eg: USA (XXXX - present).
Also in the Great powers of modern history section, it would be good if you could write what time period is considered modern history.
::: Modern History is usually considered the time from the fall of the Roman Empire through the present.Casey14 00:06, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I must of been having a brainfart, because the start of modern history is the Renaissance.  Not any fall of the Roman Empire.  Casey14 01:45, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dates 

message: Until regional powers such as: Nigeria, Mexico, Norway, South Africa, Brazil, Israel, and others reach great power status or even on disputed, they won't be on the list, because they only hold regional power.Casey14 22:02, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regional Powers taken off 

message: Why are France and the UK still on the list as a "Great Power" and Germany and Japan just until 1945? Both of them are important economic powers today.
I changed the start date for Japan from 1868 to 1898, which was when they got rid of the unequal treaty consequentially to their victory in the Sino-Japanese War. Also I've added stuf about 1919.Harrypotter 21:56, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In modern IR UK and France are "powers" by a  variety of criteria (UN security council permanent seat, nukes, ability to project power outside their region, etc" - Germany and Japan are the best examples of non military based power post 1945. Their economic strength enables chequebook diplomacy, thus demonstrating power is not solely derived from military might (hard vs soft power, etc) 160.5.247.213 21:44, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Germany and Japan 

message: Given the disparity between the post WWII power of the superpowers and the rest is it meaningful to speak of "Great Powers" post WWII?  8-Jan-06
UK, France - great powers post 1956? In a time of super-powers and "hyperpower" there is no such thing - as their ability to act independently - as shown by the Suez - is severely circumscribed  - or to put it another way - the UK is very much the follower in Iraq. As for EU - well it may bepossible one day, but at the present it looks anything but powerful, as Iran has shown with the "EU 3". 210.49.196.39 00:26, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: With respect, you are completely mistaken, the two major players in Iraq I & II were the United States and the United Kingdom, in that they supplied the most money and military power, the balance of the coalition were the 'followers', however, even employing such a term suggests a lack of understanding, in that, in a military coalition ALL partners have equity. Twobellst@lk 16:24, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I very much agree. The dates here are meant to reflect the  dates of prominence  of modern great powers—anyone who thinks Britain is as prominent today in world affairs as it was in (say) 1850 is missing more than a few hotels in his Monopoly set. Albrecht 16:31, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Britain, France, and Germany are all still great powers.  There have always been fix or six great powers in the world at one time.  Currently those three, China, Japan, the US, and Russia compose the great powers.  Just because those three are not as powerful as they once were, does not mean they wern't great powers.  They can control world policy. Casey14 00:17, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Great Powers post WWII 

message: Should we add it? Something like 1576-1658, 1683-1704?
who keeps on changing russia to present
::Russia is still a world power.  Russia can influence the world.  Russia's power is huge.  Just because the economy is shaky, does not make it not a world power.  Like my post under powers pots WWI, Russia is a great power.  
Just like after the 30 Years War: Sweden, Austria, England, France, Spain, the Ottomans the Netherlands and posssibly Denmark and Portugal were world powers.
After Congress of Vienna: Austria, Prussia, Russia, France, Britain, and The Ottoman Empire were world powers, as Spain might have been clinging upon the status, but would lose it.
Aftter World War One:  France, Britain, Russia, Japan, the US, Italy, and arguably Germany were world powers.
and we can go on and on, there are more than just two or three powers at a time, there are five, six, or seven.Casey14 00:26, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: China could easily control the world.  China may be an industrializing nation, but its military is the largest on the earth.  Casey14 18:19, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just a note, it would be good if everyone signed their posts. Thanks. Secondly, China's definitely deserves to be on this page. It is categorized as a Major power and Potential Superpower. However, exaggeration tends to get the better of us, China cannot easily control the world, secondly China's military is not primitive but is technologically backward, this cannot be denied. Nobleeagle  (Talk) 05:43, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth]] 

message: I'm not particularly informed on Portuguese history, but I noticed its great power status ended during the Spanish annexation. While that did end its status as a global power, couldn't it be argued that Portugal contined Great Power status into the 1600's?  Portugal was also a major player in Imperialism, though I doubt its armies or economy compared to the other great powers.  I'm not taking a position, just inquiring. 12.220.94.199 02:39, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Portugal

message: has been updated so that it looks better, if you have any problems with viewing the template can you just tell me and I'll try and fix it. Nobleeagle  (Talk) 06:34, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Power in international relations template

message: I've pasted this section in from the Great Power page, it seems more appropriate here than on that page, dealing as it does with other gradations of power than that of the Great power.
Xdamr 17:37, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Current Powers

message: This article (and, I suspect, most other associated articles), has an absolute dearth of references. It all reeks of original research disguised as common sense. If I really wanted to start splitting hairs, I think I could add  tags to the end of every sentences. And for every reference an American can find to show that America is the world's sole hyperpower, I'm sure a European can find a reference to dispute America's power monopoly. I'm afraid there's a foundational problem surrounding this issue, specifically: a lack of hindsight. We're living in the present and so it's hard to say who truly holds power until it changes hands in a historically dramatic fashion. I'm sure the oft-mentioned Romans thought of themselves as a hyperpower in their own time, but would we describe them as such? And truly, has there ever been a case where millions of people living in one region exerted true power over millions of people in a distant region? No, all that has occured has been the innovation of radically different standards of warfare during and since WW2. As these standards proliferate over the next few generations (as standards managed to proliferate in the past, first with bronze, then iron, despite the efforts of the innovating culture to maintain their initial monopoly), national boundaries will continue to be redrawn, and power will continue to shift through various numbers and groups of hands.
What all this means today, to this article: the endless talk about the definition of great powers and superpowers and hyperpowers is senseless. Social power is always concentrated unequally. The areas between the Persian, Roman, Maurya, Hunnic, and Han empires have been perpetually exploited throughout history in the national defense of whatever peoples happened to occupy the aforementioned imperial territory. Is this the kind of power we're talking about here? Xaxafrad 03:12, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: I want to start a discussion on why India should be considered as a global power
I believe India should be considered for a great power because:
*India is the 4th largest Economy in terms of PPP and the 9th Largest in Nominal Terms.
*India is the 4th most concentration of military power. 
*India is leading in Getting a permanent UN SC Seat backed by all five members.
*India is part of G8+6 And BRICS
*India is a very active member of the UN and is one of the leading contributor of troops in peace keeping missions.
*India has a very prominent role solving in global problems such as terrorism
*India has a great global influence in terms of cuisine, films, music, religion etc.
Neilpine (talk) 22:37, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  India As A Great Power 

message: There is a move discussion in progress which affects this page. Please participate at Talk:Realism in international relations - Requested move and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RM bot 19:02, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Move discussion in progress

message: I have a feeling that the regional and middle powers were listed arbitrarily in the "Categories of Power" section. They are all unsourced and I have just reverted someone who added Turkey to the regional powers, because Turkey's categorization as such has become pretty outdated now, considering the recent developments in the region. And even if, most of the relevant sources talk about Turkish "ambitions" or "aspirations" for regional supremacy. This doesn't prove anything. I am also having a hard time finding sources referring to Spain as a regional power. Can someone help me out here? Fitzcarmalan (talk) 09:46, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I most certainly agree. Considering the article gives no source for the countries listed in the regional and middle powers sections, id consider removing them as per WP:RS. However this may cause trouble, as it wont go down well with the petty nationalism among some editors. Antiochus the Great (talk) 11:00, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Antiochus the Great, I've initiated a discussion on the WP:OR/N regarding this issue and other similar ones, if you're interested. Regards, Fitzcarmalan (talk) 08:01, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categories 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Power (international relations). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100328072123/http://milexdata.sipri.org:80/ to http://milexdata.sipri.org/
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070627041402/http://eherald.alp.org.au/articles/0906/natp28-01.php to http://eherald.alp.org.au/articles/0906/natp28-01.php
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20141226231012/http://www.arabnews.com/italy-cultural-superpower to http://www.arabnews.com/italy-cultural-superpower
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070528190354/http://www.hoover.org:80/publications/digest/3058266.html to http://www.hoover.org/publications/digest/3058266.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:16, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This is the approach of Kenneth Waltz (Waltz, Theory of International Politics, p. 131; Waltz, 'The Emerging Structure of International Politics,' International Security, Vol. 18, No. 2, p. 50), John Mearsheimer (Mearsheimer, The Tragedy of Great Power Politics, pp. 12, 43, 55, 57, and 61-62), and Richard Haass ('The Age of Nonpolarity: What Will Follow U.S. Dominance,' Foreign Affairs, Vol. 87, No. 3, p. 45), among others. Are they 'the military'? Certainly not. Geopoliticians? Don't think so (or then everyone is). Brenda James (talk) 22:27, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Power as resources most often used by geopoliticians and the military 

message: Well, that " new imagine" is old it is irrelevant a Document of canada of the 1998-1999, However I wish to see in what Part of the Statement of the Publication there a Map, Because there's no Maps in that "Old"  publication. so I think that someone have Made that Map from his own Computer since in the publication of Chapnick Adam   "The Middle Power" theres no maps and IMPORTANT thing , the Publication doesn't talk about Italy, Germany, Japan and  India, talk only about Canadian affairs as a middle Power!.  
Today theres Documents, Journals , Publications of Ben W. Heineman, Jr.,  Fritz Heimann, Milena Sterio and even Obama that Talk about Italy as great power or a great Player, as well Zbigniew Brzezinski talks about India as a Global Power.
So I though that the Map is a fake and is Better to delete it , since the Publication  of "The Middle Power" of Chapnick Adam doesn't talk about a "global order", them talk ONLY  about Canadian foreign policy in comparision with the countries of the P5 . 
so please, Before to make a Publication with a Map it is better to read and make a Control in the Publication. LuigiPortaro29 (talk)16:22, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The map seems like a useful visual aid for our readers. I'm not seeing any immediate outstanding issues. Feel free to list any, concisely, in order. El_C 23:44, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, would be constructive to have  more users here into this topic  for an agreement for a New map that Reflect  the Great Players of the World in this time,  I will add the P5 (USA, Russia, China, France and UK) as well  the Members of NATO QUINT+ Founders of the G7( USA, France, UK, Germany, Italy and Japan) already Ben W. Heineman, Jr., Fritz Heimann, Milena Sterio and also Obama have talk about them as great Players of the world, also I would Put India since  Dr. Zbigniew Brzezinski talk about India as Great Power,  already all of them with the exception of Japan have Nuclear or Sharing Programs, all of them are the eight largest economies of the world by GDP nominal ,as well all of them (with the exeption of Russia and India) , are the countries with more Net worth and Financial wealth of the world.
as well  all of them have the largest Veto Power of IMF. as well them ( with the exeption of India) are the largest contributors of the UN Budget. , it is very debatable if Brazil is a great Power but in my personal opinion Brazil is so far to be considered  a great Power. Brazil lacks of a Strong Voice in Global decisions. There other aspects to talk as for Global Power :  Navigation Systems or Arms control,as well the countries ,who profit the most from the War economy, etc, the discussion can be very constructive. LuigiPortaro29 (talk)00:30, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

text: The map gives us the basics. Regional power lists in its own more detailed map "Major Regional Powers in South Asia (India and Pakistan)."  The fact is that it can be both, because there's certainly the argument to be made that India is an emerging major power. But I remind you that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and as such naturally cautious. El_C 01:38, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: it is difficult to say which countries are great Powers and which others are middle powers and go so on, Japan is certainly an economic power for GDP and National Wealth  but a middle power in Global affairs Rusia have a small economy and a tiny National wealth But they have the "nuclear" Power  diplomacy Russia is great in the Gold reserves. India Have a large Population with a large military "size" but still have a role of middle power in global affairs, but India play an important role in the International Monetary Fund, so there no an agreement about how is really a great power or a middle power here.LuigiPortaro29 (talk) 08:06, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Perhaps a more agreeable (although admittedly, still very subjective) criteria for the classification of 'power status' would be to consider a state's position within, ability and willingness to influence world ordering. We could talk all day about individual statistics that could qualify any number of nations as great powers, but in my humble (and Wikipedia inexperienced) opinion, the focus should be squarely on: What is country X capable of? and What is country X willing to do?. In the example of India, they are probably capable of becoming a great power based on material factors but their actions sit squarely in the middle power basket of multilateralism, niche diplomacy, and liberal IR. I feel this is important because it is very easy to inflate the importance of states to the extent that the classification of power status is superfluous. Thoughts? BlurryOne (talk) 01:58, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: the image of Powers in international relations  .