Talk:Major power

For older discussion, see archives: 1

Bold text

Sports power, included or not

your assistance is appreciated but why sports powers are excluded? and, most importantly, why only soft power is considered while defining the term "major power"? Military is also not included under soft power, it unquestionably contradicts to what you said in edit summary. Generally, sports performance is a reflection of one country's strength and strength-equals-power [e.g., how many resources/money/manpower a country put in training atheletes, etc etc]. Moreover, it is worth taking note that, to some extent, sports itself can be classified as a soft power.

Secondly my edits: 'PRC's power projection has reached the furthest corners of the world - including Latin America.' are absolutely not *speculation* of future. It already happened years ago.

--MainBody 09:55, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Sports power is not really a measure, see the example of Australia. Soft power is not the sole criterion of major power status; as stated, the criteria are the same as that of the superpower, differing only in the degree to which they are met.

China's military power projection does not extend beyone SE Asia, economic - yes but certainly not military.

Xdamr 23:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Sports power isn't enough to take a position in this page. There are generally two types of power, hard power and soft power, I don't see how sports fit into either of these areas. I hope you understand, if you disagree then feel free to prove me wrong and fit sports power into a certain area of the superpower criteria. Nobleeagle (Talk) 07:11, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Um...I found the Soft Power article rather interestingly saying:

• Soft power is a term used in international relations theory to describe the ability of a political body, such as a state, to indirectly influence the behavior or interests of other political bodies through cultural or ideological means.

If this definition is right, then, as i previously said, Sports are undoubtedly regarded as a soft power as wellknown instances existed in 1936 (Nazi), 1980 (CCCP) as well as 1984 (USA) when the performance of the (super)powers' atheletes itself successfully became a political/ideological propaganda for their strength. Factually it does strongly influence other states. It means, sports match the above "requirements".

We dont list Australia as a Major Power on this page not because Sports are not critera. It is simply becasue globally she doesn't perform extremely well in many other factors.(Political, Economical, Military, Space exploration, Cultural [except sports]...etc etc). I myself regarded Australia as a regional power, as comparing the South Pacific island states she performs very well. MainBody 04:50, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

The inclusion of sports power would mean heavy changes to most of the power related articles. So would you agree if we put it up as a vote. Should Sports be included as part of cultural power? Oh yeah, just a bit of info, in my early days I added a bit of stuff on India's sporting performances (the cricket team has been very strong and has definitely made Indian culture more appealing in Australian and English views). But it was quickly removed because sports power was apparently not meant to be included. Nobleeagle (Talk) 06:14, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

It's a good idea to have votes. But in your case of India, I just want to say that having good performance in one single sporting event (in your case Cricket) won't qualify a state as sports power. Pakistan, where is one of my grandparents from, is also good in this event, but I won't call the country sports power!. The multi-event Olympic games are widely regarded as perfect criteria of defining a world "sports power". See this example.

In common sense, your edits were reverted just because "one single event" doesn't count in defining Sports power . It has nothing to do with whether sports performance is a criterion of defining power .

To a certain extent, Sports power can also be classified a political factor (e.g., cases of Nazi Germany, U.S.S.R. and U.S.). At least Sports already match wiki's definition of Soft Power, right? MainBody 09:19, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, but my point of the fact that it will create many changes in the international power pages remains. The fact is that sports aren't often used for power projection purposes, more to simply bring national glory. Human involvement in sports is part of an ancient thirst for competition as opposed to a political strategy. But let's have a vote. Nobleeagle (Talk) 00:02, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Vote (CLOSED)

Should Sports Power and performance in sports be included under all of the nations listed on this page and the pages Superpower, Potential Superpowers and Regional power.

• No Nobleeagle (Talk) 00:02, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
• No Xdamr 00:31, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
• Yes - instances already existed in 1936 (Nazi), 1980 (CCCP), 1984 (USA)...etc. See above : : : MainBody
• No. Sport is not really power in my opinion, but "performance". Even if it could influence people (and if you define power as influence) it would merely be part of the concept of soft power (which includes the power of culture, ideology, philosophy, sports, entertainment, etc). No need to emphasize this specific aspect. Sijo Ripa 21:10, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
• No. Agree fully with Sijo Ripa. It could however, have a brief mention, I suppose, but it's certainly not a criteria for superpower erm.. ness. Trip: The Light Fantastic 00:41, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

FWIW I agree. But really, who are we to decide these criteria? I'd like to see some proper cites here, and less original research.Guinnog 00:56, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

No offence Guinnog, but I've seen you write that comment so many times and fail to find anything credible so many times that it is annoying me. I think we get the point, if you find somewhere to remodel the criteria on, tell us the site. Nobleeagle (Talk) 00:38, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

• No. —Nightstallion (?) ^{Seen this already?} 14:27, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• No. Good sports performance does give some international prestige but it is not a power criteria in and of itself. I think that good sports performance can be briefly mentioned under cultural factors, but that's all. Khelnor 23:22, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• No - No connection. Heilme 10:11, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• No. Getting lot's of medals on the Olympics doesnt make a country stronger. Warniats 17:06, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Consensus Reached: 8 votes to 1. Sports Power will NOT be included in Power in international relations and related articles. Nobleeagle (Talk) 00:37, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Contradiction

The article contradicts itself. It says: "China is the world's fourth largest economy in terms of market exchange rates." Yet further down it says: "The United Kingdom possesses the fourth largest economy in the world in terms of market exchange rates." Hardouin 01:17, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Problem solved MainBody 09:46, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Problem is, it is China which is the fourth-largest economy in the world at market exchange rates, not the UK. You probbably haven't heard the latest revision of Chinese GDP by economists. Hardouin 10:49, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

:::I edited according to this. Let me know if I'm wrong MainBody 15:48, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I just saw that the list got updated according to IMF's reports of April 2006.: : : MainBody

Russia

In the lead section it states that Russia has stopped its decline. Firstly, I would dispute whether the lead section is the appropriate place to discuss this. Secondly, are there any references to prove this. There has been a series in the UK recently suggesting that Russia may collapse within 20 years. josh (talk) 23:24, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

You wouldn't happen to have an online source for that, would you? If so, please post it on my talk page, I'd be highly interested in that series... Thanks! —Nightstallion (?) ^{Seen this already?} 23:43, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Quite right, not the place to discuss it. I'll change the reference.

Xdamr 23:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

This is the page with all the facts on it. Some serious problems there. josh (talk) 17:36, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that one can safely say that Russia's decline has indeed been halted and even reversed. Here is why. In the economic, military, and political spheres Russia has gotten stronger, not weaker compared to what it was in the 90s. In the territorial sphere it has remained stable (to the best of my knowledge its territory is the same as when it was the RSFSR). Its major problem is demographics, which may or may not get better.

I looked at the link above...there were quite a few things about it that struck me as biased. For example, it accuses Putin of having a dictatorial and thuggish version of democracy. Then it mentions restraints on media criticism and it says he relies on police batons and guns to get his point of view accross. And the conclusion it reaches is that freedom in Russia isn't much better than when they had gulags and the KGB. All this doesn't look like neutral, unbiased reporting. Did Berezovsky pay for this or something? Let's break this down one by one.

• Democracy is thuggish and dictatorial: By whose standards, exactly? Compared to the USSR, people have far more freedoms now. At any rate, when someone tries to draw my conclusions for me, I consider that to be biased.

• Restraints on media critcism: From what I have seen on Russian channels such as TVCi, they are quite happy to tear up the government (figuratively) on any number of issues. I've heard plenty of criticism on Russian radio stations as well. Even RTR Planeta, which generally pushes the government's line, occasionally has critical pieces.

• Police batons and guns: Let's take a look at an example...how about the recent protests by pensioners who didn't like the government plans to swap certain benefits with cash subsidies? I don't recall any reports of any police interventions to stifle these protests and in fact, the protests were successful in getting the government to reconsider. In the USSR this wouldn't even have been an issue -- the protests would have been quickly dispersed.

• Freedom in Russia isn't much better than in the USSR: Huh? Where did that come from? Where are the mass political arrests? Where are the forcible break-ups and arrests of protesters? Where are the one-candidate elections? Where are the gulags? These would have been quite expected in the USSR. Russia does not have these problems.

Now, I am not saying that Russia has no problems. Yes, racism has been on the rise as has negative sentiment against immigrants. (But the U.S. also seems to have negative sentiment against immigrants, judging by poll data and by some of the laws being considered.) Russia also has corruption, that's true. But I am not aware of it having gotten worse than it was in the 90s. From what I have seen, infrastructure has been improving as well. Roads such as M7 have gotten much better, as have smaller rural roads.

I can agree with the idea that this article is not the place to discuss whether Russia has stopped its decline or whether its still declining. But taking into account the areas where it has gotten stronger since the 90s (economy, political influence, military, territorrial integrity) vs. the areas where it has gotten weaker (demographics), I would say that one can no longer support the hypothesis that Russia is declining. Maybe one could have said that in the 90s, but it no longer seems to pan out. So I am removing the reference to Russia being in decline, especially since this article is not the place for such a discussion.

Khelnor 20:51, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

In my view questions of democracy, police brutality, freedom of speech etc are irrelevant to the whole international power discussion. Power does not depend on these factors, see the examples of the USSR and Nazi Germany. Russia has other factors to consider: demographic decline, corruption, over dependence on oil and gas, to name but a few.

I'm sure that we agree that the current situation in Russia is neither wholly good nor wholly bad; however we seem to agree that this is not the place to discuss it. What we cannot surely dispute is that Russia today does not have the power of the USSR 20 years ago. The section you removed stated that:

Some major powers are in relative decline, having once been great powers or, in the case of Russia (as successor state to the Soviet Union), a superpower.

All this does is indicate that Russia, in common with the UK, France etc, is not the power it once was. In the same way that Britain is no longer the pre-eminent power it was 100 years ago, Russia is not the power it was 20 years ago - no other judgement made either way.

Xdamr 22:56, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree that issues such as democracy and police brutality are not relevant to this article. I mentioned them only in response to the link that was being discussed previously. We’re not getting into it within the article, however.

My problem with the section in question is that it seems to imply that Russia’s power is currently declining. Granted, Russia’s power today is less than the power of the USSR 20 years ago, but Russia’s power today is also greater than Russia’s power 10 years ago. It all depends on the timeframe that one is looking at and I think this not adequately addressed in the section.

I am not even sure if it is entirely appropriate to compare Russia’s power to the USSR; Russia is not the USSR, just the legal successor state to it. Of course it has the USSR’s nuclear arsenal and it inherited the USSR’s role in international organizations, but we should keep in mind that the USSR consisted of 15 (now-independent) republics and Russia was only one of them. It was arguably the biggest contributor to the USSR’s power, but I don’t think the other republics’ contributions can be totally dismissed.

Another problem with this section is that it singles Russia out. The UK and France, for example, are not mentioned in the section. If I recall correctly, they were removed because someone objected to the idea that they were currently declining. I am not 100% sure, but I am not under the impression that they are in decline at this time.

Here is what I think we need to do: when we say that a country has declined, we need to make it clear against what we are measuring the country’s current power. Also, we need to neutralize the implication than the countries are still in decline. We all agree that this article is not the place for such discussions, and the reader should be able to do his own research and draw his own conclusions. So I suggest we change the section in question as follows:

Some major powers have experienced relative decline, having once been great powers (e.g. France, U.K.) or, in the case of Russia (vis-à-vis the Soviet Union), a superpower.

This should give the reader a relative frame of reference within which the powers in question have declined, and it also does not make any implication regarding the current state (rising or declining) of the nations in question. The reader can read the article and figure it out for himself. Any objections or suggestions?

Khelnor 03:26, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

No argument from me, I've been vaguely dissatisfied with 'successor state'. As you say, the Soviet Union was a larger entity than present-day Russia, but I haven't been able to come up with something suitable to replace it. Vis-a-vis does the job very nicely, I'll make the change.

Xdamr 10:56, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I don’t think ‘successor state’ worked too well in the introduction. Of course it is a fact, and as such, it is rightfully mentioned in the Russia section.

Also, I think I have come up with a better solution than ‘vis-à-vis’. Since we want to be as factual as possible, I am making a small change to the wording to indicate that Russia was a dominant member of the USSR. This is factual and IMHO more appropriate than comparing the power of one of the 15 republics to the whole union. Take a look and let me know if you think it doesn’t work.

Khelnor 22:03, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, fundamentally sound. I've made little changes here and there, principally describing Russia as a component of the USSR and not as a republic - I think it sounds a little better that way.

Xdamr 23:32, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I think Russia is still declining rapidly. Some reasons: (1) declining nuclear arsenal: aging and declining number. See a recent Foreign Affairs-article about it. It is projected and well-argumeented that the current trend will continue and that Russia will in a decade or so have as much nuclear weapons as the UK or France (separately). (2) Demographic decline is considered accelarating by many demographers (don't have references right now, though) The UN has even warned that if the trend would accelerate Russia's population in 2050 would only be half of that of 1992. (3) Sphere of influence is declining: NATO and EU expansion, and the revolution is Ukraine, Georgia, (Belarus?), etc. Sijo Ripa 11:24, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

This sounds like something analysts used to say in the 90s, and yet Russia has overall grown stronger, not weaker, since then. Some examples: (1) Nuclear arsenal has been getting re-equipped with the new Topol-M ICBMs while older equipment has been getting serviced to extend its viability. Even in the 90s, the Strategic Rocket Forces were fairly decently funded. Additionally, President Putin has also mentioned a new development to defeat the U.S.’s ABM system. The have also successfully tested the new Bulava SLBM. This indicates that technological development is continuing. (2) Economy has grown significantly and has outpaced inflation. Conventional military spending is also up by a huge amount (as recently mentioned by the Russian Defense Minister in a Kremlin press conference). I can get the exact figures if necessary. Investments in infrastructure projects such as bridges and roads are also up (and Russia definitely needs it, IMHO). (3) Russia’s global influence is resurging. It is ready to sign the documents on the Common Economic Space with several CIS countries (even the Ukraine is ready to sign some of the documents). It is active in world diplomacy, far more so than in the 90s, and is being increasingly more assertive. As for the revolutions that were mentioned, there was actually no revolution in Belarus (Lukashenko is still the President and even Western analysts admit that he has the support of the majority.) In the Ukraine the pro-Russian Party of Regions won the most seats of any single party in Parliament. In Georgia there has been wide dissatisfaction with the current leadership, so who knows what that will lead to.

I can provide more examples if needed. Everything mentioned above has already happened. What will happen in the future, we don’t know. Analysis is well and good, but the further into the future it gets, the less its accuracy. Additionally, analysis of possible future trends can’t help but come with the caveat, “unless something changes” or “unless something is done.” Since things change all the time, and since I doubt that the Russian leadership will just sit there and do nothing (what’s the point of being in power if your country totally falls apart?), I think it’s best not to rely too much on such analysis, except for the near-term. Instead, we should look at where a country (e.g. Russia) was, say 10 years ago, and where it is now. Of course Russia has problems, demographics being one of the biggest, but even in this area there have been positive developments (e.g. yesterday the Kremlin mentioned that the number of new HIV infections is down significantly compared to 2001—maybe this is a good sign). At any rate, overall Russia is definitely better off now than it was 10 years ago, so I can’t readily agree with any assertion that it is still in decline.

Khelnor 22:03, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

The problem with Russia is that it seems to be concentrating on its international position and neglecting its internal problems. A quick list, just off the top of my head: the over-centralisation in St. Petersburg/Moscow, corruption, the lack of social cohesion, demographic problems, poor lifestyles (eg. high alcaholism - 50%+ in some rural areas, drinking window polish etc.), lack of proper funding for state organs.

Another problem is that Russia seems to feel that it has to counterbalance the US/Western Europe. This exhibits itself in Russia's reaction to the Iran question; would Russia's interests really be served if Iran developed nuclear weapons? Almost certainly not, but they seem to feel the need to take a different position, as if to assert their international standing. Is that really the best policy?

Xdamr 23:20, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that Russia is not putting enough emphasis on internal development. The demographic / social problems you mention are unfortunately true. There are some steps being taken to make things better (e.g. they have some Federal projects going on for things like housing, education, and infrastructure) but I think they could definitely be doing more. Then they could return to the world stage with a much more solid power base. But I suppose it's hard to do everything at once.

Regarding Russia's need to counterbalance Western influence -- I think that's a long discussion. I think part of the problem is that they felt they were being taken advantage of by the West in the 1990s. Another part of it might be based on the different views in Russia and the West regarding the end of the Cold War. I read an interesting article about that (I think I still have it somewhere) and it outlined the differences in viewpoints quite nicely.

Personally, I don't think it would be all that good for Russia if Iran got nuclear weapons, especially since Iran already has the missile technology to hit Russia. Of course I am not saying they would do it (probably for the same reason the U.S. wouldn't hit Russia) but it's just one more thing for Russia to worry about. Of course if Russia manages to convince Iran to move all its enrichment to Russia (a move supported by the EU and the US) then that will increase their diplomatic prestige. I saw something in the press today that said Iran supposedly reached some basic deal with Russia...we'll see if anything good comes out of it.

Khelnor 00:01, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Khelnor, is extremism rising in Russia, or are the racist murders merely isolated incidents, because for a non-Russian it seems to me that extremism is rising which could cause instability in the long run. Sijo Ripa 00:21, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I sincerely hope that such things will remain isolated incidents. There are indicators that worry me, however. There was a recent murder in St. Petersburg, for which the killers were tried by a jury trial, and even though the murder has (IMO) plenty of racial overtones, the jury did not convict them for a race-motivated murder. Instead they were convicted of "hooliganism". Another example of racial tensions is a recent ad by the Rodina party. The ad was considered racist and was pulled, and the party was punished, but the fact that such ads get made and aired is not a good sign. If this kind of extremism spreads, that could lead to instability and would hamper Russia's efforts to build a viable common economic zone within the Eurasian Economic Community. Khelnor 16:24, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

It depends on what you consider as a decline actually. For the article about nuclear weapons (it's a march-april 2006 article): [1]. And you can't deny that Russia's power in Europe is declining. It could not prevent the latest NATO expansion, it could not determine the elections in Ukraine anymore. Ukraine currently seems to want to join the EU, and perhaps NATO. And the Orange coalition will govern, which is pro-Western. Quite irrelevant that the pro-Russian party was the largest, as the pro-Russians don't have a majority. Influence in Belarus is also declining. And as I followed the topic quite intensively: I only read that Lukashenko is unpopular. In Central-Asia its influence is declining also, as at least one country considered to stop recognizing Russia as an official language, and the American, Chinese and even European influence in that region is growing. Cooperation between Caucasian states and NATO is increasing. The Chechen conflict is protracting and even spreading. Demographical problems are considered accelerating, as I said, which clearly works against a rising power. Perhaps an increase in the military budget can slow its military decline, but Russia's army capabilities are currently still aging and thus declining. These things are happening "now" and in the "near future". Russia is better off absolutely (compared with itself 10 years ago), but not relatively (compared with the rest of the world): e.g. declining influence in its neighbourhood, declining nuclear 2nd strike capability, declining military power and a declining population (but: growing economic power). I mean, for me it's not necessary to put the declining-word in the article, but it just seems strange to think it's a growing power (relatively). Sijo Ripa 23:47, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Also about AIDS in Russia: BBC, today: "HIV/Aids is progressing dangerously in Russia, with more than 30,000 new infections registered in the past year, medical officials have reported." [2] Sijo Ripa 15:22, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the link--I'll read it this weekend. To briefly answer your question, for me a decline (or a rise) is a combination of external and internal factors. I find it hard to consider a given country to be on the rise if it is not rising relative to itself. Likewise, I find it hard to classify a country as "declining" if it is rising relative to itself. I will elaborte more on this later. BTW, where did you read that Lukashenko is unpopular? I mostly have access to Russian and U.S. sources, and both seem to agree that he does in fact have the support of the majority and would have won in a fair election (though probably not with 82% of the vote).

Regarding the AIDS figure, I saw the same figure (30,000+ new cases) in both Western and Russian sources. While this is worrying, Russian TV pointed out that in 2001 this figure was more like 60,000 new cases. Hopefully, this means that some things are moving in the right direction. Khelnor 16:24, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Potential Major powers

There was a vote on Brazil's position in this article somewhere in the archives with no consensus reached (2 said delete, 1 said keep) but of course there weren't that many people that seemed to be even interested in voting if we only got 3 votes from logged in users. I just don't like the crystal-balling nature here, Potential Superpowers, alright, but now will we go into Potential Middle Powers, Potential Regional Powers perhaps?? No, I think not, I think it may be necessary to have another vote in which more than 3 people participate deciding on Brazil's position in this article. I just don't think it belongs here, we state it as the only Potential Major Power. Does anyone object to the restarting of a vote? Note that the other vote reached no consensus which is why I want to restart it (if it received consensus I would not dispute it). Nobleeagle (Talk) 02:15, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't object. I think that Brazil should remain; despite the fact it isn't yet a Major power we have the BRIC thesis to consider, it's worth noting Brazil's economic potential by flagging it up as a Potential Major power.

Xdamr 11:31, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello, Nobleeagle. Thanks for your welcome to wikipedia that you posted on my talk page...I appreciate it. Regarding Brazil, I don't object to the vote, but before I vote, how do we want to define a "potential major power"? To me a potential major power is a country that already fulfills some major power criteria and is growing in most of the others, but this is not really made clear (to me) in the article. Khelnor 16:31, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Vote

Should Brazil remain listed on this page as a Potential Major power?.

• Yes Xdamr 11:46, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• No - If Brazil is to be kept, then countries such as Egypt, South Africa, Nigeria, South Korea, Indonesia, Australia, and who knows how many other countries there will argue for their case to be listed as a potential major power. And it will definitely be out of our hands. Furthermore, just by reading the article on Brazil only reinforces the view that Brazil still has quite a long way to go. However, I do agree that Brazil is a regional power within Latin American region. Heilme 23:28, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Yes-Its far more likely to see Brazil as a major power than to see the EU or China as a superpower in the near future. If we don't include Brazil, then we're kind of being hypocritical. It would be nice to include other possibilites, such as Canada, Australia, Brazil, Italy, Spain and maybe Indonesia. South Africa, Nigeria, and South Korea haven't shown much potential. The biggest issue will be sources. Thats is something that is frustrating to me. For example, Italy has influence near that of Germany, France or the GB, has a strong military, and is economically powerful, but no one sees them as a Great Power. 12.220.94.199 23:08, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Yes - I agree that Brazil is a major latin american power but similar to two posts here I am perturbed that Italy , a G7 country, is not seen as a major power for some reason. It can project power, made sizable contributions to peace keeping efforts, one of the few countries with an aircraft carrier, projects cultural influence world wide (everyone knows of italian cars, food, fashion, art, etc. ), Rome is the center of the Catholic world, independent space program separate from the EU, close in GDP to France and GB, close ally to the US and others, had a nuclear program which may be restarted, important historical influence over the centuries and same number of seats in the EU parliament as France and GB. Personally, the country is in better shape now than before WW2 where it is considered a great power. The only thing missing is it's not in the security council, but neither is Germany or Japan, but they are considered major powers which I do not dispute. This seems to me to be more of a reaction to the fact that the EU would rather Italy out of it but it's too big economically to ignore. Remember it took the US and GB to knock it out of WW2. Before that Italy and GB were at a stalemate in the Med, and England was the strongest country/empire at the time. Italy has always been dismissed as a player by others and suffers from extreme form of bad PR. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.50.99.8 (talk • contribs)
• No - for the reasons I stated above. Besides, we can't have a huge Major Power page full of every nation that aspires to become a Major Power. Also note that generaly consensus on Wikipedia is that Anon Users cannot vote for the fact that some may vote multiple times. But feel free to sign up and vote, it's quick and easy. Nobleeagle (Talk) 06:49, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I support having a list of all nations aspiring to become Major powers. My support is for Brazil and Brazil alone. From my reading of the situation there is only one nation which is widely reagrded as being likely to become a Major power in the short-medium term, that country is Brazil (eg. the BRIC thesis). Other possibilities mentioned above (Canada, Australia, Italy, Spain, Indonesia, South Africa, Nigeria, and South Korea) are not widely expected to achieve this status - they will almost certainly be richer in the future, but I don't think they will be Major powers.

• YES Brazil is the best placed latin american country and may potentially gain a permanent seat on the UN Security Council in the future. As a member of the G4 and a leader amoungst developing nations (G20 etc.) it will continue to grow in economic and political influence in the 21st century. --I 20:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Xdamr 16:21, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

There have been some that have said the Major power isn't even a political term. So the publicity for Brazil's rise to Major power status is considerably less than that of China's rise to Superpower status. I believe its not good for the article's image on Wikipedia to include potentials that do not receive much media hype. Nobleeagle (Talk) 07:51, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

• yes - Brazil clearly belongs to the list, just by being the combination of the world's 5th largest territorry, 5th population and 9th economy. other countries such as Egypt, South Africa, Nigeria, South Korea, Indonesia and Australia fail to reach these standards. The only reason why we don't see this country often in the news is because of its stability and weak military. Brazilian armed forces are small because there's no need to defend the country from potential threat; that by itself is a proof of the country's success in keeping a peacefull relation with it's 10 neighbours. In what concerns to nuclear might, Brazil is a nuclear-technology-dominant country; it has developed it's own uranium enrichment process, is currently building a nuclear submarine and has no nuclear warheads because it is a signataire of the non-proliferation agreement, despite having all "it takes" to build an arsenal. Plus, it is the western hemisphere's second largest country (i.e. the combination of population, territory and economic weight). Big country, big population, big economy, advanced technology and stability. What else do you need? Native_eathian
• Doubleplus no because "Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation. All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred." (Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not). None of this is verified, and most especially not the criteria that this group of Superpower-related articles are based on. They are 90% duplicated material and 10% Original Research. They fulfil some of the criteria of a walled garden too. None of the future/potential stuff belongs here, not Brazil, and not any country. The criteria should be deleted as OR or else verified and attributed, and the superpower and major power articles rewritten with this in mind. All material on articles this important should be verifiable and attributable. This is not the place for OR or crystal-balling. End of rant. Guinnog 20:57, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
• yes (provisionally) - I vote "yes", but this comes with the proviso that the term "potential major power" be defined. Technically, even a very weak country has the potential to be a major power or even a superpower, given a highly unlikely set of conditions, but I don't think that anyone considers such countries to be potential major powers. So if we can define what is a "potential major power" and then show how Brazil meets this criteria, then there is no reason not to include it, either in this article, or in a sub-article. However, if we do not or cannot specify what is a potential major power, then we are just crystal-balling, which we should avoid doing. Khelnor 17:49, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Problem is we can't calssify a criteria on Major powers. That's the entire issue, according to User:Thames, it's not even a Political Science term. All someone's original research I guess. But look below, that's where the real problem starts. People digging up huge essays on Italy, Spain, Kazakstan and who knows what other countries to put them on this page. The Potential Major Powers Section needs to be finished with. Nobleeagle (Talk) 01:23, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

As I've said, I support Brazil and Brazil alone for inclusion under this category. I see no legitimacy in describing any other country as a potential major power; perhaps 'potentialness' all comes down to personal perception, but BRIC etc seems to give Brazil an added degree of credibility which other countries do not have.

But I am quite concerned by the fact that the term Major power does not seem to have any kind of academic pedigree. When I started editing these articles I took it on trust that there was some kind of basis to the category. There must surely be some term for countries such as the UK, France, and Russia - if not Major power then what?

Xdamr 20:25, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

ITALY, WHY YOU DON'T YOU EVEN MENTION ITALY?

You are always mentioning Brazil, Egipt, Israel, Australia and never Italy which is in every aspect superior to all this countries and superior even to Brazil, India and China in very aspects.

Lets see why; First error of all is in the Great Power pages, which I already reported, the downfall of Italy as a great power was 1943 and not 1945. In 1943 Italy surrendered and in the two subsequent years it passed thru German invasion, Civil War and Allied Occupation. So 1945 is wrong.

The bigger mistake is not considering Italy as a Great or even Major Power from the 80's till present. Italy is a member of the G-7, meaning is a major economic power,in certain years was the 5th major on earth, the Made in Italy is the second most competitive after Made in Germany, the international trade is big, since the war it has grown at a very high rate, almost like Japan. It has a population, GNP and economic position like that of France and UK,altough in recent years it has fall behind a little. If you consider GDP PPP Italy as the same amount of total GDP as France. Italy has many more big or medium companies than Russia, India or China. It has companies active in gas and oil field, the biggest of whose is ENI,which is one of the major players in that fiels. Take Germany for an instance, it has none, only subsidiaries of foreign companies, it has Rurhgas and some Utilities but a Petroleum company it doesn't have, and Italy has. Italy also has a residual amount of Gas and Petroleum but nevertheless it has more petroleum than Germany, Japan or France, altough it has almost none too. The diplomatic and International Relations of Italy in the recent years changed too.Now Italy is not anymore the silent partner of the Franco-German axis on EU, it is an important partner of UK and has halted some federalistic ambitions of the Franco-German axis. Even on the World stage its word is more important than someone could judge at first glance and than many countries. What was the diplomatic achivement of the G4 so far, none. Italy with her allies has managed to block the entrance of this countries to UN Security Council. It proposed semi-permanet seats or permanent seats on a reagional basis with rotation,like another from EU which could be to Germany, Italy or even Spain or even more EU members on a rotational basis, others seats to other parts of the world. If the G4 proposition would go thru many important countries no only economically,but also geostrategically speaking would remain outside the real decisions. And don't forget who is the 4th net contributor to UN budget-Italy. Also in foreign relations, the position of Italy is geostrategically much more important these days than that of Germany. Cold War is over,in that time Germany was at the center, now the problem is in Meadle East and Arab countries in general, ao Italy is much more well connected, its like an aircraft base in the middle of the Mediterranean .Japan could be important in future, but today altough its is the 4th spender in defence and as large armed forces, they only serve to self-defence and peace missions. And what was the first real war Germany was allowed to intervene in the post WWII- Kosovo in 1999.It had a smal contigent in 1991 in the Gulf War, but nothing like Italy.Japan cannot enter agressive wars, Germany could only after 1990,when Italy could after 1970. Italy entered a real and difficult war cenario in 1982 in Lebanon and altough at the beggining the allies mistrusted Italy,in the end its participation was fulcral even to safeguard the life of french and USA citizens. In 1991 it sent a substantial contingent to Operation Desert Storm mainly consiting of F-104 and Tornado Bombers, which made their very countribut too. In 1999 in Kosovo was the same, even more with the AM-X Ghibli. In Iraq, (agree with the war or not) Italy has the third largest contingent, many italians have died and even a secret service official was killed in a position of honour, defending the life of a civilian. Italians are not cowards as the anglo-saxons tend to generalize. In military technologies Italy has it indigenous industries, the major of which is Finmeccanicca, a huge conglomerate. It builds its own tanks like the Ariete, Tanks destroyers, like Centauro, Dardo AFV's and many more. It builds missiles and is part of MBDA consortium, the second largets of the world after Raytheon corporation in missile technologies. Italy has a small aircraft carrier and its building another one bigger, with the most powerfull conventional(non nuclear) angine of the world. As I know Germany and Japan doesn't own aircraft carriers, nor big destroyers like the 2 ones Italy is building with France, and the 10 frigates of ultimate generation its building with France too. In terms of Nuclear capabilities, German and Japan sometimes talk of owning its own deterrent force, but the only missiles Germany is supposed to have owned was in WWII. Itally planned a nuclear destroyer in the 60's,nuclear submarines which would have been equiped with Polaris missiles, but it was forced by the USA, Nato and other preesures of its own to abanon them. But it lauche one of the first satellites of the world, has an important space agency-ASI, its the thir more important member of ESA, the VEGA project its almost all from Italy, and in the 70's it tested sucessfully ballistic missiles- ALFA, made by italian industry, but the signed the Non Proliferation Protocol,but in the early 80's the idea emerged again and it Italy was to have its own Force de Frappe, if you don't believe ask Mr. Lelio Lagorio, defence minister at the time. It builds since the 60's good conventional submarines,the last in cooperation with Germany. Italy has the third most important Navy of EU and the 6th of the world, Germany only equalls that of Holland. It builds fighter aircrafts too. It entered the Tornado and EFA Typhoon programm, with a minor quote but is part of the consortium. Since the 50's it produces advanced jet trainers from Aermacchi sold all over the world with much sucess, helicopters, it has build the firs attack heli in EU, the A129 Mangusta, now its one of the major player in that industry, owning AgustaWestland. It also haves Alenia, Telespazio, Avio, Selex, Fincantieri, Otobreda, Iveco Defence Unit.The Fiat G91 was another sucess, winning a NATO contest for a light attack and strike aircraft, Germany bought and manufactured under license many of them. The AM-X was mainly Italian, altough Brazil had a 30% quota on it. So you put Brazil as a potential Major Power and Italy, wich deserves a place for a long, you don't even consider it for the future. Even if Brazil growns economically, in military, international relevance, its nothing compared to Italy. Doesn't have nothing indigeneous in terms of military-industrial, while Italy has lots of things. Brazil, India and China have aircraft carriers for instance, but they are old crapp bought from real Major Powers. Even in the F-35 JSF Italy is a 2nd level partner, being the USA the main contractor and the only first level partner the UK. Its is a partner also in the Dassault Neuron UCAV.ACamposPinho 00:16, 7 May 2006

Nobody really thinks that Egypt, Israel, and Australia are Major powers; some think that Brazil could be, but many years in the future, around 2050 (see BRIC).

As for Italy, there's no reason why it can't be considered and voted upon. My own view is that Italy is certainly in the top tier of European economies, in fourth position - with a GDP well above that of Spain in fifth position. Italy's large economy leads to a place in the G8, but there is no permanent seat in the UN security council - nor is there any big campaign for Italian admission such as there is for Germany. It has capable armed forces - but ones rather behind the leaders, the UK and France; barring their involvement in Iraq, Italy does not seem to have many large-scale overseas deployments (note the emphasis on 'large-scale').

My personal view is that Italy has many of the attributes for 'Major power' status, but that politically it doesn't seem to wish to play a larger role in the world (although its contribution to Iraq could be a sign of its intent to play a bigger role in the future).

Xdamr 23:58, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

When it comes to demographics, politics and military factors. I don't think Italy can cut it as a Major power. Nobleeagle (Talk) 01:21, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps all of this should be consolidated, there are currently several debates across several articles concerning Italy as a great power. One thing I think that ACamposPinho at Talk:Great power provided strong arguements for Italy's inclusion. 12.220.94.199 18:49, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I have read many books concerning Italian politics, military, geostrategy and many other articles that provide the base for Italy being a Great Power. The case of its economy, its one fact, and beside being than Spain, the real numbers are much higher, almost equal to France since Italy has a great "underground" economy.It once had a bigger GDP than UK and equal to France, mid 80's to late 90's. The Government budget is still today at the level of France and higher then that of UK. The military spending is much higher than that of India, Spain, Egipt,even Saudi Arabia. And I don't agree that Italy can't deploy a large overseas deployment.Maybe not like UK or France, but with many more capabilities than Germany, Japan or India. In that case you could have never considered India a Great Power, are you considering it only for its population? The GDP, wealth creation, value of goods produced and Know-How of India industry is very limited. It should be in the same position of Brasil.Italy has much more arguments for being included since the beggining. Italy is the most probable supplier of the new design of aircraft carrier for India. This is having military technology Know-How. It will have destroyers equals to that of France-Class Horizon/Orizzontte(in fact they are built together with the Freem Frigates programe in a 50/50 joint-venture), it can construct a nuclear capability in about two years, and the proof is that it constructed and launched ballistic missiles from Salto di Quirra in Sicily-look for Alfa at www.astronautix.com and the italian firm BPD together with Fiat Aviazione has supplied in the 80's nuclear technology to countries willing to have nuclear capabilities. They can deploy troops to places ever more away, with the new Cavour aircraft carrier and they are thinking of a second one. The major issue for Italy not being bigger geostrategically its their politicians, but even that is changing, independent of the ideology of the government. Italy is now much more noticed in the world scene. Before it was only a major economy, but that was the case of Germany and Japn either, and still is a little for the three. Germany and Japan according to their economies should be much higher than UK and France in all terms, but that its not the case. And if EU, for instance disagregatte totaly, do you think Italy, would not take its voice louder, the fact that it makes part of EU is one thing that keeps Italy in a lower profile, because the EU is in evolution, and nobody knows where it will really lead. Anyway the fact that its a funder of EEC/EU is also important. And don't forgett the Vatican, its an independent state, but its included in the Italian nation, more properly in Rome, which makes the power of Rome and even Italy even more listened in the world stage. Italy is real that has not undergon a great campaign for getting a UN seat like Germany did, but it would have been very difficult to asssign two more permanet seats to the European Continent, so Italy choose other way, an intermediate solution, regional semi-permanent seats. And if Germany tried to aquire one seat for its own, it was unsucessfull so far, while Italy was sucessfull in delaying the decison to take the involv more countries in the UN Security Council Reform as possible.

Think of all the reasons I posted here and say if I didn't make my point. ACamposPinho 22:55 9 May 2006

This underlines the main problem with this page; as it is primarily OR, Sr Pinho above wants to lobby us to include Italy. Others have argued the case for the inclusion of their favourite countries too. Nowhere is there any reference to any verifiable or reputable organisation which classifies countries this way, so it is down to whatever we decide here. And that just feels wrong. While I have put a lot of work and thought into this article, I really think it is now time to put it to sleep and put our energy into something better. Guinnog 22:59, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

It's not the fact of being somebody favorite countries. Its fact talking by themselves. You cannot consider a lion, a tiger, hyena or jackal to be strong and feroucious animals and not a puma or a leopard. The inclusion of Italy is only making this page more accurate and fair enough. Because I don't think there is any country in the world, besides the ones already included with so many arguments in different fields has Italy has.Its a question of fairness. I can't undesrtand for ex. why in the article Regional Powers, Israel or Egypt are included, and Italy, Spain, Indonesia or South Korea for instance are not. All of them are greater and powerfull than Israel. Of course one must consider the reagional importance realatively to the region proper power but we must consider the power in absolut too and in that case if Israel is a regional power, besides the ones I mention above evn Sweden, Holland, Venezuela, Canada, Argelia and many others are. ACamposPinho 1:23 10 May 2006

I believe you know that Regional Power is based on regions and the power you'd see in Eastern and Western Europe is very different to the power you'll see in the Middle East. South Korea, for example, cannot be compared to China but can be compared to nations like Malaysia and Australia. Nobleeagle (Talk) 07:54, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Of course Regional Power is based on regions, that in turn make the world.So if one country is a regional power, it should be a world power, too? Wrong because as you say different regions have different levels of power, so if a nation is powerfullin Africa for ex. it will be more difficult that nation to be a world power than if it was a power in Europe or Asia for instance.In the case of the UN Security Council Reform I think that is one of the biggest issues.They talk about two places for Africa and the candidates most speaked are South Africa, Nigeria, Egypt and even Angola. Its a joke. Angola isn't even a minor power in Africa and wants a UN Permanent seat in the SC. Only for having petroleum and diamonds.Its very little. What makes a coutry rich is that country knowledge, industry, not natural resources. The only countries that are rich and have in simultaneous natural resources are the USA and Canada.

Africa is the best example of a continent that should have one permanent seat in the Security Council but with rotating countries, it could have in the maximum two seats with this sistem. But the best sistem for Africa, specially subsaharian Africa should be a seat to the AfricanUnion, because African countries are the ones with less national identity, it only takes one to look at their geometric borders and continuous lines of border.They are a product of late European colonisation. The most identity the people in Africa have is to their tribe/region and to mother Africa,not to the country, only in big cities a sense of national identity is surgingbutcan't be compared to countries in other continents. The fact that Israel is always mentioned as a regional poweris because of that proper definition. Do you consider Israel to be more powerfull than Spain, only in a few militarysub-units, not in its whole. But Spain is never mentioned and even Itally is barelly mentioned just because there are already many powerfull countries in Europe. But lets notforget the central position of Europe,its world geostrategical importance and that inside Europe there are atleast 4 major powers excluding Russia, and we should always consider them as separate countries-entities, because there history, culture, position in relation to world problems is very different.Altough there is the EU, in foreign and defence policy the decision of each coutry is still the one that mattersand even if EU wants to build a common foreign and defence policy,inthe end it will be the countries that decide for themselves or the bigger ones will try to persuade EU to follow what they want, (only if they agree in some fact). Talking about EU: even things that already exist like the Euro, the constitutional Treaty(this treaty only puts on paper what is being done already) are questioned more and more. The economic union is questioned, whatdoyou think of major factors of sovereignity like defence and foreign affairs? ACamposPinho 3:29 12 May 2006

My two cents on the issue of Italy:

Here is a list from an independent source and an american one at that.

http://www.globalfirepower.com/index.asp

This site lists countries global firepower taking into account all resources needed to fight a war, economic, military, infrastucture, etc (oops, so sorry for you non latin speakers). Any way, as you can see they list Italy as number eleven in the world, two away from the UK.

I have another page as well from a different source: http://www.strategypage.com/fyeo/howtomakewar/databases/armies/e.asp

Again Italy in sixth place in Europe.

Naval strength on another page: http://www.strategypage.com/fyeo/howtomakewar/databases/armies/e.asp

Again sixth place.

Here is another page from the CIA, whose job it is to know these things:

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2067rank.html

Look at that seventh place in the world. Hmmm.

How about economic power, again from the CIA:

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2001rank.html

Wow, number 10 in the world in terms of GDP by PPP, and not even a mention in your article.

Here is a list of the country's total output and infrastructure with links to rank in each category:

http://www.globalfirepower.com/country_detail.asp?country_id=19

Hey how about cultural influence with say something like tourism as a barometer:

http://www.allcountries.org/uscensus/1408_international_tourism_receipts_leading_countries.html

Again, number 4 in the world. Is there a trend here?

How about science and engineering:

http://www.allcountries.org/uscensus/1382_patents_by_country.html

Number 8 in the world. Not bad.

How about GNP versus GDP. ANd those of you who don't know the difference, GDP is the goods and services produced within a country regardless of the nationality of the company or individual. Whereas GNP is the good and services produced by a country's citizens and national companies regardless of the actual manufacturing takes place.

Now looking at the next web page:

http://www.allcountries.org/uscensus/1364_gross_national_product_by_country_1998.html

Again sixth in the world. Wow am I missing something!!???

How about another indicator of fighting power. Homogeneity of the population:

http://www.allcountries.org/uscensus/1354_foreign_or_foreign_born_population_and.html

Again Italy has far fewer immigrants than the other countries. Try to get a Turk to fight against Turkey in a war even though he's a German citizen. What about France's five million Islamic North Africans. Hey did you guys go up north during the summer during the riots.

How about merchant fleets, you know the ability to ship stuff around the world.

http://www.immigration-usa.com/world_fleet.html

Not great but where's that power house France. Hmmm.

How about central government expeditures, how much money a government spends every year:

1 United States 1,780,000
2 Japan 706,000M
3 Germany 694,000
4 France 662,000
5 United Kingdom 531,000
6 Italy 504,000
7 China - Mainland 400,000
8 Brazil NA
9 Russia 156,000
10 Canada 142,000
11 Spain 124,000
12 Netherlands 118,000
13 Belgium 115,000
14 Austria 113,000
15 Poland 110,000

Number 6 again but sadly not considered a major power even though it's ahead of China, Russia and Brazil.

How about number of scientific papers produced and published:

http://www.in-cites.com/countries/2004allfields.html

Internet users: http://www.indexmundi.com/g/r.aspx?t=100&v=118

Number eight worldwide. So much for soft power.

How about world influence in terms of what people buy from where:

http://www.indexmundi.com/g/r.aspx?t=10&v=85

Again number 7 in the world for exports.

How Olympic medals as measure of a country's pride and ability to waste money on international competition in order gain world prestige and bragging rights:

http://www.aneki.com/olympic.html

Number six. Those Italians have a lot of medals considering they are unable to feed themselves :P

I can go on and on and on. If you can't see that Italy is a major power in the world in almost every respect then you are deluding yourselves. "You can bring a horse to water but you can't make him drink."

And for my brothers: "Andiamoci!"

--65.95.147.214 03:03, 14 May 2006 (UTC) Hadrian1

Hey here is another one since you consider influence on other countries.

From your own source the Central European Initiative is centered in where? Trieste Italy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_European_Initiative

Which was a precursor to earlier groups which Italy was a founding member from the beginning.

I guess leading economic, scientific and cultural exchange groups doesn't mean much. --Hadrian1 03:43, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Not bad... I'll take that as enough initiative for a vote as soon as the AfD proposal is over and the result sorted, we don't want to create something large only for it to be deleted. Thanks, all I wanted was a bunch of decent sources, which you provided. But lastly, do you have sources, neutral news sources perhaps, that note Italy as Great powers or Major powers? A Google Search would bring up stuff on Mussolini's Italy of the Second World War. Nobleeagle (Talk) 07:55, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

As you see that are strong arguments as Italy being a amjor power.

You tought I was crazy or something.We are talking ofa coutry untill recently the 5th almost 4th major economic power in the worl, the 4th main contributot to UN in cash amounts. And comparing Italy with Brazil or India for ex.; Italy can build its own military material, in the AM-X joint development with Brazil Italy has a 70% share versu Brazil 30%; Brazil major fighters are bought from abroad an India is only now constructing a fighter aircraft but can't be comparable to the US, Russian and European ones and will be only part of India's fleet of fighters, the major part being russians. In the other hand, the definition of Major Power as it cames on the articlu, makes Italy a major power by itself; a coutry that its not a superpower but can influence others. You can deny that Italy can influence its neighbors, the wholle EU is influenced by Italy, at lesat is the 4th major country of EU, and 3th in economicall affairs, because Britain is shareholder of ECB but doesn't have the Euro, the Mediterranean area is heaveky influenced by Italy, even Iberic Peninsula. The major supporter and interested in EEC entry of Portugal and Spain was Italy, as weel of Greece. In fashion, alimentary industry, design, artcrafts, auto industry and even space and defence industries Italy has influence in the whole world. Look again at all the facts presented and include Italy. And don't delete the page, develop it instead. The great power page should also be developed and improved. Only to finish GOOGLE is not the source of everything, and when it cames to searching Italy as a Major Power only comes Mussolini, is like in peoples talks, its a stereopychal interpretation, if you talk of Germany as a Major Power people will mostly talk of Nazi period and in Google I don't know but perhaps is the same as in Italy's case. [[User:ACamposPinho|ACamposPinho] 3:27 , 15 May 2006

Other source i've got a few time ago ona net forum, and I had the link.I don't know it now, but I will search.The facts of that linak are here: Capacity of war: 1937 Country % of Total Warmaking Potential United States 41.7% Germany 14.4% USSR 14.0% UK 10.2% France 4.2% Japan 3.5% Italy 2.5% Seven Powers (total) (90.5%)

2005 United States 35.4% Japan 13.4% Germany 6.6% UK 5.2% France 4.8% Italy 3.9% China 2.5%

Seven Powers (total) 71.7%

So Italy is one of the world seven powers and ahead of mighty China. You should know that in order to make a war and go trhough with it, you should have economic power, not only personnel, and good equipment. Things Italy has.

ACamposPinho3:57 ,15 May 2006

Hey what happened here? I thought I made a great case for including Italy as a major power and the page got deleted. You spend hours researching to get sources and someone deletes the page.

--Hadrian1 02:39, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

There's been a clear note about the page being listed for deletion for the last week. It was deleted as it was almost entirely Wikipedia:Original Research. --Robdurbar 07:35, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

• I agree completely with Hadrian1. It seems like talking about the thru,in this case, tha fact that ITALY IS REALLY A MAJOR POWER, frightened many people. If it was a coincidence(the deleting) it was in fact very strange.

ACamposPinho 1:00, 20 May 2006

Maps

These aren't contextualized. What are they meant to show and why are there two? --Robdurbar 16:30, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Surplus

I was rolling on the mud reading the names of Third World countries as super powers. To whomsoever it may concern, Power is a multiplier of surplus output of a nation. By that definition, only UK and France are the two real super powers today.

US, Japan, Germany and Italy are federations and net capital importers. Russia, Israel and Turkey are regional/seasonal players. They know their limits and spheres of influence. China and India would continue to issue fancy rhetoric for another dozen generations. Anwar saadat 19:09, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what you were reading Anwar...if it was Wikipedia then I don't know how you think the United States is a Third World Country. Nobleeagle (Talk) 07:45, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Since when Italy and Japan are federations? And since when all th 4 countries you mentioned are only net capital importers?

Do you have a clue of what you are talking about? ACamposPinho 3:51, 15 May 2006