Talk:Great power/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Consensus

Since User:Lear 21 and User:KJohansson seem to feel they have obtained "consensus" and that other editors are "hypocritical" in not agreeing to their views, I will attempt to dispel the baffling conclusion they have drawn.

• Support G8/EU

User:Lear 21 and User:KJohansson

• No Support

User:Viewfinder, User:Phoenix79, User:Dpaajones, User:BritishWatcher, User:Imperium Europeum, User:Emw, User:Nirvana888

It seems quite clear to be that consensus for these controversial edits has not been obtained. Nirvana888 (talk) 01:16, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Why, oh why, must Lear and Johanson continue to antagonise other editors by continuing to reinstate contested material which the majority of other editors are opposing? Why, oh why??? All they are doing is fuelling bad feeling, contravening WP:BRD, and obstructing consensus. Application of the many dispute resolution procedures that are available would be better.

I reaffirm my opposition to the G8 image and addition of the G8 to the lead section because the G8 includes Canada and Italy but excludes China.

Regarding the EU, I do not oppose the addition of the material to the EU paragraph, and other changes to the introduction, but I oppose the listing of the EU alongside EU member states as demanded by Lear and Johanson because it creates a contradictory situation which will confuse readers. If it were up to me neither the EU nor any of its member states would be listed. The EU has no military forces, was divided down the middle over Iraq, can by paralyzed by any one of its member states and has cultures which primarily belong to its member states. The Encarta source does not even mention the EU. If other academic sources claim the EU is a great power then this should be mentioned. We are agreed about that. If we list both the EU and EU member states, then it should be made clear that that is because of differing academic opinion, not that the EU and its member states can be great powers at the same time. You cannot have great powers within great powers. Viewfinder (talk) 14:01, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

My position is very similar to Viewfinder's. I oppose the G8 image and the inclusion of EU in the table for the same reasons. I support the inclusion of the EU paragraph in its current state and I am also willing to consider adjustments to the paragraph provided reliable sources are listed on the Talk page and consensus is reached BEFORE adding/reverting questionable material. Nirvana888 (talk) 14:34, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Please stick to the respective talk topics. Lear 21 (talk) 21:55, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

 Confirmed that KJohansson and Lear21 are the same editor and have been given a long term block. -- Phoenix (talk) 23:14, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Full protection / Edit war

 Administrator note I've fully protected this talk page because of edit warring. Please take this to dispute resolution. If this continues after the protection remember that 3RR is a limit, not an entitlement. Understand this does not imply that reverting three times or fewer is acceptable. people can be blocked for edit warring or disruption even if they do not revert more than three times per day. Three revert is not to be construed as a defense against action taken to enforce the Disruptive editing policy. --Hu12 (talk) 18:40, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Editor User:Nirvana888 has probably violated the 3RR policy. These edits should be further investigated. 4 reverts happened in less than 24hours. [1] [2] [3] [4]. KJohansson (talk) 22:38, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

The Nirvana888 edits are clear cut case. The Wikipedia 3RR regulations have been breached. Lear 21 (talk) 12:00, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I would not like to revert any more edits since as you point out I have already done so 4 times. Though I should point out that User:Lear 21 and User:KJohansson have reverted and been reverted by other editors probably over 10 times. Let's try to settle this dispute and obtain consensus before making any change OK? This is the purpose of the page protection of the article that I requested - to cool down the edit warring and allow us to settles things by discussion. Now, as you can see there is already a paragraph on the EU in the article which I support. Does everyone else support it?Nirvana888 (talk) 15:27, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I support the EU paragraph as it currently stands. Viewfinder (talk) 16:36, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I support most of the EU paragraph and think thats enough, i dont like the bit about the "permanent president" i think that needs to be more clearly defined because it will make people jump to conclusions. Also the source for that final sentence need improving, it looks like a blog of some description to me, it needs a more reliable source. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:57, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

What an earth are you talking about? That source is written by Professor Jolyon Howorth, one of the leading—if not the leading—authority on European security and defence policy in the English-speaking world! I urge you to look him up if you don't know anything about him!! Imperium Europeum (talk) 01:06, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

transposed from above, addressing Lear's proposal:

Let me be clear: I support mention of the EU's great power status in the article prose. Buzan's book clearly states that the EU can be seen as a great power. This also means, that the Britain, France, Germany's great power status would be increasingly in doubt. However, I do not see the rationale of the added text in the article. Sentences like "As a centralized institution and a state-like entity the EU governs the single European currency, the Euro and the respective Eurozone" and "Because of its hybrid sovereignty [sic] and sui generis characteristics, the European Union has become an important source of legislation for the 27 EU member states" are uncited and also not backed by a source that relates these features with great power status. The same can be said with the sentence on the proposed Lisbon Treaty. Now I am not saying that the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty won't help to consolidate EU great power status; however, I have yet to come across a high-quality academic source which confirms this. Thus, I don't think it should be included for time being. Nirvana888 (talk) 21:58, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Why was there nobody, who put the of 3RR violations of Nirvana to an official complaint ? KJohansson (talk) 11:41, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

 Confirmed that KJohansson and Lear21 are the same editor and have been given a long term block. -- Phoenix (talk) 23:14, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Ref removal

Several non academic references have been removed. Lear 21 (talk) 11:54, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I support the removal and when I see the argumentation of Nirvana and Phoenix I´m hundred percent that these users have to agree as well. Otherwise they find themselves in a very uncomfortable position of contradicting their own demandings for academic-only sources. KJohansson (talk) 11:17, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

If you review the history, you will notice that Phoenix and I have been very accepting of removing non-academic and non-relevant sources. Therefore, I hope you realize that we have a consistent standard for notable sources across the board and there is quite honestly no hypocrisy here. Hopefully this addresses your prognostication of being in a "very uncomfortable position of contradicting their own demandings for academic-only sources." Nirvana888 (talk) 02:26, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Nirvana, I actually stated as much earlier, actually showing you reverting an edit I made. -- Phoenix (talk) 03:26, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Right, just responding to yet another vigorous accusation leveled against us. I'm pretty sure we have the same views on preferring academic, high-quality sources. So just want to categorically state there is no double standard. Nirvana888 (talk) 03:51, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

 Confirmed that KJohansson and Lear21 are the same editor and have been given a long term block. -- Phoenix (talk) 23:14, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Map of Great powers

The Map of Great powers shows a biased, unjustified focus on the permanent UN security council members. The distinction of two colors also contradcits with the list of great powers. Because of many power dimensions the focus on the UNSC (military) is without balance. The map should be removed or the countries on it should become even colored. KJohansson (talk) 14:19, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Outdated and insufficient article

The article Great power does insuffiently address its scope which is laid out in its introduction. The introduction claims Great powers characteristically possess economic, military, diplomatic, and cultural strength . This set of power dimension is neither explained nor are examples integrated in this article to proof the different capabilities to be correct. The article does not provide written content, sources or visual content to illustrate the economic, cultural power dimension for instance. This appears to be a massive lack information. Instead, to illustrate the contemporay era, only an image of the UN security council and a map of Great powers on the globe is included in this article. This appears to be insufficient and does not provide a comprehensive set of information to address the scope of Great powers. The article has to be extended in a relevant fact based manner. Lear 21 (talk) 16:15, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Now that the edit warring and incivility has died down, let us try to move forward. First let me make a disclaimer: although I have been a follower of international politics for more than 30 years, and my father (who was strongly pro-EU, incidentially) often talked to me about them, I have never been a student of international relations. Therefore I am less familiar than other editors with what the academic sources are saying. I can only go on what I hear from and read in the general media.

The general media seldom mention the term "Great Power" in the context of the current state of affairs, and it is evident that the academics are very divided. This is reflected in the frequent arguments on this page and edit conflicts in the article. At Middle Power, which is mutually exclusive from Great Power, we list China, France and the UK, citing academic sources. We do not list Russia, but given that Russia is ranked 9th at List of countries by military expenditures and 8th at List of countries by GDP (nominal), its great power status looks tenuous. About the only thing about which everyone agrees is that the USA is a superpower. The term "great power" was coined at a time when they were easily defined and there was no superpower. Could the lack of mention of "Great Power" by the general media in a modern context reflect the view that the term is archaic and not applicable to today's world?

We should try to cater for all possible viewpoints on this very difficult subject. I am coming round to the view that we should list the EU, but with a note, also applied to the UK, France and Germany, linked to the paragraph about the EU. There may also be a place for the G8 mention and image in a section about the economic dimension, although imo the G8 is being eclipsed by the G20. Viewfinder (talk) 23:35, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I too am happy there has no edit-warring for a day (hey, gotta start somewhere). I hope this will continue and I encourage other editors to discuss issues calmly on the talk page. To address your questions Viewfinder, the term great power is certainly not archaic; it is widely used in IR journals. I admit with a tinge of regret that those not versed in IR literature may not be aware of the term. You bring up a interesting point that the definition of a great power can often been confusing. In fact, major power or global power etc. are often coterminous with great power. It is important to verify that those terms are used in the same context and connotation as how great power is generally defined in the academic literature.

Regarding the E.U. as a great power, there have been experts who have suggested that the E.U. could be considered a great power albeit one with unique characteristics and constraints. As the E.U. becomes more integrated though, we may see a day when it is widely recognized that is has completely consolidated its great power status. It would result in Britain, France and Germany becoming relegated to regional power status. However, it is important to keep in mind that Britain and France still retain their UNSC permanent seats which are indicative of great power status and that continued integration is not a sure bet.

The term superpower (a state that has global preeminence/hegemonic influence) was probably more widely used during the bipolar Cold War period which may explain why great power had a lesser importance during that time. It is widely viewed in the literature that the U.S. remains the sole superpower due to its political, economic, military and cultural dominance. China and the E.U. could emerge as potential mid-term challengers. Both, however, face significant constraints to achieving superpower status. Nirvana888 (talk) 02:18, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

A miracle has happened, the first sensible statements from Viewfinder and Nirvana. After 2 weeks of double talk and defending double standards. However, to the regular media consumer and part time IR observer, the term Great power seems indeed outdated. Accurately used probably after WW2. After that the superpower era was dominating. Today, as correctly observed terms like leading powers, major/industrial/important powers are widespread. Thats why sources using these terms are credible as well. It doesn´t make sense to reject those sources. Viewfinder made a true observation as well, when claiming that the time of G8 is almost superseded by G20. Nevertheless it is (was) an important meeting among the most influential powers from 1970ies-2005. The EU (addressing Nirvana) is rather building up its great power status next to France, Germany etc. For the time being national influence remains vital and global. While the pooled sovereignty of the EU is already acting on a global level as well. There is no either EU or the European nations as power. Like the G8 or G20 where the representatives are recognized parallel.

While talking is one thing and acting or changing is another thing, I still havent read about future solutions from those who constantly revert the updated versions.KJohansson (talk) 20:52, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think I like the comment "first sensible statements from Viewfinder and Nirvana", unnecessarily and unhelpfully implying that our previous statements were not sensible. Still, we are moving forward. Let's see what Phoenix and Lear have to add. Viewfinder (talk) 22:44, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

The introduction has deficits, the economic dimension is not addressed or visualized and the EU in its semi sovereign nature is not explained. The vast amount of references citing the EU as major/great/super/emerging power should be recognized. Lear 21 (talk) 14:45, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Wow Viewfinder its nice to read about your father. It's a shame he is no longer with us. What I find rather funny is the fact that most of us here are Europeans, and we cant even agree on the EU. If that's true, then it is obvious that the EU is not truly there yet. But really we must take our personal bias out of the equation and allow the experts to tell us.... and they cant agree... So the prose is the only place that the EU belongs. the reason I created the chart saying "c. 2000" was because I did not want it to say "today" since we would get into the debacle that we are in now. We must await for the EU to emerge. Until then this Outdated article that has become a subject of much debate must await. If one has sources saying that the EU could be a superpower or anything other than a Great Power, take those sources to the correct article, this one is about Great Powers after all. I am unsure if I have ever seen any sources about Great powers that say that a semi-sovereign state can be a Great Power so I don't know if I would agree to changing the intro... but let us know what you were thinking give an example and we can work on it :-) -- Phoenix (talk) 03:03, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

If sources claim that the EU is a Great Power then they are implying that a semi-sovereign state can be a Great Power. But we don't seem completely sure that the sources say that the EU is a Great Power. Viewfinder (talk) 11:05, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

 Confirmed that KJohansson and Lear21 are the same editor and have been given a long term block. -- Phoenix (talk) 23:14, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

G8 image

The G8 summit is a decadelong established gathering of the most potent economic powers in the world. Even more, the issues discussed in this forum deal with all global questions and international tasks, Climate change for instance. It is the premier forum of the last decades for decision making. An image representing the summit has been added. Because the UN security council wields less competence in several power spheres, the G8 has been installed at top of the article. Lear 21 (talk) 08:48, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Please stop adding this image and adding the EU. The G8 is not a group of great powers. The importance of the G8 has also been highly questioned in recent years with the exclusion of China, arguably the second most important power in the world. I say this without bias as my country is a member of the G8. Nirvana888 (talk) 19:50, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The G8 includes France, United States, United Kingdom, Russia, Germany, Japan, Italy, and Canada... Yep it excludes China and includes Italy, and Canada? Are you trying to make an argument that Canada is a Great Power? Are you trying to make an argument that China is not a Great Power? The G8 has as much to do with the Great Power structure as the WTO does... which is nothing. -- Phoenix (talk) 19:55, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The G8 gathers 6 of the major powers. It is out of question the most visible forum for great powers in the last 30 years. China is not in it because it became an economic power only in the last 5 years. The caption under the image not even directly claims a great power status. More important is that the image comes along WITH the UN image TOGETHER. It is a usefull completion of the picture of major powers. The introduction prominently claims, economic power /strength to be a cornerstone. The G8 image visualizes that in a perfect way and enriches the understanding of the article. Lear 21 (talk) 10:22, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

What academic source backs up your claim that the G8 represents Great Powers? Is there a time that Canada was considered a Great Power? Having a permanent seat at the UN Security Council is recognized as such by academic sources. Having the image included in the Great Power Article implies that there is a relation, caption or not. -- Phoenix (talk) 11:26, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

@Phoenix79: [5] Choose one of the endless references concerning Great powers in G7/G8 meetings. Just by scanning the several lists I count more than 30 sources which directly name great power status with the G8 gatherings. Many of them in high profile magazines or IR expert foundations. Honestly, the reverts of this image and putting the G8 as a major power forum in question signalizes the real lack of competence in terms of International relations. The image in combination with the UN Security is ideal. Lear 21 (talk) 11:40, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Phoenix. Just because some authorities consider some G8 members to be great powers does not equate G8 membership with great power status. Anyway is not the G8 getting phased out in favour of the G20? Does anyone consider G8 country Canada to be a great power? Did anyone find a source in support of claims that Italy is a great power? Also the term "real lack of competence" is used above in a context that breaches WP:CIV. Viewfinder (talk) 13:40, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

No one is saying that there aren't Great Powers in the G8. What we are saying is being a member of the G8 does not make you a Great Power. Adding that image into this article implies exactly that. -- Phoenix (talk) 22:40, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Why is a G8 picture unfitting? This meeting is the most prominent regular summit of great powers. Its a no nobrainer. I don´t want to put in to much heat here, but this pcture does make sense, so I reverted it. KJohansson (talk) 10:50, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

It is unfitting because not all the G8 participants are great powers. You call it a no brainer but you have not addressed the objections. PLease do not reinstate again without consensus. Viewfinder (talk) 13:18, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

@Viewfinder and others: I suggest recognizing the unnumerable sources describing the G8 summits as Great power forum. Right now the article transports the message that only a seat in the UN security council and its implications stand for great power status. This is insufficient and wrong. The introduction claims several spheres of influence, the first mentioned is Economy ! The G8 image perfectly transports this message. Even more important; the caption explicitely does NOT claim great power status but economic status, which accurately describes the situation. In combination WITH the UN image it clarifies the power dimension visually. Lear 21 (talk) 13:01, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Then why not the G20, which includes India and Brazil, let alone China, and becoming more important than the G8? Stop using block capitals, which are the written equivalent of shouting down those who disagree with you, and stop reinstating contested edits until you get consensus. Viewfinder (talk) 14:52, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

@Viewfinder: Because G20 has not been cited as forum of Great powers. Plus, you start contradicting yourself. On one hand you are asking to favour future formats (G20) which haven´t built reputations or have been backed by sources. On the other (see topic above) you and others defy any current reality and available sources of the recent past. This is contrary to any serious referencing methods at Wikipedia. The concusion of your argumentation is simple: 1. No change of the article at every cost. 2. No acceptance of reliable expert sources. Shaky and arbitrarily change of viewpoints. I suggest you and other tackle the first 50 sources that have been provided citing the G8 as great powers, then we discuss again. Until that, the image remains. Lear 21 (talk) 15:17, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

G8 is history. Officially replaced by G20.G8's history, G20 to call the shots now, Global Economic Forum to Expand Permanently Bcs09 (talk) 14:12, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Let discuss this by providing reliable sources instead of engaging in a never-ending disagreement. Any further unilateral edits and we will have to ask for article protection and a potential block of disruptive editors. Nirvana888 (talk) 16:13, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean, Nirvana ? Weren´t there plenty of sources ? I found the claim that G8 is not a place for major powers so unbelievable that I´m almost speechless. I don´t want to be personal, but I think this is so ridiculous that I don´t even to discuss such stupidity. In the light of endless sources even more so. You don´t have to be an expert to judge the G8. As someone argued before, the written text under the picture does not point out the term great power. This picture very useful. The article before was not up to date. KJohansson (talk) 22:02, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Credible references citing the G7/8 summit as gathering of great powers:

Academic evidence:

1.It explains how a group of great powers—the G-7—replaced the US as the hegemon

not published

2. 'Leading in the Concert of Great Powers: Lessons from Russia's G8 Chairmanship

Clearly says it's from the Russian perspective

3. The Great Powers in Denver The G-7 powers became the G-8 in Denver in summer 1997

only mentioned "G8 great powers" in that context without describing what the qualifications are for a great power

4. the great powers now have a club of their own—the so-called G-8,

Not an academic peer-reviewed publication or book

5. ...were under any illusions, after the previous twelve years, that the UN could cope without major support in many forms from the G8 great powers...

only mentioned "G8 great powers" in that context without describing what the qualifications are for a great power

Media evidence:

• All irrelevant since not academic Nirvana888 (talk) 16:48, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

1. Great powers' summit targets 15-billion-dollar farm support

2. What if the great powers held a summit and no one cared?

3. group of powerful states possessed with great powers of decision-making

4. Risto Penttila, a Finnish security expert, calls the G-8 a "concert" of great powers

5. The assembly of the eight great powers

6. representatives of the world's "Great Powers", the so-called G8

7. reading the impassioned press releases of the "great powers

Lear 21 (talk) 14:12, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Extra comment: This article is rated B-class a mediocre status. By now the majority of references are not academic or can´t be read. The vast majority of Wikipedia articles include credible sources outside of academic reputation. The given G8 references here match or supersede the quality standards at this article. Lear 21 (talk) 20:24, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Seems pretty reliable (the list of sources). The G8 pic is without a doubt enhacing the quality here. The understanding of great powers in the last 30 years will become tangible. KJohansson (talk) 22:43, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

 Confirmed that KJohansson and Lear21 are the same editor and have been given a long term block. -- Phoenix (talk) 23:14, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

2. proposal

Inserting the G8 image in top position under the UN image, or, as replacement for the map of great powers in the section "Aftermath of the Cold War". A division of great powers in economic and UN security council members is outdated, inaccurate and insufficiently focuses on security measures as a factor of great power status. Lear 21 (talk) 12:37, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Please answer this directly this time. Are you saying that Italy and Canada are Great Powers? Are you saying China is not a Great Power? Having a permanent seat in the United Nations Security Council has many references to being a Great Power including the UN charter. -- Phoenix (talk) 15:24, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I argue that the G7/8 next to UN security council was the premier forum for great powers (6 out of 8) in the world for over 30 years. Because this has been proven by references AND common knowledge it seems to be useful to add an image at this article. The caption of the image should not mention the "great power" term in order to avoid misinterpretations concerning the status of Canada and Italy. Lear 21 (talk) 20:58, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Based on the views of at least several long-term editors of this article, we are not doubting that the G8 contains great powers. What we are saying is that the G8 is not a group of "great powers" unlike the P5. There is a distinct difference between those two cases. By adding the image, one would imply that all G8 members are great powers. Moroever, you will notice that the G8 is not found anywhere in the article prose thus already inappropriate on that basis. There are reliable sources which suggest that the P5 was created as a group of great powers. To this day, the P5 still are still the five most influential powers in the world in areas such as diplomacy and military and are thus accorded unique recognition. Moreover, you cannot add something that is "based" on common knowledge as that would be original research. Everything in this article should be backed up by reliable sources. Nirvana888 (talk) 21:47, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the G8 IS a group of Great powers, 3/4 of it. Thats more than enough relevance. No, the UN SC 5 are not anymore the only Great powers, as simply stated in the list. No, China was not even considered a complete Great power before 1995 even as a member of UN SC because. The lack of presence of the G8 only demonstrates how outdated and insufficiently this article is constructed. If there are no serious complaints, I´m going to add this significant content to the article tommorrow. Lear 21 (talk) 22:22, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

There IS a serious complaint among Pheonix, myself and most editors here. Please do not make unilateral changes again to this page. Your statements show a disarming desire at trying to push your own POV. To clarify and reiterate again, the P5 is a group of great powers (See sources in the article). The G8 is not because reliable source stating that it is a group of "great powers" has not been provided. China was considered a great power in 1945 as you can see from the list. You seem to feel you are right based on "common knowledge". Unfortunately reliable sources instead of common knowledge guide editing policies here. Nirvana888 (talk) 22:35, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I oppose any major additions or changes to this article without agreement being reached here first, especially on this matter of the G8 or Europe which has been gone over for days and was the cause of the lock for edit warring. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:39, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Lear, please can you supply your content addition here before you consider adding it to the article. Then perhaps we can find some content about which we can agree. Viewfinder (talk) 04:59, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Here is the G8 pic.

Economic influence and status is displayed at G8 summits (Heiligendamm, Germany)

I fully support the picture in this article. I´m still shocked about the ignorance here. Even more shocked I am by the blunt ongoing promotion of the stupidity. The article cites several conferences in history where great powers gathered. The G8 is an institution for more than 30 years now. The massive amount of references are credible. I just googled "major powers" AND "G8" the list of sources there are endless and credible as well. Sorry to say, but the discussion against this image is absolute baseless. I suggest, that the opposite site now has to proof that the G8 is explicitly NOT a forum of Great powers. Otherwise the given sources should be taken as credible. KJohansson (talk) 11:35, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I´m still shocked about the ignorance here. Even more shocked I am by the blunt ongoing promotion of the stupidity Wow Calm down. That is uncalled for and not helping ANYTHING. Please re-read WP:Civility and WP:Assume good faith.

Lets be clear here. No one is saying that there are not Great Powers in the G8... Can we all agree on that. What is in Dispute is if being a member of the G8 makes you a Great Power. If that is true then we are having the discussion about the inclusion of Italy and Canada to the Great Power article.

If your argument is the inclusion of the G8 because there are Great Powers in an international organization even if other countries in the organization are not Great Powers then we have another problem. NATO is a great example. It includes all the Great Powers save for China and Russia. What about the WTO??? Just like the G8 it's only missing one Great Power, Russia. Realistically the G8 has as much to do with Great Powers as NAFTA, APEC, the World Bank, the IMF or for that matter the G20 does.

The argument is broken down into a few parts:

• There ARE great powers in the G8.
• There ARE countries included that are NOT great powers in the G8.
• The G8 does NOT include all the Great Powers.
• There are many international organizations that include Great Powers.
• The picture does not represent the current or past Great Powers.

Because of these reasons the picture brings little to the article since it is not representative of the Great Powers; thus it should not be included in the Great Power article. -- Phoenix (talk) 12:26, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

It is not decisive that every image displays ALL so called great powers. The UN SC image does not include Japan & Germany either. The significant value of the G8 image for this article is that it ADDS content about where the economic powerful states used to gather in an institionalized summit. The introduction claims economic power FIRST as a factor of great power status. This is visualized by the G8 image. AGAIN, the caption does not even claims great power status (although it has been proven by references). KJohansson made an interesting point by demanding sources that proof the G8 are not a Great power forum. Lear 21 (talk) 11:54, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

By there being Great Powers in the G8 that makes it hard. what we would need would be an academic source that says that if you are in the G7/8 you ARE a Great Power. I know of no such document. There are MANY sources that say that if you are a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council you ARE a Great Power. If economy was the primary reason for a country to be a Great Power then we have another problem... Italy has a higher GDP than Russia and it is not considered a Great Power, or even a potential superpower! Heck if you check the GDP per capita we would prove that Luxembourg is the Greatest Superpower around.... But as we know economy alone does not make one a Great Power, and the G8 is only about those countries economies.

So you admit that the G8 does not represent the past or present Great Powers & it really only displays content relevant to another article... So I think its clear that that image is not relevant to this article.

p.s. I Googled "Great Powers" G8 and I got 18,500 hits

I also Googled "Great Powers" NATO and I got 170,000 hits.... Did I just prove that the members of NATO are Great Powers??? I think not... -- Phoenix (talk) 05:15, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

@Phoenix: It seems that you have not yet understood the purpose of an encyclopedia or an article or the purpose of images in an article. This article, "Great power", describes the term, the measures (though insufficiently) and the historic develepoments of great powers as nations or empires or states. Your frequently repeated rationale to include only the image of the UNSC to demonstrate the contemporary era is naive, incomplete and does not address the introduction either. The introduction claims a comprehensive set of power dimensions. One of the dimension is visualized by the G8 image. Lear 21 (talk) 13:45, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

That is your opinion... Ok lets restate this, I will cut and past a past message (edited down a bit though):

Wikipedia:No original research : We are not here to Create our own opinions and post it on Wikipedia, it is actually officially banned

Synthesis of published material which advances a position : we must also avoid creating our own conclusions by doing research here and drawing our own conclusions from them

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball : We should also not post opinions about what may happen in the future, because one can never know what tomorrow brings

We should only use Academic accredited sources that we can cite via Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability.

Ok now that we have this said that your previous statement violates all three of those main points especially WP:OR & WP:SYN. The reason that the UNSC is included is simple, multiple academic sources state exactly this.

Please lets be clear on this what academic source says that you are a Great Power if you are in the G8?????? -- Phoenix (talk) 05:36, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

New perspectives on global governance: why America needs the G8, page 40 [6]

I searched through this text, it talks about the Great Powers in the G8, even talks about the Great Powers in the UNSC... but it does not say that one is a Great Power if they are in the G8. It only makes sense again is someone here trying to say that Canada is a Great Power??? -- Phoenix (talk) 19:27, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Bailin, Alison. "Explaining G8 Effectiveness: The Model of Group Hegemony" [7], this is now the second time this ref has been presented. There are a manifold of others which have been already provided. I think this discussion can be considered finished by now. The evidence is overwhelming and credible. Lear 21 (talk) 12:00, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

There is a problem with this, its an unpublished document. We have no clue what it actually says. You cant really use a source if you can never read it :-( Your belief that this is overwhelming is just not true and for good reason. No one is saying that members of the G8 are Great Powers. But people have said many times that members of the Congress of Vienna and the UNSC are Great Powers. Source you dont believe me about the Congress of Vienna, please read that article and come back to us... please. -- Phoenix (talk) 19:27, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I also think the time for reflection has come to an end now. The opposition has no arguments anymore apart from hypocritical chitchat. Why should there be a problem with the sources, 79Phoenix? Half of the sources at the article can´t be read. I have noticed your (and Nirvanas) reverts in an other issue, where Lear21 tried to removed non reliable sources. You and Nirvana have exposed dishonest intentions and contradictionary arguing. You claim academic sources (G8 pic) and at the same time you keep old non academic sources. I insert therefore the G8 pic again. I´m looking forward for any neutral arbitration process. KJohansson (talk) 10:58, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Kindly refrain from hot-headed accusations and stop being disruptive. If you unable to discuss issues in a civil way then I suggest you take a break from this article. Nirvana888 (talk) 17:21, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Umh if you would check the revert you would see that it was because they were links to quotes [8]. And Nirvana noticed that I reverted something that should not have been re-introduced [9] and actually said this source is not academic and does not discuss great power status. So please don't say things that are just untrue. -- Phoenix (talk) 02:24, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

The discussion about the G8 image has come to an end. Several high quality references provide an academic evidence, that the G8 summit is a forum for contemporary great powers. Editors who previously took an opposite stance have not proofed the contrary. From my point of view the case is closed. all the best Lear 21 (talk) 20:22, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

The discussion has certainly not ended and you have no right to try to close it in the above manner, and there will never be consensus so long as the personal attacks that I have been reading on this page continue. You cannot list both EU and some of its member states as Great Powers because you cannot have Great Powers within a Great Power. Viewfinder (talk) 21:22, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

@Viewfinder: The reality, the academics and therefore the references proof that both opinions exist at the same time. The reality that single nation states wield power AND the EU as political union. This is acknowledged by international organizations such as the IMF and finds most evidently its reality in the G8 summit where at the same time the EU and nation states are represented. This reality has to be mirrored here as well. Lear 21 (talk) 21:47, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Right now I am very upset about the personal attacks and incivility that I have been reading on this page. Therefore I would prefer to wait until tomorrow before responding. Viewfinder (talk) 21:54, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

You have reverted several content extensions backed by a number of academic references at the article Great power. The references have been laid out at the discussion and are not answered by your account. You recent reverts are disruptive editing and violate Wikipedia policy. This is a first warning. Do not revert multiple, scientifical backed additions without discussing. Lear 21 (talk) 21:22, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect you will continue to be reverted so long as the personal attacks from you and Johnansson continue and you continue to unilaterally impose material without consensus. The best course would be for you to start dispute resolution proceedings. Viewfinder

This was a neutral warning and a reminder of official Wikipedia policies. The content which has been added has been backed at different times by 4 editors. The content was also backed by several high quality references and academics. Your account and others have cited not one credible academic to proof the opposite. This is a neutral assessment of the reality. Lear 21 (talk) 21:39, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect the content that you are adding has been supported by one other current editor and opposed by four current editors (BritishWatcher, Nirvana, Phoenix and myself). I will not reconsider my position so long as the personal attacks by you and Johansson and your attempts to close discussions without consensus continue. Viewfinder (talk) 21:45, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

You are fantasizing, I have not conducted any personal attacks. Its an illusion of your mind. And honestly, Wikipedia in my eyes is a place of arguments, facts, reality and reliable sources and not not a place of personal vanity. I can fully understand KJohansson who seems fed up by the massive ignorance of the fundamentalist deniers of reality. If imagined personal attacks are the only arguments you have to justify your reverts, than goodnight Wikipedia. Lear 21 (talk) 22:31, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

It is not helpful to accuse other editors of "massive ignorance" and a real lack of competence, and it is surely not helpful to try to steamroll discussions before allowing other editors time to respond to your positions. And the personal attacks by Johansson (example) were definitely not imagined. Viewfinder (talk) 22:56, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

If there is somebody who feels still attacked, I´m sorry. With sugar on the top. KJohansson (talk) 11:21, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

 Confirmed that KJohansson and Lear21 are the same editor and have been given a long term block. -- Phoenix (talk) 23:14, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

2. proposal - Arbitrary section break - Part I

The G8 image needs to be included as useful addition in order to enhance the understanding of the economic power dimension. It is in line with images like the Congres of Vienna where several participants are visualized which at the time where not recognized great powers. Lear 21 (talk) 21:59, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

The Congress of Vienna image is a historical image and the leading participants subsequently became known as the Great Powers. And yet again you are annoying other editors reinstating material into the article without consensus. So long as you continue to breach Wikipedia policies in this manner, you will not be taken seriously and there will never be consensus. Viewfinder (talk) 22:20, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

You cannot argue FOR the Congress of Vienna pic while claiming SOME Great powers are participating, while at the same time arguing the G8 pic are not 100% acknowledged Great power. Don´t you see this contradiction ? The point is, that the G8 like the Congress gathering major powers in the specific historical context. Either the G8 is going to be introduced or the Congress image is going to be removed, very simple. KJohansson (talk) 14:29, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I see no contradiction because the five main participants at Vienna became the five Great Powers listed in the article. The eight G8 participants are not all great powers, and China, which is generally acknowledged to be a Great Power, is not in the G8. Viewfinder (talk) 17:47, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I will attempt to answer your question..... again...

There is a huge difference between the Congress of Vienna and the G8

1) There are many academic sources that state as much. And we have provided only a few of the links for you to research this yourself.

2) The Congress of Vienna article a page that to my recollection I have never edited before has even more academic sources backing up this very point Though it would be silly to list them all here.

3) a casual search has brought even more sources backing this up.

4) And most importantly. Its the origin of the term "Great Powers"!!!!! Are you saying that the origins of the term that this article is talking about is irrelevant to the article as a whole???

a) taken from the article - Lord Castlereagh, the British Foreign Secretary, first used the term in its diplomatic context, in a letter sent on February 13, 1814: "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 determination to support the arrangement agreed upon, and to turn the general influence and if necessary the general arms against the Power that shall first attempt to disturb the Continental peace."

the G8 is just like NATO or the WTO when it comes to Great Powers. There are some in both of them. The Congress of Vienna was the origins of the term... and you think that it's not worthy of an image??? -- Phoenix (talk) 06:41, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

 Confirmed that KJohansson and Lear21 are the same editor and have been given a long term block. -- Phoenix (talk) 23:14, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Great Power and Superpower

Hello...There seems to be a lot of misunderstanding in these comments regarding the compatibility of 'superpower' with 'great power'. Insofar as both terms are difficult to define, they probably mean the same thing. After the Napoleonic wars, the term 'Great Power' was used by various commentators to give special emphasis on a new breed of exceptionally powerful European State, most evidently Britain and Russia, who supported the status quo (i.e. were not revolutionary powers). It was a way of reinforcing the legitimacy of the post-war era, and delegitimising revolutionary forces. This term continued well into the twentieth century, until Profs. Spykman and Fox began using the term 'superpower' to refer to an exceptionally powerful and vast State, often with intercontinental military, political and industrial reach. They put Britain, America and Soviet Russia into this category. It therefore becomes very difficult to ascertain precisely whether the two terms are any different. A country like Britain was relatively more powerful when it was at its apex in the mid-late nineteenth century, and could easily have been called a superpower at the time, even though it was 'only' referred to as a great power. My point being that a superpower is automatically a great power, although it is uncertain in current discourse whether a great power is automatically a superpower. In many respects this is a political question, rather than an academic one, as very few people would agree on any particular ranking.

If I were to compile a list based on the current academic literature, I would probably suggest the following:

Superpower: United States, European Union

Major Power: Japan, China, India, Russia, Brazil

Middle Power: Canada, Australia, South Africa, Thailand

Minor Power: All the others

However, I know this would be considered 'original research' and not compatible with Wikipedian policy. But I thought I'd make the point all the same. Imperium Europeum (talk) 12:43, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

With regard to the European Union—which seems the focus of much contention—I would say that the issue seems to relate to the legal status of this entity. Currently, it is not a State, and most literature would demand that this status be met in order for any polity to be described as a superpower or great power. This is very, very important and should not be dismissed readily. Just because the EU can muster immense power to push forward its agenda does not necessarily mean that it is a superpower/great power. However, the EU is itself in a special category of sui generis international actor; not quite a State, but certainly not just another international organisation. It certainly has many State-like capabilities, which will be reinforced quite substantially with the passing of the Treaty of Lisbon (which is almost certain to pass next month). Its ability to project power over distances and on an intercontinental scale is also hard to question; the fifteen-warship strong naval armarda fighting piracy off the West African coast is evidence of that. So, I think the EU can legitimately be placed into the 'superpower/great power' category, perhaps with the qualifier 'sui generis' in front to refer to the fact that it is not legally a proper State. Imperium Europeum (talk) 13:00, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Well argued, indeed. Isn´t the EU getting a legal personality with the Lisbon treaty ? I also think in the current era Brazil and India qualify as major/great power. I´d like to add though, that even with the Lisbon treaty I would see the major national powers of Europe as single powerful actors. France, Germany, UK still act on their own agenda with very powerful diplomatic staff, globally. KJohansson (talk) 20:55, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Seems logic to assume that superpower references equal great power references. It also seems appropriate to accept other terms and recently published media.The Quiet Power of Europe Quote: "Europe, in other words—despite its nature as an often bickering club of nations—has already become a global power." This is the reality. And the current state of the article has to acknowledge that. Lear 21 (talk) 02:34, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

 Confirmed that KJohansson and Lear21 are the same editor and have been given a long term block. -- Phoenix (talk) 23:14, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

G8

It seems Viewfinder could arrange with the idea of placing the G8 pic somewhere in the article. I think this pic is to important to leave it out. The economic power dimension must have a place in this article. KJohansson (talk) 21:33, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I have been cut off from Wikipedia for the last few days by a local internet failure. Where do you want to put the G8 image? Viewfinder (talk) 11:00, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

The G8 image could be placed next the UN SC image, in the "Status dimension" section or the "Aftermath of the Cold War" section. Lear 21 (talk) 14:42, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

If there is no other proposal, I would soon go ahead and place the pic in the status dimension section. KJohansson (talk) 20:57, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I would prefer the place next to the lead image. Lear 21 (talk) 01:17, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I remain opposed to the G8 image considering that not all G8 members are great powers and the inclusion of the image will infer that they are. Moreover, it has been widely stated that the P5 was created specifically for the "great powers" while I cannot find an RS that attests to the same for the G8. Nirvana888 (talk) 02:17, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

The references on the G8 status are convincing and reliable. The article here does not reflect reality nor does it address the theme comprehensively nor does it address its own introduction. This contradicts Wikipedia manual of style. The article has to change and needs an update. Lear 21 (talk) 02:41, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I have not seen a single one. Please show one that says being a member of the G8 makes one a Great Power. Sources have been provided showing such for the 5 permanent members of the Security Council. -- Phoenix (talk) 05:29, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

The references have been provided several times by now. No need for a third or fourth time. The references cite that Great powers gather at G8. The same is said and referenced for the Congress of Vienna meeting, where several non Great powers attended. Go ahead KJohansson, here are three out of 5 editors who back up, the countless refs cannot be denied anymore and the similar quality compared to other historic gatherings is unquestionable. Lear 21 (talk) 01:46, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Your sources prove that there are Great Powers in the G8 not that being in the G8 makes one a Great Power. You challenges me to provide sources citing that being one of the 5 permanent members of the Security Council made one a Great Power and I sourced them for you... If you cant reciprocate then you have no sources that back up your claim... sorry. -- Phoenix (talk) 05:14, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

The G8 is nothing else than a permanent Congress of Vienna in the current era. It gathers (gathered) the most potent economic powers of the current era. Like the Congress it gathered the most significant powers of the time and few lesser powers. The double standards taken in this discussion can´t be justified and are irrational and non-historical. Lear 21 (talk) 15:11, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I still disagree as I have seen no source that says membership makes one a great power. But since others seam to disagree and wish for a representation of modern economic might, I have changed it to the G20 as it has all the Great Powers and has been talked about as an addition before. This way it does not exclude any Great Power and might actually include future Great Powers. But that is the future and we wont really know until it become the past :-P -- Phoenix (talk) 05:15, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Please start a new topic, if changes to this article appear to be necessary. Lear 21 (talk) 22:08, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

 Confirmed that KJohansson and Lear21 are the same editor and have been given a long term block. -- Phoenix (talk) 23:14, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

G8/G20

There has been some disagreement over whether the G8 or G20 images are appropriate. Both sides have their merits and demerits. The G8 and G20 both technically represent economic powers though the former is more exclusive and less representative. Though above all one would ask, why either picture belongs anywhere when there is virtually no mention of either groups in the article itself? I would suggest removing the disputed images if considerable differences arise. Nirvana888 (talk) 22:13, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

You are kidding, right? Only a week or so you voted against G8 because two of the members are not typical full great powers. Now you want an image were 13 members aren not recognized. Give me a break. You continue the untrustworthy argumentation I always suspected. The Viewfinder compromise was pretty good. KJohansson (talk) 01:29, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I won't fault you for your unrefined English language ability if it is not your native language but you should have realized that it was a rhetorical question. That is to say, if the G20 has all the great power is not listed why should the G8 which does not have all the great power be included? Simply put, neither have academic sources that confirm great power status. Nirvana888 (talk) 15:22, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that either one should be listed as there is no academic source that states that links ones Great Power status to the G8. If there was Italy & Canada would be considered one. But if people don't wish to go by academic research I would feel better with the G20 as they consist of all the Great Powers & it shows economic power heavily influenced by the Great Powers with all but Russia being in the top. -- Phoenix (talk) 04:35, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I think that the G8 image can be justified in the status section on the grounds that great economic power has been wielded by the G8 for several decades. This is at least implicitly supported by sources which call the G8 a "conference of Great Powers". How about having both the G8 and G20 images, but with reduced resolutions so as not to take up undue space? Viewfinder (talk) 05:13, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Officials: G-20 to supplant G-8 as international economic council Leaders of the G-20 economic summit will announce Friday that the group will become the new permanent council for international economic cooperation, senior U.S. officials told CNN Thursday. The move comes in the wake of a major push by President Obama, the officials said. The G-20 will now essentially eclipse the G-8, which will continue to meet on major security issues but carry much less influence. "It's a reflection of the world economy today and the players that make it up," said one senior official. Nations like China, Brazil and India -- which were locked out of the more elite G-8 -- will be part of the larger group. The Group of 20 -- leaders of 20 countries representing 90 percent of the world's economic output -- are meeting in Pittsburgh for a two-day summit, focusing on the financial crisis and how to avoid a future repeat. The gathering is Obama's first time hosting a major international summit... -- Phoenix (talk) 06:49, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Helpful passage, thanks Phoenix. Although the article is about both the past and the present, and for about 40 years the G8 were the economic power, it indicates that the G8 is no longer a great economic power. Viewfinder (talk) 10:07, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I want to point out that in no place does it talk about Great Powers. It only states that the G8 is no longer the centre of power & attention, that is now the G20. -- Phoenix (talk) 12:06, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The G8 has become an almost historically relevant image. The references have been given (group hegemony) to underline it´s position. Even more important, the G8 covered all issues of global governance whereas the G20 deals truly only with economic issues. @phoenix: right now your standpoint cannot be identified, your arguing for the G20 and or the removal of G8 at the same time. It contradicts itself. Lear 21 (talk) 14:24, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

As has been repeated stated, the UNSC and Congress of Vienna are discussed in the article as important to the term "great power" hence why there is an image. The G8/G20 are not discussed in the article despite whether you think they constitute group of great powers so they should not be included. Frankly, this asinine back and forth discussion has run its course and we really should move on. Nirvana888 (talk) 15:06, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Lear 21 it is simple. Please provide academic sources backing your claim. You challenged me to do so with the Congress of Vienna and I provided them to you. You did the same with the Permanent members of the UN security council and I did so. So I now challenge you to do the same. How about this, is there a subgroup within the G8 that is only allowed for countries considered Great Powers like the UNSC P5?Please provide these sources or this article is going to make claims that are just not viable.... How about this, is there a photo containing only countries considered Great Powers when the photo was taken? That would be Great to find. -- Phoenix (talk) 21:40, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

An article has to address its scope laid out in the introducion. The introduction claims several power dimensions of which at least to are not mentioned or addressed in the article. It seems ther is still a misunderstanding of how an article works in Wikipedia. A simple example: Does has an article about the UN have to show all members at all images ? Does an article about apple (the fruit) has to display apples and only apples in order to illustrate a subject ? Of course not ! The article here has to explain the term great power in a comprehensive manner. Right now it is not more than a list of great powers plus few images mostly concentrating on few occasions in history. Where are, for example, images of the axis powers during the WW2, namely Germany, Itlay, Japan ? Where are they. This article here lacks a massive amount information. The G8 image will overcome at least the defiencies in terms of economic great/major power dimensions. Lear 21 (talk) 01:38, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Does [an] article about the UN have to show all members at all images Well if you don't think an article about the UN doesn't have to show images... Then why do you think that this article needs to have an image about a different subject? -- Phoenix (talk) 02:21, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Its pretty exhausting to talk to people who neither are able to read or to comprehend. I almost come to the conclusion that Phoenix just doesn´t have the intelligence to understand what pictures like the G8 can transport. Whatever. KJohansson (talk) 13:21, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

KJohansson, what did we say about personal attacks? They are not tolerated here. You have repeatedly been incivil towards other editors and your flippant remark of "Phoenix just doesn´t have the intelligence to understand" is offensive. Since you have proven yourself incapable of being civil and heeding good-faith warnings there is no use responding to your replies. We should ignore such editors in the future.Nirvana888 (talk) 13:44, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Was that a new argument? 92.225.150.45 (talk) 17:56, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I completely agree with the above contribution from Nirvana. If it were up to me, editors like KJohansson would be given indefinite blocks, reversible only on apologetic application. Viewfinder (talk) 06:02, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Could I suggest that we add something like this to the text of the status section: For several decades, the G8 was considered to be a Great Powers' conference (Lear's references), although not all Great Powers were included and not all participants were considered to be Great Powers. Recently the G8 has been eclipsed by the G20 (Officials: G-20 to supplant G-8 as international economic council), which includes all the Great Powers and several middle powers. The G20 image would then fit. I think we can adequately reference this, and it seems that it would end the on-going edit conflict. But please don't add this to the article until Phoenix and Nirvana have responded. Viewfinder (talk) 14:34, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

@Viewfinder: The compromise attempts are truly appreciated. The G8 image though has the unique advantage of representing a concert of economic great powers (economic dimension) discussing all global issues. The G20 is rather a meeting of several national economies deciding on economic issues. Considering the actions and argumentations of the 2 Wikipedia accounts Nirvana888 and Phoenix79 I have come to the conclusion to seen below. all the best Lear 21 (talk) 15:02, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm all for reaching an agreement but we cannot do so by edit warring and pushing a POV. Disputes are only resolved after sometimes lengthy discussion. I think a ground rule should be patient and keep a cool head. Personally, I don't think either G8/G20 belong since no academic literature supporting great power status and those groups have been provided. I don't particularly like the CNN source since media reports are often not authoritative. But I am willing to work out a compromise and Viewfinder's proposal is a good first step.Nirvana888 (talk) 15:23, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

ref1[10]

Source does not talk about "Great Powers" it says that in 1976 (the G7) included democratic Canada as a new major power in the world Are you saying that Major Power = Great Power?? If so then there are about 30 other countries that should be included in this article... -- Phoenix (talk) 09:01, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

ref2[11],

Great Source... for the G8 article. I liked the read but it is not about Great Powers... Please add to the G8 article where it belongs. -- Phoenix (talk) 09:01, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

ref3[12],

Another source that talks about the G8 but not one mention about the topic of this article Great power Please find sources about Great power not G8 -- Phoenix (talk) 09:01, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

ref4[13]

While annoying that you actually cant read the entire article this again is about G8 another academic topic that is separate from Great powers -- Phoenix (talk) 09:01, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

ref5[14]

You specifically searched for "G8" "MAJOR powers" I know that English is not your primary language. Not a diss in the least I wish that I was as proficient at German as you are at English. But there is a difference. Major Powers are not Great Powers but are any country ranging from Middle power Great power to Superpower. This is specific about Great powers, the middle of the three. There is only one mention of great powers in this book and it is not in reference to the G8 but the decline of public health in great powers after WWII. -- Phoenix (talk) 09:01, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

ref6[15]

Interesting Read. Nothing about Great Powers of course. But it says things like The G8 is seen mostly as a club of the rich North, predominantly concerned with its interests and values. But as the article states and goes on to prove the G8 is a logical consequence of complex interdependence and multipolarity in a world polity still dominated by nation-states. This is article shows that the G8 has nothing to do with the Great Powers. Thanks :-) -- Phoenix (talk) 09:01, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

ref7[16]

Yet again not a single word about Great Powers. It talks about the evolution of the G7 into the G8 and what it should become in the future. -- Phoenix (talk) 09:01, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

ref8[17]

This is the ONLY article that actually mentions the Great powers in any meaningful sense. Its conclusions are that the G7 - G8 shape(ed) great power interaction in contrast to most international institutions that govern specific issue-areas and facilitates great power collaboration and that in the end the great powers cooperated to support the US-created Western order. This article needs to be reviewed more closely but is it saying that Italy and Canada are Great Powers? Is it saying that the G7-G8 was used as a vessel for the France UK & US to communicate at first (Germany and Japan were not Great Powers in the 70's) and later allow them to also drive the conversation... Please others read this and lets try to figure out if this source is sufficient. -- Phoenix (talk) 09:01, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

"shape great power interaction...collaboration" does not intimate the G8 being a group of great powers. In other world, the author's thesis is that the G7 was in important institution for the great powers when it was create. Lear 21, I know you are trying to push your POV but mindlessly googling g8 and pasting the first few links here won't suffice. Look we are not here to say whether the G7/8 was important or not. It clearly was significant for some time after it was created. But does it represent a group of great powers as it is defined in this article? The answer would tend to be no. Else, one would be apt to adding countless other images such as G20, NATO, WTO, IMF, World Bank etc etc as it is reasonable to suggest that they also influenced great power interaction. Nirvana888 (talk) 12:41, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

ref9[18]

Wow out of the 9 you provided this is the only other one that talks about Great powers. But it seams to be talking about the Great powers within the G8 this analysis shows that actors well beyond the G8's great power governments are not only increasingly involved and influential at the global level but also work together with one another and with G8 governments to produce better globel governance as a result. A point that I have made before -- Phoenix (talk) 09:01, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Lear 21 (talk) 22:15, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

 Confirmed that KJohansson and Lear21 are the same editor and have been given a long term block. -- Phoenix (talk) 23:14, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Conclusion

1. Evidence has been provided to support the view that claims in the introduction of this article are not sufficiently addressed and would be improved/updated by the inclusion, the mentioning, due to an image of the G8. It has been rejected by the accounts Nirvana888 and Phoenix79 without counter arguments

Really??? Have you ever checked the talk page before? Each one has been countered 16:48, 10 October 2009 Nirvana888 19:27, 17 October 2009 Phoenix79 and from what I can tell those two times are the only time that you have posted sources, aside from the one that I have just now replied to! -- Phoenix (talk) 09:01, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

2. Credible evidence to justify G8 inclusion, has been rejected by the accounts Nirvana888 and Phoenix79

WP:BURDEN is upon you and up until now you have provided sources that violate WP:OR WP:SYN and are about other subjects entirely. -- Phoenix (talk) 09:01, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

3. Majority consensus by three editors has been rejected by the accounts Nirvana888 and Phoenix79 without counter arguments

Wrong Two editors agree (yourself and KJohansson) two editors disagree and one editor is trying to work at a compromise (Viewfinder). There is a distinct difference. -- Phoenix (talk) 09:01, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

4. Comparable articles layout such as superpower as model for visual representation have been rejected by the accounts Nirvana888 and Phoenix79 without counter arguments

This article is about Great Powers not Superpowers... If you have images containing ,modern Great powers together please provide them. The Special Relationship article does not show the G8 in it even though both the UK & the US are in the G8... It just does not make sense. -- Phoenix (talk) 09:01, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

5. Several compromise attempts have been rejected by the accounts Nirvana888 and Phoenix79 without counter arguments or alternative proposals

See post 1. Alternative proposal has been given before but you rejected both. -- Phoenix (talk) 09:01, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

6. Inconsistent and arbitrary argumentation, sometimes pro image, sometimes contra G8 on a varying base of standpoints have been conducted by the without answering

Consistent. Your referring to your Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point tactic, saying that if the G8 cannot be included then the academically sourced images of the Congress of Vienna and UN Security Council needed to be removed also. Very uncool. (Talk:Great power/Archive 11#Image Congress of Vienna Talk:Great power#2. proposal - Arbitrary section break - Part I Talk:Great power#G8 Talk:Great power#G8 image Talk:Great power#Outdated and insufficient article) Talk about answering your charges... Damn we have spent the last few months doing that! -- Phoenix (talk) 09:01, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

This leads to the following conclusion, the edits of the mentioned 2 accounts have prevented this article from being updated on a factbased, rationale argumention which would be in line with all Wikipedia policies and even more important would be in line the introduction the article itself.

The two accounts violating several policies and Manual of style recommendations of Wikipedia and can be considered disruptive. These actions seem unlikely to change because of fundamentalist opposition. User Lear 21 will ensure therefore a constant update on this article in the upcoming months and asks all responsible editors to do so as well. Lear 21 (talk) 14:56, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

To be quite frank, your account of what has happened is only true in your head. There can be also very strong statements made about your continuing to edit war and push a POV. I suggest you cool down and try to resolve this by discussion not unilateral edits. Remember disputes are not settled after you think you are right or after you leave a message on the talk but after consensus is reached. Nirvana888 (talk) 15:19, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

The changes are not unilateral, instead the changes are backed by majority, backed by endless references, backed by common sense, backed by flexible argumentation and proposals. Because all possible attempts have been initiated to convince the accounts Nirvana888 and Phoenix79 a change of mind is not likely. Lear 21 (talk) 15:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Lear, please could you reproduce specific passages from the above references which, in your opinion, support your claim that the G8/G20 are relevant to this article. I realise that you may have done this already in earlier discussion, but some of us are still not convinced. That the G8 membership does not accurately match our list of Great Powers today does not necessarily render the G8 irrelevant. Viewfinder (talk) 08:40, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

In the context of this article, all of these references support the thesis of a global governance conducted by the major/leading/great/decicive/economic/industrial powers of the time from 1975-2007.Lear 21 (talk) 11:09, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

A vague answer. Please supply specific passages in support of your case instead of pushing your case in the article; this unilateral edit, which put the G8 image right at the top of the article, was not helpful and I too would have reverted it. Come to think if it, I would have reverted you even if you had restored the G8 image to the status section because you have not supplied the material requested. Viewfinder (talk) 12:43, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Give it up Lear, these guys piss at your ref and laugh their ass off. You could bring 100 sources written by Nobleprize winners talking about the G8 as a concert of great powers, they would reject it. You could proof 1 + 1 = 2 , they would reject it. These guys don´t even understand how to handle pictures including a caption. The only way is to put the pic in on a regular basis. KJohansson (talk) 18:24, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

 Confirmed that KJohansson and Lear21 are the same editor and have been given a long term block. -- Phoenix (talk) 23:14, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Cultural dimension is missing

The introduction claims a cultural impact as a hallmark of a Great power. This is not addressed in the article. Lear 21 (talk) 16:00, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

We are going round in circles this argument has already been stated. If you are not a WP:Troll, please do not create multiple topics that will only lead to a rehash of a previous discussion. Future occurrences will be re-factored or removed. Frankly, we've been very patient with your disruptive behavior. I am a little surprised you've not been given a long-term block already. I think the best course of action is not to get embroiled with this further. Request third party mediation if you feel like you have a strong point. Nirvana888 (talk) 12:49, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

The problem has been solved. The unreferenced claims form intro are removed. Therefore the need to establish a culture section is dissolved. all the best Lear 21 (talk) 21:33, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

 Confirmed that KJohansson and Lear21 are the same editor and have been given a long term block. -- Phoenix (talk) 23:14, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Economic dimension is missing

The introduction claims an economic impact as a hallmark of a Great power. This is not addressed in the article. Lear 21 (talk) 16:00, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Round in circles. Nirvana888 (talk) 12:49, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

The problem has been solved. The unreferenced claims form intro are removed. Therefore the need to establish a culture section is dissolved. all the best Lear 21 (talk) 21:33, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

 Confirmed that KJohansson and Lear21 are the same editor and have been given a long term block. -- Phoenix (talk) 23:14, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The EU is missing

The European Union is often cited as global power, emerging superpower, major power, influential power, economic superpower. Yet the article does not recognize this status in an updated manner. Lear 21 (talk) 16:07, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Round in circles. Nirvana888 (talk) 12:49, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Brazil?

Brazil takes off The Economist. Felipe Menegaz 16:30, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

No Brazil is not a great power. It has no permanent UN Security Council seat and is not on the G8. It is a major middle power. If a country truely is a great power then other countries will ackowledge that power and accept it into various great power exclusive groups such as the the UN Security Council or G8, hence a part of being a great power is wielding such influence as to get such acknowledgement and membership.

A large number of countries support the inclusion of Brazil in the UN Security Council and is a member of the G8+5 and the G20, that will surpass the G8. Lots of leaders called Brazil a great power on various subjects such as Economy and Diplomacy. New military contracts will transform Brazil into a military power too. I think we need consider Brazil as an emerging great power at least. Felipe Menegaz 20:42, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

You're right, Brazil is an emerging great power but it needs to have become a great power before it can be added. Bambuway (talk) 21:21, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Why? We could create an article like Potential superpowers, or even a section on this article, including Brazil and India. Felipe Menegaz 23:35, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Before he left, Deavenger was working on two things:

A potential Great Powers article, and also the transformation of the Potential Superpowers article into a more generic 'rising powers' article. He was also interested in reconstructing the Potential article to highlight the history of them, just like how on here we have the history of Great Power classification and on the Superpower article we talk about how they were classified and their political history Comics (talk) 05:23, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

This argument has already been articulated earlier in the archives. Please read the discussion. I am contemplating writing an FAQ at the top of the page to avoid having repetitive discussion come up every so often. Both Brazil and India are considered potential great powers in the future. The consensus was they not not be listed until/if they become acknowledged great powers. Nirvana888 (talk) 22:30, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

So, can I request the deletion of Potential superpowers? Felipe Menegaz 22:32, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Nirvana888 that a country must already be recognised as a great power before it can be added to this article. I would like to clarify to editors who keep suggesting various countries to be listed as great powers. The most widely regarded recognition of a nation being a great power is it holding a permanent United Nations Security Council seat because all permanent members of the Security Council are given the power to veto (block) resolutions, which the UN calls "Great Power Unanimity", therefore the UN recognises these permanent members of the Security Council as great powers, and subsequently so do the 192 members states who accepted this when they signed and joined the UN. And as the UN is the main body of international politics this is seen as the highest official recognition of a country being a great power. To add countries to this article claiming them to be great powers without such recognitions would open the flood gates to various claims of nations being great powers for various reasons even though they hadn't been recognised as such and before we knew it obviously non-great power countries would be being added for various reasons. If a nation is indeed a great power it will wield sufficient power to get itself such recognition as a permanent UN Security Council seat. Until then it's likely to be a middle power. I agree Brazil is emerging from middle power to great power and may become recognised as a great power at some time but statistics about population and GDP won't get it listed, it needs recognition as a great power. Bambuway (talk) 23:01, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

India is a great power

Close per WP:NOT#FORUM
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I am very surprised that the article does not list India as among great powers. If China is counted as one, so must India. India has many things that support her status as a great power: It is the world's largest democracy. It has the world's largest middle class. The demographic dividend means that India has a largely young working population. India has the brain power. Many NASA scientists, doctors, researchers are of Indians. India's IT industry is the second most powerful after the U.S. India's economic growth rate is the second highest in the world. India is already the 4th largest economy in the world. India has nuclear weapons and missiles to deliver them. India has the most powerful navy in Asia. It has nuclear submarines and three aircraft carriors. Culturally, India is becoming more influential. Bollywood films are very popular around the world. India's increasing improtant is recongized by all. Even the U.S. has signed a nuclear deal with India. India is on track to be a superpower by 2020. Many many people list India and China together and even use the term Chindia. I am very puzzled why this article does not list India as a great power. V.Chowla (talk) 21:55, 14 November 2009 (UTC) See talk archive. It has the potential to be a great power this century. Nirvana888 (talk) 22:03, 14 November 2009 (UTC) That is not what I mean. India is already a great power. By any measure, India is a very powerful country. It qualifies as a great power. V.Chowla (talk) 22:10, 14 November 2009 (UTC) As I stated, India is not usually seen as a great power by scholars but one that has the potential to be one. Read the talk archives on the previous discussion and consensus. Nirvana888 (talk) 22:14, 14 November 2009 (UTC) I agree with Nirvana888 that a country must already be recognised as a great power before it can be added to this article. I would like to clarify to editors who keep suggesting various countries to be listed as great powers. The most widely regarded recognition of a nation being a great power is it holding a permanent United Nations Security Council seat because all permanent members of the Security Council are given the power to veto (block) resolutions, which the UN calls "Great Power Unanimity", therefore the UN recognises these permanent members of the Security Council as great powers, and subsequently so do the 192 members states who accepted this when they signed and joined the UN. And as the UN is the main body of international politics this is seen as the highest official recognition of a country being a great power. To add countries to this article claiming them to be great powers without such recognitions would open the flood gates to various claims of nations being great powers for various reasons even though they hadn't been recognised as such and before we knew it obviously non-great power countries would be being added for various reasons. If a nation is indeed a great power it will wield sufficient power to get itself such recognition as a permanent UN Security Council seat. Until then it's likely to be a middle power. Bambuway (talk) 23:02, 14 November 2009 (UTC) How can India not be a great power? It is as obvious as day that India is. Many use the term Chindia, stating these two countries are both powerful. If China is listed, then why not India? V.Chowla (talk) 23:08, 14 November 2009 (UTC) Also, all the old disussions are before the financial collapse of Europe and America. India's position is stronger than before the crisis. V.Chowla (talk) 23:08, 14 November 2009 (UTC) UN security consil is not a good measure for great power. The membership has stayed the same because the 5 countries want to monopolize power and exclude countries that are real great powers. India made a bid to join the consil and received support from many countries, but the 5 powers stopped it because they want to keep the power to themself. Such unfair behavior should not disqualify India from being recognized for what she is: a great power. V.Chowla (talk) 23:12, 14 November 2009 (UTC) I agree India is emerging from middle power to great power and may become recognised as a great power at some time but statistics about population and GDP won't get it listed, it needs recognition as a great power. Bambuway (talk) 23:14, 14 November 2009 (UTC) US already see India as a great power. US has signed a nuclear deal with India and made great accomodations on account of India's power. US has called India a strategic partner. Japan is getting close to India too. Many many western companies are in india doing business. India has taken over Jaguar, Land Rover, and other Britisher and western companies. India has the largest English speaking population in the world. V.Chowla (talk) 23:18, 14 November 2009 (UTC) The UNSC is the best measure of great power. It is official international recognition of a nation being a great power and powers being given to that nation accordingly, such as being a recognised nuclear weapons state under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. I'm sorry but India just hasn't got that recognition yet and can't be listed or else it would be your say so that India is a great power, not that of other nations, which being a permanent UNSC member accords. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bambuway (talk • contribs) 23:19, 14 November 2009 (UTC) Who said UNSC is the authority on great power? V.Chowla (talk) 23:22, 14 November 2009 (UTC) India is known for her brain power, just to name a few examples: 38% of doctors in USA are INDIANs. 12% scientists in USA are INDIANs. 36% of NASA scientists are INDIANs. 34% of Microsoft employees are INDIANs. 28% of IBM employees are INDIANs. 17% of INTEL scientists are INDIANs. 13% of XEROX employees are INDIANs. V.Chowla (talk) 23:22, 14 November 2009 (UTC) Again this is your say so that India is a great power. The UN hasn't accepted India as a great power or it would have given it a UNSC seat. Add India to the list when it gets a UNSC seat because that will be international recognition of India being a great power and not just your say so. Bambuway (talk) 23:22, 14 November 2009 (UTC) who gave UNSC authority to judge? Who said UNSC has the power to judge? Also, India has just bought 200 tonnes of gold from IMF. India's growing power is for all to see. V.Chowla (talk) 23:24, 14 November 2009 (UTC) 192 member states recognised the permanent UNSC members as great powers with "great power unanimty" when they signed the UN treaty when they became members. I'm not going to argue with you over facts. Facts mean nothing without recognition. Bambuway (talk) 23:28, 14 November 2009 (UTC) I ask you who gave UNSC authority to judge. You did not answer. Who is USNC to judge? It is just a comittee of world war 2 victors who want to exclude new powers. I like to see your source for your claim that UNSC is the standard. Show me the UN document that say UNSC has the power to judge. V.Chowla (talk) 23:29, 14 November 2009 (UTC) I am starting to feel like you may be a WP:Troll. This is not a forum to discuss India's "brain power" and stats. Further off-topic statements will be removed or refactored. Nirvana888 (talk) 23:35, 14 November 2009 (UTC) And I said the 192 member states of the UN have authority over who is or isn't a great power. The 192 members states of the UN recognised 5 countries as great powers and gave them such regard at the UN with according powers. If a country can't get recogised by the UN as a great power, which accounts for 99% of the world's countries, then it's not a great power. Bambuway (talk) 23:33, 14 November 2009 (UTC) My point was at the time the members believe the 5 countries are great powers and they are. But 192 members are not given authority to judge. It is just they exercised judgement that one time. I see no UN document which gives 192 members formal authority to regonize great power status. V.Chowla (talk) 23:48, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Removal / Renewal of Great power map

The current map at this article divides Great powers in permanent UNSC members. The sources does not reflect this situation. The map has to be removed or should be updated. Lear 21 (talk) 11:16, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Round in circles. Nirvana888 (talk) 12:49, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Support. In this case you certainly have Nirvana and Phoenix on your side. KJohansson (talk) 18:29, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Several unreferenced claims and non accessible references (mostly books) have been removed. all the best Lear 21 (talk) 21:29, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

References which couldn´t been accessed have been removed. Considering the logic of the account Nirvana888/Phoenix79, I´m sure there is support. Lear 21 (talk) 02:16, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

To be very frank, you're unilateral edits and continued disruptive edits have alienated yourself from the other editors and gravely poisoned the editing atmosphere. There is now very little chance other editors will agree to your points unless you stop being disruptive. Nirvana888 (talk) 02:26, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

A map dividing the Great powers does make no sense. The list below also does not emphisize a UNSC as special feature. In fact the references I provided proof pretty clearly the g8 being THE determining institution for global affairs. It is shocking to see editors like Phoenix/Nirvana not being able to recognize the endless amount of credible evidences while at the same time defending sources which are not even accessible. Lear 21 (talk) 03:35, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

What source is not accessible? -- Phoenix (talk) 06:37, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

 Confirmed that KJohansson and Lear21 are the same editor and have been given a long term block. -- Phoenix (talk) 23:14, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Removal of all uncited claims

The article contains a manifold of unreferenced claims. Estimated half of the given sources are books and can not be verified. This amounts to around half of the written content. It has to be removed. Lear 21 (talk) 11:04, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Round in circles. Nirvana888 (talk) 12:49, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Problem solved, uncited claims are removed. The article appears to be not entirely cleaned up. A first scan has been made. Lear 21 (talk) 21:35, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest you immediately cease your disruptive editing and changing. Build consensus before you make another disputed change. Nirvana888 (talk) 01:36, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

The new trimmed version only presents readable, accessible references. Please, in the future, if somebody wants to add content provide acedemic in advance. all the best Lear 21 (talk) 21:45, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

 Confirmed that KJohansson and Lear21 are the same editor and have been given a long term block. Nirvana888 (talk) 15:14, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Solution

I think an image of the G8 should be included. G8 members are economic great powers. Permanent UN Security Council members are all round great powers. So long as such destinction is made clear in the article. G20 members are not great powers, it is a group of great powers and middle powers. I think many editors are confusing middle power traits for great power traits.

Maybe the G8 image could be included but not be a lead image to satisfy everyone? Maybe placed somewhere relevant in the article?Bambuway (talk) 18:34, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

After reading some of the refs brought by Lear, it gets clear that the G8 members are even more than only economic powers. The G8 is also cited as an informal global governance meeting for over 30 years. These meetings ruled on a vast number of policy fields ranging from security to environment. Anyway, with a decent caption it should be no problem to include this important info to the article. It is relevant after all. KJohansson (talk) 18:38, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I tried to find material relevant to this article in the references provided by Lear but it did not seem to be there. So I asked Lear to transcribe specific passages that uphold his case. I am sorry that he did not do so. Viewfinder (talk) 00:54, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

So there is a unanamity about the inclusion, I reckon. As there are now around 30 references of all types of academia or media supporting the view the G8 being a forum even a world governance meeting gathering the major/great powers. I´m adding one of references once the image is stabilised at the article got clear longterm acceptance. Until then it can remain without the specific ref, like many other claims as well. Lear 21 (talk) 02:24, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

There is not consensus here, and I now oppose the adding of the G8 image anywhere in the article, including my earlier compromise, until someone can transcribe and reference specific pages from academic sources in support of the case in favour of its inclusion. Please do so, then we can debate them. Viewfinder (talk) 20:17, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Your stance is pretty unreliable Viewfinder, I should say. As you probably recognize, two editors here, shit on all references, no matter what is proposed. KJohansson (talk) 12:07, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

 Confirmed that KJohansson and Lear21 are the same editor and have been given a long term block. Nirvana888 (talk) 15:14, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

G8 Solution x2

Ok so let me ask for an honest response. Viewfinder has requested for someone to transcribe and reference specific pages from academic sources in support of the case in favour of (the G8's) inclusion. I have asked for the same many times, and I agree with his/her proposal. So this time can someone please so this so that we can finally put this issue to rest... And since this is an ongoing debate can we please leave the article alone until this conversation is over. There is no reason for an edit war while we are trying to solve this issue. So lets use the talk page properly and discuss the issue at hand. Thanks -- Phoenix (talk) 02:49, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Why is it that no one is using the talk page any longer? Please just cite what academic source gave you this thought in the first place, so that we can discuss this as the civilised people we know we are. Please use that talk page as the main article should be off limits during a discussion. Also the removal of cited material does not make sense as it follows wikipedias policies. Have you even tried to verify them yourself by looking for the books in question on-line? Or are you just doing that to be disruptive? So lets just end this disruptive editing and discuss the actual issue, please. -- Phoenix (talk) 21:54, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I assume the discussion about wether there are references has already ended. Now its up to you to accept them. I recommend, you are including the reference by yourself. 92.225.18.164 (talk) 23:09, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry that is not how it works on wikipedia. Please provide a source backing up such claims (see WP:BURDEN & WP:PROVEIT for just a couple of policies on this matter). Without evidence backing up such claims it is just WP:OR and does not belong in wikipedia. -- Phoenix (talk) 23:17, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Quote: "While the G8 is the only permanent global concert of great powers" [19] KJohansson (talk) 13:57, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok so here is the source that you provided. I wish I could just copy and paste. I hate writing this all by hand so I apologize for any typos.

pg 40

Even in Iraq, as casualties and costs mounted, the United States became eager to hand over responsibility to a UN-approved sovereign Iraqi government on 30 June. But neither America nor its G8 partners were under any illusions, after the previous twelve years, that the UN could cope without major support in many forms from the G8 great powers themselves. Only on the issues of development could the UN claim a level of normative and epistemic effectiveness that the G8 could use as a foundation for action to move ahead.

Pg 84

Concert Governance

The G8 can be seen as a global security concert: and instrument for the joint management of international relations buy the most significance powers. Concerts are informal instruments: they rely on few informal rules and mainly serve to co-ordinate policy' Convert-based models have traditionally emerged-or gains in importance-after major wars. The Concert of Europe emerged after the Napoleonic Wars. There was a short-lived concert after both the first and the second World Wars. The end of the Cold War made it possible for the G8 to emerge as a global concert.

Concert diplomacy has a number of advantages (as well as some obvious disadvantages) over the UN system and over such international organisations for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE). Perhaps the most significant is the flexibility of concert diplomacy. Since there are no explicit rules, bureaucratic procedures or legalistic considerations do not hamper a concert. When conditions are right, a concert can be an adaptable and powerful tool for managing international security. A concert can provide a forum for policy co-ordination, but it can also make an important contribution to restraining its members' behaviour. By conditioning some actions an condemning others, a convert sets norms and codes for international behaviour. If there is a compelling argument for action, it can function as a de facto decision-making body in regard to the introduction of sanctions or military intervention. In short a great-power concert can provide leadership, thus enhancing the ability of the international actors (states and international organisations) to manage a crisis.

These benefits are offset by serious shortfalls. Not being based on international treaties, convert diplomacy is often seen as lacking legitimacy. Due to its restricted membership, it is often disliked by small states and aspiring powers: the former fear a great power condominium, while the latter would like a seat at the top table themselves. Owing to its emphasis on personal contacts between the normal democratic process.

While the G8 is the only permanent global convert of great powers, there have been several recent cases of ad hoc concerts shouldering the responsibility for finding a solution to a regional crisis. The most conspicuous contemporary ad hoc concert is the Middle East Quartet, which consists of the United Nations, the European Union, the U.S., and Russia. Another example is the contact groups that were set up to resolve crises in Bosnia-Herzegovina, Kosovo, and Namibia.

Pg 102

For the United States, two reasons support the use of the G8 as an instruments for the advancements of U.S. interests in arms control, counterterrorism, and regional security. First, the U.S. would increase the legitimacy of its actions by consulting other great powers in an orderly multilateral fashion. Second, it would be able to strengthen cohesion between the West and Russia in relation to matters of global security.

Pg 248

Taken together, this analysis shows that actors well beyond the G8's great power governments are not only increasingly involved and influential at the global level but also work together with one another and with G8 governments to produce better global governance as a result.

I want to ask what are peoples thoughts? -- Phoenix (talk) 06:51, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

It supports the arguments which have been brought here already to the discussion several times. It supports the view that the G8 is/was a premier meeting for Great power global governance. This is relevant for the scope of this article. More important is that there are at least 10 other academic and obviously endless high profile media sources which support this view and aim in the same direction. KJohansson (talk) 13:03, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Here is my question. What are the sources saying. Are all members of the G8 Great Powers? If so then Italy and Canada would be considered so. Are they saying that its a place for the US to tell other economically powerful countries what it wants. If so that is not Great powers only great economic powers, a qualifying remark that this article is not focusing on. Is it saying that some members are great powers and others are not. This article is not about Concert Governance, but Great powers, I really would like others to read these over and if they agree then the G8 should be added if not... then it shouldn't... Just not the lead image. There is no reason for that. -- Phoenix (talk) 11:29, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Quote: "While the G8 is the only permanent global concert of great powers" That is the quote which has to be considered. It is directly transscribed to the caption of the G8 pic and complies with all policies, all recommendations of Wikipedia. Every other question is irrelevant, I also don´t start asking why the Congress of Vienna is integrated although half of the participants have not been considered "great powers". If this source is not enough I´m going to add other sources as well until this issue is settled. The decisive question for the inclusion of the G8 summits at this article is: Does this meeting stand alongside with other historical meetings (Vienna Congress), situations (after WW2), or institutions (UNSC) where the most powerful nations/participants gather in order to discuss the global order. The answer is a clear cut YES. And please do not try to suggest that the given source is the only one. There are plenty of other academic sources naming the G8 "group hegemony" including "major powers". KJohansson (talk) 12:58, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the G8 is the ultimate concert of great powers. I believe the United Nations Security Council is. However I do believe an image of the G8 should be included in this article because the G8 is a concert of nations who possess "economic great power" status. Although an image of the UNSC should be the most important image of a concert of great powers because it is generally recognised as a group of all round great powers which have been accepted as such by the United Nations member states and given according powers and recognition. I believe that images of both the UNSC and G8 should be included in this article with the UNSC being the most important. It should be explained in the article that the UNSC is a concert of all round great powers while the G8 a concert of economic great powers. Bambuway (talk) 14:22, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

The UNSC is one important institution deciding exclusively on security issues. It wields no power on economic, financial, trade, energy or environmental questions. The beauty of the G8 pic is, that nobody ever proposed an abolition of the UNSC pic. Instead the G8 is the inevitable addition to the article informing the reader, that other formats of great power decision making exist. KJohansson (talk) 13:46, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

The UNSC actually wields enormous power in economic, financial, trade, and energy questions because it passes resolutions which include international sanctions, which are either diplomatic sanctions, economic and trade sanctions or military sanctions. G8 decisions are non-binding and apply only to G8 members, whereas UN sanctions are binding and apply to all UN members. I support the inclusion of both the UNSC image and G8 image. Bambuway (talk) 15:33, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

See also: [20] Lear 21 (talk) 00:20, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Yea I asked for comments from others that are independent of this debate. I just want this issue over with already whichever way it goes. I still haven't heard anything from Nirvana nor Viewfinder :-( I would not want to proceed until we hear from those long time editors. Any chance that either of you two could get them to comment on this topic before we continue? -- Phoenix (talk) 04:08, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

It appears unlikely to believe that accounts who argued against an inclusion are swaying in officially. The usual indication of consent is silence or lack of appearance. That appears to be the case. all the best Lear 21 (talk) 17:21, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I have been away and out of circulation since Thursday. I will respond tomorrow. Viewfinder (talk) 22:55, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

What else now can be done to keep editors from reverting the badly needed update ? Well, I don´t know. We have countless sources, the pic is similar to others on this article. There is a majority of editors who find the pic justified, or a minority who is not answering anymore. There are external, neutral editors who give an OK. 1 month of arguing to proof the obvious, 1 month of arguing with people convincing them to accept a statement comparable "an apple is a fruit" or "a dog is an animal". A fucking waste of sensible energy. Anyway. I beg everyone who deep inside believes in rational reasoning to accept the updated version, which of course can be altered but should inlcude the new picture. Thank you very much. KJohansson (talk) 00:54, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Look we know that you believe this. I hope you know that I have only asked for academic sources to prove this, because until it is proven it is just a theory an anonymous person on the internet said. You might want to read Wikipedia:How many legs does a horse have? which says Simply saying that an horse has five legs doesn't make it true – you must prove it. -- Phoenix (talk) 05:30, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Lear and Johansson, at the top of this section is a request for transcriptions from academic passages linking G8 membership with great power status. Perhaps I have missed something, but I still cannot see any such transcriptions. G8 membership, which excludes China, does not imply great power status or vice versa. Therefore the inclusion of the image is based on OR and POV. While I personally do not object to its inclusion, other editors such as Phoenix are entitled to continue to contest this issue if they choose to do so, and the continuation of unilateral editing of the article in contravention of this will only harden the determination of editors like Phoenix and Nirvana to remain inflexible. Please let's air our differences here and leave the article alone until they have been resolved. Viewfinder (talk) 09:30, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I added another source underlining the G7 as a group hegemon, that shape great power interaction in contrast to most international institutions and great power collaboration. page 4KJohansson (talk) 14:54, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

This source needs to be discussed further and I am annoyed that Johansson has yet again unilaterally edited the article without allowing time for discussion first. The source is historical in that the G8 was primarily an economic forum, but economic issues are now being transferred to the G20. Therefor I oppose Johansson's edit. Viewfinder (talk) 16:02, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

@Viewfinder: The reference is a credible academic evidence. Please accept academic references which have relevance for this article. Please accept that the majority of editors find that these academic, relevant references belong in this article. Please accept external assessment [21]. Please accept that Wikipedia is based on references and not on opinions. Please with sugar on the top. Lear 21 (talk) 21:42, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I think the time has come to name all the disruptive reverts by what they really are, an attack of all Wikipedia policies. The only arguments I can read in this topic started by Phoenix seem to be like, "can´t we wait" or "this source needs to be discussed further" without citing any qualified objections. Experienced Wikipedians would have come forward with proactive proposals to include the proven relevant update (G8). This hasn´t been the case for more than a month. I´m sick of it and call it what it is, vandalism to relevant important content. KJohansson (talk) 14:21, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

The above reference is historical because we have moved on since it was published. I am open to persuasion about whether or not it is still OK but I am not interested in entering into discussion with the author of the above contribution, which has a totalitarian tone and will only make consensus harder to achieve. Ditto the unilateral reinstatement of the G8 image into the lead section, in direct contravention of my repeated pleas. Viewfinder (talk) 14:56, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Further to the above, I think there is a compromise case for a G20 image, and some G8/G20 text, but not in the lead section. But please, please, please allow time for Phoenix and Nirvana to respond before reinstating any G8 or G20 image anywhere in the article. Please. Viewfinder (talk) 15:05, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Viewfinder could you please stop your: "I´m open to persuasion" arguments ? After 1 month this sounds only flimsy and shallow. It is not a matter of how or if the G8 is relevant. It is proven, academically. The only remaining question could be where to put the G8 pic (maybe in the status section). You and others have provoked my tone I´m sorry because of aggressive ignorance of sources and blindly defending a status quo. I promise I will not accept a version without this article getting an update to provide a broader perspective. Probably Lear supports this view. KJohansson (talk) 15:45, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

That "it is proven" is your opinion, and accusing other editors of "aggressive ignorance" is not helpful. "I promise I will not accept" is fascist in tone; "I will continue to press" would be more helpful. Can you not just wait a day to allow Phoenix and/or Nirvana to respond? If they do not, then I will be happy with some G8/G20 text and a G20 image in the status section. That is my stance. I hope you can accept this. Viewfinder (talk) 16:02, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I have stated before that the G20 makes more sense than the G8 and I would be ok with its inclusion. -- Phoenix (talk) 19:46, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

The G8 has been cited as global governance, it covers a history of 30 years. The G20 contains more than a half of participants which can not be considered of global great power status. Several members of the G20 are not even economic great powers. The G8 is a referenced meeting. I inserted the image in the status section. Lear 21 (talk) 02:39, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

 Confirmed that KJohansson and Lear21 are the same editor and have been given a long term block. Nirvana888 (talk) 15:14, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

G8 solution: Chapter 3

KJohansson has stated on his talk page that his case is supported by "many scholars and academics who published their position and which is available on internet sites". I formally repeat my request for examples of these passages to be copied, pasted and referenced here, and that no more edits are made to the article until time has been allowed for other editors to comment. Viewfinder (talk) 16:30, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

@Viewfinder: The 2 references included by KJohansson citing the exact page of the transscripted respective sentences in the caption of the image. Lear 21 (talk) 02:46, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

The Bailin reference was published in 2001. Since then there has been a substantial shift to the G20 so the reference is outdated. Please supply an appropriate transciption from the other reference. Viewfinder (talk) 11:36, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Please respect academic references which have relevance for this article. Please respect that the majority of editors find that these academic, relevant references belong in this article. Please respect external assessment. Please respect that Wikipedia is based on references and not on opinions. Lear 21 (talk) 19:19, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Lear, I have challenged one of your references and asked for a transcript from the other. You have not responded to my challenge or supplied any transcript. Instead you have unilaterally reinstated the G8 image into the article yet again. Therefore I am reverting you again. Viewfinder (talk) 21:03, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

@Viewfinder: Please stop adding absurd demands. If you want to challenge anything, read the provided references. Obviously the exact text referring to the reference has been added to the image caption. Please also respect that external assessment has approved the inclusion of the image. For those who still need extra information what the G8 is or does, read this [22] Lear 21 (talk) 23:18, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

The editing atmosphere has been completely poisoned over the past few months by two (possibly one) unilateral/disruptive editors. I am very surprised that they have not been blocked for a long time already. Anyone who would care to peruse the edit history would clearly come to the conclusion of egregious and consistent disruption. I have to say I am usually a fairly flexible editor when it comes to disputes and am willing to compromise but this has gone too far and quite frankly is the worst case of shockingly bad faith behavior I have encountered thus far in my experience here. Nirvana888 (talk) 01:23, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

The above reference does not mention Great Power. Please supply the source transcriptions that I have asked for, and a link to the external assessment passage that "approved" the G8 image. By the way I have stated that I will accept a G20 image. So has Phoenix. Infact, unless there are any objections, I will insert a G20 image with a source to show that it is now more relevant than the now superfluous G8. Viewfinder (talk) 08:38, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok friends, lets bring this to an end. I will not look back and I will try to use a language nobody can claim to be an obstacle. I will not put the G8 pic back as long as this gets either silent or outspoken recognition, but if anyone of the established editors (Viewfinder, Phoenix79,Nirvan888) refuses to deal with arguments and sources or refuses to take part, this will be interpreted as silent consensus. I expect a concentrated discussion were everybody deals with content and recognizes current realities. The articles scope in general must stay in the center, so please take a breath and deal with the issue without prejudices and preconditioned attitudes. Does that sound like a plan ?

Preamble: This articles deals with the issue Great power. The introduction claims that it is a country influencing many dimensions on an international level. The introduction does not name any country specifically. The article tries to illustrate many moments in history were great powers gathered in order to negotiate global order mostly after a crisis or war.

The G8: The G7/G8 has been created initially by the largest and most potent economical powers (excluding Russia & China at the time second or third world, economically) in order to coordinate the global economy. After 1989 Russia joined and the forum expanded to negotiate on a wider range policy fields. Academics have recognized the G8 as: the G8 is the only permanent global concert of great powers New perspectives on global governance: why America needs the G8 by Michele Fratianni Page 84.

The G7/G8 has been described by academics as a group hegemon, that shape great power interaction in contrast to most international institutions and great power collaboration. From traditional to institutionalized hegemony by Alison Bailin Page 4

An informal request wether these sources are original research has been declined by an external neutral assessor Quote: it is definitely not OR to mention the G8 in the Great power article (as there are reliable sources that discuss the G8 in the context of being a meeting of great powers). Since it is appropriate to mention the G8, it is also appropriate to illustrate the article with an image of the G8. Blueboar.

Conclusion: In the context of this article in general also recognizing the historic context of great power developments, it seems highly justified to add an information about the history of the G8 and to include a picture to illustrate its existence. Because information about other institutions (UNSC) or lists (List of great powers by date) are already included in the article, an addition of the G8 cannot be seen as single exclusive forum for Great powers, nor can the absence of powers (Russia until 90ies & China) can be interpreted as lack of information.

Furthermore, the proposed picture and its caption does not try to imply to be an ongoing forum. It specifically addresses its transformation to the G20. The G20 on the other side is not yet recognized academically, the historical judgement if the G20 can be seen as sustainable forum has yet to be decided.

Proposal: The introduction should be extended to an info about the G8. The G8 picture should be included in one of the sections or next to the lead picture. KJohansson (talk) 15:55, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

My proposal is that the article should go back to how it once was before this dispute, with the G8 image included in one of the sections on the article. I believe the G8 is relevant to this article and it is representitive of the article's subject as it is representitive of economic great powers. The United Nations Security Council image should stay where it is at the top of the article as its main image as the United Nations Security Council is representitive of diplomatic, military, and economic great powers. I am very much opposed to the inclusion of a G20 image as it comprises of some nations which are very much not great powers and are unlikely to be so any time soon. The G8 is a club of developed economic great powers while the G20 is a club of developed economic great powers and developing middle powers with emerging markets. I have seen some editors confuse middle powers for great powers when they have proposed certain countries be included on this article. Bambuway (talk) 22:22, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

It would appear that activity today has been confined to discussion here and has not spilled over into the main article, which I heartily welcome. I also think that the above contributions from Johansson and Bambuway are helpful. I recognise that there will be more text about the G8 added to the article. I am still concerned about the current status of the G8, and think that it is worth recalling this passage, added earlier by Phoenix:

Officials: G-20 to supplant G-8 as international economic council Leaders of the G-20 economic summit will announce Friday that the group will become the new permanent council for international economic cooperation, senior U.S. officials told CNN Thursday. The move comes in the wake of a major push by President Obama, the officials said. The G-20 will now essentially eclipse the G-8, which will continue to meet on major security issues but carry much less influence. "It's a reflection of the world economy today and the players that make it up," said one senior official. Nations like China, Brazil and India -- which were locked out of the more elite G-8 -- will be part of the larger group. The Group of 20 -- leaders of 20 countries representing 90 percent of the world's economic output -- are meeting in Pittsburgh for a two-day summit, focusing on the financial crisis and how to avoid a future repeat. The gathering is Obama's first time hosting a major international summit... --

The G8 has always been a primarily economic forum, so if in this role it is being eclipsed by the G20, questions still have to be asked about whether the G8 or the G20 are now the focus of great power cooperation. The presence of several indisputedly middle powers in the G20 does not bother me because unlike the G8, the G20 includes all countries that have been called great powers. Therefore I propose that we add text about the G8, with sources including the above source. In view of the pressing need for consensus, I would prefer that the G8 image were not added back, at least for now. I hope that Lear and Johansson will agree to that. Viewfinder (talk) 23:13, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd rather not have an image of the G20 on the article because there are far too many middle powers in the G20 plus it would confuse readers and would be inaccurately suggesting some middle powers are great powers and blurring the distinction between the two. If the G8 is replaced by the G20 I'd rather just have an image of the UNSC which is comprised only of great powers and is really the primary recognition of a country being a great power. If anything a G20 image belongs on the middle power article because the vast majority of G20 members are middle powers.Bambuway (talk) 01:51, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Bambuway, more than half of the G20 are middle or regional powers. There are also no sources to support the claim of a specific great power forum. More important to my eyes is, that the G8 existed over 30 years. Its an important major historical gathering and has a greater relevance. Viewfinder, the G8 did encompass a wide range of global issues, not only economy, thats what the sources proofed and thats why the sources named it "global governance" and not economic governance. Also, the discussion deals with the inclusion of the G8 and not the G20, please stick to that. The given sources deal with the G8 not the G20. If you want to add another discussion topic later on the G20 you can open one, but please stick to the central topic and the central proposal. Thanks KJohansson (talk) 03:10, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Wow I cant believe that we are finally having a cordial conversation about this subject... It's about time! Ok before I start I just want to respond to what Bambuway said:

the article should go back to how it once was before this dispute, with the G8 image included in one of the sections on the article

Actually that is incorrect. Before the dispute began the G8 was never in the article. The dispute arose because of its inclusion. My point about the G8 has been about academic sources and not the fact that it excludes China, but because it includes Canada & Italy. As Bambuway said "it would confuse readers and would be inaccurately suggesting some middle powers are great powers and blurring the distinction between the two." That is what the G8 would do. Am I wrong? But thanks again for talking to us and I honestly hope that this situation can be resolved one way or another :-) -- Phoenix (talk) 08:02, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Phoenix, the proposed pic and the caption directly transscripts the academic claim. Nobody can get confused here. Afterall the Congress of Vienna does include participants which at the time have not been considered Great power. By the way, the UNSC does not include Germany and Japan and nobody gets confused either. The reader expects to get information about great powers. The reader wants to know when or how great powers are acting. The G8 acts as great power forum for more than 30 years. The absence of the G8 and a pic is a lack of information which needs to be changed. KJohansson (talk) 18:27, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Could I suggest that we consider adding a new section to the article headed something like "Great Power Cooperation"? This would document the history of great power cooperation, starting with the Congress of Vienna and subsequently discussing the League of Nations, the UN, the G8 and finally the G20. I think we are generally agreed that more text needs to be added and I think we can agree on that text. The only dispute seems to be about whether we have a G8 image, a G20 image, or neither. Frankly, now that we are all communicating in a civil manner, I don't think that I have any strong persuasions on this issue. Viewfinder (talk) 21:05, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I think we could mention both the G8 and G20 in a section about great power cooperation, although we can't write off the UNSC to just a historical section because it's very much a current and active group. It would have to be noted though that most of the G20 members are middle powers. I think one of the main points is that when the G7 was created in the 1970s, and later the G8, all its members were economic great powers of the time but since then some members, mainly Canada and Russia, have had their economies rank at the same level as the major middle powers of Spain, Brazil, India, Mexico, Australia, and South Korea. Now the G8 seems to be being eclipsed by the broader G20, which encompasses the current economic great powers and also many middle powers with emerging markets to create a broader but less exclusive group, mainly as an attempt to erradicate the notion that the G8 is a small, exclusive group of western countries running the world. The G8 deserves a mention on this article, perhaps in a historical sense if it becomes defunct, and the G20 deserves a mention on the middle power article but it's debatable whether the G20 could be mentioned on this article and that it would also have to include mention that most of its members are middle powers, not great powers. Bambuway (talk) 21:56, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

The annual G7/G8 summits have been described as group hegemon, that shapes great power interaction in contrast to most international institutions. The meetings have been considered a permanent global concert of great powers. It will dissolve in order to create broader based G20 summits.

I think for now we should leave any image of the G20 off the article so the dispute isn't inflamed any further. Bambuway (talk) 23:12, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

A new section "great power cooperation" need not be wholly historical. It can include a discussion about the status quo too. NATO should also be mentioned. I must restate my view that the G20 should be mentioned because it includes all the great powers, and we have a reference to shoew that it has displaced the G8 in what was the G8's principal field - economics. Of course it should be mentioned that it includes middle powers although some of these (India, Brazil) are potential great powers. I really could not care less about the image issue, but I suppose that if we cannot unite behind any image, there should be no image. Perhaps the G8 image here and the G20 image in middle power would be a fair solution.

A new section? Why not. I could imagine to expand the article in a lot of ways. Why for instance are there no pics of the axis powers Japan, Germany, Italy during WW2 in this article? But please, can we leave out all these preconditions and concentrate on the actual proposal. There is massive evidence that the G8 for 30 years was the premier great power forum next to the UNSC. So please, can we only talk about where to put this information and where to put the pic that it´s representing. Every other proposals have secondary priority and can be discussed later. KJohansson (talk) 12:45, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I think the status section section or the Aftermath WW2 could accomodate the pic. KJohansson (talk) 13:26, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I think good sections to place the image of the G8 would be either the "Status dimension" section or the section you just mentioned. I would also like to point out that the G8 isn't going to dissolve like the caption says. The G20 will become the main economic forum, however the G8 will remain active as a group to discuss various other issues. Bambuway (talk) 17:49, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I've added an image of the G20 to the middle power article and so an image of the G8 would be appropriate on this article. Here is the proposed image and caption and I would probably place it in the "Status dimension" section:

The annual G7/G8 summits have been described as group hegemon, that shapes great power interaction in contrast to most international institutions. The meetings have been considered a permanent global concert of great powers. The broader G20 will eclipse the G8 as the main economic council.

The Bambuway version, including its approval for the Status Dimension section appears to be the convincing one. This is also the section Viewfinder once attempted to place the image in a compromise version. Lear 21 (talk) 21:28, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

So do people agree on the sources. So they back up the text? Are there any arguments against?

Afterall the Congress of Vienna does include participants which at the time have not been considered Great power. By the way, the UNSC does not include Germany and Japan and nobody gets confused either. The Congress of Vienna was a large gathering so it is easy to group them into smaller sub-groups... but the G8 has only 8 members with two not begin Great Powers... That is the confusion I was referring to. Like I have said before it does not bug me that the G8 does not include all the Great powers since Great powers can be aligned opposing each other (Axis powers vs Allied powers) but the inclusion of Middle powers into such a small group will confuse people.

consider adding a new section to the article headed something like "Great Power Cooperation" Viewfinder I like that, it might be good to expand on that idea. -- Phoenix (talk) 07:15, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

As a matter of fact the provided sources do seem to be accepted. Phoenix, nobody can compare historical events in general neither can the Congress of Vienna can be compared to the Yalta Conference or the UNSC. But obviously all three are part in this article. Why? Because all of these gatherings (or institutions) had the purpose of bringing together the world powers of their time to decide on world issues. So does the G8 for more than over 30 years gathers the most important world powers. China during this time was no relevant world power. It could be argued that even as permanent UNSC member it never played a crucial role. (please don´t argue on that because its aside note). So can we assume the G8 being a relevant information for this article ? I think time has come to agree on that. KJohansson (talk) 02:56, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

 Confirmed that KJohansson and Lear21 are the same editor. Both User:Lear 21 and User:KJohansson haven been proved to be socks by CheckUser. KJohansson has been indef blocked and Lear 21 has been blocked for 6 months for this and his repeated disruption. We should keep an eye on possible block evasion which given his part history would not be surprising. Nirvana888 (talk) 05:34, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

So much for WP:AGF... -- Phoenix (talk) 10:46, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I always try to assume good faith in the absence of hard evidence to the contrary. Now, while remaining open to persuasion about the relevance of G8 and G20, I think that, for the time being, we should close this discussion. Viewfinder (talk) 12:44, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Considering the Sockpuppetry and the fact that their... oops HIS claim fails WP:UNDUE

• If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
• If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
• If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article.

Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors.

Since it is obvious it falls in the 3rd category I say unless we expand the article out mention of G8/G20 and the images should not be included because it fails WP:UNDUE. -- Phoenix (talk) 23:07, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Current defence spending

Could there be more reference (in one of the paragraphs dealing with the current state-of-play) to defence spending? The authoritative 2009 SIPRI figures clearly show that the seven current great powers (as listed in this article) are the top seven military spenders, with the sole superpower having a clear lead in spending and the two economic great powers (Japan and Germany) coming sixth and seventh. David (talk) 11:49, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

The following is copied from the defence spending article:

The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute produces a list of the top 10 biggest spenders of military expenditure annually in their Yearbook publication. The following figures are from the SIPRI Yearbook 2009 and were calculated using market exchange rates.

Rank	Country	Spending ($ b.)	World Share (%)
—	World Total	1464.0	100
1	United States	607.0	41.5
2	China	84.9a	5.8a
3	France	65.7	4.5
4	United Kingdom	65.3	4.5
5	Russian Federation	58.6a	4.0a
6	Germany	46.8	3.2
7	Japan	46.3	3.2
8	Italy	40.6	2.8
9	Saudi Arabia	38.2	2.6
10	India	30.0	2.1

^Note a : SIPRI estimate

While military expenditures or more precisely military power is a characteristic of great power status, in my opinion we should only include what is directly related and linked to great power status in a RS. Indeed, I actually wrote this SIPRI table in List of countries by military expenditures where this was copied from so I am aware of its importance but in my view I don't think it really fits within the scope of the article. Nirvana888 (talk) 23:18, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Could it be wikilinked in though? It is surely a useful observation to make that the seven present great powers as stated do maintain the top seven military budgets? So I'm not suggesting a substantial rambling on the issue in the article, just a quick mention. David (talk) 23:57, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not against this. Could you suggest a possible section? Also, I'd like to hear from other editors. Nirvana888 (talk) 00:44, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

If a source talks about current military spending in 2009 that would make sense. So you have a source that talks about that? Is there something in the prose that you think needs to be expanded upon? Don't forget that when people talk about Great powers, academics dont always agree on who is a current world power but most agree on who was a past great power. -- Phoenix (talk) 02:28, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

In the "Aftermath of the Cold War" section the article states (more-or-less) who the seven present-day great powers are (or at least which seven states are often thought of as being great powers since the end of the Cold War). Perhaps the first paragraph could be expanded upon, giving further insight to why the seven great powers of today are great powers (and military spending does appear to give a pretty clear correlation). Perhaps an additional sentence added to the end of the paragraph (or to form a new, short paragraph) along the lines of:

"These seven states, which are often regarded as the great powers of the era since the end of the Cold War, presently maintain the seven largest military budgets in the world, with the United States spending a substantial amount greater than the rest."

This then would lead into the paragraph dealing with the issue of Russia, the United States and superpower status. David (talk) 12:37, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I am only afraid that this will lead to WP:SYN and people will start saying that this proves that Italy, Saudi Arabia & India should be added also. -- Phoenix (talk) 19:43, 19 December 2009 (UTC)