Talk:Great power

For older discussion, see archives: 1 | 2 | 3

Version before pruning

Here is the pre-pruned version which contains a list of all the unsourced historical powers and modern powers. Once to page, unsourced material will not be allowed to stay on this page, even if it states things that some people consider obvious. Nobleeagle (Talk) 04:17, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup

I've begun to go through the article. I've started to delete OR/unsourced statements and I'm also starting to examine the various sources cited, to assess whether they support their propositions and to ensure conformity with WP:V.

Does anyone have the text of the source in footnote no.2? (Hegemony, liberalism and global order: what space for would-be great powers? Hurrell, Andrew; 2006; International Affairs 82 (1); pp1-19; Accessed May 22, 2006 (Subscription or one off-payment of 19p required)) If anyone could provide me with the text then I would be grateful.

Xdamr^talk 00:54, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Do you dispute the historical (and referenced) fact that nation-states or former nation-states such as the Ottoman Empire and Prussia were great powers? Cleanup does not mean remove much of the content essential to an article and the topics surrounding such article. No offense, but you are not the head editor or whatever self-appointed position you appear to have taken. "... I'm also starting to examine the ... sources cited ... whether they support their propositions ..." sounds like a self-powering statement belittling to others, you shouldn't be the only one with a say on what stays in this article. Is this abstract not a good enough source for you? If so, then you would have trouble with many articles on Wikipedia with much worse or no references! If anything, you could add a {{fact}} tag to unreferenced statements instead it just deleting them. Sorry if I sound a bit vicious, but I do not like it when people strip an article of much of its flesh, while you seem to have added much information of Jan Smuts while taking away from this article. ~ clearthought 02:16, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

There are at least two more references (other than [1]) to the Ottoman Empire as a great power, [2] and [3]. ~ clearthought 02:28, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Don't take umbrage, if you look at discussion above - expecially the Start again? section - you will see that we (ie. the current editors of the page) have been planning this for some time. We have agreed to go back to first principles and observe WP:NPOV, WP:OR, and WP:V to the letter for now and for eternity. This isn't something that I've unilaterally taken it upon myself to do on the spur of the moment. We might end up with a smaller page, but it will be a more academically rigorous page.

I hope that's clarified things.

Best wishes, Xdamr^talk 02:39, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

References such as the ones I listed above (in re to the de-listing of the Ottoman Empire as a former great power) are alright for your version of WP:V, are they not? ~ clearthought 02:46, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

No problem with putting the Ottaman empire in, it's just that the page is in severe flux at the moment. Note your contention, and the source, here and it will be acted upon when we get the core of the page stabilised.

Xdamr^talk 02:51, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

After you are finished with your editing spree, let me know. I can work on the article a good amount tomorrow. ~ clearthought 02:59, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

References

I'm sorry, while I was working on the page I didn't notice that the references got messed up. I looked at diffs and went through the referencing but couldn't find anything. I'm stopping work now and I hope someone else can find the problem. Nobleeagle (Talk) 05:03, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Getting rid of table format

Xdamr has proposed that we get rid of the tables and prosify instead (of course we will be very hard on sourcing). Does anyone disagree or have objections? Nobleeagle (Talk) 05:02, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I think tables are bad in all artices that ane not lists so I think the article should be rewritten like the Historical Powers page. Aussie King Pin 06:10, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Portugal!! Ottoman Empire!! The Netherlands!! Sweden!! and Poland!!

Who deleted these? Why do people keep deleting nations that have been great powers? Who gives you the right! PUT THESE BACK ON!Casey14 23:26, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

The term 'Great power' (as used in politics and academia) has been sourced as originating from the Congress of Vienna, from a statement made by Lord Castlereagh. The five powers of the Congress of Vienna were France, Russia, Prussia, UK, and Austria-Hungary. If you can provide a source which adds nations to this list then please bring it up. (nb. we are not talking about nations which have exercised great power, we are considering nations which have been Great powers within the meaning of the term).

Xdamr^talk 23:38, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

That is a lot of nerve. Nearly all history books describe Portugal, The Netherlands, the Ottoman Empire and Poland as Great Powers. If you do not believe those are or were great powers. The Ottoman Empire was a power until 1918, so your little speil about The Congress of Vienna must be nulled and void. These must be put back on the list, or you are a terrible fool. Portugal nearly controlled the whole world during the age of exploration. The Netherlands controlled the world of commerce and had many colonies. The Ottoman Empire controlled the Mediterranean Sea and was the strongest nation in the world for over a century. Just because the first term was used by Lord Castleragh, dosn't mean it didn't apply before that. Don't make asssumptions! Casey14 00:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Come on now, no personal attacks. If you want to add them, then source them - it's as simple as that. What we think that we know, or what we think is obvious, does not matter - what we can source does. We have a sourced definition for the development of the term as one of diplomatic/academic discourse. If you find a source that contradicts it, encompassing Poland etc, then bring it forward.

I will reiterate: we are not talking about nations which have exercised great power, we are considering nations which have been Great powers within the meaning of the academic/diplomatic term.

Xdamr^talk 00:23, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Why isn't the Ottoman Empire allowed in? It was a great power during and after the Congress of Vienna, unlike the other 3, which I have to now prove, even though they are obviously and well-known? Casey14 00:25, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

No-one is stopping any of them getting in, but they must all be sourced. Otherwise we are looking at Original Research, just the thing we are trying to get rid of.

Xdamr^talk 00:27, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Here is a link for Portugal: http://www.bartleby.com/65/po/Portugal.html If you read it states Portugal was never again a great power, stating that it was once a great power. I found this same article on other encyclopedic pages. Casey14 00:48, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok as far as it goes, can you find one or two more (academic/history research papers)? -- Xdamr^talk 01:15, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

http://www.portugal-travelteam.com/resources/phist.html , http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/world/A0860493.html Casey14 01:35, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I mean sources eminating from universities or scholars in the field, not unattributed compilations of information. -- Xdamr^talk 02:16, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Here is a link for Sweden: http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/2880.htm . This is from the US State Department website! It states the subsequent peace treaties, the allied powers, joined by Prussia and England-Hanover, ended Sweden's reign as a great power.. Also Wikipedia has an article that is titled Rise of Sweden as a Great Power. Casey14 00:53, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Can't reference other Wikipedia articles (WP:V) -- Xdamr^talk 01:15, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I also gave you another very reliable source, which is good enough. Sweden WAS a Great Power, no debate!Casey14 01:28, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

There is always debate, that's the point of academic study. The state dept. page is fine as an indirect source, one or two more would be desirable. -- Xdamr^talk 02:16, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Here is a link for the Ottoman Empire: http://home.earthlink.net/~tebrister/great_power_rivalry.htm Casey14 01:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Non-reliable source (Wikipedia:Reliable sources) -- Xdamr^talk 01:15, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Well there are reliable sources listed above Casey14 01:28, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Here is a link for the Netherlands: http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/3204.htm , which states the Netherlands became a great sea and colonial power. Casey14 01:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Here is another link for the Netherlands: http://www.houseofdavid.ca/new_fr.htmCasey14 01:35, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Who is David Steinberg and why does his opinion matter? WP:V applies (reliable sources), otherwise I could just as well start throwing in my uncle Augustus's opinion. -- Xdamr^talk 02:16, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I had some other references for the Ottoman Empire in this earlier discussion. I hope to work on this article today and tomorrow adding sufficiently-cited information and cleaning up some too. ~ clearthought 01:09, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to look all night for your stupid research pages. I've given you ample enough, and all these countries were great powers. I do not need to show any more pages, because I have proven myself. You need to show pages that disprove them as great powers at those times, and then they won't go on the page. Casey14 02:48, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

From WP:V:

The burden of evidence lies with the editors who have made an edit or wish an edit to remain. Editors should therefore provide references. If an article topic has no reputable, reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on that topic.

From Wikipedia:Reliable sources:

Use sources who have postgraduate degrees or demonstrable published expertise in the field they are discussing. The more reputable ones are affiliated with academic institutions. The most reputable have written textbooks in their field: these authors can be expected to have a broad, authoritative grasp of their subject.

This is what we need. Try taking a page to Peer Review, or Featured Article nomination, with poor sourcing like this and see where it gets you.

Xdamr^talk 02:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

You were original editor, I wasn't. All those countries were on the list. Casey14 03:30, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

In my personal opinion they all were Great powers in the early 19th century and some remained Great powers for a long time after. However, all MUST be reliably sourced. I think we should be able to find the source for the Dutch and the Ottomans. Nobleeagle (Talk) 07:28, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Casey 14 please note that the Ottoman Empire belongs on the hisorical powers articles so if you find 2 reliable sources please add it to the page. Aussie King Pin 12:00, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Seems like a good source

This Source presents a list of Great powers in the late 19th century and an analysis of their positions in affairs during this time. Nobleeagle (Talk) 07:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

We should try and look up some of these books. They would help greatly. Nobleeagle (Talk) 08:00, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Very good sources, we might be albe to add all these nations because I think we already have 1 sources for all these. Aussie King Pin 12:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)