Talk:List of modern great powers

Qing Dynasty 1815

Was Qing not a great power in 1815 ?

The opium wars didn't start until 1820, Qing China was the largest economy in the world in 1820 (so it probably was in 1815 as well) with over 30% of the world GDP (http://www.ggdc.net/maddison/other_books/appendix_B.pdf); the largest in terms of population (http://www.ggdc.net/maddison/other_books/appendix_B.pdf); and probably the second largest country in terms of area after the Russian empire. Angele201002 (talk) 19:13, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

It is there....... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.196.182.116 (talk) 14:44, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

A dozen edits by editor indeffed for falsifying sources

Please note that Portugaltheo20 (talk · contribs) has twelve edits at this article from 4-5 May 2022 that may be suspect. This editor has been indefinitely blocked for falsifying sources. If regulars here could investigate their edits here, and remove anything that isn't properly sourced, that would be great. (Note: I've spent too much time tracking down the problem, writing it up at their UTP and WP:ANI, and adjusting numerous articles to be able to help here, so I hope you can help out.) Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 14:38, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Should the European Union be added as a major great power?

Several scholars have referred to the European Union as a great power in its own right in recent years. Is the European Union considered a great power? It is not a sovereign state but it seems to qualify most of the requirements for a great power. The EU generated a nominal gross domestic product (GDP) of around US$17.1 trillion in 2021. It also has significant political influence as it has representatives in the G7 and G20. Besides, it has been described as an emerging superpower by many scholars. Should we add the European Union to the list? --Studious Human (talk) 17:38, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Post Cold War era great powers - Canada

• According to the IMF, in 2022, Canada has a larger GDP than Italy (which is mentioned in that section).
• Canada has a much larger area than Italy.
• Canada has a higher HDI than Italy.
• Canada is also a G7 member like Italy. Grillofrances (talk) 20:50, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

  Canada is not listed here because:

  • Canada has not been referenced to by any scholars as a great power
  • Canada's role on the international stage makes it more of a middle power
  • Landmass is not a factor to whether a country will be powerful
  • Canada lacks the cultural soft power of Italy (Italian cuisine is influential in many parts of the world)

  Studious Human (talk) 20:02, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Dear Wikipedians, an important message.

*Important Announcement*
Please do not add footnotes which do not have link to sources and/or citations to this page, as it makes the page unreadable and will affect the overall quality of the page. Thank you.
------Studious Human(talk) 04:16, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Should protect this page - someone literally put Afghanistan as a modern great power

Someone seriously needs to like protect this page, this morning I was looking through it and saw this paragraph on the page:

"Afghanistan is a country in Central Asia that is almost impossible to invade. While many say that it i impossible to invade because it is a landlocked countrv. has hiah mountains, and the onlv wav to at into the countrv is bv air. I aaree with that but it's more than that. Afahanistan a diverse countrv due to different culture livina there. Afahanistan people art special and unlike an other nations. Atahanistan people are loval people and thev are loval to their tribes and families and especiallv Pashtuns as well as other aroup. thev will do anvthina to detend their familv if at treat as well as their countr Afghanistan is not only impossible to invade due to geographical location but it's also impossible to invade because it has people in it that are willing to give up their lives tor their country and are willing die to defend their country. So theretore, it thest attributes and specialities make Afahanistan the most powerful militarv power in the world not because of it's militarv and the number of fiahters thev have but because thev use strateav to defend their countr"

yeah no that cant stay 72.137.44.173 (talk) 04:02, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree. This page has been the subject of vandalism due to its very "interesting" nature. Studious Human (talk) 00:26, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Removal of Mughal Empire

let's start with the Maddison economic report. Pretty much every modern historian and economist seems to agree that this report is not reliable.Its very much focused on the agricultural part and completely ignores the various parts of the world . There are too many gross simplification and inaccurate assumption there. Not only it is inconsistent with the trade volume but it inherently ignores the external factors which is required to calculate the GDP . Also population numbers given in the report is completely wrong . Check the demographics of india page . Morgan Stanley in his book deindustrialization completely discards the report. Even tucker doesn't seems to believe it. Secondly, if we were to believe the report is tight, there are still many problems. First it claims Mughal Empire GDP in 1600 was 22% . But if we were to look at graph it claims india GDP was 22% not Mughals . It comprises of Deccan , south india, Afghanistan (Kandahar) and north east india. Mughals barely controlled half of india to claim whole subcontinent GDP. And the interesting thing is when you look at GDP transition of india, it's been a complete decline in 1600, even china surpassed it for the 1st time in history.

2. The claims of the treasury of Aurangzeb comes from random journal which doesn't provides any authentic source . 3. Military and technologically wise they were very backwards pretty much all of their modern weapons, cannons were imported from the western countries. The only major war they won against a outsider was against east india company ( which they outnumbered them by some 500x and with the help of french ships and east Africans ). Every war with safavids , they were on the losing sides( who themselves are not listed here and were importing weapons from the dutch) . So yeah there are many problems with the reports of GDP of mughals and addition of them here . There are more as well but it's already too big of a paragraph. These problems exist in the original mughal page as well but it is locked. 103.81.213.206 (talk) 04:46, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

!. I removed the 1600 GDP estimate as it was unsourced, however, I kept the 1700 estimate since it was supported by Broadberry and Gupta as well. Furthermore, The GDP, in terms of percentage and number world increased during the Mughal Era between 1600 to 1700 such that it became the largest economy in the world. China and India both had varying gdp throughout history based on their population.

2. The information about Aurangzeb is based on reliable secondary sources mostly used on Wikipedia.

3. All of this is either unsourced or not relevant to the mughal empire being listed as a modern world power. SKAG123 (talk) 00:54, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

French Colonial Empires

It seems strange to me to add a map that shows France having the lands of the Dutch East Indies as a colony. While technically it was under French rule during the Napoleonic Wars, there should either be a comment explaining this or use a new map altogether. Joshua D. Muthi (talk) 14:45, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Polish-Lithuanian union, +minor edits

I've seen some of my edits reverted by user Moxy on 13:48, 24 August 2024, even though they weren't part of the recent chaos with repeated duplications and deletions of large sections of the article. I think my edits are rather self-explanatory (info with sources, maps, removal of Burmese-language name), however, I'd like to elaborate on one particular change of mine, i.e. the change of the year of 1699 to 1701 as the end of the period of great power for Poland-Lithuania. In 1699 there was no significant event marking the end of Polish great power, on the contrary, the Great Turkish War ended with Poland as one of its victors, regaining the previously lost region of Podolia, which is rather a strengthening. Poland was weakened during the Swedish invasion of Poland of 1701–1706. I don't know which year of the invasion is the best to choose for the end of Polish great power period, so I tentatively put it at 1701. I know this particular change was not referenced, but surely 1701 is more appropriate than 1699. In 1683, Poland still was a great power able to the fend off the Ottomans, another great power, at Vienna, and between 1683 and 1701 there were no disastrous invasions, turmoil or disasters that would indicate Poland's decline. I hope that my edits can be restored. Marcin 303 (talk) 16:41, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Post–Cold War era great powers

In regards to the Post–Cold War era great powers, if I may add my point of view, the removal of certain countries like Japan or India is unnecessary. I think the removal stemmed from such states not being viewed by some users as superpowers, but the article lists not superpowers, but great powers, which is a broader term, that includes such influential countries that transcend middle power status. I think this mess stems from a lazy removal by an unregister user on 16:14, 20 August 2024 who could have at least bring the topic up for discussion. In addition, I would suggest, similarly to earlier periods, adding time periods in parentheses if, for example, a country was still a great power in the 1990s and is not today, or the other way around. I leave the discussion to you though, fellow users. Marcin 303 (talk) 17:08, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

A state shouldn't be listed here unless there are reliable sources that describe it as a great power—moreover, it should probably be restricted to such being the viewpoint of a plurality of reliable sources. No matter how clear it is to us, us ascribing that particular label (which is cultural and has no technical definition, only informal ones) to them is original research. Remsense ‥ 论 04:19, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that the deleted content was pretty well sourced. It was one unregistered user who made the decision to remove entire subsections without discussion. Don't look at what edits were made past 16:14, 20 August 2024 Just compare with the earlier one (prev). I think it's odd that one unregistered user removes large chunks of content without discussion, and then a discussion is made on whether to restore it, rather than the other way around, i.e., restore content and possibly have a discussion about the potential removal/movement of content. If there is doubt whether some countries should be listed, I think, to retain valuable info (maybe in shorter form), those could be listed in a "Disputed" or "Potential great powers" subsection. Marcin 303 (talk) 10:41, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

It's not well sourced for the reasons I've described. In addition to its irrelevance in justifying the content's inclusion, some of the sourcing was unacceptable for other reasons: the citation for France's listing is literally an op-ed from the late 1940s—one that still does not straightforwardly declare post-WWII France to be a great power.

Your conception of the consensus process is completely backwards also—it's the responsibility of those who want to make (re-)additions to demonstrate that they are both adequately sourced and actually belong in the article.

A "disputed" section would be inane unless there's actually a dispute at bare minimum—even this has not actually been demonstrated in sources. Remsense ‥ 论 10:53, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm not even arguing. I don't care that much. Just saying that such large removals are odd. There was no issue and no discussion prior. Since when unregistered users just pop in, remove large chunks of content, and leave with no discussion? This sets a bad precedent, regardless of the topic. A discussion would have prevented an edit war. I'm just here by accident, as I made small edits (in comparison) in regards to early modern Poland, Sweden and Burma before I saw the unfolding mess, and some were removed during this mess, and I wanted them possibly restored, as I think they were reasonable, and in some cases obvious. If I had noticed the mess I would have held off on my edits until it calmed down. Marcin 303 (talk) 21:00, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Unregistered users are users; users are allowed to remove unverified content. No sensical precedent has been set, and large removals generally continue to be scrutinized regardless of what the username of the remover looks like. Remsense ‥ 论 21:05, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Rightfully so. We've seen what a mess the removal has sparked. It could have been easily avoided. I'm not opposing a removal if there's a prior heads up for other users. It's just too arbitrary when it's done by one person according to his or her own view, as if his or her perspective is superior to others, and thus insulting to the collective effort various users have put in over a period of time. I'm not trying to drag this topic further. Could you respond to my point about my edits on Poland, Sweden and Burma? Marcin 303 (talk) 21:32, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

It's just too arbitrary when it's done by one person according to his or her own view

It wasn't an arbitrary removal; the confusion was caused by others not demonstrating an understanding of content policy.

small edits (in comparison) in regards to early modern Poland, Sweden and Burma

Are they verifiable?—i.e. do sources actually verify the characterization for the reasons cited? If so, I'm not sure why you would need my permission. Remsense ‥ 论 21:37, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Because they were removed in the midst of the chaos, and there is a possibility that they will be removed again if I re-add them, because of the recent mess. I'll try though. Marcin 303 (talk) 21:48, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

This is what I'm not understanding though: where do the sources cited for these entries characterize them as great powers? I've mentioned this very basic criterion multiple times and I'm not quite understanding where you see their inclusion being merited in lieu of this. Remsense ‥ 论 21:59, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

What are you referring to? Marcin 303 (talk) 22:07, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

At present, (at least) the Poland, Sweden, and Burma early modern sections do not seem to cite sources that characterize those polities as great powers. Remsense ‥ 论 22:20, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

There are three sources calling the Polish-Lithuanian union either a "great power", "major power" or "one of Europe's most powerful states" since 1410 at the very beginning of the section alone. The section itself is quite extensively sourced compared to some of the others, such as Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Turkey and Burma. Marcin 303 (talk) 20:31, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Right, I was a bit rash in lumping it in with the others in my survey. Good to tick one off, thank you. Remsense ‥ 论 20:35, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Can the page, at least for the moment and while locked, be restored to the pre-distrupted 15th of August version? IlleScrutator (talk) 21:36, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

There's no "pre-disrupted version" of the article worth reverting to as far as I can see. I think all the original research should be removed: each listing where no reliable source can be cited characterizing the polity as a "great power" needs to go. That presently includes several listings in the early modern section at least: I'm giving people time to add a citation that would indicate the polity merits inclusion in this list, but failing that I'm going to be removing those as well. Remsense ‥ 论 21:38, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

No, I believe the only reason you’re not doing that because that would be too much work for you and you just want to be lazy it’s been that way for years. Somebody just came and change it and now you don’t want to change it back probably because you were the anonymous editor to change it anyway and now you’re using your account force your opinion down everyone’s throat. 217.180.216.91 (talk) 01:18, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Some random editor's original analyses as to what the "modern great powers" are, including mine, have no value and we shouldn't host them, sorry. Instead, we should present what RS describe as modern great powers without our own synthesis putting words in their mouths. Not sure why I would need to sockpuppet to clarify that very basic reflection of site policy, but it's a fun fount of projection in any case. Remsense ‥ 论 01:23, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Not a random editor just someone who knows what the vast majority of scholars and regular people think Anything is the guy removing it and you defending it for no reason 217.180.216.91 (talk) 14:04, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

It literally takes you two seconds to google and see that even the world economic form and so many other scholarly sources say they’re great powers so yes, it is your opinion that you aren’t changing it back if anything the guy who changed in the first place is a random editor and probably your sock puppet account because you are defending him for no reason 217.180.216.91 (talk) 14:06, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Then supply a citation to that effect so I can add it! :) Remsense ‥ 论 14:09, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Ranking the World’s Major Powers: A Graphic Comparison of the United States, Russia, China, and Other Selected Countries by CSIS here is a great paper A Twenty-First Century Concert of Powers – Promoting Great Power Multilateralism

for the Post-Transatlantic Era 217.180.216.91 (talk) 16:21, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

It took awhile but I tracked down why you were posting uncivil comments to my talk page. Just to note that my only edit to the page was this one[1] were I reverted something not supported by the references supplied. None of that is vandalism, you need to read what is considered vandalism and what is just stuff you don't like. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:46, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes it is 217.180.216.91 (talk) 01:19, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Oh no you had to do some actual research I feel so bad for you not 217.180.216.91 (talk) 01:34, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

The irony in you saying I shouldn’t get upset about things just because I don’t like them. That’s literally the reason why you removed all this information from this Wikipedia page. 217.180.216.91 (talk) 01:39, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

I went back and looked at older versions of the page and at the very end it had two sources listing the three countries as great powers actually even older versions of this page included countries like Japan and India, so I’m probably just deleted those because someone was going around messing around with this page you fell for vandalism good job 217.180.216.91 (talk) 01:43, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

I've said all I'm going to say about this, I reverted one edit that failed verification. That isn't vandalism, and baseless accusations of vandalism are considered aspersions. If you want to add content to the page then please do so, but you will have to add valid references to support that content. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 09:27, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed) What you removed with someone trying to restore (Personal attack removed). What was there before vandal came and removed what was there before which was a lot more information and a lot more sources You coming along not taking into account what’s been going on? Is a kin to vandalism 217.180.216.91 (talk) 12:48, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

So this has nothing to do with the content outside the 21st century, which comprises most of what I have these concerns about? In that case, all the bile you've written at me seems even more egregious. Remsense ‥ 论 11:20, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

So you can't read A Twenty-First Century Concert of Powers means nothing to you 217.180.216.91 (talk) 01:20, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

I haven't really been concerned with any of the content that concerns 21st-century examples, no. My main focus was on the inclusion of say, early modern Burma. Remsense ‥ 论 01:28, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Well that what started this whole thing to begin with somebody removing massive sections have been on this page for years for no discernible reason 217.180.216.91 (talk) 01:35, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Sure, and now it's about the state of the page in general. Remsense ‥ 论 01:40, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Okay than can we at least add back the modern section two it’s original stance before the anonymous editor removed everything at least that section and worry about Burma later 217.180.216.91 (talk) 12:50, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

I'll take a look, sorry for the confusion. Remsense ‥ 论 13:33, 11 September 2024 (UTC)