Talk:Middle power

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The term middle power becomes fashionable right before a nation loses hegemony over a region or the world. Its what people say in a country that is in decline, to reassure each other that their nation, and thus they, are superior to the rest of the world. It blinds people and leaders to their own problems and external opportunities.

Middle power was used in china before it lost everything to european and japanese militarism.

Ancient romans used the term when buffer nations started acting up and instead of buffering occasionally sacked roman cities.

Americans are using the term as its influence and respect wanes. The harmful part of this paradigm is that it insults every nation. When the america talks about the hub and spokes of allies in the pacific, how do you think nations feel about being referred to as spoke?

The best example of this dumb way of thinking is the quad. The united states adopted this dumb idea from Abe. At the same time that america was demanding a five fold increase in payments to station 26,000 troops in a country that literally has one of the biggest militaries out there, south korea is insulted bu being left off a list of countries America believes can either present a security aliance against china or act as proxies in a hot cold war with China.

Of the other quad members, india, aistralia, and japan. The dumbest president ever, trump, and his government led by political appointees jumped on the quad as an actual startegy.

After doing everything to piss off and disrespect south korea, an ally that sent over 200,000 soldiers to fight for america in vietnam, you want it to join your club. You are shocked when south korea hesitates? How about sending ana envoy directly to south korea, and not as an afterthought after the japan visit, an ally that still worships class a war criminals that routinely executed american pows in WW2?

Ameica, under the middle kingdon view, desires the spokes to work out their differences because of their shares awe of the hub. It must be hard when no one shares you narcisstic and biased views.

South korea the spoke is the only member besides the united states with offensive weapons that can strike beijing and the chinese missle sites that protect the seas within the first island chain. South korea has a marine force second only to US. South korea has landing ships for those marines.

Yet you include india and japan as a security threat to china. Oh i bet they are scared of a country that cannot even provide basic health care to its people, and a country without a single rocket/missile or platform that can strike a chinese base or city. All those japanese destroyers and subs, not a single cruise missile.

Australia might as well just be as removed as america based on distance of lack of national interest in participating in a war.

There is no way south korea is joining this team, it is literally House Slytherin.

Advanced Power[edit]

I think there should be a new category, one for those major middle powers that are obviously stronger than their counterparts but weaker then a great power which would be called an "Advanced Power" which is just in between the two. I think countries such as Brazil, Canada, Australia, India, Germany, Japan, and other major countries of that range should be included into this new category of "Advanced Power".--Collingwood26 (talk) 10:07, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you.Australia,Brazil,Canada,Germany,India,Italy,Japan and Spain are MAIN middle powers that can't be compared to the other ones.151.40.7.192 (talk) 08:22, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


The term middle power is insulting and your ideas of advanced middle powers is even less useful. Is a middle power nation replaceable with another middle power. Are middle powers really similiar? You consider spain more powerful than south korea, really?

The term middle power is used by people who think they live in a great power, when each country is unique.

What is the point of all this useless categorization nonsense? So if your economy is top 10 and military top 6 you are a middle power? so dumb.

WP:3RR Warning[edit]

To the IP who has now reverted 4 times today: let's discuss what you're trying to do here on the talk page. Otherwise you're going to end up blocked. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 06:55, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Malta a middle power???[edit]

It's already a new that Japan and Germany are great powers.If i well remember they lack a lot in military (Germany can be compared to Italy as military) and other things.You cite Malta as middle power!!!!!151.40.7.192 (talk) 08:06, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

want to add information--Etehahnrajah (talk) 23:01, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. — Mr. Stradivarius on tour ♪ talk ♪ 01:10, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

151.40.0.150 (talk) 20:09, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request, 10 October 2013[edit]

In the articles "Middle power" there's a lot of confusion and even in "Great power " article too.Collingwood26 is right purposing that thing about "main,medium and small" middle powers.(even if it isn't sufficient). They are low level articles considering how they set some countries like UK,France,Russia Japan,Germany,Italy and Canada.They are really dubious about criteria used.151.40.13.136 (talk) 10:48, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not needs to be changed want to add information to add to add countries. --Etehahnrajah (talk) 19:48, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The list of middle power must be changed .First of all countries must be divided in main,medium and small middle powers. Second in article people talk like if it were a middle power and it' is just in comics. Third it's unclear the line that divides a great power like Japan or Germany from countries like Italy.Really 2 level low articles "Middle power" and " Great power".Italy and India should be 2 great powers.Anyway ignorance rules.151.40.0.150 (talk) 11:54, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not done:. It is only "a list of countries that have been called middle powers by academics or other experts", and the section clearly states: "The overlaps between the lists of middle powers and great powers, and between the lists of small powers and middle powers, show that there is no unanimous agreement among authorities." Citations have been provided for the countries you mention. If you want the list to be subdivided into main, medium, and small, you will have to provide adequate reliable sources to support that division. --Stfg (talk) 12:18, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The famous sources you cite in this article and "Great power" article are just bla bla bla of SOME academics and not the of the opinion of the main academics and of the common sense in the world.An italian like an indian or somebody else reading this article laugh.India and Italy are copmpared to small countries.There's an abyss between them and the other as military and economy and demography.Watch Italy and India articles,they are the best citations.Are they less than Japan or Germany or France or UK or Russia? Really difficult to realize watching data.Impossible to realize.Even Brazil or Canada can't be common middle powers. They are even compared to middle powers the are of another size.People are laughing (above all in India and Italy) of these articles.We discover that Norway or Thailand or Ukraine have the same importance of states like India,Italy ,Brazil and Canada.))))))151.40.0.150 (talk) 20:09, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

India has the 10th largest economy as nominal GDP , a large demography ,a large territory and a developed military system .India owns its own nuclear arsenal.It's member of the G20.Italy has the 9th world economy as GDP ,it has the 3rd largest golden reserve in the world,it is part of nuclear sharing programs (and even developed its own centres like CAMEN to produce nuke in 1968),it has the 6th net national wealth (5th as developed country) in the world (much better than Russia that is really poor and better UK and very very close to France and Germany ) and for this is member of the G7.It is member also of the G8 and G20 or whatelse. Brazil has the 7th largest nominal GDP in the world and an importantant national net wealth.It's member of the G20.Canada has the 10th economy in the world as GDP and the 8th as national net wealth (7th as developed country).It is member of the G7.It is member of the G8 and G20 too. How can article compare these states to the other ones (Norway,Thailand and so on....) ? It's really difficult to realize the difference with the states cited in "Great power" (so called).Try to better these 2 articles that make laugh millions people,it's normal in the common sense and in the people that studied at a very good level.151.40.0.150 (talk) 08:30, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@151.40.... we are not here to document our own value judgements about various countries. Nobody cares which countries you or I or any other Wikipedia editor thinks greater or lesser powers than any other, whatever reasons you put forward. It is a question of what the sources say. Identify some good sources, and we can reflect them. Fail to identify good sources, and we aren't going to reflect your views just because you tell us to. Simple as that. --Stfg (talk) 09:58, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Simpler is using Wikipedia articles like India , Brazil , Italy and Canada .Citations in these articles are already set (and many times a simple citation hides a lie) and are more than sufficient to declare that these states can't be "normal" middle powers (they can't be compared to Norway or Ukraine or so on).This article that is linked to " Great power " concept isn't at all clear like the same " Great power ".They are dubious articles .The articles referred to the single states are more certain citations.If people deny articles on these states it's like if people deny Wikipedia articles.So people don't need citations,but just taking descriptions from the articles of these states. There are huge contrasts between these states descriptions and their rankings in Wikipedia articles "Great power " and "Middle power". (luckily in the reality they are really great powers).And people last to laugh.151.40.64.80 (talk) 11:49, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here are 3 links to describe Italy as great power.

[1]

[2]

[3]

Like for Italy i can find easily citations as great powers for India and Brazil .151.40.64.80 (talk) 18:24, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's better not to put ref tags round links on talk pages, as there is no {{reflist}} here, so the ref tags make the links unusable. Also, please avoid links that being of the form google.it/url?, as these are blacklisted by Wikipedia. Here are direct links to the three sources:
I will read them now and comment afterwards. --Stfg (talk) 19:33, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, now I see what's happening. First, let's look at those sources. They are talking about Italy's greatness, first in a general sense (the first reference) and also in a specifically economic sense (the second and third references).
(By the way, the second and third aren't very confident -- the second one ironically says "Saremo una grande potenza, ma possibile che non si riesca a organizzare uno straccio di difesa del territorio?" (We may be a great power, but is it possible we cannot muster a shred of defence of the territory?) and "Siamo una grande potenza economica, ma dov’è lo Stato?" (We are a great economic power, but where is the sate?) The third one says "CAOS POLITICO - L’Italia è ancora una grande potenza economica, a livello mondiale, visto che si colloca all’ottavo posto per produzione di merci e servizi. Da anni però il nostro paese soffre gravi difficoltà, acuite dal risultato elettorale di settimana scorsa." (POLITICAL CHAOS - Italy is still a great, world-class economic power, seeing that it ranks 8th in the production of goods and services. But for years our country has suffered grave difficulties, aggravated by the result of last week's elections.")
But look, we can easily agree that Italy is a great country in this general sense (and not only economically; also culturally). But that is not what this article is about. The articles Superpower, Great power and this one, Middle power, are describing terms that are used in some kinds of discussion by academics and perhaps some politicians. To be honest, I think it's a rather silly division, but since people do write in those terms, we have these articles to explain them, and we cite the writings. So, the "Middle powers" listed in this article are those that have been so called by various writers, nothing more.
That is also why India and Brazil are listed here. It doesn't mean they are unimportant; it means that they were written about in cited sources. In fact, both those countries are also listed in Superpower#Potential superpowers, as you may have noticed.
Now for your edit request. What you said there was: "The list of middle power must be changed .First of all countries must be divided in main,medium and small middle powers." But you offered no text, no sources, and no identification of which countries should be in each of the three subdivisions. Your three sources listed above say nothing about this main/medium/small subdivision. There is nothing actionable in the edit request, so it wasn't done. It couldn't be.
If you want to pursue this I suggest that the best way to do so would be to open a new edit request, to be very precise as that exactly what should be changed/deleted/added in the article, and give links to justify each claim. Don't just make generalized rants, and don't say things like "ignorance rules" and "Try to better these 2 articles that make laugh millions people". That's just rude, and won't get you any cooperation from anyone. --Stfg (talk) 20:33, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I know italian better than you and above all the 1st article supports Italy as great power.It's one of the main newspapers in Italy."Middle power" and "Great power" articles still make laugh a lot of millions people.You didn't translate,but you made a partial traslation and interpretation of articles.In the italian sense they ALREADY consider Italy a great power naturally with all its limits.Italy as military it's stronger than Germany and even than some others.It has nuclear sharing and it owns its nuclear arsenal since 1968 (i can post citation).It's totally different from what you translated.About India and Brazil there are many articles too that support them as great powers.151.40.64.80 (talk) 20:53, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]


3 HAHAHAHAHA HAHA HAHAHAHAHA; 4 HAHAHAHAHAHA, HAHAHAHA, HAHAHAHA HA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA; 5 HA HA; 6 HAHAHA HAHA HAHA ...

the "Middle powers" listed in this article are those that have been so called by various writers, nothing more.


the writers, academics,,,,,that have been so called are stupid hoe writers nothing more. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA bathetic bathetic --Yoliwadebipedia (talk) 21:08, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Here is the citation where the Minister of the Defence of Italy Luigi Gui in Parliament knows that the CAMEN centre close Pisa was building nukes by Deputy Mr Niccolai.Deputy Mr Niccolai was in Parliament since 1968 and since 1970 in the Commission of the Italian Parliament for military affairs. Deputy Mr Niccolai in a clear way says that CAMEN (close Pisa and Camp Darby) is producing nukes.Many articles should be changed .These words are taken from official Italian Parliament talking.Now i wonder how Italy can't be considered a great power.One thing is reality one thing is the theoretical world of bla bla bla people.Italy even developed in 1973-76 an IRBM (1600km) and later other rockets able to be used like ICBM.IRBM Alfa rocket could carry 1 Mt warhead and could be launched from frigates or destroyers.My father like all good officials of the Italian Air Force ,Army and Navy know about it even there were secrets of state.It's supposed (the place not the existance) that italian nukes are stored in La Spezia arsenal. And Japan and Germany have these things?But they are great powers)))).In the last Credit Suisse Global Wealth Report October 2013 we just discovered that the national global net wealth of Italy is larger than the british one and very very close to the french and to the german one.So Italy is member of the G7 (the economical-political summit with the 7 developed countries with the largest net national wealth-5th as national net wealth in developed countries list and 6th in the global list that considers China that is undeveloped),the G8 (the political summit,in fact russian financial weight is mostly 0.Italy weights about 12 times more than Russia) the G20 and whatelse and isn't a great power?There's something wrong in these 2 articles articles.I'd have shame to hold in this way these 2 articles.It's a matter of intellectual honesty and good feith as Wikipedia rightly asks.And the laugh can last.And now???)))))[4] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.40.64.80 (talk) 21:39, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]


[5]

Here is the citation about net wealth in the world.In the Databook of Credit Suisse Global Wealth Report October 2013 you can find much more detailed data.Let's go to check if there's something to change in this 2 articles.We find that UK and Russia (that is really 0 as financial weight.It's in the G8 just for political reasons) couldn't be great powers if Italy weren't.We discover that on the military level Germany and Japan couldn't be great powers if Italy weren't.India and Brazil should be included in the great powers with Italy too.India has net wealth and demography larger than Russia.Brazil has net wealth and nominal GDP larger than Russia.Do not changing leaves just the appearing (aka propaganda) in Wikipedia and not the truth.These are facts not opinions added by newspapers citations.There are 2 serious options: 1) Writing that great powers are the 5 main winners of the WWII with a permanent seat and veto power in the UN in the "Great power" article even if it is a dated concept.Today the weight of UN (see wars and other situations) is mostly 0.Wealth and weapons have a much more weight.In the "Middle power" article it's better to set back Germany and Japan and make distinctions between main and secondary middle powers.2)Adding to "Great power" article Italy,India and Brazil.In "Middle power" article it's always important to make distinctions between secondary and main powers.Impressive the silence that is following.But i cited what many didn't know (or knew and didn't say for interest).Few italians hands write about Italy (like for its past,see Roman period) and many other countries hands wants to tell about it.Same for other states.We saw that here is moving for propaganda CIA,FSB and many others.Their activity is higher in economy,military, history and policy articles.They move with fantasy names as normal.The italian Homeland Security has been already informally informed.151.40.64.80 (talk) 23:07, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ http://www.google.it/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=36&cad=rja&ved=0CE0QFjAFOB4&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.p2warticles.com%2F2012%2F02%2Fil-freddo-e-litalia-settima-potenza-economica-mondiale%2F&ei=nJFZUu-mM4fuswb-kIG4Dw&usg=AFQjCNEts-DrKJ-Yc1xrddr7mW6txx7PFw
  2. ^ http://www.google.it/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&ved=0CDoQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ilgiornale.it%2Fnews%2Flitalia-grande-potenza-che-non-sa-esserlo.html&ei=rpJZUre7IsSQtAaus4CQCQ&usg=AFQjCNHqvURo5hVEpDJlSxhi9GgKVpNX3g
  3. ^ http://www.google.it/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=42&cad=rja&ved=0CDMQFjABOCg&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.giornalettismo.com%2Farchives%2F809903%2Fla-crisi-italiana-durera-ancora-a-lungo%2F&ei=8ZJZUp2AGojRtQaD_4CIAQ&usg=AFQjCNG1w7pCIdgL20d9NdUlx3Y5mtXMAg
  4. ^ http://www.google.it/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&ved=0CD4QFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fsulatestagiannilannes.blogspot.com%2F2012%2F08%2Fnucleare-militare-un-segreto-italiano.html&ei=2r9ZUpazGoTNtQaF_IDIBQ&usg=AFQjCNHaoI-HYSH6Dc4vBEytQhAqRSBQXw
  5. ^ http://www.google.it/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=5&cad=rja&ved=0CEwQFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.smh.com.au%2Ffile%2F2013%2F10%2F09%2F4815797%2Fcs_global_wealth_report_2013_WEB_low%252520pdf.pdf&ei=MNVZUunoMoiL0AWomoHgDA&usg=AFQjCNG8AO2arnAOnOEPnHUJ4vjdF6qTUg

Sudan as a Middle Power?[edit]

Sudan has no place within this document. I'm afraid to say it has very few characteristics that are associated with a Middle Power. Sudan is riddled with internal issues and rarely expresses any influence outside of its boarders. The country recently split in half due to instability causing the breakup of the nation. It has no economic clout, with its GDP per capita less then that of Palestine (a largely unrecognized state). It is located next to Egypt, a far more dominant country on every scale. Its military is respectable by African standards, but relies on outdated Soviet machinery. There is no supporting citations listed on the page. The simple question is this; If Sudan is a Middle Power, who is listening to it? --31.205.7.72 (talk) 02:42, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sudan should deleted from the list[edit]

Who deleted Italy from the list?[edit]

Someone deleted Italy... it should be reintegrated in the list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.20.200.4 (talk) 18:24, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive editing[edit]

User:Cityinfonorns keeps changing the referenced information on the "List of middle powers". --IIIraute (talk) 03:10, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Indonesia as a Leading Middle Power[edit]

I was told by a fellow editor to put this into discussion, but quite frankly I think the case for Indonesia as a Leading Middle Power is pretty strong. FACTS:
- G20 member (17 out of the 19 national members of G20 are at least ranked as Leading Middle Power
- 15th/16th largest economy
- ASEAN secretariat
- 4th most populous nation
- its secondary/industrial sector of economy is in the top 10
- Major Regional Power of South East Asia

ARTICLES: Indonesia emerges as powerhouse: http://www.vancouversun.com/business/emerging-markets/Emerging+Markets+Indonesia+emerges+powerhouse/9039107/story.html
World Bank Blog: Underrated Indonesia poised to enter global stage : http://blogs.worldbank.org/category/tags/emerging-powers

--Ryopus (talk) 01:54, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Leading middle power"[edit]

Is there any reference or citation that describes the term within the article? Furthermore, are there any citations within the article that make the distinction between which countries are considered "leading middle powers" and which ones are not? Because if not, then it doesn't belong here. Antiochus the Great (talk) 11:07, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Issue resolved thanks to the recent edits by Barjimoa. Thanks. Antiochus the Great (talk) 21:21, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Italy and Canada: Edits by Yogurto[edit]

Broad consensus among academics is that neither are great powers and none of the sources you provide specifically state that they are. For example, the G7 may well be a forum of discussion for great powers, but that is not the same as saying Italy and Canada are great powers - because the G7 may well include both great and middle powers while still qualifying as a forum for great powers (because at-least some great powers are present). Instead of edit-warring poorly sourced material, which currently constitutes WP:OR, I suggest you talk it out here first. Antiochus the Great (talk) 15:20, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also Yogurto, per Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, the onus is now on you to discuss the matter here and let the community reach a consensus on how to proceed. Antiochus the Great (talk) 15:24, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I dont speak english well but now I try to explain my edits. I agree that there is not broad consensus (BTW, same for India or even Germany and Japan). In fact i did not make this edit in the page known as Great Powers, but in the section "Overlaps between Great powers and middle powers" which I thought it was the correct space for my edits. Sorry but I didnt think it was necessary to find a consensus over sourced material and still i find hard to believe that. Please do not say that i started the edit war because i did not. I did not mean to offend you and Tiderolls. Sorry if you feel or have felt offended by my edits or by my reverts.

So, Yesterday I made the following edits:

I wrote that Italy and Canada are sometimes/rarely listed among Great Powers.

1)I quote Professor Kirton "Finally, the status hierarchy of the international system at the time (Gotlieb 1978) supported the claim that Canada and Italy deserved the status of great powers and hence inclusion (in contrast to other "upper middle powers" such as India and Brazil)" (here is the source: http://www.g8.utoronto.ca/scholar/kirton198901/kcon1.htm). That is what i mean with "overlaps between great powers and middle powers".

2)Sources supporting the same view of Kirton: the G7/G8 as an informal meeting of great powers. https://books.google.it/books?id=EK9bv2QlRuoC&pg=PA9&lpg=PA9&dq=Great+power+summit+G8&source=bl&ots=ulS118sQNN&sig=fvfHCuZCKbkjY1RqEeIPYW_SCjU&hl=it&sa=X&ei=_jmoVLftJsnfavnagYAF&ved=0CCwQ6AEwBQ

https://books.google.it/books?id=3t2vhlvF0l8C&pg=PA1988&lpg=PA1988&dq=Great+power+summit+G8&source=bl&ots=MojVfoIV8V&sig=p-1Y_X2CIUMb3gJWN6TjvNy-mwk&hl=it&sa=X&ei=hjuoVJewFsLaas-zgfgB&ved=0CDAQ6AEwBzgK

https://books.google.it/books?id=swfHBQAAQBAJ&pg=PT243&lpg=PT243&dq=G7+great+power&source=bl&ots=-6iFuxjFXL&sig=p842upho6w73jiZg8mj1A-0QSj4&hl=it&sa=X&ei=vz2oVOeaHsnlaMqggvAD&ved=0CDQQ6AEwCA

The sources do NOT say that all of the G8 members are great powers except Italy and Canada. Those sources simply say that the G7/G8 is an informal summit of great powers. That means that its members are great powers according to those analysts. This is what i mean with "There are also some sources listing Italy and Canada among great powers". Have you ever find an analyst saying that The UN assembly or the G20 are meetings of great powers? no, because not all of its members are great powers. This way to think is contained also in the old source (Again: http://www.g8.utoronto.ca/scholar/kirton198901/kcon1.htm) which basically say that in a forum of great powers there are only great powers.

3)And finally there are sources of The telegraph, The guardian etc.. describing the G7/G8 members as "the eigth great powers, the seven world powers etc..."

Is the onus on me? You reverted my edits first.

Yogurto Talk — Preceding undated comment added 16:28, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]


La documentation Francaiçe says "L'Italie est avant toute une grande puissance europeene (Italy is first of all a european great power). Source:http://www.ladocumentationfrancaise.fr/catalogue/3303331600596/index.shtml

And with Sciences Po (Paris Institute of Political Studies) they made two interesting tables titled "Russia and the great powers (G8 and China)". Those data are old and not interesting. But It is very important and interesting that the title says that the G8 members and China are Great powers.

First one: https://07d0eb30-a-62cb3a1a-s-sites.googlegroups.com/site/munsummit/herramientas/referencias/mapas-y-graficas/russia-y-las-grandes-potencias-g8-y-china/17_1_g8etchine_gauche.jpg?attachauth=ANoY7cpJpyCUv6rF4H4LtX7iqDUo3K0wf4U4eg_avHPZBPEBMw60hYqFCA6VClilGg7LOf0AIcVuJu8odeqiyMEHQcaq6wzFXVIVV6ExURMlSLuEssICme77DQb0Z-xjCWiFPBtTUgbL_viUy5gRdAMz98ihtqC6iEdsPVKma9E6-zPDzyPvqZMkBWobG5SaQQb3BSVMlRcrlSz63a1urcQI5qFji5Zc_hxcXHhIjISbKzQ57-onqlPhGN1e0J-20TJzIg_5F1wG5PDJnOu_INDxALfaqHhyqzeUNkm4F3kL5iXpQCwISpaPw0xJAkoe_mrKT9iJ1WJZ2tUjLnEqid7_Vc6dwz1OYw%3D%3D&attredirects=0

Second one: http://cartographie.sciences-po.fr/sites/default/files/17_2_g8etchine_droite.jpg


As i said I dont want to list Italy and Canada as Great Powers 100%, because there are more sources not considering them great powers. The section "Overlaps between great powers and middle powers" in this page (Middle power) is the one correct for them, because quoting again Prof Kirton "Finally, the status hierarchy of the international system at the time (Gotlieb 1978) supported the claim that Canada and Italy deserved the status of great powers and hence inclusion (in the G7)." And the G7/G8 is still considered an informal meeting of great powers by a lot of media and some academics who list Canada and Italy among great powers without making clear distinction of status with the countries most referred as great powers like UK or France.

Are there any oppositions? Tell me what you think. Sorry for my english.

Yogurto talk — Preceding undated comment added 12:29, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the matter to the talk page Yogurto, and no apologies necessary for your English. I understand what your saying very well! You make some compelling arguments, especially that the section is called "Overlaps between great powers and middle powers" and as such, it is possible that we could include Italy and Canada there. However, I still think we should wait perhaps a day or two more to allow other editors time to come here and express their opinions. For now, I will continue to study the sources you have provided. Cheers. Antiochus the Great (talk) 13:13, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, Thank you! Yogurto Talk

I agree with Yogurto. We have a reasonable number of sources to include Italy, Canada and maybe Brazil in that section.

And i have a new source.

It makes sense to distinguish G7 nations and BRIC states from the other middle powers. 01opportunity (talk) 14:07, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hardly the most convincing sources with little clarity. At best, a fringe view -see WP:FRINGE. Perhaps seek thoughts/consensus from the community before making such bold edits. See WP:BRD for how I think we should now proceed with this issue. Cheers.Antiochus the Great (talk) 22:32, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
.@.151.40.119.193 Can you discuss the issue here and gain community consensus rather than make edits against our policies and guidelines? Thanks.Antiochus the Great (talk) 14:18, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Antiochus the Great (talk). I agree with @.151.40.119.193 and with Yogurto. If you guys prefer another version. Here's one i can agree with:

Overlaps between great powers and middle powers[edit]

The overlaps between the lists of middle powers and great powers show that there is no unanimous agreement among authorities.[1] Nations such as China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States are generally considered to be great powers due to their economic, military and strategic importance, their status as recognised nuclear powers and their permanent seats on the UN Security Council. Yet sources have at times referred to France, Russia, the United Kingdom as middle powers too:

Some academics also believe that Germany and Japan are great powers, but due to their large advanced economies and global influence as opposed to military and strategic capabilities.[6] Although broad academic support for India as a great power is uncommon, some in the field of political science, such as Malik Mohan and Dr. Zbigniew Brzezinski, consider India to be a great power.[7][8] Germany, Japan and India have been also described as middle powers:

Some in the field of international relations, such as Professor Kirton and a Sciences Po academic, support the uncommon claim that Italy and Canada deserve the status of great powers due to their inclusion in the G7. [17][18] Moreover, in a 2014 HCSS report, Italy has been listed among the Great Powers. [19]




And I think that we can can find sources to put Brazil near Canada and Italy. 01opportunity (talk) 15:00, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks 01opportunity, that is an excellent revision and something we can certainly use. It satisfies the policies I had issues with. Thanks again.Antiochus the Great (talk) 16:48, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the version that is here posted by Antiochus the Great that includes in the overlaps UK,France,Italy,Canada,India,Russia and India.My opinion is to restore the last one version.We can't change every day.It isn't serious. 151.40.119.193 (talk) 16:58, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Even if there's a big distance between Italy and Canada (see all data),Russia has an economic power mostly insignificant and India is widely overvalued (see its national net wealth),finally we had a result.I appreciate it.Good.151.40.119.193 (talk) 17:10, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Happy of this agreement. Thank you everybody. Yogurto (talk) 18:44, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Afetr 1 month the scenario changed again,this isn't a serious site.187....a brazilian guy vandalized all.Time to stop him.151.40.88.251 (talk) 05:33, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Mehmet Ozkan. "A NEW APPROACH TO GLOBAL SECURITY: PIVOTAL MIDDLE POWERS AND GLOBAL POLITICS" Perceptions: Journal of International Affairs XI.1 (2006): 77-95
  2. ^ ="Europeand Sussex, both the UK and France were great powers now reduced to middle power status.
  3. ^ Neumann, Iver B. (2008). "Russia as a great power, 1815–2007". Journal of International Relations and Development. 11: 128–151 [p. 128]. doi:10.1057/jird.2008.7. As long as Russia's rationality of government deviates from present-day hegemonic neo-liberal models by favouring direct state rule rather than indirect governance, the West will not recognize Russia as a fully fledged great power.
  4. ^ P. Shearman, M. Sussex, European Security After 9/11(Ashgate, 2004) - According to Shearman and Sussex, both the UK and France were great powers now reduced to middle power status.
  5. ^ Chalmers, Malcolm (May 2015). "A Force for Order: Strategic Underpinnings of the Next NSS and SDSR". Royal United Services Institute. Briefing Paper (SDSR 2015: Hard Choices Ahead): 2. While no longer a superpower (a position it lost in the 1940s), the UK remains much more than a 'middle power'. {{cite journal}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); line feed character in |quote= at position 53 (help)
  6. ^ "Encarta - The Great Powers". Archived from the original on 2009-11-01. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  7. ^ Strategic Vision: America & the Crisis of Global Power by Dr. Zbigniew Brzezinski, pp 43–45. Published 2012.
  8. ^ Malik, Mohan (2011). China and India: Great Power Rivals. United States: FirstForumPress. ISBN 1935049410.
  9. ^ Otte M, Greve J (2000) A Rising Middle Power?: German Foreign Policy in Transformation, 1989-1999, St. Martin's Press
  10. ^ Sperling, James (2001). "Neither Hegemony nor Dominance: Reconsidering German Power in Post Cold-War Europe". British Journal of Political Science. 31 (2). doi:10.1017/S0007123401000151.
  11. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference Harris was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  12. ^ Robert W. Cox, 'Middlepowermanship, Japan, and Future World Order, International Journal, Vol. 44, No. 4 (1989), pp. 823-862.
  13. ^ Soeya Yoshihide, 'Diplomacy for Japan as a Middle Power, Japan Echo, Vol. 35, No. 2 (2008), pp. 36-41.
  14. ^ Charalampos Efstathopoulosa, 'Reinterpreting India's Rise through the Middle Power Prism', Asian Journal of Political Science, Vol. 19, Issue 1 (2011), p. 75: 'India's role in the contemporary world order can be optimally asserted by the middle power concept. The concept allows for distinguishing both strengths and weakness of India's globalist agency, shifting the analytical focus beyond material-statistical calculations to theorise behavioural, normative and ideational parameters.'
  15. ^ Robert W. Bradnock, India's Foreign Policy since 1971 (The Royal Institute for International Affairs, London: Pinter Publishers, 1990), quoted in Leonard Stone, 'India and the Central Eurasian Space', Journal of Third World Studies, Vol. 24, No. 2, 2007, p. 183: 'The U.S. is a superpower whereas India is a middle power. A superpower could accommodate another superpower because the alternative would be equally devastating to both. But the relationship between a superpower and a middle power is of a different kind. The former does not need to accommodate the latter while the latter cannot allow itself to be a satellite of the former."
  16. ^ Jan Cartwright, 'India's Regional and International Support for Democracy: Rhetoric or Reality?', Asian Survey, Vol. 49, No. 3 (May/June 2009), p. 424: 'India’s democratic rhetoric has also helped it further establish its claim as being a rising "middle power." (A "middle power" is a term that is used in the field of international relations to describe a state that is not a superpower but still wields substantial influence globally. In addition to India, other "middle powers" include, for example, Australia and Canada.)'
  17. ^ Russia and the Great Powers
  18. ^ The Seven-Power Summit as an International Concert
  19. ^ Why are Pivot states so Pivotal?
  20. ^ Cite error: The named reference Jordaan was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  21. ^ Cite error: The named reference Adriansyah was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  22. ^ Behringer RM (2005) Middle Power Leadership on the Human Security Agenda, SAGE
  23. ^ Crosby AD (1997) A Middle-Power Military in Alliance: Canada and NORAD, JSTOR
  24. ^ Petersen K (2003) Quest to Reify Canada as a Middle Power, Dissident Voice
  25. ^ "Operation Alba may be considered one of the most important instances in which Italy has acted as a regional power, taking the lead in executing a technically and politically coherent and determined strategy." See Federiga Bindi, Italy and the European Union (Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press, 2011), p. 171.
  26. ^ "Italy plays a prominent role in European and global military, cultural and diplomatic affairs. The country's European political, social and economic influence make it a major regional power." See Italy: Justice System and National Police Handbook, Vol. 1 (Washington, D.C.: International Business Publications, 2009), p. 9.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Middle power. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:43, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 6 external links on Middle power. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:01, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Messed up[edit]

I accidently deleted the United Kingdoms mention as a middle power, when I meant to delete the last reference (Which, as it says the complete opposite to what the page claimed should not be used as a reference)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Middle power. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:43, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why I deleted Azerbaijan[edit]

Azerbaijan has no place within this document. I'm afraid to say it has very few characteristics that are associated with a Middle Power. While it's the richest country in the Caucasus, the only countries it has influenced are Georgia and Armenia, the latter of which is in war with Azerbaijan. It has no economic clout, with its GDP (nominal, 2015) being less then that of Ethiopia (a very poor state). It borders with Russia and Iran, and both are far more dominant countries on every scale. The simple question is this: If Azerbaijan is a Middle Power, who is listening to it? --Funny Gardaland (talk) 14:49, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, Azerbaijan ONLY considers itself to be an important player. It's not in reality. --Funny Gardaland (talk) 04:30, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well someone just added Azerbaijan to the list again... what are your views on that? Should we delete it from the list? Thanks Pyruvate (talk) 15:41, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ireland[edit]

Ireland produces many products, most notably beer. It's 43th in the 2015 GDP count. Diplomacy and relationships are an integral part of power. Ireland's close alliance with the UK makes it more important. Independent of this relationship, Ireland is still a far greater power than, say, Hungary in every discernible way. Ireland arguably is a middle power, relative to its ranking compared to other countries. --Funny Gardaland (talk) 11:07, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Funny Gardaland: You keep apologising for not finding sources but keep adding contentious countries, even admitting in edit summaries "I can't find sources". That is not acceptable. I dispute the inclusion of several unsourced countries you have added, such as Ireland and Kuwait. Please find sources or they will be removed. AusLondonder (talk) 09:04, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you tell me which countries to remove, I'll delete them myself. --Funny Gardaland (talk) 09:22, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A source from the Irish Times is inadequate to include Ireland in this article. Especially since the article provides no list of sources to support the claim that "Analysts refer to Ireland’s position as a “middle power”." Antiochus the Great (talk) 15:51, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Middle power. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:11, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Middle power. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:09, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Middle power. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:31, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Middle power. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:45, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 May 2019[edit]

Bangladesh is a middle power, please add it to the list. Source: https://www.clingendael.org/pub/2018/strategic-monitor-2018-2019/a-balancing-act/ 144.48.111.211 (talk) 15:45, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The "Table 7" shown in that article is rather interesting, rating middle powers from emerging to established, perhaps we should reflect that here. – Þjarkur (talk) 17:05, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Done BlackcurrantTea (talk) 07:22, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Filter doesn't work. Somebody added Ireland without citations.Now article is ridiculous.33Hudsonbay33 (talk) 04:06, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Origins of the middle power concept[edit]

Hi all, it's been recently shown that middle powers can be traced back to antiquity, with instances in ancient China, Greece, India, and Rome. Here's the academic publication that attests as much, with historical evidence, though I cannot modify the sentence in the introductory paragraph and add this reference:

Gabriele Abbondanza, 'The historical determination of the middle power concept', in Rethinking Middle Powers in the Asian Century: New Theories, New Cases, edited by T.S. de Swielande, D. Vandamme, D. Walton, and T.S. Wilkins (London: Routledge, 2019), pp. 32-44.

Here's the link to Routledge's chapter: https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/e/9780429463846/chapters/10.4324/9780429463846-3

Could someone modify the sentence relating to the origins of middle powers and add this reference?

Thanks, Manabeast333 (talk) 02:41, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Brazil?[edit]

Where is Brazil or is it a great power already? Nlivataye (talk) 17:05, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why not Ethiopia?[edit]

Angola , which has very little influence in Africa , is a middle power but Ethiopia , where the HQs of the African Union are and has a ton of influence, is not a middle power. This is absurd. I recommend Ethiopia as a middle power on this list as well. Any other opinions are welcome Sobhan mohapatra (talk) 09:00, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Sobhan mohapatra- I think the reason which Angola listed as a middle power (even just a least powerful role) is because a particular scholar reference defined it is. [1] Otherwise, I personally do not consider Bangladesh, Iraq, Sri Lanca, Kuwait, or Peru having anything near the range of middle powers as well, many of them are still among the least developed countries. LVTW2 (talk) 09:55, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Africa[edit]

How is Egypt not a middle power here when Angola or Morocco are? 169.255.185.34 (talk) 09:17, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistan is not a middle power.[edit]

According to the www.globalfirepower.com Pakistan rank 9th in military power. 39.52.154.85 (talk) 01:56, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sourh Korea reference n⁰ 102 not working.[edit]

Hello, South Korea's reference number 102 link isn't working, it sends to an error page. Could someone please fix it? Thanks. 95.245.58.101 (talk) 16:50, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Emergence of Turkey as a Great Power[edit]

The list should be updated for the emergence of Turkey as a new Great Power? Turkey is the second largest army in NATO. It has many foreign military bases in its region. Also very young population (Median age is only 30) and diverse highly industrial economy. Its GDP (PPP) is currently 11th in the world. Which is larger than Italy and only behind France. It has very high HDI index and Life expectancy in Turkey is higher than USA. It has also the fastest growing population in Europe with 1.3 million newborns each year. The country is capable of producing advanced drones, helicopters. An aircraft carrier is under construction. Also its past as a great power (Ottoman Empire) gives the country significant soft power and political influence in Eastern Europe, Western Asia and Middle East. Many academics and think tanks already considering the country as a Great Power for the past 10 years. I think this article can be updated. Since considering Turkey as a 'Middle Power' is not very correct for the current political situation. I would like to hear your opinion.

Name these academics.--Dawud — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:B011:9:3DF1:302A:FB63:2C40:8567 (talk) 01:36, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Angola, Bangladesh, Morocco & Sri Lanka being classified as middle powers according to one source[edit]

It's the same source that classifies Kazakhstan and Kuwait as middle powers, but they are listed in the article, while Angola, Bangladesh, Morocco & Sri Lanka aren't listed. Adamnewwikipedianaccount (talk) 12:49, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kenya and Algeria but not Morocco?[edit]

It could be argued that Morocco has a stronger influence on African affairs 37.201.198.158 (talk) 15:04, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Middle_power&oldid=1222354555"