ACamposPinho

Welcome and Italy

Do you have any sources that explicatly state Italy as a great/major power. I have searched in vain, but its rather obvious that Italy is a major power. Thanks. 12.220.94.199 01:53, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

On my talk page, could you please list a number of reputable neutral sources that describe Italy as a major/great power. The thing is that all this Italy speculation is OR at the moment. Nobleeagle (Talk) 01:33, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

The main sources are italian books available at www.internetbookshop.it, feltrinelli.itor even anglo-saxon libraries, you can search books on ebay, sometimes appears some in this theme.

The book How to Make War, has some references to Italy, specially for its navy, which the book puts in 6th place in the world,3th in Europe, being Germany the 4th but well bellow Italy. One major writter of Italian geopolitics and military is former Defence Minister Mr.Lelio Lagorio. In www.astronautix.com you can check Italy missile projects, then inthe early 80's Italy tried again to have a nuclear deterrent, something she was searching since the 60's and it had the capacity to make it since it sold this technology to other countries, and I read this many times, one of the biggest earnersof these sellingwas Fiat division-Fiat Aviazione, BPD and IRI-Finmeccanica-Ansaldo. If you think its obvious Italy is a Major Power you could help me convince others, specially NobleEagle who thinks its not and thinks its owner of all Geopolitical thruth.Thanks. User:ACamposPinho 2:42 , 13 May 2006 (UTC)

If you want Italy included as a major power I suggest you get over to the great powers page and vote. I got Italy to be considered.

--Hadrian1 04:24, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi again Campos, I hope you didn't get the wrong message on my talk page, but I've already explained this to Hadrian on his talk page. I'm simply inviting people to discussion, not trying to build up an army to oppose Italy. You see: 2 to 1 is not consensus, especially when the two votes come from the two people that have proposed the nation in the first place. So I'm hoping that European Wikipedians would be able to help a bit more. I have put up a message on the Italian's Noticeboard. Nobleeagle (Talk) 00:42, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• I was the one who proposed Italy for this status in the first place.Hadrian1 came after.

And I didn't proposed for my personnal amusement, I proposed it because besides knowing of Geopolitics and lnow a lot about Italy and I think the right thing to do is includ it as a Great/Major Power. Its for a question of fairness when compared with other similar countries already included. I'm not even italian as more than one called and about Hadrian1 I don't know. About europe, here, whe are more open to other countries of other continents when coming about knowing what happens there. I was in Brazil and I noticed that. Countries in other continents and with big geographical extension have tendence to look more to themselves, for many reasons. One is that they have many problems that must be worked out first for the sake of the nation and of its innhabitants. Brazil, India, Nigeria,.... are in this category of coutries.But the USA is like that too, its a country looking more to itself. The reason for europe, is that we are in contact with other cultures, civilizations, peoples and countries for centuries and we developed the colonial and latter colonial empire notion, like this fact or not. But it was our ancestors, not the present generation. In EU, today there is also a tendency to be more closed, and I think this is wrong, because its not the better way of overcoming our economic and demographic stagnation or decline. EU should be more open, being closed could be good for other continets, but not for europe, as history demonstrate. I don't mean importing more and more merchandises as USA does and exporting less and less. What I mean is learn with others, trade in a fair competition way, open tothe world, it was that fact that has given europe its wealth and proeminance inthe world for centuries. And some countries most be more open to the rest of the world than others, the same medicine is not usefull and appropriatte for al european countries. As for european wikipedians I don't know. If you know many, invite them to debate. ACamposPinho 3:22, 5 June 2006

Italy, Great Powers, and OR

Sorry I've been so long in getting back to you. I thought it might be useful for you to understand where I'm coming from in respect of the Italy debate.

I don't know how long you have been involved with these international power articles; I have been here since the beginning of the year. I spent a lot of time editing the Major power page, a page which covered the status of nations like Russia, UK, France etc - nations on the second tier, not superpowers but important powers with G8, Security Council membership etc. We had quite a nice article developed, reasonably NPOV, lots of discussion of military/economic/political factors, but no real sources. The page was nominated for deletion as Original Research. As we were to learn, the concept of 'Major powers' does not exist in political science.

The page was wiped and redirected to Great Powers. This annoyed me very much; nothing on that page was false, the statistics were verified, in terms of realpolitik we were right. The problem was that the concept we were addressing didn't exist. There was no academic basis to the judgements we were making to include some countries and exclude others.

The last thing that I want to see is the same to happen to the Great powers page. As I have said to Nobleeagle:

So the difficulty is that without an academic basis it becomes difficult to crefuse Italy. We have the top group, those that we have consistently acknowledged as Major/Great/whatever powers - where or what is the dividing line between them and a modern, prosperous (albeit one without any international clout) nation like Italy? If Italy is added then why not Spain? Why not our old friend Brazil? Without a clear boundary then there is no justification for refusal other than the fact that 'we know it to be so'; in terms of realpolitik we are possibly right but we've seen the results of that approach in the Major powers article.

We do not have any sourced criteria with which to judge Italy (WP:OR). Whether we, as article editors, acknowledge Italy as a Great/Major power is entirely down to our own judgement and group consensus. That is the problem, it's our judgement and our consensus - there is no source to guide us, the key wikipedia principle of verifiability is breached. A simple Afd nomination on grounds of Original Research and all the work and effort is wasted.

That is my major objection. Italy has a decent case to be ranked up with the other countries, although my feeling is that it lacks international clout - that is my honestly held view; but my view doesn't matter - what we need is verifiable criteria with which to make this judgement, something which we simply do not have.

Best wishes, Xdamr 01:18, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

What international clout does Italy really lacks?

Its part of G8, it has a huge economy and huge potential, major industrial regions, major cultural and touristic country, great military, its well above India in military spendings and only a little below Germany. It has so far defeated the g4 Group intentions, it is inthe Iran talks, not in the EU-3 , in my view its only better. It hasn't the power of the EU-3 combined,but by the other side it has the capability to go alone and not to be closed in the group views only,Italy can deal with Iran directly,thru partnershipswith USA,with Russia or another partner,has independence of opinion, its a little like UK inthe UEM-it maitained the British Pound and doing so can have its own financial independence, its own interest rates, budget deficit, without nobody saying to UK how to behave economically and financially.

By the way, this has nothing to do with Italy. The Great Power page was reformulated, inthat process the Modern Powers section lost a country in europe-PORTUGAL.

So Portugal was never a Great Power, butbefore reformulation it had been. But even before the dates where wrong.They puted the end of Portugal as a Great Power in 1580 when it was made part of the Habsburg Empire,not of Spain.Idon't agree. After regaining independence-1640-Portugal was a Great Power again, even greater than before, because before it was discovering "new worlds" and after it was consolidating its power with its zenith in the 18th century. The date of its end as a Great Power was after the Napoleonic invasion and with consequent Barzil independence-1822.

ACamposPinho 2:03, 11 June 2006

You are absolutely right, Italy is part of the G8, its economy is a strong one - no argument from me on that point. I'm also not going to deny that Italy has notable cultural attractions. However I really must stand by my point that Italy does not wield tremendous political influence on international affairs.

I see there as being two elements which make up international influence - military power and diplomatic power. Italy lacks a seat on the UN security council, it is not one of the core EU countries (EU3), its military is smaller than that of the UK, France etc (Is Italy playing a part in the Iran issue? I was under the impression that recent meetings consisted of the UN Permanent members + Germany.). Italy is part of NATO and its military is a good one, but doesn't seem to do much outwith Italy (for instance, the British army is deployed in 80 countries throughout the world, as well as playing a key role in Iraq and Afghanistan).

India is a special case, given that it is rapidly developing and appears to be rising in much the way China has.

However, all this aside, we don't have any source which defines what a Great power actually is, so deciding which countries are Great powers is premature. We badly need a source for this article, one which validates 'Great power' as a proper part of Political Science and defines its scope. Without it, the article turns into Original Research and someone will come along and delete it.

Xdamr 01:39, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

• About sources reed this:

"Great power From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search This article or section does not cite its references or sources. You can help Wikipedia by introducing appropriate citations." In that matter all the article needs sources. The recent meatings were between UNSC Permanent Members and Germany, because as I already said Germany whants to enter this "club" and wants it very hard. But Italy was invited tomediate, by Iran, Russia and USA at least. EU-3 is only a temporary group, why do you say Italy doesn't cont on EU, its a founding menber, thing UK isn't. Its the EU 3rd main contributer, UK is 4th and is the ECB 3rd shareholder, above France, because altough UK doesn't have the Euro it has a share inthe ECB. In EU there was a Franco-German axis, then surged a Italian-UK axis. The first was more in favour of a more federal EU, the second more of a EU of nation-states. Why do you think they choose to president of EU Comission a portuguese politician of bad politicall quality, a "yes man", who is aliberal when talks to a liberal, a social-democratic when talking to one and so on?(I know this but I read a commentary on Barroso in Financial Times and they also said that about him)- The answer is because the Franco-German axis wanted one federalistc,the Italian-UK axis wanted a more liberal and less integrationist one, this man, Barroso was a compromise man. And even the toughts of each axis doesn't mean the people of these countries think like their politicians.Just look of the No at the Constitutional Treaty in France, when France politics was one of the main advocates of federalism. Now the UK-Italian axis is frozen, because italian premiership/government has changed to another political spectrum and also because thing in Italy are not well defined yet, it will be a referendum, only after that, the political scene could be more stable and define its lines. -Italy is also in Irak, Afghanistan and in many other UN missions. What about India, China, Japan, Germany, Brazil, where are their military deployed? The first war Germany was allowed to enter was only 7 years ago. India is a special case. We go again to the quantity vs quality debate.If India is important is only because of its size, if size was the only thing, so UK would be the same as Italy, thing you think its wrong. -When India wants new car technologies, does it have the kno-how to make them.Only with japanese help, which is the case of Maruti, even the mostindependent Indian Auto enterprise TATA is only stong in trucks amd pick-ups,who is its major partner, a foreign group again and which one? FIAT from Italy, so my friend, Italy has the know-how, that India lacks. India will sell or destroy the Viraat, its old aircraft carrier and who is the major prospect in the table to substitute it? Buying the Giuseppe Garibaldi from Italy or make a new one equal to the new Italian Aircraft Carrier- the Cavour. Normally people says they don't know how "rich" in raw materials countries, like Brazil, african countries can be so underdeveloped. Do you know why? What makes a country and its people rich is scientific, economic and technical knowledge. Saudi Arabia is full of petroleum (and now is well because of its high price) but when it wants aircraft, luxury cars, products of high-technology, watches, have they the know-how to make them? No, they bought them from Germany, UK, USA, France, Italy, Switzerland,... And this was only an example.

ACamposPinho 3:11, 11 June 2006

EU

It's normal,separetion of powers.The executive,legislative and juridical.The parlement and concil control the commission,they can topel it if they whant.The US president too is controled,by the congres.--Ruber chiken 22:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikiproject?

Please see this. Nobleeagle (Talk) 04:04, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Vote

Campos we have another no vote from Brendel. Aren't there more supporters? It seems the battle is not going well. We need more like -minded people adding to the discussion. --Hadrian1 22:12, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• I'm working on it.I invited some people to read what have been written and made a judgement. I hope these people will be open-minded.I think so.They know about geopolitics.

ACamposPinho 0:32, 27 June 2006

• And by the way, I had forgotten to vote, I voted in support now. Its one more vote. I had already saw the the Brendel no vote.

ACamposPinho 0:52, 27 June 2006

You didn't forget to vote. NobleEagle moved your comments with your signature. I left a nasty message for him condemning his actions. By the way do you know how to start or translate an article?

--Hadrian1 01:44, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

• Hi. He did that? And he is now an admnistrator,he should be more carefull and impartial.

He said there are admnistrators with 13-14 years. So if there are admnistrators with that age,many members probably are youger not to speak about people unregistered who edit pages. It says a lot about wikipedia. Do you think a 13 year old kid is able to have a true opinion on what we posted for eg.? I don't think so, a few could but only a few.

Start an article I don't know very well, but if one thing is already mentioned but have no article you can edit and create an article for it. But that you should know. Translate I think its editing the page to other languages but I really don't know for sure.

ACamposPinho 23:32, 27 June 2006

Well we lost. I would like to thank you for your support and conviction. As a consolation they decided to mention Italy in the Great Power page as an unknown or undetermined entity. I really don't know what we could have done. I personally spent hours researching articles and though I surprised myself of Italy's involvement in world affairs, it just wasn't enough for them. I guess being fourth in Europe or third if you include the shadow economy isn't enough. I really didn't expect to win anyone over but I did expect someone to join in that was in the pro camp. We fought a good battle and should the vote be open again maybe next we'll win. Maybe we'll have to wait for Italy to get a UNSC seat. Best of Luck. Hadrian1 23:58, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

• Maybe the UNSC isn't so impossible as people think or at least the semi-permanent seats, which would be a vitory to Italian Diplomacy.I will contact an entity I know to be what is being done.

Besides being 4th or 3th in europe Italy is 7th or even 5th inthe world in GDP and it's in the G-7. I really don't know what they whant? I think that even if Italy was comparable to USA, they would have doubts. ACamposPinho2: ,28 June 2006

Where did I say I was an admin? I'm not an admin...but in relation to 13-year-old admins, check out User:Fetofs who's trying out for adminship at the moment. Or User:Shreshth91, one of the best admins I've known, yet 13 years of age, plus probably received more Awards then any of us will ever receive. Nobleeagle (Talk) 01:31, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Didn't you have requested to be an admnistrator? And I toughtyou were sucessfull in your request, since people were congratulating you. And as I said a person of 13 years old can know much and be an excellent admnistrator, but you have to agree that it's a minority, specially today, when kids doesn't care of anything besides games and consumer society. Of course there are kids different and many more if they are from ouside USA. People in other countries and continents are different and so are kids.I didn't post this in your page in order to not overcrowd it.

ACamposPinho 22:22, 29 June 2006

Nup, I've never entered an RFA, I think you are mistaken. To check who is an admin and who isn't go to Special:Listusers and search their username, if a (Sysop) notice is next to them, then they are Admins. Nobleeagle (Talk) 23:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

• I tought you did, but I checked who is admnistrator and you weren't listed. A mistake.

ACamposPinho 0:28, 30 June 2006

Superpowers

Yes, indeed. Quite frankly I think that advocates of the EU are somewhat blinded by their EU enthusiasm. They seem to cite the influence of 'European' culture and EU military power etc. I very much dispute the existence of any unified European culture; when people in Malaysia think of the footballer David Beckham, do they think of him as British or as European? Like it or not, in terms of cultural influence, there is one overwhelmingly dominant culture today - through a combination of the British Empire and 20th century American power, it is Anglo-Saxon ideas which influence the world the most. Others, like France or China, don't really have anything to compare. As far as military power goes, through personal experience I can tell you that the British armed forces (surely a dominant component of any EU military power) are far, far more integrated with the US military than with any of the EU countries (setting aside their common NATO membership).

As for China and India, with 1 billion+ people, they have the opportunity to do something quite special. As far as Russia goes though, I'm not convinced at all. I've been a student of Russian affairs for quite some time now, I simply do not recognise the view that some people seem to have of Russia as a resurgent superpower. Russia's present economic growth is based on one thing and one thing alone, oil and gas prices. The higher they go, the more revenue the Russians get - but if they fall, what will Russia have? Very little indeed - Russia's industial base and infrastructure remain highly underdeveloped compared with the West. Demographically, Russia is facing a severe drop in population over the next 50 years; some predict that it fall from 150 million today, to 80 million by 2050. Corruption is endemic in both public and private spheres. The Russian military is in an appaling state. Given the demographic crisis, some actually question whether Russia will survive in it's current form; perhaps mineral rich Siberia could be lost to China?

Incidentally, the whole oil prices issue raises interesting questions about Russia's attitude towards the Iran crisis. Oil prices have risen as a result of the sabre-rattling, Russia likes high oil prices, therefore Russia tries to drag the issue out as long as possible by not supporting the Western nations. Far fetched? Possibly, but Russian politics are so byzantine that anything is possible.

Regards, Xdamr^talk 03:06, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Well for me the whole Russian support seems to be two fold. One, yes they want high oil prices. Two, Russia for some reason always opposes the "West" and its policies. I understand that different countries have different interests, but really the Cold war is over. Why create this animosity. I don't think the West really wants to see the Russian state dissolved. Actually, Europe wants to include them in the EU or some sort of partnership but Russians demanded that they not be included in any discussions even though they need help. The Russian enigma continues.

--Hadrian1 03:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that it's very much a hangover from the dissolution of the USSR. Rather like Germans in the aftermath of WW1, Russians cannot see or accept why the USSR had to collapse. Then, in the 90s, the attitude and policies of the Western nations towards Russia was resented. The rush to capitalism caused much hardship amongst the populace; the common people saw it all as a plot to oppress them - at the same time as they were losing their jobs and security others were making billions in corrupt deals for state assets. Now, as Russia is resurgent (however shaky the foundations) many see it as the time to reassert Russia's place in the world - no longer to be junior to the US, rather to be a counterweight (even to the extent of linking up with China - see the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation).

The 'Coloured' Revolutions in places such as Ukraine and Georgia are broadly seen as an attempt by the US to hem Russia in. The ejection of the US from their Central Asian air bases was seen as a great triumph. You might be surprised to see the hostility that NATO attracts today amongst Russians; did you hear about the recent aborted US-Ukranian naval exercise?

Ultimately, Russia is still attempting to get back it's past status. Above all it resents Western interference in what it sees as its area of influence. Personally I don't think that the 'there must be democracy at all costs' approach of the US helps at all. So much of this nationalism seems to be stoked up for political purposes, but it finds a receptive audience.

Xdamr^talk 03:06, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

• As for Russia demographics I don't think it's population will shrink so much. If economy growns people will come.Putin is bringing back many russians living in ex-Soviet republics and we cannot really forecast what will happen in 45 years.Year ago UN sai Spain population would be in 2050 28-30 Million, while Spanish Statistical Institute said it would be aroud 33-35 Million. Now with all the immigrants and growth of natality it is estimated will be 45-50 Million.The same goes to Italy,UN forecasted for 2050 42-45 Million people,Italian Statistical Institute said 49-52,now this same institute is saying 55-60 Million. And for Russia I always saw 100 Million not 80. As for Russia military it will be more powefull in future but with fewer equipment. Less equipment than in Soviet era but state of the art equipment- Quality vs quantity again.

ACamposPinho 23:25, 27 June 2006

Well there are a host of formidable problems to face if the demographic crisis is to be overcome. The low birth rate is one thing that the government are trying to address at the moment (around 160 deaths to 100 births). But what about the fact that approximately 50% of rural Russians are alcaholics? The poor infrastructure and general poverty means that there is little general access to healthcare. Combined with the unhealthy lifestyles of a great proportion of Russians, it's no wonder that life expectancy has decreased to 57 for men (in 1987 it was 65 - interestingly it's 72 for women). Add the spread of AIDS to this (Russia has one of the highest rates in the developed world) and you have a grim scenario.

Xdamr^talk 01:32, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say Russian population won't decrease but if good measures will be taken it won't decrease so much. And if there is a person who cares about Russia and has given it a little more(at least) self-respect and respect in the world is Putin.In Yeltsin times things where much worst, it was inthe verge of anarchy,self-destruction and bankrupcy. Now it's improving a little.

ACamposPinho 0:52, 29 June 2006

Your two votes

It is important to keep a cool head, especially when responding to comments against you or your edits. Personal attacks and disruptive comments only escalate a situation; please keep calm and remember that action can be taken against other parties if necessary. Please try to remain civil with your comments. Thanks! You voted twice, so you should accept it and move on, see Vote 1 by Campos and Vote 2 by Campos. Nobleeagle (Talk) 01:22, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

• Well,if I voted twice it was because I didn't saw any signature in that vote and I always sign IN. Hadrian1 told me you changed the votes from one section to another or something like that, you probably didn't change it all, because if it was my vote it should have been signed, I always do that. But it's OK,it was a simple error.

ACamposPinho 22:36, 29 June 2006

• Talking about personal attacks I saw Brendel page and there were not personel but attacks against Italy and bad taste jokes. So for one person you say keep cool,to another it's OK saying anything.Be impartial, please. I can say too that actions can be taken against other parts.

ACamposPinho 22:59, 29 June 2006

A joke in pretty poor taste I think; nevertheless, it's difficult for us to police user talk pages. If the comments had been made on the article talk page then that would be a different matter. (Although do note that the comment was not made by Gerdbrendel, but rather by a contributor to his talk page.)

Xdamr^talk 22:44, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

• This Brendel besides having the mind of a kid, is a fervent defender of EU as a Superpower. Read what he and other guy, writted in Brendel discussion page about EU. He said I did something-I suppose including EU in a section as a country it would be,the other say that they will delete but says him to writte again. No comments. And NobleEagle gives these people talk. NobleEagle said he wanted more europeans to contribute to my view on Italy's position. So he asked a German guy residing in California. When one is distant,normally feels more patriotic-more German in this case, but is not so in contact with its continent reallity,so doesn't know so much about it.Why didn't he invited Italians? Was afraid of patriotism, first Italians are not like Frenchs, second if one knows of something is one who is involved init,in this case living in Italy. And as a true Hindu he should be more consistent with history. Anglo-Saxons invaded his country and rulled it has a simplecolony-a special one but neverthless a colony. At least Mussolini talked with Ghandi and had plans for India different from that of Britain. Of course in Mussolini's and Italy's interest but with more self-governance to India, like a protectorate. A sort of the politics of Britain in Egipt. UK no, UK wanted India to be always the Crown Jewell.

ACamposPinho 0:15, 30 June 2006

Well as for WW2, it was a thoroughly miserable business for a great many people. It was tremendous catastrophe for the Germans and Italians to allow themselves to be caught up in such folly.

However, all that aside, presumably Nobleeagle didn't know any users who had explicitly identified themselves as Italian? All contributors to the English wikipedia speak English to one degree or another, unless they explicitly identify themselves as being of a particular nationality then it can be hard to know. Personally, I've always taken the view that identifying yourself by nationality/race/politics/sexual orientation etc is potentially divisive; I choose not to make any reference to my nationality etc on my user page (although people could probably make an educated guess as to what it is). Try and judge people only by their contributions, that's my policy - I might not succeed all the time, but I still try!

Xdamr^talk 23:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah, that's where you're wrong. I don't know many Italian users so I decided to contact them here. You see the Indian Wikipedians Noticeboard is normally quite active so I suspected the same, I guess I did make a mistake in not checking back to see why people weren't responding. Anyway, my request on the Italian Noticeboard was made on the 4th of June, so there was plenty of time for input. I really don't monitor other people's talk pages, so I can't say much about Brendel, but the comment there wasn't actually left by Brendel, but my a Sicilian user it seems. I can imagine how hurt one would feel when reading that about their country though. Nobleeagle (Talk) 23:26, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh and in regards to India, appreciate it. But in the end it didn't do much. It was actually Subhash Chandra Bose that wanted the Axis powers to support him and I think Mussolini's support would've been better off going to him. Nobleeagle (Talk) 23:30, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

• Mussolini was more pro-Ghandi, but latter his margin of mannover was much more limited, because of the fall of Italy and he had to agree with Hitler and his choices.Before 1943 was a little different and before 1938-40 very, but much very different. Before 1938 Germany wasn't well equiped enough.Just look at the assassination of Austrian Chanceller Dolfuss, Mussolini went made and wanted to invade Germany in retaliation.He didn't do it because of France and UK opposition and because he still thinked Hitler was a potential partner,because both wanted to reshape world order.

ACamposPinho 0:41, 30 June 2006

Well history goes to the winners, that's a fact that can't be denied. The winners write the history books, the Romans told us about the barbaric Gauls and Germanic tribes. If the Nazis would've won the war, history would've changed so that we all believed in the concept of a master race and the Aryan race etc. etc. Italy came on the losing end of the war, and the Allies wrote the history books about the Fascists, the Nazis and the Evil Japanese that bombed Pearl Harbour. While we overlook Hiroshima and other catastrophes that must have weakened the Axis powers greatly. Nobleeagle (Talk) 23:45, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

• With this comment you give me reason why Italy is always bad regarded. Germany is different, because Anglo-Saxons are from Germanic origin and speciallysince reunification and Japan because of it's enourmous economical growth and total dominance of electronic and photo industries since the 60's.

Italy didn't really came on the losing side, it camed on a limbo semi-losing, semi-belligerant with the Allies, probably one more reason of Italy bad politic governance after the war,only since the 80's the political situation has stabilized and Italy has regained more proud. France was in a situation simillar to Itally, the only difference was De Gaulle, exilled in UK and entering France like a liberator when was the UK, USA who really liberated France, altough some French too, but it was French in exile plus the partisans, Italy liberated in the same way, but more from inside. But in the end France and China without many fighting alone were considered winners and were regarded UNSC Permanent Seats, while Poland, Brazil, Canada, Australia and India(altough this a colony at the time-but fighted fiercely) were "only winners" or co-belligerants like Italy. Two ways of being for the same behaviour.

ACamposPinho 1:06, 30 June 2006

The Next step for the Project

Thanks for your support of the new upcoming International Relations WikiProject. Please see Talk:Superpower and vote... Nobleeagle (Talk) 07:37, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Great power page

Please don't ask if you want to make minor changes, if it's disputed then you can call me up to enter the debate. Remember, I am only a normal editor like yourself. Nobleeagle (Talk) 07:21, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Italy

Okay, first Italy and Germany are allies. The second world war was 60 years ago and a lot has changed since then, especially in Germany. Germany is more powerful than Italy, its a great power. Why, becuase it is quite a bit larger than Italy. The United State is more powerful than any other industrialized country on earth. Why? Because it is the largest industrialized country on earth. Power is not a measurement of how advanced a country is, otherswise Norway and Luxemburg would lead the world. Stating that Germany is far more powerful than Italy does not mean that Germany is better than Italy. Nobody's better than anybody. Also, "Who beat you up." Such phrases are unecessary. Besdies I'm half American, when did Italy beat up the US? Let's not forget that we are all allied today. Regards, Signature^brendel 23:22, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

• As matter of fact in "soccer" Italy "beated" USA in this World Cup since USA goal was an auto-goal.OK,it wasn't intended to offend you.

Luxembourg is a country only on name, should be divided between Germany and France or Belgium too, but I think Belgium should be divided too-majority of people want it. But not as two independent countries, no, Wallonia would go to France and Flanders would go toNetherlnads. This hasn't hapened yet because of Brussels. They wouldn't know in which country the city should stay and since it's the capital and largest city of Belgium, besides being a bilingual city shouldn't stay on the border and if it stood in France for eg. it would always be a problem. If it stood in Netherlands would be the same. As for Germany being more powerfull than Italy,it his economically and the difference it's not so huge. USA GDP for egg.is four times that of Germany, german one is circa 1,5 that of Italy.Politically speaking if it has more power is because of UE and Germany central position on it-in all aspects and because since reunification has regained a national pride that is seen therefore in politics,but in world stage Italy is more involved than Germany besides the G-4 affair, that is unresolved yet,much due to Italy efforts. You must notice that both Germany and Italy are economic giants with little political power comparing to their economic power. Germany is slowly taking steps to reverse this, Italy is more slowly doing that, for many reasons. The main one it's their politicall division, they are more united than 15-20 years ago but aren't united enough, there are many left-right divisions and many allegiances to the political spectrum that overlap the allegiance to the nation. And of course Germany is a Great Power, but if this is the case Italy is also a Great Power, not on the size of Germany but still a Great Power. Look at the characteristics of a Great Power-Italy meets them, the ones Italy doesn't have-like UNSC Permanent Seat and Nuclear Forces, Germany doesn't have either. Italy has things in military and geopolitical field that Germany doesn't have,as a matter of fact. When you talk of Italy you think you are talking of Poland or even Spain. Read more about this matter. Of course anglo-saxonic press is very anti-italian.

ACamposPinho 1:14, 10 July 2006

World Cup

Thank you very much for your congratulations on our victory in the World Cup. The french gave us a good fight but we won anyway. We had a huge party over here. Streets were closed everywhere.

By the way I was rooting for Portugal over Germany. Sorry you lost but I thought they played well, but Germany needed to get something since they hosted the Cup. On to Euro2008.

By the way, I read what Brendel wrote. Ask him if knows what happened in the Aventine hills outside of Rome in '44. If he doesn't, he should check on the internet to educate himself on the treatment of "allies" by the Germans. Then perhaps 60 years won't seem so long ago.

• Portugal made a few mistakes like not putting Nuno Gomes and Figo on the beggining of the second part at least. But the host country would get the 3rd place anyway, since they didn't get through to the final thanks to your overwhelming victory over Germany.

If Portugal was winning or there were no goals the referee wouldmake something in order that Germany would win. But the most favored team, as always was French team. But even with luck and favours ITALY beated them. Brendel says is half american, by the way he writtes in english I don't know from wich part of Amaerica he is.He pretends to be from USA but then wrote things like "becuase" and others. I think is 100% german. In terms of world history 60 years were yesterday.When you mean Aventine you are talking of the "Massacre delle Fosse Ardeatine"?

Other thing, I would like you to sign, because I want to show you something here in wikipedia and I don't know who you are.

ACamposPinho 22:01, 11 June 2006

Sorry I forgot to sign. I thought you would have known it was me. And yes I was talking about the "Fosse Ardeatine". I think Brendel is German but lives in the States. Then again, who knows where he's from. We don't have to prove our nationality here. Thanks again. --Hadrian1 00:41, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Global Power

What you are misunderstanding is that a global power is not equal to a great power. My understanding from the article was that a global power is someone who projects itself globablly. Arguably India has little global influence. A good example to compare them to is Israel. A strong economy, and military but lack cultural influence, due to Muslim nations, and many other countries that wish to curb its strength. Saudi Arabia on the other hand has strong influence in North and East Africa, Central and Western Asia, and increasing influence in Europe. A lot of this influence comes from oil, and the rest from missionary work. Personally, I dislike the article. Its full of weasel words, poorly defined, and the image is confusing. (According to it, Saudi Arabia would be included by the way). My point is not that S.A. should be included but that clearly the U.S. and maybe a few others exert enough influence to call them "global powers". 74.137.230.39 17:27, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

• I live in a european country and the influence of Saudi Arabia here is almost zero. When one talks of Saudi Arabia here only cames to mind petroleum and it isn't our greatest supplier,which is Algeria. So Algeria should also be included? And what about Angola..., Lybia, Venezuela?
  

Saudi Arabia could have influence has I said in Muslim World but in Europe it's only about their petroleum. One has to measure the cultural , economical, military and power of projection. Besides SABIC what is the other great company of Saudi Arabia? Saudi Aramco? Doesn't even enter in Fortune Global 500. You call that influence. S.A. have natural resources, things that are almost always together with poor countries. If S.A. GDP per capita isn's lower is because of the quantity of oil lords/sheiks and the richness it produces. But what makes a country wealthy and influent it's knowledge and tecnhical Know-how. When a sheik wants to buy a great car or watch, does S.A. produce them? No, he cames to Germany, UK or Italy in the car case or to Switzerland in the watch case for eg. And even in military S.A. spends a lot but doesn't produce almost anything. Even Israel has it's own defence companies. S.A. has Tornados that it bought from UK, and Tornado is a project of UK,Germany and Italy. Now will buy EuroFighter Typhoons from UK too and this is a project that besides the above countries include Spain too. Spain for eg. has much more influence in the world. If the G8 expanded you think S.Arabia could enter, Spain could, S.A. only if it expanded to the G30 or even more. And the UN Security Council, if a muslim member enters you think will be Saudi Arabia, could be but Egypt has much more chances, it has more influence and makes a bridge between Arab/Muslim World and Africa. Since when S.A. projects itself globally? Only inthe Middle East region and not onthe whole Arab World. It only projects itself globally in religious matters becuase of Mecca and Medina. But if that's the case there are more christians and the real catholic power is Vatican. Of course not all christians are catholics, but catholics are the majority and Vatican has a real voice in the world. But we are talking of a state of 700 inhabitants. It isn't a nation even, it's a sovereign state, but makes part of the Italian nation, like Monaco it's soveriegn but makes part of France interms of nationality,not citizenship(are different concepts).

AcamposPinho 19:44, 23 July 2006

• Once again I'm trying to point out that their arent very many global powers. Only the U.S. and maybe Japan have overwhelming influence. And Japan only has that influence economically. S.A. has a growing cultural influence through religion in Europe. Once again I think the article is confusing global power with great power. The Vatican has a lot of religious influence, but Italy does not compare. However, the Vatican unlike the Saudis lack everthing else as you've mentioned, and despite sig. influence its not nearly as strong as the Saudis do to the many theocracies in the Muslim world. Their is a narrowing amount of difference between the religious influence of the Saudis and the Vatican in Europe. 74.137.230.39 21:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC).

I live in the UK and Saudi influence here is zero. Whenever Saudia Arabia is on the news it normally involves oil or corruption.

Reports

Okay, I did not report you only the anon guy. Also, you did call me flat out "stupid." I never made any reference to your person. Give me one example where I said you were stupid or that Italians are stupid. I did not inslut you nor did I insult Italians. I just don't beleive that Italy is a Great Power. We have to agree to disagree. Things however got out of hand and actions neeeded to be taken. Regards, Signature^brendel 16:30, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I wanted a debate as well, but I simply use GDP figures and for me the difference is too great. You say every G7 country is a Great Power-I understand your point, I do, but as you said we clash. How can we compromise? Beleive me I'm not interested in the kind of debate we had yesterday. Signature^brendel 17:34, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Superpower talk

I noticed this discussion you posted on another user's userpage. I just had to let you know that your description is probably one of the best (if copyedited) summaries of the superpowers I have ever read on Wikipedia (although I think that Italy is a pretty major, not a great power — it is of G8 status). I hope you can contribute your fine ideals in other related polysci articles too. ~ clearthought 00:40, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Ha

[1] Since when claiming to be part of one race and not another is being racist? Kingjeff 14:49, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello again Campos, Hitler corrupted a lot of things, including a legitimate name of a language family...the Indo-Aryan group. Therefore it is not necessarily racist unless one says such things with malicious intentions. Aryan is a common first name in India, Arya is a common surname in India. There is some action thriller movie called Aryan being made in India, all have nothing to do with Hitler and the names are of greater antiquity than Nazi Germany for sure. Just wanted to mention that to you. Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 23:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Great power

You haven't been on the article lately, thought you might like to know that it is GA and that Italy has it's nice section all well sourced. If you could add a paragraph about modern Italy being a great power it would be nice because our best sources contained little about modern Italy. Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 23:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

• Yes I haven't been on the article lately, but when looking at some sources I think they aren't so right. For egg., in the page is claimed that in military terms Italy is more a middle power and then there are links to articles that classifies Italy as a middle power. But in at least one of those articles Germany and Japan are considered middle powers two. So to be fair the link should say "note the classification of Italy, Germany and Japan" within this group and not only Italy.
  

And in the definition when is Italy is classified as a middle power in military power why isn't Germany, Japan or India considered to be middle too?

As far as I know Italy has a greater and better navy than all these countries, its air force its not so big as the others but is well equiped and its army is well equiped too. And even if it looses to Germany in army and air force, in navy it gains for a wide margin. So its military is comparable to that of Germany for eg.

And in international conflicts Italy is more involved than any of these countries. It is the third contributor to peacekeeping after USA and UK.

So I think is not fair to consider Italy Great only in economy, militarly it is too and politically it is being more any year. ACamposPinho 23:30, 24 January 2007

I'll look into your concerns soon, you can mention them on Talk:Great power, right now I'm busy with other articles. Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 23:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello ACamposPinho. I have put a reference from a Washington Quarterly abou the UN security council where among other things it explicitly states that Italy is in the same league as Germany and Japan and by extension a great power. I have put an edit in the discussion section with the reference and a link to the paper on the web. Have a look. If they don't accept this, then wikipedia is bullcrap. I have read the other references for Germany say and they are quite flakey. This is a highly respected publication I cited. I will try to find more if they block me again. Your comrade in arms, HadrianX.--74.14.96.68 (talk) 00:54, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Italy as a Great Power

Hi. I apologise about how the statement about Italy came across, but I would like to justify my statement. I have no doubt that Italy is a major European power, but that does not mean Italy is a Great Power. Italy lacks the cultural and military influence that the other Great Powers have. The article does not say Brazil and India are Great Powers but are possible and emerging Great Powers. Can you really assert that Italy has the same kind of influence in international diplomacy as Britain or France, or even Germany or Japan? Italian military capabilities are certainly not that required of a major power. It has no nuclear deterrent, no blue-water naval capabilities and not a particularly capable air force. I note you are Portuguese - maybe Italy has more influence in your part of the world but Italian influence is not felt strongly internationally, with the exception of the Southern Europe. Whether you or I like it or not all major powers must have a nuclear deterrent - even India has it and it is considered an emerging Great Power. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Colliver55 (talk • contribs) 12:43, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Great Power

Obviously there must be a mistake.

I would like to thank ACamposPinho, Lorenzop, - Izzo, Hadrian1, Philip Baird Shearer, Kayac1971, Chanakyathegreat and many others for the important research material produced in these discussion's pages - Great powers. I would like to thank Viewfinder too for your reason.

Thanks anyway to everybody – in particular UKPhoenix79, Nirvana888, Colliver55, Deavenger (in Italian Language Commarelle) – for the kind assistance. I go to work.

Poti —Preceding undated comment was added at 16:08, 26 November 2008 (UTC).