text:
Talk:Power (international relations)

Untitled
Hyperpower gets an article but not Great Power?? -- CJWilly

 * At least not yet. You are free to write it, and connect it properly to the other articles. From the What links here-link you can see that an article of its own might be motivated, but that's not necessarily so. Some Wikipedians would maybe argue that this article is best integrated. --Johan Magnus 07:11, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Disputed powers
Canada and Australia as disputed powers? Now that's funny! And what about Mexico, Brazil, Egypt, Israel, they're far more powerful.

 * The thing about Canada and Australia is that they are developed countries, while Mexico, Brazil, and Egypt are developing. Israel is much too small to be a great power.  It would be like saying that Luxembourg should be a great power because Luxembourg is a role player in the European Union. Casey14 00:06, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Mexico, Brazil and Egypt are still more powerful, and Israel too in terms of military, influence, and nuclear power.

Added the Netherlands to Great Powers throughout history, instead of disputed. Since the Netherlands is officially the first modern superpower. See superpower.

Portugal frustrated the Ottomans in the Indian Ocean/India and booted the Dutch out of Brazil in the 17th century (so much for Dutch "superpower" - great: yes, super: no). Hence deleted Portugal from disputed. 1 Dec 05 (A.W.C.M)

 * Read this: Dutch Golden Age aswell as Second Anglo-Dutch War. Around that time the Netherlands have been regarded as a world power. Wich is also in the 17th century. So at a certain time in history they have been a superpower.

Conceded - after all have done a few edits myself highlighting how the rise of Dutch power in that time. Cheers. Rob 7 Jan 06

Disputed Powers
I'm sure Portugal and Italy were great powers at some point in history. Portugal had a large empire around the time of the huge Spanish empire, and Italy was a great power around the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

 * Italy was not a great power. It was powerful at a time, but not a great power.  The only time Italy could be considered a great power was the years before World War One through World War Two.  But then again, Italy was a weakling, during World War One, compared to neighbors Austria-Hungary, France, and Germany.  After World War One, leading up to World War Two, France and Germany were still more powerful.  Mussolini was considered a play thing of Hitler. Casey14 00:04, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Italy fought 11 great battles against the Austrians in WWI in incredibly mountainous terrain - against entrenched forces - diverting massive numbers of Austro-Hungarians from the Western Front. They felt aggrieved that their major contribution was down played at the end of the war. In stark contrast WWII Italy was pathetic. 1 Dec 05 (A.W.C.M)

The major issue I want to report is Italy, first of all the downfall of Italy as a great power was 1943 and not 1945. In 1943 Italy surrendered and in the two subsequent years it passed thru German invasion, Civil War and Allied Occupation. So 1945 is wrong. The bigger mistake is not considering Italy as a Great or even Major Power from the 80's till present. Italy is a member of the G-7, meaning is a major economic power,in certain years was the 5th major on earth, the Made in Italy is the second most competitive after Made in Germany, the international trade is big, since the war it has grown at a very high rate, almost like Japan. It has a population, GNP and economic position like that of France and UK,altough in recent years it has fall behind a little. If you consider GDP PPP Italy as the same amount of total GDP as France. Italy has many more big or medium companies than Russia, India or China. It has companies active in gas and oil field, the biggest of whose is ENI,which is one of the major players in that fiels. Take Germany for an instance, it has none, only subsidiaries of foreign companies, it has Rurhgas and some Utilities but a Petroleum company it doesn't have, and Italy has. Italy also has a residual amount of Gas and Petroleum but nevertheless it has more petroleum than Germany, Japan or France, altough it has almost none too. The diplomatic and International Relations of Italy in the recent years changed too.Now Italy is not anymore the silent partner of the Franco-German axis on EU, it is an important partner of UK and has halted some federalistic ambitions of the Franco-German axis. Even on the World stage its word is more important than someone could judge at first glance and than many countries. What was the diplomatic achivement of the G4 so far, none. Italy with her allies has managed to block the entrance of this countries to UN Security Council. It proposed semi-permanet seats or permanent seats on a reagional basis with rotation,like another from EU which could be to Germany, Italy or even Spain or even more EU members on a rotational basis, others seats to other parts of the world. If the G4 proposition would go thru many important countries no only economically,but also geostrategically speaking would remain outside the real decisions. And don't forget who is the 4th net contributor to UN budget-Italy. Also in foreign relations, the position of Italy is geostrategically much more important these days than that of Germany. Cold War is over,in that time Germany was at the center, now the problem is in Meadle East and Arab countries in general, ao Italy is much more well connected, its like an aircraft base in the middle of the Mediterranean .Japan could be important in future, but today altough its is the 4th spender in defence and as large armed forces, they only serve to self-defence and peace missions. And what was the first real war Germany was allowed to intervene in the post WWII- Kosovo in 1999.It had a smal contigent in 1991 in the Gulf War, but nothing like Italy.Japan cannot enter agressive wars, Germany could only after 1990,when Italy could after 1970. Italy entered a real and difficult war cenario in 1982 in Lebanon and altough at the beggining the allies mistrusted Italy,in the end its participation was fulcral even to safeguard the life of french and USA citizens. In 1991 it sent a substantial contingent to Operation Desert Storm mainly consiting of F-104 and Tornado Bombers, which made their very countribut too. In 1999 in Kosovo was the same, even more with the AM-X Ghibli. In Iraq, (agree with the war or not) Italy has the third largest contingent, many italians have died and even a secret service official was killed in a position of honour, defending the life of a civilian. Italians are not cowards as the anglo-saxons tend to generalize. In military technologies Italy has it indigenous industries, the major of which is Finmeccanicca, a huge conglomerate. It builds its own tanks like the Ariete, Tanks destroyers, like Centauro, Dardo AFV's and many more. It builds missiles and is part of MBDA consortium, the second largets of the world after Raytheon corporation in missile technologies. Italy has a small aircraft carrier and its building another one bigger, with the most powerfull conventional(non nuclear) angine of the world. As I know Germany and Japan doesn't own aircraft carriers, nor big destroyers like the 2 ones Italy is building with France, and the 10 frigates of ultimate generation its building with France too. In terms of Nuclear capabilities, German and Japan sometimes talk of owning its own deterrent force, but the only missiles Germany is supposed to have owned was in WWII. Itally planned a nuclear destroyer in the 60's,nuclear submarines which would have been equiped with Polaris missiles, but it was forced by the USA, Nato and other preesures of its own to abanon them. But it lauche one of the first satellites of the world, has an important space agency-ASI, its the thir more important member of ESA, the VEGA project its almost all from Italy, and in the 70's it tested sucessfully ballistic missiles- ALFA, made by italian industry, but the signed the Non Proliferation Protocol,but in the early 80's the idea emerged again and it Italy was to have its own Force de Frappe, if you don't believe ask Mr. Lelio Lagorio, defence minister at the time. It builds since the 60's good conventional submarines,the last in cooperation with Germany. Italy has the third most important Navy of EU and the 6th of the world, Germany only equalls that of Holland. It builds fighter aircrafts too. It entered the Tornado and EFA Typhoon programm, with a minor quote but is part of the consortium. Since the 50's it produces advanced jet trainers from Aermacchi sold all over the world with much sucess, helicopters, it has build the firs attack heli in EU, the A129 Mangusta, now its one of the major player in that industry, owning AgustaWestland. It also haves Alenia, Telespazio, Avio, Selex, Fincantieri, Otobreda, Iveco Defence Unit.The Fiat G91 was another sucess, winning a NATO contest for a light attack and strike aircraft, Germany bought and manufactured under license many of them. The AM-X was mainly Italian, altough Brazil had a 30% quota on it. So you put Brazil as a potential Major Power and Italy, wich deserves a place for a long, you don't even consider it for the future. Even if Brazil growns economically, in military, international relevance, its nothing compared to Italy. Doesn't have nothing indigeneous in terms of military-industrial, while Italy has lots of things. Brazil, India and China have aircraft carriers for instance, but they are old crapp bought from real Major Powers. Even in the F-35 JSF Italy is a 2nd level partner, being the USA the main contractor and the only first level partner the UK. Its is a partner also in the Dassault Neuron UCAV.ACamposPinho 03:48, 6 May 2006

Dates
It would be helpful if someone could write beside each 'great power' the general period when they were or are considered great powers. Eg: USA (XXXX - present). Also in the Great powers of modern history section, it would be good if you could write what time period is considered modern history.

 * Modern History is usually considered the time from the fall of the Roman Empire through the present.Casey14 00:06, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

You're joking - I hope. I thought it grew out of and followed the Renaissance - the rise of humanism, later Descartes, the era of European exploration, the Reformation, the rise of science, etc, that ended Medieval modes of thinking. 1 Dec 05. (Australian working class man).

 * Sorry, I must of been having a brainfart, because the start of modern history is the Renaissance. Not any fall of the Roman Empire.  Casey14 01:45, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Casey - sorry - accept that "early" modern era immediatly followed the medieval - since "early modern" is now used for the "Renaissance". Personally I like to think of the Renaissance/Reformation as a transitory period between the two - but you were right - though I think it looks as if you see my point of view too. Robert 1 Jan 06

The Great Power page has some minor mistakes like date of rise of Spain is Spain unification,right, but it was in 1492 not 1469, other thing I think is wrong is the downfall of Portugal, you can consider 1580/81,but you can consider the period from 1640 (reconquest of independence to Napoleonic Wars and Brazil independence as another period in which the country was a great power, and any historian will confirm it, in this period the country was so or more important than before. Another example is Japan, you cannot consider it a power from 1905-Present. You can consider it a Great Power between 1905 and 1945 and then from a date like late 70's or early 80's to present a Major Power, because if you consider it was always a Great/Mjor Power so you should do the same to Germany too. In the period 1945-50 Japan was occupied by USA forces, you should know it and was not even a sovereign country, from the 50's thru the 70's it went thru a major economic growth, but I think the 70's/80's is the best place to put Japan as a Major/Great Power again, but even today its more a economic power than a great power in all the senses that definition carries.ACamposPinho 03:49, 6 May 2006

Poland-Lithuania and Denmark Not Fake

 * How does someone view this as fake. It held substantial power in Central Europe before the Swedish Empire, Prussia, and Austria rose to power.   The same goes to Denmark.Casey14 00:12, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Some unkown user needs to stop taking these off the list.Casey14

Regional Powers taken off
Until regional powers such as: Nigeria, Mexico, Norway, South Africa, Brazil, Israel, and others reach great power status or even on disputed, they won't be on the list, because they only hold regional power.Casey14 22:02, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

India as a Minor Power
During the Rennaissance in Europe, India was ruled by the Mughal Emperors and Sivaji to the South, both powerful empires. Post-independence, India has fought 3 successful wars with Pakistan, a war with China and a border-skirmish with Pakistan in 1999. It possesses Nuclear Weapons and is the 2nd largest Military Force in terms of numbers in the world. Added to that, it's PPP is 4th in the world, India should be classed perhaps slightly less powerful than China at this stage.203.214.59.210 04:35, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

 * India has yet to earn its stripes. They were trashed by the Chinese.  Beating up the Paks in the 1970s hardly counts more than being secondary regional power (behind China). China shocked America in Korean war in the 1950s! A few years ago they had trouble dealing with incursions across the border by proxies for Pakistan (1999 -2000). I entered the Moghul in the place of India because at their height they were the real thing. Yes they have nukes but great power is about projecting your power/influence effecively. Robert 7-Jan-06
 * The chola incident seems correcting the earlier attitude of "Not requiring an army at all" to "elephant showing the tusks".Bcs09 (talk) 01:51, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

 * They were 'thrashed' by the Chinese in 1962, ages ago, and the Kargil War in 1999 was a clear victory although India was firstly taken by surprise by Islamic guerillas. After the Kargil War the Indian Stock Market shot up by 1500 points. Apart from that, as mentioned above, it is the 2nd largest military force in the world.203.214.59.210 04:35, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Added to that, India would now control most of Pakistan if Indira Gandhi didn't return land in the 1971 war. If you disagree with anything, see the articles on the Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 or the 1999 Kargil Conflict. They clear up India's military dominance in the region.

 * Military Power alone isnt a criteria for a Great or Middle Power. India exerts massive pull on the global scene with its competitive economic prowess and is poised to dominate in the near future. When a country with nil global reach such as Australia with an almost non existent military capability can be considered a middle power then India in comparison is a great power. (Look at the Economic/Military/Cultural) statistics of India and compare them with the other powers.)

Germany and Japan
Why are France and the UK still on the list as a "Great Power" and Germany and Japan just until 1945? Both of them are important economic powers today.

I changed the start date for Japan from 1868 to 1898, which was when they got rid of the unequal treaty consequentially to their victory in the Sino-Japanese War. Also I've added stuf about 1919.Harrypotter 21:56, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

 * In modern IR UK and France are "powers" by a variety of criteria (UN security council permanent seat, nukes, ability to project power outside their region, etc" - Germany and Japan are the best examples of non military based power post 1945. Their economic strength enables chequebook diplomacy, thus demonstrating power is not solely derived from military might (hard vs soft power, etc) 160.5.247.213 21:44, 27 February 2006 (UTC) (Pickle_UK not logged in)

Great Powers post WWII
Given the disparity between the post WWII power of the superpowers and the rest is it meaningful to speak of "Great Powers" post WWII? 8-Jan-06

UK, France - great powers post 1956? In a time of super-powers and "hyperpower" there is no such thing - as their ability to act independently - as shown by the Suez - is severely circumscribed - or to put it another way - the UK is very much the follower in Iraq. As for EU - well it may bepossible one day, but at the present it looks anything but powerful, as Iran has shown with the "EU 3". 210.49.196.39 00:26, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * With respect, you are completely mistaken, the two major players in Iraq I & II were the United States and the United Kingdom, in that they supplied the most money and military power, the balance of the coalition were the 'followers', however, even employing such a term suggests a lack of understanding, in that, in a military coalition ALL partners have equity. Twobells''t@lk 16:24, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

 * I very much agree. The dates here are meant to reflect the  dates of prominence  of modern great powers—anyone who thinks Britain is as prominent today in world affairs as it was in (say) 1850 is missing more than a few hotels in his Monopoly set. Albrecht 16:31, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Britain, France, and Germany are all still great powers. There have always been fix or six great powers in the world at one time.  Currently those three, China, Japan, the US, and Russia compose the great powers.  Just because those three are not as powerful as they once were, does not mean they wern't great powers.  They can control world policy. Casey14 00:17, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to interfere, but who added EU as a emerging power?? The EU is so fragmented. It is so hard to develop a consensus between France, Britain and Germany. --Spartian 07:47, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth
Should we add it? Something like 1576-1658, 1683-1704?

who keeps on changing russia to present
 * Russia is still a world power. Russia can influence the world.  Russia's power is huge.  Just because the economy is shaky, does not make it not a world power.  Like my post under powers pots WWI, Russia is a great power.

Just like after the 30 Years War: Sweden, Austria, England, France, Spain, the Ottomans the Netherlands and posssibly Denmark and Portugal were world powers. After Congress of Vienna: Austria, Prussia, Russia, France, Britain, and The Ottoman Empire were world powers, as Spain might have been clinging upon the status, but would lose it. Aftter World War One: France, Britain, Russia, Japan, the US, Italy, and arguably Germany were world powers. and we can go on and on, there are more than just two or three powers at a time, there are five, six, or seven.Casey14 00:26, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

china is not a world power its military is very primitive

 * China could easily control the world. China may be an industrializing nation, but its military is the largest on the earth.  Casey14 18:19, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

armies need to be advanced not only big and the pupulation hates the goverment so they will probaly desert

who thought that france was a world power when it was occuipied is hilarious i changed it

after world war 1 germany was not powerful

can someone erase china

Can someone erase India then if they are going to erase china? Since India's economy and military lags behind China's. Also its weird that the "primitive" military of China spends the second most on military in the world...maybe they are not so primitive. O btw China has the 4th largest economy in the world and the 2nd largest by PPP. Only a fool wouldn't china on there.

 * Just a note, it would be good if everyone signed their posts. Thanks. Secondly, China's definitely deserves to be on this page. It is categorized as a Major power and Potential Superpower. However, exaggeration tends to get the better of us, China cannot easily control the world, secondly China's military is not primitive but is technologically backward, this cannot be denied.  Noble eagle  (Talk)  05:43, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

A plan of action for this page
This page, as power (international) should not be considered a page detailing great powers and the role of great powers in society. It has been agreed on other pages that deal with such a topic (Superpower, Major power, Potential Superpowers) that the power hierarchy is as follows: This means we must: I'll wait a while for your views, before taking a course of action.  Noble eagle  (Talk)  05:50, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Hyperpower
 * Superpower, a state that has overwhelming control on international politics and meets all of the criteria for a superpower.
 * Major power or perhaps Global power, a state that meets most or all of the criteria but not to the extent of a Superpower (note that some Major powers and Potential Superpowers, namely India, China and the European Union).
 * Great power, a state that has considerable control on foreign affairs and representation on the world stage. Yet not to the extent of a Major power.
 * Regional power, a state that exerts considerable influence on its region, yet does not exert this influence on the world stage.
 * Middle power, a state that has little influence on other nations but does have limited representation in other nations.
 * 1) Create a new page called Great power
 * 2) Categorize countries in these groups on this page.
 * 3) Remove all the great power stuff from this page and work out a proper definiton for international political power.

 * I broadly agree with you but I disagree with your view of the ambit of the term 'Great Power'. My view is that the term Great Power applies to those countries pre WW2 which were the most powerful of their day (UK, France, Germany possibly US) - each of these were roughly equivalent in power.  It is only post WW2 that the concept of the Superpower has arisen, since then the concept of Great Power has not been applied.

 * I would therefore agree that there should be a Great Power page, but dealing with it as a historical concept. The ranking should be Hyperpower - Superpower - Major Power - Regional Power - Middle Power - The Rest of the World.

 * Xdamr 11:04, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

 * That was my understanding too, but the fact that this page was dealing with current Great Powers made me think that perhaps it was different. I'll set to work when I have the time. Great Powers are Pre-WW superpower-type powers. Any disagreements to that definition?  Noble eagle  (Talk)  23:21, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Done apart from creating the Great power page.  Noble eagle  (Talk)  01:07, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Who erased China?

 * I don't know. By the way, I've improved Regional power greatly.  Noble eagle  (Talk)  07:20, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Remember, this is a Great Power page, not superpower
I just wanted to remind everyone this was a great power page, because someone might start saying India or China or even Portugal/Denmark/the Netherlands arn't or wern't great powers. However, they meet all great power criteria. Also, when making the dates, for example Spain, which lost superpower status at the War of Spanish Succession, but didn't lose great power status till The Spanish-American War. Casey14 23:18, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

 * Sorry if this was my mistake, but I treated this page as power (international) or International Power as it is called in the template in the See Also section (which I created under that impression). So I thought that this could be a summary of all the power categories. I think it's necessary to seperate this content and create a Great power page with seperate content.  Noble eagle  (Talk)  07:30, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

how comer china has to periods and germany is one huge thing for exnaple after WW1 it was not powerful and after WW2 for a while it was also not that powerful

 * Because China that is listed is now in Taiwan, while the new China is the People's Republic of China.

Portugal
I'm not particularly informed on Portuguese history, but I noticed its great power status ended during the Spanish annexation. While that did end its status as a global power, couldn't it be argued that Portugal contined Great Power status into the 1600's? Portugal was also a major player in Imperialism, though I doubt its armies or economy compared to the other great powers. I'm not taking a position, just inquiring. 12.220.94.199 02:39, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Great Power v. Power in International Relations
I think that we could possibly do with some clarification of the appropriate subject matter for this page. Power, in the context of international relations, encompasses many different gradations; from the hyperpower to the major power to the middle power, and all the other varieties in between. Presently there are individual articles for all these types of power, all of them - including that of the Great power. Given this, is it really appropriate to deal with Great powers here rather than on the dedicated page? This article is after all titled Power in international relations - there is no mention of Great powers in  the title.

I would suggest that we move the Great power content to the dedicated article and replace it with a discussion about the various types of international power, in the abstract, leaving in-depth discussion to the individual pages of each type of power.

Xdamr 13:08, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

 * Trying to develop of list of Great Powers and Superpowers and Potential Superpowers and Major Powers etc is the problem here. The page has no criteria on which these are determined, leading to endless bickering and revert-warring over who exactly is a power, of what rank, and when.  It's all nonsense: political scientists have no fixed criteria for what countries qualify as great powers or regional powers.  Superpowers are only known as such when the international system is bipolar (cold war) or unipolar (today).  This article would be much better served to stick to the multiple definitions of power in international relations, and explaining the various gradations of power.  Lists are going to be pointless--we can all see that their entire practical result is fruitless bickering.—thames 02:25, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

 * Very much agree. All the list has produced is a flurry of counterproductive activity by people who really have no grip on the concepts involved, but who see dates and automatically want more for their own countries and less for the other guys. Case in point: England; to speak of "great powers" in 1169 is just ludicrous. Out with the list; examples of Powers can be given in the article text if they are warranted by the narrative. Albrecht 04:47, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

 * Perhaps you guys aren't fully aware of the work that has gone into these articles, note the plural. There has not been a debate within our articles on who is a major power, superpower etc. in these articles for a very very very long time. There is criteria and that is presented on the Superpower page. So although I agree the concept sections need to be expanded, I fully diagree with the rest.  Noble eagle  (Talk)  07:25, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

 * I echo Nobleeagle here; this article is part of a greater whole of articles on international power. Each interlinks and is to a degree dependent on each other.
 * By and large there really is no longer any trouble on the other pages as to who belongs where. I certainly will conceed that the Great powers, being a historical concept, give scope for more debate.  However I don't think that this negates my proposal, that we should move the Great power discussion onto the Great power page.  We can then have these fights on the Great power page and confine this page to a discussion of its ostensible subject matter, 'Power in international relations', making this page something of a portal to the rest of the series.  This is something that would be structurally and conceptually neater, I think.

 * Xdamr 12:57, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

 * Work that serves no purpose does not provide its own justification. The list is amateurish, stylistically atrocious, incorrect in places, and adds nothing to the article but conflict. I have tried at times to straighten it out only to see the nonsense, inevitably, creep back in. We wouldn't be suggesting its removal if it didn't cause serious problems.

 * Also, you seem to have a strange conception of "very very very long time." Have a peek at the section above. Browse every single entry on this talk page if it'll convince you. Then, take a look at the edit summaries in History and compare the number of edits that added content to the article with the ones that merely tweaked dates on the list. Go back as far as you like. The lists are hopeless. Albrecht 15:25, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

 * I don't disagree with you that the present list of Great powers leaves much to be desired, nor that it is a honeypot for national self-aggrandisement. The international power articles in general seem to attract more than their fair share of cranks.  But I take it we agree that the great power content is best moved to the Great power page?

 * ps. Not to put words into Nobleeagle's mouth (I hope) but I think that he was saying that the lists of Major powers on the Major power page Superpowers on the Superpower page etc had not been fought over for quite some time.

 * Xdamr 15:50, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

 * Sure, whatever helps. Albrecht 15:53, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

 * The Major Power article is absurd. "Major Power" is not a political science term, and not a term used by historians.  "Great Power" is a term used by political scientists and historians.  All of that content should be moved to the Great Power article, and Major Power should be turned into a redirect.  In the meantime, I'm going to move the Great Power material from this article over to Great Power.—thames 20:16, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, who exactly came up with this "power hierarchy" concept? I'm a PhD student in international relations and I've never seen this concept in any text.  This smacks of original research.—thames 20:18, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

 * Interesting point, I'd encourage you to bring it up on the Major power page.

 * Xdamr 23:08, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

 * I actually don't know who came up with the "Major Power" term. It has been there since I started editing these articles as an anon.  Noble eagle  (Talk)  00:03, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Superpower Criteria IS Sourced
I finally found where it originated from: here.

Power in international relations template
International power has been updated so that it looks better, if you have any problems with viewing the template can you just tell me and I'll try and fix it.  Noble eagle  (Talk)  06:34, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Current Powers
I've pasted this section in from the Great Power page, it seems more appropriate here than on that page, dealing as it does with other gradations of power than that of the Great power.

Xdamr 17:37, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

History of ALL super powers,
I dunno, I'm pretty sure we've had super powers WAY before WW II and later. Because if the US is a super power today by having the largest cultural influenece, strongest millitary, greatest economy, and etc. Than wouldn't you say civilistations like ancient Egypt, ancient Greece, the Roman Empire, the Spanish Empire, and the British Empire were all once super powers too? They all once had the strongest millitary, economy, and cultural influence in their heydays, but now we see them as nothing more than second powers or some (like Rome) are dissoluted. I'm just saying, super powers can't just be something modern when you look at older civilisations in all the same situation.

Samusfan80 17:51, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

 * The term superpower was coined in the 1930s and is not used by academics and scholars to describe nations which were powers before that time. You may edit Historical powers or Great power for such countries.  Noble eagle  [TALK] [C] 23:24, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

 * Well, only add a nation to the Great power listing if the country was described as such post 1814 - when that term was itself first coined. If you are looking to add Rome, Greece, Ancient Egypt, and similar then Historical powers is almost certainly the page for you.

 * X damr talk 23:31, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

India As A Great Power
I want to start a discussion on why India should be considered as a global power I believe India should be considered for a great power because: Neilpine (talk) 22:37, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * India is the 4th largest Economy in terms of PPP and the 9th Largest in Nominal Terms.
 * India is the 4th most concentration of military power.
 * India is leading in Getting a permanent UN SC Seat backed by all five members.
 * India is part of G8+6 And BRICS
 * India is a very active member of the UN and is one of the leading contributor of troops in peace keeping missions.
 * India has a very prominent role solving in global problems such as terrorism
 * India has a great global influence in terms of cuisine, films, music, religion etc.

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress which affects this page. Please participate at Talk:Realism in international relations - Requested move and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 19:02, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Categories
I have a feeling that the regional and middle powers were listed arbitrarily in the "Categories of Power" section. They are all unsourced and I have just reverted someone who added Turkey to the regional powers, because Turkey's categorization as such has become pretty outdated now, considering the recent developments in the region. And even if, most of the relevant sources talk about Turkish "ambitions" or "aspirations" for regional supremacy. This doesn't prove anything. I am also having a hard time finding sources referring to Spain as a regional power. Can someone help me out here? Fitzcarmalan (talk) 09:46, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

 * I most certainly agree. Considering the article gives no source for the countries listed in the regional and middle powers sections, id consider removing them as per WP:RS. However this may cause trouble, as it wont go down well with the petty nationalism among some editors. Antiochus the Great (talk) 11:00, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

 * Antiochus the Great, I've initiated a discussion on the WP:OR/N regarding this issue and other similar ones, if you're interested. Regards, Fitzcarmalan (talk) 08:01, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 one external links on Power (international relations). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100328072123/http://milexdata.sipri.org:80/ to http://milexdata.sipri.org/
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070627041402/http://eherald.alp.org.au/articles/0906/natp28-01.php to http://eherald.alp.org.au/articles/0906/natp28-01.php
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20141226231012/http://www.arabnews.com/italy-cultural-superpower to http://www.arabnews.com/italy-cultural-superpower
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070528190354/http://www.hoover.org:80/publications/digest/3058266.html to http://www.hoover.org/publications/digest/3058266.html

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 03:16, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Spain
I decided to remove Spain, the citations for Spain were listed in Spanish language, Spanish media talk  only of an influence in latin america (Not Globally) and only for the language, I personally do not consider Spain as a Global cultural power , I could mention France, China or India so far more important than Spain.--LuigiPortaro29 16:14, 18 November 2016 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by LuigiPortaro29 (talk • contribs)

 * None of the sources provided for Spain are actually referring to it as a "Cultural superpower", at best they consider Spain to have a dominant position when it comes to cultural influence in the Hispanic world. But a cultural superpower no. I have removed Spain twice now for this reason. Antiochus the Great (talk) 18:01, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

 * Even ignoring the sources; Do you know something about Pablo Picasso? Or maybe about Miguel de Cervantes? Salvador Dalí? Or maybe about Felipe II? Or maybe about Francisco de Goya? Or El Greco ? Or maybe about the Spanish language ? Or the Spanish culture ? I see that not, that your edition on the page Power (international relations) is based on reality evasion and a kind of hatred.
 * Do you know about the Voyages of Christopher Columbus, which resulted in the discovery of the Americas in 1492? Spain is not a global cultural power, Luigi? Don't speak laughable things. --TechnicianGB (talk) 22:21, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

 * I have looked through the sources provided for Spain, and none describe it as a "cultural superpower". Antiochus the Great (talk) 22:43, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * They describe Spain as a main cultural reference, a main cultural influencer and the founder of the Spanish heritage. Plus all of the Spanish culture or artists, painters... make Spain a cultural superpower. That's what the sources say, they not say specifically "cultural superpower" because that's a very unspecific term, mostly used on Wikipedia (do a fast Google search and see it by yourself) and from British articles, as "cultural superpower" means huge influence on culture, and that's what it says the source from the USD from San Diego, California. The Hispanic heritage is noted on all continents, due to spanish ex-colonies. Denying this is like denying that the earth is round. The sources say that, as the source from the University of San Diego. Anyways, keep doing whatever you want. You'll be warned to a librarian and soon you will be contacted by one librarian for your disruptive/untrustful editions. Regards --TechnicianGB (talk) 23:02, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * it is also funny that you mentione on your edition https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Power_(international_relations)&oldid=751317267 (your 3rd edition on 24th of November) that the cultural superpowers is in reference to a nations Soft power capabilities, while Spain is listed within the 10th first Soft power countries in the world which clearly states "from Seville to Brussels", and here you have another point of view positioning Spain as an obvious soft power country, one from the hundreds available just doing a quick Google search, the source is the reputated Time newspaper. . --TechnicianGB (talk) 23:15, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello TechnicianGB. All I want to see is one or two reliable citations that reasonably describe/conclude/assert that Spain is a "cultural superpower". As of yet, you have not done so. Instead, you have merely drawn your own conclusions from the citations you provided, and unfortunately, that is considered "original research" and against Wikipedia policy. I would love to see Spain included in the article if we find the appropriate sources, so I do not appreciate you saying that I have some kind of hate for Spain. It is nearly midnight here, so I can discuss this further tomorrow if you want and i'll have some time to try and dig up a few good sources for Spain. If not, it may be best to take this matter to dispute resolution, or omit Spain from the article if reliable sources calling Spain a cultural superpower cannot be found. Thanks! Antiochus the Great (talk) 23:45, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

 * Again I say that cultural superpower is an unspecific term mostly found on Wikipedia and British articles, not an used term. The Hispanic heritage is noted on all continents, due to spanish ex-colonies, as mostly of Latin America has Spanish colonial architecture. Huge influences are also found on Morocco, Western Sahara, Equatorial Guinea. and Philippines., cultural superpower means huge influence on culture. and that's exactly what says the source from the University of San Diego. You also linked the relation to the Soft power capacities and Spain is inside the top 10 of world's soft powers, as you can see I've posted many references in my previous editions. I don't understand why at this point you keep denying this. It's not original research... I've posted many different sources... --TechnicianGB (talk) 23:56, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

 * That is a really good point you make, and I hadn't really considered it before. I have to agree with you, that the term cultural superpower is a little vague and not widely used outside of Anglo=Saxon or English language academics and literature. Thank you for taking the time to discuss the matter on this talk page, and thank you for your clear and well reasoned explanation with supporting citations! Happy editing! Antiochus the Great (talk) 15:46, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

 * I'm glad to see that we arrived to a consensus. Have a great day! --TechnicianGB (talk) 20:56, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

With all due respect, you have to be extremely ignorant to not consider Spain as a cultural superpower. Spain has an enormous historical heritage and has directly influenced a good part of the world due to its immense colonial empire, now called Hispanidad. Spain also has a very extensive global language throughout the world (the second most spoken native language in fact), and it is one of the few official languages of the UN. Spain is the second most visited country in the world, only slightly surpassed by France, and it is a country whose national history is necessary to understand the history and development of the Western World, particularly Western Europe and the Americas.

I obviously agree with the others and their consensus. Venezia Friulano (talk) 13:22, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Power as resources most often used by geopoliticians and the military
This is the approach of Kenneth Waltz (Waltz, Theory of International Politics, p. 131; Waltz, 'The Emerging Structure of International Politics,' International Security, Vol. 18, No. 2, p. 50), John Mearsheimer (Mearsheimer, The Tragedy of Great Power Politics, pp. 12, 43, 55, 57, and 61-62), and Richard Haass ('The Age of Nonpolarity: What Will Follow U.S. Dominance,' Foreign Affairs, Vol. 87, No. 3, p. 45), among others. Are they 'the military'? Certainly not. Geopoliticians? Don't think so (or then everyone is). Brenda James (talk) 22:27, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

the image of Powers in international relations.
Well, that " new imagine" is old it is irrelevant a Document of canada of the 1998-1999, However I wish to see in what Part of the Statement of the Publication there a Map, Because there's no Maps in that "Old" publication. so I think that someone have Made that Map from his own Computer since in the publication of Chapnick Adam  "The Middle Power" theres no maps and IMPORTANT thing, the Publication doesn't talk about Italy, Germany, Japan and  India, talk only about Canadian affairs as a middle Power!. Today theres Documents, Journals, Publications of Ben W. Heineman, Jr., Fritz Heimann, Milena Sterio and even Obama that Talk about Italy as great power or a great Player, as well Zbigniew Brzezinski talks about India as a Global Power. So I though that the Map is a fake and is Better to delete it, since the Publication of "The Middle Power" of Chapnick Adam doesn't talk about a "global order", them talk ONLY  about Canadian foreign policy in comparision with the countries of the P5. so please, Before to make a Publication with a Map it is better to read and make a Control in the Publication. LuigiPortaro29 (talk)16:22, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

In that map Spain,Australia,Canada,Turkey and many others are not well ranked.Spain is neither considered a major regional power.They are even considered at the same level of Italy and India.Not necessarily every article must have maps or similar things to be complete.There's an excess of them.It was fantasy that map made by a sockpuppet as reported below it.89.97.225.68 (talk) 16:31, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

 * The map seems like a useful visual aid for our readers. I'm not seeing any immediate outstanding issues. Feel free to list any, concisely, in order. El_C 23:44, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

 * Well, would be constructive to have more users here into this topic  for an agreement for a New map that Reflect  the Great Players of the World in this time,  I will add the P5 (USA, Russia, China, France and UK) as well  the Members of NATO QUINT+ Founders of the G7( USA, France, UK, Germany, Italy and Japan) already Ben W. Heineman, Jr., Fritz Heimann, Milena Sterio and also Obama have talk about them as great Players of the world, also I would Put India since  Dr. Zbigniew Brzezinski talk about India as Great Power,  already all of them with the exception of Japan have Nuclear or Sharing Programs, all of them are the eight largest economies of the world by GDP nominal ,as well all of them (with the exeption of Russia and India), are the countries with more Net worth and Financial wealth of the world.

as well all of them have the largest Veto Power of IMF. as well them ( with the exeption of India) are the largest contributors of the UN Budget. , it is very debatable if Brazil is a great Power but in my personal opinion Brazil is so far to be considered a great Power. Brazil lacks of a Strong Voice in Global decisions. There other aspects to talk as for Global Power : Navigation Systems or Arms control,as well the countries ,who profit the most from the War economy, etc, the discussion can be very constructive. LuigiPortaro29 (talk)00:30, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

 * The map gives us the basics. Regional power lists in its own more detailed map "Major Regional Powers in South Asia (India and Pakistan)." The fact is that it can be both, because there's certainly the argument to be made that India is an emerging major power. But I remind you that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and as such naturally cautious. El_C 01:38, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * it is difficult to say which countries are great Powers and which others are middle powers and go so on, Japan is certainly an economic power for GDP and National Wealth but a middle power in Global affairs Rusia have a small economy and a tiny National wealth But they have the "nuclear" Power  diplomacy Russia is great in the Gold reserves. India Have a large Population with a large military "size" but still have a role of middle power in global affairs, but India play an important role in the International Monetary Fund, so there no an agreement about how is really a great power or a middle power here.LuigiPortaro29 (talk) 08:06, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Perhaps a more agreeable (although admittedly, still very subjective) criteria for the classification of 'power status' would be to consider a state's position within, ability and willingness to influence world ordering. We could talk all day about individual statistics that could qualify any number of nations as great powers, but in my humble (and Wikipedia inexperienced) opinion, the focus should be squarely on: What is country X capable of? and What is country X willing to do?. In the example of India, they are probably capable of becoming a great power based on material factors but their actions sit squarely in the middle power basket of multilateralism, niche diplomacy, and liberal IR. I feel this is important because it is very easy to inflate the importance of states to the extent that the classification of power status is superfluous. Thoughts? BlurryOne (talk) 01:58, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

title: Talk:Power (international relations)


text:
User:Anika2

Damir Anicic, Croatian from Slavonski Brod living in Switzerland, working in Paul Scherrer Institute.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: User:Anika2


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tankus the henge

Tankus the henge
Tankus the henge was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was a consensus to delete the article.

This seems to be a advert for a band from an art school who has played a few gigs. Not-notable. Dsmdgold 18:07, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC) This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
 * Delete, POV, and (spoken in UK spirit) advert. Ian Pugh 20:24, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Vanity, also not notable. Really reads like an advertisement. --Improv 22:06, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete: garage band vanity. Did Pink Floyd break up?  Why then are these guys Pink Floyd for the 21st century? Geogre 00:57, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)


text:
Category:Atlases

See also Category:Globes.

This category contains articles about atlases.

title: Category:Atlases


text:
Matt Black (DJ)

Matthew Cohn, known by the stage name Matt Black, is a British DJ and one half of music duo Coldcut (along with Jonathan More), who founded the Ninja Tune record label.

As a student at New College, Oxford, he was a member of a band called The Jazz Insects, whose first single was played by John Peel in his radio show.

Black is one of the inventors of the VJamm software used in the Coldcut live shows and also co-developed a "granular video synthesizer" titled Granul8. He is also a founding member of the (now defunct) VJ group Hex, and of the VJ group The VJamm Allstars with whom he continues to perform shows and has also worked alongside Crass Agenda as part of the Savage Utopia project.

Cohn is the grandson of the architect and designer Wells Coats.

title: Matt Black (DJ)


text:
Gary Olsen

Gary Olsen (born Gary Kenneth Grant; 3 November 1957 – 12 September 2000) was an English actor. He played Ben Porter on the BBC television sitcom 2point4 Children from 1991 to 1999.

Biography
Olsen was born in London and lived with an aunt and uncle after both his parents, Patricia and Kenny, died when he was young. He attended the Archbishop Tenison's Church of England School in Kennington. After school he joined various junior stage groups and toured with fringe theatrical companies, such as Incubus and Lumiere and Son, until late 1976. At this point he immersed himself in the punk rock scene as lead vocalist with the band Swank (alongside future members of the Lurkers, Chelsea, and Cuddly Toys) until returning to theatre in 1978. Later he helped develop the musical production Up on the Roof, in which he starred in 1987 at London's Donmar and Apollo theatres.

He made his screen debut in 1979 as Rory Storm in Birth of The Beatles, and appeared in numerous British films and television programmes. He played PC Dave Litten in the first series of The Bill, but achieved mainstream success only with the role of Ben in the sitcom 2point4 Children (1991–1999). He played a starring film role as Arthur Hoyle alongside Samantha Janus and Neil Morrissey in the rugby league comedy, Up 'n' Under. He appeared in many TV adverts, including a 1996 National Westminster Bank advertising campaign.

In addition to his screen appearances he made numerous stage appearances including The Rocky Horror Show and What the Butler Saw. He also played 'Pope Liberty III' in the Australian production of the musical Bad Boy Johnny and the Prophets of Doom.

Olsen appeared as Steve in The Comic Strip Presents... parody of The Fly, called The Yob. He also starred with Brian Bovell in the 1986 TV series Prospects about two young men in the Docklands trying to get ahead but usually failing.

Television roles
Olsen appeared in two episodes of the 1981 BBC TV series The Day of the Triffids as a street gang leader who later became an armed paramilitary officer.

He played PC Dave Litten in 12 episodes of The Bill between 1984 and 1986 (as well as the 1983 pilot episode, Woodentop). Olsen also starred in the 1986 TV series Prospects alongside Brian Bovell who played Jez Littlewood in Gimme Gimme Gimme, about two friends living in the Docklands area trying their hand at anything to make a "few bob". In 1988, he appeared in the EastEnders spin-off CivvyStreet as Albert, the patriarch of the Beale family. His most prominent role was as Ben Porter in 2point4 Children (1991–1999). He also had leading roles in another two short-lived BBC sitcoms Health and Efficiency (1993–1995) and Pilgrim's Rest opposite Gwen Taylor for one series in 1997. From 1999–2000 he played Johno in the Daz Dogs adverts and sponsors.

Stage roles
Olsen was critically acclaimed for a number of his roles in musicals including The Rocky Horror Show, Cut and Thrust, Gorky Brigade, Welcome Home, The Pope's Wedding, Saved Dialogues, Metamorphosis, Serious Money, What the Butler Saw, Way of the World, and Bad Boy Johnny and the Prophets of Doom. He received particular praise for his portrayal of Moey in On the Ledge at the National Theatre in 1993. Two years later he appeared in April in Paris at the same theatre. His last stage role was as Evan in Art by Yasmina Reza, in 2000.

Personal life
Olsen married Candy Davis (later known as the crime writer Mo Hayder) in 1985; they later divorced. He married Australian Jane Anthony in 1991; the couple had two children. After a ten-month illness with cancer, Olsen died on 12 September 2000 in Victoria, Australia, where he had emigrated following his diagnosis. He was 42 years old.

title: Gary Olsen


text:
British Cycling

British Cycling (formerly the British Cycling Federation) is the main national governing body for cycle sport in Great Britain. It administers most competitive cycling in Great Britain, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. It represents Britain at the world body, the Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI) and selects national teams, including the Great Britain (GB) Cycling Team for races in Britain and abroad. , it has a total membership of 165,000.

It is based at the National Cycling Centre on the site of the 2002 Commonwealth Games in Manchester.

History
The British Cycling Federation (BCF) was formed in 1959 at the end of an administrative dispute within the sport. The governing body since 1878 had been the National Cyclists Union (NCU). The legality of cyclists on the road had not been established and the NCU worried that all cycling could be affected by police concerns about racing. The cycling historian Bernard Thompson said: "Events organised by clubs in the 1880s, although taking place on quiet country roads, were constantly interrupted by the police. Often horse-mounted policemen charged at racers and threw sticks into their wheels." The race organiser and writer, Chas Messenger, said: "Thousands of cyclists were convicted or fined for dangerous riding, many on mere suspicion and unsupported evidence."

The NCU banned all racing on the road and insisted clubs use velodromes. A rebel organisation, eventually known as the Road Time Trials Council (RTTC), began running races of individuals competing against the clock at dawn and in secrecy, to avoid police attention. The NCU eventually accepted the RTTC and the two organisations ran the sport between them, the RTTC interested only in time-trialling and the NCU administering track races and representing Britain at meetings of the UCI.

Infighting was sparked by the UCI's decision that world road championships from 1933 would be not individual contests but competitions in which riders started together. The NCU had never been against such races but insisted that in Britain they were on roads closed to traffic, such as airfields and motor-racing courses. It now had to select riders not on their talent against the clock but in a bunch. Selection races were held at Donington Park and Brooklands. Among the riders were some, like Percy Stallard, who believed races ought to be run on the open road. He organised a race from Llangollen to Wolverhampton, in 1942. The NCU suspended Stallard and others and they formed the British League of Racing Cyclists (BLRC). It and the NCU fought each other until they merged in 1959.

The British Cycling Federation
The merged organisation became the British Cycling Federation. It accepted racing on the open road and controlled all competitive cycling other than time-trialling, which remained with the RTTC. Cyclo-cross was administered by the British Cyclo-Cross Association, which was linked to the BCF. The BCF was recognised by the UCI. The first officials were perceived to be drawn largely from the NCU and there was bitterness among supporters of the former BLRC that they had been betrayed.

The BCF had offices in central London. The first were in the headquarters of the Sports Council in Park Crescent, near Hyde Park. They subsequently moved to other London premises on Brompton Road and Upper Woburn Place, before moving out of the capital to Rockingham Road, Kettering, Northamptonshire in 1988, and finally to the velodrome in Manchester.

The British Cycling Federation was renamed simply British Cycling after it merged with the British Cyclo-Cross Association, the British Mountain Bike Federation, the English BMX Association and the British Cycle Speedway Council. Each is now a commission within the BCF.

In 1996, the BCF incurred large debts as a result of a legal dispute with Tony Doyle, who resigned from his position as President of the Federation shortly after its Board attempted to remove him. Doyle had been elected to the Presidency in late 1995 on a platform of increasing transparency and accountability in the Federation: the campaign to remove him was based on claims that he had failed to declare his role as a consultant to a company that wanted to act as the promoter for the 1996 UCI Track Cycling World Championships in Manchester. In December 1996, the report of auditors from the UK Sports Council into the Federation's finances and management found that there were serious shortcomings in its procedures for accounting and control of finances and potential conflicts of interests between board members and leading companies in the cycling sector. The board were then removed by the membership and replaced with an emergency management committee. As a result of the report, Minister for Sport Iain Sproat warned that the BCF's Sports Council grants could be withdrawn and that it could be banned from applying for Lottery money. Brian Cookson was elected as President soon afterwards: he described the organisation's situation at the time as "close to bankruptcy, 14,000 members and falling, one Olympic gold in 76 years and not much else to show. It was pretty dire".

International dominance
In December 1997, British Cycling appointed Peter Keen as its Performance Director, with initial responsibility for £900,000 of funding granted by the UK Sports Council on the basis of a one-year interim World Class Performance Plan. He was chosen ahead of Steve Paulding and Paul Sherwen. Keen immediately outlined the focus of the Plan, emphasising that it would mainly be aimed at targeting track cycling due to the large number of Olympic medals on offer. He spent much of the next year developing an eight-year plan to secure longer-term funding: in January 1999 it was announced that British Cycling had secured lottery funding for six years, with an award of £2.5 million for the first year. Later that year, the GB team sprint squad took the first British sprint medal at a World Championship for 40 years at the Berlin Track Worlds.

The first fruits of the programme were harvested at the 2000 Summer Olympics: on the track, Team GB took two bronzes, a silver and a gold medal, the latter of which was taken by Jason Queally in the 1 km time trial. Following the Games, Keen started speaking publicly about what Britain needed to do to become the world number one nation in track cycling. The team backed up their Olympic success at the subsequent 2000 UCI Track Cycling World Championships on home ground in Manchester by winning five medals, including a first world title for Yvonne McGregor in the individual pursuit.

From 2001 to the present day, British cycling has greatly improved its standing in world track cycling and is now considered a dominant force in cycling. In 2001, two key members of staff were appointed, with Dave Brailsford becoming Performance Director for the World Class Performance Programme and Heiko Salzwedel joining as National Track Manager. In July 2002 the Talent Team programme was launched, which aimed to discover new riders through working with schools: riders identified through the initiative who have enjoyed success at the highest level include Dani Rowe, Laura Kenny, Peter Kennaugh, Elinor Barker and Lizzie Deignan. After a disappointing performance at the 2002 Commonwealth Games in Manchester, the squad bounced back at the Track World Championships, where they finished second in the medal table with three gold medals. That year also saw the appointment of Shane Sutton in Manchester, having previously been Welsh national coach.

In 2003, the first six riders joined British Cycling's new Olympic Academy for junior riders, under the leadership of Rod Ellingworth, with a budget of £100,000 for the first year. Among the first cohort were Ed Clancy and Mark Cavendish, although the latter was almost passed over due to his relatively poor performance in lab tests, with coaches Ellingworth, John Herety and Simon Lillistone lobbying Keen to include him due to his potential. The Academy used a training base in Tuscany from 2006 to 2010, and has since returned to Italy, basing itself in Montichiari since 2016. Other notable riders who participated in the Academy programme include Kennaugh, Geraint Thomas, Ian Stannard, Ben Swift and Simon Yates. That year Keen left his role, whilst continuing to work with British Cycling in a consultancy capacity until the 2004 Summer Olympics: Brailsford was appointed as his replacement.

At the 2004 Athens Olympics cycling events, Great Britain came third in the medal table: they took two golds, a silver and a bronze, with Bradley Wiggins taking one medal of each colour - the first British Olympian to do this in 40 years. Brailsford gave much of the credit for the team's results to the psychiatrist Steve Peters, who had started working with the squad. From 2004 to 2009, it came top of the medals tally for three out of six UCI Track Cycling World Championships.

The team is noted for its distinctive high performance equipment. From the early days of Keen's tenure, they worked with outside firms to produce more aerodynamic bicycles and bicycle parts. They started using their own Sport Institute bicycles in 2002, and subsequently Chris Boardman played a key role in redesigning equipment and clothing to maximise efficiency. British Cycling continues to work with NASA, McLaren Group and many other organisations to improve track speeds. In the late 2000s, the team consisted of riders as Sir Chris Hoy, Victoria Pendleton, Bradley Wiggins, and Rebecca Romero.

This success has continued in road racing with riders such as Nicole Cooke and Mark Cavendish. British cycling has also formed a professional cycling team with BSkyB as the main sponsor and Bradley Wiggins as the team leader and David Brailsford as the manager. In 2012, Bradley Wiggins became the first British cyclist to win the Tour de France. This was followed the next year when Chris Froome won the 2013 Tour de France. Team Sky is registered as a UCI ProTeam. Recent years have also seen British dominance in downhill mountain biking, in both the Downhill World Cup and Downhill World Championships. In 2014, all three female podium positions, and the top two male positions, in the Downhill World Championships were taken by British athletes.

Organisation
British Cycling administers road racing, track cycling, cyclo-cross, BMX, mountain biking (including trials riding), cycle speedway, and in Scotland, road time trials. The main exception is road time trials in England and Wales, which are administered by Cycling Time Trials, the current name of the Road Time Trials Council. Only road time-trials in England and Wales remain outside British Cycling, but Cycling Time Trials works with British Cycling to organise the time-trial national championships.

Cycling clubs or teams affiliate to British Cycling to race in British Cycling events. Adult road racing licences are graded by excellence, from fourth and lowest to first and élite. There are licences for under-18s and for women.

British Cycling is a member of the European Cycling Union, the UCI and the British Olympic Association.

Sponsorship
BSkyB sponsored British Cycling from 2008 to 2016.

HSBC is British Cycling's Lead Partner for the period 2017 to 2024.

Criticism
In 2017, British Cycling faced criticism from UK Sport over alleged bullying, unlawful discrimination and "dysfunctional leadership".

Also in 2017, the Guardian describes how Mark Cavendish and Bradley Wiggins feel as though they have been overlooked by British cycling when they were not selected to compete in the Tokyo Olympics. Wiggins went as far as to say that he felt that British cycling were lacking in 'someone who actually knows what they're talking about'.

The organisation has also been criticised during the "Combatting Doping in Sport inquiry" of the House of Commons, particularly in relation to the supply of fluimucil to Bradley Wiggins in 2011.

In 2019, 22 charges were brought against former British Cycling doctor Richard Freeman by a medical tribunal which include lying to colleagues and the UK Anti-Doping Agency.

In 2022, British Cycling suspended its 'Transgender and Non-Binary Participation policy' to conform with the requirements of the UCI, resulting in transgender cyclist Emily Bridges being ineligible for the British National Madison Championships. The suspension of the policy led to a sponsor of the Women's CiCLE Classic to withdraw in protest.

In September 2022, British Cycling faced widespread ridicule after issuing guidance that following the death of Queen Elizabeth II that cyclists should avoid cycling during the funeral "out of respect"; British Cycling subsequently amended its position after a widespread backlash.

In October 2022, British Cycling faced a barrage of criticism on the announcement that it would be entering into a major partnership with the oil company Shell, with Greenpeace calling it "brazen sportswashing".

Regional bodies
In Scotland and Wales, British Cycling operates with regional bodies: Scottish Cycling (Scottish Cyclists' Union) and Welsh Cycling (Welsh Cycling Union). Scotland and Wales run national teams.

There is no regional body for England. England is not recognised as a region by the UCI, and there is no English cycling team outside the Commonwealth Games. For those occasions, British Cycling selects and supports the England team. Cycling is represented on the Isle of Man by the Isle of Man Cycling Association.

Cycling in Northern Ireland is organised under Cycling Ulster, part of the all-Ireland governing body Cycling Ireland. Until 2006, a rival governing body existed, the Northern Ireland Cycling Federation. It was affiliated to British Cycling, causing friction between the British body and the international federation, the UCI.

British overseas territories
British Cycling represents the cycling associations of British overseas territories in the UCI, if they are not themselves UCI members.

The Gibraltar Cycling Association is the regional governing body for Gibraltar.

Great Britain Cycling Team Olympic Programmes
International performances have improved since British Cycling began receiving National Lottery funding in the late 1990s. It won three golds in the 2002 world track championships and four in 2005. Britain won nine of 18 gold medals at the 2008 world track championships. In September 2004, British Cycling helped organise the Tour of Britain, a five-day race finishing in London.

Olympic Podium Programme
Riders in this programme are expected to be seasoned world-class performers with a track record of success at the highest level. Athletes are full-time on the programme and generally based near the team's Manchester HQ. Athletes may also be members of professional (trade) teams, receiving additional support from the programme. Athletes on this programme include Olympic champions Jason Kenny, Laura Trott and Philip Hindes as well as Tour de France winner Sir Bradley Wiggins.

Olympic Senior Academy
Riders aged typically 18 to 23 and exceptional athletes with the clear potential to become world-class performers. The programme aims to add the final technical polish, whilst building up training loads to those likely to be experienced by the senior elite athletes.

Olympic Junior Academy
Riders aged typically 16 to 18, who are already experienced and focused on a career in professional cycling. The programme aims to add technical experience, including experience of preparing for major (junior) championships, plus conditioning. Athletes are typically still in education and focus on intense training camps, whilst still living at home.

Olympic Development Apprentices
A regionally based programme aimed at finding talented young riders, typically aged 14–16 and preparing them for transition to the higher programmes.

Paralympic Team
Athletes competing in four disability categories, primarily in track, road-race and time-trial disciplines.

Tour de France
Britain has hosted stages of the Tour de France on four occasions. The 1974 Tour de France, was not particularly well received. The 1994 Tour de France also visited the UK. Due to the improved popularity of cycling, and the international achievements of British cyclists, the 2007 Tour de France and 2014 Tour de France were deemed to be a tremendous success, the latter being described by race director Christian Prudhomme, as 'the best ever!', over 4.8 million people lined the route, over a three-day period.

British Cycling Hall of Fame
On 17 December 2009, the names of fifty one people to be inducted into the British Cycling Hall of Fame were announced. The newly established hall of fame was created as part of British Cycling's 50th anniversary celebrations. Further names were added in 2014 and 2016

Research and Development
British Cycling has an active Research and Development department for developing track bikes for upcoming Olympic games. Tony Purnell is the current Head of Technology. British Cycling released a radically-original design for the 2020 Summer Olympics in Tokyo. The bike itself included a new wheel research by Hope Technology and a collaboration with Lotus Cars permitted British Cycling to adopt an original wide-stay design for the bike's frame and front forks.

British Cycling has also enjoyed notable successes at previous Olympic Games, with some successes attributed to their superior bike designs. This was most notable in the 1992 Summer Olympics, where British Cycling unveiled a design later known as Lotus 108.

Video clips

 * British Cycling YouTube channel
 * Everyday Cycling YouTube channel

title: British Cycling


text: Wikipedia:U.S. Northern wikipedians' notice board/to do


text:
File copying

In digital file management, copying is a file operation that creates a new file which has the same content as an existing file. Computer operating systems include file copying methods to users; operating systems with graphical user interfaces (GUIs) often providing copy-and-paste or drag-and-drop methods of file copying. Operating systems may have specialized file-copying APIs are usually able to tell the server to perform the copying locally, without sending file contents over the network, thus greatly improving performance.

Description
File copying is the creation of a new copy file which has the same content as an existing file.

Shadow
There are several different technologies that use the term shadowing, but the intent of shadowing within these technologies is to provide an exact copy (or mirror of a set) of data. For shadowing to be effective, the shadow needs to exist in a separate physical location than the original data. Depending on the reasons behind the shadow operation, this location may be as close as the BIOS chip to the RAM modules, a second harddrive in the same chassis, or as far away as the other side of the globe.

Use
All computer operating systems include file copying provisions in the user interface, like the command, "cp" in Unix and "COPY" in DOS; operating systems with a graphical user interface, or GUI, usually provide copy-and-paste or drag-and-drop methods of file copying. File manager applications, too, provide an easy way of copying files.

Implementation
Internally, however, while some systems have specialized application programming interfaces (APIs) for copying files (like CopyFile and CopyFileEx in Windows API), others (like Unix and DOS) fall back to simply reading the contents of the old file and writing it to the new file.

This makes little difference with local files (those on the computer's hard drive), but provides an interesting situation when both the source and target files are located on a remote file server. Operating systems with specialized file copying APIs are usually able to tell the server to perform the copying locally, without sending file contents over the network, thus greatly improving performance. Those systems that have no comparable APIs, however, have to read the file contents over the network, and then send them back again, over the network. Sometimes, remote file copying is performed with a specialized command, like "NCOPY" in DOS clients for Novell NetWare. The COPY command in some versions of DR-DOS since 1992, has built-in support for this. An even more complicated situation arises when one needs to copy files between two remote servers. The simple way is to read data from one server, and then to write the data to the second server.

title: File copying


text:
Talk:Dendrite

Here
Here is some information that would be useful to add to article eventually in the form of drawings:

There are several different patterns of dendrites:

adendritic spindle radiation spherical radiation stellate partial stellate laminar radiation planar offset multi cylindrical radiation conical radiation biconical radiation fan radiation

Also, if we zoom on a single dendrite, we can see that a group of synapses follows the following patterns:

variscosity filipodium simple spine sessile pedunculated branched spine claw ending brush ending thorny excrescence racemose appendage coralline excrescence

Perisomatic dendrites
I added a phrase about perisomatic dendrites - a feature unique to Betz cells (among pyramidal) AFAIK. Maybe there should be a short list of their somal surface localisation types, something like this:
 * Basal dendrites, leaving the cell at the base. Typical to the most pyramidal cells.
 * Apical denrite, a big single dendrite usually pointing to the pia mater, but not so in Martinotti cells.
 * Perisomatic dendrites, coming from almost any place of the soma. Typical to the Betz cells. (and maybe some other types?)

--CopperKettle 15:02, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

dendritic links to this page - dendritic could also refer to the dendritic cells of the immune system - there should at least be a disambiguation

Dendritic arbor
there is a reference to a 'dendritic arbor' but no definition as to what that is, could someone write a small definition for this please Paskari 10:40, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, done.UnderEducatedGeezer (talk) 17:40, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Years later, there's still no clear explanation here of what "dendritic arbor" means. Can someone please define/explain this term in the article? There's some discussion of "arborization", but it's still not clear to this novice reader what either "dendritic arbor" or "dendritic arborization" means precisely when it is used in neurobiology literature (or this or other wikipedia articles). –jacobolus (t) 00:03, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Strange Wiki Omission?
Wikipedia seems to be totally unaware that the term 'dendrite' is just as important (if not more important) in the fields of metallurgy and geology. It is the nucleation, growth and impingement of dendrites in liquid metals which determines many of the properties of finished products. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.171.9.200 (talk) 16:42, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

 * Well, we'll have an article about that just as soon as somebody who understands the topic writes one. I personally am open to changing this article to "dendrite (neural)" and adding a disambiguation page, once such an article exists. Looie496 (talk) 17:41, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Sources!
This article needs to give more sources —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.201.44.249 (talk) 07:08, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The following citation is not publicly available (might not even exist): White, L (2013). Functional Microanatomy of Neurons. Duke University. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.0.135.11 (talk) 20:26, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Length
The typical and maximal length of a dendrite should be in the article. Icek (talk) 21:26, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Dendrites...allow "for a chemical signal to pass simultaneously to many target cells" is misleading?
The statement in the second section of the introduction at citation 3, "Dendrites provide an enlarged surface area to receive signals from the terminal buttons of other axons allowing for a chemical signal to pass simultaneously to many target cells." may be somewhat confusing, as it seems to suggest that it is the manifold dendrites that allow the presentation of a signal to many other neurons; but the cited reference goes on to say, "The axon commonly divides at its far end into many branches, each of which ends in a nerve terminal, so that the neuron’s message can be passed simultaneously to many target cells...". Shouldn't that be clarified? UnderEducatedGeezer (talk) 11:30, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, it's really both, isn't it? Axon branching wouldn't help unless there was enough postsynaptic space to allow all the axon branches to have something to connect to.  Anyway, please feel free to revise the wording. Looie496 (talk) 14:32, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok, done.UnderEducatedGeezer (talk) 10:39, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * But I really don't see how the multiplicity of dendrites at a neuron provides for ..."a chemical signal to pass simultaneously to many target cells.", as all that's needed is many target cells receiving signals from the many branches of a single axon in order to send an axons particular signal to many target cells simultaneously. Thus the postsynaptic space to allow all the axon branches to have something to connect to could simply be multiple neurons with even just one single dendrite on each neuron.  So it's the multiple branching of the axon that allows the presentation of a signal simultaneously to many target cells, and the branching of the dendrites that allow for many different signals to come into a neuron simultaneously or otherwise, which aren't the same thing.UnderEducatedGeezer (talk) 05:51, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Action potential not (mostly!) propagated along DENDRITE?
I think the following sentence is not correct with respect to the conduction of a signal along the dendrite:  "The action potential propagates the electrical activity along the membrane of the dendrite to the cell body and then afferently down the axon to the terminal buttons where it crosses the synapse.[3]". Except for possible new findings of voltage gated ion pores at branch points in the dendritic arbor (yielding a weak saltatory conduction?), the spread of signal along dendrite membrane is solely passive, isn't it, no action potential otherwise involved? The rest of the indicated citation goes on to say about the axon, "...a local electrical stimulus of sufficient strength triggers an explosion of electrical activity in the plasma membrane that is propagated rapidly along the membrane of the axon and sustained by automatic renewal all along the way. This traveling wave of electrical excitation, known as an action potential,...".

I'm wondering if the section shouldn't be changed to something like, "This change in the membrane potential will passively spread along the dendrite and across the soma to the axon hillock, but becomes weaker with distance. If that potential is added to by additional signals, either the same signal quickly repeated (temporal summation) or from other input sources (spatial summation), and sums up to equal or exceed  a trigger voltage, an action potential will fire in the axon and successively re-strengthen the signal on its way down the axon to the terminal buttons where it crosses the synapse." Would something like that be ok?UnderEducatedGeezer (talk) 10:42, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

 * The sentence is misleadingly written, but the truth is somewhere in between. The original concept was that dendrites are purely passive, but research over the last decades has uncovered many cases of active signal amplification in dendrites, even to the extent of sometimes producing action potentials in distal dendritic branches.  However this is by no means a universal effect. Looie496 (talk) 20:03, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Number of dendritic spines per neuron?
I was going to expand info from the most recent edit regarding number of spines per cell, until I realized there is an inconsistency between two different citations. One source for spines says a type of neuron can have 200,000 spines (note, max number is not 15,000 as indicated in most recent edit), but the other citation for branching says there can be as many as 100,000 inputs per neuron. (I'm assuming that if a cell has 200,000 spines then it's not limited to 100,000 inputs.) Here's what I was going to put, until I noticed the inconsistency: 'The quantity of spines on different types of neurons varies, as there are spiny and smooth neurons. Smooth neurons have few or no spines, whereas different types of spiny neurons can have from 15,000 to 200,000 spines per cell, each of which serves as a postsynaptic process for individual presynaptic axons.[5] Dendritic branching can be extensive and in some cases is sufficient to receive as many as 100,000 inputs to a single neuron.[3]' How to resolve the inconsistency?UnderEducatedGeezer (talk) 18:31, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

title: Talk:Dendrite


text:
Suicide Club (secret society)

The Suicide Club was a secret society in San Francisco, which lasted from 1977–82. It is credited as the first modern extreme urban exploration society, and also known for anarchic group pranks. Despite its name, the club was not actually about suicide. Rather the club focused on people facing their fears and engaging in daring experiences.

History
The club was founded by Gary Warne and three friends: Adrienne Burk, David Warren, and Nancy Prussia. The first Suicide Club event occurred on January 2, 1977 during a winter rainstorm in San Francisco, when the four founders met at Fort Point under the Golden Gate Bridge at the top of a wall facing the Pacific Ocean. Waves from the storm were crashing on the rocks below the wall, going up the wall and then crashing on to the top of the wall, soaking the chain. After surviving the ordeal, the founders started the Suicide Club.

The club became public in Spring 1977 as a course that Warne taught at the Communiversity in San Francisco (part of the Free School Movement and formerly a part of San Francisco State University) and it lasted until shortly before Warne's death in 1983. Events generally started and ended in Warne's used paperback bookstore, Circus of the Soul. The name of the Suicide Club was inspired by three stories written by Robert Louis Stevenson, where men who want to die belong to a club, where each evening one of them is randomly selected for death.

Warne was influenced by dadaism and surrealism. He introduced members of the group to the concept of synesthesia, and he aimed to create experiences that were fantastical and boundary-pushing. As explained by John Law, "The Suicide Club could create an other-worldly, surreal environment. Getting naked on the cable cars was a surreal experience. He wanted a disconnect with 'reality' and a connection with 'super-reality.' 'Cuz knowing you could fall off the bridge and die is a super-real feeling."

Membership
The concept of membership was entirely a fiction that meant no more than participation. There was no membership list, only a mailing list. Initially, there were so-called 'initiation' events, but these had no specific nature or ceremony, they were just adventures intended to bring alive the spirit of the group in each participant. In that respect, every event served as a potential initiation for any newcomers. John Law explained, "The Suicide Club was a secret society, but it lacked any dogma that you had to adhere to (except secrecy)."

Activities
Any person could propose any type of event, whether they had already participated in a previous event or not. Their writeup would be included in the Club's monthly mailer, sardonically named the "Nooseletter." There were five or so general categories that most events fell into:

 * Street theater, Pranks (30 members riding the San Francisco cable cars naked and making post cards commemorating the event was perhaps the best known)
 * Elaborate games in odd locales (cemeteries, sewer tunnels, and the financial district late at night are a few of the places used)
 * Explorations—Urban and otherwise (abandoned industrial buildings, sewer and other tunnels, waterways, bridges, etc.)
 * Infiltrations (the Unification Church and the American Nazi Party were the two most daring and involved)
 * Sometimes, types of events were conjoined, such as the "infiltration" of the National Speleological Society undertaken in 1979. Club members converged on the NSS monthly confab at the Palo Alto Grotto, wanting to join. NSS members soon determined something was a bit odd about the new recruits. The two groups ended up working together on several extreme expedition caving trips, the most prominent being a two-week trip to Sótano de las Golondrinas in Central Mexico, the deepest free pit cave in the world.

Legacy
The Suicide Club was probably best known at the time for its bridge climbing exploits. The Club, though secretive during its lifespan, influenced many future cultural and artistic endeavors. The Billboard Liberation Front began as a Suicide Club event hosted by Gary Warne in 1977. Author Don Herron's Dashiell Hammett Walking Tour, the longest lived literary tour in America, began in the Suicide Club in 1977. The Chinese New Years Treasure Hunt was created by Gary Warne and Rick Lasky in 1977 and continues (albeit in a different form). The Cacophony Society was founded by ex Suicide Clubbers in 1986. Members of the Cacophony Society organized San Francisco's first SantaCon, adopted later and spread throughout the world by the Cacophony Society, which has itself spread throughout the world. The Burning Man Festival was influenced by Cacophony and many former Suicide Club members were crucial organizers in the early days of the desert event. The "leave no trace" mantra of Burning Man was borrowed from the Suicide Club and the philosophy of Warne. The urban exploration exploits of the club have inspired others, such as Julia Solis to explore on their own and document their discoveries.

Members

 * Susan Block
 * John Gilmore, co-founder of the Electronic Frontier Foundation
 * John Law

title: Suicide Club (secret society)


text:
User:Astronouth7303/Sandbox

Redirects only work with internal links when they are the first line.

HHGTTG

abbrev

title: User:Astronouth7303/Sandbox