This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Italy is described as a great power (the least) in this article and in the article Least of the Great Powers. It should be in the map that ignore it. The map so it's wrong.Better an article without wrong map. You can add a map with Italy. I saw it in the article Grande Puissance in French language.82.53.128.194 (talk) 06:42, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
Status of Italy is well described in this article as somewhat problematic (most high quality sources do not consider Italy as a great power after 1943). As of that map, removing it may at least limit this never-ending edit-warring (until our noble edit-warriors find another "important" cause). In any case, reverted bold edits require discussion to gain a new consensus, repeated reverts are not the right way. Pavlor (talk) 07:20, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
So show me the way to better an article with a wrong map in this talk.82.53.128.194 (talk) 14:15, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
Please don't just remove content. If you don't like the map, edit the map 🤷♂️
As for the comments saying "In any case, reverted bold edits require discussion to gain a new consensus" that is not what Wikipedia:Be bold states. From what it states, people should come up with different solutions to try and be bold. To constantly remove is an Wikipedia:Edit war. It's supposed to be Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. If the Bold idea is removed, discuss and either come to a consensus or possibly suggest and try out something different. --51.7.116.157 (talk) 14:49, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
You are edit warring as well, @51.7.116.157:. Can you direct me to where consensus was determined on this point? Tiderolls 14:55, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
Yeah I have no intention to. I saw the edit was done while I was writing so I thought it might help to mention policies to get that person here to talk. If the other user continues to edit I'm just going to leave it to others to deal with. I am currently trying to figure out how to edit the map, though I seem to be hitting a brick wall. Any suggestions?--51.7.116.157 (talk) 15:05, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
My only suggestion is that you self revert to avoid a block for edit warring. I've already warned you on the 6th about reverting without having consensus determined. Tiderolls 15:29, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
In the event you aren't watching this page @51.7.116.157:. Tiderolls 15:46, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
I am not sure what ping does as I didn't see anything. I don't have an account if that's what you're wondering.
In the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle it says if people are bold and remove something and it's reverted, it should be discussed and to try and come up with a solution. Can someone come onto a page and just remove long-established content and then users are not allowed to restore it unless it's discussed on the talk page? This really is a genuine question, what am I missing?
Last time I was trying different edits to see if it would be a better solution and one was found that people liked. This one is someone removing content and it's being restored and the person isn't trying to come up with different solutions but only removing the same content. Though at the moment they might be working on the map as I have not seen them revert since. If they are then that's great as I don't have to figure it out lol... though I am curious how to edit the map as I tried to do this myself and didn't see how. Any instructions on how to do this?--51.7.116.157 (talk) 16:44, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
If an admin or experienced editor tells you that you are edit warring your next course of action should be anything but continuing to revert. Now that PC has been activated you're no longer in jeopardy of being blocked. However, you are most certainly going to hit this wall again if you do not take warnings seriously. Tiderolls 17:39, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
I did and I have. I hope that my actions do show that I am trying to be productive and helpful. Though is there a chance you can help educate me on this. Really I am genuinely asking. I read the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle and it shows a good image of what I was trying last time and what I was hoping to encourage the other user to do this time. In case the user was not used to Wikipedia I wanted to let that user know the proper way to go about and some only see the edit page and not the talk page. That's also why I stated I would not restore after that edit as if that person would have reverted it would have been clear they were not willing to talk or work on a solution.
I am also wondering if you can let me know how to update the map to include Italy? If editors here say the sources are good and that experts call Italy a great power, then it should be added to it.--51.7.116.157 (talk) 18:34, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
I will not be commenting on article content here. See WP:INVOLVED. One does not continue to revert while discussion is ongoing. You did. You were minutes from being blocked when the PC editing strictures were implemented. If you repeat this behavior, and I see it, you will be blocked. Tiderolls 19:19, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
My apologies, I was not asking you to comment on the content of this page at all. I am asking about Wikipedia's policies and I was also asking about how to edit an SVG image via Wikipedia. The most important being the Wiki policy.
I read Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle and I stated what I understood about it and the reasons for my actions. I really am asking for clarification. I am trying to be helpful here and understand how to act appropriately. I cannot correct actions if I do not understand.
You said "One does not continue to revert while discussion is ongoing" the IP user removed content. According to the policy I read, the correct action is if people don't believe the edit is appropriate to revert and then get people to go to the talk page. "You were minutes from being blocked" I even stated that I wasn't going to edit again after that (and my reasons for that last edit to hope they will talk) so if they continued I was going to let someone else revert, and others did. Since others also reverted those edits, should they have not done so? If someone removes content and they are reverted is that wrong? I am sorry I hope you know that I really am asking a genuine question as I am trying to understand what is correct. Can you let me know what I am doing wrong? I really am trying to be helpful. Thanks :) --51.7.116.157 (talk) 19:38, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
Nah, I'm pretty sure now I'm being trolled. Tiderolls 20:12, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
What? No! 😲 I don't know how to let you know I'm being honest. I am being genuine. Please Wikipedia:Assume good faith with me. I have no clue why you think I am being anything but that. I believe my edits and what I have always said here shows that I am trying to be productive and helpful. Are you joking around with me and I am misunderstanding you? Can you please give me some clarification, I am really confused now.--51.7.116.157 (talk) 20:22, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
@Tide rolls: I am unsure what Ping does, but I am unsure if you saw my response. I have no clue why you assume bad faith from me. That is far from accurate. I believe I have shown I only wish to help. Please let me know what I'm missing.--51.7.116.157 (talk) 00:07, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
If Italy is a Great Power, should it be added to the map?
Wow I didn't see that people were editing after that. I'm guessing that user isn't working on the map then, but instead getting others involved. Well even though I don't have an account I am glad that only verified edits will be published.
This does show that the table discussed above was never the issue to begin with. It's the subject matter and people from those countries or nationalities believing that their own country should be considered a great power. I do also suppose that this does show that my preferred edit of that table through 1999 probably wouldn't have worked and I'm unsure if until the end of the cold was would have worked either as that map is about the end of the cold war. I do not know why Italy has become such an issue here over the past few years. Let's leave it to the experts to decide who is and was a great power.--51.7.116.157 (talk) 16:56, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
Tables and maps are an easy target for edit-warring. Peculiarities of respective Powers could be (and are) discussed in the article, but maps and tables show all entries with equal status. Edit-warriors usually don´t care about context, they only want to show their favourite country is really GREAT POWER. Not surprisingly, most disputes concern Powers in the blutry area between Middle and Great Powers. Pavlor (talk) 17:27, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
That appears to be true. Though I do find them helpful and I am sure others do as well. I do not know how to update the map. I tried to find a way to do it, but I could not. Do you know how to? The page does list Italy as a great power. So while the editor was not being productive, they did accidentally point out that the image should be updated to reflect what the page says.--51.7.116.157 (talk) 18:34, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
This article treats Italy as something bellow other Powers, should the picture reflect this? Just choose a colour to depict would to be Great Powers (Italy, India, Brazil etc.) and watch our edit-warriors to moan about their pet country not being of the same colour as the real Great Powers. Or should we treat Italy on the same level as US or China? Ridiculous. Just remove the map and the table/template and let readers learn this topic is more complex than some simple picture. Pavlor (talk) 19:05, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
Great powers without a Security Council permanent seat: Germany and Japan
I thought I'd put the map here so people can see what is being discussed.
I am not a fan of removing content that does hold value. You do mention India and Brazil. Those are emerging powers, yet they have not to been confirmed as Great Powers yet and the article reflects that.
The question isn't about our personal preferences, it's about what experts say. I for one do not agree with Italy's inclusion even among India and Brazil. I would put it alongside Spain as a middle power. Yet it is not about what either of us thinks, it's about what academic sources and experts in their fields say. If that is what they say then so be it.
If academic sources have been provided and accepted that Italy is currently seen as a great power, even if it is below Germany & Japan and considered the last out of all of them, then that's what it is. If there is something wrong with those sources and they are not from reliable sources or from people who do not have expertise in their field, then a discussion here would be best and the article would need to be changed to reflect that. But there is a Wikipedia page around this subject called Least of the Great Powers so I doubt that will happen.
If you have to use another shade of blue for Italy I suppose having it linked as Least of the Great Powers would be an idea.--51.7.116.157 (talk) 19:20, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
That is the core of our problem here. Sure, we can cherry-pick few sources placing Italy among Great Powers, but most high quality sources would not count Italy after 1943 as a Great Power. For me, it is a simple question of due weight: best described in the article body, not in some oversimplified map/table. As I wrote many times before (discussions like this are going in circles...), there are Great Powers nobody disputes (US, China), other countries considered Great Powers by most high quality sources (Russia, Germany, Japan, France and UK) and some countries mentioned in few sources (in some cases even sponsored by said country...) - eg. Italy or India. Italy as a Great Power is a valid viewpoint supported by reliable sources, but it still only minority viewpoint. Pavlor (talk) 20:37, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
So you believe that Italy is relying on sources that are basically fringe science and there is Wikipedia:Undue Weight behind it? Then what about the Least of the Great Powers page. If Italy isn't a great power that article would also have to be either re-written or removed. I do not believe that to be productive either.
Is this a debate that is only happening online or are experts also having this debate?
I do think that the sources provided and the fact that there is a whole article based on Italy being the weakest great power, does show it should be included. As ever I am very open to any facts or evidence to change my mind on it. But as it is, it does seem to be enough evidence to warrant its inclusion, no matter our own personal opinions.--51.7.116.157 (talk) 20:44, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
Minority viewpoint is not fringe. If there are few high quality reliable sources discussing some country as a Great Power, we should describe its status in the article. However, we should not pretend it is of equal stature as other Great Powers. Speaking about "least of the great powers": "Any country that is rising in power, or whose middle power status is coupled with regional great power status, tends to be uncomfortable with the middle power label. Indeed, a key indicator that a country is a middle power is when its foreign policy analysts start braying against the middle power label and playing Synonymy Bingo: filling out their game cards with an ever-proliferating set of concepts that say everything except ‘‘middle’’: hinge power, principal power, positional power, rising power, bridge power, central state, model power, global governor." (Gilley, Bruce (2016). "Conclusion: Delusions of grandeur in the Goldilocks Zone". International Journal: Canada's Journal of Global Policy Analysis. 71 (4): 651–658, pp. 652, 654)
Sorry, I used the wrong phrase there, I shouldn't have said "fringe science".
"we should not pretend it is of equal stature as other Great Powers" well this article is about Great Powers. If the sources say it is one and they are good and reliable sources from known experts who specialise in this, then it should be added. It does come down to the question if it is or is not a Great Power, even if it is the least powerful one. Maybe have a different shade of Blue that links Italy to Least of the Great Powers? It might even be better to make Germany & Japan Green and Italy Yellow. Would that work? I do not know how to edit SVG files on Wikipedia, do you?--51.7.116.157 (talk) 21:42, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
Well, simply removing the map would solve this issue once and for all. Pavlor (talk) 06:43, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
The present day governments thought of as great powers and the potential great powers. The US is also referred to as a superpower. UNSC Permanent members
The map has been on the page for over a decade now. The earliest map dedicated to this back in 2008 might also hold a solution.
The present day governments thought of as great powers
Great powers (with Security Council vetoes): China, France, Russia, United Kingdom, and United States.
Great powers without Security Council vetoes: Germany and Japan.
I also found another map that was used for a while. Maybe combining the ideas here would be best. Use the Blue for P5's, Green's for non-P5 economic powers, & Yellow for Possible or rising powers? There has been a map here since basically the beginning of the page. If someone can tell me how to edit the SVG I will do it myself, but if someone knows how to, I do think just a simple update will help resolve this slight oversite in the article.--51.7.116.157 (talk) 14:52, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
Well, I "like" the current map. P5+2 is as much Powers as I can take. No Italy, India or Brazil for me. Pavlor (talk) 15:08, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
Personally, I agree with you. Though that is my personal opinion and the facts around this seem to show that my personal assertions are not in line with what experts say. It is not up to us to allow our own personal biases to decide what should happen, that is for the experts, we are only reporting their findings. Either Italy is or it isn't a great power. If it isn't then the article needs to be changed, if it is, even if it is just barely considered one, then it should be reflected. If Italy is unique among those other Great Powers, then I see no problem with that being stated on the map either.--51.7.116.157 (talk) 16:19, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
I see it the other way. Is there a consensus in reliable sources to treat some Power as a Great Power? Then include it in the map. If there is no such consensus, do not include it. P5+2 is the former case (with some caveats), Italy is the later case. Pavlor (talk) 18:11, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
Interesting thought there. Though I would say that the article does not reflect that at the moment. Maybe separate the "Aftermath of the Cold War" section when it starts to talk about Italy. Maybe include it in "Emerging powers" instead or rename that section to "Possible Great Powers" and include the part about Italy.--51.7.116.157 (talk) 18:20, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
I think the best solution is the removal of the map. I would like to see also comments of Wikipedian users from high range, it seems that nobody has objections about Italy's source. But only the noted ones are against. Plus an observation - there's here someone that knows about geolitics? can someone say me if exist the group P5+2 with the addition of Japan ? Germany is always there with the P5 and Italy sometimes in the case of Lebanon and Lybia. There's no important functional group outside the G7 that includes Japan (A group of countries that play a key role in the global diplomacy) . Note that Japan has lot of sources that describe Japan as a Middle power which I can show you . By sources India is a rising power a nuclear power which deserves to be included.--LuigiPortaro29 (talk) 21:41, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
For every source claiming Italy is a Great Power, I can provide another (or two...) high quality sources disputing its GP status or even ignoring it altogether. I agree removing the map is the best solution right now. Pavlor (talk) 07:04, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Japan is an interesting power. Unlike Germany, it has remained rather insular and isolationist after WWII. With Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution limiting its ability to declare war, it has instead focused almost entirely on its economic side. From the 70's Japan saw the start of it becoming a technological giant that boosted its economy and standing in the world. That ended in 1991 with an equally massive recession called the "Lost Decades" that it has yet to truly recover from. So while Japan is a great power it limits how it conducts itself internationally primarily to trade.
I do think that either changing the article or changing the map is a far better way to help improve the article. Similar maps have been used here for over a decade and this hasn't really been an issue before.--51.7.116.157 (talk) 00:09, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
If the new map will be as stable as your "consensus" template version (you did not gain consensus for your change in the first place and now you joined an edit-war over your prefered revision), better to not have a map at all. Pavlor (talk) 05:04, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
I'm trying to work with people here to come up with a good solution that everyone can agree to. I do think that a simple edit would be better. What am I missing? I made more comments here. I guess I will have to make a request for comment after all on these points. Would that be better for everyone?--51.7.116.157 (talk) 14:12, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Request for comment
1. Is Italy a Great Power? If it is not a Great power or only a disputed one, should the article change the "Emerging powers" section to a "Possible Great Powers" section (or a different name)?
2. Should the map showing Great powers be updated to include Italy? Should the map also include disputed & emerging powers discussed in the Article? Should the map be removed entirely?
3. What should be done with the Template:List of great powers by date? Should it be limited to the end of WWII when all sources agreed on who was a Great power? Should it go until the end of the millennium or the fall of the soviet union? If the template goes beyond WWII, should Italy be included with other Great powers? Should the template be removed entirely?
Maybe you can see another solution that we have missed.--51.7.116.157 (talk) 18:53, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
So sorry, I do not remember writing this before. I'll try again and put what I originally wrote below.
As of late there has been dispute if Italy should be included in both the Template:List of great powers by date and on the map (shown below). People were concerned that Italy's inclusion was incorrect as it appears to be debatable among experts if Italy is a great power or not. I am of the personal belief that Italy is not a Great power as I would rank it as a middle power with the likes of Spain. Yet there appears to be good academic sources stating otherwise and Italy even has a Wikipedia page dedicated to its Great Power status called Least of the Great Powers. With that evidence, I see no problem with its inclusion, even though it goes against my own personal opinions on the subject.
At first, only the template was debated. It was suggested by a couple of users that the template should change and it should end after WWII as that is the last time all sources agreed on who the great powers were. Any dates after that would only be added after people agreed on the talk page. Then another conversation came up to remove the template entirely as different users over the years edit the page or template to add in their own preferred country to the article. While it was not my preferred option (as I would rather have it end after the fall of the soviet union or 1999) I decided to be bold and on August 6 and edited the template so that it only goes up to WWII as it was the only date that everyone could agree upon. After that, the debate appeared to end and the subject matter seemed to have been resolved. That was until yesterday when another user reverted the table to what it was before even after pointing out that the edit was the only thing that everyone agreed on and ended the debate weeks ago.
Earlier this week another IP user came forward and started to remove the map. They stated that they were removing the map because Italy was not included. While the user was not being productive, simply removing content, they might have had a point. So a similar conversation has started around the map, should Italy be added to the map or should the map be removed because users don't agree that Italy is a Great power. I am of the position that either:
The article needs to reflect that Italy is a disputed Great power and change the emerging powers section around to a disputed Great powers section.
The map needs to change as it appears that the article does hesitantly support it as a Great power.
It seems that a list of the different Great powers over the years since the Congress of Vienna has been around since 2008 and a map of current great powers has been on this page for just as long.
As it appears there are not a lot of people weighing in on this conversation and not everyone appears to Wikipedia:Assume good faith with IP users, I am hoping that some more users can weigh in on this subject and help. Maybe you can see another solution that we have missed so far.--51.7.116.157 (talk) 13:02, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
Comment 1) I´m not against a change of wording concerning Italy (disputed status in RSs), but the current text is also fine. 2) Remove the map, area of Middle/Great/other Powers is so rich, some simple graphics like this would be misleading. Note if there should be any map, the current one (P5+2) is more close to the balance of opinion in RSs than any other option. 3) Remove the template. It is a magnet for never-ending edit-warring. Pavlor (talk) 17:52, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
Comment I'd delete map that is wrong because not complete without Italy. Italy to give an idea has a larger nominal GDP, a higher HDI and a larger national net wealth than Russia (not developed), a higher HDI than China (not developed), larger armed forces than Germany, Italy has nuclear sharing and Japan not, and so on. There's a lot to discuss about which country is a real great power. Article can exist also without map. Also Pavlor and LuigiPortaro29 would delete the map as they wrote some days ago.82.53.128.194 (talk) 19:01, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
That's surprising, I thought you would say that Italy was a great power (question 1) and it should be added to the map, as that is an option here (question 2). So I must admit I am slightly confused about what your concern is.--51.7.116.157 (talk) 21:49, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
Comment 2) The references about Italy in the articles are all valid as for the other countries of which some I doubt they are great powers. We all have doubts about the others but the valid references cannot be contested. If you are in good faith, the references must be accepted. References in this article and Least of the Great Powers, as the article itself says, show that Italy is a great power. Italy must be added in the map. Otherwise the map should be deleted definitely as Pavlor and Luigi Portaro29 suggested some days ago. I agree with them.82.53.128.194 (talk) 01:13, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
The core issue concerning the status of Italy is there are far more higher quality RSs disputing its Great Power stature (or even not mentioning it at all), than few cherry-picked sources in support. Pavlor (talk) 06:44, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
This is just your opinion about references. We are deciding if map must be deleted and you said yes.82.53.128.194 (talk) 07:09, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
So just to be clear, your position is 1. Italy is a great power 2. Italy should be added to the map to reflect its great power status. Otherwise the map should be deleted because it does not include Italy. Is that accurate?--51.7.116.157 (talk) 13:58, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
Comment 1. There are good sources that say Italy is a Great power and an actual Wikipedia article about its Great power status. So on that matter, I am conflicted. As personally, I do not agree, yet I cannot dispute what has been sourced. I think that if the article was edited to show that Italy is a disputed great power would be an improvement. If that is done I believe it would help focus both the map and template as Italy would not belong on either of them. 2. If the page is changed to include a "Possible Great Powers" section I believe that the map wouldn't need to be changed. Though I have no issue with the map being amended to include disputed great powers if needed. If it is agreed that Italy is a Great power then the map should reflect that. 3. I do think that the template does offer good information that would be lost if it is removed. The issue is people adding in their own preferred "current" powers into the template. This would be reduced by limiting the template to an earlier date as was suggested earlier by other members to WWII (before superpower diplomacy took over), or possibly trying for a date in the 90's (fall of communism or 1999) when most sources last agree who were great powers.--51.7.116.157 (talk) 21:49, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
Comment: I think the map, and the table "Great powers by date from 1815 to 2000" as it currently stands, oversimplify a complicated topic and risk misleading readers - as such, I believe it would be best to remove them. Perhaps if we find a way to visually represent great powers by level of consensus on them being a great power, but I'm not certain how we would do that without engaging in WP:SYNTH or WP:OR. BilledMammal (talk) 09:20, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
Do you think that the table is incorrect about past Great Powers? This does not appear to be "original research" or "Synthesis of published material" as such lists appear to be widely agreed upon by academics and found in many of the sourced links in the table. Unless I am mistaken, they seem to all agree on who was considered a great power (and when) through to WWII. The issue seems to be around if Italy was ever considered a great power after WWII or not. Do you think that limiting this table to WWII might help (as shown here) or is there another issue that a list of great powers over time until WWII might be causing confusion that I am unaware about?--51.7.116.208 (talk) 16:05, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
I would still have some concerns, but if we restricted the table to the pre-cold war era they would be reduced. BilledMammal (talk) 04:41, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
So if we limited the table to the end of WWII would that be your prefered outcome or would its removal still be your prefered outcome? Out of curiosity, what would those concerns be?--51.7.116.208 (talk) 12:29, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
Comment: I think the best solution for now is the removal of the map and the template from the page great power, anyway the template as it is, is good to me and for other users too. We can show that Italy's status is disputed and add India as a new emerging or new great power. Japan which is a clear Middle power in global affairs has been called a great power for some academic opinions. we need to found an agreement about Japan too. As I said Wikipedia's Job is not to show the best list, but what Reliable sources say. Even if this discussion is infected with suck-puppets, the sources say me that the inclusion of Italy is good. of course except for that one user who is legitimate against.--LuigiPortaro29 (talk) 08:28, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
So you believe that Italy is a Great power and you like the table as it is through to the year 2000 with Italy included. You just want India to be added and Japan removed? I do agree with you that we should reference what reliable sources say. I just don't know if that would be true of India in the year 2000. Also, the only lists to not include Japan as great powers around the year 2000 also don't include Germany. Are you saying that Germany would need to be removed as well? I do think that the sources do typically list both Germany & Japan as great powers around the year 2000. I really thought limiting the table to the 90's would help the table, yet it seems that limiting it to before the cold war does help a lot. Would that work for you if the table was limited to the end of WWII? As for sock puppets I haven't seen any evidence of that so far but we can always ask an admin to check 🤷♂️.--51.7.116.208 (talk) 12:29, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
As I see there's users that want to Remove the Template (which is the best solution). I think this would be the best solution.--LuigiPortaro29 (talk) 23:29, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Missing word?
It's possible I'm misreading the sentence, but in 2.1 World Wars, the fourth sentence reads: "During the Paris Peace Conference, the "Big Four" – Great Britain, France, Italy, and the United States – controlled the proceedings and outcome of the treaties than Japan."
I believe it should read "During the Paris Peace Conference, the "Big Four" – Great Britain, France, Italy, and the United States – controlled the proceedings and outcome of the treaties more than Japan." (Adding the word "more).
2600:1700:9EE0:37D0:8981:723B:B5B2:982F (talk) 16:26, 3 June 2022 (UTC)LSP
