Talk:Regional power/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6

Regions, who or what determines them?

The regional separations in this article seem arbitrary. For example, how the USA be considered a "regional power" of "Anglo America"? Neither of the sources used support the term "Anglo America". What about the Caribbean? Regards.--MarshalN20 | Talk 01:12, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I've found sources placing Colombia, Venezuela, and Mexico as "regional powers" in the Caribbean region. There are several regions in the Americas (aside from "Latin America"), which is why I think it would be best to split the matter between the North and South (and use footnotes to explain places like "The Caribbean" and "Latin America").--MarshalN20 | Talk 05:53, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

USA is a Great Power (or even a Super Power), not a Regional Power

Title pretty much explains it. The USA is a Great Power, not a Regional Power. Regards.--MarshalN20 | Talk 01:15, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I've played the USA in the "North America" region. It makes more sense...but, still, the USA is a Super Power (wide-spread influence across the globe). To list it as a "regional power" (which, no source validates) is quite a stretch. Perhaps a separate section should be made for the USA? Regards.--MarshalN20 | Talk 02:12, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
It also doesn't make much sense to have the USA as a "regional power" for "Northern America". The US influences the politics, culture, and economies of all the Americas. In that sense, it is a "regional power" for the whole American region. It would be best to mix in "Latin America" and "Northern America" into one single "Americas" region, and then using hat-notes to indicate Brazil, Mexico, and Argentina as Latin American powers. Regards.--MarshalN20 | Talk 04:57, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Nevermind, it has been "fixed". Thanks!--MarshalN20 | Talk 04:58, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

You're right. I was surprised that nobody else noticed this, not even me that have been around this article for quite a long time. The US is currently the world's sole superpower thus not a regional power. The US power is global as can be read at the article superpower. AlexCovarrubias ( Talk? ) 05:02, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Could you also consider that Mexico has some influence over certain sections of the United States (particularly the west and southwest)? Based on that, I still think that it would be best to separate Brazil and Argentina to "South America" and Mexico into "North America" (and use a hat-note to indicate they are also important in Latin America; although maybe Argentina's hatnote could read "Southern Cone"). Regards.--MarshalN20 | Talk 05:05, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
While Mexico is geographical and geopolicially part of North America as a region, it is also part of Latin America and is in this region where it has influence as a regional power, as the multiple references say. I've never read a reference saying Mexico is a regional power within North America (US+Mex+Can). AlexCovarrubias ( Talk? ) 06:07, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

USA was re-inserted as a "great power" by another editor. The sources used (Brittanica and a paper discussing Huntington, who seems to be quite an authority on the subject) do not support the claim being made, and rather explain why the USA is a Super Power (and the only one of its kind at present). Regards.--MarshalN20 | Talk 13:48, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Argentina's decline?

It seems that the idea of expelling Argentina from the G20 is getting stronger, as the country is already isolated in the international arena. This article is quite interesting, but the best piece of it, it's the end, answering which nation should replace Argentina: "Chile. Why? 'Just to annoy the Argentines'". --Lecen (talk) 01:28, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I have read it, and it says that there are no procedures or precedents to remove countries from the G-something groups. So, unless it actually happens some day, I would dismiss it as everyday political discussions. And which is the purpose of this thread, anyway? Which is the proposal in relation to the article? As told at the very top, this talk page is to discuss how to improve the "Regional power" article, not to discuss regional powers in general. Cambalachero (talk) 12:27, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Distinguishing Minor from Major Regional Powers

Now would be a good time to start analyzing each of the powers currently listed and find out which are considered "minor" (or "secondary") and which are "major" (or "primary"). For example, Huntington places Great Britain as a secondary regional power. Regards.--MarshalN20 | Talk 05:00, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I think that "minor regional powers" is not an academic term, and they are already mentioned on Middle power and Small power... Felipe Menegaz 07:10, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
So basically what we're trying to do here is differentiate countries like France and Germany, with a strong investiture in the EU and willing to flex their regional muscles, and Britain, which has the muscles but isn't as invested? Comics (talk) 09:03, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Felipe, "minor regional power" is indeed an an academic term. Small, Middle, and Regional are all related terms (albeit, distinct). "Small Powers" is used as a contrast to "Great Powers". "Middle Powers" tends to be used to distinguish between "small powers" deemed with little influence on the international sphere, and those with greater influence on the international sphere.
Finally, we have "Regional Powers". As the name explains, this is a matter concerning regions. Within regions, some countries are extremely active (primary, major), while others are more passive (secondary, minor), and the rest simply don't have much of a voice. These distinctions within "regional powers" have little to do with "middle" or "small" powers (aside from the aforementioned wider connection).
Comics, exactly. Britain is a Great Power, no doubt about it, but within its own region (Europe), analysts consider that it mainly focuses on its own sub-region more than in all of Europe (i.e., they call it a "Secondary Regional Power"). I think that this is historically correct as well (Britain has always maintained itself away from mainland-European affairs, except when they truly see their interests threatened).
Nothing wrong exists with a country being a "secondary regional power". In the end, they are all regional powers. However, by understanding the difference between "primary" and "secondary", it creates a much more dynamic look on regional relations.--MarshalN20 | Talk 14:00, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Pakistan: Secondary Regional Power; but how to list it?

South Asia is a small region, and India is considered the major power in the area. Pakistan is considered by most analysts as a secondary (minor) regional power. How should we place it in the list? Is there a sub-region to South Asia? Regards.--MarshalN20 | Talk 15:29, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

We should place it in the list the same way that it's been done for all other secondary countries in their respective regions. After India, Pakistan is the second largest regional power, in terms of all criteria when measuring the power/influence of a state i.e. population, political influence, foreign relations, military, economy, demographics etc. Btw could you define what you exactly mean by "South Asia is a small region". I do not quite understand how a population of 1.6 billion (over a fifth of the world's total population) can be called "small" by any measure. Mar4d (talk) 02:56, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
The question is how to place it in the list as a secondary regional power. Pakistan is not on the same level as India in South Asia, but there seems to be no sub-region within it to specify its secondary regional power status (which is what has been done with the other regions and sub-regions in the list).
Regarding your last sentence...is that supposed to impress me in any sort of way? Regards.--MarshalN20 | Talk 03:47, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Improving the map: Minor & Major regional powers

The current map does not reflect the more-recent additions of what analysts consider powers in sub-regions or "minor regional powers". Perhaps it would be good to use a different color to depict them in the map. I honestly doubt this would get out of hand. Regards.--MarshalN20 | Talk 20:29, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do; is there any request for the colours? (eg; dark blue for the 'regions' and lighter blue for the 'sub-regions' or keep the teal colour scheme we've had for a while and use a lighter teal?) Comics (talk) 04:38, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
The color you like the best would be perfect. Once complete (and as more "minor regional powers" are added), I am sure that the map will display a much more intriguing regional power system (which is how it is in reality). Regards.--MarshalN20 | Talk 04:51, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the improved map Comics. It reflects the South American situation really well at this time. The only one I am a bit unsure about is Chile. It certainly was a power during the mid-to-late Pinochet years, but then they spent most of the 90's trying to gain back democratic stability. Recently, they've been spending plenty on armament and seem to be back on track (obviously, its economy is great). Regards.--MarshalN20 | Talk 13:47, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Spain is included in the list of powers, but it is not colored in the map. Looks like the map or the list needs an update- just fyi. Jeffhoy (talk) 12:32, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Canada is a Regional Power, not just a Middle Power

Canada is a country with a seat on the G8. It has a population larger than some of the countries on this list, a larger military, and a larger reserve of natural resources. If Australia is on this list, Canada should be as well-it surpasses Australia in these respects. Please Advise Bassaintlaurent (talk) 22:21, 16 January 2014 (UTC)User:Bassaintlaurent 22:21, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Despite its size, Canada is not a regional power due to being overshadowed by the United States. Australia is in a much smaller pond, by comparison, and sets the agenda in a sizable part of the world, populated with small countries. This makes Australia a regional power, as it exerts dear substantial influence in a regional, while Canada does not and is not a regional power. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.248.174.29 (talk) 03:50, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Canada is not a regional power because, as the joke goes, "it doesn't have a region." The claim that this is because the US overshadows Canada is untrue. The US also overshadows Mexico, arguably much more than it does Canada, and yet Mexico's foreign policy effectively makes it a power across various regions (Caribbean, Central America, and Latin America). Canada's foreign policy does not seek to establish the state as a power over any other country.--MarshalN20 Talk 14:09, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree with @Marshall. Canada does not have a region in which exercise its influence even if it is a great industrial power due its G7 membership. User:Barjimoa — Preceding undated comment added 07:55, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Regional power. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:27, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Delete current regional powers

Just erase this section and mention nothing about what the current status of any existing country is. If need be we can cite historical examples. Hcobb (talk) 17:52, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

The information is valuable, even if controversial. Deleting it from here will not make it disappear from reality.--MarshalN20 | Talk 22:27, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Why do people delete the region "Eurasia" and Why are Russia And Turkey within the region "Europe" now? Russia and Turkey are partially in europe and Asia but they are not European Countries 100% and for example they have not influence on the EU. It was more correct before in my view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barjimoa (talk • contribs) 18:04, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Turkey and Russia certainly have influence in the EU, even if they are not a part of it.--MarshalN20 Talk 20:51, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Okay, no problems about it. Russia is a transcontinental country, they have influence not in one specific region but in parts of different regions (E.G. Eurasian Union). Turkey has far more influence in the middle east than in Europe, this is pretty obvious. However i think that for these reasons the "region" Eurasia is a right choise. So i support this version too.User:Barjimoa. — Preceding undated comment added 13:22, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Russia is more an European country than Turkey.--141.19.228.15 (talk) 11:27, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Romania

User:Antiochus the Great Can you please explain why you insist on having Romania removed? The East revolves around 2 states: Poland, and Romania. Romania is the regional power of the Balkans, a center of stability in Eastern Europe, on which European stability heavily relies. So why you do what you do?

The book Almost NATO (2003), edited by foreign affairs expert Charles Krupnick, does state Romania is a regional power. I am not sure why it is being removed.--MarshalN20 Talk 18:44, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Egypt and Indonesia are transcontinental states

Egypt and Indonesia belong to the section transcontinental regional powers.--141.19.228.15 (talk) 13:29, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Why should they? Do you have a reliable source to support your assertion? This is the first time I have heard Egypt or Indonesia transcend more than one continent. Antiochus the Great (talk) 13:42, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Egypt and Indonesia are transcontinental countries: Egypt lies partly in Asia and Indonesia lies partly in Oceania.--141.19.228.15 (talk) 11:25, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Regional power is not determined solely by location. Indonesia has no influence over matters that occur in Oceania. However, I suppose it could be argued (and sourced) that Egypt has influence in the Middle East.--MarshalN20 Talk 17:00, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
The Middle East lies in Asia, so we can classify Egypt as a transcontinental Regional power.--Istavan Velimirovic (talk) 19:17, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Spain is a Regional Power

Why Spain was taken out of the list!

It's the most important country in Iberia Peninsula!

The second most investor in Latin America!

Head of the Ibero American states.

Exert influence in Morrocos.

Madrid is the richest city in South Europe.

Barcelona is the largest city in Mediterranean Sea.

Fourth power in the Eurozone.

Second most native spoken language!

In my particular opinion, Spain is almost as powerfull as Canada and Italy! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.65.36.39 (talk) 03:26, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:59, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Needs work

I found this article to be rather disappointing. There seems to be a lot of scholarly work on what it means to be a regional power and how it impacts the regional or world affairs etc., very little of which is covered here. The definitions that have been offered in the article are wishy-washy, drawn from tentative or unpublished reports. At the moment, I think it is merely a list article, masquerading as an encyclopaedic article. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:59, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Feel free to contribute. FWIW, I agree. Antiochus the Great (talk) 18:47, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Conflicting information

The map to the right of the list says that Pakistan is a "major regional power", while the list to the left doesn't. I haven't checked the sources yet.

Also, Ghana is listed on the list as a major regional power, while it's nowhere to be found on the world map of major regional powers to the right. The sources don't mention Ghana being a major regional power either. --stranger195 (talk • contribs • guestbook) 07:56, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Canada is also listed on the list on the left as a major regional power. It's not listed as that on the map on the right. There are no sources, other than a footnote that says that it's a member of G20. It (Canada) also has a footnote called "G7" next to it which doesn't lead anywhere. I'm assuming it means it's a G7 member? --stranger195 (talk • contribs • guestbook) 08:01, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Regional power. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:57, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Edit war over Israel inclusion

Hi 85.144.61.254 and Pixarkid101, I would encourage you to discuss your views on inclusion of Israel here. Other editors can also present their views here and a meaningful discussion can take place.Please do not engage in an edit war. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 18:16, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello 85.144.61.254. I apologize that I keep on removing Israel on this list of regional powers. I'm not being anti-Semitic, neither being publicly resistant of Israel. However, I don't think the State of Israel is a regional power, at least not yet. Look at Israel, and it's surrounding countries. Israel is not recognized by any of these countries, except for Turkey, Cyprus, Egypt, and Jordan. The rest of the middle east does not recognize Israel. Israel usually has allies with western countries, such as Europe or America. But The middle eastern countries don't want to recognize Israel, and many of these countries are threatening to Israel, including Iran. The reason Saudi Arabia and Iran are considered regional powers is that they have a huge influence and cooperation with many countries in the Middle East. Israel has no influence and cooperation in the region, and only has influence and cooperation in western countries. I hope you please understand that Israel is not yet a regional power. Is has much political, economic, and social power like other western countries, but it doesn't have cooperation with most of the countries in it's region. So please don't include Israel in it unless it starts to have peace with countries in the middle east, being recognized by them, and cooperates with them [1] [2] Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).. Thanks. -- Pixarkid101

Israel is a regional power, and this is supported by references. Wikipedia is based on the usage of citations, not truthiness.--MarshalN20 ✉🕊 16:20, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.researchgate.net/publication/270508016_Israel_The_Partial_Regional_Power_in_the_Middle_East
  2. ^ https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1057/9781137484758_8

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:38, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

New entries

I reckon more countries should be added to the list. This article is about regional powers, not world powers. Some countries might seem to be “average” compared to other powerful countries, but considering the world is not evenly developed (it has never been evenly developed anyway), some countries should be included as long as they are powerful in their geographic region and its nearby areas.

I would like to propose the addition of the following new entries:

Central Asia: Kazakhstan (a member state of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation)

Central Africa: Democratic Republic of the Congo (powerful in a weak region)

East Africa: Ethiopia (powerful in a weak region)

North Africa: Egypt (standout in their region and its nearby areas)

West Africa: Nigeria (standout in their region and its nearby areas)

Guys, please let me know your thoughts. Thanks. 120.156.138.87 (talk) 10:26, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Addition of new countries

Some new countries like Egypt, Kazakhstan, Nigeria have been recently added to this list. I feel we need a more detailed discussion before we keep on adding new countries to this list and what sources/criteria are required. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 09:50, 27 January 2018 (UTC) 2001:8003:8612:EA00:B8C4:E2D2:3B14:2A5E Please discuss your changes here until then maintain WP:STATUSQUO. Adamgerber80 (talk) 10:12, 27 January 2018 (UTC) 120.156.138.87 I don't see any discussion here. Please do not edit the page until this discussion is over, which can take days at times. Please be patient. Adamgerber80 (talk) 10:19, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

I reckon more countries should be added to the list. This article is about regional powers, not world powers. Some countries might seem to be “average” compared to other powerful countries, but considering the world is not evenly developed (it has never been evenly developed anyway), some countries should be included as long as they are powerful in their geographic region and its nearby areas.
I would like to propose the addition of the following new entries:
Central Asia: Kazakhstan (a member state of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation)
Central Africa: Democratic Republic of the Congo (powerful in a weak region)
East Africa: Ethiopia (powerful in a weak region)
North Africa: Egypt (standout in their region and its nearby areas)
West Africa: Nigeria (standout in their region and its nearby areas)
Guys, please let me know your thoughts. Thanks. 2001:8003:8612:EA00:B8C4:E2D2:3B14:2A5E (talk) 10:47, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
Especially, I would like to point out Nigeria. I noticed that South Africa is already in the list of regional powers. Nigeria now has a bigger GDP than South Africa. It is also a big country and rich in resources. It is one of the Top 10 most populous countries in the world, it has almost 20% of Africa’s total population. On top of everything, it has the biggest city on the African continent: Lagos. Lagos is fast becoming the New York City of Africa with big multinational corporations setting up their African head offices there and a fast growing finance industry.
If Nigeria is not included, I would rather spend my time in the gym than editing articles in Wikipedia. 120.156.138.87 (talk) 11:11, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
2001:8003:8612:EA00:B8C4:E2D2:3B14:2A5E, 120.156.138.87 We need WP:RS to include any of these countries. Quora is not considered a WP:RS since it a WP:SPS. The sources currently provided are not WP:SPS and not acceptable. Adamgerber80 (talk) 15:40, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 27 January 2018

Remove Nigeria and Egypt from the list. Both these countries were not present before and have been added using WP:SPS. One is quora and the other is an article from an editorial board. We need WP:RS from neutral authoritative sources before we can add them back. The editors who are currently adding this are discussing their inclusion. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 15:42, 27 January 2018 (UTC) Adamgerber80 (talk) 15:42, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:52, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
MSGJ There is no WP:RS for their inclusion as of yet. The editors have provided a link to Quora and other WP:SPS to justify their inclusion (check the page itself). The discussion and the page protection have been initiated by me to reach a consensus on their inclusion per WP:RS which have not yet been provided. Adamgerber80 (talk) 19:18, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
I understand but still need another editor to confirm that these additions are not warranted. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:37, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
El C Can you please chime in? Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 20:44, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
I agree that Kazakhstan was a bit much, but Nigeria and Egypt are both on the map, so with the right refs, I don't see the issue. El_C 07:51, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
El C The map is outdated. These countries have been removed quite some time ago. The references provided as of now are WP:SPS. I am confused how can we re-add these countries under these conditions. The edtior(s) (I think it is only one on 2 IPs) in question have not yet provided a authoritative reference. Adamgerber80 (talk) 08:19, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
I don't see how the map could be outdated, but I agree that if the sources are not provided, they can be removed. El_C 08:43, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
El C The map was last updated on 13 October 2015. That is almost 2 years ago. I am not opposed to addition of those countries given we have the requisite references. The IP in question made this comment "If Nigeria is not included, I would rather spend my time in the gym than editing articles in Wikipedia." which seems frivolous to me. Adamgerber80 (talk) 09:12, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this article is constantly subject to petty nationalism and the deletion of sourced content. Searching in past versions, I found two citations that support the inclusion of Nigeria:

  1. "West Africa, with its strong French influence, is home to one of Africa's two regional giants, Nigeria, and the region has seen the scene of much political and ethnic unrest." See David Lynch, Trade and Globalization (Lanham, USA: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2010), p. 51.
  2. "South Africa is not the sole regional power on the continent, though; Nigeria is the other widely acknowledge centre of power in Africa and likewise a sub-regional superpower in West Africa." See Deon Geldenhuys, "South Africa: The Idea-driven Foreign Policy of a Regional Power," in Regional Leadership in the Global System, edited by Daniel Flemes (Farnham, UK: Ashgate, 2010), p. 151.

The map in question actually reflects a much more complete listing of countries, by regions and sub-regions, that a combination of malicious and ignorant editing removed from the article.--MarshalN20 ✉🕊 09:37, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

MarshalN20 Thanks a lot for your input on Nigeria. IMO we have enough references for Nigeria. I am not completely convicted about Egypt though. First, Egypt has always been mentioned under Africa/North Africa not Transcontinental. Second, there has been some literature post 2015 which states that Egypt is no longer a regional power. ([1],[2],[3],[4]). Happy to discuss more. Adamgerber80 (talk) 14:35, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, there seems to be more evidence explaining why Egypt is not a regional power than supporting it to currently be one.--MarshalN20 ✉🕊 19:39, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
El C,MarshalN20 The page has now been unprotected. I propose we let Nigeria remain in the list but update the quora source with the above sources. Additionally, we remove Egypt from the list until we find more authoritative references. Does this sound good? Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 16:18, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
The main problem with the article is not the countries listed. Focusing too much on that detracts from the larger issue, which is that of defining the regions in which these "regional powers" operate. Nigeria isn't a continental power, so listing it under "Africa" is an exaggeration. The sources indicate that it's a power in West Africa. Is South Africa a power in all of Africa? Regions are far more numerous than continents, and the existence of a "transcontinental" list is outside the scope of this article.--MarshalN20 ✉🕊 19:25, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
MarshalN20 Nigeria, when it was listed in the article, was mentioned under West Africa. Similarly, Russia and Turkey were not mentioned as trans-continental powers. I think the issues is multi-fold. We first need to trim the countries based on the sources we have. Then assign them with the relevant regions. I would consider South-Africa a Southern Africa regional power which is reflected in the sources. Adamgerber80 (talk) 23:46, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Should Europe be split into regions?

If yes, I would like to propose the addition of the following new entries:

Northern Europe

Western Europe

  •  France (already on the list)

Eastern Europe

Southern Europe

  •  Italy (already on the list)

If you don't agree, that's fine. I was just making a suggestion. And how about adding Thailand, Malaysia, the Philippines and Singapore in Southeast Asia, Hong Kong and Taiwan in East Asia, Egypt in Africa and the UAE in Western Asia? --2A02:2149:826D:7A00:4D16:C812:1F72:30DA (talk) 17:00, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

India

I have explored sources further. The scholarly consensus is that India is not a regional power and it is not a great power either.

However, it is not accepted as the natural leader of the region except perhaps by Bhutan, certainly not by Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, or even Nepal or more recently the Maldives, all of which have resisted India's wishes or demands. Nor does it have the power of compellence over its regional antagonist Pakistan due to the latter's nuclear deterrent capability... it is doubtful if India enjoys compellent power if it wanted to exert it, within its region given the enormous costs and risks. Hence, by the criterion of dominance, that is, compellent capability, India does not qualify as a regional power, certainly not over Pakistan. It can only deter Pakistan and more doubtfully deter its largest neighbour China. Hence India can be said to have regional weight and influence but not dominance in a way that it can be considered a regional power.[1]

Nevertheless, India has not behaved as a regional power[2]

Thus, from the above balance sheet, we can say that India is a middle power on the rise. At present, India cannot be called a great power and it does not appear that India will emerge as one in the next decade or so.[3]

In fact Pakistan's status as a regional power prevents India from becoming a great power itself.

Part of the reason that India's claim for great power status has not been accepted is that Pakistan still defines a regional pole of power.[4]

These scholarly expert books published in top university presses (Cambridge, Oxford) illustrate the academic consensus. Nauriya, Let's talk 16:10, 6th July, 2018 (UTC)

They don't illustrate consensus, you are just misrepresenting sources. Confirms that India is a regional power. "Great power" is not the point here, there are 1000s of sources saying India is a great power though we don't list it as one yet. If you trying to find sources sharing their opinion contrary to the mainstream opinion about India's status as regional power then consider reading WP:FRINGE. Orientls (talk) 13:15, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
@Nauriya: we are talking about regional power. Nonetheless your sources don't support the point your are attempting to make here. Sdmarathe (talk) 16:28, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ David M. Malone; C. Raja Mohan; Srinath Raghavan (23 July 2015). The Oxford Handbook of Indian Foreign Policy. OUP Oxford. pp. 738–. ISBN 978-0-19-106119-6.
  2. ^ David Scott (9 May 2011). Handbook of India's International Relations. Routledge. pp. 36–. ISBN 978-1-136-81131-9.
  3. ^ Neera Chandhoke; Praveen Priyadarshi (2009). Contemporary India: Economy, Society, Politics. Pearson Education India. pp. 387–. ISBN 978-81-317-1929-9.
  4. ^ Barry Buzan; Ole Wæver (4 December 2003). Regions and Powers: The Structure of International Security. Cambridge University Press. pp. 55–. ISBN 978-0-521-89111-0.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Regional_power/Archive_4&oldid=1136236811"