Talk:Emerging power: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 13:42, 8 July 2018

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Power in international relations (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Power in international relations, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Power in international relationsWikipedia:WikiProject Power in international relationsTemplate:WikiProject Power in international relationsPower in international relations articles

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

International relations Start‑class Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Politics Start‑class Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Iran

Should Iran be added to the list? David (talk) 11:04, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is possible it could be an emerging power, but there is very little supporting it. Emerging in terms of media attention is about as far as it goes tbh.Antiochus the Great (talk) 20:55, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I suppose it could be viewed as a long-existing regional and middle power, which as you say is in the media not so much for its rise in power but for its 'activities', domestic and foreign. David (talk) 20:58, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Canada

Interesting that Australia makes the list but not Canada. Any reason for this? --Mrodowicz (talk) 18:22, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest I'm not sure Australia should be on the list - it's a growing country, but not particularly "emerging" in terms of power in international relations. Regarding Canada - it's been a member of the G8 for a long time and like Australia it's growing but not significantly so in the greater scheme of things. David (talk) 18:46, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(So I'd not have either of them on the list!) David (talk) 18:50, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nigeria

As raised/discussed here: Talk:Potential superpowers#Nigeria?

I think, with references of course, it could be a potential addition to the list. David (talk) 13:16, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nigeria would be a worthy addition to the list if accompanied by a reliable citation or two. But like David already mentioned, a favorable quote from Obama intended to seek favor with Nigerian government and/or people is not enough. That being said, I am sure there is plenty of material making reference to Nigeria being an emerging power.Antiochus the Great (talk) 14:26, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nigeria is one of a few regional powers in Africa too.Antiochus the Great (talk) 14:27, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Adding new discussion

Antiochus the Great before making major changes, you should talk on the matter first. These are too broad changes, needs to be discussed.--198.23.68.175 (talk) 21:02, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Any material which is on Wikipedia must be verifiable through the means of reliable sources. This article had been tagged by another editor raising concerns of this articles conformity with those two policies/guidelines. I addressed those issues by removing any material that wasn't backed up by reliable authoritative citations or any material where I couldn't find a reliable source to verify it. No such consensus was therefore needed for my actions. In-fact any editor is well within their rights to to challenge or remove material which cannot be verified with a reliable source. Thank you. Antiochus the Great (talk) 21:52, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Emerging power. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.ccs.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/China_Monitor_JUNE_2010.pdf

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:45, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Poland

Ummmm..... Poland is part of the EU lol. It shouldn't be ok that list. The2016 (talk) 11:00, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Emerging 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304002014/http://www.brookings.edu/about/projects/international-order-strategy, to http://www.brookings.edu/about/projects/international-order-strategy,

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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) 14:23, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indonesia, Turkey, Egypt

I agree with all on the list (Poland being in the EU, but acting independently and exerting its own sovereignty qualifies it for the list) I suggest Indonesia, Turkey and Egypt to the list, all have been mentioned as emerging powers, and all occupy strategic military and geopolitical locations and functions in their regions, bolstered by economic growth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.3.215.108 (talk) 15:47, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistan

Pakistan was unilaterally added on 18 March by an IP[1] and removed nearly 2 weeks ago by another IP. I have reverted Mar4d who added it back recently. Anymore inclusion should require consensus per WP:BRD. Mar4d you have misrepresented sources,[2][3] as none of them mentions Pakistan as "emerging power". Sdmarathe (talk) 12:19, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Sdmarathe: As is the case with your unsubstantiated opinions and edits elsewhere, we will check the validity of your claims. So far, the first link is from the IMF. Let's see further. Mar4d (talk) 12:50, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Who are "We", @Mar4d: ? Is there a WP:TAGTEAM ? ! You should not have made changes without discussing this on talk page as noted. Keep present consensus version until consensus is reached. Sdmarathe (talk) 12:59, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am correct with pointing out no consensus and misrepresentation of source. Why can't you provide the quote from the source? That will make it much easier for you and in fact that's the only way. Sdmarathe (talk) 13:00, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Sdmarathe: What I know so far is that your latest edit here is clear-cut WP:HOUNDING, and there is no other way for you to twist this. You owe an explanation much before we move anywhere else. Mar4d (talk) 13:05, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I'm not hounding you; you should not be surprised if you get reverted when you misrepresent sources. Nothing stops me from editing pages that are on my watchlist. [4] You had your first edit just a few hours ago too. Note that we are supposed to discuss if Pakistan is an emerging power and so far I see it is not. Sdmarathe (talk) 13:17, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Sdmarathe: Your first edit on this article was right after I restored the existing version, and that was to revert me. You had no edits here prior to me. This is WP:HOUNDING and there's no two-ways around this, you know it. I'm seeing a dishonest attempt at deception, and I am entirely within reason to escalate what is becoming a WP:BATTLEGROUND conduct problem. Mar4d (talk) 13:42, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 79: / Line 79: @@
 ::: {{ping|Sdmarathe}} What I know so far is that your latest edit here is clear-cut [[WP:HOUNDING]], and there is no other way for you to twist this. You owe an explanation much before we move anywhere else. '''[[User:Mar4d|<span style="color: green;">Mar4d</span>]]''' ([[User talk:Mar4d|<span style="color: green;">talk</span>]]) 13:05, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 :::Look, I'm not hounding you; you should not be surprised if you get reverted when you misrepresent sources. Nothing stops me from editing pages that are on my watchlist. [https://tools.wmflabs.org/sigma/usersearch.py?name=Mar4d&page=Emerging_power&max=500&server=enwiki] You had your first edit just a few hours ago too. Note that we are supposed to discuss if Pakistan is an emerging power and so far I see it is not. [[User:Sdmarathe|Sdmarathe]] ([[User talk:Sdmarathe|talk]]) 13:17, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
+::::: {{ping|Sdmarathe}} Your first edit on this article was right after I restored the existing version, and that was '''to revert me'''. You had no edits here prior to me. This is [[WP:HOUNDING]] and there's no two-ways around this, you know it. I'm seeing a dishonest attempt at deception, and I am entirely within reason to escalate what is becoming a [[WP:BATTLEGROUND]] conduct problem. '''[[User:Mar4d|<span style="color: green;">Mar4d</span>]]''' ([[User talk:Mar4d|<span style="color: green;">talk</span>]]) 13:42, 8 July 2018 (UTC)