Talk:Regional power: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
re |
||
Line 187: | Line 187: | ||
*I wished to add here that I have only seen random mentions of Pakistan being a regional power around and maybe there were better chances for Pakistan to be treated as a regional power a decade or earlier however the recent reliable sources as listed by Orientls show Pakistan is not making it to the list at all. [[User:Sdmarathe|Sdmarathe]] ([[User talk:Sdmarathe|talk]]) 16:28, 6 July 2018 (UTC) |
*I wished to add here that I have only seen random mentions of Pakistan being a regional power around and maybe there were better chances for Pakistan to be treated as a regional power a decade or earlier however the recent reliable sources as listed by Orientls show Pakistan is not making it to the list at all. [[User:Sdmarathe|Sdmarathe]] ([[User talk:Sdmarathe|talk]]) 16:28, 6 July 2018 (UTC) |
||
* Unfortunately, nope. Orientls' "analysis" (or [[WP:OR|opinion]]) is weak, incomplete, and for lack of a better term, also invalid/not up to the mark. We are not concerned with "global redistribution". Regional powers are (sic) states that have "''power within a geographic region. States which wield unrivalled power and influence within a region of the world possess regional hegemony.''" Here we are focused on "regional power" within [[South Asia]] as per [[WP:RS]]. ^I don't know who this Rajesh Rajagopalan is, or what his credentials are. But [[Barry Buzan]],<ref name="Buzan2004">{{cite book|author=Barry Buzan|title=The United States and the Great Powers: World Politics in the Twenty-First Century|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=VW4H8ZW6K-kC&pg=PA71|date=15 October 2004|publisher=Polity|isbn=978-0-7456-3375-6|pages=71–|quote=Regional powers define the polarity of any given regional security complex (Walt 1987; Lake and Morgan 1997; Buzan and Wæver 2003): India and Pakistan in South Asia...}}</ref><ref name="Buzan2">{{Cite book |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=N3LfkrrNM4QC&pg=PA55 |title=Regions and Powers: The Structure of International Security |last=Buzan |first=Barry |last2=Wæver |first2=Ole |publisher=Cambridge University Press |year=2003 |isbn=978-0-521-89111-0|page=55 |quote=In the framework of their regional security complex theory (RSCT), Barry Buzan and Ole Waever differentiate between superpowers and great powers which act and influence the global level (or system level) and regional powers whose influence may be large in their regions but have less effect at the global level. This category of regional powers includes Brazil, Egypt, India, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Nigeria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, South Africa and Turkey.}}</ref> [[Ole Wæver]],<ref name="Buzan2"/> [[T. V. Paul]],<ref>{{cite book |last1=Paul |first1=T. V. |title=International Relations Theory and Regional Transformation |date=2012 |publisher=[[Cambridge University Press]] |isbn=978-1-107-02021-4 |page=11 |url=https://books.google.com/?id=ofzH6pFO9iUC&pg=PA11|access-date=3 February 2017 |quote=The regional powers such as Israel or Pakistan are not simple bystanders of great power politics in their regions; they attempt to asymmetrically influence the major power system often in their own distinct ways.}}</ref> [[James N. Rosenau]],<ref name="AydinliRosenau2005">{{cite book|author1=Ersel Aydinli|author2=James N. Rosenau|title=Globalization, Security, and the Nation State: Paradigms in Transition|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=0c6ha_t3wJUC&pg=PA177|year=2005|publisher=SUNY Press|isbn=978-0-7914-6402-1|pages=177–|quote=Regional powers refers to the much larger and, in international security terms, much more significant, category of states that define the power structure of their local region: India and Pakistan in South Asia; South Africa in southern Africa; Iran, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia in the Gulf; Egypt, Israel, and Syria in the Levant; and so forth. Regional powers may not matter much at the global level, but within their regions they determine both the local patterns of security relations and the way in which those patterns interact with global powers.}}</ref> [[Roger Kanet]],<ref name="KolodziejKanet1989">{{cite book|author1=Edward A. Kolodziej|author2=Roger E. Kanet|title=Limits of Soviet Power|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=qPevCwAAQBAJ&pg=PA202|date=18 June 1989|publisher=Palgrave Macmillan UK|isbn=978-1-349-10146-7|pages=202–|quote=Because of Pakistan's reemergence as at least a regional power, we identify an emerging pentagon of power in and around South Asia...}}</ref> [[Samuel P. Huntington]]<ref name="DijkinkKnippenberg2001">{{cite book|author1=Gertjan Dijkink|author2=Hans Knippenberg|title=The Territorial Factor: Political Geography in a Globalising World|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=3RRJr-5q1H0C&pg=PA61|year=2001|publisher=Amsterdam University Press|isbn=978-90-5629-188-4|pages=61–|quote=Secondary regional powers in Huntington's view include Great Britain, Ukraine, Japan, South Korea, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Argentina.}}</ref><ref name="Lia2007">{{cite book|author=Brynjar Lia|title=Globalisation and the Future of Terrorism: Patterns and Predictions|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=t1CQAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA42|date=7 May 2007|publisher=Routledge|isbn=978-1-135-77527-8|pages=42–|quote=...'secondary regional powers whose interest often conflict with the more powerful regional states', including states such as Great Britain, Ukraine, Japan, Argentina, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan}}</ref> and others are mainstream and internationally-recognised experts in the field, and certainly more experienced, qualified, and widely-cited than you. If you think we are going to railroad these and pretend you know better, then fat chance! In their work, they have defined in great detail what "regional" powers and their roles are, and in specific terms identify Pakistan amongst the countries that influence regional dynamics and are regional powers. Amongst the criteria that such powers fulfil are conventional military standing (e.g. nuclear states), impact on neighbouring states/regions, socioeconomics etc., and as per the sources we have, these criteria are specifically acknowledged even in as subjective a department as this.<ref name="Buzan2"/> The same standards hold true for most other powers listed in this article for each region. |
|||
: I will go further, because Orientls is contradicted by his own sources. [https://www.files.ethz.ch/isn/151160/wp200_shim-flamm.pdf This] paper acknowledges a publication by [[Robert Pastor]] who (quote) "''includes Argentina, Iraq, Egypt, Indonesia, and Pakistan in addition to the above-mentioned countries''" as regional powers. [https://www.researchgate.net/publication/249691042_Leaders_in_Need_of_Followers_Emerging_Powers_in_Global_Governance This] link only focuses on a selective group of powers (G4) who failed to attain UNSC seats, and interestingly attributes one of the reasons to an anti-G4 group consisting of active powers like Pakistan, Argentina, Italy, Korea, and Mexico. [https://archive.intereconomics.eu/year/2011/5/the-challenge-to-europe-regional-powers-and-the-shifting-of-the-global-order/ This] one is definitely questionable, as it self-admittedly claims "Russia is excluded from our analysis" and even omits [[Iran]] and [[Israel]], all of which are recurrently mentioned in other sources. [http://www.eisa-net.org/eisa-net.org/be-bruga/eisa/files/events/turin/Odgaard-sgirturin07LOpaper.pdf This] page is on Asia-Pacific and, like most other links above, is entirely irrelevant to South Asia. |
|||
: Finally, I find it extremely odd that a [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Regional_power&diff=848681481&oldid=848632100 revert] of longstanding sourced content, later called a 'mistake', triggers at least three users with no immediate history on this article effectively trying to restore the same vandal's edits. This article needs to be put under extensive monitoring. '''[[User:Mar4d|<span style="color: green;">Mar4d</span>]]''' ([[User talk:Mar4d|<span style="color: green;">talk</span>]]) 17:04, 6 July 2018 (UTC) |
|||
==India== |
==India== |
Revision as of 17:04, 6 July 2018
This page is not a forum for general discussion about Regional Powers. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Regional Powers at the Reference desk. This talk page is not the place to speculate future events, express nationalist feelings, or mock countries—this is not a blog. |
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Regional power article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6Auto-archiving period: 90 days |
Regional power was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Former good article nominee |
This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
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
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
- 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 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 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 Can you please chime in? Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 20:44, 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)
- 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)
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:
- "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.
- "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)
- 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)
- 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
- Denmark (maybe)
- Norway (maybe)
- United Kingdom (already on the list)
Western Europe
- Austria (maybe)
- France (already on the list)
- Germany (already on the list)
Eastern Europe
- Romania (maybe)
- Ukraine (maybe)
Southern Europe
- Italy (already on the list)
- Portugal (maybe)
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)
Pakistan
@Adamgerber80, Sdmarathe, and Usman47: Here is quick analysis of the sources used by Usman47.
- [5] = From 2002. States Hungary Sweden and more as "middle powers".
- [6] Shanghai Cooperation organisation list. That is no description for "regional power".
- [7] Unreliable source, which sentence say Pakistan is a regional power?
- [8] Unreliable source.
- [9] Unreliable again.
- [10] provide quote for this. Where you were reading that source say Pakistan is a regional power?
- [11] regional nuclear power? How's that "Regional power".
These sources fail the point. Lorstaking (talk) 11:17, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
- @Mar4d: you are supposed to carry on discussion here in place of restoring the disputed edit. Do you have any source that qualifies more than just passing mention? Sdmarathe (talk) 19:42, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
- @Everyone, Can we please revert to the page as it was on this version on 20 June 2018. I do understand that there a set of editors who think the sources added are insufficient and other editors think we have enough WP:RS to include Pakistan. This can be done here without engaging in an edit-war. And something for everyone to ponder on is this link from IISS. Even though it is marked as a blog, it gives a good matrix analysis of what constitutes a regional power. IISS is also a reputed organization with experts and is considered a great neutral source on Wikipedia. IMO, beyond this discussion, we should use this to make this page better. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 20:48, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
- We don't have to voice opinion of minority but mainstream. You can search and discover sources calling Sri Lanka, United Arab Emirates, and other countries a regional power as well but we have to voice the mainstream view. IISS also calls "North Korea" a regional power but that's not supported by majority of sources. India and Brazil are a Great power according to many sources and some consider India, China, Russia to be a superpower. But Wikipedia article on these subjects don't list Brazil and India as great power, nor list Russia, India, China as superpower because that is not an opinion of majority.
- @Everyone, Can we please revert to the page as it was on this version on 20 June 2018. I do understand that there a set of editors who think the sources added are insufficient and other editors think we have enough WP:RS to include Pakistan. This can be done here without engaging in an edit-war. And something for everyone to ponder on is this link from IISS. Even though it is marked as a blog, it gives a good matrix analysis of what constitutes a regional power. IISS is also a reputed organization with experts and is considered a great neutral source on Wikipedia. IMO, beyond this discussion, we should use this to make this page better. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 20:48, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
- Generally the sources that are focused on regional powers have not included Pakistan as one:-
- [12][13] [14]: "Testing several indicators, we identified the following countries as regional powers: China, India, Brazil, South Africa, Mexico, Indonesia, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Turkey."
- .... "for example, Israel, Iran, Pakistan, Thailand, Vietnam, Argentina, Venezuela and Nigeria. They are important but do not belong to those nations which exert global and regional influence, either in regional or global institutions or as economic hubs in the region. For comparison, the data of some of the aforementioned countries were taken into consideration."
- [15]: "The countries considered to be regional powers – Brazil, South Africa, India, China, Japan and Russia".
- [16]: This list is certainly small but includes China, India, not Pakistan.
- [17]: Look at the table at the bottom of the page 56.
- [18]: " But it also reflects that secondary regional powers and entities such as ASEAN, Russia, South Korea and India have proved unwilling to chose between the two."
- [19]: This entire book is dedicated to "Regional Powers and Global Redistribution". It says "Regional powers such as India, Brazil and South Africa", but makes no mention of Pakistan as a regional power.
- Generally the sources that are focused on regional powers have not included Pakistan as one:-
- The first source is widely prevalent in academia and holds full expertise in this subject. It has refuted the incorrect notion. None of the above references as well as many others[20][21][22][23][24][25] say that Pakistan is a regional power and most of them don't even mention Pakistan in this context. If Pakistan is a regional power than those sources are ought to say it if Pakistan was really a regional power. This book says Pakistan is a "sub-regional power". Given the large amount of dispute and omission of Pakistan as "regional power", it seems that it is just an opinion of a small minority that Pakistan is a regional power and it is not shared by the majority as already evidenced in the great amount of sources that have authority in this subject. There is a strong argument against inclusion of Pakistan as regional power. Orientls (talk) 09:12, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
- That's an interesting analysis of the weakness of this information. Also read this chapter. It describes the problems with calling Pakistan a regional power. Lorstaking (talk) 10:35, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
- Reading that, I support removing such information that seem to be promoting the status that doesn't really exists. Orientls (talk) 13:41, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
- That's an interesting analysis of the weakness of this information. Also read this chapter. It describes the problems with calling Pakistan a regional power. Lorstaking (talk) 10:35, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
- The first source is widely prevalent in academia and holds full expertise in this subject. It has refuted the incorrect notion. None of the above references as well as many others[20][21][22][23][24][25] say that Pakistan is a regional power and most of them don't even mention Pakistan in this context. If Pakistan is a regional power than those sources are ought to say it if Pakistan was really a regional power. This book says Pakistan is a "sub-regional power". Given the large amount of dispute and omission of Pakistan as "regional power", it seems that it is just an opinion of a small minority that Pakistan is a regional power and it is not shared by the majority as already evidenced in the great amount of sources that have authority in this subject. There is a strong argument against inclusion of Pakistan as regional power. Orientls (talk) 09:12, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
@Orientls It's interesting that you are quoting sources that are suiting your narrative and are majority biased sources with Indian authors. Since this is a page talk not a discussion forum, i would refrain to go in to an argument. Same arguments that you are applying here can be applied for India where no article mentions india as a monopoly of regional power in South Asia. Your arguments are politically motivated and are no substance.
Pakistan being world's seventh nuclear power [1] and have sixth largest nuclear arsenal [2] ; one of the few countries that have completed nuclear triad. Have sixth largest standing army [3]. It is a large manufacturer and supplier of military equipment and deploy it's forces in multiple regional countries for security and stability and provide training to other militaries [4]. [5], Is a founding member/full member of multiple international geo-strategic organisations. [6], [7] qualifies Pakistan as regional power. AlphaAce (talk) 15:44, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
- Your own original research cannot be taken as substitute for reliable source. Pakistan is regarded as a regional power by minority, Wikipedia links of Pakistani-related articles don't prove anything that concerns regional power status. Orientls (talk) 15:59, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
- I wished to add here that I have only seen random mentions of Pakistan being a regional power around and maybe there were better chances for Pakistan to be treated as a regional power a decade or earlier however the recent reliable sources as listed by Orientls show Pakistan is not making it to the list at all. Sdmarathe (talk) 16:28, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, nope. Orientls' "analysis" (or opinion) is weak, incomplete, and for lack of a better term, also invalid/not up to the mark. We are not concerned with "global redistribution". Regional powers are (sic) states that have "power within a geographic region. States which wield unrivalled power and influence within a region of the world possess regional hegemony." Here we are focused on "regional power" within South Asia as per WP:RS. ^I don't know who this Rajesh Rajagopalan is, or what his credentials are. But Barry Buzan,[8][9] Ole Wæver,[9] T. V. Paul,[10] James N. Rosenau,[11] Roger Kanet,[12] Samuel P. Huntington[13][14] and others are mainstream and internationally-recognised experts in the field, and certainly more experienced, qualified, and widely-cited than you. If you think we are going to railroad these and pretend you know better, then fat chance! In their work, they have defined in great detail what "regional" powers and their roles are, and in specific terms identify Pakistan amongst the countries that influence regional dynamics and are regional powers. Amongst the criteria that such powers fulfil are conventional military standing (e.g. nuclear states), impact on neighbouring states/regions, socioeconomics etc., and as per the sources we have, these criteria are specifically acknowledged even in as subjective a department as this.[9] The same standards hold true for most other powers listed in this article for each region.
- I will go further, because Orientls is contradicted by his own sources. This paper acknowledges a publication by Robert Pastor who (quote) "includes Argentina, Iraq, Egypt, Indonesia, and Pakistan in addition to the above-mentioned countries" as regional powers. This link only focuses on a selective group of powers (G4) who failed to attain UNSC seats, and interestingly attributes one of the reasons to an anti-G4 group consisting of active powers like Pakistan, Argentina, Italy, Korea, and Mexico. This one is definitely questionable, as it self-admittedly claims "Russia is excluded from our analysis" and even omits Iran and Israel, all of which are recurrently mentioned in other sources. This page is on Asia-Pacific and, like most other links above, is entirely irrelevant to South Asia.
- Finally, I find it extremely odd that a revert of longstanding sourced content, later called a 'mistake', triggers at least three users with no immediate history on this article effectively trying to restore the same vandal's edits. This article needs to be put under extensive monitoring. Mar4d (talk) 17:04, 6 July 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.[15]
Nevertheless, India has not behaved as a regional power[16]
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.[17]
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.[18]
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
- ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakistan_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction
- ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_with_nuclear_weapons
- ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_military_and_paramilitary_personnel
- ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakistan_Armed_Forces_deployments
- ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_equipment_manufactured_in_Pakistan
- ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organisation_of_Islamic_Cooperation
- ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shanghai_Cooperation_Organisation
- ^ Barry Buzan (15 October 2004). The United States and the Great Powers: World Politics in the Twenty-First Century. Polity. pp. 71–. ISBN 978-0-7456-3375-6.
Regional powers define the polarity of any given regional security complex (Walt 1987; Lake and Morgan 1997; Buzan and Wæver 2003): India and Pakistan in South Asia...
- ^ a b c Buzan, Barry; Wæver, Ole (2003). Regions and Powers: The Structure of International Security. Cambridge University Press. p. 55. ISBN 978-0-521-89111-0.
In the framework of their regional security complex theory (RSCT), Barry Buzan and Ole Waever differentiate between superpowers and great powers which act and influence the global level (or system level) and regional powers whose influence may be large in their regions but have less effect at the global level. This category of regional powers includes Brazil, Egypt, India, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Nigeria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, South Africa and Turkey.
- ^ Paul, T. V. (2012). International Relations Theory and Regional Transformation. Cambridge University Press. p. 11. ISBN 978-1-107-02021-4. Retrieved 3 February 2017.
The regional powers such as Israel or Pakistan are not simple bystanders of great power politics in their regions; they attempt to asymmetrically influence the major power system often in their own distinct ways.
- ^ Ersel Aydinli; James N. Rosenau (2005). Globalization, Security, and the Nation State: Paradigms in Transition. SUNY Press. pp. 177–. ISBN 978-0-7914-6402-1.
Regional powers refers to the much larger and, in international security terms, much more significant, category of states that define the power structure of their local region: India and Pakistan in South Asia; South Africa in southern Africa; Iran, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia in the Gulf; Egypt, Israel, and Syria in the Levant; and so forth. Regional powers may not matter much at the global level, but within their regions they determine both the local patterns of security relations and the way in which those patterns interact with global powers.
- ^ Edward A. Kolodziej; Roger E. Kanet (18 June 1989). Limits of Soviet Power. Palgrave Macmillan UK. pp. 202–. ISBN 978-1-349-10146-7.
Because of Pakistan's reemergence as at least a regional power, we identify an emerging pentagon of power in and around South Asia...
- ^ Gertjan Dijkink; Hans Knippenberg (2001). The Territorial Factor: Political Geography in a Globalising World. Amsterdam University Press. pp. 61–. ISBN 978-90-5629-188-4.
Secondary regional powers in Huntington's view include Great Britain, Ukraine, Japan, South Korea, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Argentina.
- ^ Brynjar Lia (7 May 2007). Globalisation and the Future of Terrorism: Patterns and Predictions. Routledge. pp. 42–. ISBN 978-1-135-77527-8.
...'secondary regional powers whose interest often conflict with the more powerful regional states', including states such as Great Britain, Ukraine, Japan, Argentina, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan
- ^ 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.
- ^ David Scott (9 May 2011). Handbook of India's International Relations. Routledge. pp. 36–. ISBN 978-1-136-81131-9.
- ^ Neera Chandhoke; Praveen Priyadarshi (2009). Contemporary India: Economy, Society, Politics. Pearson Education India. pp. 387–. ISBN 978-81-317-1929-9.
- ^ Barry Buzan; Barry G. Buzan; Ole Wæver; Ole W'ver; Ole Waever; Barry Buzan; Professor Ole Wver (4 December 2003). Regions and Powers: The Structure of International Security. Cambridge University Press. pp. 55–. ISBN 978-0-521-89111-0.