Talk:Regional power

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

• Denmark (maybe)

• Norway (maybe)

• Sweden

• United Kingdom (already on the list)

Western Europe

• Austria (maybe)

• Belgium

• France (already on the list)

• Germany (already on the list)

• Netherlands

• Switzerland

Eastern Europe

• Poland

• Romania (maybe)

• Ukraine (maybe)

Southern Europe

• Italy (already on the list)

• Portugal (maybe)

• Spain

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.

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.

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)

@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 and have sixth largest nuclear arsenal  ; one of the few countries that have completed nuclear triad. Have sixth largest standing army . 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 . , Is a founding member/full member of multiple international geo-strategic organisations. , 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, Ole Wæver, T. V. Paul, James N. Rosenau, Roger Kanet, Samuel P. Huntington 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 experts 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. 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)

To interpret mainstream sources is now considered a WP:OR?

These sources are the best you could come up with? That's still a minority view. Pakistan is not a regional power when it comes to majority view. According to you, we should also consider Ukraine as a great power? "I don't know who this Rajesh Rajagopalan is, or what his credentials are"? He has enough publications that comes from reliable publications and he has more idea about Pakistan not being a regional power, unlike your sources and some of which you have cherry-picked in wrong context. We can't treat opinion of Robert Pastor that is added to the footnote by the source itself[26] and Iraq is not a regional power, thus Pastor's opinion is extremely flawed and same goes for "Buzan, Barry; Wæver, Ole", it is flawed too.

Keep this discussion about Pakistan, don't invite discussion about other countries like Iran, Israel as they are definitely more recognizable as regional power, Pakistan isn't. You need to rely on mainstream sources where experts have voiced opinion after having some solid foundation. Orientls (talk) 17:21, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

This discussion is about the sources, where you have failed in particular. The sources linked above are mainstream, while yours are not coming even close and are cherry-picked which anyone can see. Also, "don't invite discussion about other countries like Iran, Israel as they are definitely more recognizable as regional power" - it is your own source that is claiming they are not regional powers, so double crossing won't help I'm afraid. The only thing that is "flawed" here is your consistent WP:OR, because you are certainly not an academic or expert, and Wikipedia doesn't work based on what your personal opinion is. There is no way anyone is going to take you seriously if you don't stick to the content. Thanks! Mar4d (talk) 17:37, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

You are picking up footnotes of a source (WP:CHERRYPICKING) for establishing your view that Pakistan is a regional power. Whether those sources are mainstream or not, the point here is Pakistan is clearly not a regional power because its recognition as a regional power is minor. Like you, I am not talking about what "triggers at least three users with no immediate history on this article". I am only sticking to content. Especially when you make WP:POINT like "This page is on Asia-Pacific and, like most other links above, is entirely irrelevant to South Asia", you are really failing to find a policy based excuse for disregarding the mainstream view that eliminates Pakistan as regional power. Orientls (talk) 17:49, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

That "footnote" was in your own source(!), which you are ironically using to claim the opposite. Hence my point stands. It's obvious who is cherry-picking from just that particular example. It's not my problem if your sources are entirely irrelevant, or derailing and contradicting each other. The Asia-Pacific source is on Sino-US influence, and is not even relevant to the region covering this section. Why don't you start a new section below for the United States and China? Mar4d (talk) 18:02, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

But you were supposed to read what is written in the main body. Obviously the publishers deemed Pakistan as unsuited for the main list and thought its better to place in footer.

Sources are not irrelevant per their prevalence. They are published by the highly cited experts of the subject.

What do you mean by "contradicting each other"? They are not supposed to agree entirely, only that Pakistan is not listed by any of them as regional power.

Who actually demanded the creation of a section for "Asia-Pacific"? I don't really see any. Orientls (talk) 19:17, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

The prevalence of support for Pakistan as regional power is low as explained above and there are some other countries that get mentioned as regional power as Pakistan. I don't think there is academic consensus for Pakistan being referred as regional power. Sdmarathe (talk) 03:53, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Mar4d: the "longstanding" content lacked any satisfactory sources. Your sources refer Pakistan as secondary regional power, which at least shows that Pakistan is not a major regional power. This one calls it a "secondary regional power". Your other source mentions Pakistan as one of the "third tier of secondary regional power". These sources incorrectly adds Ukraine and gives zero description about Pakistan being a regional power unlike Rajesh Rajagopalan who has extensively written about this subject and yields more expertise than these sources of yours. Rajagopalan describes [27] this whole subject in better terms which is relevant per WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. Now this alone proves above point. Do know that there is "distinction between major regional power and secondary regional power"? You should have no doubt by now, that why these lists and experts (as mentioned above) are omitting the mention of Pakistan, because it has not established itself as a regional power and only because some people are thinking that it is a regional power without describing why or how, there is no requirement for us to list Pakistan as a regional power. As already shown, Pakistan is not generally mentioned as regional power by the reliable sources including these other reliable sources.[28][29] If Pakistan could be as commonly considered as a regional power then there had to be be no problem at first. You can read now that even North Korea, Ukraine, Algeria[30] gets mentioned as "regional power". But reality is still same that they are not regional powers, just like Pakistan isn't. Lorstaking (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Lorstaking: WP:SCHOLARSHIP states: "Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible. For example, a paper reviewing existing research, a review article, monograph, or textbook is often better than a primary research paper. When relying on primary sources, extreme caution is advised: Wikipedians should never interpret the content of primary sources for themselves. See Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view." You are doing the same, and like Orientls, relying fully on his weak primary sources like papers even though they comparatively fail the reliability criteria as per the above, and are contradicting your own cherry-picked opinions as they themselves mention Pakistan.

Wikipedia is only going to depend on reliable sources, not your personal opinions which in encylopaedic terms hold zero weight. The scholars cited are notable, mainstream experts who are renowned in the field of geopolitics, have more knowledge than you to write on the subject (obviously!), and have conducted extensive studies unlike you, whereas the non-notable sources you and Orientls could only find fall nowhere near. Repeatedly trumping Rajagopalan is not going to help you as the WP:WEIGHT of scholarly consensus tips onto the side of the mainstream view. Your first link is a study "Using the emerging powers of India and South Africa as the case studies" only, and it seems you did not read even the title of the book per WP:RELEVANCE. Your second source (including the page you cited) is also contradicting you, as it does not disqualify Pakistan anywhere. In fact, page 53 states: Not all regional powers are equal. Table 3.1 is an attempt to rank them... and this very table lists Pakistan amongst the same small group of countries. Using your own source, we can now also deduct that you are creating false equivalence. China and Japan are not 'equal' powers. Saudi Arabia and Iran are by many aspects, not equal. UK and Italy are not equal. Neither are South Africa and Nigeria. The listing of regional powers does not rank states by parity, it ranks them by their ability to significantly influence regional dynamics. And the fact is, multiple mainstream sources have declared Pakistan as capable of exercising this influence, including ironically your own sources, and that is what we will go with.

If you have issues about other countries, then you need start a new section below. Also hiding behind one non-Western source and building upon misrepresentation won't make your opinions believable. If we even read that source, it is actually only saying that it is "difficult" and that it may be too weak to be a regional power, and further says it is equally difficult to characterize South Asia as a region in any theoretically significant ways. The same source says (quote) that it is a state endowed with significant material capabilities, which include being a nuclear weapon state... and that Pakistan has been surprisingly successful in pursuing its grand strategic goals and in exploiting global and extra-regional powers in the pursuit of these objectives, sometimes even bending them to its will. This also contradicts.... Furthermore: ...regional powers are also very adept at manipulating opportunities to advance their interests.. Pakistan's strategy during both the Cold War and afterwards illustrates the capacity of weaker regional powers to advance their interests through such astute strategies. The Pakistan case suggests that regional powers are not simply subjects of the global order, but rather are agents who actively seek, often successfully, to manipulate global power resources to their own ends. And other snippets: ... the issue of agency remains: are weaker regional powers simply a variation of the vassal state, living out their lives at the mercy of great powers or do they have a measure of autonomy in pursuing their own goals... So even this "study" is not entirely omitting it, but in fact largely in agreement to the mainstream sources discussing Pakistani regional power. And it totally relates to the point about parity above. And if that is all you have, then we have stronger sources on this talk page and elsewhere which altogether omit certain countries, calling them not regional powers, rather than studies using vague terms like "may", "difficult" etc. So in summary, we can conclude reliably now your views hold no contention. Cheers, Mar4d (talk) 09:28, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Do the current scholarship holds the view that Pakistan is a regional power? No one is "hiding behind one non-Western source", and we don't evaluate sources by the race, but by the credentials. Rajesh Rajagopalan is an expert who provides good explanation regarding the problems with recognizing Pakistan as a regional power, it is more than just making a passing mention and Rajagopalan's chapter has credibility that's why only a few sources are including Pakistan as regional power compared to those who don't mention it. Whether you get it now or later, the argument to consider Pakistan as regional power is same as considering Ukraine or Algeria or North Korea. Maybe we can convert the lists into paragraphs and omit the mention of Pakistan in section but dedicate a separate paragraph to include the mention of Algeria, Pakistan, Ukraine, North Korea and other names that lacks universal consensus. Lorstaking (talk)

You are answering your own question, the current scholarship is cited everywhere above. The credibility of your sources, I'm afraid, has been discussed above including how they are contradicting you. You would be better of spending time reading on why you are claiming something, while your sources even are saying something else. The consensus amongst all, including in your own sources, is not tilting towards your claim. You are effectively hanging on a refuted argument. Mar4d (talk) 11:47, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Your cherry-picking of quotations is not helping your case. They don't say Pakistan is a regional power,[31][32] and that's the argument. Now if you want the sources to explicitly "disqualify", you should question that why they even have to mention a non-regional power in context of regional powers at first?  By grossly misrepresenting this page that talks about "second-order power rankings", and not "regional power". You are just trying to make a non-existing connection that doesn't exist. Sdmarathe (talk) 12:06, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

You're the one cherry-picking here. That first one is a case study of two countries. And your second claim is completely false, because the source calls them "regional powers" and divides them into ranks. So once again, the source misrepresentation and cherry-picking is clear on your side. Mar4d (talk) 12:20, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

But it names Brazil, China, India, Nigeria, Russia and South Africa as "viable regional powers". Where's Pakistan? In other one,[33] you are just misrepresenting the source to suit your POV. If your misrepresentation is accepted then in which world a person would call Mexico, Venezuela, etc. a regional power? This misleading connection is not sticking. Sdmarathe (talk) 13:43, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

You are misrepresenting, the source uses the exact term "regional power" and you can read it. Your comment shows you are double guessing your own sources now too, which makes your argument further weaker. And Mexico by the way is cited in this article. Maybe you should spend greater time reading both the article, and the sources you cite, along with all other sources. Mar4d (talk) 14:19, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

That's still not the definition of regional power. According to the sources, India is a great power but I am sure that you won't support India's listing as Great power. Mexico is a regional power? What about Vietnam? Source provided some details on Pakistan on page 54 that it is losing stability.[34] Whether you pick up the table as representative of scholarship or not, fact is still the same that Pakistan is often omitted as regional power and similarly many other countries share the status but we don't list them. Sdmarathe (talk) 15:47, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

The fact is, all sources quoted so far have discussed Pakistan as a regional power in any form, including the sources presented by you. That counts for something, and you can't deny it. Furthermore, all your opinions so far have failed to refute the fact that the sources discussing Pakistan have been written by acknowledged experts. Strike two. Finally, what you are claiming is in fact the case for most if not all other powers, it doesn't mean they are not powers. It only means there are a diversity of opinions, and we follow what is the common view. And as we can see from at least 10 scholarly sources, in addition to the sources you folks have presented, they all discuss Pakistan's regional power. Strike three. Thus we conclude that there is sufficient literature in support of the fact. Mar4d (talk) 16:04, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Not all sources have, in fact most have omitted. For a name[35] this one has not mentioned Pakistan. Going by your interpretation, if you read more carefully, the table omits many major regional powers that are listed here because they must not be really talking about the regional power and if they are then why they didn't made the mention on page 447? There is "sufficient literature" to support India being a great power as well, but until all sources agree we would list them. As pointed out to you above there is heavy amount of sources that don't want to consider Pakistan as regional power and Rajesh Rajagopalan have a good analysis regarding the issues with Pakistan being considered as a regional power.[36] Can you find as credible sources that describe how Pakistan has become a regional power? Certainly the recent POV edits to this article make that claim.[37] Sdmarathe (talk) 16:16, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

I concur with the references presented by @Mar4d. Based on the research of these highly-regarded experts, there is substantial evidence and scholarship that appreciates Pakistan's regional power. I see no reason to add a South Asia section, if it doesn't mention the major powers of the region, like other regions. Actually if we go one step further, Pakistan's regional power prevents India from becoming a hegemon, and we are going to resume discussion below on the validity of India's power. Nauriya Let's talk 19:18, July 7, 2018 (UTC)

This discussion is not a vote and making vague handwaves is not going to establish the status. India is actually considered as Great power by enough "highly-regarded experts" so we should be listing India as Great power. Sorry but we are not interested in righting great wrongs. Read WP:RGW. Sdmarathe (talk) 16:26, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

• Sdmarathe: There is sufficient literature to support Pakistan's regional power. Rajagopalan is one source and all that you have - and now I am going to actually share that you have also grossly misrepresented him. Meanwhile, above there are dozens of more sources and they include Barry Buzan, Ole Wæver, T. V. Paul, James N. Rosenau, Roger Kanet, Samuel P. Huntington. So all said and done, you are on the losing side when push comes to shove.

And thank you finally for linking this source. Here is a chapter from this very book (p. 200 onwards), and guess what, it is written by Rajagopalan himself, right after the opening passage you all have been using (p. 193). Let me share the details, straight from the horse's mouth (i.e. your source): By these crudely material resources, Pakistan should be considered a major regional power... So, though Pakistan is a fairly large, important and powerful state in its own right... its position at the crossroads of Central Asia, the Middle East and South Asia offers it advantages that Islamabad has been quick to exploit at different points in time... In each instance, Pakistan has used its geopolitical position as a way of garnering strategic benefits... Therefore, in addition to its considerable traditional material capabilities, Pakistan has other resources that cement its status as a regional power... resources astutely to frequently advance its national interest, even in interaction with much more powerful extra-regional powers, even to the extent of undertaking projects such as nuclear weapons development despite opposition from these powers... Pakistan... has been anything but a passive subject of global powers or processes... rather, what Pakistan has done is to engage with global powers as a way of either pursuing Pakistani interests without being challenged (for example, the case of the nuclear weapons programme), or to use such powers to balance... Despite such instances, it is clear Pakistan has been able to pursue its significant interests with a modicum of success... I outline Pakistan's key strategic objectives and how Pakistan has pursued these interests, many times utilizing great power resources.

And if there's any doubts, Rajagopalan's next summary of his chapter (which touches upon Pakistan's political/military influence, nuclear capability, regional relations, ties to Middle East/Muslim world/China/US and more) is self-explanatory:

The assumption that regional powers are incapable of resisting external influences and impact is difficult to sustain in the case of Pakistan. I examine three cases below... The first demonstrates that Pakistan was able to use outside powers to pursue Pakistan's regional objective; the second demonstrates that Pakistan was able to withstand international pressure on a key issue of international security concern; the last case demonstrates that Pakistan, even when it was forced to change its own policy direction, was, over time, able to subvert the global agenda.

Other snippets:

...Pakistan exploited opportunities for aligning with external partners if that suited Pakistan's interests, and only if it suited Pakistani interests... Throughout the next decade, Pakistan managed adroitly to not only balance the Soviet forces in Afghanistan... but also used that alliance to both enhance its conventional military capability... as well as develop its own nuclear weapons capability... In each of these instances, Islamabad set the terms of the alliance... even while being a close ally in a dangerous venture (or maybe even because of it), Pakistan was able to force Washington to bend its policy to suit Pakistan's interest... Nevertheless, almost a decade after the war started it is clear that Pakistan has managed to subvert the agenda of the global unipolar power... Pakistan has found ways to force the US on the horns of a dilemma... the greater is Pakistan's leverage in Afghanistan... Pakistan will be increasingly able to leverage its cooperation on any US proposal to gain leeway on its own more crucial objectives...

Rajgopalan furthermore does not rule out Pakistan as a regional power, and clarifies his opening statement that it would be an issue only (quote) if regional power means something more than simply a power whose strategic reach is limited to its neighbourhood. But Pakistan does also demonstrate something else... Pakistan has consistently pursued its own primary strategic goals, using external powers as pawns in its regional game.

Rajgopalan's closing statement:

After all, Pakistan is a nuclear power, a large and considerably powerful state... for now, we should not assume that regional powers, though weaker by definition in comparison to global powers and processes, are completely helpless in the influence and management of the international environment.

The scholarly consensus and academic exposition is overwhelmingly clear and strong. There is a unanimous view that Pakistan exercises capable influence within South Asia, including in the source above. Thus, this matter is as good as sealed and proven beyond fact. Clearly, you have no case anymore. Mar4d (talk) 17:57, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

@Mar4d: If you are just going to only repeat what you have already mentioned then you are showing off the weakness of your case.

You are just failing to cite the actual conclusion. You cite "Pakistan should be considered a major regional power" but omits "But Power is as much a relationship concept as an absolute one. And, unfortunately for Pakistan, its neighbour India dwarfs it in almost every measure." You have been cherrypicking the quotes to favor a POV but that is not going to stick. That is misrepresentation of sources.

"Pakistan is not often thought of as a regional power. This alone requires additional clarification." - This is what a few editors are telling you.

"By most definition, Pakistan would be difficult to classify as a regional power, which includes some notion of regional leadership that goes beyond simply material capabilities and 'a belief in their entitlement to a more influential role in world affairs''".

"By this measure at least, it will be difficult to classify Pakistan as a regional power."

"Given this lack of regional political dynamic it is understandable that Pakistan emphasizes a bilateral, security-driven agenda rather than a regional agenda. If regional power means something more than simply a power whose strategic reach is limited to its neighbourhood then it might not be possible to characterize Pakistan as a regional power."

Before I would generate the snippets from the sources as well as the clear conclusion, I am giving you another chance to find reliable sources that have done something more than just making passing mention regarding categorization of Pakistan as regional power. Sdmarathe (talk) 01:20, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

References

An old discussion at Talk:Pakistan

Transcluding an old discussion from Talk:Pakistan/Archive_18#Regional power? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:07, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

I noticed the edit warring over the "regional power" mention in the lead. The first source says Pakistan is not often thought of as a regional power. So this is not something that has consensus among the reliable sources. The second source calls it a regional pole of power, with India being the other pole. So, this is not the same as being a "regional power". I would expect that a regional power has to provide some kind of regional leadership. Given that Pakistan failed to hold the SAARC summit, its claims to regional leadership are quite dubious. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:28, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

(oops, forgot to log in. Repost) Kautilya3 (talk · contribs), this is exactly why I reverted the edits - twice. There is nothing, absolutely nothing, concrete in any of the sources provided by Towns Hill that explicitly refers to this country as an outright regional power. The dubiousness of this claim to regional power status made me revert the edits. Might I also mention that the sources that this user provided are almost 15 years old? A lot can change in 15 years. China wouldn't have been considered as powerful as it is today in say, 2000, for example. The world was pretty unipolar in 2000, with the US being the sole superpower in existence, but it is now pretty multipolar. 15 year old sources in this case are illegitimate.

I am really amused (and kind of flattered) that someone spent time and effort in taking me to the arbitration committee when I was merely carrying out my duty and reverting what I saw as a flagrant attempt at nationalistic chauvinism. Am I assuming good faith here? No. Am in the wrong for not assuming good faith here? I doubt it, because a cursory glance at the editing histories of these two users gave me an insight into their behaviour on Wikipedia. Tiger7253 (talk) 10:27, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

• I will take a look at various sources. I haven't seen the first source cited before, so will need to take another look at it. Interestingly, it does have a whole section discussing Pakistan's status, strengths and weaknesses as a regional power. The second source linked clearly mentions Pakistan as a regional power in South Asia. Similarly, B. Buzan in The United States and the Great Powers: World Politics in the Twenty-First Century defines regional powers as those who "define the polarity of any given regional security complex", and defines Pakistan as a regional power in its region. Going through such readings, I find the assertion carries weight. Pakistan is undeniably a very important country in South Asia and beyond, and enormously large in terms of its population, demographics, military strength, nuclear capability, as well as in terms of its geostrategic politics and foreign relations. All these are factors of a reasonably influential country, as the first source notes. Economically, it is much developed than its other South Asian neighbours and has the 25th largest GDP. I will try expanding on Pakistan's influence within the body, but obviously it is important for the WP:LEAD to adequately summarise the country's position, as is the case with all other country articles. Mar4d (talk) 13:46, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

  I looked at the sources as well. The first source lays out the criteria for what constitutes a regional power and concludes that Pakistan is one. However, it does also state that "Pakistan is not often thought of as a regional power" indicating that this (the view that Pakistan is a regional power) is not a widespread view. The second source categorically states that Pakistan is a regional power (and goes on to say that that stymies India's claim to great power status). So, what we have is an analytical source (the first one) that states that this is a minority view and a second source that makes a categorical claim. My guess is that reasonable research (not just a google search for "Is Pakistan a regional power" and then picking up the first references that include all three words - as is obviously what's been done here) will bear out the Regional Power claim but someone needs to do that work. --regentspark (comment) 14:11, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Here's another analytical source, citing RSCT theory, according to which both India and Pakistan are classed as "regional powers" (pg 886-887):

• NOLTE, DETLEF. “How to Compare Regional Powers: Analytical Concepts and Research Topics.” Review of International Studies, vol. 36, no. 4, 2010, pp. 881–901. www.jstor.org/stable/40961959.

I think this pretty much settles it... cӨde1+6^TP 20:46, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Quote, in case it needs to be embedded in the citation, on account of the fact there's dispute on this topic: "In the framework of their regional security complex theory (RSCT), Barry Buzan and Ole Waever differentiate between superpowers and great powers which act and have an impact on the global level (or system level) and regional powers whose influence may be large in their regions but have less of an impact at the global level. This category of regional powers includes Brazil, Egypt, India, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Nigeria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, South Africa and Turkey." cӨde1+6^TP 03:08, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Code16. I am happy to reinstate the mention of 'regional power' along with this statement in the footnotes. I will add a more explanatory paragraph in the body in due course. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:27, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Always a pleasant sight when a productive talk page discussion yields a constructive outcome, over edit warring :) Mar4d (talk) 19:41, 14 December 2016 (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.

Nevertheless, India has not behaved as a regional power

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.

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.

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