Talk:Regional power

RfC: On quality of sources

Should we add a country only when the supported source/s passes WP:CONTEXTMATTERS? Sdmarathe (talk) 17:37, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Until now, I have seen sources making passing mention of Pakistan, Venezuela,[1] North Korea,[2] Algeria,[3][4] Ukraine,[5] and many other non-regional powers, without actually explaining in detail how and why these countries are a regional power.

The most interesting case is that of India and Pakistan. We have reliable sources stating that "Pakistan in 1971 was divided into (West) Pakistan and Bangladesh, losing about half its population and a sizable portion of its territory."[6] There are some more reliable sources that further describe India to have become a regional power post its victory in the Indo-Pakistani War of 1971. They are: [7][8] At this stage, unless there are sources that describe how Pakistan transformed into a regional power after going through the effects of 1971 war, then we could include them but currently none of the sources talk about when and how Pakistan transformed into a regional power, thus failing WP:CONTEXTMATTERS.

The case with Ukraine, Algeria, Venezuela, Ukraine, North Korea and other nations is no different.

The crux of my concern is this: There needs to be reliable sources satisfying WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, a core criteria for evaluating reliable sources, then only we should list the country as "regional power". Sdmarathe (talk) 17:37, 26 September 2018 (UTC) (Requirement of "3 sources" removed per discussion below. Sdmarathe (talk) 13:55, 28 September 2018 (UTC))

Survey

• Support as proposing editor. This way we can avoid randomly mentioned countries that are not actually regional powers. Sdmarathe (talk) 17:37, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support To curb the endless debates about who is a regional power and who isn't. Lorstaking (talk) 06:13, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
• Weak oppose I don't think it is worth the trouble. "Regional power" is a vague idea. A country might be a regional power by some measures but not others. This page is mostly a list article currently. If somebody with a solid understanding of international politics is willing to make it more authoritative, and discuss in detail how each listed country fits the bill, then the WP:CONTEXTMATTERS issues would come to the fore. As long as it remains a list, there is no need to split hairs over it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:21, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

  I disagree with your comment. Whether this article remains a list or is to be developed into a full-fledged article with necessary details about every single regional power is a matter of little importance, because in any case, you can not get rid of the requirement of complying with verifiability and reliable sources policies. You should also note that in the long history of this article, editors never had the incentive to develop it, and likely never will. As is, the article contains names of non-regional powers and heavily relies on unreliable sources and/or sources containing trivial passing mentions, which is why the "WP:CONTEXTMATTERS issues would come to the fore". We can not let the article continue to mislead the readers into believing that certain countries are regional powers, when they are not. So anything we do for the benefit of readers is definitely "worth the trouble". Razer(talk) 09:47, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

  "Trivial passing mentions" are not necessarily worthless. They go to show that a country X is generally accepted as a regional power. But if all the given sources are of that kind, then we have a problem. One can tag them with a {{reliable source?}} tag, and delete them if nobody has anything to better to offer. We don't need an RfC for that. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:35, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - What matters is source quality, not source quantity. If a source merely makes a passing mention without indicating any further information about why that country is a regional power, then it clearly lacks quality. However, if no other source opposes it, then per WP:V, that is what we must present. Our personal opinions about whether or not a country is a regional power means nothing if we do not have at least one source to back our claim. Sources need to be placed in conversation with one another. Establishing an arbitrary "3 sources" requirement is highly counter-productive.--MarshalN20 ^✉🕊 11:30, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

@MarshalN20: You write "If a source merely makes a passing mention without indicating any further information about why that country is a regional power, then it clearly lacks quality." That is the purpose of the RfC. I have removed "3 sources" as the requirement, and I have modified the original RfC question per your comment. Sdmarathe (talk) 13:55, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

• Stronger Oppose -- The purpose of this RfC is to establish an arbitrary quantity of sources rather than a quality check on them. All sources must be considered and placed within context. One single reliable source is better than three unreliable or weak quality sources. Yet, under this proposed RfC, the latter unreliable one would earn a place in this list whereas the former is out.--MarshalN20 ^✉🕊 14:50, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

• Wrong. The purpose of this RfC is that "There needs to be reliable sources satisfying WP:CONTEXTMATTERS". Unreliable sources were not mentioned anywhere. Lorstaking (talk) 17:31, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose, and comment Time to WP:DROPTHESTICK per above; obvious is obvious. We went through this all already; anyone who takes a cursory glance at the sections above will see source after source. I will emphasise in agreement with what MarshalN20 quoted above: Our personal opinions about whether or not a country is a regional power means nothing if we do not have at least one source to back our claim. In addition, no one was there at WP:NPOVN when your points under dispute were supposed to be taken there. Now suddenly after months, Sdmarathe, you thought it fit to rake this up. Do you not see the futility of this, or do we really need to go around in circles again? Mar4d (talk) 18:15, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - WP:IDONTLIKEIT is never a good way to go. Son of Kolachi (talk) 18:54, 28 September 2018 (UTC) Block evading sock puppet.

• If you are saying that passing mentions should be considered contrary to WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, then you need to show why. If this problematic logic is going to be applied then you can also find a number of sources regarding a few countries as "Great power" or "Superpower", which in fact they aren't. I am saying that we should not include any country as regional power that has not been described by any relevant academic sources as one. Lorstaking (talk) 06:16, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

• (Summoned by bot) Support — Per proposal and additional comment by Sdmarathe; we really need to weed out sources which make passing mentions, in addition to removing non-RS sources. I say, that, a nation should only be listed (I really think that we ought to expand this) here if its mention is supported in a non-trivial manner by at least three reliable sources. No comment on the status of individual nations (especially Pakistan), as, I may have a strong bias for or against them. Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 02:06, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

• Support It is an exceptional claim to treat the named countries as a regional power and even if it is not an exceptional claim then still we should opt for multiple reliable sources detailing the country as a regional power as criteria for inclusion. 3 sources should be added with at least 1 or 2 sources being academic. Also agree that passing mentions as Great Power can be also found for some countries but we disregard them per policy and "Regional power" should be treated similarly. Orientls (talk) 10:09, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

User indefinitely blocked by Ad Orientem

Oppose WP:CONTEXTMATTERS is not relevant in this case. Becoming a regional power isn't like simply climbing a ladder. Every country has different ways of getting to this status and usually strong sources are good enough to add a country to this kind of list. Plus their was a long debate right above this column just to prove why Pakistan should be on this list. I don't think that we need to start from 0 again to debate about whether Pakistan should be on the list or not. As for any other country if they can prove their point with strong citations then WP:CONTEXTMATTERS isn't needed. One example of this kind of situation is like adding China to the list of super powers. Is China a super power or not? Here even though we have great background context as needed in WP:CONTEXTMATTERS we still debate on adding China to the list and we use sources to prove our point instead of saying that China has done this and that to be on the list. This rfc looks more like WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Usman47 (talk) 16:05, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

• Support Adding at least 3 reliable sources that describes the subject in relation to the country in detail. No comment on specific countries since this will apply for all. Accesscrawl (talk) 08:55, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
• Support - summoned by bot. Yes - the idea that a power is a regional power should be supported by at least one source. I have an issue with using Regional power#Characteristics as the gold standard for defining what is a regional power. It not only unnecessarily complicates the process, but has also caused every entry to violate WP:OVERCITE. One reputable source saying a country is a regional power is all we need. If the single source is questioned, it can, like all others, be discussed at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:22, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

I essentially have been trying to argue the same. Please do read my comment below which expands on the same issue. Much regards, Mar4d (talk) 12:57, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Canvassed !vote.∯WBGconverse 12:11, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Oppose: The concept of a regional power as a variable - that can take on different forms and values [9] and having going through the discussion, I found: 1. Seen random mentions of Pakistan being a regional power --- vide 16:28, 6 July 2018 (UTC) of this Talk page. 2. The statement of proposing editor “this way we can avoid randomly mentioned countries that are not actually regional powers”. COMMENTS: it is arbitrary in nature. Before applying editor must establish the accepted basis for regional power in the lead section of the page. 3. This book says Pakistan is a "sub-regional power" -- vide 09:12, 6 July 2018 (UTC) of this talk page Above observations establish the uncertainty of users attempting to include or exclude a country by interpreting implied versions of WP NORMS. 4. Comments and citations made by ".--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 06:47, 8 July 2018 were filtered with majority and minority concept. Does this cover the reliable and unreliable criteria? Is not a discrimination or an intellectual dishonesty. In fact the discussion challenges WPNPV. Besides explicit ref to Pakistan as “Regional Power” at pages 886-887, implied reference for name of Pakistan has been mentioned twice at pages -881, 883, vide Review of International Studies © British International Studies Association doi: 10.1017/S026021051000135X [10] + Implied ref: [11]. I request to close the discussion without considering minority versus majority concept by striking “RfC: On quality of sources” -- Nannadeem (talk) 23:05, 3 October 2018 (UTC)— Note: An editor has expressed a concern that editors have been canvassed to this discussion. See [12] This RfC is not about excluding Pakistan but to abide WP:CONTEXTMATTERS and use reliably descriptive sources to backup the claim of a country being regional power. Being "mentioned twice" doesn't meets that criteria. Orientls (talk) 04:45, 4 October 2018 (UTC) See this and this, as to my collapse.∯WBGconverse 12:11, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

• Support. Providing reliable sources is a basic requirement if you are adding something on Wikipedia. "Reliable" is a necessary word here, so those seeking inclusion of a specific country must read up the policy on identifying reliable sources, where context matters is listed as an essential criterion for judging whether or not a source is reliable for a particular claim. Razer(talk) 14:30, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

• Support. As per my reading, this RfC basically asks two questions: (1) Should the countries be listed as regional powers if the supporting sources meet the reliable sources criteria, especially the context matters criterion and (2) the intriguing conundrum of whether some particular countries are a regional power or not?
  As to the first question, I am of the opinion, that yes, a country can be listed as a regional power in the article if the provided sources are reliable and pass the context matters criterion. I am against the inclusion of countries based on trivial passing mentions in otherwise reliable sources.
  To the second question, which the filer has specifically emphasised, it is necessary to take into consideration the answer to the first question; if we have reliable sources describing in detail whether Pakistan is a regional power, then we should include Pakistan in the article as a regional power, and if we don't, then we won't. --RaviC (talk) 10:50, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Oppose: @Sdmarathe Following your comments there are many independent sources ( like this ) which provide reason to the question that why Pakistan is a regional power. What happened in 1971 matters, but what happened after 1971 also matters. Pakistan defeated USSR in Afghanistan, which resulted in the withdrawal of the Soviet Union from Afghanistan. To me it is a summation conflict that arises when sources disagree in conclusions or interpretations that can be drawn from the facts. For example, if one source says that currently low inflation will result in improvements in the economy, and another source says that currently low inflation will lead to a worsening of the economy. Both sources agree that inflation is low, but disagree as to what that means.

It is important to keep in mind that in cases of apparent contradictions, both sources may in fact be correct depending upon the criteria. For example, in the case of the population of a town, the sources may use different boundaries to define the town, or different criteria as to who counts as a member of the population.

So, There is no need to change the Consensus versions, as long as it is organized as a list. HIAS (talk) 09:57, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

• HIAS, what exactly are you opposing really ? This is not an "RFC on Pakistan" or a "vote on Pakistan". It is about excluding the sources that don't comply with WP:CONTEXTMATTERS.
• Also note that you are grossly misrepresenting the very source you cited here. your source only verifies that Pakistan is not a regional power and that is completely opposite to your misleading claim. Source states "Pakistan is not often thought of as a regional power.... By most definitions, Pakistan would be difficult to classify as a regional power."[13] The quote you have cited further finds contradiction in the very next para where the author notes that "But the power is as much a relational concept as an absolute one."[14] Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 deeply affected Pakistan and India became a regional power following the victory in 1971 war, it is indeed necessary to highlight that war when we are doing this assessment. Also it is incorrect to claim that "Pakistan defeated USSR in Afghanistan", if you feel like that then you should take that issue to Talk:Soviet–Afghan War, because our article Soviet–Afghan War contradicts this thought as well. Kindly familiarize yourself with WP:NOTAFORUM. DBigXrayᗙ 11:49, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

@DBigXray: That source does not say Pakistan is not a regional power. It in fact conclusively says in its ending paragraphs that Pakistan qualifies as one, after critically analysing all of its strengths and weaknesses. Since I don't feel like going around in circles, you should read the long extracts from that same source that I posted before. HIAS' page number reference is also a case in example. Also, I'm not sure what you're exactly trying to imply about the contradiction regarding Soviet–Afghan War. Pakistan's involvement in that conflict and role in the anti-Soviet resistance is universally known, and there's tonnes of literature. If you are trying to imply that wasn't the case, you're clearly making up your own history. Mar4d (talk) 12:29, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

User:Mar4d this RfC is neither about Pakistan nor Soviet war. Stay on the topic. And I believe HIAS is competent enough to speak for himself.--DBigXrayᗙ 13:29, 7 October 2018 (UTC).

• Strongly Oppose Pakistan is a country that is an active international player among the regional powers from cold war till war on terror. This placement is not something totally based on victories a country achieves in wars but on many factors. Kazmi ⁽¹¹²²⁾ 00:37, 09 October 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose The RFC itself lacks quality and neutral point of view and should be closed without action as it was not neutrally worded. Furthermore, the question of WP:CONTEXTMATTERS has nothing to do with this article and should not be linked to it. I would strongly advise the requestor or anyone else who wants to pursue a decision regarding the impact of WP:CONTEXTMATTERS on WP:RS to take the matter to Wikipedia:Reliable sources noticeboard instead as general policy matters should be decided on relevant noticeboards instead of article talk pages because these decisions can have far reaching implications which could affect a wider range of articles than just this article. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 03:36, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

• "instead as general policy matters should be decided on relevant noticeboards" is misleading. If you have issues with WP:CONTEXTMATTERS then MfD is thataway. Since sources can be discovered for more than half of the countries in the world, it is best to rely on the reliable sources that are detailed. शिव साहिल/Shiv Sahil (talk) 14:43, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

• As Mar4d previously rightly pointed out, WP:CONTEXTMATTERS is being used out of context here, it only requires for the sources to have a principal topic the same in which they are being used and the sources provided by Mar4d has "regional power" as their principal topic. WP:CONTEXTMATTERS further states Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in the Wikipedia article. and someone still yet to point out which source does not directly support the information being presented. If we read the sources provided by Mar4d and put them on the merit of WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, we find out that they all pass the merit! Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 10:16, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

• Mar4d is not a policy nor his explanation outweighs policies. Contexmatters requires a source to analyze a concept in detail. We cant turn any unprofessed source as reliable because India and Pakistan both requires great detail to say that they are a regional power. Without a deep analysis we shouldnt be considering them as professed. Look below section and understand that even Egypt's mention has problems. It is not that hard to justifiy exclusion of non- regional powers. शिव साहिल/Shiv Sahil (talk) 13:56, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

• I suggest you read WP:CONTEXTMATTERS and let rest of us know where does it say the things you are making up. For example, where does it say that the source should discuss the concept in detail or great detail to qualify on the merits of WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. Please have a read on related policies before speaking about them and concocting your own meanings of them! Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 15:34, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

• WP:CONTEXTMATTERS:"Information provided in passing by an otherwise reliable source that is not related to the principal topics of the publication may not be reliable; editors should cite sources focused on the topic at hand where possible." That is not satisfied by using passing mentions or poor and unprofessed sources (that still provide no details) or by misrepresenting the policies. शिव साहिल/Shiv Sahil (talk) 17:55, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

• See Mar4d's response to Bharatiya29 below, it addresses your concerns as well, I have nothing else to add. The sources satisfy WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, nothing else can be done if you keep denying the obvious. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 19:49, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

• Support The requirement of 3 reliable sources with at least 2 being academic. I find some arguments here unrealistic that countries mentioned by Sdmarathe are not in article except Pakistan, which is incorrect because people keep adding Algeria,[15] Egypt[16] etc. and it doesn't make Pakistan a regional power only because it has found some resistance among some editors who wants to preserve mention of Pakistan even though such inclusion is not justifiable. Since above comments focus on Pakistan, I would remind that Pakistan is not a regional power according to reliable sources.[17][18]
  There is an interconnected concept called Regional hegemony[19] and our article on Regional hegemony does not makes mention of Pakistan. Ultimately the above discussion shows lack of sources describing if Pakistan is a regional power and those who make minor mention are of generally poor quality. To summarize this in small note, we should be only including those countries that are undoubtedly regional power according to multiple reliable sources in a detailed manner. शिव साहिल/Shiv Sahil (talk) 04:43, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Just a clarification on a point raised above. A regional hegemon is not the same as a regional power. In addition, the presence of a regional hegemon in a specific region does not necessarily mean the absence of any other regional powers within that region. This is a distinct concept and is beyond the scope of this discussion. It is not ideal to mix two different concepts in a discussion which seems to be already going way off-topic. Adamgerber80 (talk) 22:08, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

I was talking about Regional hegemony not "regional hegemon". I called it an "interconnected concept" and also provided a source. "Interconnected" means having internal connections between the parts or elements. शिव साहिल/Shiv Sahil (talk) 14:35, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

• Support the application of context-matters policy, and by extension exclusion of Pakistan et alia identified above from the article. This is basically a requirement of policy, and I am not at all swayed by the ludicrous arguments of most of the opposers. No, the application of the context matters policy is not "irrational", nor is it "not relevant"; it is needed to filter out the sources making passing mentions about countries, so that our article will be rid of factual errors. The drill has always been the same: one would need to cite quality sources discussing a country's regional power status in some depth for getting a country inserted into the article; and this is not an unfeasible task. Heck, it is even feasible to find reliable sources for countries like Nigeria (which is an established regional power in Africa)[20],[21],[22]. Bharatiya29 17:48, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

We've been there before. Repeatedly claiming that sources make no mention, when in fact all of them have clearly made that identification comprehensively, is both misleading and factually wrong, and it's not even worth buying or wasting time over as an argument. In response to the repeated claims that there's no "context", let me just reproduce the very source that was earlier being used to claim that Pakistan is completely ruled out, but on closer reading, it actually takes a nuanced approach on the matter. Since there seems to be a general lack of willingness here to provide any supporting references to back arguments, let alone read into them, here's some snippets, make of them what you will [23]:

[ WP:Copyvio removed]

^That last paragraph is just snippets, for those who want to read in greater detail, they can simply search them and read through the analysis on Pakistan within the source as it's not possible for me to produce everything here. However, what is mainly interesting and of crucial importance is the source's conclusive remarks whilst ending the chapter, which I believe, captures the crux of the case study:

[ WP:Copyvio removed]

The impending question, for any newcomer who decides to participate here, should be: rarely is a supposed "non-regional power" discussed in as much depth as Pakistan, let alone supported by reliable, tertiary sources like Barry Buzan, Ole Wæver, T. V. Paul, James N. Rosenau, Roger Kanet, Samuel P. Huntington, who've actually listed Pakistan as a power in their research on regional powers. And I suppose, a more rhetorical question for anyone reading this discussion: you decide who is more reliable and informed about this subject – all these qualified academics with extensive research, or a group of us online editors with little knowledge and 'context' of the subject? Mar4d (talk) 19:21, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't recall having "repeatedly" claimed that no sources makes "mention" of Pakistan; I hope you realize that this is my only second comment on this page. I don't appreciate ad hominem comments. And contrary to your misconception, a mere "mention" in a source does not suffices if the source does not provide context per the policy that has been linked umpteenth times above. As to that source, I agree with the comments made earlier, that the source denies that Pakistan can be considered a regional power right off the bat as such: "Pakistan is not often thought of as a regional power...By most definitions, 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'"—clearly implying the negative; but, you appear to have turned a blind eye to it. Which just goes to show that you are cherry-picking a few lines out of context that fits well with your POV. But that's not how it works here.

In the subsequent paragraph the author does says: "On the other hand, Pakistan is clearly a significant power from a simple materialist perspective...By these crudely material resources measures, Pakistan should be considered a major regional power." But "significant power" is not the same concept as "regional power", and as the author rightly says in the very next paragraph: "But power is as much a relational concept as an absolute one. And, unfortunately for Pakistan, its neighbour India dwarfs it in almost every measure." Leave aside for a moment the "buts" and "howevers" in the midst of the article and pay heed to the "conclusive remarks" in the concluding page that you have misrepresented big time: "Given this lack of a 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." Rajagopalan ends the chapter with a question: "Is Pakistan an inappropriate case to generalize from?", and by noting that "this is an issue that requires much greater scrutiny..."

In the beginning of the cheater itself, the author notes: "The case of Pakistan as a ‘regional power’ (and, one should add, South Asia as a ‘region’) illustrates these problems well. Despite being endowed with significant material capabilities, which include being a nuclear weapon state, it is difficult to characterize Pakistan as a regional power...Paradoxically, for a state that may be too weak to be a regional power, Pakistan has been surprisingly successful in pursuing its grand strategic goals...I examine the idea of Pakistan as a regional power and suggest that, despite its considerable material endowments, it is difficult to treat Pakistan as a regional power.

So this source does not quite claims that Pakistan is a regional power, though it says that Pakistan has some features, however overall it is too weak to be called as such. Quite a few reliable sources that I have come across corroborate this view, and I shall cite them in due time. BTW, the CONTEXTMATTERS policy also notes that "Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in the Wikipedia article." So you would do well to remember that and stop drawing conclusions not exactly stated in the source. I am seeing that you have been misrepresenting this source big time above and you need to stop that or else you can be reported if this is continued. Bharatiya29 08:49, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

• Support per Orientls and Bharatiya29. Context always matters. I guess the meat of this issue is that some editors want Pakistan to be listed because Wikipedia determines truth, as if our words change the balance of power. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:31, 14 October 2018 (UTC) (Summoned by bot)

Threaded discussion

This is just a list with no descriptions where we could present arguments. Although even if we started including descriptions or just continue the present criteria (which supports inclusion of any country even with source providing mere passing mention) then non-regional powers like Algeria, North Korea, Ukraine and others would be also included and that wouldn't be right. This is why I proposed that we need reliable sources passing WP:CONTEXTMATTERS for including a country as "regional power" since this status cannot be ignored if it has been really recognized by relevant reliable sources.

Same was the case with Stateless nations. Anyone would include anything using any kind of "religable source". There was an RfC recently there which can be seen at: Talk:Stateless_nation#RfC_on_sources_required_for_inclusion. The RfC assured that we need at least three sources for inclusion of any name to the article. Sdmarathe (talk) 13:55, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Discussion with a block evading sock puppet

Comment - Now that the filer has been topic banned from India-Pakistan conflict area, this RfC should be closed by default because it seems to be filed in WP:BADFAITH. Apparently it was only started because the editor unsuccessfully tried to remove good sources citing Pakistan on the list as seen in earlier discussions. The RfC's opening statement itself indicates a WP:POV tilt. The guy links WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, yet his own argument falls short because he fails to explain how a source on a war fought 50 years ago is relevant today. Mar4d's refs are good quality & discuss in-depth exactly why Pakistan has regional influence. The refs I have looked so far discuss Pakistan's N-weapons development, influence in Afghanistan & Kashmir and other factors that continued after 1971 too. The user seems to lack the knowledge of what WP:RS are and continuously uses opinionated WP:OR, whilst not trying to disprove the many good references quoted above. As someone said that Pakistan is listed in the article since 2009, we can't go about removing longstanding sources and reliable info just because some POV pushers are not liking it. Wikipedia doesn't work on likes or dislikes - sources matter. We can see no argument is given disproving the sources mentioning Pakistan so far. Son of Kolachi (talk) 17:48, 30 September 2018 (UTC) Block evading sock puppet. Son of Kolachi, that topic ban is of not much substance to this RfC; Mar4d's vote was ruled to be not a t-ban violation by BU Rob13. From what I infer, the RfC is about solidifying a policy for adding and removing nations from this list. Like I have said, I am all in favour of removing unreliable sources from this article, in addition to removing trivial, passing mentions of nations in reliable sources. Whilst, in my opinion, some countries listed by Sdmarathe have relatively strong cases for being regional powers, others are not close to being one. P. S. — I formatted your comment a bit, hope you don't mind. Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 05:27, 5 October 2018 (UTC); edited 07:46, 5 October 2018 (UTC). As Ivanvector said, Sdmarathe formed an RfC on a general question of source context, but it's hidden behind an off-topic reference to the 1971 India-Pakistan war. Restarting an unresolved discussion on a controversial point and then running to an admin to get your primary opponent from the same discussion sanctioned is, to put the best possible spin on it, not ideal behaviour in a collaborative environment. Son of Kolachi (talk) 05:44, 10 October 2018 (UTC) Block evading sock puppet.

Good Support. I think it is a better way to resolve the issue. In order to materialize your input as an amicable solution, simultaneously satisfying the observation put forward by respected Tim Templeton. Without prejudice to all/any citations of subsection-South Asia It is submitted that – citing Buzan/Waever 2003: 34 & 2003:32 Detlef Nolte of GIGA in preliminary version, PDF link here [24] at page-8 paragraph-3 states:

Quote: Regional power hierarchies are also central to another theoretical approach. In the framework of their regional security complex theory(RSCT), Barry Buzan and Ole Wæver32 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….Quote over

Now it is referred as DETLEF NOLTE (2010) with its citation: How to compare regional powers: analytical concepts and research topics. Review of International Studies, 36, pp 881-901 doi:10.1017/S026021051000135X. See this link [25]. Dreaming for an amicable solution Nannadeem (talk) 21:35, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

• Comment I have an earnest request to everyone who has commented here that please do not make this another India-Pakistan debate. We already have had canvassing and an editor who went ahead and listed this discussion on the notice board for India and Pakistan related topics as if India and Pakistan are the only two regional powers while other countries don't exist. The issue here is quite complicated and thus a request to rise about petty regional politics. First, Kautilya3 phrases it quite correctly that this is indeed a list article and there exist numerous factors which exist for a regional power. It is thus impossible to use a single or a set of references to either qualify or remove a country. Timtempleton also raises a valid concern that the current characteristics is by no means a gold standard and a single source might make things less chaotic (the current characteristics are actually extrapolated from characteristics for the middle-east and are not valid for all other regions). My strong recommendation would be to put the addition or removal of any countries on hold for the near future and spend some time looking through literature on what is a regional power. Here, we have to be very careful about WP:CIRCULAR (I did examine some of the references presented above which seem to refer back to Wikipedia or other arbitrary surveys or lists created by random organizations). Another strong recommendation would be to not simply list a country name but actually present a paragraph about each country mentioning the context on why it is deemed a Regional Power. Some experts (again we have to careful on who qualifies as an expert) name different countries using different criteria and we need to present their views with the context in the text (we cannot and should not pick and choose sources because they meet our view). So if a expert mentions a country but others don't, we still mention it with the necessary context on why that expert thought so. A good place to list the capabilities of a regional military power would be [IISS] but we need more such sources for economic and cultural influence among others (a country can be either or all but we need to mention so in the description). Again I am stating, for now, to only focus on working towards improving the lead part of the article and the capabilities sections without a focus on specific country names. There are experts which talk about different regional power models such as uni-polar and multi-polar and this needs to be explained before we jump into the list the names. IMO, this process might be arduous but is required if we genuinely wish to improve this article and not just make this about removing/adding a set of countries. Adamgerber80 (talk) 22:36, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi, the editor who "canvassed" and "who went ahead and listed this discussion on the notice board for India and Pakistan related topics" has already been indefinitely blocked so my advice to you would be to avoid sweeping generalizations and accusations. Let's please keep our focus on the issue at hand. I think the interim solution lies in the approach as proposed by the filer and a number of editors including me and Timtempleton, that we indeed keep the entry of regional powers restricted to only those countries for whom there exists reliable sources which describe in detail how these countries are considered as regional powers. Your suggestion that we should list a country with a "paragraph about each country mentioning the context on why it is deemed a Regional Power" sounds fair and I would personally like to see this article developed to that extent; but like I said above, we cannot leave this article in its present state in the hopes that someone will develop it in the future. For that reason, we should move on with the interim solution until such time. Razer(talk) 10:54, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

• Comment Firstly, Venezuela, North Korea, Algeria and Ukraine are not even listed on the article. Which begs the question, what is this RfC actually trying to achieve? No one is opposed to the use of reliable sources for any entry in this article, and as Timtempleton rightly notes, it's the determinant criteria for anything on Wikipedia; that is also effectively what the core of my discussions in the sections immediately above sought to achieve. Not only is it the sources that matter, but the listing of any country fundamentally ought to be based on the presence of strong sources. I am all for discussing what other countries are deemed as having regional influence, provided there are a significant number of mainstream sources to support that position. Here is where this RfC (and most of the 'support' votes) takes a 180-degree turn. Not only is there a complete lack of direction on how that threshold is determined, but there is a complete lack of discussion on the existing sources which come from the cream of mainstream scholarship. Pakistan's inclusion in the list is supported by the attached sources, all of which are not only excellent mainstream sources, but detailed, in-depth scholarly works on regional powers, and they are all written by experts who are internationally recognised in the field of global relations and political science: Barry Buzan, Ole Wæver, T. V. Paul, James N. Rosenau, Roger Kanet, Samuel P. Huntington. Based simply on the preponderance of references presented, Pakistan more than safely meets the criteria and it would be extremely difficult for anyone to railroad these sources. Like I said before, the crux of the argument lies thus: it is for the mainstream sources to determine facts, not Wikipedians' personal opinions and likes or dislikes. We, as Wikipedians, are not qualified to decide what should be excluded when all the sources and academic scholarship are on one side. So as I said, if anyone thinks sources of mainstream repute and credibility like the ones linked can simply be discarded without credible, refutable arguments, that's not going to happen. These sources are very much here to stay, whether you like them or not. Feel free to discuss other countries however, whose inclusion or exclusion should very much be decided by sources of similar standing. Mar4d (talk) 12:50, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes and these sources you provided (if these are best available for Pakistan) are what this RfC is supposed to exclude from the article, i.e. "passing mentions". They lack the enough context to define how Pakistan could be considered regional power. Also note that you have already posted these sources before[26] and they have been already reviewed. Razer(talk) 13:26, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Razer2115: By the way, WP:CONTEXTMATTERS is also being used out of context by you. It is for usage of sources that are (quote) not related to the principal topics of the publication or sources not focused on the topic at hand where possible. Not one of the sources above (which you claim should be excluded) are on anything other than regional powers. And they are very in-depth too about the exact subject of this article. And the fact that they are mainstream sources on the subject. So returning to your claim of no context, it holds no weight in this case. Mar4d (talk) 13:49, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Mar4d, For a better understanding of this argument, we can take the closest example which is India. Here are two sources for a name[27][28] that establish it as one regional power. They are not passing mention and they pass WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. Where as your sources offer little to no description about Pakistan, thus failing WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. Because we can discover such passing mentions about other countries as well, it is better to avoid consideration of such information after forming a particular criteria for this list. Razer(talk) 14:01, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

• Wikipedia's core policy WP:RS, and particularly the advice at WP:HISTRS, offer a good overview on the identification of appropriate scholarly sources, which the sources above meet in all domains. Moreover, anyone who is well-versed with Wikipedia's sourcing requirements including the well-articulated use of context-based sources, would agree that the best places to source Pakistan's inclusion would be sources that are purely, and by merit, actually based on the topic of regional powers (duh!), not sources about Mars and aliens obviously. When you write a Wikipedia article on a certain topic, you look for a source that directly explores the subject in question (e.g. regional powers) in length and what it has to say about the content or information being expanded upon. The sources cited presently have done exactly that; they are not only purely and topically based on the subject of international relations, but critically and in great detail, as explored by experts in the field (not amateurs), identify countries which they deem as having an influential role in the international ecosystem. And they do that with the weight of mainstream scholarship and academic credentials behind them. As far as Wikipedia is concerned, that itself is the one and all, and only determinant criteria that purely matters. Editors have to understand that sources trump everything. So far, all we are seeing here are opinion-based comments, and no one seems to have gone to the length of providing supporting references/works (as I have done) to at least lend some credibility to their arguments. Not a single comment so far has even attempted to refute any of the above mainstream sources. The claim about sources offering little to no description is also untrue; since it's going to be fruitless going around in circles, for anyone who's interested in exploring the references in question further, I would strongly urge they go through this section where I thoroughly deconstructed many of these sources in question. One such source is this one which had an entire chapter that critically analyzes Pakistan. The closing paragraphs in particular are worth reading, which I have also produced in the section above. Ironically, this same source was used before to claim that Pakistan was not a regional power, but if anyone with intermediate competency of the English language reads this source in its entirety, the context of this source is more than clear which I also articulated in much detail above. Mar4d (talk) 14:38, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

• Mar4d, you can find reliable sources for many facts that are not generally well known or acceptable. Your comment does not address the issues raised because you are saying that we should rely on passing mention as long as the mention has been made by a reliable source. Don't forget that enough contrary sources had been provided in the same section that not only contradict your sources but also provide more information on this subject. Orientls (talk) 15:24, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Orientls Both common sense, and Wikipedia policy (WP:RS, WP:V) dictates that the best sources to use are the ones that pertain to this article. You're claiming that we should not be using peer-reviewed reliable, mainstream sources about regional powers as a source on an article that is however exactly about regional powers. This is what we call circular reasoning. Care to explain if books by international experts on regional powers should not be used as a reference, as per your logic, then what else should be used? This is a highly absurd and obfuscating argument to make, whereby you attempt to discount sources which are exactly about the subject, that too by authors who have done full, comprehensive studies of the entire subject. Even Wikipedia's sourcing requirements do not support your opinion. Also, I am still waiting for those "contrary" sources; I was presented none last time, and the only one that was claimed to be one was actually not a 'contrary' source at all as the deconstruction above noted not once but as per dozens of passages directly quoted from the source. Mar4d (talk) 15:53, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

How about the numerous sources I had provided that exclude mention of Pakistan[29]? WP:CONTEXTMATTERS is the concern here. WP:RS and WP:V would even justify "Great power" or even a "Superpower" for the countries that are not really one, like it has been discussed already and that's why we are looking for something more than just passing mention. But then again, sources claiming Pakistan a regional power is not even a mainstream view, otherwise why so many competent sources exclude mention of Pakistan? Your sources also claim that Iraq, Syria, Ukraine are also regional powers, though they are not. If you are using such sources that contradict the reality and relevance and if people are going to draw from such passing mentions then there are higher chances of producing factual errors. I am also talking about one of these replies above that detailed the sources which were more professed in this subject and contradicted each of your sources without a doubt. To make it easier for you, do you have sources that "describe how Pakistan transformed into a regional power"? You need to find sources that explicitly address this question that has been asked on the original post of the RfC. For India, you can considerably find more than tons since it is not deniable. We need to make sure similar information exists for Pakistan. You would need more than simply passing mentions when we need sources that provide the necessary information. Orientls (talk) 04:32, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Orientls, we went over these sources already here and here. In case you've forgotten, let me reproduce what was said particularly on all of your sources, given they contradicted your own stance:

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.

Also note that great power and regional power are not comparable terms, as the criteria for determining "great powers" is far more strict and stringent than regional powers. Another contradiction in your argument is that you seem to regard all regional powers as equal in terms of parity, but this is factually incorrect; regional powers follow a tier-system, wherein their regional influence is determined independently based on different variables and indicators, not simply their relative stature in comparison to other countries (which is another concept called regional hegemony); this is supported by the literature [30]. Secondly, it is not at all a non-mainstream view when supported by multiple, reliable, mainstream sources which are written by experts who've thoroughly studied the subject, and they have been produced endless times. As far as other countries are concerned, they should similarly have multiple mainstream sources explicitly defining them as regional powers as has been shown for Pakistan. It's not just once source listing Pakistan, but there are multiple of them and they're all very high quality sources. This is where you're losing the argument. Mar4d (talk) 06:59, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

There was no concern with those sources because if Pakistan is a regional power then at least most (if not all) of them should recognize Pakistan as regional power. But they chose not to do so. Regardless of what you went over, you have frequently failed to address the concern with the sources you are using that are nothing more than passing mention. Your suggestion that we have to be "far more strict and stringent than regional powers" when Great power is concerned doesn't really make sense. Given your sources provide passing mention for obvious non-regional powers. As usual, none of your sources have still answered the question (that has been already asked enough times) that "describe how Pakistan transformed into a regional power". It should be simple for you to answer this repeatedly asked question if sources really exists. By repeating same old discussion and sources that were earlier rejected, you are only suggesting that there is deficiency of sources for fulfilling the proposed criteria. Orientls (talk) 07:55, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

---

• Comment — @HIAS, Son of Kolachi, Razer2115, Mar4d, and DBigXray: why are we making this RfC an interaction on Pakistan's stature in the world? This is about solidifying a policy for adding nations to this article (list, really), I couldn't care less about Pakistan/North Korea/Venezuela/Egypt's status as a regional power. Let's just set in stone a manual of procedure for adding or removing nations from this list. After that, if a nation's inclusion in this list is contentious, we can have a discussion on its relevance in the list, wherein people would take their stance and back their arguments with reliable sources which cover the nation in depth. From what I can see, Pakistan is probably a regional power, but, some of the other nations listed by Sdmarathe may not be. Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 12:58, 7 October 2018 (UTC); edited 12:58, 7 October 2018 (UTC) and 13:12, 7 October 2018 (UTC).

• I was writing a similar kind of comment as SshibumXZ myself regarding derailing this RFC into a Trainwreck. Mar4d should now stop going off topic and derailing this RFC, I have read all his comments on this RFC from the top and I feel it is about time this badgering behaviour was called out. Mar4d has made his points, now he should relax and allow others to share their comments. Mar4d is "Dragging Pakistan" in all his replies here which is strange especially when Pakistan is not even the topic of this RFC, is really evidence of disrupting this RFC. DBigXrayᗙ 13:29, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

DBigXray, I would certainly hope you are true to your words - because your comment immediately above does not imply that. I'm not the one who "dragged" Pakistan into here - reading through many of the comments above, it's quite easy to figure out who did. I'm just calling out the dichotomy present amongst those contrary 'opinions', and also just sticking to real sources while we're at it. Thanks, Mar4d (talk) 14:01, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Mar4d check out WP:INDENT. My comment immediately above, was also calling out the same point that This is not an "RFC on Pakistan", so do not make it into one or derail it. Hope the discussion from here onwards follows this simple observation. Comments of the central theme that Country X is applicable or not applicable and references to Pakistan or any other country should be avoided. regards. --DBigXrayᗙ 14:20, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

• As Ivanvector notes: They also listed a series of examples of countries which were mentioned in passing as regional powers, in which Pakistan was the only one actually listed on the page. It seems pretty obvious that the motivation behind the RfC is to create a list inclusion criterion by which Pakistan would be excluded from the list. In short: Sdmarathe's new RfC, whether deliberate or not, is a discussion on whether or not to include Pakistan in the list. Fact is that Sdmarathe himself made it about Pakistan and the intentions of a bunch of those supporting this RfC are also very clear. Son of Kolachi (talk) 05:44, 10 October 2018 (UTC) Block evading sock puppet.

And that is absurd like I noted below. Other countries get frequently added but it is only "Pakistan", a non-regional power, that has found resistance. It doesn't make it a regional power or establishes inclusion. शिव साहिल/Shiv Sahil (talk) 14:35, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

---

• • Comment Pakistan can not exert hegemony over its neighbours. It shares borders with Afghanistan, China, India, Iran, Oman, and Tajikistan, and has at best limited influence on their internal policies. The ongoing Afghanistan–Pakistan skirmishes are inconclusive. Dimadick (talk) 15:49, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
  • What Adamgerber80 said above, +1. Regional hegemony is a different concept to regional powers. Not all regional powers are regional hegemons. Mar4d (talk) 16:03, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

• Those two concepts shares a particular relationship with each other that you strongly believe that Pakistan is a regional hegemon,(per your edits on Regional hegemony:[31][[32][33][34][35][36][37]) though it is really as misleading as treating Pakistan to be a regional power. Razer(talk) 16:52, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

That too is a separate discussion, and arbitrary. But even hypothetically, if we were to take your argument on face value, regional power and regional hegemony are two separate concepts. Saying they're the same thing is not true, again, because regional power is a lot more broad in scope, and includes multiple variables, which are not on the same scale of limitations as a hegemon. Which reinforces the point of this article even further. Mar4d (talk) 17:12, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

No one is "saying they're the same thing", so that's an off-topic discussion. शिव साहिल/Shiv Sahil (talk) 17:55, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

• Comments The rotating theme of this RfC: On quality of sources is tabulated below:

Contents	Ref date and time of talk
define how Pakistan could be considered regional power	Vide Talk: 13:26, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
Pakistan a regional power is not even a mainstream view, otherwise why so many competent sources exclude mention of Pakistan?	Vide talk: 04:32, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
describe how Pakistan transformed into a regional power	Vide talk: 07:55, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
Pakistan is a regional power	Most of the opposing voters are discussing it with supporting voters

With reference to Secondary regional power conceptual theorem as discussed by Samuel P. Huntington India and Pakistan are discussed simultaneously (Foreign Affairs, March 1999 v78 i2 p35 (1) link here [38] . Category definition says: a class or division of people or things regarded as having particular shared characteristics. As soon as the name of Pakistan included in the category of regional powers e.g. DETLEF NOLTE (2010), in a book or reference dealing with the category of Regional Powers then raising the question of WP:CONTEXTMATTERS applying “Passing mention” is irrational. Nannadeem (talk) 18:12, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

• Comments - In view of limited scope of this RfC mainly discussing Pakistan, It will be appreciated if a list of the references presently cited with Pakistan’s position as regional powers in South Asia, which qualify the passing mention criteria is provided so that I could work to create a page “Regional Powers in South Asia” Nannadeem (talk) 20:00, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

We are writing an encyclopedia here not a thesis. I strongly object to creation of any such page and if you still plan to, I would highly recommend the WP:AFC route. This RfC has already gone way out of scope (and control). Please comment on what is being discussed here and don't digress onto a tangent. Adamgerber80 (talk) 20:36, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

All right, but please see where the discussion is going on. I have already desired (and still) an amicable solution for references in respect of Pakistan (e.g. these are absolute/clear and these are passing mention) by asking list of citations. In this manner the purpose of this RfC can perhaps be productive. Nannadeem (talk) 20:52, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

References

• Comment': Since above discussions have already become too long, should we start a new section called "Discussion" and move all the replies there? While keeping the !votes in this section? I think it will make things more smooth. Orientls (talk) 03:19, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

•  Done myself. Orientls (talk) 03:39, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Reformatted by moving separate comments to this section while keep replies to actual !votes like they were before. Lorstaking (talk) 05:33, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! Orientls (talk) 05:36, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: From, what I can see this has turned into a debate as to whether Pakistan is a regional power or not. It should be noted that all nuclear weapon states except North Korea in the current article are considered as such; North Korea and South Korea are also similar to India and Pakistan in that they are partitioned states. As for the sources if better sources can be found they should be added as well. Gotitbro (talk) 22:07, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Egypt as regional power

Egypt is twice listed as a regional power on the color-coded map: among the regional powers in Western Asia, but it is not indicated so by color. It is also listed on the map table as among the regional powers of North Africa, and indicated so in matching dark violet color. But it is not listed under either region in the article itself. This needs to be corrected.Parkwells (talk) 16:51, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Egypt is not a regional power as one source (passing WP:CONTEXTMATTERS) describes that "Egypt is not a regional power but it can prevent any other power in the Middle East from emerging as a regional power."[39] The remaining mentions can be removed now. Lorstaking (talk) 18:19, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Parkwells The consensus is that the Egypt is not considered a regional Power by reliable sources. as User:Adamgerber80 pointed in the edit summary of one of his recent reverts see Talk:Regional_power/Archive_4#Protected_edit_request_on_27_January_2018 for more details. --DBigXrayᗙ 18:23, 10 October 2018 (UTC)