Talk:Regional power/Archive 1

message: Can we fix the other sections based on what I've created for Oceania, that would make this article a lot more worthwile. Nobleeagle  (Talk) 07:50, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah well, I did it all myself I guess. But they still need a lot of expansion if anyone wants to help. Nobleeagle  (Talk) 06:56, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article layout 

message: In addition to the minor edits I removed the following sentence which is obviously inaccurate:(no matter we define Nation as sovereign state or nationals)
India was basically the only nation that existed in South Asia before 1947. Afterwards, however, the Indian subcontinent has split and formed several nations, apart from the ones that already existed.
From 1858 to 1947, India was formally part of the British Empire instead of a sovereign nation. And long before 1947 the Nations of Nepal and Bhutan had existed in South Asia. e.g., Bhutan was even one of the first country to recognize India's independence. 
Of course, if Nation means nationals, this sentence is still wrong as the demographics of India, Nepal and Bhutan are different.
mainbody</b> 
::The sentence basically meant that the only other major nation in South Asia: Pakistan was part of India before the Partition in 1947. That needs to be mentioned in the article, as without the creation of Pakistan, India would be the only nation in South Asia capable of wielding International Power. It is therefore important and I am rewording it. Nobleeagle  (Talk) 23:27, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Edits

message: Awful writing, style problems. Particularly with capitals. Skinnyweed 02:19, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup.  

message: Souldn't there be a region called Balkans as well? If there is South Europe and Ocenia, the Balkans who have seen so much action in the past few decades should certainly have their own heading.
:Balkans are part of southern Europe, see here--Twilight 12:24, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Balkans

message: I don't think that sorting ths page by region is a good idea because regional influence is not defeined by solid boundairs. A good example of this would be in South America. Here, you have the overeahcing power of the USA, the local economic power of Brazil and the growing political influence of Venluzuea. Here who is the main power and more importantly where does each nations power stop. Obviously, the US has a worldwide influence but the other as tricker. In my mind Brazil has a very small influence and Venluzuea has a large influence over North-West South America and Central America. However, no-one can say with any centrainty where the influence stops so we really can't have solid regional boundaris. Aussie King Pin 09:32, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is sorting by regions a good idea ? 

message: Some person has a confusion over Middle Eastern Regional Power. Israel cannot be a Regional Power. Israeli GDP, Population, Military power is way lower than Iran or Turkey. I know Israel owns Nuklear Power but that means nothing. Israel can be the regional Power of the Levant region (which is Jordan, Lebanon, Palestine and Israel) but at this point nowhere even close to being the Regional Power of Mid. East. So stop disturbing this page and learn your facts....
Can the person who wrote this please: a) sign their name b)not say that it was a Israeli person that put the info. on here. This implies that the person has bad intentions becasue their are in some way bias. It also may not even be a Israeli person that did it which makes the slur worse. Aussie King Pin 01:29, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Know your Facts, Israel is not the Middle Eastern Regional Power

message: From the article:
:According to the Chatham House think tank, Iran is the main regional player in the Middle east.
I went to their website to find a citation, but I had great trouble.  First of all, I saw this quote:
"Chatham House is independent and owes no allegiance to government or to any political body. It does not hold opinions of its own; the views expressed in this text are the responsibility of the speakers."
As such, it seems wrong to attribute this view to Chatham House; it should instead be attributed to a particular person.
I did see one quote relevant to this:
"Iran has clearly a great role to play as a regional power, I wonder if you might comment on what your hopes are for your rather troubled neighbours, Iraq and Afghanistan? (Jennifer, Control Risks)" 
Of course this labels it as a regional power, not the regional power.
Another:
"Iran is one of the most significant and powerful states in the region and its influence spreads well beyond its critical location at the nexus of the Middle East, Turkey, the Caucasus, Central Asia and South Asia. It is often viewed from a distant Western perspective or as the large and awkward non-Arab country dominating the eastern end of the Middle East." 
The first sentence makes it one of the regional powers, while the second (partially refuted later; see the article) would essentially make it the regional power of the eastern Middle East, not the whole Middle East.
Should we take the sentence in question out, or is there a good replacement, either above or elsewhere? CRGreathouse (t | c) 02:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have (again) taken the sentence out, since Chatham House has no opinion on the matter. CRGreathouse (t | c) 13:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Turkey and Iran are not much far from eachother on economic or population numbers. They are so close in that aspect that the key to discuss which is the regional power comes down to influence. Iran is more likely to be considered Middle East's regional power in comparison to turkey as it clearly has greater influence on the region. Turkey because of its close ties with US and Isreal does not have much legitimecy in the eyes of mass region population while Iran has strong stance resulting in its influence in Iraq, Lebonan, Syria, Afghanistan and Phalistine. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.230.141.18 (talk) 05:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iran 

message: Is there a reason this article has the  tag?
:The examples and perspective in this article or section may not represent a worldwide view of the subject.
I'm thinking of taking it out, but I'd like to hear arguments to the contrary first.  That way I can clean up the article where needed before removing the tag. CRGreathouse (t | c) 23:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like it was 23prootie a few months back. CRGreathouse (t | c) 00:04, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What 'worldwide' views of the subject are missing here? If no one can bring up concrete examples then the tag should certainly be removed. --I 04:45, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  <nowiki>{{Globalize}}</nowiki>? 

message: South Africa, Eygpt and Nigeria belong in that section and South Africa is certainly the most influential state of the three and has a significant military complex. 
It seems to me that Kenya is not sufficiently powerful and influential enough to warrant a place and does not generally seem to be recognised as a 'regional power' in political commentary and literature. Kenya also doesn't compare favourably with the three regional powers already named.
Remove Kenya?
--I 14:46, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Kenya's in there?  I must have missed that.  I would have removed it myself if I saw it.  Go ahead and take it out -- I don't think anything in Africa can rival Egypt and South Africa. CRGreathouse (t | c) 20:40, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Africa 

message: The previous info on this page has been blanked by some admins in result of OR problem. So I tried to start the page fresh, this time nothing should be added unless it is properly referenced. Hope in few months we can have back the amount of info once this page had, this time all sourced. Please start adding other regions and source them.Farmanesh 04:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have reverted the info, because NO ADMIN deleted the info. That was done as a result of vandalism, by an anonimous IP user. No administrator did that. Alejcov 15:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, now I see it was an admin who deleted the info. Alejcov 15:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I was also shocked by what admins did but it helped me to learn wikipedi's OR policy. I really wish other wikipedians start adding other regions to the article but this time it should be 100% sourced or it should not be added.Farmanesh 02:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A new start 

message: There has been an impresive work done on the article by User:Willy turner, I appriciate his work. But this is not the first time we have a big article, we have been in this road before (see tha talks above and article's history of few edits before when Admins blanked the article). What has been added to the previous blanked version of article is sources for the info. For example there used to be a line saying South Africa has largest GDP in past version of article without source, now there is a source for that. But does this mean South Africa is the Regional Power? Who should make such call? wikipedians or real world researchers? Can we just put South Africa's name here based on its higher GDP/military?
I think the answer is no; this article is not about who has higher GDP. Article is about which country is a regional power so proper referencing should be a source saying South Africa is the regional power and not what is it's GDP.
Please discuss this here, otherwise we should only keep the countries which there is a clear source saying it is a regional power.Farmanesh 01:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The whole article is OR. Iran the regional power in Middle East? I can add sources challenging this, sources that indicate Israel is the regional power, and also South Africa the regional power? It is true it has the largest GDP, but that doesn't make it the regional power. Budget on military is also not a good indicator, since a big part of that budget might be used to pay salaries. AlexCovarrubias   ( Let's talk! ) 01:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please do add properly referenced points about regional powers in any region you have including Middle East. That would be helpful.Farmanesh 03:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is not OR in this article? 

message: I have tried several times to solve article's OR problem by fidning articles describing countries as regional power. As I added reference for those I found reference inclduing Brazil, India, US, Australia and China. But researching more showed me how important is for wikipedians not to just name a country here based on it's GDP.
South Africa seems to me like a real regional power but have a look here . It basically says South Africa is an emerging middle power and "With regard to a role as regional big power, South Africa’s position is more uncertain."
I wonder if we should have South Africa here at all? Should we mention south africa with this researcher's conclusion in the article? but what is the point of naming a country and then giving just a refrence contradicting it?
It has been about 2 weeks since the addition of OR material, I think it is time to take them out. I guess we should keep the main road. Only a country can be named here if there is a relaible source clearly name it as regional power (or higher status like superpower). If there is no such reference then there should be no mention of the country.Farmanesh 15:26, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trying to solve OR problem 

message: Although this article is improving but still current refrences need more work. First there needs to be check for ensuring references are reliable and they are not biased toward that country.
Second current references are not completly cited based on wiki manaual of style.Farmanesh 16:05, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A note on referencing 

message: France and Germany the European regional powers? What about the United kingdom?  France has a weaker economy than UK and its Power Projection is much weaker when compared to that of UK, and UK's military technology is much better than France.  Germany is stronger economicly that UK, but by means of military they are both in different leagues (In UK's favor)  Plus UK's military budget is much higher that both.  UK is a nuclear state, a permanent member of the UN sercurity council,and home of the largest defense contractor after the US.
I agree that the UK is a regional power. It will be added when i have found a reputable online source saying the UK is a regional power, which we can reference. You could find one yourself even? The article is under reconstruction at the moment, and im sure UK will be added soon. Willy turner 23:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: First let me clarify, I have nothing against UK as regional power and I personally think it is. But really can't we find a refrence better than a university's advertisment page about its summer program? I do not see this as a reliable source at all.  Please read what a refernce means.Farmanesh 02:47, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Blasthamy!!!

message: There should be different regional powers of both West and East Europe, because no 1 power can influance all of Europe.
I disagree. If a source says a country is a european regional power thats what we should say. i havent seen any sources that describe uk, france, or germany as just west european powers. or any sources that say russia is just an east european power. all these countries are described as regional powers in europe as a whole Willy turner 11:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: West and East