Talk:Regional power/Archive 1

Untitled
How can there be four regional powers in east asia if there is only presently five countries that encompass it (including taiwan) Doesn't it seem like to many, perhaps eliminate the three except for china --Vancouver123 00:04, 20 October 2005 (UTC)--

SOUTHeast asia is different from east asia. SOUTHeast asia is composed of Singapore, Malaysia, the Philippines, Indonesia, Thailand, Vietnam, Brunei, Laos, Myanmar, Cambodia, and East Timor! Maenwhile east asia is composed of Japan, South Korea, North Korea, Mongolia, Taiwan, and china. -Isao

Would you consider any scandinavian countries as a regional power --Vancouver123 05:21, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

What about Argentina in Latin America and Australia and New Zealand in the Pacific?


 * yeah what about New Zealand. i mean NZ is well of nearly all the other members of it's region (minus Australia) thus making it a regional power, right? (Bigkev 09:45, 14 April 2006 (UTC))


 * A regional power is the most dominant power in the region. Therefore we cannot include powers that are second best unless it is really hard to differentiate.  Noble eagle   (Talk)   23:45, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Nobleeagle's definition of a 'regional power'. In this regard I must say that France and Germany should share the title of regional power in Western Europe with Britain. Whilst Britain may have better power projection capabilities. Germany and France have much greater influence within the EU, which with the exception of Switzerland covers the entirity of Western Europe. Economically and politically this influence greatly shapes the events and direction of Western Europe. Hence Britain cannot be treated as the sole or even 'primary' power in the region. With apologies to New Zealanders, NZ does not really compare to Australia. What sort of 'regional power' lacks things like combat aircraft? The scandanavian countries are too small and too isolated to be regional powers. No scandanavian nation seems particularly dominant and all three have relatively little regional 'influence' or region to influence. --I 19:49, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The UK should not be described as the dominant regional power in western europe because none of the three regional powers, France, Germany or the United Kingdom can make decisions that significantly affect their region - western europe - without the agreement of at least one of the other regional powers. I believe that western europe is a special case where historically and presently there does not exist a regional power which is dominant. --I 14:58, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I stumbled over this article and agree with Bob Hu's point. IMO there is no regional power in Europe. cobra

Malaysia and Indonesia cannot be regional powers becuase they co-dependent with Thailand and the Philippines. Unlike the latter two, they have never participated in any regional defense treaties. The former also lack substantial economic influence on the latter. Singapore is the only legitimate power because ,even for its size, it still has significant influence. Also the Philippines should also be given credit since it has significant populations in other countries, which retain some loyalty to the country. -Isao

Article layout
Can we fix the other sections based on what I've created for Oceania, that would make this article a lot more worthwile.  Noble eagle   (Talk)   07:50, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Ah well, I did it all myself I guess. But they still need a lot of expansion if anyone wants to help.  Noble eagle   (Talk)   06:56, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Could someone a) knowledgable about Africa b) good with wiki editting fix the subsection on Africa? right now there is an oversized quote in it that is a) poorly editted/written b) stretching sideways several screen lengths, at least on my browser. Thank you. I 03:09, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Performance in Sports?
We just started a poll on whether Sports Power and performance in sports can be included under all of the nations listed on the pages Major power, Superpower, Potential Superpowers and Regional power. If you're interested in the topic, please come to Talk:Major power to express your views and cast your vote. : : MainBody

Edits
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.

ma in bo dy 


 * 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.  Noble eagle   (Talk)   23:27, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

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

Remove Southern Europe from the Regions since the influence of Western Europe's Powers overlap over it.

And Greece a Regional Power in Southern Europe? That is the biggest laugh I can heard or do. Italy and Spain must be in Antarctica. Or even Turkey, Portugal, Serbia? If Greece is a Regional Power then, there must be over 100 Regional Powers in the whole world. ACamposPinho 3:32, 26 May 2006

eu?
inside eu it don't have meaning to talk about regionnal power.it's not the law of the jengle but thers democratic votes and the isues that are not in vote are things like foren policy and militairy.They are so interdepended that even if isues that in theory they can do any thing they wan't,in practice they can't(you have the theoretical write to stop cleaning your teeth,but you'll regreat it sooner or later).do you say that california or texas are regional powers?is greece a regional power in a traditional sence or a progection of eu's power(they receav a 3% of their gdp in subsidy each year,one of the reasons that is the welthier of it reagion).and in east europe how is the regional power,russia or eu?and when russia enter eu?--Ruber chiken 21:22, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Until the EU is formally a state rather than a customs union, I think that it is appropriate to speak of the countries in the EU as separate entities. Afterall, it is no way certain that the EU will survive in its current incarnation. The core countries (France, Germany, Holland, Belgium, and Luxembourg)may form a true state but the rest are just periphery. If these core countries ever create a state, it will be another superpower to rival the U.S. and the ascendant Chinese.

Hadrian--64.229.154.203 03:27, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

You think that federal europe will apear in a quantum leep or some thing,big bang and dada eurofederation.what about the situation in betuin like now.it's a confederation,too louse to be a consider a state and too united to be consider like totaly independed.in the mintime europe's influence in the region,in the article, is by defult consider as null,even eurosceptics will agree that this is not the case,so the article give's a flud representation of the region.even if it don't survive's in the logn run it's irelevent,what's important is here and now.plus it's not logical to put EU in the emergin superpowers and don't enclude it in the today's regional powers.--Ruber chiken 00:21, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Obviously the EU is more than a regional power. Its corperations and investors hold as much control over the world's respurces as the US and its corperations and ivestors. European culture has influenced the entire world, wether its Milan and Paris setting the world's fashion trends, Stuttgard and Munich setting the trends for automotive design, British rock group spanning a following acorss all continents or German tehcno music on American telelvision. The 25 member states have great influence over this planet and their decisios affect more than only Europeans; thus making the EU a global power. It is simple, really:
 * The EU's economy is the world's largest
 * The EU holds vast control over the global allocation of resources
 * The culutre of the EU member states has been and continues to influence the entire world
 * The only other union in the world who can claim the same feats is the United States. How can the EU be only a regional power if it has such considerable influence over the rest of the world. I propose a new category be created called global power, as the EU is not as unified as the US yet, but more than a regional power. Regards,  Signature brendel  19:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I've put my thoughts on the status of the EU on the superpower talk page. Essentially, if you can find reputable authority for the proposition that the EU has now transcended the status of a simple grouping of nation states, that it now exercises power independently on its own behalf as a single entity, then put it in (along with the necessary citations).  What we shouldn't do is try to decide the issue ourselves, that leads to accusations of OR and a whole host of problems.


 * Xdamr 21:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes I see your point but the EU's soft (Economic and cultural) power if undoubtely felt around the world. Even if it is not a policitcal entity its still a global power as the decisions of its member states affect the entire planet and not just Europe. The thing about the EU is that its unique. Never before has there been this type of correlation between states, except maybe in the late 1700s after the borth of the US. Nonetheless, the EU is unique in that it isn't a political entity but a union of states that has a considerable control over the economic and culutral trends on this planet. The EU may not be a superpower due to the reasons you mentioned above but it certainly isn't a regional power. Regards,  Signature brendel  21:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your point about the novelty of the EU. What I'm not entirely convinced about is your view that soft power is excerised by the EU as an entity, rather than their being cultural influence from France, some from Germany, some from Italy etc.  I suppose to an extent this depends on personal prejudice, whether one as an individual feels 'European' rather than (or perhaps alongside) feeling Dutch, Spanish etc.  I think that it's fair to say that the extent of this 'European' mindset varies throughout Europe - from Luxembourg at one extreme to the UK at the other.  Furthermore I'm not sure that cultural influence is percieved as being 'European' by those abroad, rather than being thought of as (for example) British influence.  Do Japanese think of the footballer David Beckham as European or British?


 * Speculation aside though, it's not what we know, it's what we can prove; there really needs to be reputable authority for this.


 * Xdamr 23:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

not a new section.Wikipedia has a zillion sections alredy,with all synonims and so fort,superpower-hyperpower-localpower-regionalpower-great power...If you are a superpower your automaticly a regional power.If your not a regional power you can't be a superpower.Acording to the article usa is the regional power or north american continent.If you want "reputable authority for the proposition" simply go to the eurosceptics article.Why do all the fass if EU is just mini-UN,thacher is good for you?The EU is not that unique,is a confederation,other exampels is the Hanseatic League of the midle age or the helvetic confederation(suisserland).--Ruber chiken 22:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * By reputable I mean something along the lines of speeches by prominent political figures, political manifestos, articles in academic journals (WP:OR). It is a debatable topic as to whether the EU is a superpower so we can't come to a certain conclusion as to whether it is a regional power in its own right.  There may well be a debate to be had, but this is not the place for it - sources are what are needed.


 * Xdamr 23:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Why the superpower article on wikipedia is not reputable enof.No ok,i wasn't serious.Is not exacly what you whant.usa power is over estimated(if you say no,simply try to tell some weaknesses,how many can you tell?),we can prouve that in a formal unouf maner for wiki(with lectures,figures and blablabla,no is not just my crazy pov).Then you stuck a name on it"superpower".Then you compare EU and the theoretical critiria of superpower,and not suprisingly,it fails.If you had been that thorouly from the start,not even usa whould have been axepted.an esier way whould be to simply compare the 2 directly and not use critirias.--Ruber chiken 04:27, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The 'Superpower' is a well established Political Science concept. The US, and formerly the USSR, were the only two nations accepted as superpowers.  Neither academic opinion nor the media seem to accept the EU as a superpower.  Simply put, anyone wanting to add the EU as a superpower or regional power must provide a proper academic source for their claim (WP:OR).


 * Xdamr 23:18, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

The problem with the ,euro for example,for such a debate is that's only 7 years old.On top of that thers the cold war propaganda.Ther's no career to be held in questionning well established beleafs,they have to eat.Academics are apointed by ther academics before them,so they some how reproduce,why schould my careful analisis of facts be dismesed in that basis.It's not OR or POV if is carefully documanted and prouven by facts.If EU don't qualify for regional power then i find logical to deleat the emergin superpower article on EU.It don't make sance to pretend that is a emergin superpower whithout passing the stade of regional power.The heart of the debate is if is sufishantly united and powerfull to influance the lives of the all planette.To give you an historic example,can you stady 19 century politics and ignore the german confadaration by pretending it's not a contry,or can you ignore the hanceatic leag influance in the basis that this thing ither is a state,or the erly days of the helvetic confederation(suisserland today).A last point i wan't to make is that usa real power is over estimated in the first place,even by many scollars,it's important to the debate because the comparison alone is flaude.--Ruber chiken 02:24, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Venezuela
How can Venezuela rival Brazil? It's economy is 10 times smaller and it has a much smaller population. It's like saying that Mexico is claiming America's position as a global power. Ridiculous. People without knowledge regarding certain basic aspects of the region shouldn't write a single line about it.

Southern Europe
Again someone here using anonymous ip address is changing the section that I have been asked to participate in. NobleEagle I expect that you would watch over people making changes and correct them. Especially people using anonymous ip's. Someone here is insisting that Greece ( a poor backward, almost third-world country) is somehow superior to Italy. I personally know Greeks, and from my experience they are all full of themselves with no justification what so ever. At least I am discussing adding Italy along with Campos to the great power page, and not unilaterally adding it in. Unlike this coward who has now modified two of my edits.

--Hadrian1 13:34, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

For greece:is not that poore(75% of average EU gdp),what's important is that her nebors are even more poorer.Why you just put EU.by just comparing contrys the article gives a misleading overvieu of the situation in the region.It's rely not logical to consuder EU a potencial superpower,and on the ather hand no regional power what so ever,not even a word on it.EU is not UN,it's a serious organization,from some time now,and no sometime in the future.ither we put EU in this article,ither delete the emergine superpower article on EU.in that perspective greese is the regional extencion of EU power(it's an eu enclave in a poor region),and that's way she has more cloute whith her nabors than what one whould expect by just looking the map(for example the euro).So the person hou added greece wasn't that wrhng after all.You can consider the situation of the baltic states and russia,by just looking the map(144 million tords 5-6million)is not the holle story.It's like the cosa nostra.I'm sujesting,for the section on europe,to replace it whith EU,and to say some lines about each of it's members.--Ruber chiken 21:42, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

First of all, Greece surrounded by Turkey and Italy. Italy is only 100 km maximum away across the Adriatic from Brindisi. And Italy's natural power extension is the Med not Europe. Some people don't even consider it in Europe proper. I remember the last time I watched the MIss World beauty pageant and Italy was listed in the Mediterranean group not Europe. A bit shocking to me but it illustrates some attitudes. So Greece is not surrounded by poorer members. If you want to take a look at the Great Power page, I put extensive lists on Italy's prowess in many fields. In addition, she will be the third country with the most aircraft carriers, after the Cavour is commisioned later this year. The Greeks have a military primarily to fend off any Turkish ideas of invasion. They have not participated in any foreign interventions. Italy has. They are a net recipient of EU transfer money. How much money did the EU spend on Athens? A lot. And they got big help in security from the EU member states. Great/Regional powers don't receive aid, they give it.

BTW, what does the Cosa Nostra have to do with regional power? I have no clue how this relates. They are a criminal organization.

In addition, the Italian ties to Albania and Libya are strong and growing. Also there is considerable involvement with Egypt. But I don't expect Greeks or Greek like minded people to care. Here, where I am, they actually celebrate pushing the Italians out of Greece and into Albania. So the Greeks are an extremely proud people. You don't see the Italians celebrating an old victory over the Ethiopians. They never back down no matter what the odds, especially against the Italians. They hate Italians almost as much as Turks. So I am not surprised by this act of what I consider to be vandalism.

This page has been split up into several regions, one being southern europe. There can't be every country is a regional power in that area. Western Europe is a bit different in that three countries are roughly the same so there all listed. But where is the justification for Greece. Spain is more influential in the Med and bigger in every way. You know being at 75% of income from the European average does not make Greece a major regional power. I can't get agreement on Italy being listed as a great power even though its at 90% of the output of the UK and France, so why is Greece special. Since Greece by way of East Rome lost its empire, it has not been important in European affairs. The number of seats it holds in the EU parliament is small because sorry but it's a small country even by European standards. And technically you could argue that Greece is more MIddle Eastern in culture than European. They have belly dancers and that's not a European tradition.

But if you can show as I have for Italy that Greece is the most powerful militarily, economically, socially, etc, I'll back down. I am not some megalomaniac Italian hell bent on reviving Rome personally, (nice idea, though....).

As far as the EU is concerned, it's not a country yet if ever. And there has been strong talk to unite only the core which is FRance, Germany, Holland, Belgium and Liechtenstein (sp?). The rest will just be a customs union. So until it's an actual entity why devote a section on it when it may never happen (which BTW I am in favour of it not happening)? In my opinion, it's a French idea that won't work in the end. There are too many competing interests. Just as some of Europe has pulled away from the US, so will some members of the EU. --Hadrian1 01:01, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

may be i miseunderstould my self.I sayd,put EU in the place of all european contryes.Greece reseaves 3% subsidy each year from brussels,and is in the eurozone,a de facto political union(de facto militairy and financial obligations to each auther).The decisions in europe are taken with a vote so, every body has a say.When comparing greece with the external nabors of EU, you can't dismiss it's EU membership,can you imagine turkey attaking a eurozone member,what italy can do then?It's nabor's are seening greece or the eu member of greece.Same thing for the baltic states,compare with the treatment of the caucasus states or even ukrain by russia.Comparing the eu members betean them is like comparing usa states betean them.EU is not a contry in the classical way,but it's ither mini-UN.The cosa nostra was refering to this,eu is like a gang,and every gang member has obligations to each auther.Dealing with one EU member is like dealing with the 25.--Ruber chiken 22:54, 9 June 2006 (UTC)$

"Liechtenstein" you whanted to say luxemburg.And no,when this hapens, the rest will fallow by fear of getting marginalized.If you consider that eu is not a regionnal power then how can it clame to be an emerging superpower --Ruber chiken 23:02, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

First off again, the point here is who is the strongest country in the Med. Frankly, it's not Greece. A country receiving subsidies, 10M people, small land area and no resources, is not a power house.

Second, if Turkey decided to attack Italy, they would not get very far. First they don't have a navy that is comparable, so how are they going to land troops. And the equipment they have is not up to snuff either. Having 500,000 men in arms is nothing but an employment program if you don't have good equipment.

Third, the EU is not a country and I highly doubt it will ever be. The only reason countries want in is to milk the system so to speak. What does a country like Turkey have in common with western europe. Nothing. That's why they're not in. And they consider themselves more Middle Eastern than anything else anyway. The only reason is 'money'.

Europe always has had some sort of council to try and work things out without war. Like the Concert of Europe, bunch of alliances and counter-alliances. That is what the EU is. The core countries may lead to something more but not southern europe or eastern europe. The crux of whether this will happen is whether Germany can recreate MittelEuropa. If they do that, goodbye France. That's Realpolitik which the Germans created and I believe they still deep down inside believe in.

As far as getting marginalized, it's better to be lion for a day than to be a sheep for a hundred. Why be small part in something big when you try to make it on your own and make something that's yours and you control. Besides, Italy is doing fine by itself, it can go it alone and in the last year it wanted to pull out of the monetary union.

You want to be European, good luck to you. Me, I am proud of my background not some nebulous idea called Europe. This thing will last as its convenient for France and Germany, when its not, so long EU. --Hadrian1 23:39, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I re-read your message again since I find it hard to follow. So you're comparing the EU to a bunch of gang members or a criminal organization. Very flattering. I don't know about you but the last time I checked the EU members don't go knocking each off in order to be top dog. Not yet anyway.
 * Secondly, something I missed on the first read, Turkey (again always Turkey) attacks someone in the EU and Italy can't respond. They can go to Iraq, they can go to Palestine, they can go to Afghanistan but they can't go to their backyard in the Med? Is there some kind of dichotomy here? So a country centrally located in the Med is unable to respond, being what, 500 km from Turkey max? The Venetians defeated the Turks at Lepanto which is in Greece in the 1500's but in the modern era, Italy can't. --Hadrian1 00:51, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

cosa nostra tranlates to our cause in italian.It's a family that does mafia things.I was refering to family like solidarity,combined whith potential use of force in any form.For turkey i ment,if turkey attacks greece,whould italy had the luxioury to just whach?I didn't ment that they were anable to respond,i ment that they where anable to "not to respond".Eu have many similaritys with the german confederacy that finaly became federal germany,or with the helvetic confederation that became a state,Suisserland.Or even with the henceatic leage,a union of city states in the midel age.Again you didn't argue for the baltic states mistirious immunisation tordes russian pressiors.EU is a confederation,there interests are so intageled,that they can't afford not to cooparate.The article is about regional balace of power,the regionnal power don't have to be a contry--Ruber chiken 01:48, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

"First off again, the point here is who is the strongest country in the Med."EU is not a contry in the usual description,in that pov your right.But EU is not mini-UN aither,you are fould because it don't have a tag on it.--Ruber chiken 01:48, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Have I been reading this discussion correctly? Between Italy and Greece there is nothing even close to parity, let alone greek superiority. The three strongest countries on the Mediterrean Sea are Italy, France and Spain. Apparently France is out of the contention as it is 'too busy' being one of the three regional powers of western Europe so the title of regional power defaults to Italy. I cannot see how Greece would even be relevant to this discussion. Rubber chicken: The Rules of Wikipedia prohibit me from saying what I think of the spelling you use but suffice to say that I have been skipping over your posts because I find them unreadable. I 03:02, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, folks let the Turk speak for himself, huh? First let me teach you some history. Ottoman's ruled you for centuries, so I know many of you feeling all down and hating Turks but we love you. Secondly know your facts, GFP Ranking check this out and tell me the Biggest Mediterreanean Powers, now. It is clearly France and Turkey. Any better proof are welcomed.(But I know there is none, so swallow it.) By the way, we are no longer in Medieval times, so try to be civilized and understand the meaning of Interdependent. There is no way these European Countries will ever fight again because of NATO and the EU. (You may say "Turkey is not Europe." Although what you think is not really important.) Love you all.(Including Greeks). user:ltimur By the way check out some facts about Turkey in "Middle Eastern Regional Power" part.

I had a look at the GlobalFirePower link posted above and at the bottom of the page it states that the rankings are based purely on raw numbers (eg. number of enlisted men) without regard to other factors. Personally I wouldn't vouch for the quality of Italian military equipment and training but they do have things like an aircraft carrier. Economically and politically Italy is a member of the G8 and has a GDP near or over $1.5 trillion. I like Turkey (and I LOVE the food) but I cannot objectively say that it is a regional power in the mediterranean at this time. It is a big contender for being a regional power in the middle east however. --I 19:10, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

About greece: it is simply ridiculous this country to be included here. To be a European regional power means that the state should have heavy industry, which greece almost lacks, the industries of Bulgaria and romania are much more developped, not to mention Spain, which is far, far ahead than greece in every aspect. The greek military is also far behind the Spanish, not to mention that it has never proved itself in war (the defeat of the italians is not a major success, i do not see difficulty to defeat an army which could only beat Albania and Ethiopia). --Gligan 14:11, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I find this article of very, very poor standard. Very simplistic historically and only focusing on Italy, forgetting other major regional powers in southern europe as France, Spain and the Ottoman Empire. Italy, or should i say the roman empire, was the main regional power in europe for eight centuries. But after the fall of the roman empire and during the middle age there was probably only the bizantyne empire and the kingdom of aragon the main partners dominating each eastern and western mediterranean. For italy, there was a time of cultural renaissance, but of political failure, being divided in a miriad of state cities with very little or no influence whatsoever further than their own borders. As for that, the italian peninsula became a battleground for the other major european powers, as Spain and France. During the 16th, 17th and 18th centuries, Spain and the Ottoman Empire where the dominant powers of both western and eastern mediterranean basin. Spain occupying Sicily, Sardinia, southern Italy, Milan, etc.. and the ottoman Empire occupying the balkanic peninsula.

The napoleonic times gave France a major role in southwest europe for a while, but then, we still have the ottoman empire in southeastern europe as the main regional power.

At the end of the 19th century Italy reunificated and became within a few decades an important regional power of the area. We musn´t forget that Great Britan dominated the seas by controlling important and strategically well situated naval posts as Gibraltar, malta or cyprus.

During the first part of the 20th century until the first world war, France,Italy and Austria/Hungary were the major rulers. After that Italy dominated the scene, but after the second world war no one in particular.

Nowadays i see probably France, Italy and Spain as the more influential countries in southern Europe

User:JMJ 12:45 16 february 2007 (UTC)

Regional Power and the EU
This page deals with Regional Powers. We have adopted a geographic structure here. The EU is not synonymous with Europe; Europe is the continent, the EU is an international body. We do not group countries together depending on membership of bodies such as the EU, African Union, ASEAN, Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, CIS & others.

X damrtalk 00:24, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I live in brussel,if this is international body,then i'm in mars.The authers are miningles talking chops,mini-UNs.You don't even drop an eye on the link.Thers a parlement and we have normal elections.The EU is not an international oganization,this is a fact,do you no many international organizations with a parlement and a court.The article description of the european region is deaply flaud,without considering the EU influence.--Ruber chiken 00:54, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Just explain to me what make you think,EU is a mingles international organisation.--Ruber chiken 00:56, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Acording to you,what's the status of this Hanseatic League--Ruber chiken 02:06, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, the UN has a parliament (of sorts) and a court. As an organisation consisting of nation states, what else could the EU be but an international organisation?


 * But the point is, whatever the merits of your pro-EU arguments on the superpower page, this page is organised geographically. The Continent and the EU are not the same thing; are Norway, Switzerland, Ukraine etc any less part of Europe simply because they aren't in the EU?


 * X damrtalk 02:57, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

When did you vote for UN elections?Acording to you,what's the status of this Hanseatic League--Ruber chiken 03:09, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Just because there is a parliament, it doesn't mean that there are elections, votes for all is a comparatively new concept :) (For that matter when did you last vote in the Euro elections? Turnout to vote for them is almost uniformly poor.)


 * As far as the Hanseatic League goes, it appears to have existed before the age of the nation state. It could have turned into a nation if it had lasted until the 19th century, but it collapsed.  I'm not quite sure of the relevance.


 * X damrtalk 03:38, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm forcing you to reed the intro and the first paragraph of the status section,of the EU article.And i sujest you to reed the rest,your blantary ignorant.--Ruber chiken 03:55, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I am fully aware of the nature of the EU. As part of my 'real life' it has been necessary for me to become deeply familiar with it's workings and operation.


 * I will just make one point to you here; whatever you (or I) think is the truth doesn't matter, this is an encyclopedia - what we have to do is find what academic opinion considers to be the truth and report on it, whether we personally agree with it or not. Your advocacy of the EU, whilst noble enough, is not backed by academic opinion.  The EU has been up as a superpower for 10 days now, and there is still no source.  If it was such a self evident point then surely you must have been able to find one by now?


 * X damrtalk 10:14, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

for the regional power i bring a source,university of helsinky.For the superpower article usa too is not backed ither,since deleating everything is not an option,EU is axeptable.--Ruber chiken 15:34, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

why this source isn't good enoph?--Ruber chiken 17:20, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

In terms of regional power, I don't think the EU fits in this article as the Western Europe section is discussing the regional powers of Western Eruope. In other words the article is stating the largest powers within the EU. Also, you can be a superpower and regional power, look at the US which is also North America's regional power. The EU is Western Europe (at least the vast majority) and inside the EU, Germany, France, and the UK are the regional powers.  Signature brendel  05:45, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Balkans
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-- Twi light 12:24, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Is sorting by regions a good idea ?
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)

Know your Facts, Israel is not the Middle Eastern Regional Power
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)

Why don't you use your own user profile instead of some innocent Austrialian person? For you though I am changing it to "some person..." Hope it helps.

By the way, the above comments come from a anon. editor with only two edits (both on this page) so far. Aussie King Pin 09:43, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I suk. 09:43, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Brazil
AlexCovarrubias has now twice removed the following line from the South America section:
 * Brazil's geographical location and area as well as its population make it the strongest power in South America

The second time he commented "This sentence is exagerated". I didn't write the line, but I thought it was apt and wondered why it should be removed. Rather than add it back in (if you look at the edit histories I added it between revisions, but it wasn't just a case of re-reverts) again, I thought it should be discussed here.

In terms of power, I don't think there's any argument for another South American country being the regional power. Brazil is large, an economy larger than the rest of the continent (in fact, larger than Russia's), populous (with 63% of the continent's people), and well-endowed with natural resources. It has few enemies and is a member of the group of four nations seeking permanent status in the UN Security Council (with Germany, Japan, and India). Its military spending is twice that of the next South American nation (Argentina). As such, I see no problem with the final assertion of the sentence that Brazil is the strongest country in South America.

If that is not the problem, perhaps it is with the reasoning in the first part of the sentence. Perhaps its location, area, and population are not so much the cause of its status as its political clout and economy. This argument is stronger, although the former contribute to the latter and the economy is large mostly on the basis of the population -- the per capita GDP of Brazil is not impressive, being perhaps a third to a half that of the most-developed South American nations.

That said, I'd like to hear everyone's thoughts on the matter. Should the sentence be added back in, reworded apropriately, or should it remain out? Also, if anyone wants to cannibalize what I have here to add to the article, be my guest. CRGreathouse (t | c) 02:20, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


 * No, you're wrong! In fact I created that sentence! I removed the line:
 * Brazil's geographical location and area as well as its population make it the strongest power in Latin America
 * That's different. I changed "Latin America" for "South America". Alex  Covarrubias  Flag of Mexico.svg ( Let's talk! ) 04:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I'm apparently easily confused. Regardless, I'll leave this information in case I want to copy some of it to the article. CRGreathouse (t | c) 04:46, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Iran
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)

I have taken the sentence out as I think it is incorrect. I have the opionon that Saudi Arabia is the main regional power in the Middle East not Iran and I will go and chase sources to back this up. --Aussie King Pin 08:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * 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)

How can be Iran be the Middle Eastern regional power with the purpose of having a growing population and economy, since Turkey has the biggest economy, population, military etc. in the region? I removed nationalist vandalism. Kaygtr 18:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * 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).

Middle East
Each region should have just one regional power, unless there's more than one Great power in the area (as in Western Europe), by our definition. As a result, there's no good reason to have 4 for the Middle East, especially since none rise above the status of Middle power at best. If Turkey is to be the regional power (and there could be geographic doubts there), the others need to have a different description. How should we phrase this? CRGreathouse (t | c) 13:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I believe that Isreal and Saudi Arabia should be removed from the list of middle eastern regional powers. Isreal has much 'power' but very little influence (that is not exerted by the IDF or Mossad) whereas Saudi Arabia seems to have the opposite deficiency. It is hard to pick between Turkey and Iran for the middle east. I believe it is not necessary to have ONE single regional power, as it may not reflect the reality of the situation. Iran appears to have a greater influence on broader events within the middle east than Turkey however. --I 19:49, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


 * That sounds sensible to me. CRGreathouse (t | c) 20:41, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. If Turkey or Iran are considered regional powers than Israel should be as well. Not only is it the only country in the region with nuclear weapons, but it has a strong history of success in war in the region. Twfowler 18:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I think its an oversimplification for us 3-4 people to decide who is the regional power of the middle east. Iran and Turkey have highest economic variables of the region (like GDP and...). But as it has been mentioned in this artciel just those economic variables are not what a regional power needs. Influence, military capability and... are also very important variables. As mentioned above Israel has stronger military perspective than Iran and Turkey. Turkey and Iran have very similar socio-economic variables while Turkey is a bit higher than Iran. Iran has larger influence than Israel and Turkey in many regions' countries like Iraq, Lebenon, Afghanistan and Phalestine while having large military. Saudi Arabia arguably has very high influence in the region too. I don't think we can simpley chose to take out Israel and Saudi Arabia, we at least need to mention them. As it goes for comparison of Iran vs. Turkey, I think they are very close. While Turkey has a bit higher socio-economic variables but Iran has much higher Influence in the region, partly because of Turkey's attention to EU and also its close ties with USA and Israel which reduced its influence in the region while Iran played in the oposit way. Giving atention to Iran's influence, socioeconomic variables and nuclear program, seems reasonable to me to choose Iran higher than Turkey as regional power. In general I don't think we can decide who is the regional power, we should mention them all. Please continue the discussion. Farmanesh 22:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Insofar as Turkey is considered part of the region, it is the regional power. Its GDP, military spending, and population are all higher.  Iran wouldn't merit its own paragraph, if not for the fact that Turkey is moving closer to Europe for various reasons you mention above and I mention in the article.  This, and only this, gives sufficient justification for Iran to have its own paragraph.  (Similar justifications might apply by some argument to Saudi Arabia; if you feel this is worthy of addition, bring up some arguments and I'll look through the history for a good paragraph starter.)
 * I didn't set up the original order, but I think that it's right, and that the burden of proof is on you to show that Iran should be first. Now until there's some reason to have Turkey change regions (official pronouncement, accepted into the EU, or something similarly drastic) we can move Iran first and add Turkey as a second short paragraph ('would be regional power except it's now considered part of Southern Europe instead of Middle East'). Until then, I'm reverting. CRGreathouse (t | c) 00:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I am not sure how you can be so certain about taking Israel and Saudi Arabia out. As for Turkey vs Iran: You did mention Turkey's higher socio-economic variables than in comparison to Iran but you did not mention your view on my justifications to see Iran slightly in front of Turkey in the region:
 * 1. Influence: Iran arguably has much more influence in the region than Turkey has. In Iraq, Syria, Bahrain, Lebenon, Phalestine and Afghanistan in all Iran has far greater influence than Turkey. You can just consider history of past 20 years and see which of these two have been the major player. I can not be this certain in comparison of Iran vs. Saudi Arabia. Arguably Saudi Arabia has also great influence in the region. But as it comes down to Iran vs. Turkey the case of influence is pretty much clear.


 * 2. Power resulted from socio-economic variables (GDP,...): Its true that Turkey has higher GDP and population but in both case Iran and Turkey are attached to each other. In List of countries by GDP (PPP) Turkey is 19 and Iran is 20. In List of countries by population Turkey is 17 and Iran is 18. As the difference is so small, I even wonder maybe it can be in the Margin of error.


 * 3. But this not all the story for socio-economic variables: In some vraiables Iran is slitly higher than Tureky. Have a look here at List of countries by income equality where Iran is in a better situation than Turkey. But even in this case these two countries are so close that we can't make a final judgment.


 * Conclusion: Iran and Turkey have very close socio-economic variables. So close that I doubt there can be any meaningful judgment about which one is a higher regional power just based on that. Power is a very complex issue and just because Turkey has a bit higher population than Iran is not enough to make a case. While as it goes for consideration of Influence Iran has clearly higher influence in the region.
 * I still think these two are very close, making it hard to make a final judgment but considering all above Iran has a small priority in my mind.
 * Please continue the discussion.Farmanesh 03:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * "I am not sure how you can be so certain about taking Israel and Saudi Arabia out" -- I didn't take them out, though I did argue there should be fewer countries listed as regional powers (since in fact there should only be one in the whole Middle East). As to your statements, point by point:
 * 1. You haven't justified this, but this is once again an issue of region (Turkey influencing less by virtue of being geographically and politically removed).
 * 2. I wouldn't use Wikipedia as a source here. I certainly didn't.  I agree the two are close, though certainly not within margin of error. (I did study mathematics as my major at college, it's my degree -- I'm well familiar with this.)
 * 3. Again, I wouldn't use Wikipedia as a source -- Wikipedia expressly discourages that. In any case, the Gini index doesn't contribute to a country's power so it's quite irrelevant here.  The issue is not whether Turkey is a nicer place than Iran.  Military spending is by far the largest standard here, followed by GDP/GNP.  Turkey has a figure around 3 times higher in PPP terms -- and probably higher yet by the exchange rates.
 * I'm going to edit the article to reflect discussion here, adding in the point about military spending. That "Iran has a small priority in [your] mind" has little weight here -- the numbers are all against you. CRGreathouse (t | c) 07:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * "in fact there should only be one in the whole Middle East". I am not sure about this statment which seems to be a root disagreement here. Power in international relations is not a mathematical concept which would have straght forward answer. Maybe in Math we can say there is only one answer to a specific equation but in this case its far from certain. Thats why even in this article they are trying to use Bold vs Italic approach for mentioning potential regional powers.
 * 1. As it goes for not refrencing to Wikipedia thats a fine point, but I haven't seen any refrence in your argument whther Wikipedia or other. It would be nice to see some refrences as you suggest.
 * 2. It seems you have a definiton for Power in international relations which you are not sharing with us. In that definition seems numbers have more to say than influence of countries. and specially in that definition Military Power is what mostly identifies power. As far as I know there is no consensus on the definiton of power and certainly just military spending wouldn't justify regional power. We both know except Military Expending other variables are very close for Iran and Turkey. So is just number of Military budget what makes Turkey the regional power? Seems you are looking to this power-political issue more mathematically than needed.
 * 3. As it goes for the Military budget it worths mentioning that Iran usually tends to underreport its Military budget. For those who consider Iran's nuclear program as a military program worths mentioning that non of considrable budget which has been spent on nuclear program have been included in official Military budget. This goes for other Iran's potentially military programs as well. In other hand most of money which Iran pays to Hezbolah, Hamas, Iraq Shiee and... are not included in Military budget.
 * Conclusion: As it goes for numbers (socio-economic variables) Iran and Turkey are very close. The only considrable difference is Military budget which Turkey seems to have a larger one. In other hand arguably Iran has far larger influence in the region than Turkey as we discussed in other comments. It seems for now it comes down whther we want to give higher weight to Military budget vs. Regional Influence. I think the actuall influence has more to say in Regional power than Military budget. The ideal goal of Military budget is to gain influence, Iran already has the higher influence while Turkey for different reasons doesn't. Overall these two countries are so close which make it impossible to announce one rather than other as THE regional power. This is not math and it doesn't come down just to who spends more money to buy guns.
 * I think we need show in the article this uncertainity rather than cursory announce one as the regional power.Farmanesh 16:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * If this was the "power n inter'l relations" article, there would be more need to mention lots of countries. As it is, it's about regional powers -- and by the definition in the article itself, there can be only one regional power in a region unless the region has more than one Great power (and this is not the case in the Middle East).  As to my sources, I use many -- though for the sake of this argument let's say I use the CIA World Factbook .  As for bold and italic -- italic 'contender' countries don't in general merit their own paragraphs, and Iran is only an exception because of the unusual situation with Turkey's region (as discussed above).
 * Military power is the largest determiner of regional power, yes. Read the WP article on realism, or if you prefer to read real sources I'll give some references: "Concentration, Polarity, and the Distribution of Power" by Mansfield, ISQ 37 (1993); "Polarity, The Offense Defense Balance, and War" by Hopf, American Political Science Review 85 (1991); "Brother Can You Spare a Paradigm" by Feaver et. al., International Security 25 (2000).  For online reading directing relating to the question of power, read the COW project, especially its methodology section.  This will give you a much better understanding of the way people actually study power in international settings.  (If you finish these but still want more, I could try to dig some other references up.)
 * As to your point #3, I wasn't relying on Iran's report of their budget, which is unreliable (though more reliable than the Chinese government's report of their budget). I was using a source (CIA World Factbook) which determines this figure independently.
 * Just because you're uncertain doesn't mean you get to override the consensus opinion of editors, which before both of us had decided Turkey was more of a regional power than Iran. In fact a good argument could be made that Iran plays third fiddle to both Turkey and Saudi Arabia... not that I'm making that argument, mind you. CRGreathouse (t | c) 19:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

In a thesis by Martin Beck for the German GIGA institute, (4th on Google if you search for Regional Power In Middle East) he mentions that the major powers in the Middle East are Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Isreal. Note he doesn't mention Turkey. He also makes the point that in the current political climate, Iran and Saudi Arabia are begining to become more powerful than the other two. This could be used as a source for this article so if someone who knows how to put external links makes the link it would be greatly apercrted. Aussie King Pin 10:26, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

This entire discussion is completely useless. None of you are working from a shared definition of regional power, much less a shared definition of power, or even shared definitions of what constitutes a region. You're just citing your own opinions about which countries constitute a regional power. Who wants to read what a collection of 14-year-olds think are the major regional powers? You must have sources from reputable published authors who say XYZ country is a regional power for ABC reasons. It's that simple. Please re-read WP:ATT.&mdash;Perceval 07:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

?
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)

Who put the globalize tag in? Aussie King Pin 08:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * It looks like it was 23prootie a few months back. CRGreathouse (t | c) 00:04, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * 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)

Africa
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)


 * 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)

Goal of this page
I believe that the goal of this page should be to provide a factual and encyclopedic article which presents useful, informative and realistic information that will help improve the audience's understanding of the world they live in. Perhaps next time they hear a country mentioned in the news they will be able to better understand and interpret events. For this reason I believe we should try to avoid bias towards countries we personally favour or disfavour and view things objectively. Let us not lose sight of this goal and get lost in 'promoting' or 'demoting' various nations for personal reasons.

What does everyone else think on this matter? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bob Hu (talk • contribs)


 * Are you getting at anything in particular, or do you just mean that in general? Certainly I agree with the sentiment, but that applies to all pages. CRGreathouse (t | c) 20:18, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I basically meant people who try to promote Greece, Turkey etc. as the dominant power in the Med or list Kenya and New Zealand as regional powers of their respective regions. I believe that no arguments can objectively be made in favour of these inclusions. I didn't want to name any specific examples in my previous post, but while on the topic I'd like to point out the Middle East - it's rather excessive. Someone cuts it back to Turkey/Iran (making it a reasonable length and relevance) and then somebody adds Saudi Arabia/Isreal then someone else has to add Isreal/Saudi Arabia to 'balance' things.
 * Also regions where the powers are very close i.e. Brit/Fra/Ger and Turkey/Iran don't necessarily need a 'decision' if it doesn't reflect the reality. In fact, a 'decision' may in fact be harmful as it could misinform readers.
 * One thing that I like about this page though is the fact that people do discuss things and don't go straight to the edit button, it's good to see that this page hasn't ended up under protection like many other politically related pages.
 * --I 04:53, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I also think we do not need to announce a winner here and choose one as THE regional power. We need to keep away from creating wikieality while in reality there is no clear cut regional power. Farmanesh 05:28, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

OR problems
Due to a recent AFD debate in which emerging superpower articles, which synthesized primary sources to argue a point rather than citing published reputable sources in a argument-advancing manner, were deleted, I have moved similar information on this article to a temporary workpage at Talk:Regional power/temp where OR and referencing problems can be worked out without affecting the credibility of the main article.&mdash;Perceval 04:03, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:OR is a non-negotiable content policy. It is better to have no information than information without sources. Do no re-add the content until is has been refactored with attributed sources.&mdash;Perceval 06:50, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

The sections on individual regional powers are the opinions of wikipedians and not verifiable cited information based on published reputable sources. Without attributed reputable sources the text is WP:OR. The information needs to be based on published sources as per WP:V, not the assessment of Wikipedia editors. Wikipedia cannot present its own theory on why certain countries are regional powers. It is here to present the "state of the debate" between published reputable experts. The current content is unacceptable. It needs to be refactored to return. For example:
 * "Middle East analyst Joe Schmoe writes in his 2005 report, XYZ in the Middle East, that the regional powers are ABC, DEF, and GHI. He cites the following reasons: blah blah blah, etc etc etc.  Mary Contrary from 123 Think Tank, in her 456 report, says that the regional powers in the Middle East are DEF, GHI, and JKL, for the following reasons: blah blah blah yadda yadda yadda."

What exists now is the original research of Wikipedians. The above example would be verifiable, referenced, cited information accurately reflecting the assessments of published reputable sources side-by-side such that readers know whose opinions they're reading and why that person holds those opinions. The current text is unacceptable and will continue to be removed, whereas text of the latter type will be a 1000% improvement.&mdash;Perceval 19:01, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


 * There's a difference between original research and an article in progress (see the templates at the top) that needs to have citations added. This article is in a state of major change; just look at the history.  Further, if you read the Talk page here, you can see editors discussing different sources and which and how to use them—I have myself discussed half a dozen at least.
 * Further, the page that you cite ("It is better to have no information than information without sources") reads prominently:
 * This is an essay. It is not a policy or guideline, it simply reflects some opinions of its authors.
 * WP:OR does not require, as the essay suggests, that unsourced content should be removed preemptively, and the work-in-progress templates recommend (in various essays and policy statements linked though) being lenient in the deletion of content while articles are still in such rough states.
 * CRGreathouse (t | c) 19:07, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I always enjoy when someone insists something being non-negotiable, it talks a lot about the person and his/her look at the world. As for our current discusion, as CRGreathouse said this is a work in progress, if you looked just few days ago I did add a source to the article and it is building up.
 * I also liked you sourced Jimbo as to justify your "non-negotiable" interpretation of his word, I have seen many in real world sourcing a phrase of a holy book (soposedly being from god) and say their interpretation is "non-negotiable" in order to justify terrorist acts.
 * Farmanesh 19:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Insisting on Wikipedia's content policies is hardly equivalent to terrorism. The requirement for adding content to Wikipedia is to uphold the content policies: no original research, verifiability, and NPOV.  Now, I did not delete the content that was challenged--I moved it to a temp page where is could be refactored.  It is better to work on it there where it will not mislead readers who happen upon this page.  It is certainly permissible to delete unreferenced, uncited, unattributed original research.  Indeed, WP:V states quite clearly that "Editors should provide a reliable source for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or it may be removed."  Again, I did not delete the content, I moved it to a temp page so that it could be rewritten on the basis of verifiable published sources rather than Wikipedians' personal opinions.&mdash;Perceval 20:17, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * This is really quite simple. When you add content, cite your sources. This is a full-size article and it only cites two references. All sections pertaining to Europe and North America are completely unreferenced. This is a simple policy- Cite your sources. Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own research and conclusions. We say what the sources tell us- and this article only has two cited sources- that's too few (actually only one source is cited properly-but I'm counting the simple external link). If this article is undergoing big changes-let's wait a couple of days and see if references pop up in the exsisting text before deleting anything- but leave the templates up. Sorry, but we don't know where much of the info in this article comes from and we need to tell our users that much of this article's content isn't verified (yet?).  Signature brendel  06:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

A new start
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)


 * 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)
 * Ok, now I see it was an admin who deleted the info. Alejcov 15:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

At first I was quite annoyed when I saw what happened (since it seemed against wiki policy) but after seeing the quality of the writing (although it only discusses Iran at the moment) I would have to say it may be for the best. It will however be necessary to ensure all additional information is up to the same standard of quality. --I 01:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC) P.S. I'm still not quite happy with what just happened, it doesn't seem right, especially as there was no discussion.


 * 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)

What is not OR in this article?
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)


 * 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. Alex  Covarrubias  Flag of Mexico.svg [[Image:Black ribbon.png|10px]] ( Let's talk! ) 01:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * 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)

Trying to solve OR problem
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)

A note on referencing
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)

Asia-Pacific or pacific?
There is this question as wether to have pacific a seperate regiona or to have it inside Asia-pacific? The references I gave about Australia's regional power status considered pacific a region which has australia as regional power. I think we should also reflect that. Asia-Pacific is so large that its sub-regionas should be included as we already have south asia and east asia.Farmanesh 13:41, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I brought Willy turner's answer to my above discussion here from my talk page so everyone can participate:Farmanesh 02:43, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * "Hi, how are you. just wanted to mention a few things;
 * South Asia is not a sub-region of Asia-Pacific. I have edited the Asia-Pacific article, as it was wrong about a few things.
 * East Asia shouldnt be considered a sub-region of Asia-Pacific. It is a region in its own right.
 * There is no land area known simply as Pacific.
 * If Australia is to be included as a regional power it can only be as part of Asia-Pacific or Oceania. I think Oceania might be best. Asia-Pacific is a rather impresise ill-defined region.
 * There should not be a section about Southeastern Europe. I suggest we put Turkey, Iran and :Israel in a section called Southwest Asia; as Middle-East is also ill-defined
 * Can you find a source saying Saudi Arabia is a regional power? I think most people would agree it is, but i havent found a source explicitly saying it yet.
 * Cheers Willy turner 02:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)"
 * On Asia-Pacific: may I know what is your basis for defining regions? I am using UN definition. UN defines Asia-Pacific as the region and South Asia, East Asia, Pacific and ... as its subregions. I can bring excat reference for it or if you want to check look for UNESCAP which is their regional office in asia-pacific. I would be happy to see your source and we can work this out before going to the article.
 * On Middle East: I agree Middle East is a messed up area but there is something very important here. We as wikipedians are not in the position to decide on this. Outside scholars should decide this and we qoute them, now if CFR defines Turkey as southwest EU, sorry but we need to either not mention it or mention it as it is. Sure I will continue to look for adding other countries too.
 * Lets finish our disscusion here before going to the article. Thanks for your help on the article, its getting a new life.Farmanesh 02:55, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Turkey is partly in Europe and partly in Southwest Asia. That is a fact. It could be classed under either region. However what is important is the region in which a country is a regional power. Turkey is not a regional power in Europe as a whole. The fact that theres a source saying Turkey is part of Southeastern Europe isnt relevant, because it is part of both Europe and Southwest Asia. South eastern Europe is too ill defined a region to have its own section. So Turkey should be counted as part of Southwest Asia Willy turner 03:08, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I have very similar position to you on this issue about regional complexity of Turkey and... but I think you are missing a point here. It doesn't matter much what we think, what matters is the refrence. The current reference which you gave (CFR) categorizes Turkey as southeast EU. We either can forget that refrence and find another one (I am wokrin on it myself) or if you want to keep it then we need to be loyal to the refernece.
 * And we can't define a new region from ourselves however I personally agree with your point. References mention Isreal and Iran as Middle East's regional power, we can't decide to change it by ourselves how much we think we are right.Farmanesh 03:15, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

UNESCAP isnt relevant. It is merely the name of an organisation covering Asia AND the Pacific. This isnt the same thing as the Asia-Pacific region. There is no global authority on what regions the world is split into.Please read the Asia-Pacific article. In fact please read the relevant articles for all regions mentioned in the regional power page, and look at Template:Regions of the world. These are my basis for defining regions. Willy turner 03:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I was working based on UN definition which is relevent. In fact it is much more relaible than wikipedia's regional pages which many of them don't have any reference.
 * In other hand I see merit of your point and don't disagree with it. So I think we can rearrenge ASIA-Pacific based on your suggestion.
 * But I hope this doesn't confuse my other point as regretfully we are talking about two problems under one talk page topic. Still if a refrence says a country (like turkey) is regional power of a certain area (like southeast EU in this case) we can not change that based on our own regions. We either should forget that reference or keep to its word.Farmanesh 03:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. The CFR article doesnt actually say which region turkey is a regional power in. It certainly doesnt say turkey is a regional power in Southeast Europe. The article does however mention the middle east. Plus as far as i can see your reference says Australia is a regional power in "Asia-Pacific" I think we should revert to my last edit. Willy turner 03:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Go on and revert for the Australia and Asia-Pacific case. But not the turkey part. Frankly the CFR reference is not strong, its a members meeting note rather than a paper. I hope we can find a stronger reference to substitute it. As of this one, the refernce doesn't say which region it sees Turkey in but CFR clearly categorizes Turkey as southeast EU.Farmanesh 04:11, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

In that case i think we should remove Turkey untill we find a reference that says its a regional power within a specific region, ok? Willy turner 18:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, the article is really going on well. We'll add better refernces and more country as we go. As I said above the next phase of article would be to enhance the refernces and make sure we are qouting unbiased references. But for that we have time...Farmanesh 21:13, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Blasthamy!!!
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)

Sorry couldnt find anything to do with European regional Powers. Ok ive made some changes to show the UK being a regional power hope it elps and stays there.

UK only has 2nd largest defence budget in Europe? This site says 1st and is 11 billion higher than France the 2nd highest. http://borgenproject.org/Defense_Spending.html This site it self ranks UK as the 2nd in the world followed by France.


 * 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)

West and East
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)

Well there are 5 great powers in Europe, so no one can be influence them or the rest would be middle powers. In the East Russia has pure dominance, but in the West theres no true regional power, and they wont listen to Russian at all because of NATO. It would be much simpler to refer the EU as the regional power. Countries that were once under russia's influence are now turning to the EU.

Brazil is a regional power in South America
It is broadly known that Mexico has been the regional and moral lider in Latin America since the 1950's, because it was the only free country with democratically elected leaders and that never suffered from a militar dictatorship during the whole century. However, since the 1990's it is true that Latin America doesn't seem to have a real and clear "regional power". This Brazilian user changed the title "South America" to "Latin America" saying Brazil is the "regional power" in Latin America, just because it has the largest "GDP and militar budget". That's not true especially for a region where that doesn't matter. Latin America is a complex region with nothing in common but the culture and language (except for Brazil). So I have changed back the title to "South America". Brazil is trying to establish itself as the "regional leader" of Latin America, but it seems to be working only in South America. For example, in the 2005 OAS election of Secretary General, the region was sharply divided between Mexican candidate and Brazil-supported Chilean candidate. All of North America, Central America, Peru, Paraguay and some Caribbean countries voted for Mexico, while almost all of South America and most of the Caribbean nations voted for Chile. This paper by Michael Shifter, professor at the Georgetown University says:
 * Lula has surprised many observers not only with his pragmatism in national policies, but also because of his assertive role in regional affairs. Building on Brazil’s self-image as a regional power, with disproportionate significance in South America[...]


 * From all indications, the US government is split on how to deal with Brazil’s attempt to establish itself as a regional power.

It was only during the administration of president Lula that Brazilian foreign affairs started trying to establish Brazil as a regional leader. Brazil failure is highly noted by the rejectal of almost all Latin American countries to support its proposal of being the "permanent leader of Latin America in the UN Security Council". Alex  Covarrubias  ( Talk? ) 01:02, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


 * In reply to your comment, I think you are really misinformed, as there is no doubt that Brazil is considered a regional power in Latin America. Your argument is that Brazil is not unanimously viewed as a regional leader in Latin America... but a country doesn't need the support of every nation in the region for it to be considered a power. It is a power by its OWN merits (economy, size, manpower, diplomacy, etc.)... whether other countries like it or not. On the other hand, Mexico's claim as regional power is very controversial. I have never seen Mexico stated as such.


 * "...Brazil is one of the potential great powers in international terms. Brazil is the world's fifth largest nation-state in both area and population and ninth in total economic output. It accounts for more than one-third of Latin America's total population and production. Its economy in 2006 outranked that of all but the United States, Japan, China, and the four leading countries of Europe. It has the world's eight largest share of American direct foreign investments, far exceeding those in any other Latin American country. In recent years, it has also been a major destination for portfolio investment."


 * I could cite hundreds of other references that support the fact that Brazil is indeed a regional power, but I'm really in a hurry, so I'll just cite a few:




 * Limongi 20:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)