Talk:Regional power/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Egypt?

Would anyone consider Egypt a regional power of the African or Middle East? The German Institute of Global and Area Studies considers the Egypt the regional power of Africa . Egypt has the 2nd largest eceonmy in Africa after South Africa, and the largest armed forces in Africa and the Arab world, but this may be contested against Iran. Egypt also holds the largest popualtion of any Arab country. Heres a link http://www.giga-hamburg.de/content/forumregional/pdf/giga_conference_RegionalPowers_0612/giga_RegPowers0612_paper_fuertig.pdf

please sign and date your posts. the article you are quoting does not say that egypt is definately a regional power in africa, north africa, or anywhere. indeed the article mainly talks about how egypt used to be a regional power, and how much it's power has declined. Willy turner 10:49, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Mexico a Regional Power?

I don't agree that Mexico is a Regional Power at least of Latin America, it could be a Regional Power of Central America, but nowadays it is considered to be part of North America.

In the other areas of the world, the article is divided between East, West, North, South not between ethnic or languagegroups. If this was the case in Europe it could be considered, Latin, Germanic, Slave and even Anglo-Saxon groups.

If we consider this, in the Americas case it should be South America and not Latin America.

Second case, Mexico has a great GDP but in overal terms GDP is not the only factor, we should consider military, power projection and foreign policy. Mexico has a ridiculous military and projection power and politically is a subalternous nation to the USA

Argentina, Venezuela or Colombia have greater military and power projection capabilities, historically they have been much more interventionous and agressive toward other nations than Mexico and today we can see the same, specially in Venezuela case. ACamposPinho 16:11, 13 May 2007

Personally I agree with you, but you need sources to say it. This encyclopedia is not a place for Orignal Research. Furthemore, editors have produced sources saying Mexico is a Regional Power of Latin America, if we change it to South America there would be no place in wich to put Mexico. Besides, Brazil's influence is not restricted to South America, it would not make sense to say it is restricted since the sources don't agree.Chico 15:43, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Chile

Can someone read the section on Chile and tell me that's not biaised and awfully written? Plus, I'm sorry to say that if Chile is considered a regional power, we'd have to include Argentina and Colombia... Maberk 01:44, 27 May 2007

GA on hold

The article is very well-written, and is very comprehensive with plenty of information across a broad spectrum. It is also very throughly referenced, however the references are unformatted. At the moment, only one reference is formatted properly (reference 105 next to the superpower note). The article seems to pass all other criteria, but with this many references they should be formatted. - • The Giant Puffin • 15:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The lead should probably be expanded as well. --Nehrams2020 20:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The references are still not formatted properly, and its been seven days, so I'm failing the article. Once you format the references with the {{cite web}} method, and expand the intro a bit, you should be able to obtain GA status in the future - • The Giant Puffin • 10:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Map

The different regions should be a shade of a light colour, and the respectful powers in a darker shade.

Argentina

Why is Argentina listed as a regional power? I agree that it is an important country in Latin America, but it does not meet the criteria of a regional power.

The truth is that Argentina is still recovering from a severe economic crisis, it's military has been reported as practically inoperational, as reported by "La Nacion" (a major Argentine newspaper) on its June 11, 2007 cover story: [1]. The article describes the Argentine military as in being in "terminal state", citing that out of its already small and old aircraft fleet (less than 100 in total) fewer than 30% are operational.

Furthermore, the country is not considered a regional power by its neighbors or the international community. An evidence to this is that there are no sources to back that up, resulting in (Orignal Research). Therefore, I think it should be removed from the article.

Any opinions on this issue? Limongi 17:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

________________________________________

Hi,

I think it is a regional power. Furthermore, it is the second or third "most important" nation in Latin America.

Neighbours do recognize Argentina as a regional power. Brazil and Argentina are usually referred to as "the Major MERCOSUR partners" while the rest of them are the "junior" ones. You can check that, for example, in [Mercopress, a southern-hemisphere news provider]. Also, you will see a lot of inmigrants from Bolivia, Paraguay and Peru going to Argentina in search for job oportunities. The article gives a lot of other reasons of why Argentina is a regional power, and it does hav e alot of references.

Hi!

I agree with you that Argentina is an important nation in Latin America. It has a large economy, population and land area. But I still don't think it meets the "criteria" to be considered a regional power, especially these:

• Comparatively high military capabilities - (in Latin America, Brazil, Mexico, Chile, Colombia and Venezuela have higher military capabilities and budgets [2])
• Economic capabilities - (Argentina's GDP is less than half of that of Brazil or Mexico [3])
• Political influence - (Besides Argentina's participation in peacekeeping missions (which many other Latin American countries have also done), it is not an influential global player or member of any high-level organization (G8+5, OCDE, G4, etc).

As for the references, they do not state Argentina as a regional power. Until you can provide sources that back your statements, I propose that Argentina should not be included in this article. Limongi 22:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

P.S.: Also, please sign your comments! :)

__________________________________________

Hi again, While Argentina does not have a powerful military and political influence on the world stage, it does in Latin America, and that is whata regional power is about: the region.

1 - :*Comparatively high military capabilities - If you check the List of countries and federations by military expenditures, you will see that Argentina spends more on its forces that Chile, Colombia and Venezuela. Do not be fooled by the "military size" lists: Argentina has a professional army, no conscipts. Chile, Venezuela, Colombia, Brazil and Mexico all have conscription. - Also, no other Latin American nation´s army has participated in so many missions like the Argentine. The US itself declared Argentina a MNNA because of that.

2 - :*Economic capabilities Argentina has the highest GDP PER CAPITA in South America. Almost 50% more than Mexico and Brazil. Also, its GNP is way above the Latin American average, in third place. It also tops the HDI Index in Latin America. Another example of Argentine influence would be the "Tango effect": Argentine economic crisis severely affected countries all over the continent, specially the neighbouring ones.

3 - :*Political influence The article mentions a lot about Argentina political influence in the region. It discouraged military takeovers in Ecuador and Paraguay and served as one of the four guarantors of the Ecuador-Peru peace process. As I said before, is regarded as one of the major partners of the MERCOSUR, togheter with Brazil; and people from all over Latin America come to Argentina in search of job opportunities. (That is a fact, you can look for Argentine inmigration numbers, and from where they come.) Most of the nations in Latin America diplomatically support the Argentine claim for the Falklands, despite their ties with the United Kingdom.

I recognize that if Argentina was located in europe, it wouldnt be a regional power at all. But being in Latin America, it is. So I vote for it to stay. Greetings, A.D. (not registered yet)

I think you are missing an important point, with all respect to your opinions, it doesn't matter much what we think about who is regional power. If there are outside resources mention a country clearly as regional power then it should be here and if not then forget it.

Have a look to all other countries, in the first sentence there are more than one reference for each of them.Farmanesh 07:12, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

_____________________________________________________

In the article you will find references to Argentina regional leadership in a wide range of issues.

If you want "outside resources mentioning the country clearly as regional power", In [the W. Clinton foundation website] you can check U.S. President Bill Clinton talking about Argentina: - "President Clinton responded by expressing similar appreciation for Argentine leadership on a number of issues" - "President Clinton mentioned -- talked about the Argentine role as the coordinator, beginning in 2000, of the free trade area of the Americas negotiation --" - "He noted that in the peacekeeping area, Argentina was actually the senior partner, having made a greater contribution to international peacekeeping than even the United States. Argentina is, in fact, the largest contributor to international peacekeeping in the Western Hemisphere." - "He also expressed appreciation for the Argentine lead in providing police to U.N. peacekeeping operations" - "Argentine leadership in promoting transparency and openness in global arms transfers. In this connection, he was praising Argentina's leadership in promoting a hemispheric convention on transparency in arms transfers."

Another Outside Source would be the [Council of Hemispheric Affairs] - analysis was prepared by COHA Research Associates Hampden Macbeth and Shana Ramirez: - "two South American countries still contend that Brazil and Argentina must not lose sight of their new transcendent roles as important regional leaders (...) Argentina fading as a regional power but with strong prospects of revival under President Néstor Kirchner".

Another Outside source would be David Sheinin from the Trent University, in [this article from the Tel Aviv University web]: - "Argentina became a leading training center for scientists and technologists from underdeveloped countries." - "In the 1980s, as a result of the international ties that were formed in the wake of its nuclear development, Argentina emerged as a leader of the non-aligned movement." - "With the possible exception of India, Argentina became the strongest voice among the developing nations excoriating both the Soviets and the Americans for their failure to significantly reduce the threat of nuclear war."

There are severeal other outside references in the article that back up the information. As a matter of fact, all the references are from outside. A.D.

Ah, i dont check on the page for a few weeks and some sly Argie thinks he can include his shitty country as a regional power without ANY sources backing him up. Dont worry friends, Argentina will NEVER be included on this page. You werent so powerfull when we BEAT THE SHIT OUT OF YOU in the Falklands were you? Rule Britannia! Willy turner 16:16, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

___________________________________________________

We are having a discussion over here. While the issue may be discussed, you have no right to delete the whole section just because you dont agree, and you specially have no right to insult me and my nation for no reason. I did nothing to you and I dont deserve to be treated that way. I just got registered in Wikipedia, so I will see what I can do about this. I strongly encourage you to read about civility. Of course, I have undone your vandalism.

For those who would like to keep discussing this issue seriously, I already gave you my outside sources: U.S. President Bill Clinton, the Tel Aviv University and, most important of all, the Council of Hemispheric Affairs, which refers to Argentina clearly as a "Regional Power", and talks about Argentine "Regional Leadership".

I have taken out some references that, while talking about Argentine leadership on certain issues, did not specifically refer to its regional importance.

Aletano

The comment made by User:Willy turner was offensive and a clear disrespect to Wikipedia's code of conduct (WP:CIVIL). May I remind that user that "our code of civility states plainly that people must act with civility toward one another". Also, no one is the "owner" of an article, even if that user has been the sole contributor to that article (which is not the case).

I still opose the changes made by Aletano as none of the sources mention Argentina as a regional power (only as a regional leader). But, since there is still not a clear consensus on whether or not Argentina should be included, for the time being I removed the irrelevant information (there is no need to mention that Argentina has two power plants, participated in peacekeeping missions, etc). Hope to see other opinions on this issue. Thanks. Limongi 02:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Please note that the main reference, the one from the COHA, clearly states: "with Argentina fading as a regional power but with strong prospects of revival under President Néstor Kirchner."

While the remark "fading" is a negative one, a literal interpretation tell us that, if something "is fading", that means that it has not yet "faded". So, Argentina is -still- a Regional Power.

Also, please note that the article was written on 2005. Since that year, Argentine growth has been +8% of its GNP, so those "prospects of revival" were clearly right. (You can check that on CIA Factbook)

It also says that "Brazil and Argentina must not lose sight of their new transcendent roles as important regional leaders". A Regional leader cant be too far away from being a regional power.

The reference from the COHA is a trusty one. It is not an unknown organization, it even has its own article on this Wikipedia.

Aletano

I'm not sure what is the difference between a regional power and a regional leader; and I don't know if Argentina is a regional power or not, but. Nobody denies that Brazil is more of a regional power than Argentina, but that doesn't keep Argentina from being one as well. I think you are failing to see the subject in a more atemporal way: Argentina has being a Regional Power without doubt during the first half (and perhaps more) of the 20th century, and is currently one of the fastest growing economies in the world (time will tell for how long). Argentina's influence in countries like Bolivia, Peru and Ecuador, is much more important than that from Chile or Brazil in several ways. Also, nobody gave solid argument against the unregistered (A.D.) user's answer. Argentina might have half of Brazil's GDP, but twice its PPP.

Talking about references, you will also find references quoting Brazil as a non-regional power[4]

my 2 cents. --Mariano(t/c) 12:38, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Limongi, not all the information that you erased was irrelevant. I restored some information that was not irrelevant, like what globalsecurity.org says about Arentina role in mantaining peace on the region. Also, my source clearly says "regional power". Why do you keep changing it to regional leader? Its the same thing anyways... Finally, I noticed you deleted the amount of Gas Natural Production. Why Mexico can have their amount of oil production, then? I restored that too. Aletano 21:59, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

New source found and added: Internationale Politik, the journal of the German Society on Foreign Relations, has an article that clearly states: "...Furthermore, South American countries other than Brazil and Argentina would probably prefer US leadership to the leadership of any South American regional power or to some entente between the most important regional powers, Argentina and Brazil."

For those who wanted more references than the one from the Council on Hemispheric Affairs, this should settle the issue. Aletano 23:59, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Im sorry to bust Argentina's bubble, but is could not possibly be a reigonal power. In 1982 the country of Argentina took over the UK owned Falklands islands. With in 3 months the Falklands were retaken by the UK, country over 8000 miles away. No country with regional influece can loose a war to a none regional power and still be a regional power.

Im sorry but that doesnt make any sense. First, because you are talking about something that happened 25 years ago. Second, most countries listed in this web as a regional power would probably lose a war against the United States. So, they should all be deleted, then? I think the "regional power" concept is quite clear: A power within the region. Losing a war against another power from outside the region doesnt keep a country from being a regional power. When you say "No country with regional influece can loose a war to a none regional power and still be a regional power." do you have any sources to back that up or is it just your opinion? There are outside sources calling Argentina "a regional power". They are listed in the article. Aletano 06:44, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

So your telling me that losing a war in your region still makes you regional power even though you cant take a few islands. Wow I see your logic, but theres one problem. It doenst make sense. This article mentions Brazil and Chile \, but not Argentina http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/article.aspx?id=739. This article mentions Argentina as a regional power after WW2, but declined over time and Brazil and Mexico now becoming the regional powers. It also mentions Venuzala as a rising regional power, but not Argentina. https://email.rutgers.edu/pipermail/global_initiative/2006-October/000096.html

You still make no sense. So I have to repeat myself. First, because you are still talking about something that happened 25 years ago. Second, because most nations listed in this article have actually lost wars against powers from both: outside and inside the region. Japan, Germany, France, the Russia-China war, Turkey (which also failed to "take an island"), Mexico and the more history you know, the more examples that can be given.

About those articles: one of them is not even an article, but an e-mail. The other one, who mentions Brazil and Venezuela as regional powers, was written by "José Orozco", a venezuelan freelance journalist.

The articles that portray Argentina as a Regional Power, listed in the article, come from the Council on Hemispheric Affairs and from Internationale Politik, two well-known organizations. Finally, if you start looking for articles that state that some country is not a regional power, you will find several of those for each country listed here. As an example of that, here is an article that states that Brazil is not a regional power: [5]. Of course, I would never suggest to remove Brazil from the list, as it is quite clear that it is a regional power. Aletano 22:48, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe that in Latin American only Mexico and Brazil could be considered regional powers, Argentina does not have the economy, nor the population, nor the global presence to be considered with such title, the thing is that a lot of statistics are only focused on South America (and not all of Latin America), therefore in SA they have to put someone beside Brazil, that's why they include Argentina, but if the statistic include all of Latin America, then it would only include Mexico and Brazil because Argentina is not even closed to these two. Supaman89 18:05, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

There are two valid referenced sources that state that Argentina IS a Regional Power. To counter that, we will need more than just your opinion. Aletano —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.136.190.63 (talk) 16:06, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

The sources are invalid. One [6] states Argentina as a regional power in SOUTH AMERICA, and not Latin America. The other mentions Argentina as a "fading regional power" in South America [7]. Furthermore Argentina does not meet the criteria established in the article's definition. Therefore, by consensus and until relevant sources are added, Argentina shall be removed from the article. Limongi (talk) 22:55, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Sources are valid.

1. South America constitutes more than 70% of Latin America total economy and geography.

2. A "fading" regional power is a regional power, until it completely fades.

As I said before, in order to counter sources you need other sources, at least two of them, stating that Argentina is not a regional power. Also, those sources must be as reliable as the ones cited.

Finally, there is no concensus when you come here, delete, and state that "concensus has been reached".Aletano (talk) 01:06, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

There are now two more sources indicating that Argentina is a regional power (4 in total). Aletano (talk) 02:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

NORTH AFRICA

north Africa isnt included... i think we should include it with the Middle East, as Middle east and North Africa (MENA) since they are very much linked to each other culturally, and linguistically then North africa and the rest of Africa!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arab League (talk • contribs) 04:19, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Oceania

"Australia is considered a regional power by academics at the Australian National University." In the interests of non partiality It might be nicer to exclude pronouncements by Academia and People of the nation being described. 192.18.43.225 16:11, 15 October 2007 (UTC)blufox

pathetic article

this article is pathetic.It's just a bag of out of context quotes of some ,unknown academics,with the only merit that they have a degree,with no other consideration.--88.82.46.249 18:27, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Argentine?

Ok one small question. Why is argentina considered a regional power, even though it failed to capture 2 small islands on its front door step? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.69.186.204 (talk) 07:22, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Argentina is considered a regional power by the academic sources stated in the article, currently four.

Losing a war does not prevent a country from being a regional power - specially if you lose a war against a country from outside the region. That kind of reasoning is pointless: why is France listed if it was occupied by Germany? Why is Turkey listed if it couldnt get Cyprus? Why is Japan listed if it couldnt beat Korea? Why is Israel listed if they couldnt keep the Golam heights for themselves? etc...

Also, most countries listed in the article would surely lose a war against the United States. Following your reasoning, no country but the United States should be a regional power?

This issue has been discussed before, please read the discussion page for more details.

Aletano

This user participates in a fanatic way in every theme about the falklands war and always with a really nationalistic and partisan point of view. This time even when many users have debated with him and demonstrated with facts and argumentas that Argentina is not a regional power in comparison to Brazil or Mexico in Latin America, he sustains a kind of trolling around the article.

kardrak 21:25 UTC, 9 December 2007 —Preceding comment was added at 21:26, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

First, this doesnt have anything to do with the "Falklands war". I dont know why do you bring that up, I have never mentionated that in this article since it would be totally out of place.

Second, The inclussion of Argentina as a regional power in Latin America is backed up with four external sources. You have been vandalizing this page by removing Argentina without any kind of justification. Argentina has been listed for months in this web before you came in and decided to take it away. You need more than jusy your opinion to counter four external sources clearly citing Argentina as a regional power.

Lastly, please stop the personal attacks in my talk page, and also if you are going to revert changes, log-in first. Doing it without logging in to avoid the 3RR rule is against the rules.

Of course, you too have been reported for your fanatism. Aletano (talk) 03:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} As you can see in the history of the article, the user who asked for edit protection changed the article just minutes before requesting it. This is a strategy for him to make the changes he wants and avoid other people to revert them. The issue was being discussed in the "Argentina" section of this Talk Page, when he arrived and started removing Argentina. His changes were always reverted, so he just removed it and then had the page protected. Please revert this unjustified and undiscussed deletion of sourced material (vandalism): 18:20, December 9, 2007 Kardrak (Talk | contribs) (40,037 bytes) (Undid revision 176780223 by Aletano (talk)this user has been reported sevral times, is a fanatic from the Falkland's war.) (undo)

Aletano (talk) 03:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

As everybody notice, there is not consensus, so as Limongi said, without a consensus the best for the article is to remove Argentina. This article is very old and at the begining there was not any mention to Argentina, so we should not be arguing about why not to include it, but why yes? At same time is evident that nobody else support the insertion of Argentina on this article except by Aletano; just take a look at all the discussion.

kardrak 4:25 UTC, 11 December 2007

Argentina has been included for months until you came and started removing it. If you care to take a closer look at the discussion, you will notice that most people who was against was only saying that there were no external sources to back up the information. Since four external sources were found, that people stopped making any comments. (And Argentina remained listed for months). But you just wont care about that. You come here and instead of discussing the issue, you make personal attacks against me calling me a fanatic from the falklands war (I havent edited any falklands-related article in months) and a troll. Well, maybe you are the troll, since you are the one who started the edit war. Aletano.

N Edit declined. No consensus, no clear description of proposed edit. Aletano, stop the personal attacks or you may be blocked. Sandstein (talk) 19:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

This is totally pointless. Argentina was there before, there was no concensus to REMOVE IT in the first place. Im frustrated that an administrator wont even care to look at the history of the article. Also, I didnt make any personal attack. On the other side, I was called a fanatic of the Falklands War, as if I have ever even mentionated the Falklands in this article, and I was also called a troll. Im totally upset with the low quality of Wikipedia admins. Im beggining to understand why serious institutions (Like Tutor.com for example) dont take this encyclopedia seriously and discourages students from looking for information here. Aletano (talk) 03:43, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

HISTORY OF THE ARTICLE

This is when Argentina started being included in the article: (cur) (last) 22:45, June 20, 2007 Limongi (Talk | contribs) (36,916 bytes) (→Latin America - Removed irrelevant information related to Argentina) (undo)

This is when Kardrak -using just his IP- deleted Argentina for the first time, without any reason, more than four months later: (cur) (last) 19:55, October 29, 2007 189.180.70.169 (Talk) (39,307 bytes) (→Latin America - true) (undo)

This is just to show you that Im not the only one who has reverted Kardrak´s vandalism: (cur) (last) 19:55, October 29, 2007 AnonGuy (Talk | contribs) m (40,732 bytes) (Reverted 1 edit by 189.180.70.169 identified as vandalism to last revision by Pataramyra. using TW) (undo) (cur) (last) 21:46, October 29, 2007 Farmanesh (Talk | contribs) (40,732 bytes) (Undid revision 167955553 by Kardrak (talk) Why you delete referenced material? thats vandalism. If you have a point, say in talkpage) (undo) (cur) (last) 11:47, October 3, 2007 Farmanesh (Talk | contribs) (40,513 bytes) (Undid revision 162018435 by 198.209.30.104 (talk) rv vandalism) (undo)

And finally, this is to show you how Kardrak changed the article and asked for protection inmediately after: (cur) (last) 18:46, December 9, 2007 Ryan Postlethwaite (Talk | contribs) m (Protected Regional power: edit war [edit=sysop:move=sysop] (expires 21:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC))) (undo) (cur) (last) 18:20, December 9, 2007 Kardrak (Talk | contribs) (40,037 bytes) (Undid revision 176780223 by Aletano (talk)this user has been reported sevral times, is a fanatic from the Falkland's war.) (undo) Aletano (talk) 04:35, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I happen to agree that Argentina should not be listed as a regional power. I'm so sorry, Aletano, that your beloved country lost much of its old glory. --Taraborn (talk) 22:43, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

"Current powers": Inherent flaw

Wikipedia is encyclopedia: what is "current" today will not be current tomorrow. Wikipedia articles are not newspaper, and should not be snapshots of the "today".

Therefore I suggest to remove the word "current" and make titles to include time period stamp, e.g, "--United States (since 20th century)--" (or since 19th?), "--Soviet Union (1945-1992)--", "--Iraq (??-??)--", etc., Any comments? `'Míkka>t 08:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Nice thing about wikipedia is it is not paper and can change with time. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 10:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

You totally missed my point. A have no problem with changing with time. I am against amnesia. Past information is just as encyclopedic as today's. If some country was "regional power" 20 years ago it must be listed here as well. `'Míkka>t 16:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

You might want to check out Historical powers then. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 00:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

A good pointer, badly missing from the article. Added. But... The article specifically talks about really old powers, ending by 1814. `'Míkka>t 01:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Israel

Israel was always and will always be the Middle East's Regional Power. Israel's got the strongest economy (Not a one that will fall in 20 years (Iran, Saudi Arabia)), by far the strongest military force. Israel's relativly low military budget is because soldiers get a very low pay. Compare Israel's GDP per capita to Iran, Egypt and Saudi Arabia. Guy0307 (talk) 01:17, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Who said Saudi Arabia's GDP is higher than Irans?

Here: List of countries by GDP

List by the International Monetary Fund 21.Iran $647,592 28.Saudi Arabia $417,669

List by the World Bank 15.Iran $734,500 22.Saudi Arabia $491,000

List by the CIA World Factbook 20.Iran $599,200 28.Saudi Arabia $371,500

[8] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kermanshahi (talk • contribs) 19:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe the list is referring to nominal GDP, not PPP. Bogdan ^що? 20:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Mexico is apart of BRIMC

Can someone add that the BRIC has now changed to the BRIMC (Brazil, Russia, India, Mexico and China) as the next top five dominating countries? Casey1817 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 06:06, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Sweden - a regional power in the nordic region?

I think Sweden must be added. It is the most influential country in the nordic region of Europe and has also a big cultural impact on many European countries. 78.42.106.215 (talk) 10:50, 26 September 2008 (UTC) Peter

Italy/Regional Power link

I provide a link where is clearly cited that Italy is a Regiona Power:

http://www.carabinieri.it/Internet/Editoria/Rassegna+Arma/2001/3/Studi/02_De_Marchi.htm

Besides this link, I think Italy should be included as a Regional Power, based on the definition itself and by comparing it with other lesser powers that are considered Regional. Italy is part of the Contact Group for Kososvo, along France, USA, UK, Russia and Germany. It has regional influence in the balkans, note that Greece or Turkey are not on this group and are close to Kosovo too. If it wasn't a reginal power, Italy wouldn't be included.
Italy is also founder member of Central Europe Initiative and leader of that group. It has considerable influence in countries like Poland, which is closer to Germany, even in germanic Austria, Italy has great influence. Slovenian Air defence is done by Italy, Russia's third biggest partner is Italy, and so on.... It isn't a Regional Power?

ACamposPinho 1:55, 27 July 2007

Thanks for the link, I guess it is in Italian so you are welcome to use it in Italian wikipedia and mention Italy as a regional power there. As for English wikipedia, please find english reference. If Italy is a regional power there should be plenty of such english references as there are for all other countries in the list.

As for your reasoning, I respect them and don't reject them but it is OR. Please read wikipedia policy regarding OR.

Please note I have nothing against Italy as regional power; it is just the standard which should be kept. Otherwise soon we will have 190 countries listed here.Farmanesh 18:45, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I saw in the Great Power page, some links regarding Germany's politicians general view of Germany as a midlle power in Europe, and those pages where all in german.

So, for Germany and Great Power there ins't problem, but for Italy there is in this section. In what we stand? The rules must be for all. Italy is a Regional Power.ACamposPinho 4:04, 31 July 2007

If you feel Germany has been unjustifibly added to that page please do protest and start a talk on article's talk page. As for any country here including Italy please find proper references. If there is no English reference regarding Italy as regional power while all other countries listed here have several, then Italy is not in the place for this article.Farmanesh 05:43, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, don't use falacious arguments. First you said to look to wikipedia policies, now you say that in this page there is a rule and other pages have other rules.

So, in what we stand? I think wikipedia rules aren't diverse from article to article and if we have german links in one page, we can have italian ones too. I also saw link in other articles to pages in Dutch, German, Swedish and so on.ACamposPinho 2:22, 1 August 2007

Do not misunderstand me please. I did not say there are different rules on articles. As far as using non-english refernces they are not encoraged as they are not easily verifiable. Based on wiki policy "Because this is the English Wikipedia, for the convenience of our readers, English-language sources should be used in preference to foreign-language sources, assuming the availability of an English-language source of equal quality, so that readers can easily verify that the source material has been used correctly." and "published translations are generally preferred over editors performing their own translations directly". But that said if non of above are avilble you may translate it this way yourself: "Where editors use their own English translation of a non-English source as a quote in an article, there should be clear citation of the foreign-language original, so that readers can check what the original source said and the accuracy of the translation."

However, we need more than one reference showing a country is a regional power. Please have a look to all other countries in the list. As you see they all have several references, I think you have checked for more reference and you have not find, otherwise why we have this discussion?Farmanesh 05:59, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to unknown editor who added reference for Italy. Would s/he please recheck his/her claim about mentioning Italy by "author B.A. Roberson". As far as given link goes there is not such mention in the book. Please provide the page which such claim has been made.Farmanesh 00:54, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I added it. Give me a minute or so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.226.67.36 (talk) 01:32, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok the book talks about turkey and the middle easts relation with the regional powers of france italy Uk germany in terms of trade and how turkey didnt come up to spec to those powers.

Oh one more thing can we please get some more links to why Italy is a regional power? I fear 4 isnt enough. Im gonna find more.

Thanks a lot. So which page says Italy is a regional power in that book? I tried to find but couldn't.Farmanesh 01:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

157-158 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.226.67.36 (talk) 01:56, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I think Italy WAS regional power without a doubt. But over time, and after the 1950's source ont he page, it has lost great power status. someone mentioned it has influence in Poland, im not sure about the veracity of this statement, but after John Paul's passing and the end of communism I wonder how strong this is. considering the stability in Italy's own government, its inability to bring Libya into the international fold (Americans managed the de-nuclearisation), and the presence of 13 MP's from italy in Union for Europe of the Nations shows the italian house is not entirely in order. how can they be a regional player as strongly as they were?Lihaas (talk) 15:42, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

This article should be revised and updated

Hiearchy of power:

GLobal Power: US is the unrivalled global power today. Its hard power is in a dimension of its own, it capacity and momentum to innovate, its pervasive culture good or bad, makes its soft power felt globally. Its economy is the largest in the world, its population growing, its currency the reserve of the world, it is feared and respected throughout the planet.

2. Major-Powers: There are only two. Russia: A rapidly declining one. largest country on earth, Straddles europe, middle-east, central and east-asia. Significant hard-power though rapidly atrophing, declining soft-power, immense resource power, declining population, pervasive corruption, political nihilism and legions of enemies without and traitors within. Largest stockpile of nuclear Weapons. Only country with capacity to annihilate the Global-Power.

China: A rapidly ascending power, phenominal investment in hard-power, rapidly increasing soft-power in central asia, africa and south-east asia. Growing population, rapidly growing economy, rapidly transforming itself into an industrial and knowledge powerhouse.

3. Middle Powers: Israel, Saudi Arabia, UK and India.

Israel is the defacto leader in middle-east today. It has unrivalled intellectual potential. its hard power is felt as far as europe, central-asia and south Asia. Entire middle-east is in its thrall, its existence and prosperity is the cornerstone of american and european foreign policy. It is one of the top 4 largest arms suppliers in the world. its economy one of the most innovative.

Saudi-Arabia: The worlds preeminent energy supplier, it sets the pace for global energy prices and supplies and hence the health of global economy and power relations. it is the custodian of the two holy mosques and a leader among the billion strong islamic world. Immense financial and inspirational source for wahhabi terror, which even ramzan kadyrov laments, has driven chechens to mass-terror. Through its arabic language and islamic literature exercises immense soft-power thorughout the islamic world and hence eurasia and North-America.

UK: Financial centre of the world, despite New-York claiming the throne. Through its imperial past and its language exercises phenomenal soft-power throughout the world. Rapidly replacing french language in global discourse, has significant hard-power. One of the few nations with autonomous nuclear-triad and air-craft carriers. Robust economy, shelters world famous criminals and masterminds and influences europe through divide and rule, without itself joining the euro. Sponsers terror and political subversion through first rate spy network and NGOs and masterfully keeps Eurasia destabilized and weak.

India: One Billion people, neo-liberal coolie of the americans. Rapidly expanding economy, brilliant but servile people ready to hand over their nuclear assests and military complex to americans, exercises considerable soft-power through yoga, philosophy, ancient heritage, film industry. Most significant strategic location with China in North-east, Middle-east in the west, Central-asia in the north and Indian Oceon in the South. Significant and rapidly expnading consumer of energy. Immense potential for hard-Power and Innovative Economy. Rapidly Increasing population.

Minor Powers:

Germany and Japan due to their innovation and economy (but colonies nonetheless), rapidly declining and decaying populations facing extinction. Germany crushed under permanent guilt.

France: due its still pervasive soft power through language and culture (though declining), its influence in Africa, its significant hard-power and force-de-frappe. Veto member in Security Council. Legacy power from imperial times.

Brazil: Largest Latin Country. Leader in South-America. Trying to be an innovative economy. Significant natural resources, expanding gdp and population. Portuguese is not a global language though, so a soft-power hadicap.Soccer.

Turkey: Third most powerful NATO country. Immense Geostrategic Importance, rapidly expanding energy hub. Guaranteer of Israel's security. Expanding population and economy, trying to be an innovation and financial hub, Significant ability and say in NATO decisions, unlike germany and other colonies. Significant legacy Soft-power from ottoman era. Leader among turkic nations.

Iran: A near minor power. Some legacy soft-power. Leader in the Shia World. One of the main energy suppliers mostly in Euros, Immense geostrategic significance. Never been colonized by European Powers, like Thailand and Ethiopia except during active wars. Significant cultural influence since ancient times in middle-east, caucasus and central-asia.

Among Minor powers only Turkey has the potential to become a middle-power in next 10-20 years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Geopolitics8 (talk • contribs) 11:03, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

No.

-G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.24.149.170 (talk) 20:37, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

What a load of rubbish - where did you get that hierachy of powers? I don't think Israel or Saudi Arabia even come close to the power of France or India let alone the UK. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Colliver55 (talk • contribs) 12:59, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Terrible. Turkey has more chance of becoming a "mid-power"? compared to germany,india, brazil? brazil beats turkey in every economic and social indicator, while having greater political and internal stability...

"guaranterr of israel security"? last time i saw israel defended itself pretty well in 6 consecutive wars, and is the region dominant military "trying to be an innovative hub"? which country isnt? "significant say in nato unlike germany and other colonies"? turkey is always one of the A-listers in the US economic and military aid, and has a automatic-alliance system with the US in foreign matters, seems to me much more like a "colony" to me... of course your opinion is always valid, but maybe you are not having a balanced approach to the matter? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.54.28.207 (talk) 20:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Brazil is not an Oil "superpower"

The next source: http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/nov2007/db20071115_045316.htm?chan=top+news_top+news+index_businessweek+exclusives

only says is potentially an important player in oil production, with 100,000 barrels at day and potentially at the best 1 million barrels at day. For example, Mexico produces 3.8 million barrels at day. Plus those reserves have not been proved. Saying "it is already" an Oil superpower is original research.

Kardrak 05:29, 7 Jun 2008 (UTC)

Original Research

This article has quite a bit of OR and needs to be greatly overhauled. Nirvana888 (talk) 01:37, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Need any help?

Hey, I've been working on articles like these for a while, and I had heard that this article needed a lot of help. What can I help with? --Hobie (talk) 03:44, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey, references for starters need to be cleaned and formatted. Sort of like what Species did in middle power which is why I invited him to come here. Nirvana888 (talk) 06:27, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Anything else? --Hobie (talk) 16:07, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

• Lead summary sentence should be expanded.
• OR/irrelevant sections should be removed e.g. "Brazil and Mexico are regional powers in Latin America: they are the only :countries in the Americas (besides the United States and Canada) which are part of the G8+5; the latter is the only Latin American member of the OECD and is also a party to the North American Free Trade Agreement."
• Sources need to be vetted.
• Sections need to be sourced.
• General editing for consistency in neutrality, prose, grammar.

I'll work on cleaning up some stuff but if we could get a group of people here it would really help getting this off the ground. Nirvana888 (talk) 16:28, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Hobie. I reverted the article to how it was. I understand the article needs to be improved, but I felt the new version didn't provide enough information for each of the powers listed. Colliver55 (talk) 13:46, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey Colliver, are you up for improving this article with us. How do you think we can correct the OR, synth problem? Nirvana888 (talk) 14:06, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey Nirvana yeh sure maybe we can go through one country at a time and see what we think. Colliver55 (talk) 09:40, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey im not sure if Turkey should be considered a regional power for Europe. Turkeys infleunce in Europe is limited, especially when you consider that their main 'political opponent' seems to be Greece which is not a regional power and seems to be pissed off at most of its neighbours. What im saying is that Turkey doesnt have the regional influence in Europe, maybe the middle east, but not Europe. Countrys that get pushed around by Greece are not regional powers. What are other opinions on this? i think that Turkey should be moved to the Middle East section, especially seeing how they would have influence over other Islamic countries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.160.168.50 (talk) 16:15, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

My main issue with the article is that it portrays Egypt and Iran are more important regional powers, than Israel, which clearly isn't the case. See my comment here. Guy0307 (talk) 09:03, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Middle East

The section about middle east is ridiculous. Almost every country there is listed as a regional power. If most of them are regional powers, than they are powers over who? An area containing comparable powerful countries shouldn´t have regional powers. If that geographic area hasn´t a country that obviously excels their neighbors and exerts influence over them, than none can claim to be a regional power, instead of everyone.

Joevicentini (talk) 04:34, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Exactly! This Nivana888 guy, for some reason, insists on putting even Syria and Iraq to the list. It seems that Syria and Iraq have been removed from the list several times by several people for reasons that are easily understandable, but Nirvana888 put them back. He refers to his citations #3 and 30 as proof, but I just looked through these materials; neither says Syria or Iraq are regional powers in the sense of the definition "regional power" we have today. They both refer to these countries as powerful, but not as "regional powers." Why insist so much, Nirvana888? In fact, like others mentioned, the list should have only Turkey and Israel, and perhaps Iran, too, but definitely not Syria and Iraq!. ~~Jack~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.157.78.29 (talk) 23:25, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree this is turning into a complete shambles. If there's reliable sources for all seven countries then that's clearly not enough; we need some objective criteria for identifying which if any is a regional power. From the start of the article it looks like Turkey might fit both main definitions including the GIGAS eight-part one. If we stick with these two definitions, the others all look more dubious with smaller economies, tiny populations, unsecure territories, disputed borders, incomplete diplomatic connections and that's just the start. The whole article probably needs a tidy-up but this section is like a list of any local country of any size with more than two tanks or a photograph of a nuke. Has anyone got the historical/political/geographical nous to make objective sense of it and trim it ruthlessly? Zagubov (talk) 00:23, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Very well said, and funny! But I am sure this Nirvana888 guy would change it again, and re-include his dear Iraq and Syria. Just a quick check of "history" shows that he has been changing this all along DESPITE what everyone else thinks and DESPITE all the evidence to the contrary. ~~Jack~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.157.78.29 (talk) 23:29, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

19:59, 12 November 2009 (UTC)189.183.19.227 (talk)

Turkey and Mexico?

I don´t believe Mexico is a regional power. Over who? South America is definetely not under the influence of Mexico. In the present it follows strongly the leadership of Brazil (moderate democracies) or Venezuela (radical leftists). In the past Argentina had a substantial influence over south american affairs, but never Mexico. Central America is under a much more strong influence from USA than Mexico. So under this picture how can Mexico claim to be a regional power? The fact is that Mexico is unfortunately too close to the world´s sole superpower to have the chance of being a regional power.

Mexico has a strong cultural influence in both central and South america, even more so than Brazil due to language. Many mexican TV shows are popular in central and South america (even in Spain)sometimes even more popular than their own local shows. Mexican television is the most influential in any iberian language (Spanish/Portuguese) worldwide. Telmex/america mobil (the biggest telecomunications company in Mexico) has a big share of the market in central and south america. Mexico has the second biggest economy in Latin america, not far behind Brazil(1st) and way ahead Argentina(3rd). It also has one of the highest GDP per capita in the region (ahead Brazil). It's the biggest latin american exporter (yes, ahead Brazil). Mexico is the only latin american country member of the OECD, It is also a member of the G20,. Mexico is so far the only latin american country to have hosted the olympic games (Brazil will be second 48 years after) It was also the first country worldwide to host the fifa world cup twice. Mexico has been by FAR the most politically stable country in the region over the last 70-80 years...... Need I say more... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.183.19.227 (talk) 19:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Some information you presented here about mexican cultural influence is not correct. Brazilian television is the most influential in any portuguese speaking nation by far, their shows are more watched than the mexican ones in absolutely every portuguese speaking country by a very comfortable margin. In the spanish speaking world, Brazilian shows are also more watched than the mexican ones in Argentina, Chile, Uruguay and Paraguay, which together with Brazil, correspond to more than 70% of south american telespectators. Even with Telmex, which has a good share of the telecommunications market on South America, Mexico has a lot less influence in South American economic affairs than Brazil. While Mexico has only Telmex, Brazil has half a dozen big multinationals operating on key areas of most south american countries (companies like Petrobras, Vale do Rio Doce, Gerdau, Ambev, Itaú Holding, Embraer). Politically speaking, the diplomatic ties are also much stronger with Brazil. Brazil has a common market with Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay, and Venezuela, free transit of people with every south american country, and is the country behind the creation of UNASUR, the South American Union, a model for integrated decisions within the continent, where every south american country is a signatarian. Another observation i would like to make is that besides being Mexico the biggest latin american exporter, Brazil is the biggest latin american exporter for other latin countries, thus confirming the position as the regional leader. I would say the impact Mexico has on South American affairs is even dimmer than the one Argentina has.

I've met many central and south americans an they're usually familiar with mexican TV, I've think some brazilians too (I might be wrong though) on the other hand Brazilian tv is completely unknown in Mexico more so than Colombian or Argentinian tv due in part the language barrier. I don't know where you come from with Brazilian TV being that popular in other latinamerican countries, It seems odd considering the language barrier. for many international networks and awards/competitions (MTV, VH1, Discovery, realities shows,etc.) brazil has its own versions while there's one for spanish speaking latin america thus your argument seems unlikely. You have to acknwledge Mexico has an edge here (and probably also Argentina and Colombia for that matter) because of the language. Bottomline is Brazil is somewhat culturally different due to its portuguese background as opposed to a Spanish background, language is the biggest means to spread culture. Also I'd like to point about that Televisa is the biggest netwotk/media in spanish or portuguese language (Check Forbes 2000) but I never implied It was the most influential in portuguese-speaking countries (that'd be absurd) It is though the most influential in spanish-speaking countries, and there are far more spanish-speaking countries in the region. Regarding economical and political influence I was making a case of Mexico being a legit power in the region but I never said It was more influential than Brazil in these areas. Also this is about "ALL" of Latin America and the caribean and the country's projection in and outside the region, you seem to be too South America-centered. 189.250.92.116 (talk) 19:07, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I don´t know a lot about Turkey but putting it in the same level of influence as India, China, South Africa and Brazil seems a little pushy to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joevicentini (talk • contribs) 19:18, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Turkey is probably in there because of its GDP, political and economic influence in the wider Middle-East, Central-Asia, Caucasus and Balkan area. Dont forget its one of the largest exporters towards the EU and Middle East and holds many regional headquarters for international companies. It also has one of the largest armies in the world wich is involved with training operations with the American, Israeli, Afghan and Uzbek Armies. And lets not forget the cultural influence it has on, for example Central-Asia. NeoRetro (talk) 06:17, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Also, Turkish economy and influence in the region; politic stiuation and current peace-oriented Sunni understanding of Islamic influence over Sunni Arabs are far more greater than Iran, another regional power according to this article. Joevicentini, before questioning Turkey's place in that list, you should start with.. Saudi Arabia.. Egypt.. Angola!? Ethiopia... --hnnvansier (talk) 05:46, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Recently the Israeli defense minister described Turkey as a "regional power" during the crises between Turkey and Israel. What is more interesting is putting Iraq and Syria in the list. These countries have no influence in the region as a result of their currenet political and economical instability. Egypt and Iran I can understand, but they too have very little influence in the region when compared to countries like Turkey or Israel. --Diren Yardimli (talk) 10:14, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Pardon me but , how can People ignore Turkish infule in Balkan peninsula and only shown it mid-eastern reional Power. Turkey is both!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.164.10.238 (talk) 14:37, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

A small patch of land doesn't equate to influence over Europe. G.R. Allison (talk) 15:06, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Turkey is regional power both Europe and Mid-east with strongly depending Ottoman empire how can u ignore Turkey's contribute in Bosna war or modernization of Bulgaria,Or Kosava, lots of them use Turkish as a formal language.Every of these conties have strong ties with Turkey(Bomania,Bulgaria,Greece,Bosnia,Albania,Macedonia ...(i cannot write every of them).In politics and Economy Turkey has a strong power in Balkans,Caucasus,Mid-east and Westernd Asia.Therefore Turkish should be listed both en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Southeast_European_Cooperation_Process —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aegeanfighter (talk • contribs) 14:51, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

As soon as the majority of Turkish land shifts into Europe it can be a European power, the issue is geography not politics. Sorry but that is my opinion. G.R. Allison (talk) 15:04, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

But it is not true ignoring its power into balkan countries is not Show the real facts there fore i ll but a notice in Turkey.Also being regional power depends economic and Politic isues also geographic and Turkey greatly afford these 3 case.I m not gonna change again to avoid edit-war. So i think Facts should be take more place than our opinions.According to Ur opinion ;Turkey will never be regional power in Europe evenif After joining EU. And for now,its great influence in Balkans so we should be fair .Also When it comes Turkey's neigbouring countries 5 of them out of 7 are considering European ( Council of europe memebers ; Greeece,Bulgaria,Cyprus,Armenia and Georgia) and 3 of at 7 them in WA (iran,syria,ıraq) so it is virtual that listing Turkey in only WA regional power , sorry --Aegeanfighter (talk) 08:58, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Turkey is mostly located within the Middle East, as said before "GEOGRAPHY NOT POLITICS". Sorry. G.R. Allison (talk) 14:58, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Also,3% of the country (East Thrace) lies in Europe, the rest in Asia. Turkey is mostly within the Middle East this it is a Middle Eastern regional power. The US has a lot of influence within East Asia, should it be also an East Asian power? Also your user page says you're a native speaker of English, I highly doubt this, but that is irrelevant to our debate, consensus must be reached. G.R. Allison (talk) 15:05, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

i guessed that u r gonna give this kind of example :) .is US in East-asia?? is US member of the East-Asian Confederation? is English their recognized language(kosova,macedonia,Bosnia...)?? did US rule East-Esia more than 500 Years?? is US' %30 coming from East-asia(Americans From Asia) i guess US is not :) I m not gonna mention about Turkey becasue u r already understand what i m Talking about ;) i think G.R. Allison is already doubtful for every subject in what we are Talking:) so ALL over the World KNow that Turkey is A regional Power in Balkans i think people have some problem to understand Turkey's uniq position .But it is surprising me to face with a this kind of people from UK. here some documants for you

• • http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8393516.stm from BBC-Europe
  • http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20090317_turkey_and_russia_rise

http://www.sosyalarastirmalar.com/cilt2/sayi6pdf/degerli_esra.pdf

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Southeastern_European_Cooperation_Process

and unfortunately u cannot separete Balkans from Turkey( but totaly u can asia from US).And my British friend i m sorry but u cannot change the facts i strongly advise u to read "Charles tilly-EUROPEAN revolutions, 1492-1992 " than come and Talk to me. And please do not misunderstand me i am not trying to make u uncomfortable ,But let me talk more than u i am coming from This geography ,u r only here for Vacation.Sorry if u have get any nervous from speech.And aslo thx for appreciating my English ;) --Aegeanfighter (talk) 18:27, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I can't keep telling you the problem is geography not politics. The article mentions current great powers, ancestry is irrelevant as is the history of Turkey. CURRENTLY Turkey is indeed a regional power, the region is not in question but Turkey is a Middle eastern power due to its location, please try and understand this. Why on Earth are you launching personal attacks, please refrain from it. I'll sum up for you... Turkey does have regional power in South Eastern Europe, however it is not a South Eastern European power, countries can have influence beyond their geographic location. As soon as the majority of editors reach a consensus on the matter Turkey will be moved to the Europe heading, if not it stays where it is. Do you understand my friend? (Sorry if I have been offensive.) G.R. Allison (talk) 22:28, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

OK no matter what you call for Turkish situation.I am not blame you about understanding mistake for Turkey's status at all.And i m wasting my time in here.We have totaly different wiew in regional power subject.I told u all the facts and news if u are keep thinking like this i cannot do anythink.I accept that Anatolia is historicaly belong Europe and Geographicaly in Western Asia like Cyprus and also Turkey is in Estern Thrance( that where more than %20 Turkish people live) only istanbul (17 million) so it makes Turkey not only historicaly,socialy or Economicaly in European more than %20 of it's population Geoegraphicaly in Balkans.In fact geography do not my main issue, i told u this because u care about this.For example Turkey also have strong power in Central asia but we are not puttung Turkey in That area this is different it is same with US's influnce in East asia. But in Balkans ,Caucaus and mid-east Situation very different for Turkey.and with central asia (nowadays with africa) TR start to being world power but anyway whatever you wander. I m sorry but i am not gonna reply one more becaue i dont think our discussion is harmonic.And i found this useless but if you want get more information about anything From Southeast u can write my User page,I would like to send u some source.Unless u behave aggressor :) and please read my documants clearly (i wrote before) .As i said it is final reply--Aegeanfighter (talk) 13:17, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I feel we have covered some ground, after this I won't be replying to your point either as this is going nowhere and you seem to be patronising me by informing me of the Turkish situation. Perhaps some other editors may like to share their thoughts on which heading to place Turkey under? G.R. Allison (talk) 23:32, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

i am eating my words with answering again. but please do not misunderstand me i am not patronizing you,It is Normal for me to know more about balkans eastern Europe and Turkey (i cant say i read a lot about mid-east) so as u actknowledge me to be right, u can also know more than me about UK's situation ( u look open mind and open development ) but there is a fact About Turkey and people always use it suiting their purpose,I am sorry if u sense somthing wrong from me.my aim is not bother you.I aint teling u somthing wrong with you. I just describe what is what(with documents all over the World).--Aegeanfighter (talk) 11:44, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Angola - An emerging regional power?

Angola is, today, the country with the highest GDP growth in Africa. Also, they have one of the largest armies in Africa, and it's one of the 10 largest oil producers of the world.

Also, they have the 3rd largest air force in Africa if I'm not wrong.

Aren't they considered a regional power? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.240.58.223 (talk) 15:05, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source saying that Angola is a regional power, and why it's a regional power. As we have to base the page on what the expertrs think, not what we think. Deavenger (talk) 00:52, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Ethiopia

Economics aside, isn't Ethiopia a regional power based on military prowess alone? Aside from Nigeria, they are the only African state that crosses borders to handle disputes (militarily). A good example would be their current operations in Somalia. I can't think of a power in East Africa that can match them. Scott Free (talk) 03:44, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, its ability to overrun a completely disintegrated non-state (Somalia) and hold off the attacks of a much weaker country (Eritrea) might not be considered that impressive by all... AnonMoos (talk) 06:55, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

We could add Ethopia if you bring some Reliable sources from IR, Geopolitic, Polisci experts with them stating that Ethiopia is a regional power and why Ethiopia is a Regional Power. Also, besides Military, you have to consider Economics, Sphere of Influence, Cultural Influence (their soft and hard power affecting their neiboring countries). If you can bring some sources for that, then we could look and see if Ethopia is considered a Regional Power. Deavenger (talk) 16:25, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

African Regional powers This article should include more african regional powers. Angola, Rwanda, Ethiopia, Sudan, Uganda, Senegal, Ghana, Kenya, South Sudan (could be argued) are all regional powers for various reasons. I would love to find articles for why they are but it is hard I have come up with these powers because of stduying Africa intensivley. And the guy up the list who says India is a neo colonial american coolie and that Turkey is a minor power should be banned from wikipedia forvever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.208.219.227 (talk) 20:21, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

One, watch coments like 'And the guy up the list who says India is a neo colonial american coolie and that Turkey is a minor power should be banned from wikipedia forvever.' Also, it's not about us arguing. Bring some reliable sources stating that those countries are regional powers, and if possible (preferably), why they are regional powers.Deavenger (talk) 01:52, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Ethiopia got it's ass kicked by Eritrea and ethiopia is many times bigger than us. Even in Somalia who's national army died a decade ago they still received a crushing defeat at the hands of the radical islamists loool Ethiopia a regional power?? rofl!! 15 million people are starving every year...yeah a real power indeed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.123.25.209 (talk) 12:19, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Israel the only country in the Middle East thought to have nuclear weapons?

“ Israel is the only country in the region thought to have nuclear weapons, which could be delivered by the Jericho medium-range ballistic missile. ”

I don't believe that to be accurate; I believe Iran has been thought to have nuclear weapons, hasn't it? Bringing it up here before making a change so as to ensure I am not mistaken in my sentiments. Master&Expert (Talk) 07:16, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Iran has a nuclear program which is carefully arranged so as to have the maximum possibility for yielding fissionable material. Everything beyond that is speculation, and few analysts think that Iran currently has a fully-assembled operational nuclear weapon. AnonMoos (talk) 09:51, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Turkey too, has over 30 nuclear heads. Even though they are not "made in Turkey" they belong to Turkey as an ally "gift" from the US. -Diren

Ethiopia Sources

After months of work I have found actual sources proving Ethiopia is a Regional Power here they are.

http://hornofafrica.ssrc.org/Abdul_Mohammed/

http://rawstory.com/news/2006/Ethiopia_bombs_Mogadishu_airport_re_12252006.html

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1572983,00.html

http://forums.csis.org/africa/?p=21

http://www.pinr.com/report.php?ac=view_report&report_id=387&language_id=1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.95.46.162 (talk) 13:12, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Wow. Great work, me and a couple of other guys are going over the sources you gave and some we found to see if they pass being reliable, and not being OR. But so far, it looks pretty good, if only more users were like you. Maybe you should create a WP:Account. Deavenger (talk) 22:17, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Other African Regional Powers

I am looking up other sources for other countries like Rwanda, Angola, Uganda and many others —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.95.46.162 (talk) 14:45, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/africa/article1550900.ece

http://www.strategypage.com/qnd/angola/articles/20070325.aspx

http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/angola-sends-2500-ninjas-to-zimbabwe/2007/03/22/1174153239326.html

for angola —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.95.46.162 (talk) 14:55, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Why Japan deleted from the list？

Japan still has world's second economic size and no.1 size in Asia. it also has high technological power. i will restore Japan in this article. and restore France too.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.162.197.118 (talk) 15:41, 18 May 2009 (UTC) 

Neither should have been removed as they both had reliable sources backing up the claim. Deavenger (talk) 23:42, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Romania and Poland Regional Powers

I strongly believe that Poland and Romania are Regional Powers but within their own regions of Europe. For example Poland is the Regional Power of Central Europe, while Romania is the Regional Power of South Eastern Europe/Balkans. I believe this to be the case because Romania and Poland both have big populations - for Poland it has the biggest population, GDP etc in Central Europe and Romania has the biggest population, GDP etc in the South Eastern Europe/Balkan region. Romania and Poland are both EU States and influential NATO Members. I think its unfair not to add Poland and Romania.

Why is countries like Indonesia for South East Asia and Nigeria regional powers when those countries are among the the poorest countries in the world? I do not consider those countries and other similar countries listed in the article to be Regional Powers.Pryde 01 (talk) 06:02, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a policy of Verifiability which states that a reliable source must be included to back up a claim. If you can find an reliable academic source stating that Romania and Poland are "regional powers" then please can add it. Nirvana888 (talk) 13:12, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Canada N America Regional Power

Why isn't Canada listed as a regional power of North America? I ask this because I saw that in the ME listing of regional powers there was countries like Iraq, Saudi Arabia when there should only be Iran,Israel,maybe Turkey. If Iraq and Saudi Arabia can be considered regional powers, than by the same logic Canada should be one too. Iraq and Saudi Arabia's military capabilities (intangible & tangible) pale in comparison to Iran's and Israel's. You should put Canada under US and list it as a regional power.

Btw the category "North America" and "South America" have no meaning in countries like Mexico, and South American nations who consider ALL OF AMERICA TO BE ONE CONTINENT.

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.80.121.28 (talk) 05:49, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I think the difference though is that, although Mexico and the South American countries consider America to be one continent there are two distinct regions. The more predominantly English-speaking part (northern america) and the Portugeuse/Spanish speaking part (latin america). Also, Saudi and Iraq were tagged as being Regional Powers in that part of the Middle East (unless someone went and changed it). Finally, a regional power is usually the hegemon in the region. Canada by no means has hegemon over the US (only other country in the region). Sorry guys =/ Comics (talk) 06:45, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

"Btw the category "North America" and "South America" have no meaning in countries like Mexico, and South American nations who consider ALL OF AMERICA TO BE ONE CONTINENT." Firstly, this is the English language Wikipedia. Secondly, in my opinion they are two continents due to both occupying their own large tectonic plate. G. R. Allison (talk) 07:16, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, the categories are Latin and Northern America, not South and North America...if the continents by tectonic plates are to be considered, then Mexico and all of Central America (including the Caribean) should be in North America. About Canada: no, it's not a regional power...just ask yourselves: Over who? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.82.135.238 (talk) 20:08, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Greenland and St. Pierre and Miquelon -- AnonMoos (talk) 00:33, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Canada is a worldwide power. Other than just on their borders they have just about as much impact on nearby countries as those far away. If Canada is considered a power in any specific region it would be the nearby seas or perhaps just Europe. India counts a regional power because they "hop over" Pakistan to have a noticeable impact in Afghanistan, but they don't do much in the far corners of the world. (Other than say tech support calls...) Hcobb (talk) 00:32, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

This isn't a forum about the merits of Canada, sources and improvements are what should be discussed here. However, It is very hard to justify the statement "Canada is a worldwide power" considering it has very little influence over very few nations. Even claiming it has influence in Europe would be met with a sceptical look. Canada in my opinion exerts no economic, political, cultural or military influence. Bring sources to the table or end this point of discussion, thank you. G.R. Allison (talk) 16:36, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Put refs as to Canada's decline in Canadian pages, as they have no impact regionally to mention here. Hcobb (talk) 19:11, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Northern America

Is this an oversight or in use because Latin America also includes Mexico? Would it be possible to create a South America heading and put Mexico into North America? This is only out me thinking there could be potential reader confusion. G.R. Allison (talk) 18:18, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

South Korea Regional Power

Okay, okay. We've got one person who believes they have a source for South Korea as a regional power. This is good, but from the looks of things some people don't agree that the source necessarilly relates to South Korea's current regional power capabilities. I think it would be better simply to talk about it here instead of risking an edit war of 'yes regional power'/'no regional power'.

So, discuss here before re-adding/taking South Korea off. Let's build a consensus on the talk page. Comics (talk) 02:13, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Very sensible proposal. I am not opposed to listing South Korea but I would strongly prefer an authoritative IR source directly suggesting that S. Korea is a regional power in East Asia and ideally why. Nirvana888 (talk) 02:49, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Nirvana888, the source is my issue also. We need something stronger than something that claims SK 'could' become a regional power. G.R. Allison (talk) 06:50, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

This paper written by a PhD Candidate at the GIGA Institute of Asian Studies seems to indicate that South Korea's status is a regional power is "ambivalent at best". However, I'm not unopposed to including South Korea on the list due to its high GDP, large military budget (relatively speaking), and industrial capabilities (shipbuilding, automotive industry, electronics etc.). At the same time, I think the factors working against South Korea is its lack of engagement in the realm of international politics, its conflict with North Korea and its lack of acknowledgment as a regional power due to the other giants in the region. Vedant (talk) 02:56, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree, I personally think South Korea as a Regional Power isn't terribly farfetched :) but that's one source saying that it's not really a regional power. So, at the moment it looks like it's chances of being included aren't too good. Post something if anyone finds a source ^^ Comics (talk) 04:21, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

[9] refers to "South Korea's emergence as a major regional power". Viewfinder (talk) 16:42, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

words

okay someone needs to return the article to the way it was with words. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.95.46.162 (talk) 16:05, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not saying I didn't like it with the descriptions, but why do you want them back? Comics (talk) 11:08, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I think the problem with the descriptions was that they were mostly original research, there were no sources saying how those linked to regional power status. Of course I support bringing them back but in a more acceptable way, £10,000 for anyone who can make them acceptable! G.R. Allison (talk) 12:04, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree, the paragraphs were basically an opportunity for nationalists to insert "feel-good" comments about their own countries. Often times, they were poorly written ones too. Vedant (talk) 03:56, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Ethiopia

I also put sources up for Ethiopia is anybody going to put it up with words —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.95.46.162 (talk) 16:08, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Map Fix

Just to inform any editors who work on this article more often than me, the map listing regional powers doesn't correspond to the list of powers. If I had the ability I'd fix it myself. Can someone fix it? G.R. Allison (talk) 21:58, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll do it if it hasn't already been done Comics (talk) 21:52, 4 September 2010 (UTC)