Talk:Regional power

Archives
20th October 2005 - 8th May 2007 12th May 2007 - 7th April 2008 /Archive 3

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.wikipedia.org/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 !--78.164.10.238 (talk) 08:57, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Italy?

I doubt Italy is currently a regional power. Over who? I mean zero growth for over a decade, failed democracy, mafia-controlled, no energy resources, not a science hub, nothing especial to sum up. What makes it more influential than Spain or the Netherlands? Italy is in decline, with a language in decline, therefore no longer (if it ever was) a regional power. Power over who? influence over who? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.37.36.25 (talk) 22:23, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

At least have the corage to sign up with an account. You have said some true things, but that is also true for Turkey for egg., it's not a science hub, nothing special to add, no big enterprises, not very big GDP and so on. Mexico, Egypt, Iran, Indonesia, Nigeria just to add some are in a more weaker position than Italy. ACamposPinho 03:16 18 Mars 2009 —Preceding undated comment added 03:17, 18 March 2009 (UTC).

Turkey actualy has many big enterprises in construction, electronics, cars, airplanes... Some are the biggest in Europe. It has also seen an economic growth much higher then Italy. And it is a major energy transportation hub. And dont count out Turkey as a science hub. etc. So yes it is a regional power. Italy too but less so then the other regional european countries. I think Spain might become a bigger regional power as they have a bigger GDP then Italy now. NeoRetro (talk) 22:49, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

LOL... Liechtenstein have a bigger GDP then Italy too, so you vote for it as a bigger regional power? (ZeroHero, 00:06 09/09/09 CET) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.18.246.39 (talk) 22:06, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

No science HUB? Please, read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_and_technology_in_Italy Cheers :-P —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.18.8.156 (talk) 23:43, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Zero growth for more a decade.... TRUE Failed democracy.... why? can you explain this point? Mafia controlled... of course, of course.... and with your example the Belgians are pedophile-controlled? You think that mafia exists only in Italy? Yes, mafia is an italian term, but I think you know also Yakuza, Triads, Gang wars in southern states of USA (eg: Louisiana?), Russia, etc.... No energy resource... like Japan, like Netherlands, like Israel, like some other States that does'nt have energy resources in the ground. You think Saudi Arabia the biggest world power due to the petroleum? Not a science hub... sure? Do you know, for example, that Italy is the third contributor for the ESA? just after France and Germany, but before UK, Spain and others. Language in decline.... what? Italian is the 20th language spoked. In line with some others (obviously, not compared with English, French, Spanish and Chinese...) Other examples? Italy have the command of some international military operations, the 7th place in World GDP ranking, a "not so bad" industry... I think you are wrong, cheers :-) Bubu 05-05-09 12:38 CET —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.224.160.136 (talk) 10:38, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually The Netherlands has one of the largest natural gas reserves in the world. NeoRetro (talk) 11:06, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Right, also right the fact that Italy has the third place in Western Europe, after UK and Norway, for petroleum and gas production, with 330K boe/day. (src: http://www.adnkronos.com/Speciali/Energia/NotizieManuali/01_150406.html) - Ivan 6/10/2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.19.244.155 (talk) 21:11, 6 October 2009 (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)

Rewrite

A rewrite of this article has been on my plate for a few years. Is anyone else interested in helping me out? I plan on improving its quality to something like the great power article which I've worked on. Nirvana888 (talk) 18:18, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the OR/SYNTH content. If someone would like to help me go over the sources and vet them individually for reliability, please let me know. Nirvana888 (talk) 21:00, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Such a big alteration to a useful article, aren't we supposed to discuss first then make changes?G. R. Allison (talk) 07:10, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Mr George R. Allison. Why was 90% of the article deleted without discussion??? Limongi (talk) 14:33, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll rebuild it for the moment, any changes should really be discussed here first.G. R. Allison (talk) 15:13, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I'm an experienced member of the Power in international relations WikiProject and have been working on many related articles such as middle power, great power and potential superpower? I have partially rewritten the article to conform with the standards on articles like middle power and great power. I believe I tagged this article was tagged for its quality a while back because I've been meaning to work on it. Most of the info on the regional powers are original research and synthesis and have no relation as to why these states are regional powers. A similar rewrite has already occured for the other articles I mentioned. They used to be as unwieldy as this one. By the way if you're interested, please join the WikiProject. We could use more willing editors. Nirvana888 (talk) 15:34, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I just think an explanation under the nation as to it's power and assets, using well established facts, is useful for people wanting more information.G. R. Allison (talk) 15:43, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, and if you take a look at the other related articles you will see that "facts" that are not directly related to regional power potential as cited by reliable sources cannot be included. I understand that a description of these facts and stats may be interesting to read but they do not belong in these power related articles. You can understand how if these stats are included it can easily and has led in the past to editors exhibiting a lack of parsimony by adding unrelated statistics and accomplishments which can often lead to an article becoming a hotbed of nationalism. We've had a discussion about this in the great power archive. Nirvana888 (talk) 15:47, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

You make a rather good point there with the relation of those facts to regional power not being cited. You'll receive no opposition from me on this matter, I back your rewrite fully.G. R. Allison (talk) 17:04, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Is the use of so many sources beside the names of each nation needed? I think it looks messy but I don't know the policy on this. G. R. Allison (talk) 11:05, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I would say it's not particularly necessary unless it is an exceptional claim. Ideally, all countries should be cited by high quality academic sources. I have simply retrieved some sources from the former version that claimed to support regional power status. However, I have yet to vet each one individually. You can help if you like. Feel free to ask me if you are unsure whether a particular source is reliable/high quality and should be included. Nirvana888 (talk) 15:36, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm with the others, I don't think the majority of the article should have been arbitrarily blanked out like that. Sure, it wasn't as thoroughly cited and sourced properly, but that can be fixed: there were some cited sources scattered throughout the paragraphs, and most of them were well-written. Naming the country as being an influential member of international organizations, amongst others, isn't OR to me.

Iraq and Syria are regional powers? Maybe several decades ago, but today? Are you kidding me? While the situation in Iraq has definitely improved over the last few years, it is still as much of a mess as Afghanistan right now. And Syria wields little to no influence in the region, being an insular state.

Pakistan's inclusion is also dodgy, in my opinion. It seems they are all added based on one source: the Barry Buzan book that was cited. Based on the inclusions, I am beginning to question the credibility of that source. 220.236.182.125 (talk) 04:14, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah so it seems you're an expert on the matter then? Us mere mortals pale in comparison to your godly genius. Don't be so arrogant. G. R. Allison (talk) 06:04, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

It would be most appreciated if people could stop removing Pakistan from the list of Regional Powers without providing some counter-evidence. That being said, I don't personally believe that Pakistan is a regional power (seeing as it how it as a bankrupt, corrupt, ineffectual state on the verge of collapse with a large part of its territory under the control of the Taliban). However, Buzan's book appears to be a credible source so unless anyone else has other credible sources that state that Pakistan is NOT a regional power, they should post them on the talk page before making said edits to article. Vedant (talk) 12:33, 27 October 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)

Middle East; Seven regional powers?

As an outsider, (at the risk of stirring up a hornet's nest) please could somebody explain to me how there's room for seven "regional powers" in the Middle East. Looking at the eight criteria in the definition, over half these countries look ineligible; some have tiny populations, no diplomatic relations with neighbours, no participation with regional fora, no political influence beyond their borders, no navy big enough for sustained force projection. Some just have military successes (in which case why not Vietnam?) or have nuclear status (then why not North Korea?). At least one has a questionably functioning government and most have modest economies. If there's a good reason for including more than Turkey, and then maybe Saudi-Arabia and/or perhaps Iran then could somebody explain why the extra countries meet most if not all of the eight criteria? Or why they tick the right boxes? If not, do we need a cull? Zagubov (talk) 23:44, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Proper sourcing aside, my vote would be to stick with the two countries with known nuclear weapon production facilities that also have stable governments, that being Turkey and Israel. However, where WP:RS exists for a specific country, then arguments can be made for its inclusion. All in all, it would help for some sort of agreed-upon base requirement for inclusion, not just in the Middle East section, but the entire article. --Nsaum75 (talk) 01:10, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Like most articles in the PIIR project, we prefer authoritative international relations literature as WP:RS. Most listed regional powers in the Middle East section are backed up by RS. Regional powers are states that a shape given regional security complex. Bearing that in mind, though some states are listed together as regional powers, they do not have to possess equal power and capabilities. To avoid original research, if you have RS that indicates a state is a regional power then list them here. Nirvana888 (talk) 01:31, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly, hence my statement regarding WP:RS. --Nsaum75 (talk) 01:38, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I was beginning to wonder why so many Middle Eastern countries - now, I was just wondering if we should update the map, or perhaps do a colour-code system. Meaning that darker green countries are those more documented as Regional Powers, and lighter coloured countries are those that are less documented. Also, this is just asthetics here and I have a thing for colour - I don't like the grey we use on the map. Just me being picky though. I can pull up a blank map in MS Paint and colour it in to make a PNG if anyone wants, which could include the new countries listed, and then someone could make the SVG. Comics (talk) 07:04, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Since there has been some discussion and uncertainty on the regional powers in the Middle East, I've added some footnotes to specify the region where the states are considered to be regional powers. If anyone is against this, let me know and I can revert it. Comics, I'd appreciate it if you could update the map. I tend to prefer a common color for all regional powers as have lighter/darker color would be subjective and possibly misleading. Nirvana888 (talk) 13:51, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll upload an updated version then later. It'll be PNG though, so if anyone wants to change it to SVG they can be my guest ^-^ only once it's up though. Comics (talk) 03:31, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Comics. If you have any questions, feel free to post a reply. :) Nirvana888 (talk) 03:34, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I updated it ^-^ I used a slightly different shade of green, but it's still that dark teal colour we seemed to be going with. Also used a slightly different source image. So there we go ^-^ the updated Map is up. It's my first one on this project, so constructive feedback would be nice =) Comics (talk) 05:37, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

And naturally something went wrong *sighs* I left Indonesia out by mistake - I've been trying to upload a new version that includes Indonesia as well, but for some reason it isn't working. And not only that, but we now have about 5 'different' versions of the same map ^^; help, anyone? Comics (talk) 05:42, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind, Wiki must have been slow processing it ^^; Comics (talk) 05:55, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

This is great Comics! Kudos for your work. Nirvana888 (talk) 06:12, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank's Nirvana =) Now all we need to do is get all of the articles in this project to featured article status... Comics (talk) 06:34, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Iraq and Syria are quoted as regional powers in the Middle East by only a single source which is already 6 years old. A follow-up research and inference I believe is necessary.--a de facto ambassador from the Republic of Korea (talk) 03:26, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Yup, at least Iraq is now practically a puppet state and is in no way a regional power...JokerXtreme (talk) 15:40, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

As no one seems to have an objection, I removed Iraq from both the text and the map.JokerXtreme (talk) 09:03, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

The source cited is actually relatively recent and very authoritative in listing Iraq as regional power in the Gulf. Iraq is still a shaper of polarity in the region. Nirvana888 (talk) 13:34, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

The book was probably being written during the first phases of the invasion in Iraq. A citation to a more recent source must be found, or it must go. Probably as well as many other countries.JokerXtreme (talk) 18:47, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

It would be original research to assume that. I am not saying to are wrong, but Wikipedia is based on verifiability not truth. Unless you find a credible, authoritative sources that suggests that Iraq is not a regional power, you really have no locus standi. Nirvana888 (talk) 19:24, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Very good point. I think the list should be down to Turkey and Israel, and "maybe" Iran. We read every day in the news about the status of Turkey as a regional power. It also has the biggest GDP in the area, and the strongest military. Israel is, by any means, a very strong country, and has a strong economy. Syria and Iraq has no influence whatsoever on any other country; they cannot even solve their own issues let alone being regional powers. Saudi Arabia? How can they be a regional power with a few rifles and a small population? Iran is a powerful country perhaps, but is not a regional power; its influence only goes as far as the Shiites in Iraq. I think the list should have only Turkey, or only Turkey and Israel, or at the most, Turkey, Israel and Iran. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.157.78.29 (talk) 22:46, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Including Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Syria will be a mistake. Such countries have no influence on other nations in the region, and sometimes they are not able to solve their own problems. Turkey, Israel, Iran can be enough. Kaygtr (talk) 00:05, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Saudi Arabia is G20 member(with turkey), No.2 GDP in Middle East, and Saudi oil reserves are the largest in the world. `great oil power` Magneticsun (talk) 02:08, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I think so that Iraq, Syria are not Regional Power at present. Blizzardstep0 (talk) 03:03, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I think we can all agree on Iraq. Any sources that list the regional powers in Middle East? --JokerXtreme (talk) 11:02, 13 March 2010 (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)

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)