Talk:Regional power/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

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)

I'd just like to point out one part of your largely ridiculous (and borderline racist) argument. You say: therefore no longer (if it ever was) a regional power. I'd just like to point out that Italy is one of the few countries to have been, at one point, a Great Power. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mspence835 (talk • contribs) 00:13, 22 May 2011 (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)

The book The United States and the great powers: world politics in the twenty-first century does not state nor suggest Pakistan to be a regional power. I myself posses the book if an admin can verify this it would be great. the [[1]] provided only shows pp 1-25 if an admin can verify this too it would be great.Neilpine (talk) 00:07, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Pakistan's inclusion is based more on military power, in my opinion. This is due to the fact that it has the seventh-largest military in the world (in terms of capacity), is a nuclear-armed state, and has fought three wars with its neighbouring country (and a potential superpower), India. A state that is "bankrupt, corrupt, ineffectual state" as one user says above, still wouldn't have the armed and political capacity which Pakistan maintains in its region despite its problems. South Asia has long remained a topic of geopolitical importance because of the rivarly between the adversaries India and Pakistan. When India, the largest regional power in South Asia, itself identifies its neighbour that is seven times smaller its size as a historical rival, then there's hardly any secret. Another point to be noted is that Pakistan also maintained considerable influence in its neighbour Afghanistan, especially following the collapse of the Soviet Union. Pakistan and China are also friendly allies, a fact that has irritated next-door India. Based on this history, there is credible evidence to suggest and claim that Pakistan maintains an edge in terms of the regional power balance or influences it to a great extent, at least in terms of military and geopolitics. Drspaz (talk) 10:36, 9 June 2011 (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)

I believe the map should be redrawn as to exclude Syria, Iraq and Saudi Arabia. The regional powers of Middle East are Turkey, Israel and Iran. I think Syria and Iraq undoubtedly are not regional powers whereas Saudi Arabia relies too heavily on the United States in it's international relations which greatly contradicts with a regional power characteristic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.245.99.222 (talk) 15:17, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I think it's worse than that; you can't define regional power at the start of an article and then contradict yourself by putting in countries that clearly don't match the criteria you wrote at the beginning. Israel's isolated in the region and Iran's not ready yet. That leaves Turkey and not much else. Some might then argue that Turkey's Eurasian rather than in the Middle East. OK; then face it, maybe there's no regional powers here. Either the definition needs a sharp rewrite or everybody needs to face up to the fact this region doesn't have large obviously dominant players the way other regions do. If you do think there's a regional power we need some pretty thorough chapter and verse on sources to back it up. For an analogy from Biology, remember that just because an ecological niche exists doesn't mean a species has to exist to fill it! Plenty of land-masses have nothing to fill the woodpecker niche. Maybe this region just has no country that fills the "Regional Power" role. Zagubov (talk) 20:59, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

As far as the definition goes "possesses regional hegemony" the countries that have that kind of dominant power in the middle east are Turkey, Iran and Egypt. Syria, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Israel should not be in this list. The first 3 for obvious reasons and for Israel, although it is a powerful country relative to it's size/population, it has no direct influence or "hegemony" over others in the region. Strictly talking out of politics, Israel does not even participate in any institution or organisation of the middle east but rather acting as if it is in a different region in most cases. Anyway, Israel may be further discussed but Syria, Iraq and Saudi Arabia really should not be on this list which spoils the term "regional power" by showing almost almost all middle east is filled with regional powers, which is not the case. 95.14.120.112 (talk) 23:26, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I have removed Egypt and Saudi Arabia from Middle Eastern regional powers. It just doesnt make sense to have so many "regional powers" among so few countries. And it's obvious Egypt is my no means a regional power (for the time being at least.) And Saudi Arabia has never been one. --Diren Yardimli (talk) 22:14, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Re-added Egypt and Saudi and others, because you seem to suggest OR instead of research indicates Egypt is temporarily not a regional power, and if Saudi didn't have sources as a regional power it wouldn't have been put up. Note that the article states 'different experts have differing views on exactly which states are regional powers', suggesting this is not the definitive list but rather a list outlining powers that have been listed by notable academics. Also, opinions of editors have no bearings on the contents of the article unless they can provide credible sources to support their opinions. Comics (talk) 01:08, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I understand your objections. However not being research, it's still basic common sense to remove some of the countries in the Mideast. Don't you think it's strange to have so many regional powers there, considering there are only 5 in the entire European continent? If Saudi Arabia or Egypt are regional powers, then definitly Spain or Sweden should also be considered ones. The whole Mideast region in the map is in teal color. As some one who lives in the region, I can definitly say that Saudi Arabia is certainly not a influential powerhouse around here. It's hardly mentioned at all. It just looks big on the map. Kindly,--Diren Yardimli (talk) 11:12, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I do understand where you're coming from, but I do think it's the trend of Wikipedia to use English sources where possible to avoid confusion. That might lend itself to more of an outsider's approach, which might exaggerate the role of some states. There is a difference though between Spain and Sweden and Egypt and Saudi Arabia. Spain and Sweden are almost certainly eclipsed by the weight of Britain, France and Germany's political clout (with Italy close enough behind them to still be considered a key player), but in the Middle East who is there really to eclipse Egypt and Saudi? Turkey and Iran, sure, but I've come across sources suggesting Iran is held in suspicion, limiting it's exertion of power, and Turkey is only recently beginning to refocus itself on the Middle East. I can understand suggestions to remove Iraq or Syria, and maybe even Israel, but I guess to the Western World it appears that Egypt and Saudi still maintain as much clout in the Middle East as it is possible to maintain clout in the Middle East. Just out of curiousity, since you mention you're in the region, which area are you in? The Levant, or more in the Gulf? Because I think the article suggests already that Egypt is influential in the Levant, whereas Saudi is a bit more restricted to the Gulf and Arabian peninsula. Comics (talk) 11:58, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm in Turkey. And you are very correct, Turkey has just recently began to refocus itself on the Mideast, and has so far, a far more limited influence around here than the politicians here are inclined to believe. It is also very understandable to use English sources, as Wikipedia itself is in English. Hence I cannot firmly give a source claiming that S. Arabia and Egypt are NOT regional powers. My objection were simply due to the fact that there seems to be much power around here. All the best, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diren Yardimli (talk • contribs) 12:44, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Per comments here, I've removed Iraq and Syria. Syria's influence is limited, and Iraq no longer projects significant power outside her borders. Egypt, however, is a significant player in her region, North Africa. Saudi Arabia is also a significant power in the region, regardless of their political dependence on the United States. Kurdo777 (talk) 19:26, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Turkey, regional power of which region?

Someone has pointed out that a regional power state, Turkey, is a Eurasian country. Therefore, he claims that Turkey is a regional power of this Eurasian region (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/30/Eurasia_%28orthographic_projection%29.svg). Now I'm requesting for a clear citation which includes an explicit statement that Turkey can project significant geopolitical influence starting in the western part of the European continent, up to even the vast eastern region of Asia, in which a few great powers such as China and Japan reside, so that we could formally conclude Turkey is a true regional power of the combined territories of these particular regions, collectively known as the Eurasia. It could be a regional power of Middle East, yes. It could be a regional power of Eastern Europe at the same time too, yes. But what about the rest of Europe and Asia? Turkey being included in the wholesale 'Eurasian' category can paint a possibly inaccurate depiction that Turkey indeed has great influence over all those territories, while in truth it might not yet be declared as so, unless citations proving that fact are made.

I hope I made my question clear for all of you to understand.Desagwan (talk) 09:19, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe that Eurasia is a clearly defined region as such. Oceania is a region, as is East Asia and Latin America. I think what the term 'Eurasia' means in this instance is more closer to 'transcontinental countries'. I'm not sure the literature states that Russia has the same influence in Asia as it does in East Europe (mainly due to China assuming the role the USSR would have had in asserting influence on those regions in Asia). Turkey would be in a similar spot to Russia in this case, exerting most of it's influence as a power in the Middle East (as opposed to East Europe). News involving Turkey almost always seems to revolve around the Middle East (political dealings with Israel and Iran, etc), suggesting that Turkey is more closely entrenched as a power in that region as opposed to Eurasia.

Comics (talk) 13:27, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Eurasian term is useing to clasify Countries,has region both Europe and Asia, If you look at China's or Iran's page you will see the speech of "......... is an Asian country" and when u check Turkey ,Russia and Georgia you will see Eurasian deffinition also in Germany's page you can see european country deffinition . Therefore ;Russia and Turkey Should be clasified under Eurasia ,And all Turkey and Russia have their own influnce in both side, Turkey is a power in Balkans,which it has exact terrority in the region ,Also ,with its strong historical tie. Clasify Turkey as a Middle eastern Regional Power is not show the all facts (because country also is Balkan peninsula and %100 regional power in the region).Even Controling Enterence Of Black sea give Tukrey to influence chance in Eastern Europe. Eurasia chapter should open again. --Aegeanfighter (talk) 15:56, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

So are you saying that this territorial bound is over which Turkey wields regional influence (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/30/Eurasia_%28orthographic_projection%29.svg)?

That is the fact that we need to verify. Eurasia extends more than just the Balkans and Eastern Europe. Maybe you should make a separate section and include Turkey into a 'Eastern Europe' category, as well as Middle East, but not the whole of Eurasia. Desagwan (talk) 01:02, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

OK but how about Russia? i mean it is not show all facts if we classify Russia only European regional Power, and Russia does not have a major influnce in western Europe as well eastern Asia with southern asia, But has Former Soviet Nations Of central asia, AS for Turkey ; has it in Balkans , Caucaus ,Middle east and Central asian Turic nations. There is no doubt for Turkey to have it's own influnce of these regions ( All these regions are Turkey's region unlike USA has its own power in middle east and asia without having land inside the regions ) And one question more If Turkeu fulfill all criterias and Occupy most of the seats of European Parlament,How can people say Country is not a Regional Power of Europe, While having this status already in Council of Europe. We have to make clear statuss about Turkey and Russia because both they are not only European or Asian Nations and Have significant influnce in Their OWN region.when we classify Turkey as Eastern European and Middle-eastern regional power, We may include Caucaus region But Absulately Western Balkans are not in Eastern Europe(it depends).SO i m still claiming that Turkey and Russia is a Eurasian countries while China and France are not.

If we take a look at USA there is Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs, Under leadership of Philip H. gordon, and it includes Turkey and Russia over there while India and China is not! Eurasian definition is determine countries such as Turkey ( also Anatolia is considering part of European History) , Russia and Caucaus nations and All these Countries also accepted European By Several international institutions Such as EU,council of Europe, and aslo Turkey is memeber of WEOG(under western europe section) with greece, while Russia is memeber of Eastern european one in the UN's regional groups. But also Turkey listed in the Middle east in United Nations geoscheme but in all UN programs Turkey is considering european nation. So it is very problametic topic and we need to find an appropriate Place for Turkey (aslo for Russia) . we should find impartial solution for this matter. --Aegeanfighter (talk) 07:44, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm trying my best to believe what you say. However, we are still in lack of credible citations. We need citations that say without doubt that 'Turkey is a regional power of Eurasia'. That will conclude this argument for good.

Entry for Russia has been edited also. Check it. Desagwan (talk) 07:54, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I said everything about this topic and i try to take everything under consideration, Sorry but Russia is not Belong Europe, and Turkey is not belong middle east.when i am reading article ,it's truthfulness do not make me satisfied. Turkey %100 regional power in middle east and Russia %100 in Eastern block(we cant say whole europe) . But these countries more than this.I am Leaving becasue this topic drive us to dead end.But it is not show the all facts! ALOHA! --Aegeanfighter (talk) 11:04, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

This is how I see it. Russia and Turkey are BOTH European and Asian states. There should be no debate about this because this is fact, and this how it's expressed in almost all Wikipedia articles. You will find both in many European organizations, etc. more than non-European. Anyways, that's not the point, because this is an article about regional power. Let's discuss some: Russia is clearly a regional power of Eastern Europe (former communist states), as well as Central Asia (former Soviet states). Turkey is a significantly growing regional power in the Middle East, has lost most of its influence in the Balkans (although it still maintains a bit of influence), and it's also a growing power in Central Asia (the Turkic -stans). This is why Russia would be listed under Europe and Turkey listed under the Middle East, because that's where their influence is strongest despite straddling the continents. For comparison, France is also a regional power in North Africa, exerting a lot of influence over many of its former colonial possessions. However, it also has a great influence on western Europe. So despite having two regions of power, it might as well be listed in Europe, especially considering, well, that's where it is... And then there's the US which is exerting its power everywhere (especially East Asia), but you get the idea. Does this reconcile the differences? CouchTomato (talk) 15:53, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Current status of the article

Looking at the article as it is now, and comparing it with the June 6, 2007 revision (a milestone revision), it is very much substandard in quality. What happened since then? All the descriptions were lost, and now it's just a lifeless list. Furthermore, the Middle East list is loaded with nearly every Middle Eastern country (minus the small ones and Jordan). I would like it if we brought back most of the substance from the revisions before it was completely purged, as well as have some kind of criteria for adding/removing countries, particularly with the overcrowded Middle East. I think having a minimum of three different sources backing up that country would be the way to go. Thoughts? CouchTomato (talk) 18:24, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree with you, right now this article reads more like a list. I have no idea why all the content was erased and support bringing it back. As for an inclusion criteria, I think the countries should be supported by multiple academic sources that clearly state that it is a regional power. One sentence mentions within a magazine article are hardly credible.

As for the Middle East, I don't see how Iraq or Syria can be considered regional powers. Iraq has been under foreign military occupation for almost a decade and its fragile and corrupt government is entirely dependent on a foreign country (U.S.). Furthermore, it has small military expenditures (3x smaller than Iran's) and GDP (behind Kuwait, Qatar, Iran, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Israel and Egypt). How on earth can it exert power within its region? The same can be said for Syria. It has no economic power whatsoever (GDP is $60b) and one of the smallest military expenditures in the region (List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures). Limongi (talk) 19:24, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Completely agree with you there. I haven't read the source on Iraq/Syria because it's a book, but from the comments above, "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." The problem is that "shaper of polarity" does not equate with "regional power." That'd be like saying Afghanistan was a regional power during the Cold War because it shaped polarity. Unless the book actually stated it was a regional power, or qualified it along the major points that are listed (economic might, etc.), then it shouldn't be considered. And we also would need more than one source, because one academic alone is not enough, even if that one source did in fact call Iraq a "regional power." If we can get a consensus on this, then we can at least remove Iraq and Syria from the list -- and we might as well bring back the short paragraph summaries while we're at it. CouchTomato (talk) 20:07, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

As do I. The Middle East section is stuffed with countries which might for example be heavily armed but would struggle with force projection and/or would be instantly exhausted by sustained combat; some don't engage with their neighbours and others have changed markedly over the last few years, mostly by losing influence Zagubov (talk) 20:16, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I made a huge revision, using the revisions from Oct 2009 as a reference. I did a little updating, such as China's economic rank (which is now second). However, many of the sources don't work, so we'll probably have to work on cleaning that up. Either way, this format is better than the list before, which had sources attached to only the name of a country, and not to a specific fact. Sources that directly state that a country is a regional power should be cited in the first line of the informational paragraph, which should explain why that country is a regional power. CouchTomato (talk) 02:18, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately in doing so, you've lost some of the additions that have occured in the past year (such as South Korea's inclusion; I've read in at least one place that SK is part of a regional triumvirate with China and Japan). The map, in my opinion, also looks bleh now because of the shade of grey used and suggest we get a new map ASAP (probably along the lines of the one I uploaded about a year ago; higher contrast which looks nicer on the eye). I believe also that the reason the text was taken down was due to nationalistic sentiment creeping in (something that comes up again and again at other articles on this project). Perhaps a model could be established for how any analysis of a country as a regional power should be undertaken? Comics (talk) 06:55, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. I've actually been staring at East Asia for a while, thinking about the loss of South Korea. On the bright side, we have previous revisions available, so we can just look back, use the sources, and put it into words. Otherwise going back to list format would also be akin to taking a war article, and just writing a list of battles and events. As for the map, do you still make maps? Perhaps you can update the one you had a year ago to match the countries on the list + South Korea. As for nationalist sentiment, I saw that happening in this discussion page, but in what manner did it creep into the article itself? A good example will help us to figure out a model for analyses. CouchTomato (talk) 14:34, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Added a new map which I think looks better on the eyes. Anyone in agreement? Couch; can you do SK's little paragraph soon so we can see what it looks like? Comics (talk) 07:52, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll try to write one soon, but I'm swamped by things to do at the moment. If no one writes one in a week or so, then I'll give it a shot. CouchTomato (talk) 16:28, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Sources check up

Some sources might be dead links now, I dunno. I was looking at one (a google books link I might add), and the page was unavailable. Since Google Books can be erratic on what pages it shows/doesn't show, is it possible that there be a way that the source can easily be viewed by anyone rather than the whims of Google? Another link I tried from the references seems to be dead. Also, one of the sources for Australia seems to suggest it is 'an important Asia-Pacific regional power' as opposed to the Oceanian it's listed under (however, the other source suggests it's tied more closely to it's Oceanian neighbourhood). I don't think we should treat Australia as a special case and give it 'Asia-Pacific' as a title (like some people might think Russia and Turkey should be), but either take down the source or find a way to make it work in as neutral a way as possible. I'm going to go through and tag some of the sources I had trouble looking into now. Comics (talk) 00:39, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Fact's about Turkey

Sorry about me english. But the advancement of Turkey does not fit to the anti-accession propaganda in the EU.

1) Turkey is a european Nation and is member of the Council of Europe (year: 1949) before Germany.

It is also worth noting that Turkey is in the Mediterranean Union with Egypt and Algeria, and its application to the EU is opposed on the grounds that, as Sarkozy said, ‘Turkey is not European’. (I disagree with Sarkozy’s reasoning, but it reflects some of the political ambiguity regarding Turkey’s location). Azerbaijan is also a part of the Council of Europe, but located in the Caucus region bordering Iran. Is Azerbaijan also a strictly European country, considering it has its own distinctly un-European culture? Comics (talk) 01:53, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

In fact: every memeber of the Council of Europe is a official european nation -a augmentation against this spared itself. Also Cyprus is oriental and located 100% in Aisa, but Azerbaijan's capital Baku and the most of the country lies in europe you don't need to political stir up there exists also an African Union (with different culture and religion). However turkey's european identity is stronger then, cyprus, Azerbaijan, Malta (actually it belongs to Africa), Island, Georgia, Armenia, Finland, Hungary, Bulgaria, Moldavia, Albania but also more then Bosnia-Herzegovina and Portugal. I will now return back to the topic the Mediterranean Union exists since 2008 but this concept don't mean that Spain or Croatia is NOW a mediterranean Country (because spain and croatia are european country) and the concept of Middle East don't mean that Turkey is a Middle Eastern Country (because turkey is a european country). The funny thing is there no exists a Middle East Union to claim political ambiguity regarding in Turkey’s location. (talk) 17:11, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Azerbaijan was probably not the best example. However, you admit that Malta and Cyprus, even though they are in the EU and Council of Europe, aren't European countries technically speaking. They might be culturally (just as America and other former-British colonies have very strong links culturally with Britain) a part of Europe, but their geography is a little off. Turkey has a culture of its own unique of Europe (for the most part, and this is due to its Muslim heritage), and is in the hazy area that Russia and Egypt inhabit; Russia has a larger percentage of it's are in Europe, however, and most of its population and has in recent history had a strong influence in the region. Comics (talk) 21:08, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

2) Turkey is part of the "free world" and is member of the north atlantic treaty organization (year: 1952) before Germany.

Japan and India are also considered members of the Free World (which is a Cold War term and more than likely outdated by 20 years). Again, Germany was a member of the NATO alliance before Spain by at least two decades. Does Germany have more right to be considered European than Spain? Comics (talk) 01:53, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Japan, Israel and India are just ally of the north atlantic treaty organization (which Turkey is included) and/or western aligned. And I am just wondering why you doubting the european identity of turkey if turkey join earlier the european institute then the "central power" of Europe. (germany) (talk) 17:11, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

The NATO alliance is no basis for a country's continental location or 'European Identity'. It was simply an alliance of non-Communist states in the region near the North Atlantic committed to preventing Communist expansion into Europe (because that is where the majority of members were - the Middle East had a number of USSR-sympathetic nations whereas Europe was much stronger in its alliance). How do you see the NATO alliance? Comics (talk) 21:08, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

3) The origin of the most europeans is Turkey because:

• Anatolian hypothesis
• Danish scientist find that all blue eyed people are from the anatolia settlement in the Black Sea region. (at that time the Black sea was a lake)
• The enzyme lactase is originated in anatolia. That's why all cows come from anatolia. (most europeans are milk tolerated)

The origin of the most human beings is in Africa. This therefore means that all countries are African. And why do you bring up the argument of the most cows coming from the Anatolian region? I fail to see how that has any impact on Turkey’s ability to project power within its region, compared with Russia’s ability to affect energy prices. Comics (talk) 01:53, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

But the origin of the most europeans begins in Anatolia. And here is a misunderstanding because my english is not skilled...! What is a european Human ? The question is simple: it is a human may with blue-eyed and lactose-tolerant! (The blond hair is just regional characteristic then also non-european nations such as the Solomon Islands, Vanuatu, and Fiji in the South Pacific also Blondness found. Also if the greek myth propagandised that turkey is not geographical in Europe, but anatolia is a important part of europe. (talk) 17:11, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Technically, a European is someone who lives in Europe. You're talking about Caucasian's and ethnicities. Also, considering that Europeans have multiple eye colours I'm a little doubtful as to the credibility of what you're saying. I never studied ethnicities so I might be wrong, but in all honesty what does this have to do with Turkey being a regional power in Europe? Comics (talk) 21:08, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

4) The Turkey is included to the marshall plan.

• Finland and Spain were not included in the Marshall Plan. Spain could be discounted since it had very little fighting in WW2, but Switzerland (which I believe also had no part in the war) received aid. Finland (which fought on the Axis side to combat Russia, and escaped the same treatment the rest of the Axis received) also received no financial help. The Marshall Plan was less to do with deciding which countries were European but more providing a suitable financial boost to help the countries in the region rebuild themselves to combat potential Communist expansion. Comics (talk) 01:53, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

5) The Turks understand themself as descendants of the Hun Empire (like Hungary, Finland) (Fins has a mongoloid haplogroup)

• neither arabs or Persian understand themself so.

The Huns were Asian, not European. From your earlier comments about Turkey being the origin-place of most Europeans, surely this means that all European countries descended from the Hun Empire are actually Asian countries? The Arabs came from an entirely different region, and the Persians have been in the same approximate area for millennia. Comics (talk) 01:53, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

6) The cradle of the Christianity is in anatolia. (Cappadocia)

• the birth place of numerous Christian Apostles and Saints, such as Apostle Paul of Tarsus, Timothy, St. Nicholas of Myra, St. Polycarp of Smyrna and many others.
• Two out of the five centers (Patriarchates) of the ancient Pentarchy are in Turkey: Constantinople (Istanbul) and Antioch (Antakya). Antioch was also the place where the followers of Jesus were called "Christians" for the first time in history, as well as being the site of one of the earliest and oldest surviving churches, established by Saint Peter himself.
• etc.

The birthplace of Christianity is believed to be Israel (Galilee particularly). The birthplace of Jesus is held to be in Nazareth, and it is believed that he taught people in the area now known as Israel. This is concrete evidence to suggest that Jerusalem is a European country and deserves to be placed there with Turkey and Germany. Comics (talk) 01:53, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

7) Turkey protect his european identity. (But how?)

• The maternal of the Sultans are europeans. (most in the harem was ex-slaves in europe)
• Mustafa Kemal Atatürk was blond and blue eyed.
• in the collective consciousness of the turks there is a historical heartland which is located in europe with the capital Constantinople.

This is hardly called ‘protecting European identity’. The fact that most mothers of the Sultans were European has more to do with the fact that, for a Turkic country like Turkey, European women would probably have been seen as exotic and unique. Ataturk’s appearance also has little to do with ‘protecting Turkey’s European identity’ unless his photos were specifically doctored so as to present Turkey as a European nation rather than a Middle Eastern nation. That Constantinople (Istanbul) is considered the historical heartland has less to do with protecting their European identity and more to do with historical reasons. Comics (talk) 01:53, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

8)the centre of the ottaman Empire was the balkan(turkic word for southeast europe) and west of anatolia.

• more than 10,000 words in serbia is ottomanic origin.
• the turks was like other european nations colonial rulers. (therefore they call turks as: Sick man of Europe)
• because of the history of the turks in europe there are muslims in bosnia, albania, macedonia
• although ottoman empire expand to North Africa, Mesopotamia, Arabia, Caucasus, anatolia and Southeast Europe

there only turkish minority in Southeast Europe.

• since the independence in the Southeast europe many european turks escape to anatolia.

America uses the English language predominately. This is ample reason to suggest that it is a regional power within Europe, combined with it’s Spanish speaking populace. In fact, this is also evidence that suggests it is a regional power in South America.

Because of the actions of the Arabs in the Middle East, there are now Muslims in Turkey. The fact that you bring up a Turkish minority in South-East Europe does not give the country any regional power over Europe. There is a decent number of Asian immigrants to countries such as Australia (from Vietnam and China, among others). Does this mean China and Vietnam are regional powers in Australia? That many Turks have returned to the Anatolian region since the independence of many Balkan states suggests that Turkey doesn’t have much influence on the region left, at least with regards to its populace. (see Hitler’s tactic of using the Germans in the Sudetenland as an example of using ethnic ties to the populace in order to influence the decisions of a country.) Comics (talk) 01:53, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

9) geographical turkey can not part of asia because the Arabian Plate (african plate) cuts the republic turkey from asia.

Geographical Turkey can’t be part of Europe then either, since the majority of the country lies on a completely different plate. And the Arabian plate is not connected to the African plate, as is implied by your comment, therefore making Turkey a member of it’s own little world. The North American Plate also includes the Eastern parts of Russia, and the images I’ve found suggest there is only a ‘Eurasian’ plate (which does have Turkey in its entirety on it). Comics (talk) 01:53, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

10) what about this aspect: the capital of turkey "ankara" was named Ancyra. Izmir was named Smyrna etc.

St Petersburg was renamed ‘Petrograd’ and then reverted. This suggests that Germany has strong influence over Russia, and that Russia is actually a Germanic country, not a Slavic country. I also am at a loss as to what you are exactly trying to prove with this comment. Comics (talk) 01:53, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

11) that the Quran is writting in turkish is a christian propanda. chill out and listen to Rondo alla turca (Turkish March) by Mozart. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.66.54.156 (talk) 13:47, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Australian rock band The Angels (Australian band) (who may not be well known internationally, but in Australia they are in the ARIA Hall of Fame commemorating influential Australian musical acts – other inductees include Olivia Newton-John (Grease (film)) and AC/DC) wrote a song called ‘Marseilles’, expressing a desire to visit Southern France. This is evidence to suggest that France is an influential power within Australia and the region of Oceania. Comics (talk) 01:53, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

12) turkey is part of the EU Customs Union. — Preceding unsigned comment added by

I don’t have anything to disagree with here (snarky or otherwise), because this is fact. Still, I fail to see how this means Turkey has power in Europe. Couldn’t this be seen another way – Turkey is becoming an economic subject of the European Empire? Comics (talk) 01:53, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

13) every cross symbolism of the Flag of Europe, was rejected by Turkey. And the stars represents completeness and unity for the european nations (inclusive Turkey) 88.66.54.156 (talk) 20:25, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Considering that the EU decided against including references to God in the proposed Constitution (IIRC) because ‘we don’t like God’, the cross symbolism having any religious meaning would more than likely have been stripped away. This means that Turkey’s objections (most likely on religious grounds) would be a moot point because any religious symbolism wouldn’t be there. Considering that socialists also seemed to have a problem with it, I’d say that Turkey’s objections weren’t necessarily the deciding factor. The choice of stars does represent completeness and unity, but to suggest it also includes Turkey when the EU is still divisive on the subject would be stretching it for the time being. Comics (talk) 01:53, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

14) turkey is part of the Nuclear sharing.

This has nothing to do with Turkey’s regional position, as Canada was also a part of nuclear sharing and last time I checked was not located within Europe’s borders. If you are tying this into your earlier NATO comment, I will merely say: NATO means ‘North Atlantic Treaty Organisation’. It refers only to a country’s location with regards to the Atlantic Ocean. Technically, Mexico and Morocco could be members of NATO and neither are part of Europe. Comics (talk) 01:53, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I fear you have wasted your time unless you have a source citing Turkey as a regional power within Europe. G.R. Allison (talk) 22:21, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

It is patently obvious. Never heard of Sick man of Europe? To understant your deceit unless you have a source citing Russia as a regional power within Europe. Anyway there is a full article about that in wikepdia & asking for a source is just a proof of a lack of knowledge. 88.66.54.156 (talk) 20:25, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Insulting me by claiming I have a lack of knowledge because I don't think Turkey holds much sway over Europe is all very well my IP editor friend and I'm sure you think it will advance your position but you're not getting far without a source citing Turkey as a European regional power or something that contradicts what Comic master says. G.R. Allison (talk) 14:12, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I am definitely conscious that contradicts to the anti-accession propaganda stands. But I consider that is like Populism, turkey has nothing to do with the turkey you believe it is. There is no facts why turkey should an asian democracy. Only conspiracy theory that minister erdogan is a wolf in sheep's clothing the turks only bigfoots and horde of islmists. Why is turkey -the horde of islamist- part of the Nuclear sharing and an energy supplier in europe? I am talking about to doubting the medial apparatus. Anyway many books are citing Turkey as a regional power within Europe. For example the author George Friedman in his book The Next 100 Years.

The sound of that book makes me think George Friedman is suggesting Turkey will be an important regional power within Europe in the coming 100 years as opposed to currently being a regional power within Europe. Of course I might be wrong - can you supply quotes from that book that suggest Turkey is currently a European power, or does it just suggest Turkey will become one? Comics (talk) 20:10, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I found the book on Google books and ran a search for Turkey - it does appear to be less current and more future speculation, and the only mentions of Turkey appear to be in correlation with a potential neo-Ottoman Empire. Do you agree that's the case, or do you think my search might have been a bit limited? To be fair I was just glancing through it to get a better idea of what the book was about. Comics (talk) 20:14, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I will try in the next days to comment your question. But at this interview it seems that he is try to say that Turkey is currently a european power. this is not a source but check it out at youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_uqFsmFVxOE — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.64.191.191 (talk) 22:27, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

That video seems to talk about Turkeys power within the Middle East and Asia and he at no point even indirectly claims Turkey is a European power... G.R. Allison (talk) 12:24, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

He is talking about a european power with his influence in asia, islamic and middle east and YES it is quite evident.. wow.. My concerns are that there is a misunderstanding about Turkey and this affected the perception. however..I will attempt to be serious and with the argumentative contention.. maybe then I will break the subjective perception. (talk) 22:34, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Dear anonymous IP user please calm down, I know you just want to include information that you consider to be truth and that's ok. However, you need to understand that we can only add information that is sourced. It is part of Wikipedia's rules. If you add unsourced information, other users (good or bad faithed) can delete it. If you find a source that mentions that Turkey is a regional power within Europe, we will be more than happy to include it. Good afternoon. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 20:40, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Anon-IP, I've just added some of my rebuttals to your previous statements. I understand that you're trying to prove that Turkey can accede to the EU, but that's not the point of this article - therefore I'm rebutting on the grounds that Turkey is not a regional power in Europe. I hope you understand that this isn't the place to debate Turkey's application to the EU. I also wish to apologise if any of my replies were unnecessarily over-snarky - I don't mean anything malicious, and merely hope that you can understand my strange sense of humour. Comics (talk) 01:53, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I am really respect your statement. But I claim that I have heard in many literature that Turkey is european power with his influence in asia, islamic and middle east. And they explain it really beautiful. My troubles are not a private storys.. it will take a bit time before I publish the sources to debate.

Edit: It is only a question about resentments.. for example other european nations (which mentality is near to Turkey) don't doubting that turkey is a european nation (like spain). Edit2: I am not trying to insult someone, but there also experts in the european institute that are saying the only reason why turkey is not a long time ago part of the EU; "hypocrisy" the reason is simply they are muslims but with a big country.(talk) 14:51, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

It's lovely this debate and all, but you still haven't provided sources that explicitly state "Turkey is a regional power in Europe on the same level as Britain, Germany, Russia, Italy and France". I'm going to find sources of my own for both sides when I can, but this is leaning towards being a forum and the talk pages aren't supposed to be these. Comics (talk) 21:08, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree, heavily. It's not us you have to convince. Due to the controversial nature of your changes you're going to have to use a source to implement your changes. G.R. Allison (talk) 14:16, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Turkey is physiographically considered a transcontinental country, mostly in Western Asia, partly in Eastern Europe. However, in terms of geopolitical regions, it is considered to be in Europe. 88.66.4.227 (talk) 02:05, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

For statistical purposes, the UN considers Turkey to be a Western Asian country. (http://millenniumindicators.un.org/unsd/methods/m49/m49regin.htm#asia). National Geographic agrees that Turkey is a Western Asian country. (http://stylemanual.ngs.org/home/W/west-asia). Judging from comments of yours on the Potential Superpower article, I'm inclined to think maybe you have a different perspective? You mind showing us sources though that say Turkey is a regional power in Europe? Comics (talk) 03:22, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Why Argentina not considered a Regional Power?

I would think that Argentina would rate as being a Regional Power in Latin America given that it is part of the G20, has advanced science, medicine and nuclear energy capabilities (5 Nobel prize winners), currently active in UN peackeeping (Haiti, Cyprus) and has a rich cultural legacy in the Spanish speaking world due to it's contributions in literature, film and music. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.141.254.21 (talk) 02:54, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Argentina is not a regional power in Latin America. This list is not make up us the editors. Inclussion of any country must be validated by reliable sources. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 05:06, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Alex. Per Wikipedia's NOR policy, inclusion of a country must be backed by sources. Limongi (talk) 12:54, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Argentina was once included as a regional power, backed up by 4 external sources. It was there for several months until some editors took it out just because they didn't belive Argentina qualified as a regional power, no matter what the external sources said. If you check this page history, going like two or perhaps three years ago, you will find it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.227.25.196 (talk) 20:26, 20 December 2011 (UTC) Truth is, Wikipedia is great for hard sciences, but social sciences matters are thoroughly biased. Do not expect any kind of acknowledgment towards Argentina from an english Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.227.25.196 (talk) 20:42, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Argentina is not a regional power in Latin America and none of the four sources that were provided sustain that claim. Limongi ^(talk) 21:27, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Reviving this talk since we've had Argentina fun recently. Anyways, so our IP editor added Argentina with (I believe) these three sources: 54.^ http://www.giga-hamburg.de/dl/download.php?d=/content/publikationen/pdf/wp30_nolte.pdf

55.^ http://noticias.latam.msn.com/ar/argentina/articulo_afp.aspx?cp-documentid=31380349
56.^ http://www.huellasdeeua.com.ar/ediciones/edicion1/articulo%206.pdf

Sure, this isn't inherently bad (some might be sus though) but I can't really tell the usefullness of them because a) they're in Spanish (I think? One could be German - .de?) and b) one of the links (don't know which one) wasn't working (the tab just replicated one of the other websites. So, do we have an impartial bystander who could probably translate them without the aid of Google Translate to judge if they're useful or not? I could probably pick out a few words here and there but I only know a really limited amount of Spanish (mostly 'hi', 'my name is', 'I live in' and 'I like'). Comics (talk) 12:23, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm the user who included the sources. My english is not perfect, but I'll try to make it simple so everybody understands. I was asked to bring more than 2, 3 or 4 different sources, because none of them were "good enough" for a couple of users who, I consider, don't like the idea of adding Argentina to the list. One of the sources stated that Argentina is part of the Group of 20 (largest economies and most industrialized nations in the world); Argentina, Brazil and Mexico are the only 3 Latin American members, because they're the 3 largest economies, the 3 largest countries by total area, the only 3 who produce nuclear energy to satisfy their needs, and their capitals are the 3 biggest and most populated. Apparently it wasn't enough, so I brought some more. I was asked to bring sth containing the 2 words "REGIONAL POWER" in it, which is absolutely ridiculous (there are thousands of different ways to express the concept without using those 2 words). I got one from the media containing "REGIONAL LEADER" but I was told it was a different thing (?), and that I needed an "academic source", which I fortunately found. This is not only UNFAIR, because countries such as Mexico, Nigeria or even Pakistan are part of the list (with only TWO sources), but it was also an uncontrolled vandalism, because I kept trying to find the right data, and they kept deleting my edit.

I'm a native Spanish speaker, and I can translate what both my sources say, so we can sort this out:

First source: http://noticias.latam.msn.com/ar/argentina/articulo_afp.aspx?cp-documentid=31380349

TITLE: EEUU: encargado de evitar proliferación de armas viajó a Argentina y Brasil TRANSLATION: USA: someone in charge of avoiding proliferation of weapons travelled to Argentina and Brazil.

Second paragraph: El secretario de Estado adjunto para la Seguridad Internacional y la No Proliferación de armas, Thomas Countryman, visitará estos dos "líderes regionales", que "pueden jugar un papel muy importante en el éxito de la conferencia" sobre la convención de armas biológicas, señaló el Departamento en un comunicado. TRANSLATION: Secretary of State for International Security and Non-Proliferation, Thomas Countryman, will visit these two "regional leaders" who "may play an important role in the success of the conference" about the biological weapons convention, said the Department in a press release.

Second source (it's an academic source, coming from a university, not media like the previous source): http://www.huellasdeeua.com.ar/ediciones/edicion1/articulo%206.pdf

TITLE: Historia de Estados Unidos de América, Carrera de Historia. TRANSLATION: History of the United States of America, History Carreer.

FIRST paragraph: La obra del historiador estadounidense Thomas Mc Gann “Argentina y El Sistema Interamericano 1880- 1914” propone analizar el surgimiento de Argentina como potencia regional en los albores del siglo XX, a fin de desentrañar las razones de la conflictiva relación política, económica y cultural sostenida entre este país y los Estados Unidos, en el marco de desarrollo de un incipiente sistema panamericano de naciones. TRANSLATION: The work of the American historian Thomas Mc Gann "Argentina and the InterAmerican System 1880 - 1914" proposes to analyze the rise of Argentina as a regional power at the dawn of the twentieth century, in order to find the reasons for the difficult political, economic and cultural relationship between this country and the US.

I would like SOMEBODY elses's opinion, not the one coming from the 2 users who undid my edit... over and over and over.--190.48.109.50 (talk) 05:15, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

First one might (as a media source) be sus without a couple of academic sources backing it, but the second one I'm unsure of - it seems to be a historical paper looking into how Argentina rose as a regional power one hundred years ago (which, sure, might be all well and good at suggesting longevity; France and Germany have obviously had immense regional power within Europe for decades, particularly France since it wasn't carved into two countries), but I'm not sure if it's really a contemporary appraisal. You know what I mean? First, media, source says 'it's a regional leader' and the second seems to be about 'it rose as a regional power 100 years ago' but does Source 2 mention anything about it still retaining that same power? It's just a question. Comics (talk) 05:56, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the response. First time I meet a kind user here... Yes, this particular source focuses a lot on history, and makes a comparison between Arg-US economic and political relationship some years ago. There's never sth about it "losing" that same status. My point is... Argentina became a member of the G-20, just as Brazil and Mexico, just as the US, France, China, India, Germany, etc. Have you noticed it is the only G-20 country which was not included in the list? So, how is it possible it's one of 20 major and most important economies in the world, and helps taking decisions that affect everyone on Earth, but at the same time it has no power in its own region? I can come up with any source you need to prove it's the 3rd largest GDP in Latin America. But I can't create a text with the exact words "REGIONAL POWER", which btw was not required for the rest of the countries. Please, tell me, what else do you need?--190.48.109.50 (talk) 07:04, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello anonymous IP user. You cannot select which countries are/are not a regional power. You cannot make a personal list of "characteristics" and then add the countries that meet this criteria. That is OR (Original Research) and it is against Wikipedia rules. So far, we haven't seen references clearly mentioning Argentina as a regional power. The sources added are just newspapers articles talking Argentina up, they never title the country as a "potencia regional" (regional power). Most importantly, those are not academic sources.

One of the articles, in my opinion, was added to "fool" those who do not speak Spanish. Spanish is my native language, so I can say that article say that Spain and Argentina were ready to become "regional leaders" in 2010, when both countries held the temporary presidency of their regional organizations, Spain took control of the EU and Argentina of the MERCOSUR. Now, MERCOSUR is just a sub-regional organization of South America. It is not even continental, and it certainly has no influence in the whole of Latin America (which comprises also North, Central and South America). For instance, Mexico's exports are higher than those of the whole MERCOSUR (Brazil included).

So the point is, Argentina is not a regional power and if it is, academic reliable sources must be included. And if as you say, Argentina is widely considered a regional power, finding such references shouldn't difficult... so far this search for sources continues since 2010... AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 17:36, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Former Regional Powers?

This would be a great inclusion for a more historical view on the development of regional power-play.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 16:12, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Argentina is not a regional power in Latin America

In the past days, we've seen a single user attempt to booster Argentina as a "regional power", which clearly is not. None of the sources cited mention Argentina as such. All of the sources talk about education, nuclear non-proliferation pacts, nuclear electricity creation... in what seems like an OR attempt to "demonstrate" that Argentina is a regional power. Most of the references are newspaper articles, not academic sources.

I perceive an attempt to "fool" the users that do not speak English by including a newspaper article titled in Spanish "Spain and Argentina, regional leaders". This article talks about how these two countries were going to be regional leaders in 2010 because it was their temporal presidency at their main economic orgnizations: the EU for Spain and MERCOSUR for Argentina.

Again, none of the sources are reliable and most importantly, none of them mention Argentina as a regional power (Spanish, "potencia regional"). AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 04:18, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I think (not sure) this is the same editor who I spoke to *pokes earlier discussion about Argentina*? I wasn't sure about those sources (one was talking about Argentina 100 years ago, or seemed to be). I agree it's tricky with some of the sources that are in Spanish because it's not as easy for everyone to judge them (I asked someone to lay down what the sources were about and then spoke to the IP based on that, they sorta saw where I was coming from I think but didn't seem to agree that the source talking about 100 years ago wasn't relevant because nowhere in that source did it mention Argentina losing its power; my point being it was talking about Argentina a century ago and probably isn't the best source because of it). Personally I wouldn't be surprised if Argentina was a regional power, but I haven't seen any sources supplied yet that could pass scrutiny. If the sources are as you say, those don't really work either. Comics (talk) 08:49, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Spanish is my native language, so I was very surprised that all of those sources were included because none of them mention Argentina as being a regional power (Spanish, potencia regional). In my opinion, the user was just practicing boosterism, trying to fool the non-Spanish speakers. I have studied geopolitics for years and I am not surprised that Argentina is not a regional power, mainly because it lacks influence in Latin America as a whole. Its economy is very weak and small, exports are weak (including the very important energetic sector), it lacks political influence, etc. Most importantly, since 2010 several other anonymous users have tried to add Argentina as a regional power, but the references were never found... AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 17:44, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

You were not surprised because of the sources. The only problem here is that you're from Mexico, and that, undoubtedley, affects your neutrality. You're not a serious user, that's the reaseon why I asked for some other Spanish-speaking user who wasn't comitted to finding excuses and undoing edits. The only sole Latin American power is Brazil, nowadays. No doubt. If Mexico is added it means the list is not "that strict", and therefore Argentina can be there as well. Mexico lacks influence in Latin America, it is actually influenced and indirectly "governed" by the US more than any other nation in this region.

Lacks political influence: How come a country like Argentina lacks influence when the whole Latin American region, MERCOSUR, UNASUR, CELAC and Rio Group were all persuaded by the Argentine government to support them on the Malvinas sovereignty dispute and to stop British ships coming from the islands from docking in local ports (which is not only formal or protocol, it has a considerable political-diplomatic-economic impact)?

Economy: Only 3 economies are part of the G-20: 1st Brazil - 2d Mexico - 3rd Argentina. How can a country with no political influence and a small economy be part of the same group with the US, UK, China and India? Spain has a larger GDP and is not part of the G-20, because there's no place for Spain in the future. Developing countries such as Brazil or Argentina are rising as new powers. I insist: G-20 should be enough to consider the inclusion, as it's a not a little recognision, it's a forum where only world powers discuss about global affairs. Argentina is also incredibly industrialized, compared to the fourth and fifth GDPs (Colombia and Venezuela)... It's the larger motor vehicle producer, after Br. and Mex. Technology exports are huge (weak exports?).

Nuclear energy: nuclear production is the most important in Latin America: 3 nuclear power stations, Brazil only has 2, and Mexico 1. The only Latin American countries that were on the edge of creating nuclear weapons were Argentina and Brazil, never Mexico (lacks influence?), and those 2 countries were the only ones in the region which had an aircraft carrier (never Mexico). Would it be possible for a middle power such as Colombia or Chile to accomplish that?

There's also a cultural influence, people from Paraguay, Uruguay and Chile have adopted many Argentine expressions and idioms, because of our movies, series, soap operas and production in general. There's a very practical example: there are Argentine and Mexican Yahoo!Answers versions, the rest of the Spanish-speaking world (except for Spain) doesn't have one for them. The same happens with YouTube. Latin American remakes of American films, such as HSM, are only prepared in Argentina and Mexico. Argentine culture is wide spread.

All of the information above can be supported by a source I can provide. But the inclusion or exclusion cannot be determined by a single unbiased user. It has to be discussed.--190.48.99.6 (talk) 02:28, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

First, your ad hominem attacks will just be ignored, it does not add to the discussion. Secondly, your information is factually wrong. Both Mexico and Brazil are Latin American regional powers, referenced. And lastly you do not have to convince other users to add Argentina. That is not how Wikipedia works. You need to find reliable sources directly speaking and titling Argentina a current regional power in Latin America. So far, since 2010 (that I recall) nobody has found such sources. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 17:24, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

It is wonderfully ironic (to the point of LOL) to see you Alex trying to accuse others of boosting their countries as regional powers. You have put four different citations in for showing that Mexico "is a regional and emerging power" all of the references that I have bothered to check actually do not support that conclusion in such strong terms. One of the papers for example note that Mexico is considered a regional power "by some analysts" a somewhat weaker claim than you make it seem. You are the most conspicuous nationalist booster I have met on wikipedia - you hardly make an edit that is not nonsencial boosting of Mexico. I was pretty appalled when I checked the sources on the poverty in Mexico section and saw how made it look like Mexicos economy was rising and poverty falling by using only cherry picked sources from 2004-6 and ignoring the many sources before and after that short span that said the opposite. That is extreme intellectual dishonesty if I ever saw it - and it is diffuclt to imagine who you actually think you are doing a favor by lying about Mexico's economy and legislation. Honestly I don't get what motivates you.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:29, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

You're plainly wrong. I'm not a nationalist booster, period. I won't bother to explain why not. I've been around for almost 7 years and my work is appreciated and recognized by my fellow editors. What motivates me is to fix the wrong idea of what Mexico is. People like you who would like to portray the whole country as a small town, full of people with sombreros, riding donkeys is who I don't get. That's not the real Mexico.

Thanks God, there are plenty of sources supporting what Mexico really is. It is not hard to find such sources. And this is about Argentina, but your narcisistic, confrontational and "being-at-the-spotlight" personality made you watch me again, falling again in the shades of bullying and HARASSMENT. I think I'll have to fill another complaint because frankly this is too much. You're disrupting a discussion. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 21:03, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure the 70% of your country men who live in moderate to extreme poverty will be sorry to know that they don't live in "the real Mexico" which apparently is found somewhere in gated community in Monterrey and Santa Fe. What made me watch you again is your continued driveby reversions at opportune moments. And your misrepresentations of sources. Realizing that I made the first personal attack I shall refrain from commenting on your somewhat more caustic ones. If there are so many sources representing what Mexico really is i don't understand why you have to consistently misrepresent the ones you find? Please go ahead and file a complaint - the more eyes on your edits the better. The difference between you and I is that I love the Mexican people and try to do justice to it on wikipedia whereas you love the Mexican state and takes on the role of its advertising agency. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:38, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

OK. It's now clear to everyone what I was trying to say. I want an HONEST user to check my sources and discuss the inclusion of Arg. I'm not accepting any response coming from some nationalist vandal who undoes and deletes evertyhing, just because he wants to see Mexico on the list. I'm giving real sources and some other opinions are required here. I'll wait until they appear, and then I'll be glad to participate in a serious biased debate.--190.48.117.36 (talk) 16:15, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

It will be really hard for anybody to take you seriously when you edit anonymously, make ad hominem attacks and most importantly you included false sources (in Spanish) that do not support your claims. You should stop adding sources to support your opinion on how Argentina should be considered a regional power, and focus in finding reliable sources that ALREADY categorize Argentina as a regional power. So far, we haven't seen such sources. We need them, thank you. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 00:24, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

AlexCovarrubias is indeed correct. First and most important: do not add content which is not backed by the source given. Second: Argentina is not a Regional power, not even in South America (even less on "Latin America"). It lacks military, economic and politic power. Nothing against Argentina, bu we have to stick ourselves to reliable sources or common sense or whatever that it's rational and that's it. We can't turn articles into nationalistic battlegrounds. --Lecen (talk) 12:03, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Alex and Lecen - none of the sources that were provided support Argentina as a regional power. The IP user accused me of being biased, but the truth is I have nothing against Argentina, in fact, I find it an amazing country and have spent a lot of time editing the Argentina–Brazil relations article. However, Argentina does not meet the criteria of a regional power:

• be part of a definable region with its own identity - yes
• claim to be a regional power (self-image of a regional power) - no
• exert decisive influence on the geographic extension of the region as well as on its ideological construction - no (Brazil exerts this in South America and Mexico in Central America)
• dispose over comparatively high military, economic, demographic, political and ideological capabilities - no (Brazil, Colombia, Chile and Mexico have higher military expenditures; very small GDP compared to Brazil or Mexico; very small population compared to Brazil or Mexico; no political influence outside of Mercosur)
• be well integrated into the region - yes
• define the regional security agenda to a high degree - no
• be appreciated as a regional power by other powers in the region and beyond, especially by other regional powers - no
• be well connected with regional and global fora - yes

Argentina should not be added to the article unless we can find sources that either refer to Argentina as a current regional power or support the criteria above. Limongi ^(talk) 02:01, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Lecen and Limongi for commenting. Limongi and I were accused of being "biased" (by the anonymous IP user) just for not supporting the inclusion of Argentina. That's just silly. I also have nothing against Argentina, I only didn't want to make a factual error by including it here. So back to the basics, Argentina can only be included if we can find several reliable sources directly titling Argentina as a current regional power. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 16:44, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

First of all, I would like to say that this is a neutral comment. After reading the discussion, I saw some claims of boosterism by both Argentine and Mexican editors, and then, I decided to take a closer look at the issue. In the article, there are four citations referencing the claim the Mexico is a regional power. The first is a broken link, the third is not an academic source and the fourth is a dead link. The second citation, which is the only one "working", states the following in the footnotes on page 883: "Robert. A. Pastor (ed.), A Century’s Journey. How the Great Powers Shape the World (New York: Basic Books, 1999), p. 25. includes among the regional powers: Brazil, Argentina, Mexico, Nigeria, South Africa, Iraq, Iran, Egypt, India, Indonesia, and Pakistan." Therefore, all I can say, regarding to the stated positions above, is that, in the current situation, Argentina could be added just like Mexico was. Best regards; Felipe Menegaz 06:54, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Felipe is correct. It's also worthy of note that, so far, no one has made mention of the classic political theory concerning the ABC nations (Also called the "ABC Powers"). The "ABC Powers" are a common topic of discussion in Latin American relations, even now in the 21st century. Based on this information (and, of course, what Felipe originally mentioned), it is perfectly logical and justified to include Argentina as a regional power (and maybe also Chile, albeit that may be a bit of a stretch). Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 16:06, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Some of the Brazilian sources are also not working. For example, Felipe, one of them is also from a Ministry of Foreign affairs, strictly not an "academic" source. Now, back to the real discussion. We'll need to see what Robert Pastor's book says about regional powers. Hope we can read this book soon.

However it is worth mentioning that in the are of geopolitics, not all the authors agree with what country is or is not a regional power. Every author has their own criteria, so we can potentially face an undue weight issue. We cannot add countries that are not widely considered as regional powers by most of the authors. For example, Mexico and Brazil are widely considered regional powers and finding sources to back this is very easy. But in the case of Argentina, it's been quite difficult. People, including me, have tried to find such sources with no success, since 2010 when the first debate began. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 17:50, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Lack of success in finding material does not make the case invalid. One cannot assume Argentina is not a regional power unless sources specifically state such a thing, just as one cannot assume Argentina is a regional power without sources. Given that we have found a source, in addition to the ABC Powers article (which, again, I find it surprising no one has mentioned), no plausible reason exists as to why the material should be excluded (that is, unless material is found which states that Argentina is not a regional power).

What was the purpose, then, in looking for this material if, after being found, we are still going to exclude it?

Page 192 in the following source ([2]), provides an interesting (albeit historic) view on the regional power-play of South America. In any case, it shows that Argentina has traditionally been considered a regional power. It also serves to show that out of the four original powers in South America (Argentina, Brazil, Chile, and Peru), as of recent decades Brazil emerged as the more-dominant figure. When seen this under the light of the ABC Powers, it shows that (out of the four) the one who dropped out of the structure was Peru. Hence, it seems perfectly logical to include Argentina and Chile into the list of regional powers (Perhaps with a mention that Brazil is currently considered as the stronger of the three). Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 18:25, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

MarshalN20, while I respect your opinion, I'm forced to disagree with your reasoning. The term "ABC Powers" was created 100 years ago (1914-1915) to describe the mediation efforts of Argentina, Brazil and Chile during the Tampico Affair. I don't see how it can be relevant to an article that deals with current regional powers. The same can be said about the reference you provided, a book written 25 years ago. Limongi ^(talk) 18:47, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't have time to read through all of the following source, but I'd suggest everyone in the discussion to take a look at it (start reading from p. 113, [3]). It's a fascinating analysis of the development of regional powers in South America. The concept I still get out of it is that, after the tumultous power-competition of the 19th century (which saw several South American nations fighting for a spot in the regional power-play), by the 20th century the structure had stuck with the Brazil-Argentina-Chile power balance. I'm pretty sure I've read somewhere in there something about the 1970s, so the ABC Powers is not an extinct concept (though, indeed century-old). Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 19:02, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Argentina a regional power? Who said that? The inhabitants of the Falklands? Bloody April's fool joke! Speaking of jokes, I heard that the Falkland Islanders are so tired of all this nonsense that they are planning to invade Argentina on 2013. First they'll drop pamphlets all over Argentina saying that Pelé is a far better soccer player than Maradona and that Madonna was a far better Evita than Evita herself. With the Argentines' morale crushed, the Falkland Islanders will easily conquer Buenos Aires and thus Argentina, since the entire population lives in the national capital. Victorious, the country will be officially renamed by them "Falklands y non Malvinas de la Argentina del Generalíssimo Don Juan Manuel de Rosas". With the purpose of appeasing the newly conquered Argentines, the mighty and evil Falklander Islanders will found a new polytheistic Church, the "Muy Santissima Igreja de nuestra Señora Doña Evita de nuestro Señor Dios Maradona y Señor Dios Perón" with its own Holy Trinity, composed of the Father (Perón), the Mother (Evita) and the bastard ugly son (Maradona). Argentina as a regional power? Hah! That's what I call a bloody Argentine POV! --Lecen (talk) 19:03, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

LOL @ Lecen. Very sarcastic but highly (and sadly) describes the situation. I still stand by the common sense of fiding sufficient reliable sources to back Argentina's inclusion to the article. Current ones. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 20:12, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

In response to AlexCovarrubias' reply, I noticed that the citations referencing Brazil are also "out of standard". However, the discussion about boosterism here involved primarily Argentina and Mexico, and that is why I just mentioned the citations supporting Mexico. I also think that Mexico and Brazil are widely considered regional powers and finding sources to back this is very easy (and I suggest to go find and add these sources to the article as soon as possible), but I reiterate: that in the current situation Argentina could be added just like Mexico or even Brazil were. Cheers; Felipe Menegaz 19:28, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Felipe. I think we all agree that Brazil and Mexico are the only widely-considered regional powers in Latin America. It would be very good to find other sources! That's obvious, but I think the main reason why we do not see the "edit wars" involving other regions in this article (for example Europe or Middle East) is simply because the list is right.

I want to add that one source is not sufficient to add a country, because that will violate [[WP:WEIGHT|Wikipedia's undue weight rule]. One cannot treat as mainstream view those minority point of views, but we also cannot exclude minority views on a subject. So, I suggest we can add another section titled "Other countries" where we can add not only Argentina, but all of the other countries that are not widely considered regional powers.

We should be very aware that politics is all about "power projection", so it is not appropiate to add a country next to other widely-considered regional powers just because we find one or two sources barely supporting an opinion (that we still need to read). We have to contrast the number of sources with the ones included to support other countries, in order to check and fulfill Wikipedia's undue weight rule. This article is a fresh ground for political boosterism so we have to be very careful! Regarding the ABC countries, it is an obsolete term. It was never a political organization and the countries involved lack political unity and power since the first half of the 20th century. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 20:30, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, Felipe, in that case you should find sources that refer to Argentina as a regional power - simple as that. To date, no current credible sources have been given. For the record, I just updated the sources for Brazil, with new academic papers by the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, Chatham House, the Finnish Institute of International Affairs and the German Institute of Global and Area Studies. These are the types of sources that should be used, not opinion pieces or newspaper articles with one-line mentions. Now tell me, can you do the same for Argentina? Limongi ^(talk) 20:16, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

No, I can't. Hahahahaha... Felipe Menegaz 18:15, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, it seems that Colombia will become the second greatest economy in South America this year, and it's rise as a potential regional power has already been noticed. No place for Argentina here... --Lecen (talk) 21:20, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea what should I try to understand on this edit: either the removal of the USA or the super fabulous "SSSSSSuuuuuuuuppppeeeeeerrrrrrrr!!!!!!!" Now that's what I call being bold... --Lecen (talk) 01:41, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

---

Well, regardless of how the editors here may want to place Argentina, I believe the references added by me are reliable enough to support the inclusion. That being said, I think I deserve this moment to brag and laugh (specifically those that made a mockery out of this discussion). Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 13:56, 17 April 2012 (UTC)