Talk:Regional power/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Pakistan

@Adamgerber80, Sdmarathe, and Usman47: Here is quick analysis of the sources used by Usman47.

• [1] = From 2002. States Hungary Sweden and more as "middle powers".
• [2] Shanghai Cooperation organisation list. That is no description for "regional power".
• [3] Unreliable source, which sentence say Pakistan is a regional power?
• [4] Unreliable source.
• [5] Unreliable again.
• [6] provide quote for this. Where you were reading that source say Pakistan is a regional power?
• [7] regional nuclear power? How's that "Regional power".

These sources fail the point. Lorstaking (talk) 11:17, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

@Mar4d: you are supposed to carry on discussion here in place of restoring the disputed edit. Do you have any source that qualifies more than just passing mention? Sdmarathe (talk) 19:42, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

@Everyone, Can we please revert to the page as it was on this version on 20 June 2018. I do understand that there a set of editors who think the sources added are insufficient and other editors think we have enough WP:RS to include Pakistan. This can be done here without engaging in an edit-war. And something for everyone to ponder on is this link from IISS. Even though it is marked as a blog, it gives a good matrix analysis of what constitutes a regional power. IISS is also a reputed organization with experts and is considered a great neutral source on Wikipedia. IMO, beyond this discussion, we should use this to make this page better. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 20:48, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

We don't have to voice opinion of minority but mainstream. You can search and discover sources calling Sri Lanka, United Arab Emirates, and other countries a regional power as well but we have to voice the mainstream view. IISS also calls "North Korea" a regional power but that's not supported by majority of sources. India and Brazil are a Great power according to many sources and some consider India, China, Russia to be a superpower. But Wikipedia article on these subjects don't list Brazil and India as great power, nor list Russia, India, China as superpower because that is not an opinion of majority.

Generally the sources that are focused on regional powers have not included Pakistan as one:-

• [8][9] [10]: "Testing several indicators, we identified the following countries as regional powers: China, India, Brazil, South Africa, Mexico, Indonesia, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Turkey."

.... "for example, Israel, Iran, Pakistan, Thailand, Vietnam, Argentina, Venezuela and Nigeria. They are important but do not belong to those nations which exert global and regional influence, either in regional or global institutions or as economic hubs in the region. For comparison, the data of some of the aforementioned countries were taken into consideration."

• [11]: "The countries considered to be regional powers – Brazil, South Africa, India, China, Japan and Russia".
• [12]: This list is certainly small but includes China, India, not Pakistan.
• [13]: Look at the table at the bottom of the page 56.
• [14]: " But it also reflects that secondary regional powers and entities such as ASEAN, Russia, South Korea and India have proved unwilling to chose between the two."
• [15]: This entire book is dedicated to "Regional Powers and Global Redistribution". It says "Regional powers such as India, Brazil and South Africa", but makes no mention of Pakistan as a regional power.

The first source is widely prevalent in academia and holds full expertise in this subject. It has refuted the incorrect notion. None of the above references as well as many others[16][17][18][19][20][21] say that Pakistan is a regional power and most of them don't even mention Pakistan in this context. If Pakistan is a regional power than those sources are ought to say it if Pakistan was really a regional power. This book says Pakistan is a "sub-regional power". Given the large amount of dispute and omission of Pakistan as "regional power", it seems that it is just an opinion of a small minority that Pakistan is a regional power and it is not shared by the majority as already evidenced in the great amount of sources that have authority in this subject. There is a strong argument against inclusion of Pakistan as regional power. Orientls (talk) 09:12, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

That's an interesting analysis of the weakness of this information. Also read this chapter. It describes the problems with calling Pakistan a regional power. Lorstaking (talk) 10:35, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Reading that, I support removing such information that seem to be promoting the status that doesn't really exists. Orientls (talk) 13:41, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

@Orientls It's interesting that you are quoting sources that are suiting your narrative and are majority biased sources with Indian authors. Since this is a page talk not a discussion forum, i would refrain to go in to an argument. Same arguments that you are applying here can be applied for India where no article mentions india as a monopoly of regional power in South Asia. Your arguments are politically motivated and are no substance.

Pakistan being world's seventh nuclear power and have sixth largest nuclear arsenal  ; one of the few countries that have completed nuclear triad. Have sixth largest standing army . It is a large manufacturer and supplier of military equipment and deploy it's forces in multiple regional countries for security and stability and provide training to other militaries . , Is a founding member/full member of multiple international geo-strategic organisations. , qualifies Pakistan as regional power. AlphaAce (talk) 15:44, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Your own original research cannot be taken as substitute for reliable source. Pakistan is regarded as a regional power by minority, Wikipedia links of Pakistani-related articles don't prove anything that concerns regional power status. Orientls (talk) 15:59, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

• I wished to add here that I have only seen random mentions of Pakistan being a regional power around and maybe there were better chances for Pakistan to be treated as a regional power a decade or earlier however the recent reliable sources as listed by Orientls show Pakistan is not making it to the list at all. Sdmarathe (talk) 16:28, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, nope. Orientls' "analysis" (or opinion) is weak, incomplete, and for lack of a better term, also invalid/not up to the mark. We are not concerned with "global redistribution". Regional powers are (sic) states that have "power within a geographic region. States which wield unrivalled power and influence within a region of the world possess regional hegemony." Here we are focused on "regional power" within South Asia as per WP:RS. ^I don't know who this Rajesh Rajagopalan is, or what his credentials are. But Barry Buzan, Ole Wæver, T. V. Paul, James N. Rosenau, Roger Kanet, Samuel P. Huntington and others are mainstream and internationally-recognised experts in the field, and certainly more experienced, qualified, and widely-cited than you. If you think we are going to railroad these experts and pretend you know better, then fat chance! In their work, they have defined in great detail what "regional" powers and their roles are, and in specific terms identify Pakistan amongst the countries that influence regional dynamics and are regional powers. Amongst the criteria that such powers fulfil are conventional military standing (e.g. nuclear states), impact on neighbouring states/regions, socioeconomics etc., and as per the sources we have, these criteria are specifically acknowledged even in as subjective a department as this. The same standards hold true for most other powers listed in this article for each region.

I will go further, because Orientls is contradicted by his own sources. This paper acknowledges a publication by Robert Pastor who (quote) "includes Argentina, Iraq, Egypt, Indonesia, and Pakistan in addition to the above-mentioned countries" as regional powers. This link only focuses on a selective group of powers (G4) who failed to attain UNSC seats, and interestingly attributes one of the reasons to an anti-G4 group consisting of active powers like Pakistan, Argentina, Italy, Korea, and Mexico. This one is definitely questionable, as it self-admittedly claims "Russia is excluded from our analysis" and even omits Iran and Israel, all of which are recurrently mentioned in other sources. This page is on Asia-Pacific and, like most other links above, is entirely irrelevant to South Asia.

Finally, I find it extremely odd that a revert of longstanding sourced content, later called a 'mistake', triggers at least three users with no immediate history on this article effectively trying to restore the same vandal's edits. This article needs to be put under extensive monitoring. Mar4d (talk) 17:04, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

To interpret mainstream sources is now considered a WP:OR?

These sources are the best you could come up with? That's still a minority view. Pakistan is not a regional power when it comes to majority view. According to you, we should also consider Ukraine as a great power? "I don't know who this Rajesh Rajagopalan is, or what his credentials are"? He has enough publications that comes from reliable publications and he has more idea about Pakistan not being a regional power, unlike your sources and some of which you have cherry-picked in wrong context. We can't treat opinion of Robert Pastor that is added to the footnote by the source itself[22] and Iraq is not a regional power, thus Pastor's opinion is extremely flawed and same goes for "Buzan, Barry; Wæver, Ole", it is flawed too.

Keep this discussion about Pakistan, don't invite discussion about other countries like Iran, Israel as they are definitely more recognizable as regional power, Pakistan isn't. You need to rely on mainstream sources where experts have voiced opinion after having some solid foundation. Orientls (talk) 17:21, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

This discussion is about the sources, where you have failed in particular. The sources linked above are mainstream, while yours are not coming even close and are cherry-picked which anyone can see. Also, "don't invite discussion about other countries like Iran, Israel as they are definitely more recognizable as regional power" - it is your own source that is claiming they are not regional powers, so double crossing won't help I'm afraid. The only thing that is "flawed" here is your consistent WP:OR, because you are certainly not an academic or expert, and Wikipedia doesn't work based on what your personal opinion is. There is no way anyone is going to take you seriously if you don't stick to the content. Thanks! Mar4d (talk) 17:37, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

You are picking up footnotes of a source (WP:CHERRYPICKING) for establishing your view that Pakistan is a regional power. Whether those sources are mainstream or not, the point here is Pakistan is clearly not a regional power because its recognition as a regional power is minor. Like you, I am not talking about what "triggers at least three users with no immediate history on this article". I am only sticking to content. Especially when you make WP:POINT like "This page is on Asia-Pacific and, like most other links above, is entirely irrelevant to South Asia", you are really failing to find a policy based excuse for disregarding the mainstream view that eliminates Pakistan as regional power. Orientls (talk) 17:49, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

That "footnote" was in your own source(!), which you are ironically using to claim the opposite. Hence my point stands. It's obvious who is cherry-picking from just that particular example. It's not my problem if your sources are entirely irrelevant, or derailing and contradicting each other. The Asia-Pacific source is on Sino-US influence, and is not even relevant to the region covering this section. Why don't you start a new section below for the United States and China? Mar4d (talk) 18:02, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

But you were supposed to read what is written in the main body. Obviously the publishers deemed Pakistan as unsuited for the main list and thought its better to place in footer.

Sources are not irrelevant per their prevalence. They are published by the highly cited experts of the subject.

What do you mean by "contradicting each other"? They are not supposed to agree entirely, only that Pakistan is not listed by any of them as regional power.

Who actually demanded the creation of a section for "Asia-Pacific"? I don't really see any. Orientls (talk) 19:17, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

The prevalence of support for Pakistan as regional power is low as explained above and there are some other countries that get mentioned as regional power as Pakistan. I don't think there is academic consensus for Pakistan being referred as regional power. Sdmarathe (talk) 03:53, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Mar4d: the "longstanding" content lacked any satisfactory sources. Your sources refer Pakistan as secondary regional power, which at least shows that Pakistan is not a major regional power. This one calls it a "secondary regional power". Your other source mentions Pakistan as one of the "third tier of secondary regional power". These sources incorrectly adds Ukraine and gives zero description about Pakistan being a regional power unlike Rajesh Rajagopalan who has extensively written about this subject and yields more expertise than these sources of yours. Rajagopalan describes [23] this whole subject in better terms which is relevant per WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. Now this alone proves above point. Do know that there is "distinction between major regional power and secondary regional power"? You should have no doubt by now, that why these lists and experts (as mentioned above) are omitting the mention of Pakistan, because it has not established itself as a regional power and only because some people are thinking that it is a regional power without describing why or how, there is no requirement for us to list Pakistan as a regional power. As already shown, Pakistan is not generally mentioned as regional power by the reliable sources including these other reliable sources.[24][25] If Pakistan could be as commonly considered as a regional power then there had to be be no problem at first. You can read now that even North Korea, Ukraine, Algeria[26] gets mentioned as "regional power". But reality is still same that they are not regional powers, just like Pakistan isn't. Lorstaking (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Lorstaking: WP:SCHOLARSHIP states: "Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible. For example, a paper reviewing existing research, a review article, monograph, or textbook is often better than a primary research paper. When relying on primary sources, extreme caution is advised: Wikipedians should never interpret the content of primary sources for themselves. See Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view." You are doing the same, and like Orientls, relying fully on his weak primary sources like papers even though they comparatively fail the reliability criteria as per the above, and are contradicting your own cherry-picked opinions as they themselves mention Pakistan.

Wikipedia is only going to depend on reliable sources, not your personal opinions which in encylopaedic terms hold zero weight. The scholars cited are notable, mainstream experts who are renowned in the field of geopolitics, have more knowledge than you to write on the subject (obviously!), and have conducted extensive studies unlike you, whereas the non-notable sources you and Orientls could only find fall nowhere near. Repeatedly trumping Rajagopalan is not going to help you as the WP:WEIGHT of scholarly consensus tips onto the side of the mainstream view. Your first link is a study "Using the emerging powers of India and South Africa as the case studies" only, and it seems you did not read even the title of the book per WP:RELEVANCE. Your second source (including the page you cited) is also contradicting you, as it does not disqualify Pakistan anywhere. In fact, page 53 states: Not all regional powers are equal. Table 3.1 is an attempt to rank them... and this very table lists Pakistan amongst the same small group of countries. Using your own source, we can now also deduct that you are creating false equivalence. China and Japan are not 'equal' powers. Saudi Arabia and Iran are by many aspects, not equal. UK and Italy are not equal. Neither are South Africa and Nigeria. The listing of regional powers does not rank states by parity, it ranks them by their ability to significantly influence regional dynamics. And the fact is, multiple mainstream sources have declared Pakistan as capable of exercising this influence, including ironically your own sources, and that is what we will go with.

If you have issues about other countries, then you need start a new section below. Also hiding behind one non-Western source and building upon misrepresentation won't make your opinions believable. If we even read that source, it is actually only saying that it is "difficult" and that it may be too weak to be a regional power, and further says it is equally difficult to characterize South Asia as a region in any theoretically significant ways. The same source says (quote) that it is a state endowed with significant material capabilities, which include being a nuclear weapon state... and that Pakistan has been surprisingly successful in pursuing its grand strategic goals and in exploiting global and extra-regional powers in the pursuit of these objectives, sometimes even bending them to its will. This also contradicts.... Furthermore: ...regional powers are also very adept at manipulating opportunities to advance their interests.. Pakistan's strategy during both the Cold War and afterwards illustrates the capacity of weaker regional powers to advance their interests through such astute strategies. The Pakistan case suggests that regional powers are not simply subjects of the global order, but rather are agents who actively seek, often successfully, to manipulate global power resources to their own ends. And other snippets: ... the issue of agency remains: are weaker regional powers simply a variation of the vassal state, living out their lives at the mercy of great powers or do they have a measure of autonomy in pursuing their own goals... So even this "study" is not entirely omitting it, but in fact largely in agreement to the mainstream sources discussing Pakistani regional power. And it totally relates to the point about parity above. And if that is all you have, then we have stronger sources on this talk page and elsewhere which altogether omit certain countries, calling them not regional powers, rather than studies using vague terms like "may", "difficult" etc. So in summary, we can conclude reliably now your views hold no contention. Cheers, Mar4d (talk) 09:28, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Do the current scholarship holds the view that Pakistan is a regional power? No one is "hiding behind one non-Western source", and we don't evaluate sources by the race, but by the credentials. Rajesh Rajagopalan is an expert who provides good explanation regarding the problems with recognizing Pakistan as a regional power, it is more than just making a passing mention and Rajagopalan's chapter has credibility that's why only a few sources are including Pakistan as regional power compared to those who don't mention it. Whether you get it now or later, the argument to consider Pakistan as regional power is same as considering Ukraine or Algeria or North Korea. Maybe we can convert the lists into paragraphs and omit the mention of Pakistan in section but dedicate a separate paragraph to include the mention of Algeria, Pakistan, Ukraine, North Korea and other names that lacks universal consensus. Lorstaking (talk)

You are answering your own question, the current scholarship is cited everywhere above. The credibility of your sources, I'm afraid, has been discussed above including how they are contradicting you. You would be better of spending time reading on why you are claiming something, while your sources even are saying something else. The consensus amongst all, including in your own sources, is not tilting towards your claim. You are effectively hanging on a refuted argument. Mar4d (talk) 11:47, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Your cherry-picking of quotations is not helping your case. They don't say Pakistan is a regional power,[27][28] and that's the argument. Now if you want the sources to explicitly "disqualify", you should question that why they even have to mention a non-regional power in context of regional powers at first? By grossly misrepresenting this page that talks about "second-order power rankings", and not "regional power". You are just trying to make a non-existing connection that doesn't exist. Sdmarathe (talk) 12:06, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

You're the one cherry-picking here. That first one is a case study of two countries. And your second claim is completely false, because the source calls them "regional powers" and divides them into ranks. So once again, the source misrepresentation and cherry-picking is clear on your side. Mar4d (talk) 12:20, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

But it names Brazil, China, India, Nigeria, Russia and South Africa as "viable regional powers". Where's Pakistan? In other one,[29] you are just misrepresenting the source to suit your POV. If your misrepresentation is accepted then in which world a person would call Mexico, Venezuela, etc. a regional power? This misleading connection is not sticking. Sdmarathe (talk) 13:43, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

You are misrepresenting, the source uses the exact term "regional power" and you can read it. Your comment shows you are double guessing your own sources now too, which makes your argument further weaker. And Mexico by the way is cited in this article. Maybe you should spend greater time reading both the article, and the sources you cite, along with all other sources. Mar4d (talk) 14:19, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

That's still not the definition of regional power. According to the sources, India is a great power but I am sure that you won't support India's listing as Great power. Mexico is a regional power? What about Vietnam? Source provided some details on Pakistan on page 54 that it is losing stability.[30] Whether you pick up the table as representative of scholarship or not, fact is still the same that Pakistan is often omitted as regional power and similarly many other countries share the status but we don't list them. Sdmarathe (talk) 15:47, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

The fact is, all sources quoted so far have discussed Pakistan as a regional power in any form, including the sources presented by you. That counts for something, and you can't deny it. Furthermore, all your opinions so far have failed to refute the fact that the sources discussing Pakistan have been written by acknowledged experts. Strike two. Finally, what you are claiming is in fact the case for most if not all other powers, it doesn't mean they are not powers. It only means there are a diversity of opinions, and we follow what is the common view. And as we can see from at least 10 scholarly sources, in addition to the sources you folks have presented, they all discuss Pakistan's regional power. Strike three. Thus we conclude that there is sufficient literature in support of the fact. Mar4d (talk) 16:04, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Not all sources have, in fact most have omitted. For a name[31] this one has not mentioned Pakistan. Going by your interpretation, if you read more carefully, the table omits many major regional powers that are listed here because they must not be really talking about the regional power and if they are then why they didn't made the mention on page 447? There is "sufficient literature" to support India being a great power as well, but until all sources agree we would list them. As pointed out to you above there is heavy amount of sources that don't want to consider Pakistan as regional power and Rajesh Rajagopalan have a good analysis regarding the issues with Pakistan being considered as a regional power.[32] Can you find as credible sources that describe how Pakistan has become a regional power? Certainly the recent POV edits to this article make that claim.[33] Sdmarathe (talk) 16:16, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

I concur with the references presented by @Mar4d. Based on the research of these highly-regarded experts, there is substantial evidence and scholarship that appreciates Pakistan's regional power. I see no reason to add a South Asia section, if it doesn't mention the major powers of the region, like other regions. Actually if we go one step further, Pakistan's regional power prevents India from becoming a hegemon, and we are going to resume discussion below on the validity of India's power. Nauriya Let's talk 19:18, July 7, 2018 (UTC)

This discussion is not a vote and making vague handwaves is not going to establish the status. India is actually considered as Great power by enough "highly-regarded experts" so we should be listing India as Great power. Sorry but we are not interested in righting great wrongs. Read WP:RGW. Sdmarathe (talk) 16:26, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

• Sdmarathe: There is sufficient literature to support Pakistan's regional power. Rajagopalan is one source and all that you have - and now I am going to actually share that you have also grossly misrepresented him. Meanwhile, above there are dozens of more sources and they include Barry Buzan, Ole Wæver, T. V. Paul, James N. Rosenau, Roger Kanet, Samuel P. Huntington. So all said and done, you are on the losing side when push comes to shove.

And thank you finally for linking this source. Here is a chapter from this very book (p. 200 onwards), and guess what, it is written by Rajagopalan himself, right after the opening passage you all have been using (p. 193). Let me share the details, straight from the horse's mouth (i.e. your source): By these crudely material resources, Pakistan should be considered a major regional power... So, though Pakistan is a fairly large, important and powerful state in its own right... its position at the crossroads of Central Asia, the Middle East and South Asia offers it advantages that Islamabad has been quick to exploit at different points in time... In each instance, Pakistan has used its geopolitical position as a way of garnering strategic benefits... Therefore, in addition to its considerable traditional material capabilities, Pakistan has other resources that cement its status as a regional power... resources astutely to frequently advance its national interest, even in interaction with much more powerful extra-regional powers, even to the extent of undertaking projects such as nuclear weapons development despite opposition from these powers... Pakistan... has been anything but a passive subject of global powers or processes... rather, what Pakistan has done is to engage with global powers as a way of either pursuing Pakistani interests without being challenged (for example, the case of the nuclear weapons programme), or to use such powers to balance... Despite such instances, it is clear Pakistan has been able to pursue its significant interests with a modicum of success... I outline Pakistan's key strategic objectives and how Pakistan has pursued these interests, many times utilizing great power resources.

And if there's any doubts, Rajagopalan's next summary of his chapter (which touches upon Pakistan's political/military influence, nuclear capability, regional relations, ties to Middle East/Muslim world/China/US and more) is self-explanatory:

The assumption that regional powers are incapable of resisting external influences and impact is difficult to sustain in the case of Pakistan. I examine three cases below... The first demonstrates that Pakistan was able to use outside powers to pursue Pakistan's regional objective; the second demonstrates that Pakistan was able to withstand international pressure on a key issue of international security concern; the last case demonstrates that Pakistan, even when it was forced to change its own policy direction, was, over time, able to subvert the global agenda.

Other snippets:

...Pakistan exploited opportunities for aligning with external partners if that suited Pakistan's interests, and only if it suited Pakistani interests... Throughout the next decade, Pakistan managed adroitly to not only balance the Soviet forces in Afghanistan... but also used that alliance to both enhance its conventional military capability... as well as develop its own nuclear weapons capability... In each of these instances, Islamabad set the terms of the alliance... even while being a close ally in a dangerous venture (or maybe even because of it), Pakistan was able to force Washington to bend its policy to suit Pakistan's interest... Nevertheless, almost a decade after the war started it is clear that Pakistan has managed to subvert the agenda of the global unipolar power... Pakistan has found ways to force the US on the horns of a dilemma... the greater is Pakistan's leverage in Afghanistan... Pakistan will be increasingly able to leverage its cooperation on any US proposal to gain leeway on its own more crucial objectives...

Rajgopalan furthermore does not rule out Pakistan as a regional power, and clarifies his opening statement that it would be an issue only (quote) if regional power means something more than simply a power whose strategic reach is limited to its neighbourhood. But Pakistan does also demonstrate something else... Pakistan has consistently pursued its own primary strategic goals, using external powers as pawns in its regional game.

Rajgopalan's closing statement:

After all, Pakistan is a nuclear power, a large and considerably powerful state... for now, we should not assume that regional powers, though weaker by definition in comparison to global powers and processes, are completely helpless in the influence and management of the international environment.

The scholarly consensus and academic exposition is overwhelmingly clear and strong. There is a unanimous view that Pakistan exercises capable influence within South Asia, including in the source above. Thus, this matter is as good as sealed and proven beyond fact. Clearly, you have no case anymore. Mar4d (talk) 17:57, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

@Mar4d: If you are just going to only repeat what you have already mentioned then you are showing off the weakness of your case.

You are just failing to cite the actual conclusion. You cite "Pakistan should be considered a major regional power" but omits "But Power is as much a relationship concept as an absolute one. And, unfortunately for Pakistan, its neighbour India dwarfs it in almost every measure." You have been cherrypicking the quotes to favor a POV but that is not going to stick. That is misrepresentation of sources.

"Pakistan is not often thought of as a regional power. This alone requires additional clarification." - This is what a few editors are telling you.

"By most definition, Pakistan would be difficult to classify as a regional power, which includes some notion of regional leadership that goes beyond simply material capabilities and 'a belief in their entitlement to a more influential role in world affairs''".

"By this measure at least, it will be difficult to classify Pakistan as a regional power."

"Given this lack of regional political dynamic it is understandable that Pakistan emphasizes a bilateral, security-driven agenda rather than a regional agenda. If regional power means something more than simply a power whose strategic reach is limited to its neighbourhood then it might not be possible to characterize Pakistan as a regional power."

Before I would generate the snippets from the sources as well as the clear conclusion, I am giving you another chance to find reliable sources that have done something more than just making passing mention regarding categorization of Pakistan as regional power. Sdmarathe (talk) 01:20, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

To editor Sdmarathe: All your sources agree and are calling Pakistan a regional power. Including Rajagopalan whose text has been thoroughly deconstructed by Mar4d above. Your quotes from Rajagopalan are just snippets which Rajagopalan rebuts in his own text. The majority of the Rajagopalan's text favours Pakistan's regional power status and partial representation would amount to WP:CHERRYPICKING of the source.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 06:26, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

And you have still not rebutted the research of Barry Buzan, Ole Wæver, T. V. Paul, James N. Rosenau, Roger Kanet, Samuel P. Huntington, all of which are excellent and strong in-depth sources, meet the reliability criteria, and it would be extremely difficult for you to prove otherwise. We already have majority of sources supporting this status (which we have seen here), so the weakness of your claim is judged by the fact that your opinion is a minority view as per these sources. Even your above source summarised Pakistan as a regional power in the conclusion, and several times in the text.

And by the way, a non-regional power would not have a chapter discussing exactly why it is a regional power, which your source does. You are misrepresenting the source, and you fail to explain why the same author you quoted has called Pakistan a regional power several times.

Read especially the conclusion, the summary which Mar4d showed above, and also the bolded text. It is as clear as daylight to anyone that Raja has done an analysis and just identified strengths and weaknesses of Pakistan. In his conclusion, he has called Pakistan a powerful state and used term "regional power".--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 06:47, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Looks like you are entirely misrepresenting sources as it is already obvious that majority of sources don't cite Pakistan as a regional power. Repeating source misrepresentation by Mar4d has already weakened this case and you are making it apparent that one can't push Pakistan without misrepresenting sources. Rajagopalan says "Pakistan is not often thought of as a regional power. This alone requires additional clarification." What else you have missed?

Making vague handwaves of passing mentions is unhelpful especially in this case. Which "all your sources agree"? I haven't provided even one yet, Mar4d misrepresented the entire Rajagopalan's text after rejecting him "non-western" for about 2 days and now resorted to cherrypicking by connecting remotely unrelated sentences with each other. Read WP:SYNTH, you are doing worse than him by engaging in deliberate misrepresentation of sources.

Have you read WP:CONTEXTMATTERS? Rajagopalan pass it, not the passing mentions. Now read some more:-

• Escape from Violence: Conflict and the Refugee Crisis in the Developing World. Oxford University Press. p. 135.

"When Pakistan in 1971 was divided into (West) Pakistan and Bangladesh, losing about half its population and a sizable portion of its territory, the regional power structure moved further in favor of India."

• K. M. De Silva, Kingsley M.. De Silva. Regional Powers and Small State Security: India and Sri Lanka, 1977-1990. Woodrow Wilson Center Press. p. 22.

"India, the major regional power in South Asia, and its principal rival, Pakistan were drawn into extra-regional alliances, the latter because of opposition to India over Kashmir and other issues."

• Ahmed, Ali (2014). India's Doctrine Puzzle: Limiting War in South Asia. Routledge. p. 36. ISBN 9781317559580.

"With Pakistan divided, India gained a pre-eminent position as a regional power. Henceforth, India became the status quoist and stronger power, while Pakistan remained the weaker, revisionist one."

• Jacobsen, Knut (2015). Routledge Handbook of Contemporary India. Routledge. p. 187. ISBN 9781317403579.

"India emerged as the predominant regional power in South Asia after the successful vivisection of Pakistan in 1971."

• Jyoti Bhusan Das Gupta (2007). Science, Technology, Imperialism, and War. p. 851. ISBN 9788131708514.

"On the contrary the United States recognized India as a regional power of importance."

• "Pakistan's Example of the Way Forward in Egypt". 2013.

"Pakistan's development of nuclear weapons, and an often awkward relationship with India, the regional power."

"On the other side of the ledger is the perception that Pakistan is no longer a U.S. ally (given the assumed help it gave to bin Laden during his years of hiding there) and sometimes seems on the verge of becoming a failed state, the first with a nuclear weapons arsenal."

• "Pakistan: A Failed State?". 2009.

"Today, the world faces the stark and real possibility of Pakistan becoming a failed state and a haven for terrorism with potential nightmarish consequences."

"the active involvement of regional powers such as India and Iran but also requires a U.S. shift in military"

Do we have any of these sources saying Pakistan is a regional power, or describing how Pakistan became a regional power by discussing these significant factors? That's what I meant by WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, not just vague handwave. And frankly speaking, how country "described by many academics, particularly the American ones, as a failed state"[34] can be even remotely called a regional power?

One of the above source (Silva) has been hailed by Mar4d as "eminent historian," per his comments on Talk:Indo-Pakistani War of 1971.[35] There is another detailed book on regional powers[36] that avoids any mention of Pakistan. These books are dedicated to "regional power" and they avoid any mention of Pakistan.

Now given the dubiousness and lack of consensus among scholars, there are valid reasons for removing Pakistan from the list. Sdmarathe (talk) 12:09, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

This discussion is not a vote, and you are the one challenging established WP:STATUSQUO as supported by all existing sources, so that won't happen. We have already arrived at one result, which is that both your arguments and sources unfortunately are completely deficient, and therefore have been rejected. A blog? That's your choice of references now? Sorry to say, but this makes you appear desperate now and willing to lift off any ineligible source, including most of the above which have been Google searched using one specific country name. If that is what you're going to lean on, then I'm afraid you have already lost the argument. We are not even going to get into other countries' regional standings, because that's not what this section was on. You are welcome to participate in the separate sections allotted for those countries, and I am sure there are hundreds of references which would challenge your views. If you can't stick to the content, WP:DROPTHESTICK. Adding non-topical references after misrepresenting the on-topic references already shows you have nothing new to offer. As far as I can see, you are not going to get anywhere far. Good day, Mar4d (talk) 13:18, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

You are failing to describe how Pakistan is generally regarded as regional power and none of your sources pass WP:CONTEXTMATTERS nor do they detail how Pakistan became a regional power but there are sources that say in detail that it's not regional power or it lost its status due to defeat in 1971 war against India. Now that you have already breached your topic ban on India Pakistan conflict, I strongly recommend you and NadirAli to stop replying to this argument since it is not going to move without clarifying the India - Pakistan wars. Sdmarathe (talk) 13:36, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

There is no question of that even. The discussion is entirely centered on Pakistan being a regional power in South Asia, and the sources support this strongly. If you think we are going to set this discussion on your own terms and accept your unreliable, out-of-scope references, you can dispel this notion straight away. Mar4d (talk) 13:48, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

• Mar4d has defended Pakistan's status of a regional power so amicably here that there is nothing left for me to say. I agree with whatever Mar4d said in their statements above. By going through all this conversation, I have come to a conclusion that Pakistan was listed on this article as a regional power since 2009, these are nine years, no one noticed the purported falsehood until now. I am not in favor of removing Pakistan from this list until and unless we have considerable proof from considerable number of reliable scholarly sources claiming that Pakistan has lost its regional power base in last nine years. There are no sources claiming that. Furthermore, Mar4d and others who are against the removal of Pakistan from this list have presented many sources which attest to the fact that Pakistan is in fact a regional power and there is only one teeny tiny source with a teeny tiny ambiguous mention written by an author with questionable credentials which suggests that Pakistan might not be that powerful but that same author contradicts himself somewhere else as per Mar4d. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 21:30, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

• That makes no sense. Just because Pakistan was listed in this article as a regional power in 2009, it doesn't mean that Pakistan became one in 2009. You have to provide sources for stating when Pakistan actually became the regional power and what it has done. Considerable number of "reliable scholarly sources" have been provided here that totally rejects Pakistan as a regional power, so your claims don't make sense. Sources provided by Mar4d so far--as has been said above many times-- are not enough since they make passing mentions that can be found for many other countries. That one "teeny tiny source" is a qualified source and lacks any contradiction. By degrading and misrepresenting the reliable and qualified source you are making your argument the weakest. My Lord (talk) 05:28, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

• This matter has been taken to WP:DRN under dispute resolution. Please visit the linked section and leave your summaries as requested, so we can proceed. Regards, Mar4d (talk) 09:27, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

References

An old discussion at Talk:Pakistan

Transcluding an old discussion from Talk:Pakistan/Archive_18#Regional power? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:07, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Talk:Pakistan/Archive 18

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Egypt as regional power

Egypt is twice listed as a regional power on the color-coded map: among the regional powers in Western Asia, but it is not indicated so by color. It is also listed on the map table as among the regional powers of North Africa, and indicated so in matching dark violet color. But it is not listed under either region in the article itself. This needs to be corrected.Parkwells (talk) 16:51, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Egypt is not a regional power as one source (passing WP:CONTEXTMATTERS) describes that "Egypt is not a regional power but it can prevent any other power in the Middle East from emerging as a regional power."[37] The remaining mentions can be removed now. Lorstaking (talk) 18:19, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Parkwells The consensus is that the Egypt is not considered a regional Power by reliable sources. as User:Adamgerber80 pointed in the edit summary of one of his recent reverts see Talk:Regional_power/Archive_4#Protected_edit_request_on_27_January_2018 for more details. --DBigXrayᗙ 18:23, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

RfC: On quality of sources

There is a clear consensus to include only those nations as a regional power if the information is supported by multiple reliable sources satisfying WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. Kraose (talk) 16:41, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should we add a country only when the supported source/s passes WP:CONTEXTMATTERS? Sdmarathe (talk) 17:37, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Until now, I have seen sources making passing mention of Pakistan, Venezuela,[38] North Korea,[39] Algeria,[40][41] Ukraine,[42] and many other non-regional powers, without actually explaining in detail how and why these countries are a regional power.

The most interesting case is that of India and Pakistan. We have reliable sources stating that "Pakistan in 1971 was divided into (West) Pakistan and Bangladesh, losing about half its population and a sizable portion of its territory."[43] There are some more reliable sources that further describe India to have become a regional power post its victory in the Indo-Pakistani War of 1971. They are: [44][45] At this stage, unless there are sources that describe how Pakistan transformed into a regional power after going through the effects of 1971 war, then we could include them but currently none of the sources talk about when and how Pakistan transformed into a regional power, thus failing WP:CONTEXTMATTERS.

The case with Ukraine, Algeria, Venezuela, Ukraine, North Korea and other nations is no different.

The crux of my concern is this: There needs to be reliable sources satisfying WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, a core criteria for evaluating reliable sources, then only we should list the country as "regional power". Sdmarathe (talk) 17:37, 26 September 2018 (UTC) (Requirement of "3 sources" removed per discussion below. Sdmarathe (talk) 13:55, 28 September 2018 (UTC))

Survey

• Support as proposing editor. This way we can avoid randomly mentioned countries that are not actually regional powers. Sdmarathe (talk) 17:37, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support To curb the endless debates about who is a regional power and who isn't. Lorstaking (talk) 06:13, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
• Weak oppose I don't think it is worth the trouble. "Regional power" is a vague idea. A country might be a regional power by some measures but not others. This page is mostly a list article currently. If somebody with a solid understanding of international politics is willing to make it more authoritative, and discuss in detail how each listed country fits the bill, then the WP:CONTEXTMATTERS issues would come to the fore. As long as it remains a list, there is no need to split hairs over it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:21, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

  I disagree with your comment. Whether this article remains a list or is to be developed into a full-fledged article with necessary details about every single regional power is a matter of little importance, because in any case, you can not get rid of the requirement of complying with verifiability and reliable sources policies. You should also note that in the long history of this article, editors never had the incentive to develop it, and likely never will. As is, the article contains names of non-regional powers and heavily relies on unreliable sources and/or sources containing trivial passing mentions, which is why the "WP:CONTEXTMATTERS issues would come to the fore". We can not let the article continue to mislead the readers into believing that certain countries are regional powers, when they are not. So anything we do for the benefit of readers is definitely "worth the trouble". Razer(talk) 09:47, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

  "Trivial passing mentions" are not necessarily worthless. They go to show that a country X is generally accepted as a regional power. But if all the given sources are of that kind, then we have a problem. One can tag them with a {{reliable source?}} tag, and delete them if nobody has anything to better to offer. We don't need an RfC for that. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:35, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - What matters is source quality, not source quantity. If a source merely makes a passing mention without indicating any further information about why that country is a regional power, then it clearly lacks quality. However, if no other source opposes it, then per WP:V, that is what we must present. Our personal opinions about whether or not a country is a regional power means nothing if we do not have at least one source to back our claim. Sources need to be placed in conversation with one another. Establishing an arbitrary "3 sources" requirement is highly counter-productive.--MarshalN20 ^✉🕊 11:30, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

@MarshalN20: You write "If a source merely makes a passing mention without indicating any further information about why that country is a regional power, then it clearly lacks quality." That is the purpose of the RfC. I have removed "3 sources" as the requirement, and I have modified the original RfC question per your comment. Sdmarathe (talk) 13:55, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

• Stronger Oppose -- The purpose of this RfC is to establish an arbitrary quantity of sources rather than a quality check on them. All sources must be considered and placed within context. One single reliable source is better than three unreliable or weak quality sources. Yet, under this proposed RfC, the latter unreliable one would earn a place in this list whereas the former is out.--MarshalN20 ^✉🕊 14:50, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

• Wrong. The purpose of this RfC is that "There needs to be reliable sources satisfying WP:CONTEXTMATTERS". Unreliable sources were not mentioned anywhere. Lorstaking (talk) 17:31, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose, and comment Time to WP:DROPTHESTICK per above; obvious is obvious. We went through this all already; anyone who takes a cursory glance at the sections above will see source after source. I will emphasise in agreement with what MarshalN20 quoted above: Our personal opinions about whether or not a country is a regional power means nothing if we do not have at least one source to back our claim. In addition, no one was there at WP:NPOVN when your points under dispute were supposed to be taken there. Now suddenly after months, Sdmarathe, you thought it fit to rake this up. Do you not see the futility of this, or do we really need to go around in circles again? Mar4d (talk) 18:15, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - WP:IDONTLIKEIT is never a good way to go. Son of Kolachi (talk) 18:54, 28 September 2018 (UTC) Block evading sock puppet.

• If you are saying that passing mentions should be considered contrary to WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, then you need to show why. If this problematic logic is going to be applied then you can also find a number of sources regarding a few countries as "Great power" or "Superpower", which in fact they aren't. I am saying that we should not include any country as regional power that has not been described by any relevant academic sources as one. Lorstaking (talk) 06:16, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

• (Summoned by bot) Support — Per proposal and additional comment by Sdmarathe; we really need to weed out sources which make passing mentions, in addition to removing non-RS sources. I say, that, a nation should only be listed (I really think that we ought to expand this) here if its mention is supported in a non-trivial manner by at least three reliable sources. No comment on the status of individual nations (especially Pakistan), as, I may have a strong bias for or against them. Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 02:06, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

• Support It is an exceptional claim to treat the named countries as a regional power and even if it is not an exceptional claim then still we should opt for multiple reliable sources detailing the country as a regional power as criteria for inclusion. 3 sources should be added with at least 1 or 2 sources being academic. Also agree that passing mentions as Great Power can be also found for some countries but we disregard them per policy and "Regional power" should be treated similarly. Orientls (talk) 10:09, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

User indefinitely blocked by Ad Orientem

Oppose WP:CONTEXTMATTERS is not relevant in this case. Becoming a regional power isn't like simply climbing a ladder. Every country has different ways of getting to this status and usually strong sources are good enough to add a country to this kind of list. Plus their was a long debate right above this column just to prove why Pakistan should be on this list. I don't think that we need to start from 0 again to debate about whether Pakistan should be on the list or not. As for any other country if they can prove their point with strong citations then WP:CONTEXTMATTERS isn't needed. One example of this kind of situation is like adding China to the list of super powers. Is China a super power or not? Here even though we have great background context as needed in WP:CONTEXTMATTERS we still debate on adding China to the list and we use sources to prove our point instead of saying that China has done this and that to be on the list. This rfc looks more like WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Usman47 (talk) 16:05, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

• Support Adding at least 3 reliable sources that describes the subject in relation to the country in detail. No comment on specific countries since this will apply for all. Accesscrawl (talk) 08:55, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
• Support - summoned by bot. Yes - the idea that a power is a regional power should be supported by at least one source. I have an issue with using Regional power#Characteristics as the gold standard for defining what is a regional power. It not only unnecessarily complicates the process, but has also caused every entry to violate WP:OVERCITE. One reputable source saying a country is a regional power is all we need. If the single source is questioned, it can, like all others, be discussed at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:22, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

I essentially have been trying to argue the same. Please do read my comment below which expands on the same issue. Much regards, Mar4d (talk) 12:57, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Canvassed !vote.∯WBGconverse 12:11, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Oppose: The concept of a regional power as a variable - that can take on different forms and values [46] and having going through the discussion, I found: 1. Seen random mentions of Pakistan being a regional power --- vide 16:28, 6 July 2018 (UTC) of this Talk page. 2. The statement of proposing editor “this way we can avoid randomly mentioned countries that are not actually regional powers”. COMMENTS: it is arbitrary in nature. Before applying editor must establish the accepted basis for regional power in the lead section of the page. 3. This book says Pakistan is a "sub-regional power" -- vide 09:12, 6 July 2018 (UTC) of this talk page Above observations establish the uncertainty of users attempting to include or exclude a country by interpreting implied versions of WP NORMS. 4. Comments and citations made by ".--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 06:47, 8 July 2018 were filtered with majority and minority concept. Does this cover the reliable and unreliable criteria? Is not a discrimination or an intellectual dishonesty. In fact the discussion challenges WPNPV. Besides explicit ref to Pakistan as “Regional Power” at pages 886-887, implied reference for name of Pakistan has been mentioned twice at pages -881, 883, vide Review of International Studies © British International Studies Association doi: 10.1017/S026021051000135X [47] + Implied ref: [48]. I request to close the discussion without considering minority versus majority concept by striking “RfC: On quality of sources” -- Nannadeem (talk) 23:05, 3 October 2018 (UTC)— Note: An editor has expressed a concern that editors have been canvassed to this discussion. See [49] This RfC is not about excluding Pakistan but to abide WP:CONTEXTMATTERS and use reliably descriptive sources to backup the claim of a country being regional power. Being "mentioned twice" doesn't meets that criteria. Orientls (talk) 04:45, 4 October 2018 (UTC) See this and this, as to my collapse.∯WBGconverse 12:11, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

• Support. Providing reliable sources is a basic requirement if you are adding something on Wikipedia. "Reliable" is a necessary word here, so those seeking inclusion of a specific country must read up the policy on identifying reliable sources, where context matters is listed as an essential criterion for judging whether or not a source is reliable for a particular claim. Razer(talk) 14:30, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

• Support. As per my reading, this RfC basically asks two questions: (1) Should the countries be listed as regional powers if the supporting sources meet the reliable sources criteria, especially the context matters criterion and (2) the intriguing conundrum of whether some particular countries are a regional power or not?
  As to the first question, I am of the opinion, that yes, a country can be listed as a regional power in the article if the provided sources are reliable and pass the context matters criterion. I am against the inclusion of countries based on trivial passing mentions in otherwise reliable sources.
  To the second question, which the filer has specifically emphasised, it is necessary to take into consideration the answer to the first question; if we have reliable sources describing in detail whether Pakistan is a regional power, then we should include Pakistan in the article as a regional power, and if we don't, then we won't. --RaviC (talk) 10:50, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Oppose: @Sdmarathe Following your comments there are many independent sources ( like this ) which provide reason to the question that why Pakistan is a regional power. What happened in 1971 matters, but what happened after 1971 also matters. Pakistan defeated USSR in Afghanistan, which resulted in the withdrawal of the Soviet Union from Afghanistan. To me it is a summation conflict that arises when sources disagree in conclusions or interpretations that can be drawn from the facts. For example, if one source says that currently low inflation will result in improvements in the economy, and another source says that currently low inflation will lead to a worsening of the economy. Both sources agree that inflation is low, but disagree as to what that means.

It is important to keep in mind that in cases of apparent contradictions, both sources may in fact be correct depending upon the criteria. For example, in the case of the population of a town, the sources may use different boundaries to define the town, or different criteria as to who counts as a member of the population.

So, There is no need to change the Consensus versions, as long as it is organized as a list. HIAS (talk) 09:57, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

• HIAS, what exactly are you opposing really ? This is not an "RFC on Pakistan" or a "vote on Pakistan". It is about excluding the sources that don't comply with WP:CONTEXTMATTERS.
• Also note that you are grossly misrepresenting the very source you cited here. your source only verifies that Pakistan is not a regional power and that is completely opposite to your misleading claim. Source states "Pakistan is not often thought of as a regional power.... By most definitions, Pakistan would be difficult to classify as a regional power."[50] The quote you have cited further finds contradiction in the very next para where the author notes that "But the power is as much a relational concept as an absolute one."[51] Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 deeply affected Pakistan and India became a regional power following the victory in 1971 war, it is indeed necessary to highlight that war when we are doing this assessment. Also it is incorrect to claim that "Pakistan defeated USSR in Afghanistan", if you feel like that then you should take that issue to Talk:Soviet–Afghan War, because our article Soviet–Afghan War contradicts this thought as well. Kindly familiarize yourself with WP:NOTAFORUM. DBigXrayᗙ 11:49, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

@DBigXray: That source does not say Pakistan is not a regional power. It in fact conclusively says in its ending paragraphs that Pakistan qualifies as one, after critically analysing all of its strengths and weaknesses. Since I don't feel like going around in circles, you should read the long extracts from that same source that I posted before. HIAS' page number reference is also a case in example. Also, I'm not sure what you're exactly trying to imply about the contradiction regarding Soviet–Afghan War. Pakistan's involvement in that conflict and role in the anti-Soviet resistance is universally known, and there's tonnes of literature. If you are trying to imply that wasn't the case, you're clearly making up your own history. Mar4d (talk) 12:29, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

User:Mar4d this RfC is neither about Pakistan nor Soviet war. Stay on the topic. And I believe HIAS is competent enough to speak for himself.--DBigXrayᗙ 13:29, 7 October 2018 (UTC).

• Strongly Oppose Pakistan is a country that is an active international player among the regional powers from cold war till war on terror. This placement is not something totally based on victories a country achieves in wars but on many factors. Kazmi ⁽¹¹²²⁾ 00:37, 09 October 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose The RFC itself lacks quality and neutral point of view and should be closed without action as it was not neutrally worded. Furthermore, the question of WP:CONTEXTMATTERS has nothing to do with this article and should not be linked to it. I would strongly advise the requestor or anyone else who wants to pursue a decision regarding the impact of WP:CONTEXTMATTERS on WP:RS to take the matter to Wikipedia:Reliable sources noticeboard instead as general policy matters should be decided on relevant noticeboards instead of article talk pages because these decisions can have far reaching implications which could affect a wider range of articles than just this article. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 03:36, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

• "instead as general policy matters should be decided on relevant noticeboards" is misleading. If you have issues with WP:CONTEXTMATTERS then MfD is thataway. Since sources can be discovered for more than half of the countries in the world, it is best to rely on the reliable sources that are detailed. शिव साहिल/Shiv Sahil (talk) 14:43, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

• As Mar4d previously rightly pointed out, WP:CONTEXTMATTERS is being used out of context here, it only requires for the sources to have a principal topic the same in which they are being used and the sources provided by Mar4d has "regional power" as their principal topic. WP:CONTEXTMATTERS further states Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in the Wikipedia article. and someone still yet to point out which source does not directly support the information being presented. If we read the sources provided by Mar4d and put them on the merit of WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, we find out that they all pass the merit! Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 10:16, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

• Mar4d is not a policy nor his explanation outweighs policies. Contexmatters requires a source to analyze a concept in detail. We cant turn any unprofessed source as reliable because India and Pakistan both requires great detail to say that they are a regional power. Without a deep analysis we shouldnt be considering them as professed. Look below section and understand that even Egypt's mention has problems. It is not that hard to justifiy exclusion of non- regional powers. शिव साहिल/Shiv Sahil (talk) 13:56, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

• I suggest you read WP:CONTEXTMATTERS and let rest of us know where does it say the things you are making up. For example, where does it say that the source should discuss the concept in detail or great detail to qualify on the merits of WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. Please have a read on related policies before speaking about them and concocting your own meanings of them! Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 15:34, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

• WP:CONTEXTMATTERS:"Information provided in passing by an otherwise reliable source that is not related to the principal topics of the publication may not be reliable; editors should cite sources focused on the topic at hand where possible." That is not satisfied by using passing mentions or poor and unprofessed sources (that still provide no details) or by misrepresenting the policies. शिव साहिल/Shiv Sahil (talk) 17:55, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

• See Mar4d's response to Bharatiya29 below, it addresses your concerns as well, I have nothing else to add. The sources satisfy WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, nothing else can be done if you keep denying the obvious. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 19:49, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

• Support The requirement of 3 reliable sources with at least 2 being academic. I find some arguments here unrealistic that countries mentioned by Sdmarathe are not in article except Pakistan, which is incorrect because people keep adding Algeria,[52] Egypt[53] etc. and it doesn't make Pakistan a regional power only because it has found some resistance among some editors who wants to preserve mention of Pakistan even though such inclusion is not justifiable. Since above comments focus on Pakistan, I would remind that Pakistan is not a regional power according to reliable sources.[54][55]
  There is an interconnected concept called Regional hegemony[56] and our article on Regional hegemony does not makes mention of Pakistan. Ultimately the above discussion shows lack of sources describing if Pakistan is a regional power and those who make minor mention are of generally poor quality. To summarize this in small note, we should be only including those countries that are undoubtedly regional power according to multiple reliable sources in a detailed manner. शिव साहिल/Shiv Sahil (talk) 04:43, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Just a clarification on a point raised above. A regional hegemon is not the same as a regional power. In addition, the presence of a regional hegemon in a specific region does not necessarily mean the absence of any other regional powers within that region. This is a distinct concept and is beyond the scope of this discussion. It is not ideal to mix two different concepts in a discussion which seems to be already going way off-topic. Adamgerber80 (talk) 22:08, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

I was talking about Regional hegemony not "regional hegemon". I called it an "interconnected concept" and also provided a source. "Interconnected" means having internal connections between the parts or elements. शिव साहिल/Shiv Sahil (talk) 14:35, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

• Support the application of context-matters policy, and by extension exclusion of Pakistan et alia identified above from the article. This is basically a requirement of policy, and I am not at all swayed by the ludicrous arguments of most of the opposers. No, the application of the context matters policy is not "irrational", nor is it "not relevant"; it is needed to filter out the sources making passing mentions about countries, so that our article will be rid of factual errors. The drill has always been the same: one would need to cite quality sources discussing a country's regional power status in some depth for getting a country inserted into the article; and this is not an unfeasible task. Heck, it is even feasible to find reliable sources for countries like Nigeria (which is an established regional power in Africa)[57],[58],[59]. Bharatiya29 17:48, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

We've been there before. Repeatedly claiming that sources make no mention, when in fact all of them have clearly made that identification comprehensively, is both misleading and factually wrong, and it's not even worth buying or wasting time over as an argument. In response to the repeated claims that there's no "context", let me just reproduce the very source that was earlier being used to claim that Pakistan is completely ruled out, but on closer reading, it actually takes a nuanced approach on the matter. Since there seems to be a general lack of willingness here to provide any supporting references to back arguments, let alone read into them, here's some snippets, make of them what you will [60]:

[ WP:Copyvio removed]

^That last paragraph is just snippets, for those who want to read in greater detail, they can simply search them and read through the analysis on Pakistan within the source as it's not possible for me to produce everything here. However, what is mainly interesting and of crucial importance is the source's conclusive remarks whilst ending the chapter, which I believe, captures the crux of the case study:

[ WP:Copyvio removed]

The impending question, for any newcomer who decides to participate here, should be: rarely is a supposed "non-regional power" discussed in as much depth as Pakistan, let alone supported by reliable, tertiary sources like Barry Buzan, Ole Wæver, T. V. Paul, James N. Rosenau, Roger Kanet, Samuel P. Huntington, who've actually listed Pakistan as a power in their research on regional powers. And I suppose, a more rhetorical question for anyone reading this discussion: you decide who is more reliable and informed about this subject – all these qualified academics with extensive research, or a group of us online editors with little knowledge and 'context' of the subject? Mar4d (talk) 19:21, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't recall having "repeatedly" claimed that no sources makes "mention" of Pakistan; I hope you realize that this is my only second comment on this page. I don't appreciate ad hominem comments. And contrary to your misconception, a mere "mention" in a source does not suffices if the source does not provide context per the policy that has been linked umpteenth times above. As to that source, I agree with the comments made earlier, that the source denies that Pakistan can be considered a regional power right off the bat as such: "Pakistan is not often thought of as a regional power...By most definitions, Pakistan would be difficult to classify as a regional power, which includes some notion of regional leadership that goes beyond simply material capabilities and 'a belief in their entitlement to a more influential role in world affairs'"—clearly implying the negative; but, you appear to have turned a blind eye to it. Which just goes to show that you are cherry-picking a few lines out of context that fits well with your POV. But that's not how it works here.

In the subsequent paragraph the author does says: "On the other hand, Pakistan is clearly a significant power from a simple materialist perspective...By these crudely material resources measures, Pakistan should be considered a major regional power." But "significant power" is not the same concept as "regional power", and as the author rightly says in the very next paragraph: "But power is as much a relational concept as an absolute one. And, unfortunately for Pakistan, its neighbour India dwarfs it in almost every measure." Leave aside for a moment the "buts" and "howevers" in the midst of the article and pay heed to the "conclusive remarks" in the concluding page that you have misrepresented big time: "Given this lack of a regional political dynamic, it is understandable that Pakistan emphasizes a bilateral, security-driven agenda rather than a regional agenda. If regional power means something more than simply a power whose strategic reach is limited to its neighbourhood, then it might not be possible to characterize Pakistan as a regional power." Rajagopalan ends the chapter with a question: "Is Pakistan an inappropriate case to generalize from?", and by noting that "this is an issue that requires much greater scrutiny..."

In the beginning of the cheater itself, the author notes: "The case of Pakistan as a ‘regional power’ (and, one should add, South Asia as a ‘region’) illustrates these problems well. Despite being endowed with significant material capabilities, which include being a nuclear weapon state, it is difficult to characterize Pakistan as a regional power...Paradoxically, for a state that may be too weak to be a regional power, Pakistan has been surprisingly successful in pursuing its grand strategic goals...I examine the idea of Pakistan as a regional power and suggest that, despite its considerable material endowments, it is difficult to treat Pakistan as a regional power.

So this source does not quite claims that Pakistan is a regional power, though it says that Pakistan has some features, however overall it is too weak to be called as such. Quite a few reliable sources that I have come across corroborate this view, and I shall cite them in due time. BTW, the CONTEXTMATTERS policy also notes that "Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in the Wikipedia article." So you would do well to remember that and stop drawing conclusions not exactly stated in the source. I am seeing that you have been misrepresenting this source big time above and you need to stop that or else you can be reported if this is continued. Bharatiya29 08:49, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

• Support per Orientls and Bharatiya29. Context always matters. I guess the meat of this issue is that some editors want Pakistan to be listed because Wikipedia determines truth, as if our words change the balance of power. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:31, 14 October 2018 (UTC) (Summoned by bot)
• Support(Summoned by bot) Using multiple reliable sources that passes WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. Amount of sources must depend on the disputes surrounding the country's status as regional power. As for Pakistan, I would say it is not a regional power. See p.143-149 and p.188 of Major Powers and the Quest for Status in International Politics. Rzvas (talk) 06:16, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
• Support the use of multiple reliable sources which passes WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. A term such as regional power should always be defined by use of reliable sources of context. Pratyush (talk) 07:10, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

This is just a list with no descriptions where we could present arguments. Although even if we started including descriptions or just continue the present criteria (which supports inclusion of any country even with source providing mere passing mention) then non-regional powers like Algeria, North Korea, Ukraine and others would be also included and that wouldn't be right. This is why I proposed that we need reliable sources passing WP:CONTEXTMATTERS for including a country as "regional power" since this status cannot be ignored if it has been really recognized by relevant reliable sources.

Same was the case with Stateless nations. Anyone would include anything using any kind of "religable source". There was an RfC recently there which can be seen at: Talk:Stateless_nation#RfC_on_sources_required_for_inclusion. The RfC assured that we need at least three sources for inclusion of any name to the article. Sdmarathe (talk) 13:55, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Discussion with a block evading sock puppet

Comment - Now that the filer has been topic banned from India-Pakistan conflict area, this RfC should be closed by default because it seems to be filed in WP:BADFAITH. Apparently it was only started because the editor unsuccessfully tried to remove good sources citing Pakistan on the list as seen in earlier discussions. The RfC's opening statement itself indicates a WP:POV tilt. The guy links WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, yet his own argument falls short because he fails to explain how a source on a war fought 50 years ago is relevant today. Mar4d's refs are good quality & discuss in-depth exactly why Pakistan has regional influence. The refs I have looked so far discuss Pakistan's N-weapons development, influence in Afghanistan & Kashmir and other factors that continued after 1971 too. The user seems to lack the knowledge of what WP:RS are and continuously uses opinionated WP:OR, whilst not trying to disprove the many good references quoted above. As someone said that Pakistan is listed in the article since 2009, we can't go about removing longstanding sources and reliable info just because some POV pushers are not liking it. Wikipedia doesn't work on likes or dislikes - sources matter. We can see no argument is given disproving the sources mentioning Pakistan so far. Son of Kolachi (talk) 17:48, 30 September 2018 (UTC) Block evading sock puppet. Son of Kolachi, that topic ban is of not much substance to this RfC; Mar4d's vote was ruled to be not a t-ban violation by BU Rob13. From what I infer, the RfC is about solidifying a policy for adding and removing nations from this list. Like I have said, I am all in favour of removing unreliable sources from this article, in addition to removing trivial, passing mentions of nations in reliable sources. Whilst, in my opinion, some countries listed by Sdmarathe have relatively strong cases for being regional powers, others are not close to being one. P. S. — I formatted your comment a bit, hope you don't mind. Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 05:27, 5 October 2018 (UTC); edited 07:46, 5 October 2018 (UTC). As Ivanvector said, Sdmarathe formed an RfC on a general question of source context, but it's hidden behind an off-topic reference to the 1971 India-Pakistan war. Restarting an unresolved discussion on a controversial point and then running to an admin to get your primary opponent from the same discussion sanctioned is, to put the best possible spin on it, not ideal behaviour in a collaborative environment. Son of Kolachi (talk) 05:44, 10 October 2018 (UTC) Block evading sock puppet.

Good Support. I think it is a better way to resolve the issue. In order to materialize your input as an amicable solution, simultaneously satisfying the observation put forward by respected Tim Templeton. Without prejudice to all/any citations of subsection-South Asia It is submitted that – citing Buzan/Waever 2003: 34 & 2003:32 Detlef Nolte of GIGA in preliminary version, PDF link here [61] at page-8 paragraph-3 states:

Quote: Regional power hierarchies are also central to another theoretical approach. In the framework of their regional security complex theory(RSCT), Barry Buzan and Ole Wæver32 differentiate between superpowers and great powers which act and have an impact on the global level (or system level) and regional powers whose influence may be large in their regions but have less of an impact at the global level. This category of regional powers includes Brazil, Egypt, India, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Nigeria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, South Africa and Turkey….Quote over

Now it is referred as DETLEF NOLTE (2010) with its citation: How to compare regional powers: analytical concepts and research topics. Review of International Studies, 36, pp 881-901 doi:10.1017/S026021051000135X. See this link [62]. Dreaming for an amicable solution Nannadeem (talk) 21:35, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

• Comment I have an earnest request to everyone who has commented here that please do not make this another India-Pakistan debate. We already have had canvassing and an editor who went ahead and listed this discussion on the notice board for India and Pakistan related topics as if India and Pakistan are the only two regional powers while other countries don't exist. The issue here is quite complicated and thus a request to rise about petty regional politics. First, Kautilya3 phrases it quite correctly that this is indeed a list article and there exist numerous factors which exist for a regional power. It is thus impossible to use a single or a set of references to either qualify or remove a country. Timtempleton also raises a valid concern that the current characteristics is by no means a gold standard and a single source might make things less chaotic (the current characteristics are actually extrapolated from characteristics for the middle-east and are not valid for all other regions). My strong recommendation would be to put the addition or removal of any countries on hold for the near future and spend some time looking through literature on what is a regional power. Here, we have to be very careful about WP:CIRCULAR (I did examine some of the references presented above which seem to refer back to Wikipedia or other arbitrary surveys or lists created by random organizations). Another strong recommendation would be to not simply list a country name but actually present a paragraph about each country mentioning the context on why it is deemed a Regional Power. Some experts (again we have to careful on who qualifies as an expert) name different countries using different criteria and we need to present their views with the context in the text (we cannot and should not pick and choose sources because they meet our view). So if a expert mentions a country but others don't, we still mention it with the necessary context on why that expert thought so. A good place to list the capabilities of a regional military power would be [IISS] but we need more such sources for economic and cultural influence among others (a country can be either or all but we need to mention so in the description). Again I am stating, for now, to only focus on working towards improving the lead part of the article and the capabilities sections without a focus on specific country names. There are experts which talk about different regional power models such as uni-polar and multi-polar and this needs to be explained before we jump into the list the names. IMO, this process might be arduous but is required if we genuinely wish to improve this article and not just make this about removing/adding a set of countries. Adamgerber80 (talk) 22:36, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi, the editor who "canvassed" and "who went ahead and listed this discussion on the notice board for India and Pakistan related topics" has already been indefinitely blocked so my advice to you would be to avoid sweeping generalizations and accusations. Let's please keep our focus on the issue at hand. I think the interim solution lies in the approach as proposed by the filer and a number of editors including me and Timtempleton, that we indeed keep the entry of regional powers restricted to only those countries for whom there exists reliable sources which describe in detail how these countries are considered as regional powers. Your suggestion that we should list a country with a "paragraph about each country mentioning the context on why it is deemed a Regional Power" sounds fair and I would personally like to see this article developed to that extent; but like I said above, we cannot leave this article in its present state in the hopes that someone will develop it in the future. For that reason, we should move on with the interim solution until such time. Razer(talk) 10:54, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

• Comment Firstly, Venezuela, North Korea, Algeria and Ukraine are not even listed on the article. Which begs the question, what is this RfC actually trying to achieve? No one is opposed to the use of reliable sources for any entry in this article, and as Timtempleton rightly notes, it's the determinant criteria for anything on Wikipedia; that is also effectively what the core of my discussions in the sections immediately above sought to achieve. Not only is it the sources that matter, but the listing of any country fundamentally ought to be based on the presence of strong sources. I am all for discussing what other countries are deemed as having regional influence, provided there are a significant number of mainstream sources to support that position. Here is where this RfC (and most of the 'support' votes) takes a 180-degree turn. Not only is there a complete lack of direction on how that threshold is determined, but there is a complete lack of discussion on the existing sources which come from the cream of mainstream scholarship. Pakistan's inclusion in the list is supported by the attached sources, all of which are not only excellent mainstream sources, but detailed, in-depth scholarly works on regional powers, and they are all written by experts who are internationally recognised in the field of global relations and political science: Barry Buzan, Ole Wæver, T. V. Paul, James N. Rosenau, Roger Kanet, Samuel P. Huntington. Based simply on the preponderance of references presented, Pakistan more than safely meets the criteria and it would be extremely difficult for anyone to railroad these sources. Like I said before, the crux of the argument lies thus: it is for the mainstream sources to determine facts, not Wikipedians' personal opinions and likes or dislikes. We, as Wikipedians, are not qualified to decide what should be excluded when all the sources and academic scholarship are on one side. So as I said, if anyone thinks sources of mainstream repute and credibility like the ones linked can simply be discarded without credible, refutable arguments, that's not going to happen. These sources are very much here to stay, whether you like them or not. Feel free to discuss other countries however, whose inclusion or exclusion should very much be decided by sources of similar standing. Mar4d (talk) 12:50, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes and these sources you provided (if these are best available for Pakistan) are what this RfC is supposed to exclude from the article, i.e. "passing mentions". They lack the enough context to define how Pakistan could be considered regional power. Also note that you have already posted these sources before[63] and they have been already reviewed. Razer(talk) 13:26, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Razer2115: By the way, WP:CONTEXTMATTERS is also being used out of context by you. It is for usage of sources that are (quote) not related to the principal topics of the publication or sources not focused on the topic at hand where possible. Not one of the sources above (which you claim should be excluded) are on anything other than regional powers. And they are very in-depth too about the exact subject of this article. And the fact that they are mainstream sources on the subject. So returning to your claim of no context, it holds no weight in this case. Mar4d (talk) 13:49, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Mar4d, For a better understanding of this argument, we can take the closest example which is India. Here are two sources for a name[64][65] that establish it as one regional power. They are not passing mention and they pass WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. Where as your sources offer little to no description about Pakistan, thus failing WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. Because we can discover such passing mentions about other countries as well, it is better to avoid consideration of such information after forming a particular criteria for this list. Razer(talk) 14:01, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

• Wikipedia's core policy WP:RS, and particularly the advice at WP:HISTRS, offer a good overview on the identification of appropriate scholarly sources, which the sources above meet in all domains. Moreover, anyone who is well-versed with Wikipedia's sourcing requirements including the well-articulated use of context-based sources, would agree that the best places to source Pakistan's inclusion would be sources that are purely, and by merit, actually based on the topic of regional powers (duh!), not sources about Mars and aliens obviously. When you write a Wikipedia article on a certain topic, you look for a source that directly explores the subject in question (e.g. regional powers) in length and what it has to say about the content or information being expanded upon. The sources cited presently have done exactly that; they are not only purely and topically based on the subject of international relations, but critically and in great detail, as explored by experts in the field (not amateurs), identify countries which they deem as having an influential role in the international ecosystem. And they do that with the weight of mainstream scholarship and academic credentials behind them. As far as Wikipedia is concerned, that itself is the one and all, and only determinant criteria that purely matters. Editors have to understand that sources trump everything. So far, all we are seeing here are opinion-based comments, and no one seems to have gone to the length of providing supporting references/works (as I have done) to at least lend some credibility to their arguments. Not a single comment so far has even attempted to refute any of the above mainstream sources. The claim about sources offering little to no description is also untrue; since it's going to be fruitless going around in circles, for anyone who's interested in exploring the references in question further, I would strongly urge they go through this section where I thoroughly deconstructed many of these sources in question. One such source is this one which had an entire chapter that critically analyzes Pakistan. The closing paragraphs in particular are worth reading, which I have also produced in the section above. Ironically, this same source was used before to claim that Pakistan was not a regional power, but if anyone with intermediate competency of the English language reads this source in its entirety, the context of this source is more than clear which I also articulated in much detail above. Mar4d (talk) 14:38, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

• Mar4d, you can find reliable sources for many facts that are not generally well known or acceptable. Your comment does not address the issues raised because you are saying that we should rely on passing mention as long as the mention has been made by a reliable source. Don't forget that enough contrary sources had been provided in the same section that not only contradict your sources but also provide more information on this subject. Orientls (talk) 15:24, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Orientls Both common sense, and Wikipedia policy (WP:RS, WP:V) dictates that the best sources to use are the ones that pertain to this article. You're claiming that we should not be using peer-reviewed reliable, mainstream sources about regional powers as a source on an article that is however exactly about regional powers. This is what we call circular reasoning. Care to explain if books by international experts on regional powers should not be used as a reference, as per your logic, then what else should be used? This is a highly absurd and obfuscating argument to make, whereby you attempt to discount sources which are exactly about the subject, that too by authors who have done full, comprehensive studies of the entire subject. Even Wikipedia's sourcing requirements do not support your opinion. Also, I am still waiting for those "contrary" sources; I was presented none last time, and the only one that was claimed to be one was actually not a 'contrary' source at all as the deconstruction above noted not once but as per dozens of passages directly quoted from the source. Mar4d (talk) 15:53, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

How about the numerous sources I had provided that exclude mention of Pakistan[66]? WP:CONTEXTMATTERS is the concern here. WP:RS and WP:V would even justify "Great power" or even a "Superpower" for the countries that are not really one, like it has been discussed already and that's why we are looking for something more than just passing mention. But then again, sources claiming Pakistan a regional power is not even a mainstream view, otherwise why so many competent sources exclude mention of Pakistan? Your sources also claim that Iraq, Syria, Ukraine are also regional powers, though they are not. If you are using such sources that contradict the reality and relevance and if people are going to draw from such passing mentions then there are higher chances of producing factual errors. I am also talking about one of these replies above that detailed the sources which were more professed in this subject and contradicted each of your sources without a doubt. To make it easier for you, do you have sources that "describe how Pakistan transformed into a regional power"? You need to find sources that explicitly address this question that has been asked on the original post of the RfC. For India, you can considerably find more than tons since it is not deniable. We need to make sure similar information exists for Pakistan. You would need more than simply passing mentions when we need sources that provide the necessary information. Orientls (talk) 04:32, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Orientls, we went over these sources already here and here. In case you've forgotten, let me reproduce what was said particularly on all of your sources, given they contradicted your own stance:

This paper acknowledges a publication by Robert Pastor who (quote) "includes Argentina, Iraq, Egypt, Indonesia, and Pakistan in addition to the above-mentioned countries" as regional powers. This link only focuses on a selective group of powers (G4) who failed to attain UNSC seats, and interestingly attributes one of the reasons to an anti-G4 group consisting of active powers like Pakistan, Argentina, Italy, Korea, and Mexico. This one is definitely questionable, as it self-admittedly claims "Russia is excluded from our analysis" and even omits Iran and Israel, all of which are recurrently mentioned in other sources. This page is on Asia-Pacific and, like most other links above, is entirely irrelevant to South Asia.

Also note that great power and regional power are not comparable terms, as the criteria for determining "great powers" is far more strict and stringent than regional powers. Another contradiction in your argument is that you seem to regard all regional powers as equal in terms of parity, but this is factually incorrect; regional powers follow a tier-system, wherein their regional influence is determined independently based on different variables and indicators, not simply their relative stature in comparison to other countries (which is another concept called regional hegemony); this is supported by the literature [67]. Secondly, it is not at all a non-mainstream view when supported by multiple, reliable, mainstream sources which are written by experts who've thoroughly studied the subject, and they have been produced endless times. As far as other countries are concerned, they should similarly have multiple mainstream sources explicitly defining them as regional powers as has been shown for Pakistan. It's not just once source listing Pakistan, but there are multiple of them and they're all very high quality sources. This is where you're losing the argument. Mar4d (talk) 06:59, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

There was no concern with those sources because if Pakistan is a regional power then at least most (if not all) of them should recognize Pakistan as regional power. But they chose not to do so. Regardless of what you went over, you have frequently failed to address the concern with the sources you are using that are nothing more than passing mention. Your suggestion that we have to be "far more strict and stringent than regional powers" when Great power is concerned doesn't really make sense. Given your sources provide passing mention for obvious non-regional powers. As usual, none of your sources have still answered the question (that has been already asked enough times) that "describe how Pakistan transformed into a regional power". It should be simple for you to answer this repeatedly asked question if sources really exists. By repeating same old discussion and sources that were earlier rejected, you are only suggesting that there is deficiency of sources for fulfilling the proposed criteria. Orientls (talk) 07:55, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

---

• Comment — @HIAS, Son of Kolachi, Razer2115, Mar4d, and DBigXray: why are we making this RfC an interaction on Pakistan's stature in the world? This is about solidifying a policy for adding nations to this article (list, really), I couldn't care less about Pakistan/North Korea/Venezuela/Egypt's status as a regional power. Let's just set in stone a manual of procedure for adding or removing nations from this list. After that, if a nation's inclusion in this list is contentious, we can have a discussion on its relevance in the list, wherein people would take their stance and back their arguments with reliable sources which cover the nation in depth. From what I can see, Pakistan is probably a regional power, but, some of the other nations listed by Sdmarathe may not be. Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 12:58, 7 October 2018 (UTC); edited 12:58, 7 October 2018 (UTC) and 13:12, 7 October 2018 (UTC).

• I was writing a similar kind of comment as SshibumXZ myself regarding derailing this RFC into a Trainwreck. Mar4d should now stop going off topic and derailing this RFC, I have read all his comments on this RFC from the top and I feel it is about time this badgering behaviour was called out. Mar4d has made his points, now he should relax and allow others to share their comments. Mar4d is "Dragging Pakistan" in all his replies here which is strange especially when Pakistan is not even the topic of this RFC, is really evidence of disrupting this RFC. DBigXrayᗙ 13:29, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

DBigXray, I would certainly hope you are true to your words - because your comment immediately above does not imply that. I'm not the one who "dragged" Pakistan into here - reading through many of the comments above, it's quite easy to figure out who did. I'm just calling out the dichotomy present amongst those contrary 'opinions', and also just sticking to real sources while we're at it. Thanks, Mar4d (talk) 14:01, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Mar4d check out WP:INDENT. My comment immediately above, was also calling out the same point that This is not an "RFC on Pakistan", so do not make it into one or derail it. Hope the discussion from here onwards follows this simple observation. Comments of the central theme that Country X is applicable or not applicable and references to Pakistan or any other country should be avoided. regards. --DBigXrayᗙ 14:20, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

• As Ivanvector notes: They also listed a series of examples of countries which were mentioned in passing as regional powers, in which Pakistan was the only one actually listed on the page. It seems pretty obvious that the motivation behind the RfC is to create a list inclusion criterion by which Pakistan would be excluded from the list. In short: Sdmarathe's new RfC, whether deliberate or not, is a discussion on whether or not to include Pakistan in the list. Fact is that Sdmarathe himself made it about Pakistan and the intentions of a bunch of those supporting this RfC are also very clear. Son of Kolachi (talk) 05:44, 10 October 2018 (UTC) Block evading sock puppet.

And that is absurd like I noted below. Other countries get frequently added but it is only "Pakistan", a non-regional power, that has found resistance. It doesn't make it a regional power or establishes inclusion. शिव साहिल/Shiv Sahil (talk) 14:35, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

---

• • Comment Pakistan can not exert hegemony over its neighbours. It shares borders with Afghanistan, China, India, Iran, Oman, and Tajikistan, and has at best limited influence on their internal policies. The ongoing Afghanistan–Pakistan skirmishes are inconclusive. Dimadick (talk) 15:49, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
  • What Adamgerber80 said above, +1. Regional hegemony is a different concept to regional powers. Not all regional powers are regional hegemons. Mar4d (talk) 16:03, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

• Those two concepts shares a particular relationship with each other that you strongly believe that Pakistan is a regional hegemon,(per your edits on Regional hegemony:[68][[69][70][71][72][73][74]) though it is really as misleading as treating Pakistan to be a regional power. Razer(talk) 16:52, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

That too is a separate discussion, and arbitrary. But even hypothetically, if we were to take your argument on face value, regional power and regional hegemony are two separate concepts. Saying they're the same thing is not true, again, because regional power is a lot more broad in scope, and includes multiple variables, which are not on the same scale of limitations as a hegemon. Which reinforces the point of this article even further. Mar4d (talk) 17:12, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

No one is "saying they're the same thing", so that's an off-topic discussion. शिव साहिल/Shiv Sahil (talk) 17:55, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

• Comments The rotating theme of this RfC: On quality of sources is tabulated below:

Contents	Ref date and time of talk
define how Pakistan could be considered regional power	Vide Talk: 13:26, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
Pakistan a regional power is not even a mainstream view, otherwise why so many competent sources exclude mention of Pakistan?	Vide talk: 04:32, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
describe how Pakistan transformed into a regional power	Vide talk: 07:55, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
Pakistan is a regional power	Most of the opposing voters are discussing it with supporting voters

With reference to Secondary regional power conceptual theorem as discussed by Samuel P. Huntington India and Pakistan are discussed simultaneously (Foreign Affairs, March 1999 v78 i2 p35 (1) link here [75] . Category definition says: a class or division of people or things regarded as having particular shared characteristics. As soon as the name of Pakistan included in the category of regional powers e.g. DETLEF NOLTE (2010), in a book or reference dealing with the category of Regional Powers then raising the question of WP:CONTEXTMATTERS applying “Passing mention” is irrational. Nannadeem (talk) 18:12, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

• Comments - In view of limited scope of this RfC mainly discussing Pakistan, It will be appreciated if a list of the references presently cited with Pakistan’s position as regional powers in South Asia, which qualify the passing mention criteria is provided so that I could work to create a page “Regional Powers in South Asia” Nannadeem (talk) 20:00, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

We are writing an encyclopedia here not a thesis. I strongly object to creation of any such page and if you still plan to, I would highly recommend the WP:AFC route. This RfC has already gone way out of scope (and control). Please comment on what is being discussed here and don't digress onto a tangent. Adamgerber80 (talk) 20:36, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

All right, but please see where the discussion is going on. I have already desired (and still) an amicable solution for references in respect of Pakistan (e.g. these are absolute/clear and these are passing mention) by asking list of citations. In this manner the purpose of this RfC can perhaps be productive. Nannadeem (talk) 20:52, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

References

• Comment': Since above discussions have already become too long, should we start a new section called "Discussion" and move all the replies there? While keeping the !votes in this section? I think it will make things more smooth. Orientls (talk) 03:19, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

•  Done myself. Orientls (talk) 03:39, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Reformatted by moving separate comments to this section while keep replies to actual !votes like they were before. Lorstaking (talk) 05:33, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! Orientls (talk) 05:36, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: From, what I can see this has turned into a debate as to whether Pakistan is a regional power or not. It should be noted that all nuclear weapon states except North Korea in the current article are considered as such; North Korea and South Korea are also similar to India and Pakistan in that they are partitioned states. As for the sources if better sources can be found they should be added as well. Gotitbro (talk) 22:07, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

• More generally, "regional power" is not an exact concept. Its use in any particular situation depends on judgement--and even more, on motivation. We cannot rely on just quoting from sources for this, or actually for many other things--it amounts to "cherry-picking"--decide what you want to find, and then you can find a quote for it. DGG ( talk ) 14:48, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

If "regional power" is not an exact concept then tracing passing mention clues will not be meaningful for listing/de-listing. Nannadeem (talk) 18:27, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.