Talk:Regional power

New entries

I reckon more countries should be added to the list. This article is about regional powers, not world powers. Some countries might seem to be “average” compared to other powerful countries, but considering the world is not evenly developed (it has never been evenly developed anyway), some countries should be included as long as they are powerful in their geographic region and its nearby areas.

I would like to propose the addition of the following new entries:

Central Asia: Kazakhstan (a member state of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation)

Central Africa: Democratic Republic of the Congo (powerful in a weak region)

East Africa: Ethiopia (powerful in a weak region)

North Africa: Egypt (standout in their region and its nearby areas)

West Africa: Nigeria (standout in their region and its nearby areas)

Guys, please let me know your thoughts. Thanks. 120.156.138.87 (talk) 10:26, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Addition of new countries

Some new countries like Egypt, Kazakhstan, Nigeria have been recently added to this list. I feel we need a more detailed discussion before we keep on adding new countries to this list and what sources/criteria are required. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 09:50, 27 January 2018 (UTC) 2001:8003:8612:EA00:B8C4:E2D2:3B14:2A5E Please discuss your changes here until then maintain WP:STATUSQUO. Adamgerber80 (talk) 10:12, 27 January 2018 (UTC) 120.156.138.87 I don't see any discussion here. Please do not edit the page until this discussion is over, which can take days at times. Please be patient. Adamgerber80 (talk) 10:19, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

I reckon more countries should be added to the list. This article is about regional powers, not world powers. Some countries might seem to be “average” compared to other powerful countries, but considering the world is not evenly developed (it has never been evenly developed anyway), some countries should be included as long as they are powerful in their geographic region and its nearby areas.

I would like to propose the addition of the following new entries:

Central Asia: Kazakhstan (a member state of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation)

Central Africa: Democratic Republic of the Congo (powerful in a weak region)

East Africa: Ethiopia (powerful in a weak region)

North Africa: Egypt (standout in their region and its nearby areas)

West Africa: Nigeria (standout in their region and its nearby areas)

Guys, please let me know your thoughts. Thanks. 2001:8003:8612:EA00:B8C4:E2D2:3B14:2A5E (talk) 10:47, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Especially, I would like to point out Nigeria. I noticed that South Africa is already in the list of regional powers. Nigeria now has a bigger GDP than South Africa. It is also a big country and rich in resources. It is one of the Top 10 most populous countries in the world, it has almost 20% of Africa’s total population. On top of everything, it has the biggest city on the African continent: Lagos. Lagos is fast becoming the New York City of Africa with big multinational corporations setting up their African head offices there and a fast growing finance industry.

If Nigeria is not included, I would rather spend my time in the gym than editing articles in Wikipedia. 120.156.138.87 (talk) 11:11, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

2001:8003:8612:EA00:B8C4:E2D2:3B14:2A5E, 120.156.138.87 We need WP:RS to include any of these countries. Quora is not considered a WP:RS since it a WP:SPS. The sources currently provided are not WP:SPS and not acceptable. Adamgerber80 (talk) 15:40, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 27 January 2018

Remove Nigeria and Egypt from the list. Both these countries were not present before and have been added using WP:SPS. One is quora and the other is an article from an editorial board. We need WP:RS from neutral authoritative sources before we can add them back. The editors who are currently adding this are discussing their inclusion. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 15:42, 27 January 2018 (UTC) Adamgerber80 (talk) 15:42, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:52, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

MSGJ There is no WP:RS for their inclusion as of yet. The editors have provided a link to Quora and other WP:SPS to justify their inclusion (check the page itself). The discussion and the page protection have been initiated by me to reach a consensus on their inclusion per WP:RS which have not yet been provided. Adamgerber80 (talk) 19:18, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

I understand but still need another editor to confirm that these additions are not warranted. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:37, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

El C Can you please chime in? Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 20:44, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree that Kazakhstan was a bit much, but Nigeria and Egypt are both on the map, so with the right refs, I don't see the issue. El_C 07:51, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

El C The map is outdated. These countries have been removed quite some time ago. The references provided as of now are WP:SPS. I am confused how can we re-add these countries under these conditions. The edtior(s) (I think it is only one on 2 IPs) in question have not yet provided a authoritative reference. Adamgerber80 (talk) 08:19, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't see how the map could be outdated, but I agree that if the sources are not provided, they can be removed. El_C 08:43, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

El C The map was last updated on 13 October 2015. That is almost 2 years ago. I am not opposed to addition of those countries given we have the requisite references. The IP in question made this comment "If Nigeria is not included, I would rather spend my time in the gym than editing articles in Wikipedia." which seems frivolous to me. Adamgerber80 (talk) 09:12, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this article is constantly subject to petty nationalism and the deletion of sourced content. Searching in past versions, I found two citations that support the inclusion of Nigeria:

1. "West Africa, with its strong French influence, is home to one of Africa's two regional giants, Nigeria, and the region has seen the scene of much political and ethnic unrest." See David Lynch, Trade and Globalization (Lanham, USA: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2010), p. 51.
2. "South Africa is not the sole regional power on the continent, though; Nigeria is the other widely acknowledge centre of power in Africa and likewise a sub-regional superpower in West Africa." See Deon Geldenhuys, "South Africa: The Idea-driven Foreign Policy of a Regional Power," in Regional Leadership in the Global System, edited by Daniel Flemes (Farnham, UK: Ashgate, 2010), p. 151.

The map in question actually reflects a much more complete listing of countries, by regions and sub-regions, that a combination of malicious and ignorant editing removed from the article.--MarshalN20 ^✉🕊 09:37, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

MarshalN20 Thanks a lot for your input on Nigeria. IMO we have enough references for Nigeria. I am not completely convicted about Egypt though. First, Egypt has always been mentioned under Africa/North Africa not Transcontinental. Second, there has been some literature post 2015 which states that Egypt is no longer a regional power. ([1],[2],[3],[4]). Happy to discuss more. Adamgerber80 (talk) 14:35, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, there seems to be more evidence explaining why Egypt is not a regional power than supporting it to currently be one.--MarshalN20 ^✉🕊 19:39, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

El C,MarshalN20 The page has now been unprotected. I propose we let Nigeria remain in the list but update the quora source with the above sources. Additionally, we remove Egypt from the list until we find more authoritative references. Does this sound good? Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 16:18, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

The main problem with the article is not the countries listed. Focusing too much on that detracts from the larger issue, which is that of defining the regions in which these "regional powers" operate. Nigeria isn't a continental power, so listing it under "Africa" is an exaggeration. The sources indicate that it's a power in West Africa. Is South Africa a power in all of Africa? Regions are far more numerous than continents, and the existence of a "transcontinental" list is outside the scope of this article.--MarshalN20 ^✉🕊 19:25, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

MarshalN20 Nigeria, when it was listed in the article, was mentioned under West Africa. Similarly, Russia and Turkey were not mentioned as trans-continental powers. I think the issues is multi-fold. We first need to trim the countries based on the sources we have. Then assign them with the relevant regions. I would consider South-Africa a Southern Africa regional power which is reflected in the sources. Adamgerber80 (talk) 23:46, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Should Europe be split into regions?

If yes, I would like to propose the addition of the following new entries:

Northern Europe

• Denmark (maybe)

• Norway (maybe)

• Sweden

• United Kingdom (already on the list)

Western Europe

• Austria (maybe)

• Belgium

• France (already on the list)

• Germany (already on the list)

• Netherlands

• Switzerland

Eastern Europe

• Poland

• Romania (maybe)

• Ukraine (maybe)

Southern Europe

• Italy (already on the list)

• Portugal (maybe)

• Spain

If you don't agree, that's fine. I was just making a suggestion. And how about adding Thailand, Malaysia, the Philippines and Singapore in Southeast Asia, Hong Kong and Taiwan in East Asia, Egypt in Africa and the UAE in Western Asia? --2A02:2149:826D:7A00:4D16:C812:1F72:30DA (talk) 17:00, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Pakistan

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

• [5] = From 2002. States Hungary Sweden and more as "middle powers".
• [6] Shanghai Cooperation organisation list. That is no description for "regional power".
• [7] Unreliable source, which sentence say Pakistan is a regional power?
• [8] Unreliable source.
• [9] Unreliable again.
• [10] provide quote for this. Where you were reading that source say Pakistan is a regional power?
• [11] 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:-

• [12][13] [14]: "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."

• [15]: "The countries considered to be regional powers – Brazil, South Africa, India, China, Japan and Russia".
• [16]: This list is certainly small but includes China, India, not Pakistan.
• [17]: Look at the table at the bottom of the page 56.
• [18]: " 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."
• [19]: 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[20][21][22][23][24][25] 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[26] 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 [27] 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.[28][29] 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[30] 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)

India

I have explored sources further. The scholarly consensus is that India is not a regional power and it is not a great power either.

However, it is not accepted as the natural leader of the region except perhaps by Bhutan, certainly not by Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, or even Nepal or more recently the Maldives, all of which have resisted India's wishes or demands. Nor does it have the power of compellence over its regional antagonist Pakistan due to the latter's nuclear deterrent capability... it is doubtful if India enjoys compellent power if it wanted to exert it, within its region given the enormous costs and risks. Hence, by the criterion of dominance, that is, compellent capability, India does not qualify as a regional power, certainly not over Pakistan. It can only deter Pakistan and more doubtfully deter its largest neighbour China. Hence India can be said to have regional weight and influence but not dominance in a way that it can be considered a regional power.

Nevertheless, India has not behaved as a regional power

Thus, from the above balance sheet, we can say that India is a middle power on the rise. At present, India cannot be called a great power and it does not appear that India will emerge as one in the next decade or so.

In fact Pakistan's status as a regional power prevents India from becoming a great power itself.

Part of the reason that India's claim for great power status has not been accepted is that Pakistan still defines a regional pole of power.

These scholarly expert books published in top university presses (Cambridge, Oxford) illustrate the academic consensus. Nauriya, Let's talk 16:10, 6th July, 2018 (UTC)

They don't illustrate consensus, you are just misrepresenting sources. Confirms that India is a regional power. "Great power" is not the point here, there are 1000s of sources saying India is a great power though we don't list it as one yet. If you trying to find sources sharing their opinion contrary to the mainstream opinion about India's status as regional power then consider reading WP:FRINGE. Orientls (talk) 13:15, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

@Nauriya: we are talking about regional power. Nonetheless your sources don't support the point your are attempting to make here. Sdmarathe (talk) 16:28, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

References