Talk:Regional hegemony

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics Mid‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

2009 discussion

This page is rather small... no historical examples and a weak definition make this article pretty bad. I can expand on this article using notes from AP World History and college level courses, however, I can not cite any sources doing this...

If someone has some sources, and they could expand this article, that would be great. This is an important concept, and needs expansion.

The evidence that Iran is the Middle East's regional hegemony holds no weight. If Saudi Arabia were to exert its powers it would definitely overtake Iran militarily, economically, and international support. Raymanaryani (talk) 04:12, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that Saudi Arabia is the regional hegemonial power. OK, it IS a regional power, but this article is about hegemony. Please read the definition of hegemony - "the dominance or leadership of one social group or nation over others". While it is quite clear that both Saudi Arabia and Iran are leading powers in the region, none of those can be said to be absolutely hegemonic. Considering the magnitude of so many different interests in the Middle East, I am quite skeptical about this entry and I think it should be deleted. There's no doubt about, say, the US's dominance in North America or Russia's dominance over vast stretches in Central Asia - but Saudi Arabia exerting regional hegemony over the whole Middle East... that's not really true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.76.138.135 (talk) 00:54, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  The Middle East has the competing powers of Saudi Arabia, Iran, Egypt and even Turkey or US occupied Iraq exerting comsiderable influence on the region. It can't be said that any one nation has total dominance over the Middle East either culturally or politically.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.185.247.18 (talk) 02:41, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The area defined as the middle East is Listed as haveing 4 middle powers, turkey Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Iran (Middle_power).—Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.185.247.18 (talk) 02:47, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"The U.S. is a clear example" "Other regional hegemons include:"

There is language in the article indicating what constitutes a regional power is debatable, but also more absolute language that implies the examples 'are' as opposed to 'debatable' For example India is right next to a world power, and possibly developing superpower. 208.114.88.10 (talk) 05:29, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nigeria

  Nigeria is listed as the Hegemon of West Africa on its page and Its economic power controls its region.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.185.247.18 (talk) 02:36, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

India

India can not be considered to posses regional hegemony for several reasons. Firstly, it is bordered and rivaled by Pakistan, another nuclear power and regional power in South Asia. Secondly, the Kashmir conflict is also another thorn in achieving such a status, not to mention the China-Pakistan friendship. Pakistan possesses the sixth-largest standing armed forces, and has more nuclear warheads than India and is a regional power, meaning India can not be considered a regional hegemony when there is another rivaling power in South Asia. Additionally, I read through the source used to support India's stance as a regional hegemony (mind you it doesn't support that view at all yet argues the potential, and the apparent difficulties for India to achieve such a position as compared to South Africa, as I mentioned earlier).

I found the following excerpt:

"In regard to discontents against Indian and South African hegemony, India has faced greater opposition than post-1994 South Africa. The reason for the difference lies in the more developed and self-interested states in South Asia, the conflict with Pakistan over Jammu and Kashmir, and the Pakistan-China partnership. The opposition has influenced India to work more multilaterally through SAARC. Zimbabwe’s opposition to South African leadership of SADC is as much a matter of personalities as interest-related. Comparison of India and South Africa has been a useful exercise and has demonstrated that both have exhibited both imperialistic and benign hegemonic tendencies, at times in the past. However, today both are looking today to exercise multilateral leadership, instead of hegemony."

The last sentence in a nutshell describes why India is not a regional hegemony, and thus either better sources must be cited in support of that or it should be removed all together to display accurate content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calore123 (talk • contribs) 18:24, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Provide sources for your information. Right now its just your personal POV. Sdmarathe (talk) 15:25, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Regional hegemony

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Regional hegemony's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "The United States and the Great Powers":

From Middle power: Buzan, Barry (2004). The United States and the Great Powers. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Polity Press. p. 71. ISBN 0-7456-3375-7. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
From Great power: Buzan, Barry (2004). The United States and the Great Powers. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Polity Press. p. 70. ISBN 0-7456-3375-7.
From Saudi Arabia: Barry Buzan (2004). The United States and the Great Powers. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Polity Press. p. 71. ISBN 978-0-7456-3375-6.
From Regional power: Buzan, Barry (2004). The United States and the Great Powers. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Polity Press. p. 71. ISBN 978-0-7456-3375-6.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:28, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Regional Power?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

To not merge, given consistent opposition to the proposal, and arguments that independently notable and disctinct topics best discussed separately. Klbrain (talk) 10:37, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I propose we merge this page into regional power. Both pages are somewhat under-developed, and this page seems to be a specific case of the other. Given that this page has had very little content production for years, it seems time to consolidate. Jlevi (talk) 02:18, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Per above. The little amount of content this fork has can actually form a great section in regional power. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 20:33, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Realising that subject has its own independent coverage sufficient to make it a stand alone article. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 09:28, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support The both almost synonyms have different coverage. Hegemony is somewhat a subset of power. But, I think it's ok to merge them at current point.--Geysirhead (talk) 12:33, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support on the grounds that there is sufficient continuity between hegemony and power that the topics are best discussed on the same page. The Regional power also contains referencing and evidence for what is otherwise on the Regional hegemony page is unreferenced speculation or POV. Klbrain (talk) 15:23, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Putting this under Regional power will hopefully help develop it further. Otherwise, it is not really a well-trafficked page. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 02:24, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, i agree with Aman, Call me Deathisaninevitability (talk) 18:21, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per user:Klbrain. I will also note that in academic literature on the subject, the two topics are without exception intertwined - a regional hegemon must be a regional power, although not vice-versa from what the literature says. The intersection between the two is definitely very close, and although they are separate topics, they're closely aligned enough that having two separate articles may result in neccessary duplicate content. BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}})} 07:22, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'd support merging this as a section within the article of regional power. It would be much more informative for readers. Danloud ^(talk) 10:09, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Both are two different notable subjects. Accesscrawl (talk) 04:10, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The two topics, while similar, seem to be different enough to merit separate pages. Wandavianempire (talk) 18:56, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support The content here is largely unsourced and it doesn't have enough meat to remain a standalone article. Nomian (talk) 05:18, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per @Accesscrawl. Ytpks896 (talk) 07:12, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per @Wandavianempire: 205.164.111.170 (talk) 15:52, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.