Talk:CRINK

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the CRINK article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives (index): 1Auto-archiving period: 3 months

CRINK was nominated as a Social sciences and society good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (April 11, 2026, reviewed version). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

The content of CRINK was merged into CRINK on 2025-06-15. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. For the discussion at that location, see its talk page.

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Military history: Asian / Chinese / Middle East / Russian & Soviet This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Asian military history task force Chinese military history task force Middle Eastern military history task force Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force Iran Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Iran, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles related to Iran on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project where you can contribute to the discussions and help with our open tasks.IranWikipedia:WikiProject IranTemplate:WikiProject IranIran Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Russia: Military Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Russian, Soviet, and CIS military history task force. China Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles 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.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Korea Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Korea, a collaborative effort to build and improve articles related to Korea. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how use this banner, please refer to the documentation.KoreaWikipedia:WikiProject KoreaTemplate:WikiProject KoreaKorea-related Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject North Korea. Politics Low‑importance 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. International relations Low‑importance 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

On 24 July 2025, it was proposed that this article be moved from Axis of Upheaval to CRINK. The result of the discussion was moved.

This article should be more clear that CRINK is a term used mostly by Western analysts and think tanks to group these four countries, and not a formal grouping officially endorsed by any of these countries. The current article makes it almost seem like CRINK is a formal grouping like the BRICS and these countries consider themselves to be part of such an alliance, despite none of them having openly promoted the concept in any capacity. The Account 2 (talk) 10:48, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I removed this sentence from the lead, as it was unsourced and nowhere to be found in the rest of the article: Together, the members of CRINK possess around 18% of the world's proven oil reserves, 19% of the world's nominal GDP, 20% of the world's population and more than 51% of current global nuclear warheads. - OpalYosutebito 『talk』 『articles I want to eat』 04:59, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the POV banner to the Characteristics section. Everything stated in there is highly debatable, and numerous word choices betray bias towards the US and against this alleged "coalition" of adversaries: "dramatically increased", "seemingly united" "involvement in military conflicts" (should we count how many conflicts the US and its key allies have been involved in?), "efforts to legitimize", "contributing to a more unstable global environment" (who is the top source of instability?)...

My recommnendation would be to delete that entire section and limit this article to the term itself: who coined it, when and what use (if any) it still has. Hispalois (talk) 12:00, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

In aхddition, Cuba, Myanmar, the Axis of Resistance, Syria, Pakistan, Belarus, Palestine, Serbia, and Venezuela can also be added to the Axis. ~2026-18873-21 (talk) 19:47, 26 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

"CRINK" is neither a military alliance like NATO nor a treaty-bound union of states such as the EU, not even a formal club of states such as the G7. "CRINK" is merely a term coined by some Western analysts to group several countries that they dislike or deem hostile. For this reason, I have reverted this edit that sought to add an Organization infobox, as if this were some kind of established organization. And for the same reason, I oppose the comment above. Hispalois (talk) 09:15, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Other informal alliances with pages on Wikipedia also have infoboxes, such as the Indo-Abrahamic Alliance, Arab-Israeli Alliance, and Frugal Four both of which we’re initially coined by analysts to describe the increasing cooperation between respective countries. With respect to CRINK, the inclusion of an infobox would be fitting for all intents and purposes, as it would introduce the reader to the main states in CRINK, their leadership, and their proxies/client/puppet states. Actors in the grouping have begun diplomatically, militarily, and economically coordinating in opposition to the United States as if they were an alliance. Jasper Chu (talk) 15:14, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing me to those other articles, where the Organization infobox had likewise been inappropriately used. I have edited them to remove the infobox and in general to avoid misleading the readers into thinking those are "alliances" or "coalitions".

We can't do political fiction on Wikipedia. "CRINK" so far is just an acronym and rather little used, by the way. You write "as if they were an alliance", which means we agree such alliance does not exist. Therefore, let's keep the article focused on the term CRINK, and leave the international relations between those countries for specific and properly written articles (for example, North Korean involvement in the Russo-Ukrainian war (2022–present)) Hispalois (talk) 21:00, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

They're coordinating so much that UAE is using Chinese drones against Iran. The Account 2 (talk) 09:41, 17 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Unsuccessful (quick failed due to NPOV cleanup banners). ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley${\displaystyle \lor }$investigateᛅ} 08:21, 11 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:CRINK/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Maltazarian (talk · contribs) 08:07, 11 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator: OpalYosutebito (talk · contribs), who nominated it at 10:40, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Diffs: (Review start · Review finish)

Preliminary checks

[edit]

This is done by the reviewer right at the start of the review. This section should not be edited by anyone else.

Preliminary checks for immediate failures and drive-by nominations.

· The nominator is a major contributor to the article.

• 2nd greatest contributor and above 10% so it is allowed. [1]

· The article's images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.

• It only has one image and it's free.

· The article does not get caught by Earwig for any obvious copyright violations.

• The top similarity result is still at "violation unlikely".[2]

· The article is free of valid cleanup banners and does not have many cleanup tags.

• Oh no. Uhhhh yeah those banners seem decently valid and multiple editors have edited the article and kept them in.

· The article is stable.

· The article, if it previously failed a good article review, is free of the problems that led it to do so.

· The article is free of any other major problems that will cause it to obviously fail a good article review.

⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley${\displaystyle \lor }$investigateᛅ} 08:14, 11 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Collapsed to avoid unnecessarily clogging up the talk page

Review template

[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
Key: Unreviewed · All good · Fine but has recommendations · Recommendation · Must be addressed · Fail

1. Is it well written?

· A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct.

· a. The prose is clear.

• ·

· b. The prose is concise.

• ·

· c. The spelling and grammar are correct.

• ·

· B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

· a. It complies with the manual of style guideline for lead sections.

• ·

· b. It complies with the manual of style guideline for layout.

• ·

· c. It complies with the manual of style guideline for words to watch.

• ·

· d. It complies with the manual of style guideline for fiction.

• ·

· e. It complies with the manual of style guideline for list incorporation.

• ·

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

· A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.

• ·

· B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).

• ·

· C. It contains no original research.

• ·

· D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism.

• ·

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

· A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic.

• ·

· B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

• ·

4. Is it neutral?

· A. It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

• ·

5. Is it stable?

· A. It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

• ·

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

· A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.

• ·

· B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

• ·

Overall:

Discussion

[edit]

This is the area you should be editing in. Use level 4 headers to separate different subjects if needed.

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.