User talk:Xdamr/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

'Welcome! Hello, Xdamr/Archive 1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  -- KHM03 03:48, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

Thanks for your opinion. Sprotch 13:03, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Imaginary Flags of the Western Isles[edit]

Thanks for sorting out this particular mystery.--JBellis 11:06, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


No problem on the etymology. Icd 23:08, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


Thanks for your answer.

Although Brazil does not have a powerful military force compared to powers such as the UK or France, it does have an important rule in the politics world.

Just now, Brazil, along with China, India and South Africa, were invited to take part of the G8 meeting (just this week, please check that).

Also the country has important rule in the WTO, being an important leader among developing countries, concercing trade disputes. It also leads UN troops in Haiti - being a major player the elections recently held there.

The country is the natural leader for the MERCORSUR and it is the largest economy in LA as well as the largest and most populated country. So many times George Bush named Brazil as the responsible country to keep political stability and democracy in S America


Major power: India[edit]

Hi here. Please, let me know if you have some specific point that you would like to make with respect to India on major power. You reverted an edit of mine in a way that didn't really make it clear what you were trying to accomplish. We should not (according to WP:NOT) use Wikipedia to make guesses about future events. This includes speculating about the population of India with respect to other nations in the future. Going into the trend growth in a systematic and statistical way would be reasonable, but that's beyond the scope of major power (it should probably go on India). What I've been trying to avoid is having every section of major power turn into a debate about the "majorness" of each nation. Keep in mind that the goal of the article is to explain to the reader what a major power is, and who the major powers are and why. Everything else really should be on the nation-specific pages. -Harmil 23:06, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

  1. I don't think that the issue is how appropriate it is to refer to India's expanding population. It's inappropriate (and way beyond the scope of the article) to speculate about how India's population will compare to some other country's in the future. That's just pure speculation
  2. It's not that India doesn't have a disciplined military. It might well. However, to make that statement make sense on that page, you would need to explain it, add citations, etc., and then again, you're stuck in the position of having expanded the 5 points of consideration for "major power" status into a long discussion of India's military. We're better off just noting that they have a sizable and powerful military and giving a link to the approrpiate article (Indian Armed Forces).
I hope this helps you to understand where I'm coming from. I don't think that you're out to vandalize the page, I just think you very nearly lost sight of what the page is about, and what your target reader is looking to learn on that page. -Harmil 03:15, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Just because I think it's the right thing to do from both of our standpoints, I went ahead and added the links to the appropriate articles on both topics. -Harmil 03:27, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
I think you may have mis-read my posting. I explicitly said that this had nothing to do with vandalism, but you then said that you didn't feel this had anything to do with vandalism. So, we're in violent agreement? ;) -Harmil 19:11, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

China and India[edit]

I am removing again China and India because of :

  • Some people consider them as emerging superpowers (one step up a major power);
  • There are specific articles (Potential superpowers China and India)
  • Clear links were established in the article major power leading you to both specific articles;
  • Original purpose of splitting the article Superpower was to make article shorter...(and this one is already long)
  • Repetitive material;
  • As you said It is essential for completeness that China and India be acknowledged as Major Powers...It is acknowledged in the article that those countries are major powers and have also a special condition (as emerging superpowers)... It is clear there. It is not necessary to list is mentioned.


US in Iraq, Superpowers article[edit]

Hi Donald. Thanks for your message. It seems essential to mention the US difficulty in Iraq in the interests of balance and fairness; not to mention this (and their astronomical debt as well) leaves the article as a very POV celebration of the power and majesty of the US. I have been chipping away almost since this article was created, trying to bring a sense of balance to it; I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on this. Guinnog 20:51, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Page Blanking[edit]

On 07-Mar, you blanked Merriman. Blanking pages is generally considered a bad idea. I've reverted it to the previous version. If this was the result of a broken edit, you may wish to make the correct edits. If you believe the redirect should be deleted, please follow the redirect portion of the deletion procedures. If you believe an article should be written instead of the redirect, please write a stub. If you have questions, please let me know. Thanks! -- JLaTondre

Regional power[edit]

Thanks for your compliments and same to you as you have also been improving these pages. I just went to check on Regional power and found it a tad unsatisfactory. But there is one thing in particular that needs to be worked out, can a Superpower/Major power be considred a Regional power as well. The answer would be yes to me instinctively, but the page defines regional powers as those powers that are only able to inject their power to states around their region, no futher. What's your opinion on this, I want to make sure that the theory on all the [[power (international) related pages are consistent in factuality. Nobleeagle (Talk) 07:12, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I've began to expand Regional Power. If you have any info you can add than please feel free to add it. I think we should have sections for each of the regions with a brief paragraph detailing the powers in that region and how one dominates over the rest of them. Nobleeagle (Talk) 07:52, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Great power - page blanking[edit]

Hello, I see you reverted my removal of the Redirect for the Great power page. I'm not sure if you are following the debate on the Power in international relations page; there is an emerging consensus that much of the material on the latter page should be moved to the Great power article and that the redirect is inappropriate. My removal of the redirect was just preparatory work. Hope this clarifies things.

Best wishes, Xdamr 13:05, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Seeing as you left no edit summary and have blanked pages before, I had assumed it was in error. In the future please use edit summaries to inform other users about your rationale. Also, please don't just blank a page in "preparation." Either make substantial edits or leave the page be. Blank pages with mere stub tags are the exact types of things stub-sorters try to clean up, either through deletion or redirects.
I'm glad it's sorted out now, though. — Indi [ talk ] 01:30, 16 April 2006 (UTC)


Copied from User talk:Bastin8

Hello there. I was just idly clicking through articles and came across your user page.

I decided to try to boost the article on Jan Smuts to featured article status. That failed, because it bothered me that nobody took any interest.

No, really? I must say that I've appreciated the excellent work you've done on the article(s) thus far. Of course I totally understand if 'real-world' commitments mean that you can't put the work in, but please do reconsider. I'm hoping to weigh in with a few contributions, more referencing, pictures etc over the next few days so you won't be totally alone! So much has been done so far that it would be a shame for it to come to an end now.

Regards, Xdamr 21:42, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

It's not a matter of time; it's merely that I got tired of writing such a long article, seemingly with no end in sight and no-one (bar your excellent self) taking notice or making contributions. I don't think that I'd be interested in picking up with such detail. Having said that, I suppose that it wouldn't take too much work just to get it to FA status: add pictures, reference article thus far, create related stubs, add categories, complete succession boxes for minor positions, write post-1914 overview, detail awards, and summarise with legacy. Give me a couple of days to finish my contributions on Luxembourg, and I'll see what little things I can do. Bastin8 23:51, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


Hi Donald! You said: "I requested the deletion over inserting a redirect because utilander is a simple spelling mistake.". A simple spelling mistake is one good reason to have a redirect. Redirects are a Good Thing. Our search engine, as you might have noticed, doesn't have a Google-like "did you mean...?" function. So people misspelling a name are likely to start an article at the misspelling. See Knowlege for an example - the edit history of the redirect is interesting! Also, redirects are free - they take no real server space (not that server space is a problem) and, as long as you only have one rather than a chain of them, they take very little bandwidth (which is a problem, but not in this case). ➨ ЯΞDVΞRS 19:11, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Heh. My first article was Independent Television Service for the Wales and the West. I had to wait 14 months to be promoted to admin in order to delete the redirect to the correct name, Independent Television Service for Wales and the West. The entry in my contributions list used to sit there, mocking me silently... :o) ➨ ЯΞDVΞRS 19:24, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Major power[edit]

I'm taking a wait and see approach. If they nominate it as AfD then I'm sure we can defend the contents and settle a move to the correct political term...Easily. Nobleeagle (Talk) 08:09, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh sorry, didn't see that it has been nominated already. I don't think there's much hope to keep the article as it is. Let's ask for a move to the proper term or a merge with Great Power if that is the only term they can find. Make sure the information and hard-work isn't lost. Nobleeagle (Talk) 08:12, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Re: Major Power Afd[edit]

Thank you kindly for your message, and let me reciprocate the good will it contains. As concerns the AfD I've decided to remove my vote and dissociate myself from the discussion in the hopes that the matter will resolve itself shortly to everyone's satisfaction. I'm still not convinced of the need for a standalone "Major Power" article, and believe "Great Power" can and should accommodate the term, perhaps with a section or note on how the taxonomy has evolved or how usage varies. I think the whole series, but the "Major Power" article in particular, took a major bad course, and that it's necessary to lop off the sour parts to get the ball rolling in the right direction again. But I am of course willing to trust the editors' discretion as to the content worth merging.

The arguments over Italy and Russia are symptomatic, I think, of what went awfully wrong here. Simply put, it should not be up to editors to research and debate which states belong in which categories, nor should the term even be described in terms of a list of states—the history and practical applications of the concept, and its impact on IR, should be dealt with before even the slightest thought is given to describing the current Great/Major powers.

Anyway, I, too, might indulge in a break from this topic (on which I'm hardly an authority); remove them from my watchlist for a few months and see what happens. All the best, Albrecht 21:15, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging for Image:HMSRawalpindi.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:HMSRawalpindi.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 15:05, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Douglas Haig, 1st Earl Haig[edit]

Hi, we don't use honorifics on Wikipedia except Sir or Dame. Thanks Arniep 21:20, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

As thats not actually quite true best to go to the horses mouth Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(biographies) Alci12 17:42, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, yes, we don't use honorifics in the header, but we can explain that they can use the honorific somewhere in the main article or in infoboxes (The Right Honourable is an honorific (see the linked article), as well as being used for members of the Privy Council it is also used for Earls, Viscounts, and Barons ). Regards Arniep 18:46, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

People's Republic of China as an emerging superpower[edit]

Hi, there's one Chinese user who has been getting on my nerve on this page, he/she have repeatedly deleted points on Bad Foreign Relations saying that it doesn't really affect China. Unfortunately the user does not understand that Relations with neighbours can be very important in the future, especially when the two neighbours in question are Great powers. I would appreciate a little bit of a helping hand. Nobleeagle (Talk) 05:53, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Xdamr, please allow me to express my opinion on your own User-Talk page:
NE: It is you who refuse to cite sources on how bad relations with individual countries, India and Japan, are neccessarily harmful to China's rising as superpower, and it's you who keep inserting Crystal-ballings like: (edit summary:)"Bad relationship (w/ JP and IN) leads to war". Cases like US and Soviet Union have been presented on talk page on this issue and YOU fail to reply. I have added that PRC has had wars with so-called strong countries like India and Vietnam respectively in the 1960s amd the 1980s (and even with genuine powers US and the USSR), these wars, as experience, did nothing harmful to China's rising. As a flat fact, the 1962 War and the Sino-Vietnamese war already proved that this sort of neighbours are nothing but paper tigers, needless to say "factor against China as emerging superpower".
Please also take note that both Japan and India, being more realistic nowaday, have been fully aware of China's influence over them since at least last year when PRC, jointly with US, blocked the G4 bid for UNSC permanent seats which the New Delhi and Tokyo leadership are wetting their pants to gain. It is reality in world politics.
These kinds of childish OR should be completely removed, AND, please, read the following before you do any edit on Wiki: 07:12, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
By all means. I've posted a reply to Nobleeagle on his talk page, which I invite you to take a look at. Essentially whilst a valid topic, I'm not sure that this article has a clear sense of direction; in my view, content aside, it needs a lot of structural work to sort it out.
Xdamr 15:31, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your assistance, I really appreciate it. 18:06, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Firstly I am fully aware of the Wikipedia Policies. Back to Xdamr, I've lost a lot of reputation and come across a lot of disputes in the entire Power related articles. While every single one of these articles are on my watchlist, I am not going to touch them for a couple of weeks. So it would be nice if you essentially took care of them. Thanks. Nobleeagle (Talk) 06:57, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
And the Foreign Relations bit on the China page just seems like an over-patriotic user wanted to write about his eternal love for his nation. Understandable, but not for Wikipedia. C'mon it sounds like China is the invincible giant that is towering above all other nations, all these other nations apparently would do anything to have China's help. That's what it sounds like, but it's not true. Then there's the stuff about China being the Middle East's prime supplier of WMDs, making it the "giver" for Middle Eastern Nations. However, if you add how this policy has put it at odds with the United States it'll be removed straight away with some wierd edit summary like POV Pushing or India-lover or Anti-Chinese POV (for a full list of accusations I have come across see my user page). Anyway, take a look, my self-imposed block from editing that page is still going and I don't want to break my word. Nobleeagle (Talk) 05:12, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Is Italy a Major power?[edit]

Please see Talk:Great power, there's an ongoing discussion as to whether we should include it as a major power. Nobleeagle (Talk) 04:28, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Xdamr look at the wikipedia article defining a Global Power:

"A global power or world power is a term that refers to a country that has overwhelming power over all other nations in the world. Countries like the United States, the United Kingdom, China, Germany, Russia, France, Japan, Italy and India are all major world powers. Many would also regard the European Union as a global power in its own right. A world power usually has a huge population, a strong industrial economy, armed forces capable of extending political influence beyond borders and, preferably, permanent membership in the UN Security Council."

ACamposPinho 0:13, 7 June 2006

Response to Xdamr from Hadrian1[edit]

I read your response to my comments on the great power page and it seems a rational reply. My response was based on the fact that I spent a great deal of time on this and yes I do have an agenda but one I want based on facts and not on my own personal beliefs. The crux of the problem here is that as you said, we have not established a set of criteria to evaluate individual countries on whether it is a great power or not. Regional power is much more well defined and easy to determine. Same thing with superpower, of which no one can deny the US is. Therefore you run into OR. And as you said, it might be right but how to prove it. And I think it comes back to politics. It makes strange bed-fellows. No one really knows what goes on behind back doors. You can tell who were the dominant players in the past but in the present it's very hard to tell. So what is needed is a concise definition or list of criteria for being a great power. Personally myself I feel economics has a lot to do with it. Read Campos link to "why japan lost the war" and you'll understand my reasons. But also cultural and scientific dominance is also very important. Something I feel the Soviets/Russians didn't compare with America hence were they doomed to lose the cold war? Given the choice, would you want to be American or Russian? I know what I would want to be. So getting to Italy, given it's relative strength in this world, and world-wide cultural influence, and also to my own astonishment, it's quite respectable scientific endeavours and research , the sum should be greater than its parts. That is my point. I didn't put any cultural references down since I believed they were obvious. And I put the other stuff down since I truly believe that most people think Italy looks like one those postcards with someone riding up the side of a mountain on a donkey. I don't live in Italy so I get this all the time. And Campos is right, Italy is in much better shape than they were in WW2. The country really began its stride with the Marshall Plan. The Italian Economic Miracle far outshone the German one but no one talks about it.

At any rate, a true set of criteria is needed to set bar which must be met in order to reach great power status ( the word seems so old-fashioned, WW1 to me).

-- 05:34, 4 June 2006 (UTC)Hadrian

Kak dela! (latin transliteration). I read what you wrote on my page, and for the most part I agree. A sound footing is what is needed to establish this page as a true article rather than OR. Good OR mind you. I have tried to search to find a definite article as to what is a Great Power and when a country is one. The problem is this may be more of a scale rating rather than you're in or you're out decision. There may be no clear-cut point that decides it. And it may be a moving bar as well, changing with the circumstances of the day. Now economics is the main bar, but in a war will it be? Especially a short war where production does not come into play. I don't know. So who's picking up the banner and fly with this thing? --Hadrian1 01:36, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey I thought you would have picked up on my Russian. Your page said you spoke it. I like to use it sometimes. Anyway, back to the OR versus Great power page. Since Campos has listed several books on the subject about Italy being a great power, I'm sure these books must discuss the topic in general as well. So perhaps if we ask him to list the books or ask for transcripts that can be read, a real definition will be developed. I personally don't have a list of books and I'm sure it's not the number one topic at book stores. Also we must be aware that books written in a particular language will have a bent that will be biased toward the writer's POV, so an Englishman will be writting from the POV of England's interests, etc. for the other countries. The only way to know for sure who was a great power is through history. Then it becomes quite clear but there's always that POV. Remember, winners write the books. That's why I like Das Boot (movie) so much. Totally different POV. Very refreshing. It's a start. --Hadrian1 00:58, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

eu superpower[edit]

"The claim is that the EU as an institution has superpower-like status."No this is not the claim.The claim is that eu institutions,plus hi degree of interdependence betewn it's members(comercial,euro,chegen treaty ...),has as a result, that it's act sufisciently coordinated to be considered as a unit.A de facto political union,despite the fact that in theory they are not politicly unified.concidering EU as 25 independent contryes is like concidering a ant colony as completly independent insects(or the borgs if you prefer).--Ruber chiken 04:30, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the call up, I believe Ruber is taking things out of hand. The EU is too far from being a country to be called a superpower. You simply can't add up everything and say the EU has more military, better economy etc. Nobleeagle (Talk) 07:46, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
That's why you can't say its an emerging superpower either. You can't compare the EU to China and India becuase it isn't a country. The EU is simply unique and thus deserves its own section.


Hi Xdamr, I think we have finally reached a comrpomise: The EU will have its own section. It will not be listed under todays superpowers as it is not a country but it will not be listed with China and India. It will have its own section describing its unique structure and status. Signaturebrendel 19:47, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Smuts statue[edit]

I'm glad that you liked the photo; I'll note that the sculptor was Jacob Epstein. Should I think of anything else, I'll add it. --Runcorn 19:35, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Your Signature[edit]

The X is a bit too big and messes up the vertical alignment of very small portions of text near your signature (at least in my browser), could you please take a look at it...perhaps it would be better to use something like Xdamr. That shouldn't cause any problems. Nobleeagle (Talk) 07:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

If you remember to place an empty line like you did on my talk page its fine. Nobleeagle (Talk) 00:31, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Great power source[edit]

Yes, it was a brilliant find by Hadrian but I don't think we should bring back the Major powers page. Whatever should be added can simply be added to the Great powers page, once that page gets very long and is well structured we may split it up. I propose we create one page that is worthy of GAC or even FAC. Nobleeagle (Talk) 01:34, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


Please see this. Nobleeagle (Talk) 03:59, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Blog Mav Rick[edit]

Can you look at his latest contributions. I've exhausted by 3RR limits on most of them. deeptrivia (talk) 17:35, 25 June 2006 (UTC)


I totally agree with you-USA, like it or not is the only Superpower. China might be one in the future, but many things could happen before. USSR was one,not a potential and look where are they now, altough Russia is improving and becoming more Powerfull any year. India- Potential Superpower,even less possible than China becaming one or Russia becoming again. Doesn't have, besides huge population any criteria for being one.Even if the growth doesn't end,will only be an ECONOMICAL Superpower, not in every terms. Huge economy isnot sufficient.Does people think India can have a Super influence in the world,even a great is difficult,it's only important in that area of Asia. If India will be a Superpower, Italy is a Great/Major power for a wild, thing people here doesn't want to accept, even with all sources and references me and Hadrian1 put.

As for EU is not a country. If it would be a Superpower would be a different kind of Superpower, like an association of nations. And all these nations put together by the other way wouldn't be a Superpower but an Hyperpower, since there are many powerfull nations inside and many middle powers too- all these nations put together would have much influence,because of their colonial past in almost every part of the world and because of their historical background. But as I said, EU is a supra-national entity.

ACamposPinho1:04, 27 June 2006

The Next step for the Project[edit]

Thanks for your support of the new upcoming International Relations WikiProject. Please see Talk:Superpower and vote... Nobleeagle (Talk) 07:39, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Russia as a major power[edit]

I noticed you had an interest of merging any verifiable info if possible. Would you like me to userfy the info? — Deckiller 01:43, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


Please feel free to evaluate the Libya article which has become a 'Featured Article Candidate' and write you support or opposition on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates. Hopefully Libya will become only the second African country to be featured on Wikipedia. Thanks --User:Jaw101ie 12:28, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: Campaign medals[edit]

Gulf War Medal
Obverse (top left) and reverse (top right) of the medal. Ribbon: sand-coloured broad central stripe flanked by narrow pairs of light blue, red, and dark blue.
Awarded by the United Kingdom
Type Campaign medal
Eligibility Members of the British Forces.
Awarded for Service in the Kuwait and Saudi Arabia 1990-91 campaign.
Description Cupro-nickel disk, 36mm diameter.
  • 2 Aug 1990
  • 16 Jan-28 Feb 1991
Established 1992

I've fixed the bullet markup so that it works within the template. However, given the extra maintenance overhead that additional templates entail, I'm wondering if it might not be better to simply use {{Infobox Military Award}} and add any extra fields that we need to it. The box at right is what's currently possible (image placement can go through a number of permutations, but I chose what seemed like an obvious combination); as far as I can see, the following would need to be added:

  • Some sort of physical description for the material & dimensions. Not sure whether this would be better as one field or two.
  • A field for the clasps. This can possibly be generalized to all additional insignia given with the award (service stars, crosses, etc.)?

Comments? Kirill Lokshin 23:49, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Let's see:
  • Grouping all the images together is possible, but the caption becomes longer. It's an aesthetic tradeoff that'll probably need to be considered by editors in each article.
  • There's a "established" field that I've activated which might make more sense in this case. We'll also need to change the first/last awarded fields to be optional for this to work completely.
  • Description field will be added shortly.
  • I'm not entirely up on the terminology: is there a good term that's more general than "clasp" to use here?
Kirill Lokshin 00:38, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Okay, description has been added (although I wasn't entirely sure of where the best placement of that line would be). Kirill Lokshin 01:05, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Ah, now I've figured out what we're talking about. I've added a "clasps" field and linked it to the article.
As far as the other two questions:
  • Interleaving images and text is probably possible through some HTML coding in those fields; but that's probably not the best approach to take, as it tends to wreak havoc with things like screen-readers and text-only browsers (more than normal infoboxes do, anyways).
  • I'm not sure that a separate "campaign" field would be better than simply putting the campaign name into either the "eligibility" or "for" field, as appropriate.
Kirill Lokshin 01:25, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Great Power[edit]

You say consensus has been reached with regards to the Great Power page and countries such as Italy. Can you show me where exactly this consensus has been reached? There seems to be none, with multiple users in disagreement. Consensus doesn't mean the clique thinks in one way, so therefore consensus is reached. Logic says any G7 nation should be included as at least a Great Power. Furthermore, the four point criteria on the main page is hardly matched for most cases. Germany and Italy, etc. maybe satisfy 2 1/2 points. India maybe satisfies 1 point, if that. Let's at least be somewhat scientific in an approach. I see nasty biases, that's all at this point. 19:53, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

If you look in the archived discussions on the Great power talk page you will see that there was an immense debate and vote on Italy's inclusion. Despite all the discussion, no-one could bring forward a source which stated that Italy was a Great power (as per WP:NOR); instead there was nothing more than comparative reasoning (Italy has an army this size, France's is that size, they are both similar therefore Italy is a Great power too - and the same for economy, merchant fleet, economic growth, etc, etc). The vote was tied 2-2 with many long-term editors (including myself) abstaining.
This mass abstention perhaps reflects a fundamental problem with the article, the so-called criteria have a decidedly shaky basis. The inclusion of one country or another on the page has less to do with the accepted facts of political science and more to do with what the editors decide is right. This makes it original research and therefore an invalid approach.
The primary objective for this page at present should be to correctly define the term 'Great power'. Once this is done we can decide on inclusion according to accepted academic wisdom. The current 'criteria' basis is not to be relied upon.
Xdamrtalk 21:42, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, your reasoning sounds good. However, the reasoning I see from Brendel and the Nobleeagle seems clearly biased, and offensive in fact. If the criteria is not robust at this point, why not be on the safe side and include at least all G7 nations? Afterall, these are the seven most powerful industrialized nations on Earth. Excluding one or two sure smacks of inconsistency. Why Brendel is so adamant to go by his own personal yardstick is beyond me. 22:37, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps including the G8 nations is a valid approach for the time being - it's certainly worth proposing on the talk page when things have died down a little. Apropos Nobleeagle, I'm bound to say that you misjudge him - he has put a great deal of work into these articles, in my experience he has always taken exemplary care to avoid all accusations of bias. I've not known Brendel for long but, despite some personal disagreements, I believe him to edit in good faith and to make valuable contributions.
Really I think that it all comes down to the fact that as individuals we are not editing this page from a common intellectual starting point; we all have opinions of the world situation, which countries matter and which don't. Without any objective methodology it's diificult to eliminate this factor. Some do not consider Italy of importance on the world stage, some do not consider Germany to have anything going for it apart from its economy, some consider that India and China are still too third world to be world powers, etc. With proper sourcing for the basic concepts this would be avoided - that's why we ought to be getting the basics sorted out, and leaving the status of particular nations aside.
Xdamrtalk 23:36, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Hey Xdamr, I reckon consensus has been pretty much reached, so d'you reckon it's safe to destroy much of the article, leaving only the source bits? I think this idea of Starting Again will work well, it's hard to work with ready-made articles and find sources, it's easier to start from scratch and not add anything new without an accompanying source. Nobleeagle (Talk) 04:21, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Do you have a case of "ants in the pants" Nobleeagle? :P Instead of reckoning that consensus has been reached and going for the destroy button, wait and let everyone have their say. WP will wait a few more days/weeks. Every other day there is someone else who visits the page and makes some good points, now that fellow from Australia. Just relax. LOL JJx2 05:02, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Nobleeagle, Yes, I think it's safe to begin. JJx2, the fact that something can be left or put off isn't a reason to do so. The article is a mess, and violates policy. Yes, we could muddle along as we are - but why should we? There has been no opposition to the proposals per se (most of the 'other side' of the debate has been about what constitutes a proper source, not objection to the actual proposals); there couldn't be - NPOV, OR, and V cannot be 'contracted out of', they are mandatory. The core, long-term editors are in favour. We would be more than happy to listen to input from or address the concerns of other non-core (for want of a better term) editors, but if no issues are raised (and the debate has been up for a few days now) then we have to be able to act at some point. All articles have to comply with OR, NPOV, and V; that's all we are doing.
Xdamrtalk 01:02, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I think you misunderstand my point. I'm not advocating to "put off" things, I'm saying to let everyone have their point of view considered so that next time the job is really done right. That is definitely different than saying, "lets just leave it for later". I really dislike this idea of core and non-core. It almost gets into this sort of clique or club mentality. With all due respect to those who worked on this before, this is WP and I think giving more weight to the opinions of certain users is extremely bad policy. Hope you understand what I'm saying. A number of users have favoured going with the G8, even though you (and a few others) are in the opinion it is OR. I for one do not believe it is OR, and think it would be a better start than what some others are advocating. One last thing, shouldn't this conversation be taking place on the project discussion page? Nobleeagle, I'm sorry to say this, but this isn't the first time I've seen you sneak away to discuss what you want on this page "offline". I'm not after you on this, but I'm asking you rethink this way of doing things. take care, to you both. JJx2 02:53, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Sneak away? Did I start this topic? I've worked with Xdamr on these articles for quite a long time now. So I was simply asking him whether its safe to begin making the article decent. Is that a crime? Am I sneaking away from something by asking that? Nobleeagle (Talk) 03:34, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Jan Smuts' Youth[edit]

Copied from User talk:Bastin8

I thought that you might be interested in the current state of the above article. I've thrown in a few pictures, verified facts, and added references from the standard works. I think that its now essentially complete, although, as I note on the talk page, I might add a bit more about his emerging political views. I've put it up for peer review to get some wider input. Any thoughts about coming back to work on the series? I've ground to a bit of a halt recently with 'real world' issues intruding. I hope to get back to work towards the end of Aug.

Best wishes, Xdamrtalk 19:43, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the timing isn't great; I won't be around much until the end of August. If it's still undergoing PR when I become available, or if I get a few minutes to look through it, I'll chip in, helping to remedy any flaws if I can. Just looking over it briefly, I'd identify references and number of pictures as the major stumbling blocks. Pictures should be easy to remedy (given that they'll almost all be PD; South Africa's copyrights expire fifty years after death of the author), references are notoriously hard to add after the event; their paucity is mostly my fault, so I apologise, and I'll do my best to rectify that. Bastin 10:31, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


Apologies, I was not clear. My point was that Ferguson states that the BE was never a "Hyperpower". He dedicates a whole section of the article to that, without ever using the word Hyperpower in the wikipedia sense (ie to designate someone).

I would be grateful if you could give me your opinion on what this article says (in light of my argument with Sean Brunnock). I understand that you do not want to get into an argument with anyone, but I think someone reasonable's opinion would be useful. Sprotch 13:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

SA WikiProject?[edit]

Hi Xdamr, I saw your note about a possible SAfrica WikiProject on the talk page for the Africa notice-board. I might be interested but am new to Wikipedia & don't know what constitutes a project or what sort of time commitment it involves. Also I am not yet up to speed on even basic technical stuff, e.g. I am having trouble getting the name link below talk dialogue boxes to produce the four tildes and likewise can't get the key-cap on my keyboard to make a tilde in my browser. So I may not be a great candidate for a coworker on a project.

On the other hand, I am trained as historian of southern Africa (did a Ph.D. dissertation on 20th c. African politics in Swaziland but have read and studied a lot about S.A., originally wanted to do research on Africans in Natal in the the early 20th c. but was denied a research visa by the former government in 1986), and my interests seem possibly to complement yours -- possibly more of a focus on Africans, and more social and cultural in distinction to your military interests, though we may overlap at politics. Let me hasten to say that I don't mean this in an anti-intellectual way & don't look down on interests different from my own -- my main intellectual influence as a teacher was a guy who did French history through the lens of Annales school "histoire totale" & I take the totality involved pretty seriously.

As you can see, perhaps, I am too wordy (write too easily), but on the other hand I am a very good speller, strong grammatically for the most part, interested in precision in language and attentive to detail.

If you want to see some initial editing efforts by me take a look at my recent changes to the articles on Nggwane IV (sic, it's Ngwane) & Zulu, also at my comments on the talk pages for Bantu and for Zulu.

(BTW if you can point me to where I can learn how to edit misspelled main article titles & deal with related linking issues I'd be grateful -- I'm still a bit overwhelmed by it all).


(see above about tilde difficulties; at least until I figure that out, I guess talking here would be good?)

P.S. I now understand about using move for titles, so ignore that query.


Indeed, that is funny, and it seems like Mainbody did none of the research normal users do on sockpuppets. You HAVE to look at contributions, and this guy definitely did not look. Nobleeagle (Talk) 07:29, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Templates about Jan Smuts[edit]

I noticed that there is two templates about Jan Smuts: Template:JanSmutsFooter and Template:JanSmutsSegments, sometimes used in the same article. Could you choose just one template to avoid rebundancy. CG 20:08, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer. As for my edit in the article. You're right there's no policy but my reasoning is simple. The article is about the early life of Jan Smuts only, so the lead should be about the early life of Jan Smuts. Yes, context is important, that's why I left a small paragraph but it shouldn't span most of lead, since it's political career is not subject of the article. And this applies to the lead image. I prefer we replace it with an image from the period described in the article. However, if you didn't find one, it's not that big deal.
As for Template:JanSmutsSegments, would you consider deleting it when you finish your work? Thank you. CG 21:59, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Great Power[edit]

Can you leave a message on my talk page when you are done. I don't want to interfere with your actions at the moment by adding stuff or removing stuff. Nobleeagle (Talk) 03:23, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't like the table either but I'll leave it on for now for people visiting the page. We should only remove the table when we have the replacement text ready. Nobleeagle (Talk) 04:10, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


Crystal personal.png

Hi, and welcome to the Biography WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of biographies.

A few features that you might find helpful:

There are a variety of interesting things to do within the project; you're free to participate however much—or little—you like:

  • Starting some new articles? Our article structure tips outlines some things to include.
  • Want to know how good our articles are? The assessment department is working on rating the quality of every biography article in Wikipedia.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask another fellow member, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! plange 00:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Biography Newsletter September 2006[edit]

The September 2006 issue of the Biography WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. plange 00:05, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Maraba Coffee[edit]

Hello! As you're a Wikipedian interested in African topics, I'm writing to notify you that the Maraba Coffee article is now a 'Featured Article Candidate'. Please feel free to evaluate the article and write your support or opposition at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates. Thanks — SteveRwanda 15:25, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Great Power article.[edit]

You agreed with me about the other countries, here is your previous response. Nothing personal, it's simply that you have not provided a source which states Poland to have been a Great power. 'Gerat power' is really a post Congress of Vienna term (post 1815), as such it is not immediately applicable to 16th century Poland. As far as the Netherlands, Spain, etc goes I've removed them myself. Goodness knows how they crept in, but they are unsourced OR and as such cannot remain. I wouldn't pay too much attention to the tables as they are likely to be rewritten over the next few days.

So by personally readding this countries, you proved that you are simply a biased troll, because you say one thing and do the next. Second, no where in that article does it says post congress of vienna. So far it seems like the only reason you're stating that as a requirement is because you are a abusive troll, who will push his personal illogical ideology on others. Poland was a great power during the time period I stated. I responded to you in the discussion, using direct quotes from the library of congress. You did not even bother to look. I have emailed the admits, reporting you as a biased troll who will not look at supporting facts if they presonally disagree with himself. I hope that you presonally lose complete access to this website, and will have no ability to push your propoganda.

The preceding comment was left by Funny4life

Ok, lets start over.
I have found credible sources that state that Poland was a great power. You fail to agree with me because it talks about a period before the Congress of Vienna and you made this article revolve around the term based on which countries were called Great powers by Congress of Vienna. However, at the time, Poland had already been partitioned, by 3 separate countries. Now if you wish to continue to dispute that Poland belongs in this article, you have to change the article so that it completely states that this article relates to Congress of Vienna, and only the powers considered by the Congress of Vienna. It has to say that in the title; otherwise the whole article is bias because it does not include other powers because of your specific selection.
Also, other countries in that article do not belong since the article has to be changed to apply only to the countries considered powerful by Congress of Vienna. If you however, wish to make that an article about great powers, you must include countries before Congress of Vienna since you are simply distorting truth.
After reading what you said, I think the article has to be completely rewritten. Either go with the direction you seem to be pushing at me with Congress of Vienna, and only talk about the countries discussed by that, or you make this an article about Great powers, you review the requirements to be a great power, and you include all the countries that have been great powers. If you choose to go with Congress of Vienna, you have to very clearly, in the title, state that this article is about great powers considered by Congress of Vienna. Currently, this article does not make sense, and Poland does belong in it since it is an improperly written article that will have to be completely edited.
Sources for Poland as a great power-

(simply the title says it all, the passing of poland's position as a great power) - its passing, so it had to be there.
Unified as a kingdom in the 10th century, it enjoyed a golden age under the Jagiello dynasty (1386–1572) and was a major power in the 15th and 16th centuries.
Poland was a great power from the fourteenth through the seventeenth centuries, but in the eighteenth century it was partitioned three times among Austria, Prussia, and Russia. It was again recognized as an independent state in 1919.

The Polish state was formed more than 1,000 years ago and reached its golden age near the end of the 16th century under the Jagiellonian dynasty, when Poland was one of the largest, wealthiest, and most powerful countries in Europe. -- library of congress Poland (The Jagiellon Era, 1385-1572 )
The Polish-Lithuanian alliance exerted a profound influence on the history of Eastern Europe (see fig. 3). Poland and Lithuania would maintain joint statehood for more than 400 years, and over the first three centuries of that span the "Commonwealth of Two Nations" ranked as one of the leading powers of the continent.
The defeat of Ottoman forces led by Grand Vizier Kara Mustafa Pasha at the second siege of Vienna in 1683, at the hands of the combined armies of Poland and the Holy Roman Empire under Jan III Sobieski, was the decisive event that swung the balance of power in the region in favour of the European nations. Under the terms of the Treaty of Karlowitz, which ended the Great Turkish War in 1699, the Ottomans ceded nearly all of Hungary, Transylvania, the Morea and Podolia. They also acknowledged, for the first time in their history, that the Austrian Empire could treat with them on equal terms. (Poles defeating Ottoman Turks) ending Turkish golden age.
This is just 4 minutes googling things, if i wanted to I could find hundreds of articles to illustrate my point. Sorry if I sounded negative, but right now this article should include Poland, untill it is completely rewritten. I dont really see how you can argue with me at this point. I think I stated my point very clearly.
Hope you understand, and if any of these countries are included, then Poland should be too.
The preceding comment was left by Funny4life
So you are trying to discuss the topic that should include Poland. In the article you explained it, and then examples were given. I simply added another example, having found support for it. Since you still seem to disagree with me, I really do not know what I can do with you. It is obvious that you simply have a bias opinion, but that is not what matters. What matters is that I'm going to continue removing the other countries untill you stop removing Poland which I have found sources to support my statement. Also, I will completely rewrite that article by the end of the month.
You should be ashamed of yourself for behaving so childishly. Not only did I state acceptable sources, I explained my position, and tried to reason with you, thinking that it was a simple misunderstanding. But I guess it was not a misunderstanding, and you are simply a childish article troll, and should be banned.
The preceding comment was left by Funny4life