Talk:India/Archive 23

message: The Reference section uses the Harvard reference template, which is depreciated. It should be replaced immediately with the cite book templates. I am going to indulge in a few edits to correct this. So do not worry. Thanks, Kensplanet (talk) 17:11, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: User  to avoid edit conflicts. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:35, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: The photo captioned North Block in New Delhi looks like the Supreme Court (also in New Delhi) to me - please correct me if I am incorrect.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.9.227.162 (talk) 05:12, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The anon has a point. Unless the picture is taken from the northern end of North Block (the part not visible to public), I'd say we have an investigation on our hands. =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:13, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photo caption 

message: Did you know, India has the highest population of gay/lesbians? Well it's true! There's an interesting fact to tell people! They have special rights for gay/lesbians that not many other countries have.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Happy olive 123 (talk • contribs) 12:04, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: With 1.2 billion population, i would expect everything to be high in India (higher number of males, females, children and so on). WP is not a forum unless you want to make a point here. Docku:“what up?” 14:49, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "Interesting facts", ie. trivia, needs to have more value as well as reliable sources to back the claim for it to be included in this article. And I'm a little confused by your second statement, since homosexuality is illegal in India. In any case, we can't deal on this subject in great detail on a summary article, so Homosexuality in India is the best place to develop this discussion further. GizzaDiscuss © 22:22, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Population 

message: Is this really POV? Is there an alternative opinion of India? Docku:“what up?” 13:42, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The White House, rather the United States, is not a certifying body on non-proliferation. The White House can say anything, that does not make it a reliable source. IAEA, or similar organizations would be better suited to comment. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:47, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  non proliferation record 

message: This change to the infobox makes it look tidier (IMO). Should we implement it? It was undone as it was not discussed. --KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 08:09, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Should I go ahead and make this change? --KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 14:56, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The link you provided is quite confusing. I am still trying to understand what the difference is. Sorry. Docku:“what up?” 16:59, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The official languages and official scheduled languages are differentiated by a line. Thus when "expanded" ([show] is clicked) the distinction is more clear. I know the change is minor and silly but I thought of discussing it here as this page is an important one where nothing is "minor"! --KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 17:38, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, the line distinction looks better. Docku:“what up?” 17:41, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Query 

message: Ganesh Chaturthi is a popular festival in western India. I wanted to get the vies of other editors on this? --Anshuk (talk) 18:49, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Um? I think it's no problem... but not sure what It labs was trying to say. BlackPearl14[talkies!•contribs!] 02:39, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

text: Support: One of the most worshiped deity in nation and Hinduism.  --gppande «talk» 14:46, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can we add [[Ganesh Chaturthi]] in the list of festivals? 

message: I have reverted the edit "although it remains a member of the Commonwealth of Nations." because
# The sentence is too specific for the lead. See WP:LEAD
# although implies contradiction.  The although bit does not contradict the previous sentence, or the summary of the second paragraph.
=Foreign relations= is a better alternative. =Nichalp «Talk»= 20:07, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commonwealth of Nations edit 

message: Keep 'Hindustan' was and still remains important in the Indian subcontinent as a popular word for the land 'India'. If intention of Wikipedia is to be an importance knowledge resource, Hindustan should be an independent article, in my humble opinion. But info in it should be NPOV, give past history in one para or two and should admit that the present usage of the word may die away with time for various reasons, including the sensitivities of some sections which may also be mentioned. Info may be duplicated in brief in the article on India, I feel. My two cents: Wiki dr mahmad (talk) 17:09, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: How different is that from India, and why is that not considered a Fork? =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:35, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Keep I just read the Hindustan article and it provides valuable information on the meaning and its use throughout time. This information would never be able to be added to the India page, especially given the Summary Style of this article. I think it's best to keep the article with NPOV. Nikkul (talk) 05:41, 30 October 2008 
(UTC)
Dear Nichalp, I see that this 'merge/keep/delete' discussion is ON in quite a few India/Pakistan related articles/topics. My intention is to have Wikipedia as an easily accessible knowledge resource (using Wikipedia search engine) on all topics of relevance to past and present, but in a good faith NPOV language, away from any nationalistic or other negative ramifications. The West has done it admirably for their lands! How to achieve this in the Afro-Asian region , I leave to wiser contributors than me. Wiki dr mahmad (talk) 22:09, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Keep WP:FORK says A content fork is usually an unintentional creation of several separate articles all treating the same subject. While article India deals with India as a country, Hindustan just talks about the word "Hindustan". Of course, it could be redirected to Names of India, but having it as a separate article should provide a vivid picture of Hindustan for someone who is specifically interested to know its meaning. Docku:“what up?” 22:18, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hindustan as a separate article: Keep 

message: What is the literal meaning of "Gaṇarājya"? Rajya look like "kingdom" or something like that...but then what is "Gana"? Le Anh-Huy (talk) 22:32, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Gana has many meanings in Sanskrit (e.g., as a prefix for Ganesha – Ganapathi, Ganaraja, etc.), but can also mean community or number.  Thanks AreJay (talk) 23:00, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Le Anh, Rajya means state, Gana means Union or Collection, so Ganarajya means Union of States. I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 01:43, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ganrajya means "republic" if you go by this Republic of India; Bharat Ganrajya. This is also pointed out in the infobox (see non-numbered footnotes). But after reading Arejay's and Fmt's comments, I guess there is a mistake!! --KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 07:41, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

text: In terms of Sanskrit defination, Gana also means people. Rajya also means rule. So Ganarajya also means - place where there is rule of people symbolizing republic and democracy. Other famous words with use of Gana as said above by Arejay are 
*Ganesh which is made of Gana and -ish or -esh means Lord. So Ganesh is also called as Ganapati or Ganaadidesh. Pati in some ways means owner and adhidesh means ruler.
*Ganavesh which is made of Gana and vesh means clothing. So Ganavesh means Uniform.
Many more words of Gana...  --GPPande talk! 18:42, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, you are right, but I believe Le Anh was asking how the word Ganarajya (which, as you point out is republic) is derived.  Fmt and I were just pointing out what the word Gana means, since Rajya means kingdom AreJay (talk) 14:33, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etymology of Name 

message: I added two varied photos for the geography section, but for some reason they were deleted. I do believe that the geography section should have an image, because of India's varied landscape.
Samantha555 (talk) 08:50, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Maybe have a rotation of images from different landscapes. This has worked well for culture and flora sections. Nikkul (talk) 17:36, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I added two photos to the geography section. I believe they show a good example of the variety of the landscape in India. Samantha555 (talk) 09:42, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

text: lets add them here first Nikkul (talk) 05:57, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images for 'Geography' 

message: Hi - I'd like a clarification here, of whether this article is to be written in Commonwealth English or American English. I think it should be the former, but I want to ask before I make the necessary change. S h i v a (Visnu) (talk) 20:45, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: First, I have to admit I dont know much about the difference. Nevertheless, does it matter? Can we not have both mixed? Docku:“what up?” 21:54, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

text: Well it comes across as weird. At one sentence, you have "civilization" and the other you have "characterised." Worse, you can have the same term spelled differently in the same article. I am pretty sure it affects the quality of prose and the article, which is supposed to be one of the best here. S h i v a (Visnu) (talk) 22:27, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I like "s" more than "z". :) Docku:“what up?” 22:30, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's an issue of inconsistency. Spelling on all Indian articles should follow British English spelling. AreJay (talk) 23:30, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately there is no consistency in British English when it comes to "ize" endings.  The Oxford English Dictionary uniformly favors "ize."  Thus their primary entries are: "characterize (also -ise)," "plagiarize (also -ise), etc., whereas the Chambers's Dictionary favors the "-ise" endings (if I remember correctly).  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:13, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I use the -ize spellings for scientific works. Amateur radio in India uses the -ize spelling because that's what the Wireless Planning Commission of the Ministry uses. For as long as its consistent within the article, its ok. For general India topics use -ise. =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:12, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commonwealth or American English? 

message: I am a bit uncomfortable about the tendency here to flat-out remove someone's edits if a discussion has not taken place. The principle is good and should be the way to work, but I don't like this practice of actually removing the edit on that excuse. If there is a question or a problem with an edit then that can be discussed immediately, but I don't think anyone should have the right to remove edits without discussion as it should be avoided to make significant edits without discussion. I feel it kinda violates the idea of Wikipedia being a free encyclopedia, and policies I've read, such as WP:BOLD.
I'm not trying to question anyone's intentions or blame anyone and I respect that this article is a WP:FA, but its just uncomfortable and a bit annoying to find one's edit un-done citing "discuss first," when in fact a 2-3 day discussion had already taken place on the talkpage which the person reverting neglected to see. And in one case, where actual spelling mistakes were restored because of a question over the modification of sentences. My opinion is that the person with the question can easily raise and discuss the same point before actually un-doing the edit. Unless its vandalism or something radical, what is the need to flat-out remove edits like this when you can actually discuss that very edit at that point? On the other hand, such a removal is justified, as the edit in question raised a major content and policy dispute.
This article is also semi-protected so new people and IPs cannot edit. Now if this flat-out removing of edits occurs, it makes one very uncomfortable in contributing when the edits do not change the article in a major way. S h i v a (Visnu) (talk) 00:56, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Such reverts were the subject of a long RfC on this page.  The majority decision was that reverts are reasonable in such a "highly trafficked" (if that's the word) feature article, as long as they are polite and ask the editor in question to bring up the issue on the talk page.  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:21, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe f&f is pointing to Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2008-06-10_India along with the subsequent discussion on this talkpage earlier this year. Shiva browse through the archives and you would get it. --GPPande talk! 14:13, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The RfC was held in January/February 2007 and is summarized here.   (section 4).  Obviously, this applies to substantial edits, not to routine corrections of grammar and spelling.  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:36, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

text: The RfC is interesting, but my point here is that if just 2-3 sentences are being edited, there is no reason to remove the edits outright. You can initiate the discussion at that point and then remove if the consensus allows it. Unless a whole para is being added, or a statement making a major assertion is being changed - like the cause of partition or Muslim conquest or war with Pakistan - it feels like over-policing. S h i v a (Visnu) (talk) 18:49, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Shiva(Vishnu) - Your observations are spot-on.  This kind of misplaced and many a time uninformed vigilantism has been the bane of this article for over two years now.  Please feel free to make any edits to this and any article as you see fit.  Only make sure that you adhere to WP:NOR, WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE and you will be fine.  This is the encyclopedia that anybody can edit and there is no rule or guideline on wikipedia that requires you to discuss every edit on the talk page.  This article is no exception.  And as for the RfC linked above, don't you waste your time reading the nonsense.  For one, the RfC was nearly two years ago, secondly, it is not a vote around here, thirdly the purported summary there is a joke and fourthly and most importantly, like I said, there is no rule or guideline on wikipedia that requires you to discuss every edit on the talk page.  Sarvagnya 16:34, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

text: Those reverts never ill-intentioned, but I do feel there should be restraint in the removal of new contributions - it is more respectful and constructive to do so. S h i v a (Visnu) (talk) 20:39, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing edits based on "discuss first" 

message: I have a couple of suggestions - shall we merge it with the "Culture" section, given that it is barely 3-4 sentences and very brief in discussing the topic? If not, (2) shall we add details about India's sporting history in the Olympics, Asian Games and Hockey World Cups, etc.? The current section is a bare-bones discussion of sports in India. S h i v a (Visnu) (talk) 02:23, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree Sports section should be improved. --KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 13:57, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: But please refrain from adding any individual players into this summary style article. --GPPande talk! 20:18, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

text: Yes. I totally agree with Gppande. Don't want any more controversies. --KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 17:34, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

text: I partly agree as regards to cricketers, football and hockey players, but I feel that it undercuts the description of the non-team sports where Indians have shown interest and achievement. It seems a bit odd that we can mention India's World Cup wins in hockey and cricket but not Anand's World title win or Abhinav Bindra's Olympic gold, which is equivalent of a world title. S h i v a (Visnu) (talk) 20:54, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, please try to understand this is summary style article. Mention of sports is all that is required. Naming a particular person is giving undue advantage to a person and not sport. Instead, focus on improving Sports in India. --GPPande talk! 08:30, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sports section 

message: "The massacres perpetuated by Muslims in India are unparalleled in history, bigger than the Holocaust of the Jews by the Nazis; or the massacre of the Armenians by the Turks; more extensive even than the slaughter of the South American native populations by the invading Spanish and Portuguese." - Francois Gautier Rewriting Indian History by Francois Gautier, Chapter 4 - Islam and the Muslim Invasions  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quinacrine (talk • contribs) 04:50, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Islamic Golden Age" 

message: A straw poll to determine the opinions. Please let's restrict this to only editors who have lent their opinion on the subject in the above discussion. We do not want ballot stuffing.
====Option 1====
;Adding classical languages information to the infobox is UNDUE
# =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:12, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Poll: Regarding inclusion in infobox

message: ;Adding classical languages information to the infobox is UNDUE
# =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:12, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Option 1

message: ;Adding classical language status is not UNDUE but support the footnote style
#Dineshkannambadi (talk) 12:16, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Option 3

message: ;This poll is a fraud effort by partisan intention (for instance 3 times the word UNDUE, calculation of existing opinions to put own propaganda agenda first)
--Kalarimaster (talk) 10:38, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Option 5

message: ====Option 1====
;Don't add classical languages to the Infobox, but mention them in summary style in the Culture section
# AreJay (talk) 08:03, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Poll: Regarding inclusion in culture section 

message: ;Don't add classical languages to the Infobox, but mention them in summary style in the Culture section
# AreJay (talk) 08:03, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Option 1

message: ;Neither in the infobox nor in the culture section:
#KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 18:12, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Option 2

message: This edit by User:Kalarimaster is totally unwarranted. I have reverted it. --KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 10:26, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:Consensus is one of the five pillars of wikipedia. If Kalarimaster chooses to ignore the opinions of the community, and and does not Assume good faith on the part of other editors, he might just as well stop wasting his time editing wikipedia. =Nichalp «Talk»= 12:01, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: At least, there are now officially 3 classical Dravidian languages and just 1 foreign language. This is something we can be proud of. The dravidian race is the last classical civilization on earth. And everybody should know that.  --Kalarimaster (talk) 18:38, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: By this remark, are you suggesting that you want to portray Dravidian languages to be superior? =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:59, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

text:  What do you mean foreign language? How do you plan to substantiate [t]he dravidian race is the last classical civilization on earth with any sort of valid citation? AreJay (talk) 19:01, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Kalarimaster, please dont make damaging statements. Remember, Pali and Prakrit are also classical. There are multiple versions of Prakrit. Calling Sanskrit foreign is a real blow to this article, considering it has influenced every language, just about every folk art and classical art of India.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 19:09, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear Kalarimaster, Strange as it may seem, I find your post above refreshingly different from  your earlier edits.  Remember, though, that humans left Africa only 40 to 60 thousand years ago, and that ultimately Dravidians (i.e. speakers of Dravidian languages) are foreigners too, as are the Adivasis (i.e. speakers of Munda languages) who arrived in India long before the Dravidians did; in other words, it is not the just the speakers of Indo-European languages (such as Hindi, Urdu, Assamese, or even English) or of Mon-Khmer languages (such as Khasi) that are the foreigners in India.  Remember too to help out the next time someone on this page is trying to claim everything in India for the Indo-Aryans.  Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:09, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a wrong interpretation of history of mankind to maintain the myth, that foreign languages of India aren't that, what they are, foreign. The first settlers of India are Dravidian people alongside perhaps Austro-Asiatic languages. These people are the first people. It's notable, that people accorded Adivasi rights and status, are also belonging to Dravidian language family. Hence all other language families are definitely foreign to the original people. Through the mix of the foreigners languages and the native languages, Sanskrit and all the other north indian languages evolved. I don't care about these Indo-Aryan speakers as long as the Indian government does the right choices. 95% of Indo-Aryan peoples are f**** freaks, definitely trying to play down the dravidian race. --Kalarimaster (talk) 20:57, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Can some admin please block Kalarimaster for open racial abuse? It will also put an end to this. --GPPande talk! 21:10, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I find your post above refreshingly different from  your earlier edits I somehow thought, this type of honesty is requested. Sorry for any inconviniences to our poor Northies wikipedians. I love you all. --Kalarimaster (talk) 21:41, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No that's not what I meant.  I meant when everyone is a foreigner, no one is a foreigner.  But, c'est la vie, il est dommage.  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:26, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

text: I won't say, that Sanskrit is not influential to any language in India. Anyway, Sanskrit as everybody knows is just a mix of this foreign language and the local populations (of dravidian race, brown skin). However, Sanskrit in a whole is not purely native. I don't like that. Of course Dravidian Languages are, as the government recognises, very special among all languages of the world. They have a long recorded history, and they are still spoken by 200 million people. Therefore they are somehow superior. Other languages didn't survive as spoken languages. These are facts. And that's why, i assume, people here try to suppress our heritage to the world. They are jealous about our ancient civilization, the last surviving in the world and angry about the government of India, because they made this official! These people are evil. We should get rid of them. --Kalarimaster (talk) 19:27, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

text: ^^ This is something we can be proud of! --KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 19:30, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Boy. You are totally uninformed. Read up on other languages and you will change your opinion before it gets dark tonight. Till then, I guess, we will ignore you. Docku:“what up?” 19:32, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

text: I don't buy your false sense of jingoism and belittling of languages. Great or not, classical or not, official or not, we do not belittle languages as you suggest. "You mention that you assume we are suppressing our heritage, and are therefore evil." That's a fallacy known as begging the question. =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:40, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

text:  Absolutely preposterous.  Perhaps you don't realize the impact that Sanskrit has had on Kannada.  If this is how you plan to go about achieving whatever it is that you're planning to achieve on this article, then it's safe to say that yours is a lost cause.  As for These people are evil. We should get rid of them., you're in the wrong place spewing such venom.  You don't want Wikipedia, you want an Internet consipracy theory and hate forum.  AreJay (talk) 19:39, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Disruptive Edit

message: It seems we have the support of seven people for option 5 (four of which have also supported option 1).  This tells me that option 5 has the majority.  Since everyone who was a part of the discussion has spoken, I believe that when Nichalp returns to the discussion, we can go ahead and make the edit in the culture section (and get this money off our backs).  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:46, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, KM is now blocked for a while as his account was originally created to avoid a block.... YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model!) 05:06, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

text: Yup lets close it and end the discussion once and for all. =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:06, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

text: Ok. Please go ahead with your edits at your earliest convinience.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 21:35, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Result

message: Pubserv, I'd request you to please think about the undue additions. I can point out at least two problems in each of the sentences you have provided in the draft. If I were an FA reviewer, I would blast the text into the stratosphere. There are problems with the tense, structure, undue focus on two challenges, repetition, peacock terms. Also, consensus over the last four years has been against sectional fragmentation. Got to log off, so can't detail the problems with your draft. =Nichalp «Talk»= 20:04, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is ok to add something about the population challenge to the article because India's population and population growth are a well-recognized issue. However, in a summary article, I think it makes sense to be brief and to examine the issue in detail elsewhere (Demographics of India, perhaps?). I'm not so sure that creating an entire new section on 'challenges' just to put this in is a good idea. Perhaps a subsection under 'Demographics' entitled 'The population challenge' will make more sense. --Regents Park (RegentsPark) 04:21, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The lead talks about some problems, the economy section talks about poverty, terrorism is talked about in the history, so there is a balance. I think the topic on "overpopulation" needs to ironed out. Your suggestion seems fine. Let's not call it "overpopulation", its a loaded term depending on how people look at the definition. =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:19, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Challenges 

message: Since George W. Bush is about to leave office, a new image to replace the current one should be considered. Here is a gallery of images that can be used:
Image:Dmitry Medvedev at the 34th G8 Summit 7-9 July 2008-61.jpg
Image:BRIC leaders in 2008.jpg
Image:LulaePatil.jpg
--128.211.201.161 (talk) 05:33, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We could crop the first image to just include just Manmohan Singh. =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:05, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

text: India–Brazil relations ummmn, not very significant IMO with respect to India as compared to US or Russia. =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:29, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

text: You're right about the cropping, it would not make much sense. But the ships aren't too spectacular. It's way too small to see any sort of military exercise that really represents the text alongside. =Nichalp «Talk»= 20:08, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Foreign relations image