Talk:Cold War (1953–1962)

message: 172, what specific "deletions" are you concerned about? CJK 21:07, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Compare the two versions. Note the removal of factual content (in some cases sentences with footnotes) in your version. You might personally feel that some of that content was irrelevant, but it was, and at times it was difficult for me to figure out what you were doing. I am going to revert back to the older version of the article again, as the burden is on you to restore the (arbitrarily?) removed content that appeared in the previous version but no longer appears in the version that you have been reverting back to. 172 | Talk 02:40, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Some of the content I removed was a paragraph designed to discredit Dulles over Mao's agrarian reform, and two paragraphs in the Iran section which were irrelevant, one about recent Anglo-American competition and the other about the Revolution, which is outside the scope of this article. User:TJive has also stepped in and removed/reworded this. CJK 22:45, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Establishing historical context is always necessary to allow the readers to understand the people, conflicts, and relevance of a time period. Students are constantly told to start off their research by going to relevant secondary sources to get acquainted with perspectives on any given topic that they might not think of on their own. You should do the same, taking a look at some of the sources appearing in the footnotes, before you start cutting out background information deeming it irrelevant... Regarding TJive's copyedit, I think it's fine and a version that we should both settle on in order to avoid another long, unproductive exchange like the last one we had. 172 | Talk 00:01, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Well, I saw the text that was changed around, but did not notice that so much was missing. But we are not "back to where we started." Just about all the other changes have been left the way they were in TJive's version... Please do not remove the important background information from the section on Latin America again. 172 | Talk 04:13, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Occupations 'having existed' is not English prose. What is meant by 'Marxist agitation' in Guatemala is unclear. Claiming that someone is 'in search of significantly leftwing reforms' also fails to constitute English prose. There are other examples, but they are hardly worth going through unless you are willing to spend more time clarifying and proofreading your edits in the future. 172 | Talk 01:32, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

text: It's not merely grammar. The sentences in question were just nonsense. As for "Marxist agitation," it sounds like a loaded term unless you clarify what you mean. 172 | Talk 23:10, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

text: I still don't know why you're insisting on adding the note on the Shah's secular reforms. The section on Iran is not a survey on all of Iran's postwar history. So adding unrelated info on the Shah's regime only adds to the section unnecessary trivia. The section's domain should be limited to how (a) internal and external factors over time played a crucial role in the formation of-- and constraints on-- Cold War foreign policy for all the major actors in the '53 crisis and to (b) concluding remarks on how the Cold War foreign policy shaped Iran's development and role in the international system of states in subsequent years... In that case, adding the remarks on the Shah's secular reforms kind of implies that it's relevance falls under "b," which would be the case if the new role of the U.S. in Iran's internal affairs following the coup determined the course of the 'modernization' program. However, I fail to see evidence that this was the case. You seem to be stressing the role of U.S. power in Iranian domestic politics to a much greater extent than all of the scholarly literature on Iran and the Cold War. Ironically, I doubt that this has anything to do with your intent... Regarding the Arbenz coup, I fail to understand your point regarding the timing of the planning. If you backed up your position with a citation of a conclusion from a secondary source, it would be quite helpful... I also fail to understand what you mean regarding the "inaccuracy" on Cuba. The concern I have actually has nothing to do with a factual dispute; the concern has to do with the writing. 'Castro in search of significantly leftwing reforms' simply does not make sense. What was going on? Was he looking for the right how-to manual on "leftism" for Cuba??? Did he finally come across a copy of (say) Lenin's "What's to be Done?" and then reach an epiphany thinking, "oh, that's how I'll restructure Cuban society."? I don't mean to be flippant, but you do need to be clearer in your writing... Finally, regarding "agitation" your response attempts by certain leftist groups to violently overthrow governments such as in Cuba sounds like vitriol rather than proper historical writing. First, the reference to "Marxist agitation" was found in the section on Guatemala, not Cuba. Second, at the time when Castro 'violently overthrew' the Batista regime, he was not part of any organization calling itself "Marxist." So what you mean by "Marxist agitation" in Guatemala remains as unclear as ever. 172 | Talk 23:34, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Changes

message: *Once again, the Shah's reforms show he was not entirely brutal and evil as the article portrays him.
**Again, whether or not the Shah was a nice guy is outside of the domain of the subject. Please explain what your edits have to do with the Cold War. 172 | Talk 18:50, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Exchange on 20 September 2005

message: I have just posted a new version avoiding the problems I keep on spelling out over and over again in your version while incorporating your points on the Shah's secular reforms, Cuba's government structure, Alliance for Progress, and PBFORTUNE and PBSUCCESS. We should now be able to other articles, which promise to be more productive pursuits. 172 | Talk 01:35, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: My problems are:
**The Iran section should be shortened and merged with the Middle East Section.
***No, it shoudln't. The Middle East second deals mostly with Egypt and the Arab-Israeli conflict. To make things clearer, though, perhaps we could change the heading of the title of the second on the "Middle East" to "Arab World and the Cold War." 172 | Talk 02:23, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: 22 September

message: Your mass deletions border on vandalism. I will work with you on expanding some sections where you think information might be missing, but bad-faith edits will be reverted immediately. 172 | Talk 21:13, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The Iran section is just way too large for its actual role in the Cold War. The CIA may have helped the Shah gain power, but there weren't any American troops there and Soviet involvement was also minimal. Subsequently, 0 attention is paid to Tibet, India, Taiwan, the second Berlin crisis, Soviet gains in Iraq and Somalia, the East German food riots, and Laos not to mention the tons of Marxist insurgencies. That is not ethnocentric. Meanwhile we detail what percentage of the profits going to which companies and when in the Iran section. CJK 22:46, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Adding information on Tibet has nothing to do with Iran. The construction of the Berlin Wall is already mentioned in the section on the founding of the Warsaw Pact. For details on India, see the large section on South Asia. If you didn't already know, India is in South Asia. Taiwain is covered in the previous page of this article. Regarding Somalia, the Soviet Union did not gain influence in East Africa until later in the Cold War, so this is outside the scope of a page dealing with the period framed by the death of Stalin and the Cuban Missile Crisis. Laos is also addressed in the subsequent page, which is the one that covers the Vietnam War... I am just as open to adding content as you are, but nothign will be added at the expense of important information already in the article. 172 | Talk 23:22, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Why should Iran be mentioned and not Tibet? The South Asia section does not cover the Sino-Indian war. The two Taiwan strait crises were in 1954 and 1958. There was a major conflict in Laos in the late 50s and early 60s. There is no information about Africa in the next article. CJK 15:03, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

text: I would have time to write some content on the invasion of Tibet and the crises in Taiwan if you would stop vandalizing the sections on Guatemala and Iran. I would also have time to expand the coverage on Africa in the next article. The solution to improving the weak parts of the article series is not vandalizing the comprehensive parts of the article series. 172 | Talk 20:08, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: CJK's mass deletions

message: In addition to adding content on the invasion of Hungary, I have just added content on the 1959 invasion of Tibet and the Sino-Indian War. Deleting the sections on Iran and Guatemala would constitute just as much an act of vandalism as deleting the new material on Tibet and Hungary... More is coming on Taiwan and Laos. 172 | Talk 21:17, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not DELETING the section on Iran, merely relocating it and reducing its massive size. I barely touched Guatemala, simply removing redundancy and emotionally laced POV. Iran is in the MIDDLE EAST. Therefore it should go under the MIDDLE EAST section while removing pointless info about the turn of the century and other redundant material. CJK 22:03, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I now see that you have attempted this time to summarize the section on Iran, but it still lacks lacks perspective. Keeping in mind that space is not limited and that we can even add a fourth page to the article series. What we should be doing is discussing each individual point that you personally feel that the reader ought not know and deliberate on whether or not content left in the article for over a year before you came along it is relevant. By the way, I have incorporated some of your changes, while preserving structure that addresses Iran (1953) before Guatemala (1954) in order to keep a sort of chronological order to the presentations on each region.  172 | Talk 16:41, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I thought we were separating the conflicts by geographical region rather than nation. Anyway, the material about what foreign companies got what %, the turn of the century, and the Islamic Revolution do not belong here. CJK 20:13, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Ruy Lopez is now rving my edits with no justification. I dearly hope he will halt his knee-jerk reaction to against anything that doesn't make America look like the great satin. CJK 21:20, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Please avoid making issue of ideological differences between you and other editors. Regarding the substance of your points, the historical persepctive on Iran, mentioning who controlled what shares of the country's oil and the legacy of the 1953 crisis throughout the remaining years of the Cold War, is essential and should not be removed. It's essential in the same sense that the statement I added to the section on Hungary in order to elaborate on the realities of Soviet power in Hungary: Soviet military power and occupation forces were the main guarantees of suppressing Western influence within Communist Eastern Europe. In Iran Western power historically was not ensured by the presence of a large occupation force, but in Western domination in capital investment in the country's leading industries, much the same way that the British ruled India for centuries without stationing many troops there. 172 | Talk 23:58, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

text: To quote Shakespeare, the past is prologue. Taking into account historical context in explaining the course of history is not "excessive" or "irrelevant"; indeed, it is the core reason that the profession of history even exists. Without the perspective informed by historical context, the past is just a nonsensical flux consisting of an infinite array of data with no order and meaning. One cannot understand Soviet actions in Hungary without understanding that the outcome of World War II left Soviet military power and occupation forces the main guarantees of suppressing Western and liberal influence within its new bloc. In the same sense, without understanding the economic supremacy of the advanced industrialized countries, one cannot understand how the U.S. and Britain had so much influence in many countries in the "Third World," despite the lack of the kind of troop presence that the Soviets had in Hungary. On that note, notice how all the secondary academic sources used in the section on Iran are all from accounts of the Cold War, not Iranian history. Cold War scholars have never the context of Anglo-Iranian relations as "irrelevant." The same goes for Latin America. The background in both sections is essential for understanding the emergence of the U.S. as a global power shaping the political fortunes of countries in every region of the world which felt that fighting communism in distant parts of the globe was essential for its own freedom at home. If you are interested in reading up on the origins of the Cold War in the Middle East and Latin America, let me know. The material is quite interesting and worth reading; so I am very happy to recommend material. 172 | Talk 02:05, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not talking about "historical background" here, I am talking about things that occured after the coup. Information about the turn of the century and the Islamic Revolution is important but does not pertain to this particular article. CJK 19:34, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm glad that you are acknowledging that it is important, but I must take issue with your final point. The information provided here on the early 20th century pertains directly to the notable events covered in this page. To start, this information is essential for answering the following question: why were U.S. policymakers concerned that Latin America would fall to communism in the early Cold War years? One would have to look further back into the past. It was in the late 19th century and early 20th century that economic development in the United States magnified its power relative to the rest of the hemisphere. So we get the U.S. preoccupied with its responsibility of containing communism in Latin America, not (say) South America's giant Brazil responsible for containing communism in North America. By the end of World War I U.S. bankers became Latin America's principal creditors; and the U.S. displaced Britain as the major economic and political power in the region. So the U.S. has been the dominant economic power in the region since then, not the older dominant powers in the hemisphere like Spain, France, or Britain. Moreover, the origins of this communist threat are also worth noting. Since the Mexican Revolution, much of Latin America-- suffering from poverty and a maldistribution of wealth long before the U.S. was anywhere near Latin America's principal creditor-- was increasingly unstable and home to radical movements. So the increasing radicalization of Latin America's political opposition from the 1910s into the World War II years is definitely a trend with implications for the Cold War in the region in the 1950s worth noting for context... Regarding Iran, I don't see why it would be a big deal to follow your advice and move the following into the subsequent entry in the section on the Islamic Revolution: Popular anger in Iran, seething and repressed for a generation, combined with the Shah's secular reforms, eventually culminated in the 1979 Islamic Revolution, which led to a hostage crisis. Secretary of State Madeline Albright expressed regret in 2000 for the '53 CIA role, stating ): "...it is easy to see now why so many Iranians continue to resent this intervention by America in their internal affairs." Really, this sentence could serve either as a concluding remark on one of the unintended consequences of the 1953 incident in the 1953-1962 page of the series, or as the historical context to the section dealing with the Islamic Revolution in the 1962-1991 page. It hardly matters, as none of these pages are self-standing entries but components of a single article. So, I will move if it means that we can both wrap up our at times acrimonious discussions on this article and then take a nice break from editing it for a while. 172 | Talk 01:41, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Okay, we're getting closer to an agreement. Perhaps you didn't notice, but toward the end of my last post I stated why it doesn't matter one way or another if the content I quoted above on Iran is moved to the next page of the series (in short why I would not oppose moving the material stated above on Iran). Regarding the last sentence in your post above, I suppose that the point could be clearer, but as it stands "seething" is not inaccurate, as it implies that the problems were latent and thus not having yet reached surface. 172 | Talk 21:57, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Not to say that there weren't any, but at least I'm not aware of reliable outside scientific research to approximate the Shah's popularity among the population as a whole. It is not a guess, though, that he was always hated by a least some sectors of the population. While the text does not make any unverifable claims (e.g., that among a majority of the population he was always unpopular), I agree that it is unclear. I'll change it to the following: Popular anger among sectors of the population opposed to the Shah's rule, seething and repressed for a generation, combined with the Shah's secular reforms, eventually culminated in the 1979 Islamic Revolution... 172 | Talk 00:05, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Your edit summary misrepresented what we agreed to. Do not remove the content on the Iranian oil industry. It is thoroughly sourced, and the literature to which the references will direct the reader will elaborate on the significance of these matters to the Cold War. I did, however, move the content that we did agree to move-- the stuff on '79 that could go into the subsequent entry. 172 | Talk 21:33, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Not only did you remove some of the perspective, but some of the specific events occurring in this period. You removed the following, the crux of what we're reporting in the section: the U.S. provided guns, trucks, armored cars, and radio communications in the CIA-assisted 1953 coup, which elevated Pahlevi from his position as that of a constitutional monarch to that of an absolute ruler. This is the single most important sentence in the section, actually. 172 | Talk 21:42, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

text: "Aided the coup" could mean anything from launching (say) a D-Day-style invasion or simply providing it political legitimacy by diplomatically recognizing the transfer of power. It's important to be concrete and specific when writing history... Regarding your second sentence, we already went through that matter, when we established the military's historic influence in politics throughout much of Latin America. 172 | Talk 23:12, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

text: That may be the case but no one is making that claim. They were oligarchic in the sense that they generally lacked institutionalized popular channels for affecting state policies. Uruguay and Costa Rica, along with revolutionary Mexico, are perhaps the only two exceptions. Elsewhere suffrage was very limited and mass political parties only starting to develop. 172 | Talk 22:44, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

text: There was an electoral system in Chile, but landlords largely determined how their peasants would vote in rural areas. Brazil had an electoral system from the late 1940s until the 1964 military coup, but its system was even more oligarchic than Chile's. In fact the '64 coup was triggered in part by Goulart's alleged "radical" plot to make suffrage universal. 172 | Talk 07:35, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's because this article focuses on the period leading up to the Shah gaining power; what had happened earlier-- not in the future-- helps explain why history unfloded the way it did. 172 | Talk 23:20, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: New material on Hungary, Tibet, and India

message: I was invited to (re)post here (instead of the First Indochina War talk Pt.1 | Pt.2 | Pt.3 section) my new sources and request about accepting the First Indochina War as part of the Cold War and not only as a regular independence conflict since this war involved US-backed French & French-loyalist Vietnamese forces against China & USSR-backed communist Viet Mihn. Intellectual honesty makes me confess I'm a French citizen hence a different perspective than the American and English Wikipedians. I have no personal interest in accepting this conflict as a Cold War but the satisfaction of telling the historical truth.
*Broken Taboo: A lot of things have been said in America and France about this "dirty war" which was until recently a classified taboo. Now the truth is being told in France, the war is now viewed as a Cold War episode in France, so I think it's time to update the old view about the conflict using modern reliable sources in the English Wikipedia too.
*Official Source: The following notes are directly taken from a 50th Commemoration documentary. I did add nothing to the official statements[¹].
**1: The USA have financed 80% of the First Indochina War, supplying money ($400.000.000) and war material to France (uniform, helmet, rifle, tank were all US).
**2: The French were named (and considered themselves as) "the only rampart of the Free World against the evil of communism" by the US government.
**3: The US government has supported the French as a way of stopping the Communist expansion in South-East Asia.
**4: The French used US Douglas Dakota supply airplanes while the Viet Mihn used Soviet AA cannons.
**5: 1954 Operation Vulture (Opération Vautour) implies US B-29 raid planned to set things at Dien Bien Phu to save the losing French soldiers, the US president did accepted the French proposal of dropping the H-bomb but Churchill refused to save the remaining French soldiers from the H-Bomb's backeffects and to maintain the upcoming Geneva Meeting, so the Vulture Operation was cancelled at last.
*[¹]"Diên Biên Phu, chronique d'une bataille oubliée" (Dien Bien Phu: Chronicles of a Forgotten Battle) 2004 documentary written and directed by Peter Hercombe and produced by Transparences Productions. It features French & Vietnamese armies archive footages and veteran interviews. It was broadcasted on the French national public TV "France 2" the 4th of May 2006.
*2004 American expertise can be found on this Air Force Magazine article | printable PDF article (so you cannot accuse me of being partisan).
**6: "Washington wanted to help. The question was how far President Dwight D. Eisenhower would go to prevent a communist triumph at Dien Bien Phu."
**7: "USAF B-26s loaned to France [...] still wear the nose art they carried in Korean action, mere months before."
**8: "France’s goal was a mirror image — total destruction of communist forces."
**9: "France had roughly 200,000 troops in the field. Some 200,000 Vietnamese troops fought with them as allies."
**10: "[Gen. Vo Nguyen Giap] brought in Chinese-supplied heavy artillery and Chinese advisors to further train his Viet Minh gunners."
**11: "Giap had in place [...] the fearsome “Stalin Organs,” Soviet-built Katyusha rocket launchers."
**12: "Yet America already was involved. President Harry S. Truman reluctantly had provided military aid to French forces in Vietnam, and, now, the US was picking up as much as 75 percent of the cost of France’s adventure in Indochina."
**13: "In October 1949, China’s communists won their own civil war and started sending aid southward."
**14: "French forces had borrowed and were using a US Navy aircraft carrier, 10 US Air Force B-26s, several C-47s and C-119s, and hundreds of US Air Force personnel."
*Additional informations (though not necessarily neutral) and archive documents (site's interest) can be found on the Bien Phu Battle Org site. EnthusiastFRANCE 19:41, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree 1st Indochina war belongs under Cold War--it should get one paragraph in this article and a much longer treatment in its own article. Correction: Eisenhower at no time considered using nuclear weapons in Indochina. (He DID threaten to use them in Korea in 1953.) Rjensen 15:54, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you (if i can tell thank you for this), I know about MacArthur in Korea but Eisenhower's acceptance of dropping the bomb at Dien Bien Phu is not my personal misunderstanding but a direct quote from Peter Hercombe's documentary. Churchill was the only one to refuse the use of the weapon as stated in the documentary. Air Force Magazine doesn't mention Churchill and states 75% of aids instead of 80% in the documentary. Someone in the talk quoted 78% from US scholar books, I guess the closer you are to this "stinky" affair, the more you have interest to reduce statistics and to revise intention/facts and vice versa for the French, of course. I mean additional sources are needed to state about the US acceptance of H-bomb use or not. EnthusiastFRANCE 16:08, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks for joining Cripipper, actually this episode is subject to debate in US and France, I've posted multiple French Historians clearly statings that the Vulture Atomic plan was Radford's idea not French. Currently i personaly think that the so-called "misunderstanding" was actually Eisenhower's try to cover Radford promising strategical initiatives without Ike's official agreement (i've already posted this POV and the source somewhere on this page). Do you really think a professional translator would make a such important mistake? I don't. There is the US book (quoted somewhere on this page) detailing the 2 Operation Vulture i have to check. BTW can your release your sources please? The more sources we have the easier the historical truth will be determined? Also Rjensen and I would like to check Prados' theory before concluding. In other hand, I would like to produce all together a chronological event timeline, a bit like it was done about Pearl Harbor in Tora! Tora! Tora! not that detailed though, with Bidault's Washington meeting, US Ambassy in France/Ike telegramm, Churchill/Eisenhower call/telegramms, Eisenhower's domino theory (private talk/officialy unveiled) etc (i've seen such events exposed in a US book) EnthusiastFRANCE 16:06, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is for you Cripipper, look at this quoted from Timothy J. Botti's Ace In The Hole p.57: "Sensing a golden opportunity to take the wraps off the nuclear arsenal, Radford amended Operation Vulture to provide for the use of three atomic bombs to break up the siege." As you can see, I'm affraid things cannot be concluded that easily as a "misunderstanding". EnthusiastFRANCE 16:57, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

text: GOD already one year has passed since this discussion; little improvement has been made though. but i'll not abandon. the truth will be told anyway. Shame On You 07:42, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  First Indochina War being part of the Cold War 

message: *MCE European Navigator French/English Chronology of events in Indochina 1945-1956 (search keyword: Dien bien Phu): "06.03.1946: Agreement between Ho Chi Min and the French Governement. France recognises the Democraric Republic of Vietnam as a free state within the French Union with Ho Chi Mihn as its president." etc. highly recommended official chronology giving a nice overview EnthusiastFRANCE 20:05, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Radford was the chair of the joint chiefs which included the heads of army, navy, af and marines. The other 4 opposed any intervention in Indochina. "To the man, the chiefs of staff of the United States Army, Navy, and Air Force, and the commandant of the Marine Corps, turned thumbs down to Radford's plea" for conventionional air strikes. Decision Against War: Eisenhower and Dien Bien Phu, 1954 by Melanie Billings-Yun  pp 70, 78, available on books.google.com Rjensen 07:35, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see, thank you. I'll check this article on google book too. EnthusiastFRANCE 08:26, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indochina War article material 

message: The section on how Khruschev took over power is too brief. If I remember correctly, he wrested power from Malenkov in 1953. It may not be very relevant for the whole article, but I think it could be clarified. --Glacierfairy 14:29, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New leadership in Soviet Union 

message: of course you didn't or else you would had added the first indochina war into the cold war era. the U.S. supported the french, 2 americans died at dien bien phu, and the russians gave hundred of trucks to the communist viet minh. i have gathered multiple evidences in these articles but censorship is still rampant here. not for long actually. Shame On You 07:36, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: did anyone of you has ever heard about the [[domino theory]]?

message: :Image:On the Beach DVD cover.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 00:45, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:On the Beach DVD cover.jpg

message: The image :Image:Castro Khrushchev.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here.  In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page.  Please check
:* That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
:* That this article is linked to from the image description page.
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --06:21, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Image copyright problem with Image:Castro Khrushchev.jpg

message: It says The administration attempted to reconcile the conflicting pressures from the "Asia firsters" and pressures to cut federal spending while continuing to fight the Cold War effectively. but did the American goverment see it as a cold war at the time? They could have just thought of it as a freezing of relations. I probably dont know as much as some of you guys but that seemed to me as being odd. Deadlyfish (talk) 19:50, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  use of the term "cold war" 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Cold War (1953–62). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041127172402/http://www.hungarianquarterly.com/no154/086.html to http://www.hungarianquarterly.com/no154/086.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:34, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Cold War (1953–62). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070425142600/http://www.ambafrance-us.org/news/statmnts/2005/levitte_cat-022405.asp to http://www.ambafrance-us.org/news/statmnts/2005/levitte_cat-022405.asp
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:56, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified