Talk:Great power/Archive 1

message: Would it be worth adding Genoa from when it defeated Pisa until it was defeated by the Venetian Republic? 12.220.94.199 22:43, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say, as with Italy below, if you can find some work that supports Genoa as a great power, then add it.  Personally, I've read many accounts where Genoa constantly had the upper hand against Venice until Chioggia, but I got the impression that neither was a great power while they throttled each other over the same pie (the levant trade).  Once Venice more or less permanently vanquished her ancient foe, Venice became Europe's undisputed financial and naval power (if only for a century or so), plus she employed a mercenary army of about 30 thousand men, quite large for its time, during her era of mainland expansion.  Genoa, to my knowledge, never reached such pinnacles.RemiCogan 19:46, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Genoa

message: Uh NobleEagle, you moved Campos's comments with his signature after his support vote and then you want to strike it because you removed his signature. What is this, a Russian vote? If you are going to be dictatorial then just do it. Don't play games. You know it was Campos who voted yes. 
--Hadrian1 01:40, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, my bad, don't want to be dictatorial. Anyway, in that case, Campos voted twice...which if purposeful ruins the good faith in consensus. You do agree that the tally has 2 Supporters don't you? Again...sorry. By the way, you could've brought it up on my talk page, I would've realized faster. Nobleeagle  (Talk) 03:07, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree that there are two supporters and two opposing so far. You inadvertantly moved Campos's signature when you moved the comments. I understand why you moved the comments but you should be more careful. 
--Hadrian1 03:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: To Noble Eagle

message: The more I've read the list of great powers and the article, the more I think the list needs to be divided into time periods and regions.  For instance, the list is supposedly for "modern" great powers, but some listed appear before the Age of Exploration.
I think a good date to split the list between regional periods and global periods would be 1500, a nice round number date when Europeans first started reaching out worldwide and the global community started to form.  Pre-1500, perhaps the list should also be split between the actual regions, as well.  For instance, China was a great power during the Yuan years, but its direct influence at most extended into central Asia and Indochina, not so much Europe, India, the Middle East, or Africa (its parent state, the Mongol Empire, on the other hand . . . digression: the Mongol Empire should be accounted for regardless since it ruled everything from Korea to Eastern Europe at one point).  Another instance would be the Inca Empire, which reigned supreme in western South America but had little reach beyond.  Sound good?  RemiCogan 20:15, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, sounds good. :) But keep the dicussion open for a while. We should split into regions until the world has reached a proper form of globalization. Nobleeagle  (Talk) 01:37, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh-huh, I've been letting this one stew.  It'd be a fairly big revision, so more input's encouraged.  I've actually started rehashing the list on my user page if you want to peek at it.  Probably won't be done for some time, and yes, it looks like a big mess at the moment (not just the list, buy my user page as well ;) , but feedback is welcome. --RemiCogan 23:02, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Some reorganization's called for

message: I've moved this section to the Power in international relations page, it seems more appropriate there than on this page, a page dealing with Great powers only.
Xdamr 17:29, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Current Powers

message: I noticed a lot of debate about Spain and its loss of great power status.  I personally would argue it did lose the status in terms of ability in the early 1800's but by the late 1800's with new colonial aquisitions Spain was once again a great power under the restoration period.  However it lost that status with the Spanish-American War and the selling of its other Pacific colonies to Germany.  For now I'm going to revert, so the wikipedia articles will remain consistant, but besides this one poor source that took a long time to dig for  I can't find any other via a google search on the topic for any of the three "supposed" periods where Spain lost its status.  12.220.94.199 01:52, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's certainly worth more research.  Off the top of my head, I recall that the end of the Thirty Years' War may be regarded as an official waning of Hapsburg Spain into second-rate power, though the decay had set in some time before then.  I also recall that the ascendancy of the Bourbons to the Spanish throne reversed some of the Spanish reversals, so to speak, for some time by bringing in some modernizing ideas, but I also don't recall them being considered a great power after the War of the Spanish Succession, either. --RemiCogan 22:57, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Spain

message: The Spanish American War was our first major conflict as a great power but that does not mean that we became a great power at that point.  At the end of the reconstrusction in the 1870's-80's, our military was a formidable force and our economy was booming with the Industrial Revolution.  Our Ability to go to war with the Spanish Empire at all, as well as our easy victory over that power, clearly demonstrates that our strength prior to the Spanish American War placed us in our separate and equal station among the great powers of the Earth.
:It's tricky trying to assign a concrete date to most rises and falls of great power status, and I certainly understand your argument.  I've also heard the United States recently described as a middling military, industrial, and economic power around 1880 (from a historian on the History Channel's documentary about the McKinley assassination), which was about the time the US started its ascent and eventual grand entrance onto the world stage against Spain.  
:Could the US have taken on Spain before then over Cuba?  Probably.  However, the political will wasn't there as the US was deeply into isolationism, and the world's unquestioned big players of the moment didn't regard the US as an international force, even with the Monroe Doctrine in place (the US grumbled at the French adventure in Mexico but did nothing about it, though one can note that Maximilian's reign was short and that the US may have reacted differently if Max had proved more durable).
:I think the end of the Spanish-American War, which officially established the US as an international player for more than a moment, would be the appropriate date. --RemiCogan 22:48, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Rise of America 

message: I would like to point out that Rome as listed in the pre 1500 section shows it being ended in 476AD. This actually is not the case since the East continued for another 1000 years after this point. So the table should refer to the west roman empire which actually only definitely came into being in 395AD. 
Second point, I noticed Spain is listed in both the pre-1500 section and the modern era. In the pre-1500 ad era it states it started in 1462AD. Pretty close to 1500AD. But the end dates are different in the two sections. Someone should decide which it is. 
--Hadrian1 15:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rome and other inconsistencies 

message: I wonder if I might make a plea here.  Can I ask that people contributing to the Italy debate try and be as concise as possible in their arguments.  I'm not trying to restrict people's freedom to make their point (even if I could), but reading screen after screen of closely typed text, no paragraphs, graphs etc gets pretty tiring, especially to someone new to the debate trying to get an idea of the views of the respective sides.
Thanks, Xdamr 22:39, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:NPA, I haven't made any personal attacks, why are you guys insulting me...I've invited users to the discussion, a 2-1 consensus is definitely not enough, just because they post on my talk page when I invite them doesn't call for you guys to have a go at me. I honestly don't care if you're an engineer and you're from a noble family. Some of the best users here (some admins even) are 13-14 years of age. So it doesn't make any difference alright...by the way, you can see an explanation of why my username is NobleEagle on my User Page. Nobleeagle  (Talk) 00:59, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Italy debate

message: Campos listen to this!
First off discussing Italy off this page in colusion with NobleEagle is despicable, unethical, unsportsmanlike, and depraved. The place for the discussion is here not off-page where two guys can decide on what's in or out. Who knows what you have decided on with others that have made themselves known to the discussion. Do you guys get some sort of sick pleasure knowing that I personally spents hours of my own time to research this when from the start it was doomed. I read what you wrote over there. Do you think Italians are stupid or something, we are genetically inferior. I can't track what you are saying on other pages. Buddy I'm an engineer, been around the world, come from a wealthy family. I'm not off the banana boat. I not some stupid student at university with time to blow after class. I took this on as a project to try and enlighten you but I see you are just as bigoted as most people in this world. And I have found people of the Anglo-American group to be more bigoted than most. At least the French let you know up front that they think you're inferior. Not the sneaky English. Besides, Italy still has a big influence in South America and the Mediterrean, regardless of what you write here. I can write whatever I want on the web too. 
Dear Campos, it seems that you were right when stated that things must change in order to stay the same. Our efforts here are unwelcomed and unappreciated. They have twisted our facts until we are going around in circles trying reprove the facts over and over again. This is nothing but a kangaroo court.
I suggest you take a look at NobleEagles homepage and read the "Italy debate". Quite revealing what these guys think. Over there you truly understand what we are up against. Nevermind the bull that NobleEagle is reserving his vote because he just doesn't understand the issues with Europe, He is not an authority on the subject. Like anyone here is. There was a predetermined outcome from the very beginning. I personally will send an official complaint that this page is prejudiced and extremely biased to support the editor's views. I recommend yo do like-wise  and forget about Wikipedia.
--Hadrian1 01:05, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:NPA, I haven't made any personal attacks, why are you guys insulting me...I've invited users to the discussion, a 2-1 consensus is definitely not enough, just because they post on my talk page when I invite them doesn't call for you guys to have a go at me. I honestly don't care if you're an engineer and you're from a noble family. Some of the best users here (some admins even) are 13-14 years of age. So it doesn't make any difference alright...by the way, you can see an explanation of why my username is NobleEagle on my User Page. Nobleeagle  (Talk) 00:59, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: To Xdamr

message: Is it just my opinion or we have so many confusing tables ??Cloretti2 16:57, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's your opinion regardless, but I can see where it's confusing, so let's see if we can't improve it.  I'm going to put the modern chart first since that's probably the one most people would be interested in.  Next, perhaps a table of contents immediately above the first chart and just for the charts should be added for easier navigation.  I haven't learned how to do that yet, so maybe someone could help out with that?  Hopefully that'll at least be an improvement.--RemiCogan 00:53, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: This article became a mess!!