User talk:Hadrian1

Interest:

Almost anything. Love geopolitics and history.

Peace Dove


I have nothing against Italy my friend. What Xdamr wrote on my talk page was in response to my message on his talk page: Please see Talk:Great power, there's an ongoing discussion as to whether we should include it as a major power After seeing that only you, Campos and Heilme had voted I thought we needed more opinions involved. Please reconsider your choice, it's probably my fault that the process is slow and inefficient. It's just that no-one's voting... By the way, I have no idea how Greece has got onto any modern day lists but I'll see to it that it is removed. I simply can't monitor everything :)  Noble eagle   (Talk)   06:59, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Regional power
I've replaced Greece with Italy per common sense. Please take a bit of time to expand on the section.  Noble eagle   (Talk)   07:03, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I hope your recent edits indicate that you are not going to leave Wikipedia?  Noble eagle   (Talk)   06:27, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Italy
I've just seen your entry re. me on the Great power talk page. I must say that I'm rather surprised at the strength of feeling.

Firstly, nothing that I and Nobleeagle (or any other editor) discuss or agree on is the final word on any article. You, as a signed up editor, have as much right as anyone to put what you want in that article. If you make contributions which are factual, NPOV, verified etc then there is no reason that your contributions cannot stand. Nobleeagle, an editor with whom I have collaborated with on other articles in the int power series, drew my attention to the discussion - I simply indicated my general feelings to him.

Secondly, I have no personal agenda against either yourself or Italy. Italy is a lovely place, one in which I have had many happy times and I have the utmost respect for the time you have put in researching your references. I've done similar work on other articles and I know what hard labour it is.

I don't know how long you have been involved with these int power articles; I have been here since the beginning of the year. I spent a lot of time editing the Major power page, a page which covered the status of nations like Russia, UK, France etc - nations on the second tier, not superpowers but important powers with G8, Security Council membership etc. We had quite a nice article developed, reasonably NPOV, lots of discussion of military/economic/political factors, and no real sources. The page was nominated for Afd as Original Research. As we were to learn, the concept of 'Major powers' does not exist in political science. The page was wiped and redirected to Great Powers. This annoyed me very much. Nothing on that page was false, the statistics were verified, in terms of realpolitik we were right. The problem was that the concept we were addressing didn't exist. There was no academic basis to the judgements we were making to include some countries and exclude others.

The last thing that I want to see is the same to happen to the Great powers page. As I said to Nobleeagle:


 * So the difficulty is that without an academic basis it becomes difficult to refuse Italy. We have the top group, those that we have consistently acknowledged as Major/Great/whatever powers - where or what is the dividing line between them and a modern, prosperous (albeit one without any international clout) nation like Italy? If Italy is added then why not Spain? Why not our old friend Brazil? Without a clear boundary then there is no justification for refusal other than the fact that 'we know it to be so'; in terms of realpolitik we are possibly right but we've seen the results of that approach in the Major powers article.

We do not have any sourced criteria with which to judge Italy. Whether we, as article editors, acknowledge Italy as a Great/Major power is entirely down to our own judgement and consensus. That is the problem, it's our judgement - there is no source to guide us, the key wikipedia principle of verifiability is breached. A simple Afd nomination on grounds of Original Research and all the work and effort is wasted.

That is my major objection. Italy has a decent case to be ranked up with the other countries, although my feeling is that it lacks international clout - that is my honestly held view; but my view doesn't matter - what we need is verifiable criteria with which to make this judgement, something which we simply do not have.

Best wishes, Xdamr 00:49, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Well I certainly agree with you that the term 'Great power' is unsuitable for application to powers of the modern era. To the best of my knowledge the term applies to the main powers pre the age of the Superpowers (France, Germany, US, UK, Japan etc).  This point was brought up in the Afd debate, but no-one addressed themselves to it so the redirection went through.


 * Personally I feel that no real work can be done on these articles until they are placed on a sound academic footing. What we need is someone with a background in the theory of international relations to lay the foundations.  Without this we simply building our house on a bog.  There's nothing that I can do about this, I have no access to the appropriate sources; until then it's simply a waiting game.


 * Xdamr 01:27, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Certainly developing these pages has become a fascinating exercise, OR or not. I fear that it might turn out that there simply isn't a term in Political Science to cover second-tier powers.  I don't think that there's much to be found on the internet, we need someone with access to textbooks and Int. Relations journals.


 * X damrtalk 16:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Да конечно, я вас понимаю, но я изучаю русский язык! Not quite fluent yet (in fact pretty far from it!).  My interest is primarily in the country, but of course it's quite a handicap not speaking the language so I've been learning it on and off for the past year or so.


 * Your suggestion sounds a good one. I recall that I have some papers for a first year course in Int. Relations somewhere here.  If I can find them then I might be able to see what the reading list is and get hold of the books.  Don't know it I'll be able to find the papers but it's worth a try.


 * X damrtalk 02:41, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I been thinking in one topic we could create to ask NobleEagle,Heilme and co. one thing.

They ask for sources, books, links everything for Italy. I already said the other countries didn't have many sources, almost none.We provided lots of sources for Italy. We could ask them to find the same for France, UK, India and specially Japan and Germany. And they could explain us what is today the "big" difference between France, UK, Germany and Italy. If they know.... They always says it's common sense and Italy is not common sense too? UK and France Great Powers since early millenium through the present? I don't think so, specially France inthe period between 1940 through final 1950's.

ACamposPinho 0:03,28 June 2008


 * I don't know why it's common sense that the UK, Germany and France are great powers but not Italy. I mean on every statistic I could find Italy is close or in some cases above, particularly France and the UK. When Italy's GDP was above the UK's, the British hotly contested the issue, saying Italy fudged the numbers. You are right on one thing though, I haven't seen any articles that Germany is a great power. The UK and France have their UNSC seats, which they will never give up to a common EU seat. This is why I feel that the EU being talked about as a country is plain rubbish. When it's convenient they are all together but don't take anything away from me kind of deal. Germany aside from its big economy, hasn't done much in terms international relations, ditto Japan. When was the last time you heard Germany or Japan was sending troops to quell some conflict in Asia or Africa on its own. Doesn't being a great power mean acting like one. Italy does way more of this stuff than either of these two. Italy has Nato command in southern Afghanistan. Would Nato hand over control to a minor player? I mean come on, we posted together more fifty articles and still no one is convinced or has been swayed. Now we got Brendel in on it. Do you really think he read the articles with an open mind or just put his two-bit opinion in. Remember, this guy is of German background and the Germans always feel the Latins of whatever stock are inferior, just like Slavs. As soon as I knew this guy was German, I knew which way he was voting. I didn't have to look. They stabbed us in the back in Africa, took over our colonies under the pretext of helping us, and then when the war in Africa was being lost, the Italians fought rear-guard action while the Germans escaped to Tunisia. They never gave the Italians tanks which they needed badly, they never sent supplies, they never gave a damn.... Actually I am kind of happy in a way that the war was lost, if it wasn't we'd all be speaking German, at least in Europe. I say watch out if these guys start rebuilding their military and America goes down. It'll be only a matter of time before they try again.


 * NobleEagle says there are a hundred references for India. So why doesn't the fifty or references count for Italy? Greece was listed was listed as the dominant power in the Med before I got that corrected. When I saw that, I didn't know whether to laugh or get angry.


 * Another thing I noticed and maybe you can check too, when I go to the Italian Wikipedia it seems to me that the articles writing style seems to be too rigid and extremely formal and wordy. Almost as if it's being written by someone who doesn't speak Italian everyday in normal speech. The sentences are hard to follow, poorly written, and use huge words to convey the simplest of meanings. When I checked the users who wrote the articles, they all speak German very well. Seems a little suspicious to me. Most Italians from Italy don't learn German anymore, they learn English. Either these guys are all from Bolzano or they are Germans posing as Italians. I'm having serious doubts as to how open this wikipedia is and who is running it. Have you ever read anything written in Germany. Holy, they make it sound like everything was discovered or invented by Germans.


 * With the English we got half a chance. With the Germans, we got none.

--Hadrian1 00:16, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The most funny is that Germans fell superior but in what? Almost everything important developed and discovered by Germans specially before WWII was by German JEWS-the people they hated most. I always learned we were the cult and civilized people, they werethe barbarians. Of course this was more than 1000 years ago,but some things don't change. With this I'mnot saying they are barbarians and uncivilized,I mean the battle and clash of cultures doesn't change. Italy in WWII should have never allied with Germany,because Germany it's it natural enemy, specially since it annexed Austria. It was part of Triple Entente before WWI but then got to the right and natural side- France, a concurrent country in many aspects but at least a Latin country and one who helped Italian Unification and UK who were friendly to Italy cause.

About Nato command in the Afghanistan, this isn't the only one,in Kosovo Italy had a Nato command, another was regarded to UK, other to USA and other to France. Were was Germany? And in Irak Italy have a commad too, the third most important besides USA and UK. NobleEagle and others says that this is not important, even Australia and other minnor/middle power had troops everywhere, but the qunatity, the efectivness,the quantity and quality of material and the position regarded to Italy in each conflit. If we go further back, to 1991, Italy actions were of high importance inthe Gulf War. One more time, where was Germany- reuniting, regaining full sovereignity and being allowed to participate in wars but only on paper, in the field only in Kosovo in 1999. Itally was allowed in 1970. Japan still isn't allowed, only to peace-keeping missions.

As for Greece-if Greece is a Regional Mediterranean Power, the Mediterranean area is the most full of Powers area in the world.

ACamposPinho 1:10, 29 June 2006

Regards
 * SEE THIS: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gerdbrendel#Is_Italy_a_Great_Power.3F

ACamposPinho 23:08, 29 June 2006

France was been lucky since beggining.It had difficulties in passing the groups fase and arrived at the Final-Very, very lucky, but nothing last forever. France finally met her match! VIVA L'ITALIA ACamposPinho 23:37, 9 July 2006
 * CONGRATULATIONS ITALY FOR WINNING THE WORLD CUP

Great Power Criteria Source
Well done! That is a brilliant catch and will greatly help this article's growth. But I'm afraid there's an issue with it, it doesn't support the stance on Italy that you've been taking all this time. In fact it reads clearly ''Italy's short history as a great power ended dramatically with Mussolini's fall in 1943. Unlike France or West Germany, it never succeeded in reestablishing itself as a great power in the postwar order''. It states that Italy was a great power from 1895-1943.  Noble eagle   (Talk)   06:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, excellent work. It looks like you (Hadrian1) had the right idea, that it's more of a sliding scale than an absolute one.


 * Actually, I'm not sure that this isn't a good pretext to have a look at reviving the Major powers page, (' The expression major powers has come into a common usage more recently, replacing the original phrase great powers ').  This isn't conclusive by itself, but if it is true then it shouldn't be too difficult to find other corroborative sources for the term.  I really think that powers of the modern age need to be treated seperately from those which currently fill the Great power page.


 * X damrtalk 11:32, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Regardless of what you think, I said from the beggining that were some errors inthe Great Powers page, one was Italy not being included TODAY, another was that Portugal was again a Great Power after 1640 until Brazil Independence; by the way with the reformulation Portugal entry has disapeared,but that we talk later. The other error was that Italy first period as a Great Power ended in 1943 and not in 1945.If in 1944-45 Italy was a Great Power, today it's an HyperPower....

ACamposPinho 1:44, 19 June 2006

Wikiproject?
Please see this.  Noble eagle   (Talk)   04:04, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Translation
I am by no means the administrator on the Great Power page, I've just been there for a long time. Feel free to create a translation, I'll trust you with NPOV...By the way, check out Talk:Superpower like above and see whether you agree with the WikiProject idea.  Noble eagle   (Talk)   00:29, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay, so how do I go about it? I am not sure what is a Wikiproject but if I am right it seems like a discussion group about superpowers.


 * --Hadrian1 03:08, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

World Cup
I never tought it was you, I tought it was somebody from Italy. Very worst than this Brendel is a guy-Kingjeff, that I think was banned, he used very bad language against Italy and Grosso in the 2006 World Cup discussion page. He also said he was of aryan race and proud of it.I told some people (that were already reading and considering bad what he wrote) to do something about his behaviour and they first banned him from editing 3 days and then I think he was banned because his page was empty and his talk page had only archives.

ACamposPinho 2:08, 14 July 2006

Great Power
Obviously there must be a mistake.

I would like to thank ACamposPinho, Lorenzop, - Izzo, Hadrian1, Philip Baird Shearer, Kayac1971, Chanakyathegreat and many others for the important research material produced in these discussion's pages - Great powers. I would like to thank Viewfinder too for your reason.

Thanks anyway to everybody – in particular UKPhoenix79, Nirvana888, Colliver55, Deavenger (in Italian Language Commarelle) – for the kind assistance. I go to work.

Poti —Preceding undated comment was added at 16:10, 26 November 2008 (UTC).

Women in Red World Contest
Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!