text:
Chitra Singh

Chitra Singh (Shome) is an Indian ghazal singer. She, alongside her husband, Jagjit Singh, popularized the ghazal genre. Respectfully known as the "king and queen of the Ghazal world," the husband and wife duo created some of the most successful Indian music of the 1970s and '80s.

Personal life
Chitra was born as Chitra Shome into a Bengali family. After completing her education, she was married to Debo Prasad Dutta, an executive in a leading advertising agency. The wedding was held in the mid-1950s, and the couple had a daughter, Monica, in 1959.

While still married to Debo Prasad, Chitra met Jagjit Singh, at that time a struggling singer. Jagjit Singh was of Sikh heritage and hailed from Sriganganagar in distant Rajasthan. They first met at a recording studio in 1967, by which time the marriage of the Duttas was already under strain for unknown reasons. Chitra found solace in Jagjit and says she was much taken by his "caring" personality. In 1968, Chitra left Prasad, taking her 9-year-old daughter with her. In 1969, she divorced her husband, secured custody of Monica, and married Jagjit Singh.

Vivek died in a road accident on July 27, 1990. Chitra has never sung in public, or recorded any song, since the day her son died. Her daughter from her first marriage, Monica, first fell in love with Jehangir Chowdhary, an award-winning cinematographer. They were married in 1988 and became the parents of two sons. In 2005, Monica divorced Chowdhary and married British national Mark Houghton Roger Atkins, the managing director of a firm based in Vikhroli, Mumbai. In 2007, Monica filed a case of harassment against Atkins. In 2008, a magistrate issued a non-bailable warrant against him, but he had already fled the country. In 2009, Monica, aged 50, died by suicide. She was survived by her two sons, Armaan (17) and Umair (12). Two years after this incident, Jagjit Singh, died of a brain haemorrhage in 2011. Chitra now lives with her two grandsons.

Discography

 * A Milestone (1976)
 * The Unforgettables (1978)
 * Gold Disc (1979)
 * Ae mere dil (1980)
 * The earliest recordings of Jagjit and Chitra Singh
 * Live in concert with Jagjit Chitra Singh
 * Live at Wembley
 * Live at Royal Albert Hall
 * The Latest
 * Desires
 * Arth/Saath Saath
 * Chirag
 * Live in Trinidad
 * Main aur Meri Tanhaayee (1981)
 * The Latest (1982)
 * Ecstasies (1984)
 * A Sound Affair (1985)
 * Echoes (1985–86, Live Recordings)
 * Beyond Time (1987)
 *  Mirza Ghalib (1988)
 * Someone Somewhere (1990)
 * H O P E (1991)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Chitra Singh


text:
User talk:Imdeng

Hi there. Thanks for your contributions on articles about India. Welcome to Wikipedia! Drop us a note at New user log to introduce yourself.

If you need editing help, visit How does one edit a page. For format questions, visit our manual of style. You can use the Show preview button before you save, to make sure your edits do what you intended.

You can sign your name on talk pages by using " " for your username and " ~ " for your username and a timestamp.

Some time when you're bored, you can read through our policies and guidelines. If you made any edits before you got an account, you might be interested in assigning those to your username.

If you have any other questions about the project then check out Help or add a question to the Village pump. You can also drop me a question on my talk page.

Happy editing, Isomorphic 05:45, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Hi, could you provide a bit more context in the articles you're writing? I have no idea what D17 is. Isomorphic 05:34, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Nearshoring
I have nominated Nearshoring, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Nearshoring. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message.  Chzz  ►  02:28, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Brian Cook (football blogger and author)
The article Brian Cook (football blogger and author) has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This was done because the article, which appeared to be about a real person, individual animal, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, did not indicate how or why the subject is notable, that is, why an article about that subject should be included in Wikipedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the notability of the subject may be deleted at any time. If you can indicate why the subject is really notable, you are free to re-create the article, making sure to cite any verifiable sources.

Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, and for specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for musicians, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:38, 6 October 2010 (UTC)n

 * Deleted again - you cited no sources independent of Mr. Cook himself. See WP:RS. NawlinWiki (talk) 23:32, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of M S Banga for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article M S Banga is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/M S Banga until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. A520 |   Talk me away! / sign it! 18:30, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Imdeng


text:
List of U-boats of Germany

Germany has commissioned over 1,500 U-boats (Unterseeboot) into its various navies from 1906 to the present day. The submarines have usually been designated with a U followed by a number, although World War I coastal submarines and coastal minelaying submarines used the UB and UC prefixes, respectively. When Germany resumed building submarines in the 1930s, the numbering of the submarines was restarted at 1. The renumbering was restarted at 1 a third time when Germany resumed building submarines in the 1960s.

World War I–era U-boats
There were some 380 U-boats commissioned into the Kaiserliche Marine in the years before and during World War I. Although the first four German U-boats—SMU U-1 (Germany), SMU U-2 (Germany), SMU U-3 (Germany), and SMU U-4 (Germany)—were commissioned before 1910, all four served in a training capacity during the war. German U-boats used during World War I were divided into three series. The U designation was generally reserved for ocean-going attack torpedo U-boats. The UB designation was used for coastal attack U-boats, while the UC designation was reserved for coastal minelaying U-boats.

U-boats
U-boats designed primarily for deep water service were designated with a U prefix and numbered up to 167.

Type U 1

 * SMU U-1 (Germany)

Type U 2

 * SMU U-2 (Germany)

Type U 3

 * SMU U-3 (Germany)
 * SMU U-4 (Germany)

Type U 5

 * SMU U-5 (Germany)
 * SMU U-6 (Germany)
 * SMU U-7 (Germany)
 * SMU U-8

Type U 9

 * SMU U-9
 * SMU U-10 (Germany)
 * SMU U-11 (Germany)
 * SMU U-12 (Germany)

Type U 13

 * SMU U-13
 * SMU U-14 (Germany)
 * SMU U-15 (Germany)

Type U 16

 * SMU U-16 (Germany)

Type U 17

 * SMU U-17 (Germany)
 * SMU U-18 (Germany)

Type U 19

 * SMU U-19 (Germany)
 * SMU U-20 (Germany)
 * SMU U-21 (Germany)
 * SMU U-22 (Germany)

Type U 23

 * SMU U-23 (Germany)
 * SMU U-24
 * SMU U-25
 * SMU U-26

Type U 27

 * SMU U-27 (Germany)
 * SMU U-28 (Germany)
 * SMU U-29 (Germany)
 * SMU U-30 (Germany)

Type U 31

 * SMU U-31 (Germany)
 * SMU U-32 (Germany)
 * SMU U-33 (Germany)
 * SMU U-34 (Germany)
 * SMU U-35 (Germany)
 * SMU U-36
 * SMU U-37
 * SMU U-38
 * SMU U-39
 * SMU U-40 (Germany)
 * SMU U-41 (Germany)

Type U 43

 * SMU U-43 (Germany)
 * SMU U-44
 * SMU U-45
 * SMU U-46
 * SMU U-47 (Germany)
 * SMU U-48
 * SMU U-49
 * SMU U-50

Type U 51

 * SMU U-51
 * SMU U-52
 * SMU U-53
 * SMU U-54
 * SMU U-55
 * SMU U-56

Type U 57

 * SMU U-57
 * SMU U-58
 * SMU U-59
 * SMU U-60
 * SMU U-61
 * SMU U-62
 * SMU U-99
 * SMU U-100
 * SMU U-101
 * SMU U-102
 * SMU U-103
 * SMU U-104

Type U 63

 * SMU U-63 (Germany)
 * SMU U-64 (Germany)
 * SMU U-65 (Germany)

Type U 66 (Type UD)
The Type U 66 submarines were originally constructed for Austro-Hungary as the U-7 class, but were sold to Germany at the start of WWI.

 * SMU U-66
 * SMU U-67
 * SMU U-68
 * SMU U-69
 * SMU U-70

Type UE I (Type U 71)

 * SMU U-71
 * SMU U-72
 * SMU U-73
 * SMU U-74
 * SMU U-75
 * SMU U-76
 * SMU U-77
 * SMU U-78
 * SMU U-79
 * SMU U-80

Type U 81

 * SMU U-81
 * SMU U-82
 * SMU U-83
 * SMU U-84
 * SMU U-85
 * SMU U-86

Type U 87

 * SMU U-87
 * SMU U-88
 * SMU U-89
 * SMU U-90
 * SMU U-91
 * SMU U-92

Type U 93

 * SMU U-93
 * SMU U-94
 * SMU U-95
 * SMU U-96
 * SMU U-97
 * SMU U-98
 * SMU U-105
 * SMU U-106
 * SMU U-107
 * SMU U-108
 * SMU U-109
 * SMU U-110
 * SMU U-111
 * SMU U-112
 * SMU U-113
 * SMU U-114
 * SMU U-160
 * SMU U-161
 * SMU U-162
 * SMU U-163
 * SMU U-164
 * SMU U-165
 * SMU U-166
 * SMU U-167

Type U 115

 * SMU U-115
 * SMU U-116

Type UE II (Type U 117)

 * SMU U-117
 * SMU U-118
 * SMU U-119
 * SMU U-120
 * SMU U-121
 * SMU U-122
 * SMU U-123
 * SMU U-124
 * SMU U-125
 * SMU U-126

Type U 127

 * SMU U-127
 * SMU U-128
 * SMU U-129
 * SMU U-130
 * SMU U-131
 * SMU U-132
 * SMU U-133
 * SMU U-134

Type Large MS (Type U 135)

 * SMU U-135
 * SMU U-136
 * SMU U-137
 * SMU U-138

Type U 139

 * SMU U-139
 * SMU U-140
 * SMU U-141

Type U 142

 * SMU U-142
 * SMU U-143
 * SMU U-144
 * SMU U-145
 * SMU U-146
 * SMU U-147
 * SMU U-148
 * SMU U-149
 * SMU U-150

Type U 151 (Deutschland-class submarine)

 * SMU U-151
 * SMU U-152
 * SMU U-153
 * SMU U-154
 * SMU U-155
 * SMU U-156
 * SMU U-157

Type U 158

 * SMU U-158
 * SMU U-159

UB coastal U-boats
Coastal attack torpedo U-boats were smaller craft intended for operation closer to land. They were designated with a UB prefix and numbered up to 155.

Type UB I

 * UB-1
 * UB-2
 * UB-3
 * UB-4
 * UB-5
 * UB-6
 * UB-7
 * UB-8
 * UB-9
 * UB-10
 * UB-11
 * UB-12
 * UB-13
 * UB-14
 * UB-15
 * UB-16
 * UB-17

Type UB II

 * UB-18
 * UB-19
 * UB-20
 * UB-21
 * UB-22
 * UB-23
 * UB-24
 * UB-25
 * UB-26
 * UB-27
 * UB-28
 * UB-29
 * UB-30
 * UB-31
 * UB-32
 * UB-33
 * UB-34
 * UB-35
 * UB-36
 * UB-37
 * UB-38
 * UB-39
 * UB-40
 * UB-41
 * UB-42
 * UB-43
 * UB-44
 * UB-45
 * UB-46
 * UB-47

Type UB III

 * UB-48
 * UB-49
 * UB-50
 * UB-51
 * UB-52
 * UB-53
 * UB-54
 * UB-55
 * UB-56
 * UB-57
 * UB-58
 * UB-59
 * UB-60
 * UB-61
 * UB-62
 * UB-63
 * UB-64
 * UB-65
 * UB-66
 * UB-67
 * UB-68
 * UB-69
 * UB-70
 * UB-71
 * UB-72
 * UB-73
 * UB-74
 * UB-75
 * UB-76
 * UB-77
 * UB-78
 * UB-79
 * UB-80
 * UB-81
 * UB-82
 * UB-83
 * UB-84
 * UB-85
 * UB-86
 * UB-87
 * UB-88
 * UB-89
 * UB-90
 * UB-91
 * UB-92
 * UB-93
 * UB-94
 * UB-95
 * UB-96
 * UB-97
 * UB-98
 * UB-99
 * UB-100
 * UB-101
 * UB-102
 * UB-103
 * UB-104
 * UB-105
 * UB-106
 * UB-107
 * UB-108
 * UB-109
 * UB-110
 * UB-111
 * UB-112
 * UB-113
 * UB-114
 * UB-115
 * UB-116
 * UB-117
 * UB-118
 * UB-119
 * UB-120
 * UB-121
 * UB-122
 * UB-123
 * UB-124
 * UB-125
 * UB-126
 * UB-127
 * UB-128
 * UB-129
 * UB-130
 * UB-131
 * UB-132
 * UB-133
 * UB-134
 * UB-135
 * UB-136
 * UB-137
 * UB-138
 * UB-139
 * UB-140
 * UB-141
 * UB-142
 * UB-143
 * UB-144
 * UB-145
 * UB-146
 * UB-147
 * UB-148
 * UB-149
 * UB-150
 * UB-151
 * UB-152
 * UB-153
 * UB-154
 * UB-155

UC coastal minelaying U-boats
Coastal minelaying U-boats were smaller vessels intended to mine enemy harbors and approaches. They were designated with a UC prefix and numbered up to 114.

Type UC I

 * UC-1
 * UC-2
 * UC-3
 * UC-4
 * UC-5
 * UC-6
 * UC-7
 * UC-8
 * UC-9
 * UC-10
 * UC-11
 * UC-12
 * UC-13
 * UC-14
 * UC-15

Type UC II

 * UC-16
 * UC-17
 * UC-18
 * UC-19
 * UC-20
 * UC-21
 * UC-22
 * UC-23
 * UC-24
 * UC-25
 * UC-26
 * UC-27
 * UC-28
 * UC-29
 * UC-30
 * UC-31
 * UC-32
 * UC-33
 * UC-34
 * UC-35
 * UC-36
 * UC-37
 * UC-38
 * UC-39
 * UC-40
 * UC-41
 * UC-42
 * UC-43
 * UC-44
 * UC-45
 * UC-46
 * UC-47
 * UC-48
 * UC-49
 * UC-50
 * UC-51
 * UC-52
 * UC-53
 * UC-54
 * UC-55
 * UC-56
 * UC-57
 * UC-58
 * UC-59
 * UC-60
 * UC-61
 * UC-62
 * UC-63
 * UC-64
 * UC-65
 * UC-66
 * UC-67
 * UC-68
 * UC-69
 * UC-70
 * UC-71
 * UC-72
 * UC-73
 * UC-74
 * UC-75
 * UC-76
 * UC-77
 * UC-78
 * UC-79

Type UC III
Thirty-five Type UC III submarines were planned, but only 25 were completed. Nine of these (UC-106 to UC-114) were never commissioned and were awarded to the United Kingdom and France and broken up in 1921. Ten of these (UC-80 to UC-89) were broken up at yard

 * UC-80
 * UC-81
 * UC-82
 * UC-83
 * UC-84
 * UC-85
 * UC-86
 * UC-87
 * UC-88
 * UC-89
 * SMU UC-90
 * UC-91
 * UC-92
 * UC-93
 * UC-94
 * UC-95
 * UC-96
 * UC-97
 * UC-98
 * UC-99
 * UC-100
 * UC-101
 * UC-102
 * UC-103
 * UC-104
 * UC-105
 * SMU UC-106
 * SMU UC-107
 * SMU UC-108
 * SMU UC-109
 * SMU UC-110
 * SMU UC-111
 * SMU UC-112
 * SMU UC-113
 * SMU UC-114

Foreign U-boats
At the outbreak of World War I Germany took charge of a number of submarines under construction in German shipyards for other countries.

 * SMU UA (ex-Norwegian A class submarine A-5)
 * U-66 to U-70 (ex-Austro-Hungarian U-7 class U-7 to U-11)
 * US-1 (ex-Russian Bars class Burevestnik), only test run - not in service
 * US-2 (ex-Russian Bars class Orlan), Commissioned later abandoned to White Russian Forces
 * US-3 (ex-Russian Bars class Utka), only test run - not in service
 * US-4 (ex-Russian Bars class Gagara), only test run - not in service

World War II U-boats
In the World War II era, Germany commissioned some 1,250 U-boats into the Kriegsmarine.

Type I

 * GS U-25 (1936)
 * GS U-26 (1936)

Type IIA

 * GS U-1 (1935)
 * GS U-2 (1935)
 * GS U-3 (1935)
 * GS U-4 (1935)
 * GS U-5 (1935)
 * GS U-6 (1935)

Type IIB

 * U-7
 * U-8
 * U-9
 * U-10
 * U-11
 * U-12
 * U-13
 * U-14
 * U-15
 * U-16
 * U-17
 * U-18
 * U-19
 * U-20
 * U-21
 * U-22
 * U-23
 * U-24
 * U-120
 * U-121

Type IIC

 * U-56
 * U-57
 * U-58
 * U-59
 * U-60
 * U-61
 * U-62
 * U-63

Type IID

 * U-137
 * U-138
 * U-139
 * U-140
 * U-141
 * U-142
 * U-143
 * U-144
 * U-145
 * U-146
 * U-147
 * U-148
 * U-149
 * U-150
 * U-151
 * U-152

Type VIIA

 * U-27
 * U-28
 * U-29
 * U-30
 * U-31
 * U-32
 * U-33
 * U-34
 * U-35
 * U-36

Type VIIB

 * U-45
 * U-46
 * U-47
 * GS U-48 (1939)
 * GS U-49 (1939)
 * U-50
 * GS U-51 (1938)
 * U-52
 * GS U-53 (1939)
 * GS U-54 (1939)
 * GS U-55 (1939)
 * U-73
 * U-74
 * U-75
 * U-76
 * U-83
 * U-84
 * U-85
 * U-86
 * U-87
 * U-99
 * U-100
 * U-101
 * U-102

Type VIIC

 * U-69
 * U-70
 * U-71
 * U-72
 * U-77
 * U-78
 * U-79
 * U-80
 * U-81
 * U-82
 * U-88
 * U-89
 * U-90
 * U-91
 * U-92
 * U-93
 * U-94
 * U-95
 * U-96
 * U-97
 * U-98
 * U-132
 * U-133
 * U-134
 * U-135
 * U-136
 * U-201
 * U-202
 * U-203
 * U-204
 * U-205
 * U-206
 * U-207
 * U-208
 * U-209
 * U-210
 * U-211
 * U-212
 * U-221
 * U-222
 * U-223
 * U-224
 * U-225
 * U-226
 * U-227
 * U-228
 * U-229
 * U-230
 * U-231
 * U-232
 * U-235
 * U-236
 * U-237
 * U-238
 * U-239
 * U-240
 * U-241
 * U-242
 * U-243
 * U-244
 * U-245
 * U-246
 * U-247
 * U-248
 * U-249
 * U-250
 * U-251
 * U-252
 * U-253
 * U-254
 * U-255
 * U-256
 * U-257
 * U-258
 * U-259
 * U-260
 * U-261
 * U-262
 * U-263
 * U-264
 * U-265
 * U-266
 * U-267
 * U-268
 * U-269
 * U-270
 * U-271
 * U-272
 * U-273
 * U-274
 * U-275
 * U-276
 * U-277
 * U-278
 * U-279
 * U-280
 * U-281
 * U-282
 * U-283
 * U-284
 * U-285
 * U-286
 * U-287
 * U-288
 * U-289
 * U-290
 * U-291
 * U-301
 * U-302
 * U-303
 * U-304
 * U-305
 * U-306
 * U-307
 * U-308
 * U-309
 * U-310
 * U-311
 * U-312
 * U-313
 * U-314
 * U-315
 * U-316
 * U-331
 * U-332
 * U-333
 * U-334
 * U-335
 * U-336
 * U-337
 * U-338
 * U-339
 * U-340
 * U-341
 * U-342
 * U-343
 * U-344
 * U-345
 * U-346
 * U-347
 * U-348
 * U-349
 * U-350
 * U-351
 * U-352
 * U-353
 * U-354
 * U-355
 * U-356
 * U-357
 * U-358
 * U-359
 * U-360
 * U-361
 * U-362
 * U-363
 * U-364
 * U-365
 * U-366
 * U-367
 * U-368
 * U-369
 * U-370
 * U-371
 * U-372
 * U-373
 * U-374
 * U-375
 * U-376
 * U-377
 * U-378
 * U-379
 * U-380
 * U-381
 * U-382
 * U-383
 * U-384
 * U-385
 * U-386
 * U-387
 * U-388
 * U-389
 * U-390
 * U-391
 * U-392
 * U-393
 * U-394
 * U-395
 * U-396
 * U-397
 * U-398
 * U-399
 * U-400
 * U-401
 * U-402
 * U-403
 * U-404
 * U-405
 * U-406
 * U-407
 * U-408
 * U-409
 * U-410
 * U-411
 * U-412
 * U-413
 * U-414
 * U-415
 * U-416
 * U-417
 * U-418
 * U-419
 * U-420
 * U-421
 * U-422
 * U-423
 * U-424
 * U-425
 * U-426
 * U-427
 * U-428
 * U-429
 * U-430
 * U-431
 * U-432
 * U-433
 * U-434
 * U-435
 * U-436
 * U-437
 * U-438
 * U-439
 * U-440
 * U-441
 * U-442
 * U-443
 * U-444
 * U-445
 * U-446
 * U-447
 * U-448
 * U-449
 * U-450
 * U-451
 * U-452
 * U-453
 * U-454
 * U-455
 * U-456
 * U-457
 * U-458
 * U-465
 * U-466
 * U-467
 * U-468
 * U-469
 * U-470
 * U-471
 * U-472
 * U-473
 * U-474
 * U-475
 * U-476
 * U-477
 * U-478
 * U-479
 * U-480
 * U-481
 * U-482
 * U-483
 * U-484
 * U-485
 * U-486
 * U-551
 * U-552
 * U-553
 * U-554
 * U-555
 * U-556
 * U-557
 * U-558
 * U-559
 * U-560
 * U-561
 * U-562
 * U-563
 * U-564
 * U-565
 * U-566
 * U-567
 * U-568
 * U-569
 * U-570
 * U-571
 * U-572
 * U-573
 * U-574
 * U-575
 * U-576
 * U-577
 * U-578
 * U-579
 * U-580
 * U-581
 * U-582
 * U-583
 * U-584
 * U-585
 * U-586
 * U-587
 * U-588
 * U-589
 * U-590
 * U-591
 * U-592
 * U-593
 * U-594
 * U-595
 * U-596
 * U-597
 * U-598
 * U-599
 * U-600
 * GS U-601
 * GS U-602
 * GS U-603
 * GS U-604
 * GS U-605
 * GS U-606
 * GS U-607
 * GS U-608
 * GS U-609
 * GS U-610
 * GS U-611
 * GS U-612
 * GS U-613
 * GS U-614
 * GS U-615
 * GS U-616
 * GS U-617
 * GS U-618
 * GS U-619
 * GS U-620
 * GS U-621
 * GS U-622
 * GS U-623
 * GS U-624
 * GS U-625
 * GS U-626
 * GS U-627
 * GS U-628
 * GS U-629
 * GS U-630
 * GS U-631
 * GS U-632
 * GS U-633
 * GS U-634
 * GS U-635
 * GS U-636
 * GS U-637
 * GS U-638
 * GS U-639
 * GS U-640
 * GS U-641
 * GS U-642
 * GS U-643
 * GS U-644
 * GS U-645
 * GS U-646
 * GS U-647
 * GS U-648
 * GS U-649
 * GS U-650
 * GS U-651
 * GS U-652
 * GS U-653
 * GS U-654
 * GS U-655
 * GS U-656
 * GS U-657
 * GS U-658
 * GS U-659
 * GS U-660
 * GS U-661
 * GS U-662
 * GS U-663
 * GS U-664
 * GS U-665
 * GS U-666
 * GS U-667
 * GS U-668
 * GS U-669
 * GS U-670
 * GS U-671
 * GS U-672
 * GS U-673
 * GS U-674
 * GS U-675
 * GS U-676
 * GS U-677
 * GS U-678
 * GS U-679
 * GS U-680
 * GS U-681
 * GS U-682
 * GS U-683
 * U-684
 * U-685
 * U-686
 * U-701
 * U-702
 * U-703
 * U-704
 * U-705
 * U-706
 * U-707
 * U-708
 * U-709
 * U-710
 * U-711
 * U-712
 * U-713
 * U-714
 * U-715
 * U-716
 * U-717
 * U-718
 * U-719
 * U-720
 * U-721
 * U-722
 * U-731
 * U-732
 * U-733
 * U-734
 * U-735
 * U-736
 * U-737
 * U-738
 * U-739
 * U-740
 * U-741
 * U-742
 * U-743
 * GS U-744
 * U-745
 * U-746
 * U-747
 * U-748
 * U-749
 * U-750
 * U-751
 * U-752
 * U-753
 * U-754
 * U-755
 * U-756
 * U-757
 * U-758
 * U-759
 * U-760
 * U-761
 * U-762
 * U-763
 * U-764
 * U-765
 * U-766
 * U-767
 * U-768
 * U-771
 * U-772
 * U-773
 * U-774
 * U-775
 * U-776
 * U-777
 * U-778
 * U-779
 * U-780
 * U-781
 * U-782
 * U-821
 * U-822
 * U-823
 * U-824
 * U-825
 * U-826
 * U-901
 * U-902
 * U-903
 * U-904
 * U-905
 * U-906
 * U-907
 * U-908
 * U-921
 * U-922
 * U-923
 * U-924
 * U-925
 * U-926
 * U-927
 * U-928
 * U-951
 * U-952
 * U-953
 * U-954
 * U-955
 * U-956
 * U-957
 * U-958
 * U-959
 * U-960
 * U-961
 * U-962
 * U-963
 * U-964
 * U-965
 * U-966
 * U-967
 * U-968
 * U-969
 * U-970
 * U-971
 * U-972
 * U-973
 * U-974
 * U-975
 * U-976
 * U-977
 * U-978
 * U-979
 * U-980
 * U-981
 * U-982
 * U-983
 * U-984
 * U-985
 * U-986
 * U-987
 * U-988
 * U-989
 * U-990
 * U-991
 * U-992
 * U-993
 * U-994
 * U-1051
 * U-1052
 * U-1053
 * U-1054
 * U-1055
 * U-1056
 * U-1057
 * U-1058
 * U-1101
 * U-1102
 * U-1131
 * U-1132
 * U-1161
 * U-1162
 * U-1191
 * U-1192
 * U-1193
 * U-1194
 * U-1195
 * U-1196
 * U-1197
 * U-1198
 * U-1199
 * U-1200
 * U-1201
 * U-1202
 * U-1203
 * U-1204
 * U-1205
 * U-1206
 * U-1207
 * U-1208
 * U-1209
 * U-1210

Type VIIC/41

 * U-292
 * U-293
 * U-294
 * U-295
 * U-296
 * U-297
 * U-298
 * U-299
 * U-300
 * U-317
 * U-318
 * U-319
 * U-320
 * U-321
 * U-322
 * U-323
 * U-324
 * U-325
 * U-326
 * U-327
 * U-328
 * U-329
 * U-330
 * U-687
 * U-688
 * U-689
 * GS U-691
 * U-723
 * U-724
 * U-827
 * U-828
 * U-929
 * U-930
 * U-931
 * U-932
 * U-995
 * U-996
 * U-997
 * U-998
 * U-999
 * U-1000
 * U-1001
 * U-1002
 * U-1003
 * U-1004
 * U-1005
 * U-1006
 * U-1007
 * U-1008
 * U-1009
 * U-1010
 * U-1011
 * U-1012
 * U-1013
 * U-1014
 * U-1015
 * U-1016
 * U-1017
 * U-1018
 * U-1019
 * U-1020
 * U-1021
 * U-1022
 * U-1023
 * U-1024
 * U-1025
 * U-1026
 * U-1027
 * U-1028
 * U-1029
 * U-1030
 * U-1031
 * U-1032
 * U-1063
 * U-1064
 * U-1065
 * U-1103
 * U-1104
 * U-1105
 * U-1106
 * U-1107
 * U-1108
 * U-1109
 * U-1110
 * U-1133
 * U-1134
 * U-1135
 * U-1136
 * U-1163
 * U-1164
 * U-1165
 * U-1166
 * U-1167
 * U-1168
 * U-1169
 * U-1170
 * U-1171
 * U-1172
 * U-1173
 * U-1174
 * U-1175
 * U-1176
 * U-1177
 * U-1178
 * U-1179
 * U-1271
 * U-1272
 * U-1273
 * U-1274
 * U-1275
 * U-1276
 * U-1277
 * U-1278
 * U-1279
 * U-1280
 * U-1281
 * U-1282
 * U-1301
 * U-1302
 * U-1303
 * U-1304
 * U-1305
 * U-1306
 * U-1307
 * U-1308

Type VIID

 * U-213
 * U-214
 * U-215
 * U-216
 * U-217
 * U-218

Type VIIF

 * U-1059
 * U-1060
 * U-1061
 * U-1062

Type IXA

 * U-37
 * U-38
 * U-39
 * U-40
 * U-41
 * U-42
 * U-43
 * U-44

Type IXB

 * U-64
 * U-65
 * U-103
 * U-104
 * U-105
 * U-106
 * U-107
 * U-108
 * U-109
 * U-110
 * U-111
 * U-122
 * U-123
 * U-124

Type IXC

 * U-66
 * U-67
 * U-68
 * U-125
 * U-126
 * U-127
 * U-128
 * U-129
 * U-130
 * U-131
 * U-153
 * U-154
 * U-155
 * U-156
 * U-157
 * U-158
 * U-159
 * U-160
 * U-161
 * U-162
 * U-163
 * U-164
 * U-165
 * U-166
 * U-171
 * U-172
 * U-173
 * U-174
 * U-175
 * U-176
 * U-501
 * U-502
 * U-503
 * U-504
 * U-505
 * U-506
 * U-507
 * U-508
 * U-509
 * U-510
 * U-511
 * U-512
 * U-513
 * U-514
 * U-515
 * U-516
 * U-517
 * U-518
 * U-519
 * U-520
 * U-521
 * U-522
 * U-523
 * U-524

Type IXC/40

 * GS U-167 (1942)
 * U-168
 * U-169
 * U-170
 * U-183
 * U-184
 * U-185
 * U-186
 * U-187
 * U-188
 * U-189
 * U-190
 * U-191
 * U-192
 * U-193
 * U-194
 * U-525
 * U-526
 * U-527
 * U-528
 * U-529
 * U-530
 * U-531
 * U-532
 * U-533
 * U-534
 * U-535
 * U-536
 * U-537
 * U-538
 * U-539
 * U-540
 * U-541
 * U-542
 * U-543
 * U-544
 * U-545
 * U-546
 * U-547
 * U-548
 * U-549
 * U-550
 * U-801
 * U-802
 * U-803
 * U-804
 * U-805
 * U-806
 * U-807
 * U-808
 * U-841
 * U-842
 * U-843
 * U-844
 * U-845
 * U-846
 * U-853
 * U-854
 * U-855
 * U-856
 * U-857
 * U-858
 * U-865
 * U-866
 * U-867
 * U-868
 * U-869
 * U-870
 * U-877
 * U-878
 * U-879
 * U-880
 * U-881
 * U-882
 * U-889
 * U-890
 * U-891
 * U-892
 * U-1221
 * U-1222
 * U-1223
 * U-1224
 * U-1225
 * U-1226
 * U-1227
 * U-1228
 * U-1229
 * U-1230
 * U-1231
 * U-1232
 * U-1233
 * U-1234
 * U-1235

Type IXD

 * U-177
 * U-178
 * U-179
 * U-180
 * U-181
 * U-182
 * U-195
 * U-196
 * U-197
 * U-198
 * U-199
 * U-200
 * U-847
 * U-848
 * U-849
 * U-850
 * U-851
 * U-852
 * U-859
 * U-860
 * U-861
 * U-862
 * U-863
 * U-864
 * U-871
 * U-872
 * U-873
 * U-874
 * U-875
 * U-876
 * U-883
 * GS U-884

Type X (XB)
Originally intended as long-range minelayers, the Type X were later used as long-range cargo transports.

 * U-116
 * U-117
 * U-118
 * U-119
 * U-219
 * U-220
 * U-233
 * U-234

Type XI
The Type XI was a planned artillery boat, armed with four 128-mm guns in two twin turrets along with an Arado Ar 231 floatplane. Four boats were laid down in 1939 but were cancelled at the outbreak of WWII.

 * U-112
 * U-113
 * U-114
 * U-115

Type XIV
The Type XIV submarine was a shortened version of the Type IXD and used as tankers. Twenty-four were planned, but only 10 were commissioned; three (U-491 to U-494) were cancelled before completed and eleven were never laid down. This type was nicknamed Milchkuh (milk cow).

 * U-459
 * U-460
 * U-461
 * U-462
 * U-463
 * U-464
 * U-487
 * U-488
 * U-489
 * U-490
 * U-491
 * U-492
 * U-493
 * U-494
 * U-495
 * U-496
 * U-497

Type XVIIA

 * U-792
 * U-793
 * U-794
 * U-795

Type XVIIB
Twelve Type XVIIB submarines were planned, but only three were completed; three were cancelled at the end of the war before completion and six were cancelled in favor of the Type XXI submarine.

 * U-1405
 * U-1406
 * U-1407

Type XVIIK

 * U-798

Type XVIII
The Type XVIII was a projected attack boat using the Walter propulsion system. Two boats were laid down in 1943, but construction was cancelled in March 1944.

 * U-796
 * U-797

Type XXI

 * U-2501
 * U-2502
 * U-2503
 * U-2504
 * U-2505
 * U-2506
 * U-2507
 * U-2508
 * U-2509
 * U-2510
 * U-2511
 * U-2512
 * U-2513
 * U-2514
 * U-2515
 * U-2516
 * U-2517
 * U-2518
 * U-2519
 * U-2520
 * U-2521
 * U-2522
 * U-2523
 * U-2524
 * U-2525
 * U-2526
 * U-2527
 * U-2528
 * U-2529
 * U-2530
 * U-2531
 * U-2533
 * U-2534
 * U-2535
 * U-2536
 * U-2538
 * U-2539
 * U-2540
 * U-2541
 * U-2542
 * U-2543
 * U-2544
 * U-2545
 * U-2546
 * U-2548
 * U-2551
 * U-2552
 * U-3001
 * U-3002
 * U-3003
 * U-3004
 * U-3005
 * U-3006
 * U-3007
 * U-3008
 * U-3009
 * U-3010
 * U-3011
 * U-3012
 * U-3013
 * U-3014
 * U-3015
 * U-3016
 * U-3017
 * U-3018
 * U-3019
 * U-3020
 * U-3021
 * U-3022
 * U-3023
 * U-3024
 * U-3025
 * U-3026
 * U-3027
 * U-3028
 * U-3029
 * U-3030
 * U-3031
 * U-3032
 * U-3033
 * U-3034
 * U-3035
 * U-3037
 * U-3038
 * U-3039
 * U-3040
 * U-3041
 * U-3044
 * U-3501
 * U-3502
 * U-3503
 * U-3504
 * U-3505
 * U-3506
 * U-3507
 * U-3508
 * U-3509
 * U-3510
 * U-3511
 * U-3512
 * U-3513
 * U-3514
 * U-3515
 * U-3516
 * U-3517
 * U-3518
 * U-3519
 * U-3520
 * U-3521
 * U-3522
 * U-3523
 * U-3524
 * U-3525
 * U-3526
 * U-3527
 * U-3528
 * U-3529
 * U-3530

Type XXIII

 * U-2321
 * U-2322
 * U-2323
 * U-2324
 * U-2325
 * U-2326
 * U-2327
 * U-2328
 * U-2329
 * U-2330
 * U-2331
 * U-2332
 * U-2333
 * U-2334
 * U-2335
 * U-2336
 * U-2337
 * U-2338
 * U-2339
 * U-2340
 * U-2341
 * U-2342
 * U-2343
 * U-2344
 * U-2345
 * U-2346
 * U-2347
 * U-2348
 * U-2349
 * U-2350
 * U-2351
 * U-2352
 * U-2353
 * U-2354
 * U-2355
 * U-2356
 * U-2357
 * U-2358
 * U-2359
 * U-2360
 * U-2361
 * U-2362
 * U-2363
 * U-2364
 * U-2365
 * U-2366
 * U-2367
 * U-2368
 * U-2369
 * U-2371
 * U-4701
 * U-4702
 * U-4703
 * U-4704
 * U-4705
 * U-4706
 * U-4707
 * U-4709
 * U-4710
 * U-4711
 * U-4712

Seehund (Type XVIIB)
The range of U-5000 to U-6442 was specifically allocated to German midget submarines. The following Seehund Type XXVIIB U-boats were entered into the Kriegsmarine registry as commissioned vessels

 * U-5001
 * U-5002
 * U-5003
 * U-5004
 * U-5005
 * U-5006
 * U-5007
 * U-5008
 * U-5009
 * U-5010
 * U-5011
 * U-5012
 * U-5013
 * U-5014
 * U-5015
 * U-5016
 * U-5017
 * U-5018
 * U-5019
 * U-5020
 * U-5021
 * U-5022
 * U-5023
 * U-5024
 * U-5025
 * U-5026
 * U-5027
 * U-5028
 * U-5029
 * U-5030
 * U-5031
 * U-5032
 * U-5033
 * U-5034
 * U-5035
 * U-5036
 * U-5037
 * U-5038
 * U-5039
 * U-5040
 * U-5041
 * U-5042
 * U-5043
 * U-5044
 * U-5045
 * U-5046
 * U-5047
 * U-5048
 * U-5049
 * U-5050
 * U-5051
 * U-5052
 * U-5053
 * U-5054
 * U-5055
 * U-5056
 * U-5057
 * U-5058
 * U-5059
 * U-5060
 * U-5061
 * U-5062
 * U-5063
 * U-5064
 * U-5065
 * U-5066
 * U-5067
 * U-5068
 * U-5069
 * U-5070
 * U-5071
 * U-5072
 * U-5073
 * U-5074
 * U-5075
 * U-5076
 * U-5077
 * U-5078
 * U-5079
 * U-5080
 * U-5081
 * U-5082
 * U-5083
 * U-5084
 * U-5085
 * U-5086
 * U-5087
 * U-5088
 * U-5089
 * U-5090
 * U-5091
 * U-5092
 * U-5093
 * U-5094
 * U-5095
 * U-5096
 * U-5097
 * U-5098
 * U-5099
 * U-5100
 * U-5101
 * U-5102
 * U-5103
 * U-5104
 * U-5105
 * U-5106
 * U-5107
 * U-5108
 * U-5109
 * U-5110
 * U-5111
 * U-5112
 * U-5113
 * U-5114
 * U-5115
 * U-5116
 * U-5117
 * U-5118
 * U-5251
 * U-5252
 * U-5253
 * U-5254
 * U-5255
 * U-5256
 * U-5257
 * U-5258
 * U-5259
 * U-5260
 * U-5261
 * U-5262
 * U-5263
 * U-5264
 * U-5265
 * U-5266
 * U-5267
 * U-5268
 * U-5269
 * U-5330

Foreign U-boats
Germany captured and commissioned 14 submarines from six countries into the Kriegsmarine during World War II.

Turkey
 * GS UA (1939)

United Kingdom
 * UB

Norway
 * UC-1
 * UC-2

Netherlands
 * UD-1
 * UD-2
 * UD-3
 * UD-4
 * UD-5

France
 * UF-1
 * UF-2
 * UF-3

Italy
 * UIT-22
 * UIT-23
 * UIT-24
 * UIT-25

Type XXI

 * GS Wilhelm Bauer (ex U-2540)

Type XXIII

 * GS Hai (S 170) (ex U-2365)
 * GS Hecht (S 171) (ex U-2367)

Type 201

 * GS U-1 (1961) (S180)
 * GS U-2 (1962) (S181)
 * GS U-3 (S182) (S182)

Type 205

 * U-1 (S180)
 * U-2 (S183)
 * U-4 (S183)
 * U-5 (S184)
 * U-6 (S185)
 * U-7 (S186)
 * U-8 (S187)
 * GS U-9 (S188)
 * U-10 (S189)
 * U-11 (S190)
 * U-12 (S191)

Type 206

 * U-13 (S192)
 * U-14 (S193)
 * U-15 (S194)
 * U-16 (S195)
 * U-17 (S196)
 * U-18 (S197)
 * U-19 (S198)
 * U-20 (S199)
 * U-21 (S170)
 * U-22 (S171)
 * U-23 (S172)
 * U-24 (S173)
 * U-25 (S174)
 * U-26 (S175)
 * U-27 (S176)
 * U-28 (S177)
 * U-29 (S178)
 * U-30 (S179)

Type 212A

 * U-31 (S181)
 * U-32 (S182)
 * U-33 (S183)
 * U-34 (S184)
 * U-35 (S185)
 * U-36 (S186)

title: List of U-boats of Germany


text:
Talk:History of the Middle East

No weapons of mass destruction found
I think it is worth mentioning that the eleged reason for going to war against Iraq (Weapons of Mass Destruction) turned out to be untrue. There were no weapons found. I have added this to the article... It is a known fact that evidence has never been shown. Reference: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7634313/ Mazenharake (talk) 10:46, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

First, it's alleged, not eleged...

I don't understand why, with the war now finally all but won, people are still so dedicated to supporting this false contention that no WMD were found in Iraq. And I remind you that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Let's start here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WMD_in_Iraq.

Here is a quote from the above reference:

"According to reports from the previous U.N. inspection agency, UNSCOM, Iraq produced 600 metric tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, VX and sarin, and nearly 25,000 rockets and 15,000 artillery shells, with chemical agents, that are still unaccounted for. In fact, in 1995, Iraq told the United Nations that it had produced at least 30,000 liters of biological agents, including anthrax and other toxins it could put on missiles, but that all of it had been destroyed."

If you want to believe the word of Iraq under Saddam Hussein, be my guest. I have ample reason not to do so.

This "no WMD were found in Iraq" is indeed a popular myth. There were clear signs of both the existience of the means of production and also the hasty disposal of WMD in Iraq as the recent war became inevitable, but efforts were not complete and WMD were in fact found. Much of the WMD infrastructure was intact, either mothballed or, in some cases, used in a dual civilian/military mode. MSNBC shows signficant bias in their reporting, although I'm sure the same complaint, accurate or not, will be levelled against this source: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2006/06/22/report-hundreds-wmds-iraq/. So perhaps we should discard both of those sources and go with this one: http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=15918.

Indeed I suspect it will be at least 50 years beore the truth is known, but it's starting to come out: http://www.waranddecision.com/

It is well known that Iraq had a decade of practice at deception operations and also the invasion wasn't exactly a surprise. There were reports of a dedicated and large-scale effort to move signficant WMD and/or related assets into Lebannon in the weeks just prior to the US invasion. The fact is the truth will most likely not be known for many years due to classification of what is known. Furthermore, there were tons of materials found in 50 gallon drums that were hidden in and/or under places such as schools. When tested, naturally, the results were inconclusive as the agents which make up nerve and other WMD agents are quite similar to pesticides and other industrial chemicals. A plant the news media said was for civilian production of chlorine was completely hidden from view and run by military, not civilians. In every case the media bent over backwards to support the versions presented by the Iraqi information minister - you remember him. He's the guy who hastily rearranged the press conference on the roof of a building in Iraq so that the cameras would not be on him as he talked of how the Americans in their tanks were dying in the deserts even as, in the background of the spot where he would have been standing, those tanks were clearly visible rolling through Baghdad proper. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.75.8.208 (talk) 10:05, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Why no geography?
Without an introductory sentence describing the geographical area covered, this article is close to useless for many readers. There is controversy about the terms "Near East" and "Middle East" anyway. Near what? East of what? Itsmejudith 08:19, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

This question is discussed at length at Middle East. Adam 09:20, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

 * Oh, thank you Adam. Yes, it is discussed at great length (probably too great length) there. I have added a sentence to direct back to it. I did find it initially very confusing. I still think there is a lot of clearing up to be done about the whole group of articles related to the history of this area. The story of the rise of Islam, establishment of the Ottoman Empire, etc. is told many times, each with variations.Itsmejudith 20:36, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. If you look at the archived Talk for this page, you will see that we had a long battle with a particularly annoying editor (a teenager who thought he knew everything) about this matter (and others), which led to a lot of unnecessary material being added both to this article and to Middle East. Now that he has either gone or grown up, both articles could use a clean-up. Adam 00:52, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

betrayed
"the Arabs found they had been betrayed, indeed doubly betrayed" This needs to explained. I think that the British had always been open about their intention to distinguish between areas of the middle east that were clearly arab and other areas that were not. There may have been arabs who felt betrayed, but it is not clear that their expectations for post-WWI political boundaries were realistic. Can Wikipedia flatly say that they were betrayed? If so, the specifics need to be cited. --JWSchmidt 18:04, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Ted Thornton website

I changed to "Arabs felt betrayed" and moved down the diputed neutrality sign. Dan Gluck 20:19, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

It clearly states why the Arabs felt betrayed, the British and the French signed secret treaties that went against what they had promised the Arabs and they also hadn’t disclosed their full intentions in creating a sovereign state of Israel. The West has to take some form of acknowledgement when it comes down to these conflicts in the Middle East, if they want to have any credibility.

Indeed, there is little neutrality in this article, like in the The Ancient Middle East section which stresses the Arabian control of the region and diminishes the other reigns. "the early Arabs, [...] appeared around 800 B.C and established powerful and influential civilizations that were the center of trade for centuries, in the heart of the desert" I hope you see my point. Nefzen 17:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

It seems that this article needs some serious updating, as I added below in my comment #11, but let me get into a few specifics. The British did make some general promises of Arab areas such as that currently occupied by Egypt,Syria, Jordan and Saudi Arabia, among others, as well perhaps as North Africa and Iraq. Indeed Arab/Islam control of a huge swath of territory is apparent when one views any honest maps of the regions involved. But the promises made to the Hashemites and King Hussein did not include the area west of the Jordan and Damascus. Rather than risking pasting in data that would not be appropriate, I'll refer you to paragraph 11 here: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/brwh1922.asp  It discusses areas that were not to be considered part of the discussions contained in Sir Henry McMahon's letter of October 24, 1915. Unless I miss my guess, the area in question includes Israel and, for that matter, the West Bank and Gaza also.

Like many sources there seems to be a strong pro-Arab, anti-Israel bias in this article and I think it needs signficant revision by a proven neutral author as whoever has worked it to date is obviously incapable of presenting a fair and balanced view.

NPOV at risk
"The advent of a new western army of occupation in a Middle Eastern capital marked a turning point in the history of the region. If the U.S. succeeded in transforming Iraq into a prosperous and stable democratic state, the consequences for the region might be great. The consequences of failure would also be very far-reaching. Political progress in Iraq was slower than expected, and was complicated by an ongoing Iraq insurgency, but successful elections were held in January 2005 and power transferred to a Shia-dominated elected government."

This seem slightly POV/"if, if, if" to anyone?--WaltCip 00:48, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

It is also rather out of date and can probably be deleted. Adam 02:47, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I've given it a really quick update. It's not a very optimistic picture, but it's factual and neutral. Clarke

Umm, why no mention of the Hussein-McMahon correspondence which is the basis for the "felt betrayed" line that was mentioned above?

In answer to the question just posed, because said correspondence proves there was no betrayal, no reason to feel betrayed. Their expectations were unrealistic. As usual, they didn't listen, they heard what they wanted to hear, not what was said. Or, for that matter, written.

Anyway, As for claims this is "factual and neutral" - guess again! By the way, new elections, this time with the Sunni involved. Looking good so far. Page needs a major rewrite and, I suggest, input by someone who's a little less personally biased.

Lebanon '06?
Shouldn't there be some mention of Israel's war in Lebanon against Hezbollah in 2006? The list of Arab-Israeli wars ends in 1982. The 2006 war was pretty big... longer than the others, also.

I have added a short paragraph about the 2006 conflict, but there is a separate larger article already existing 2006 Israel-Lebanon Conflict. Bencgibbins 14:56, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Too difficult?
I reverted a comment made by an anon who found the page too difficult. S/he may have a point. Itsmejudith 11:53, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Update?
This page really needs to be updated. Either remove the last part about Iraq and the US and provide a link to the "War on Terror" article or update it with current events. The article makes it seem like the problems in the Middle East are atarting to resolve with lines like:

"Political progress in Iraq was slower than expected...but successful elections were held in January 2005 and power transferred to a Shia-dominated elected government"

convey that all is well in Iraq. Meanwhile the Iraqi parliament has petitioned for the US to leave Iraq and the US congress is doing the same. All is not well and this article is misleading. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.169.45.251 (talk) 19:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC).

Indeed, the entire article is rather misleading. Just look at this:

"in 642 after they defeated the Romans at the Battle of Yarmuk, which is considered by many historians to be the most important battle of all time." Nefzen 11:24, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

The Map
why doent the map have Iran as part of the Middle East. Last time i checked it was a middle Eastern country —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.194.227.139 (talk) 17:17, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Some people think of Iran as in Asia... WhisperToMe 22:05, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand the answer, "Some people think of Iran as in Asia", as everything from Turkey (well, most of it) east is "as in Asia". From your answer it would seem you think, perhaps, that parts of Lebannon, Israel, Jordan, Syria, Iraq, etc. are part of... what? Europe? Africa?

Here's a hint: They're Southwest Asia... all of them!

Actually, the map, at least the one I see today, doesn't show political lines of control but, if you check one that does, you will find that yes, Iran is in fact included in the map that accompanies this article.

By the way, the first time in history there's ever actually a country called "palestine" rather than just that being the general name for a region which, for years, has been prevented, by ARABS, TURKS and a host of others, NOT ISRAEL, from forming a real country called "Palestine", I'll add it to the list of countries that I think of "as in Asia". For the record, Israel has negotiated FOR DECADES, against their best interests, to allow the creation of Palestine and, oddly enough, it's people like Yasir Arafat and now Hamas and Hizbollah who've been primary forces preventing that dream from becoming a reality. Go figure.

Definitelly the Turks, Arabs and all these other brown people (sarcasm) prevented Palestine from becoming a country, not hmmm Britain, France or the United States. What history have you been reading? Iraq, Iran, Israel, Syria, Jordan, all of these countries, they didn't exist before WW1, they were created. Just because there wasn't an official, modern state system doesn't mean that there weren't REAL PEOPLE living there, with their own system of governance and laws. In fact, the Palestinians are some of the oldest ethnic group in history.. Who takes on the right to say that every region in the world should be divided into modern states with set borders and a government? And fyi, Israel has been negotiating for the creation of an insanely small, extremely disatvantageous state just so they can GET RID OF the Palestinians living in camps in Israel for over 30 years now, not because they're do-gooders. It's what the United States would do if they had an ethnically different minority of people who wish to keep their culture and lifestyle and do not wish to mingle, let's call them Indians. Oh wait, you DID have such a minority. Snap! Well, if you hadn't killed 95% of them you would probably be offering them a little bit of Texas to make their poor, crappy country there too.

188.221.137.12 (talk) 01:21, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Can we get someone with a rudimentary knowledge of geography to start fact-checking these articles? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.75.8.208 (talk) 10:39, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't know how, but I would like to please create a centralized discussion that will (A) help REPLACE the word "middle east" and articles pertaining to it to "Western Asia." Geopolitically and culturally also, Iran is NOT part of the middle east. I don't know how to make edits like these or talks like these, please help me. Please understand that we need to make this change for Wikipedia. The word "middle east" is extremely eurocentric, and if we start with Wikipedia, we can change the word so it says "Western Asia" for ALL articles. I am an expert in this field of geopolitics. Also, Iran is NOT a part of the so-called "middle east," it is in South Asia, culturally, geopolitically, historically, etc... Please help me make this change; you are all better with Wikipedia than I am!

Thanks:

Mtheory1 (talk) 03:33, 26 March 2012 (UTC)mtheory1

Transliteration needs to be standardised
Throughout the article, various transliterations of many Arabic terms are used (e.g. "Hezbollah", "Hizbullah") with no explanation. This is confusing. Only one transliteration should be used consistently for each term, with other common transliterations mentioned in brackets after the term is first introduced.

For continuity, all the Arabic terms should be transliterated similarly, meaning that if we use "Hizbullah" as the standard, we should also use 'Muhammad' rather than 'Mohammed'. The short 'e' and 'o' vowel sounds as we use them in English do not exist in Arabic, so it could be argued that "Hizbullah" is preferable to "Hezbollah". Raylin (talk) 10:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

 * Agree that consistency is important. There is also policy to use names recognisable to readers of English. Articles relating to the Islamic Prophet use Muhammad and I believe that is a policy of the Islam Wikiproject. "Hezbollah" is the most usual form of that name in English, so there is a case for using it even if on this occasion we are not consistent with other transliterations. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:19, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Ataturk "emancipated women" did he?
"Meanwhile, the fall of the Ottomans had allowed Kemal Atatürk to seize power in Turkey and embark on a program of modernisation and secularisation. He abolished the caliphate, emancipated women enforced western dress..."

I hesitate to agree that emancipate is the correct terminology... the pendulum swung the other way entirely, and "emancipated" is entirely at odds with what comes after it - "enforced western dress". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.46.212.51 (talk) 03:18, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Mention of Israel Curiously Absent.
I'm just curiuos why there is no mention of the original Kingdom of Israel, established around 1020 BCE and continuing, though eventually divided around 930 BCE into Israel and Judah, until the Assyrians defeated Israel around 722 BCE and the Babylonians subsequently did the same to Judah, around 586 BCE. It seems that this page is just another taking part in the general historic revisionism intended to help the eventual aim of eliminating Israel from existence. This page, until it is revised to include the existence and history of Israel, deserves a failing grade.

The word "palestine" did not even come into use until the Romans conquered the area and, as they usually did, they usurped and renamed just about everything as part of their campaign of subjugation. I'm wondering if anyone can tell me the borders of any country named "palestine", what day or year any such nation was formed, who was their first leader, what was their currency, etc. The answers, of course, cannot be given because, thanks largely to the Arabs, there never has been any country named "palestine" and, as far as I know, the Israelis are the contry that has done the most to rectify this situation, negotiating for decades against their better interests to provide for creation of a "palestine" on land they rightfully conquered after being attacked by Arabs who previously prevented it from being used for the same purpose.

---

I'm going to have to repeat myself. Your arguments are completely hallow. Just because a modern state system is not in place in a particular region does not mean that its inhabitants simply don't exist. Also, Arabs (bad generalization by the way, since Arab interests are much more distinct amongst each other than modern Western ones) had very little to do with Palestine not becoming a state, it was mostly the fact that the natives were nomads, Beduins and before 1970 only 20% of the Palestinian population lived in cities. Get it into your head: using a land to create, manage or in any way make use of a modern state is NOT some sort of noble goal, it's merely a goal. This being said, Israel's purpouse to create a proper country is not noble or valiant. It's just its purpose meant for its own self interest.

The original Kingdom of Israel is insignificant in modern debates. Why? Because there is no policy of taking back what your 2000 year old ancestors lost. Let's assume that you lose a bit of legitimacy over your past possessions with every minute that has passed since you lost it; it's a reasonable assumption. In that case, the Jews' reasoning for reclaiming their country from the Palestinians is a lot less justified than the Aboriginies reclaiming Australia, the native Americans reclaiming the United States or, for that matter, the Brits reclaiming US. Think about it: Their families have lived there for THOUSANDS of years, how are they going to feel if you tell them that they have to leave?

And to conclude, this is the 21st century, the post-modern era of international relations, conflict management and resolution.. there is no such thing as 'rightfully conquered' any more, what Israel did and continues to do to this very day actually violates international law.

You ask for people writing this article to be unbiased yet you are shamelessly biased yourself. You made sure every mention of 'Israel' starts with a capital and every mention of 'palestine' doesn't. There is no one in his right mind who would ever take you seriously.  The wikipedia auto corrector will underline your word for being misspelled if you type 'palestine'

188.221.137.12 (talk) 01:49, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.75.8.208 (talk) 10:19, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Reformer in the Ottoman side
The section Ottoman era claims that Ottoman Sultan Abdulhamid II was a reforming sultan as well as Mehmet Ali Pasha of Egypt. Abdulhamit and Mehmet Ali were not contemporary rulers. Mehmet Ali reigned between 1805-1848 and Abdülhamit reigned between 1876-1909. So they can't be easily compared. Besides unlike Mehmet Ali, Abdülhamit was not a reformer. A more realistic name in Ottoman side might be Mahmut II (grandfather of Abdülhamit) who reigned between 1808-1839. Mahmut II was a comtemporary of Mehmet Ali and a reformer.Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 08:11, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

The Map Image
The image appears to be enhanced artificially. When compared with Google Earth or www.wikimapia.org, the map on this article has a lot of greenery. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.210.41.66 (talk) 06:19, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Wrong title
If you see here, you will agree that this history starts in 1902, and therefore either the article is too long, or needs to be renamed to History of eastern Mediterranean Koakhtzvigad (talk) 04:17, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

 * And the article on LGBT history should start in the 1990s because that's when the term came into use. The things they convey are almost almost older than the terms themselves. Moreover, the terms "Middle East" and "Near East" are synonymous today. Even more than that, the "Eastern Mediterranean" is a synonym for the "Levant", which is only one part of the Middle East. 213.109.230.96 (talk) 20:01, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

North Africa/Middle East 2010-2011
The fact that all these North African and Middle Eastern Nations are having uprisings MUST be mentioned in this article 68.55.176.205 (talk) 20:47, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Language
The Middle East has had many lingue franche. It would be splendid if someone included a timeline of these in the article. 213.109.230.96 (talk) 20:04, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on History of the Middle East. 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 http://www.webcitation.org/6KKWk56jd?url=http://www.aina.org/brief.html to http://www.aina.org/brief.html
 * Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6KKWk56jd?url=http://www.aina.org/brief.html to http://www.aina.org/brief.html

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) 15:33, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on History of the Middle East. 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/20140419013816/http://www.ncdr.ae/liwa/issues/LIWA06E.pdf to http://www.ncdr.ae/liwa/issues/LIWA06E.pdf

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) 16:21, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Wrong date
I have no idea how to address this issue, but in the section on modern history of the region there is an US government educational video which is labled as having been made in 1963. However, the video discusses events to at least 1967. Does anyone know how to address this? Nemoanon (talk) 19:43, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:12, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
 * OttomanEmpire1590.png

Meaning of Early / Middle / Late Islamic period
What do the terms Early / Middle / Late Islamic period mean? How are they defined? When do they start and end? They show up in articles about Jordan for instance, but I cannot find a periodisation offering the basic meaning. Are these terms mainstream, are they outdated, can they be used over larger parts of the Muslim world?

I will post this also on other relevant pages. The discussion should be held at Talk:Timeline of Islamic history (so not here). Thanks. Arminden (talk) 15:06, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: MIT 398 Intercultural International Communication
— Assignment last updated by Wildcat2026 (talk) 21:05, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Conflict
They always seem to be fighting. Is it built in somehow? Other regions fight but continuously? 2A00:23C6:F680:2C01:217B:F5B1:2653:CD8A (talk) 12:33, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:History of the Middle East


text:
Talk:Overseas expansion of the United States/Archive 1

 * This page contains talk on the History of United States Imperalism page from February 2004 and earlier.

Getting 1854-90 for Indian Wars
Where are you getting 1854-90 for Indian Wars? - Hephaestos 01:19, 1 Sep 2003 (UTC)

 * Large-scale incidents began after Wounded Knee, and by 1890 there was virtually no Indian opposition to the U.S. --Alex S 01:21, 1 Sep 2003 (UTC)

 * That doesn't mean there was no fighting; the Battle of Fallen Timbers springs to mind, for example. I think an argument could be made they started in 1776 with regard to the U.S. as such. - Hephaestos 01:26, 1 Sep 2003 (UTC)

 * Isolated incidents don't equate to a war. I agree that they should be listed, but as sepearte events and not under "Indian Wars." --Alex S 01:33, 1 Sep 2003 (UTC)

 * They were all isolated events when looked at that way, including Little Bighorn and Wounded Knee. We can't have it both ways. - Hephaestos 01:35, 1 Sep 2003 (UTC)

 * They were "isolated events" only in the sense that each battle between the British and the American Revolutionaries were "isolated events." What makes it a war is the magnitude of conflict. Between the years 1865 and 1898, 943 battles were fought during 12 different campaigns, and over 30 wars were fought between 1850 and 1865. Nothing of this magnitude occured before 1850 or after 1890. --Alex S 01:51, 1 Sep 2003 (UTC)

big problems with this page
I have big problems with this page. The title expresses a blatant POV, namely that every military action ever taken by the United States was "Imperialist" (whatever that means). We already have a page about the military history of the United States, and that seems to cover all the events mentioned on this page just fine. If anything, this page should be a redirect to the US military history, and nothing more. user:J.J.
 * I understand what you're saying, but it simply isn't true that every military action taken by the United States is here. There is no mention of the Revolutionary War, the War of 1812, the Civil War, World War One, World War Two, or the war in Kosovo. These are all significant wars that have no place in the "History of Imperialism" Page. --Alex S 23:39, 19 Sep 2003 (UTC)

 * So it doesn't...but what is the criteria for inclusion on this page? Can that be determined without running into significant POV problems? It can be argued that the Indian wars were a domestic issue, since the US considered indian lands part of its own territory. Hawaii wanted to be annexed (it was conquered only through economic means.) How was the Afghanistan invasion not justified? It's all iffy... --Jiang 23:50, 19 Sep 2003 (UTC)

On the other hand, people who live in other parts of the world find this sort of information very useful to have around. If you want to delete this page (for that is what turning it into a redirect to a page on a different topic amounts to) then list it in the ordinary way on VFD, and see if you can achieve a consensus. (BTW, I think the title sucks, but can't think of a better one at this moment.) Tannin 17:21, 18 Sep 2003 (UTC)

It's an important subject
Some advice for those who are working on this page:

It's an important subject and certainly ought to be dealt with here on the Wikipedia. In itself, this list of military interventions is highly informative. However, the title of the page sucks (imperialism is one of those taboo words that you just can't use if you want people to take you seriously - even when it is entirely appropriate). Something better is required. Secondly, it needs some top and tail. Why is this list significant? Who selected these particular events? What is the common thread that binds them all together? My advice to you (the people working on this page) is to sort these to problems out, or else be prepared to spend the rest of your lives defending this page's right to exist against those who like to pretend that none of this stuff ever happened. And anyway it was all an accident. Honest! Tannin

 * I'll admit that I'm uncomfortable about this page. Partly because, yes, I'm a US citizen, but mostly because it appears to suggest that every war the US has engaged in (with the possible exceptions of the Revolutionary & American Civil Wars) have been acts of imperialism. I'd feel that contributors must confront & explain the following questions:
 * How are the Indian Wars acts of imperialism? Yes, the US conquered & acculturated the native inhabitants of North America under the ideology of Manifest Destiny, but how is this different from Australia's subjection of its native peoples? Or of how medieval countries like France or England defeated and acculturated neighboring small nations like Brittany, Cornwall, Wales & Scotland? From reading the Imperialism article, I fail to see even the admission that a country or nation can aggressively act towards a neighboring state or nation that is not imperialistic. And if this is true, then we end up removing a specific meaning from that word.
 * How does US Imperialism relate to 19th century imperialism (e.g., the acts of England, France, Germany, etc.) Quickly reviewing the history of the US, I'd say that there have been several expressions of imperialism in US history: Manifest Destiny, for example, expresses a different vision than does Paul Wolfowitz.
 * Distinguishing between imperialism as a direct act (i.e., physical coercion of another state or nation) vs. imperialism as a metaphor (e.g., cultural imperialism -- how US fads & fashions shape daily life outside of the boundaries of the US from Toronto to the people of India, Malaysia, & Zimbabwe who can't even speak English). -- llywrch 18:15, 18 Sep 2003 (UTC)

 * Let me try my hand at answering those questions of yours, Llywrch.

 * How are the Indian Wars different from Australia's subjection of its native peoples? Or medieval countries like France or England (&etc.). Not different in the sightest, so far as I can tell.
 * How does US Imperialism relate to 19th century imperialism (e.g., the acts of England, France, Germany, etc.) More subtle to begin with, not very different today.
 * How to distinguish between imperialism as a direct act vs. imperialism as a metaphor for cultural and economic imperialism? Yes, the distinction can become very blurred from time to time. In general, I think I'd be inclined to tackle the two things in different articles. But I don't think there is an easy answer to this one.

 * There have undoubtedly been wars that the US took part in which were not mainly to do with imperialism - WW1 and WW2 are obvious examples. Korea may be another. Even the Gulf War, maybe. I'd give the benefit of the doubt on that one, anyway, though others may not. You raise good questions. Tannin 18:25, 18 Sep 2003 (UTC)

 * Gosh, why not just title this entry American Genocide? American Imperialism is another subject, involving an imperium or hegemony over other states, viz Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Philippines, Central America. To extend it like this may dilute its meaning. The adjectival form is "American"-- or "North American" or "Yankee" etc. 'United States' is a noun.User:Wetman

 * It's all well and good, but I still don't understand why these largely military conflicts cannot simply be added to the Military History of the United States page. "American Imperialism," though currently in fashion, is simply not an academic term. This page makes about as much logical sense as a Bad Things the United States Has Done page, or hell, even a Bad wars vs. Good wars page. Just combine it all into one military history page and let people decide for themselves what is or isn't "imperialist". user:J.J.

 * Also, there is really no distinction between the History of the United States and the History of United States Imperialism. The United States' predecessor colonies were part of the British Empire's imperialism, and they split from Britain largely because they wished to continue it - into the territories like Indiana which is named that precisely because it *was* promised to the natives, along with what is now Ontario (thus the reasoning for natives siding with Britain during the American Revolution).  This continued to the rest of the continent, and down into Latin America, and over the Pacific, etc. etc., even into China itself with other imperial powers in the early 20th century.  There has always been poo-pooing of US imperialism - around its least defensible acts like the conquest of the Philippines under Theodore Roosevelt - which was against guerillas who had an ideology very much like the American Revolution's own... Cuba, Vietnam, etc., could be seen the same way, both Fidel Castro and Ho Chi Minh had quite a bit of swaying between the US and USSR, but in both cases the support package for being a Communist was better.

I don't quite understand
I don't quite understand why there's so much opposition to a page entitled history of US Imperialism when no one's said a word about Spanish Empire, Portuguese Empire, or British Empire. Part of being NPOV means not letting national feeling interfere with judgement. Although I admit that there is an intrinsic POV element in the idea of a History of US Imperialism, doesn't the fact that many (most?) people across the globe view us as imperalist warrant some sort of explanation/historical background? As the year progresses I'll be working on this article slowly; maybe when it's more developed you'll be able to see exactly what sort of content I'm aiming for. All I ask is that you keep an open mind. --Alex S 14:50, 28 Sep 2003 (UTC)

 * There is no doubt that following the Spanish American War the United States did become a formal, European-style Imperial power for some time. However, the fact remains that the United States' formal reign of imperialism was almost entirely centered around that war and its aftermath. Therefore, a page on US imperialism should focus on the Philippines, Cuba, Puerto Rico, etc. Calling Vietnam, Iraq, et al "imperialist" is one person's opinion. Certainly these wars were not fought with the goal to "conquor and colonize" these countries, so they are not imperialist. You may view capitalism as a "form of imperialism" but that's a personal view.
 * I personally think this page should simply be merged with American Empire.
 * user:J.J.

I'm not creating this page because it's my "personal view," I'm creating it to give a sense of historical background to a view that many people (especially outside the US) share. I'm not trying to prove that the US is or was an imperialist power, I'm just laying out the arguments for those who believe so and the arguments against such a conception. There's nothing inherently non-NPOV about opinions and arguments, as long as they're presented as such. That's what I'm doing. --Alex S 04:27, 16 Oct 2003 (UTC)

 * This is a completely lame article. British Empire etc is not problematic because that's what the British called it themselves - Victoria had the official title "Empress of India" for instance. But it's blaming the victim to call it "imperialism" when the British induced Indian tribes to attack US citizens and the US govt successfully acted to protect its own people. Adding a "many feel" to dress up personal biases and ignorance as NPOV doesn't fool anybody. The westward expansion was an ugly period of ugly deeds, but to call it "imperialism" is to completely misunderstand the times and the people involved. Stan 05:54, 16 Oct 2003 (UTC)

 * I could say that those in favor of abortion are ignorant and misunderstand the issue, but that wouldn't change what they're saying, and it wouldn't make it any less important to explain and discuss those views on some part of wikipedia. --Alex S 16:04, 16 Oct 2003 (UTC)

 * "Imperialism is rarely admitted to when it is practised"?? That's why the British Colonial Office was so secret that nobody knew its name, and the Spanish viceroys in the New World worked in windowless offices and had a cover story, right? If this article is about the ignorant views of ignorant people repeating leftover Soviet-era calumnies, then the article should be entitled "Claims of United States imperialism", not purporting to be a "history" describing accepted facts. Stan 05:47, 23 Oct 2003 (UTC)

 * The British did not go around and say "let's invade some country to enlarge our empire". They always had some pretext like everyone else. Even Hitler made up a flimsy excuse when attacking Poland. Which aggressor (in modern times) has ever admitted he's an aggressor? One can easily see a consistent line of U.S. pretexts for aggression, from the "USS Maine" to the "Gulf of Tonkin" to the "Iraqi WMDs". And that is how most of the world sees it. Remember this is not an American encyclopaedia, NPOV is not defined by what is accepted by U.S. opinion. Do you deny that the Spanish-American War is now universally considered imperialist, although at the time that was strongly denied by the U.S. government and its supporters? --Wik 05:50, Oct 30, 2003 (UTC)

Don't you know anything about history? The British dreamed about acquiring the land for the Cape-to-Cairo railway for decades, all very much in public, and they were very forthright about their superiority, the need to "civilize" the locals, the need to forestall competition from other European countries, and so forth. They were very proud of their empire - for instance Canada printed the slogan "we hold a vaster empire than has been" on its Christmas stamp of 1898, the slogan itself being from a poem composed for Victoria's jubilee in 1887. By comparison, it took years of drum-beating about Spanish misdeeds, some sleight-of-hand by Teddy R., and further drum-beating after the explosion of the Maine just to get public support for a war with Spain, support which turned back to indifference in a couple years. US imperialism is a serious subject that deserves to be treated seriously, not as list of superficial bullet points. Stan 17:25, 30 Oct 2003 (UTC)

 * Of course British imperialism and U.S. imperialism are different in various respects. But in every specific military action which contributed to the creation of their empire, the British had some specific excuse, in the same way the U.S. always has an excuse. And the larger imperialist goals of the U.S. are no secret either, and are spelled out in semi-official documents like "Rebuilding America's Defenses". And when you say the British "were very forthright about their superiority, the need to 'civilize' the locals" that sounds familiar too. Isn't the U.S. saying it is bringing "freedom" to those countries which just can't govern themselves? I see you don't deny that the war with Spain was imperialist, so how can you positively say the war with Iraq is not? --Wik 18:15, Oct 30, 2003 (UTC)

 * Indeed. It would be unforgivably rash at this point to say that the Iraq invasion was about "conquest and colonization," but it would be just as rash at this point to say definitely that it was not.  I'll believe that when I see some evidence to the contrary. - Hephaestos 18:22, 30 Oct 2003 (UTC)

 * Saying that British military actions had to have "excuses" is to apply 20th-century thinking to 19th-century individuals. The British (and French, etc) didn't feel the need to hide any of this; conquest was good in and of itself, blessed by the clergy, approved of by journalists, etc. The Scramble of Africa included highly-visible international conferences for who got to own what, with the universal expectation that the military had a free hand to enforce those decisions on the ground. Also note that I'm not claiming Iraq is not an imperialist move, like Hephaestos I think it's too soon to know - although it tells you something when an administration has to spend months drumming up support for action, even after 12 years of nonstop SH demonization. In Victorian England the local commander would have invaded Iraq on his own authority, and informed the Colonial Office later, after receiving universal adulation in the newspapers. :-) Us evil US imperialists clearly don't have the hang of it yet... :-) Stan 20:35, 30 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I agree, this Vietnam / Iraq / Afghanistan stuff is total crap, and simply has no place on this page. An encyclopedia is not a place where people put down their wacky conspiracy theories and try to pass them off as fact. I mean, it's like putting "some people consider the Israeli Government to be the secret puppet-masters of the world. Of course they deny this but how do we know for sure!?! " on the Israel page. It's nonsense. I'm deleting it, and this time I hope it will stay deleted. user:J.J.

 * Where is a "conspiracy theory" here? That the Israeli government are the puppet-masters of the world is not a widely held opinion. That the U.S. is imperialist, however, is a widely held view, and thus deserves mention (not as a fact, but as a view). This can not be dismissed as "wacky". --Wik 05:50, Oct 30, 2003 (UTC)

 * Last week over 50 Heads of State gave a standing ovation to a Prime Minister who claimed that the "Jews run the world," so I could argue that my comment is indeed a "widely held" opinion. Look, I don't have a big problem with this page, as far as the pre-1910 stuff goes. Hell, I was the one who created the "American Empire" page in the first place! But to claim the Vietnam War, Iraq war, and Afghanistan war were all "imperialist", without a shred of evidence other than some comment about how "they could be, we don't know for sure" is nonsense, and a conspiracy theory. user:J.J.

 * I haven't heard that the heads of state gave a standing ovation to that specific comment. But even if they share that view, those were the heads of state of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, and the reaction in other parts of the world has been very different, so I don't think it is a widely held view globally. But if it is, then yes, of course it should be mentioned, no matter how wacky you think it is. It should be said that some people believe this, and others dismiss it, listing the arguments of both sides. Then let the reader make up his own mind. What's wrong with that? The article shouldn't positively claim that the Iraq war was imperialist, but that it is considered as such by many. The fact that the "official" reason for the war has now been pretty much exposed as a lie, and that U.S. corporations are already making good profits of the war, is more than a shred of evidence. --Wik 19:53, Oct 30, 2003 (UTC)

Another pathetic and amateurish thing about this article is that it completely overlooks the actions of the US in Latin America in the early part of this century, even though many of those actions are described in detail in the WP articles about the Navy ships that took part. Those actions are much more clearly imperialistic, but of course they're not front page news anymore, so it takes some actual research to learn about them. Stan 17:06, 30 Oct 2003 (UTC)

 * I agree. The article as it stands is poor, but as the consensus seems to be that it's a valid topic for an article, so let's improve it. -- Infrogmation 17:35, 30 Oct 2003 (UTC)

 * I haven't quite gotten irritated enough to take action myself, but my suggestion would be to turn it into an article United States imperialism that slices through all the events and attitudes that could qualify as imperialism. There are other articles on this already, for instance American Empire - presumably there are lots of US-haters who write these as a way to vent their feelings - plus History of the United States and New Imperialism has relevant material. Despite all the material, we're lacking a cogent summary that goes deeper than reflexive US-bashing, for instance to explain how a democracy could be considered imperialist even though the vast majority of the voters are strongly opposed to the idea of empire, and have been for many years. Stan 18:05, 30 Oct 2003 (UTC)

 * For all I know some contributors may indeed hate the USA; I am not privy to their personal beliefs. Still, people who thought the USA has behaved imperialistically and have objected to it to have ranged from radicals like Noam Chomsky to staunch conservatives like Robert Taft and Pat Buchanan and American icons like Mark Twain and Martin Luther King, Jr.. Let's watch our POV before throwing around the "US-bashing" "US-haters" label. Cheers, -- Infrogmation 18:36, 30 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Just one more comment; we shouldn't be making up our own stuff and throwing it around, we should be quoting from authorities, whether it be polls ("30% of Germans think the US is imperialist") or sources (for instance, one of my books quotes an 1890s-era Washington Post editorial opining that empire was a strange idea to Americans, but perhaps necessary), or books - there are certainly lots of those to choose from. No sentence without an authority to back it up! Stan 20:51, 30 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I agree, but clearly since this is going to be a page that develops gradually, be patient about a ton of facts and figures at first. --Alex S 12:40, 1 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Interesting sidenote: On the United States of America page, there is a section entitled "Colonial Interests," which begins: "The United States has held the following countries as colonies or de facto colonies at various times..." Yet nobody protested the existance of such a section. I think a lot of the complaints about this page are based on context rather than actual historical disagreements. --Alex S 05:13, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I have made a fairly acceptable intro
I think I have made a fairly acceptable intro to the post WW2 accusations of American imperialism. I think it is important to portray these accusations as accusations, and make it clear that they are disputed, and not universially agreed upon. -user:J.J.

 * Why did you remove mention of the Somoza dynasty in Nicaragua? -- Infrogmation 06:45, 30 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * I thought it was kind of vague. The mere existance of a dictatorship does not imply imperialism. I realize the Somoza crew were US-backed, but I see this as more of a strategic Cold War thing (at least in the later days) than a flat out "imperial" one. I mean, is supporting the Saudis "imperialistic"? How about supporting the Canadians? Is every friend of America just a pawn in the grand imperial game? I think the list should just stick with cases in which America actively tried to alter the political status quo of a country.

user:J.J.

 * The Somoza administration were hardly in the same category as allies like Canada. US armed forces invaded the country to install the regeme. The Somozas made a big deal about their being supported by the US. -- Infrogmation

 * "actively tried to alter the political status quo"? So, like, if Estonia hires a lobbyist in DC, they're imperialists ruling the US? You can see why it's better to quote actual authorities rather than just making up stuff as you go along. Stan 06:01, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Maybe status quo was not the right term. I just meant that allegations of American "Imperialism" are stronger if the US can be proven to have actively sought a radical change to the country, like by overthrowing the president or something. But you make a good point.

 * I don't really know much about the Somozas. All I meant was you can't just put their names on the page without explaining how their existance was uniquely "imperialist." I just didn't want every unpleasant US ally to be deemed imperialist sorely on the grounds that they sided with the United States. But if the Somoza situation was imposed by US troops, then sure, add them. user:J.J.

The Kingdom of Hawaii
Should The Kingdom of Hawaii became a republic in 1894 and in 1989 Hawaiian President Sanford Dole agreed to his nation's annexation by the United States. The republic ended in 1900 and the country became a territory of the US. read ... and in 1899 Hawaiian President ...? Kesuari 11.26 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Explanations of some of my changes

 * I moved the bulk of the section on the Natives to Indian Wars because we were missing an article on that subject, and if we went into that much detail about every American imperialist venture the article would become far to large to be useful.
 * I made the article more into a discussion of the debate over American imperialism, both today and at the time it was occuring, mostly because imperialism is an idea rather than a concrete event.
 * I incorporated more on cultural and economic imperialism because I do not think the topics can be separated from military imperialism, nor do I believe that military imperialism is the the central focus of imperialism.
 * I removed the POV warning because the changes made were fairly large, please feel free to reinsert it if you do not feel the bias has been suitably expunged.

-SimonP 22:27, Dec 3, 2003 (UTC)

 * Better, but still too many unattributed "many believe" or "many argue". Also you don't mention that imperialism was opposed by conservatives and promulgated by progressives/liberals in the 19th century, but that the positions completely reversed in the 20th century. It would be interesting to trace a connection with the use of "imperialist" as an epithet in Soviet propaganda, I'm sure there are books on the subject although I don't know any titles (currently deep in Teddy R's bio myself). Stan 23:46, 3 Dec 2003 (UTC)

 * I like the changes a lot too. The only major revision was that I moved back a lot of the information on Native Americans, albeit streamlined. I think that while too much information burdens the point the history of native-settler interaction in the US is key to the idea of US Imperialism. I want to start expanding the "current opinions" part of the article with global views (backed by #s and %s) on the idea. --Alex S 00:56, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)

More back and forward normative debates
Ugh. More back and forward normative debates. More moral judgments and catch-phrase throwing. This might as well be Hannity and Colmes on Fox News. While AlexS has been doing some serious work, this article isn't going to work out on Wiki. It's just going to become more of a breeding ground for partisan trolling and posturing. On one hand, you'll have a forum for Anti-Americanism, and, on the other, you'll have to deal with J.J.'s personal essays and rationalizations. The only way to create an atmosphere conductive to some real historical writing on the subject is to redirect it to a new article on the diplomatic and military history of the United States. If anyone wants to do so, I can recommend scores of sources with ISBN numbers. I can also provide links to articles online if users want to get the new article done fairly quickly. 172 01:53, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)

 * I'm not "rationalizing" I'm just trying to present the other side, which is lacking. I mean, if this page can openly present the "Marxist view" of how my country is an "imperial fiefdom" of America, than surely my passage about American distain for the term deserves a place as well. user:J.J.

 * Yes, you are. "Imperialism" is a standard social science term, albeit one defined in a variety of ways depending on the context, and a wealth of literature is available on the subject. It can also be used in a values-neutral context, and it will be used in a values-neutral context in this article. There is no place here for Marxist ploemics (which you are confusing with scholarship that adopts some Marxian analyses and concepts), nor your personal commentaries.

 * This is not a forum for your creative writing. No one cares how you react to this word personally. When you start talking about what kinds of images of which this word reminds you, everyone's bullshit detector should be going off. I doubt you'd be able to get away with this with your professors. 172 19:38, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * You have to accept that regardless of whatever your own academic views of the term "imperialism" are, there are a lot of Americans who view the term's present-day application as a deliberate attempt to compare the United States to brutal regimes like the Roman Empire or whatever. I'm sure some people who use the term would even happily admit that by refering to American foreign policies as "Imperialism" they are trying to portray US actions as exploitative and brutal. This sort of "guilt by catagorization" or whatever you want to call it, is a legitimate criticism of the modern-day use of the term "American Imperialism" and deserves to be mentioned on this article. If I'm too much of a moron, someone else write it then. But you can't act like my criticism is just something that I thought up in a vaccuum. I could cite many articles where critics denounce the term because they believe it is overtly loaded or partisan. user:J.J.
 * Readers unfamiliar with sociology, political economy, and international relations easily confuse common technical terms with context-specific, values-neutral meanings - like "imperialism" - with the more popular usage of these terms in the slogans and ploemics of activists. The same goes for "nationalism," another term used - and abused - in popular discourse.

 * I will continue to revert any attempts to shift this article's focus from history to slogans. 172 22:32, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Neutrality Disputed?
maybe a "the neutrality of this article is disputed" is called for? based on this talk page at least... jengod 22:58, Feb 6, 2004 (UTC)

 * There is no need for a neutrality dispute. There is a need for users to stay on topic. "Imperialism" is common technical term in the social sciences with context-specific, values-neutral meanings. J.J just needs to look up what "imperialism" means in the first place and how it is used in the social sciences and history. This doesn't mean finding the first op-ed piece that comes up on Google or Yahoo. This means that he needs to go to his local library or university library and consult encyclopedias, social science sourcebooks, and textbooks. It would behoove him to do this, rather than rambling on about he personally "feels" about the term. 172 00:34, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)

There has got to be a more NPOV title for this
The following isn't pretty or perfect, but it's better than the current title:

United States Policies Viewed as Imperialism

the inclusion of the history of such policies is clearly implied, I think. I'm new, and can't quite read whether there is a consensus regarding the original title, so I hesitate to edit it myself. But I do recommend someone second this motion and do so...

title is fine
The title is fine (not my choice for an article entry, though), but I understand why some users are suspicious. When familiar only with the popular usage of "imperialism," general readers and students often use this term without knowing what it means. They assume that it is a pejorative term.

However, in diplomatic and military history, "imperialism" is a standard, value-neutral term. It merely refers to influence by nations or peoples over weaker nations or peoples. Dating from antiquity, imperialism has taken many forms. Thus, general readers often conflate imperialism and colonialism, which is properly used in a more restrictive sense.

Colonialism entails formal political control involving territorial annexation. Imperialism can be exercised formally or informally, directly or indirectly, politically or economically. One can say that colonialism is a form of imperialism, but not vice versa.

Having observed so many ridiculous, protracted edit wars stemming from the failure to understand standard, encyclopedic definitions, I would not have created this article. Given the likelihood of conflicts and misunderstanding on Wiki, a broader focus on the Military and diplomatic history of the United States, IMHO, would have worked out better. But you already have too much work here to change the title. Without a substantial rewrite, no other title is appropriate. While the title is going to raise eyebrows occasionally, it is not a violation of NPOV policies so long as the article stays on focus. 172 11:37, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * 172, it is doubtful that a reader would be likely to ignore the popular usage of the term and focus instinctively on a fixed, unambigious, value-neutral usage in military and diplomatic history, if this usage is indeed as you believe. Readers are more likely to be either attracted to or repelled by the article out of hand on the basis of their understanding of the word. A minority might look for context via the Wikipedia definition of imperialism, which is not a bad one, but is not yours, and does not help with the NPOV problems in the title. In any event, the propagandistic use of the word imperialism by supporters and opponents of the U.S. and / or its policies has clearly pushed the word's understood meaning completely beyond the realm of value-neutrality.

 * Other than re-titling, no rewrite would be necessary. In fact, my proposed title is far more true to the current body of the work - which I have little problem with. In it, each and every idea is introduced as something that *has been viewed as* imperialism:

 * "According to some who argue America has been imperialistic the first step... was the conquest of the Native American peoples who inhabited North America."

 * "The Louisiana Purchase... is often considered the first major event in American expansion, although it is rarely cited an act of imperialism."

 * "The Mexican-American War from 1846-1848 is often viewed as motivated by American imperialism."

 * "The late nineteenth century is the era which the most historians consider to be one of imperialism."

 * "The Philippine-American War (1899-1913) is perhaps the most egregious example of United States imperialism." I happen to agree, but the word "perhaps" is still, appropriately, used.

 * "Many argue that the United States had a de facto empire in the Americas throughout this period."

 * "As with most aspects of American imperialism these [post-WWII] events are still disputed (especially in America itself) as many believe that they were not imperialist in nature."

 * This is all fairly good NPOV. The title ought to follow suit.

 * Like I said, I'm new to this, and if I'm the only one who sees a problem here, it ought to be left as is. If someone else feels I have a point, they can second my motion by editing the title to "United States Policies Viewed as Imperialism."

If users don't know the definition of the term
I haven't added any content to this article (other than removing some irrelevant tangents). Nor was this my choice for an article. If users don't know the definition of the term, you can edit the article and add it to the intro. A word may be widely confused, but it's fine so long as this article uses properly. 172 03:08, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)


text:
Strong Bad Sings (and Other Type Hits)

Strong Bad Sings (and Other Type Hits) is a compilation album featuring songs by Strong Bad and other characters from the Homestar Runner web cartoon series. Strong Bad Sings is the sole audio CD spinoff from the online cartoon world of homestarrunner.com. The songs represent various pastiches of popular music, such as glam metal, folk, hip hop, techno and indie rock.

The songs "Trogdor" and "Because It's Midnite" appear in Guitar Hero II and Guitar Hero Encore: Rocks the 80s, respectively. There is also a "Secret Song" that features Homestar Runner very late into the last track. The disc also contains a music video for "These Peoples Try to Fade Me", inferred to be animated by The Cheat, in the style of Powered by the Cheat.

Musicians

 * Matt Chapman – Lead vocals, piano
 * Mike Chapman – Guitar, bass, keyboards
 * Missy Palmer – Lead vocals, guitar

Y-O-U

 * Nick Niespodziani – Backing vocals, guitar, drums, keyboards, programming
 * Peter Olson – Guitar, bass, programming
 * Mark Cobb – Drums
 * Eric Harlan Park – Keyboards, piano
 * Matt Sonnicksen – Guitar, drums, keyboards, piano, backing vocals, bells
 * J. Christopher Arrison – Guitar, bass, piano

Writing credits
Music and lyrics for tracks 4 and 13 were written by Missy Palmer. All other lyrics were written by The Brothers Chaps. Music for tracks 5, 7, 9, 14, 17, 18, and 19 was written by The Brothers Chaps with members of Y-O-U. Music for tracks 8, 11, and 16 was written by The Brothers Chaps with J. Christopher Arrison and members of Y-O-U. All other music was written by The Brothers Chaps.

title: Strong Bad Sings (and Other Type Hits)