text:
Talk:Tajikistani Civil War

Proposed Name Change
I think this page needs a name change, and it's best if it happens now before it grows any larger. The problem is that to call the civil war in Tajikistan the "Tajikistan Civil War" is grammatically incorrect. Tajikistan is a noun, not an adjective. It is like saying "America Civil War", rather than "American Civil War", or "Russia Revolution", rather than "Russian Revolution." It would be correct to call this article "Tajik Civil War", but many people have expressed concern that using the word Tajik to describe anything about Tajikistan is not sensitive to the ethnic diversity of the country.

I think two useful alternatives are "Tajikistani Civil War" and "The Civil War in Tajikistan." I'm more partial to the later, because many people, especially scholars, don't use the word "Tajikistani." There is no consensus amongst academics that Tajikistani is better than Tajik. The name "The Civil War in Tajikistan" might have two extra words, but it's certainly not too long or confusing.

I think it's important to have this discussion because history has not decided yet what to call this war. There's no comprehensive source in English on the subject, and what ever Wikipedia calls this war is likely to become a standard name for the war.

Anyone got an opinion on this? I'll let this message stay up for a while and if after a week or so there are no comments I'll make the official name change proposal. --David Straub 01:54, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm in favor of moving it to Civil War in Tajikistan or better yet Civil War of Tajikistan. What do you think? -- Aivazovsky 01:55, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

 * That sounds fine. Let's wait a few more days for any other suggestions and then make a proposed move. --David Straub 02:45, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

 * For now, the article has been moved to Civil War in Tajikistan. However, I'm beginning to think that the name that sounds the best is "Tajik Civil War."  Sure it doesn't encompass every ethnic group in the country but neither does the name "Georgian Civil War" which is used to describe the unrest in Georgia which involved conflicts with Abkhazia and South Ossetia.  The same can also be said of the "Russian Civil War" - Russians weren't the only group to be part of that conflict. -- Aivazovsky 04:01, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

 * I think Tajik Civil War sounds better too, but some very educated Tajiks I've met disagree with that term, because it sounds like Tajiks vs. Tajiks fighting, when they contend that it was actually the work of non-Tajik outsiders. The current title is probably as non-controversial as we'll get. ––David Straub 10:10, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Ethnic cleansing?
Describing the violence in the civil war as ethnic cleansing seems like a strong POV. To label the violence against Islamic groups of tajikistan as ethnic cleansing, there should be more credible references. Who has called it "ethnic cleansing"? Human Right Watch? Soros Institute (Open Sosiety Institute)? I checked the report by Human Right Watch. It doesn't mention "ethnic cleansing". It talks about ethnic conflicts, and even "ethnic hatred". But referring to any violence (partly associated with ethnic conflicts) as ethnic cleansing doesn't make sense. Jahangard 15:42, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Jahangard, did you read both sources? You keep mentioning that you checked the The HRW report, but did you read the OSI report? And there are two paper sources, have you ever heard of a library? I'm reposting the the response I gave to Jahangard's simliar accuasations for Garmis.

Wow! There's a lot of big allegations in that one. I think Jahangard should really study a little bit more about the history of Tajikistan before he does many more edits. He should also read all of the sources before making dangerous allegations as above. If he had read the second source, as well as the two paper sources cited, he would have noted a clear and consistent historiography pattern that there is a concensus amongst researchers that there was a massacre of Garmis and Pamiris. Actually I don't think any except Jahangard dispute this fact and the only reason he does is because he is obviously completely ignorant of the Civil War in Tajikistan. The second source listed was published by the Open Society Institute and states, which is there for Janhangard to plainly see, that:

"The Kulobis, led by prominent local criminals and now named the Popular Front, launched a campaign to kill or expel all Garmis from the south, looting and burning their villages. Having completed that, the Popular Front pressed on to Dushanbe, where they arrested and killed scores of prominent Garmis and Pamiris, often on the mere presumption of their sympathy with the opposition." Tajikistan: Refugee Reintegration And Conflict Prevention

Note the the phrase “campaign to kill or expel all Garmis from the south.” This happened in 1992 and 1993 and is clearly documented by OSI, Human Rights Watch, and the United Nations, amongst others. There is no original research going on here, but there are some fallacious accusations based on total ignorance being tossed around here.--David Straub 03:51, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I also checked OSI report. It hasn't mention "ethnic cleansing" either. Anyway, mentioning HRW report as refeerence for a sentence, when it doesn't support that sentence, is not acceptable. About OSI report, you can mention these allegation ("killing prominent Garmis on the mere presumption of their sympathy with the opposition") as their claim and their analysis (not as undoubtable facts).  Jahangard 03:38, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Why don't we just give a direct quote? Khoikhoi 04:23, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

 * It would be much better. Jahangard 05:27, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

 * I will conceded this point: that neither article explicitly uses the term ethnic cleansing. But if you read the sources and compare them to the definition of ethnic cleansing given in wikipedia on ethnic cleansing then you see that what happened to Garmis and Pamiris in the fall of 1992 and winter of 1993 fits the definition of ethnic cleansing.

 * The first definition from the wikipedia article is: “ethnic cleansing can be understood as the expulsion of an "undesirable" population from a given territory due to religious or ethnic discrimination, political, strategic or ideological considerations, or a combination of these.”

 * The second definition is: “[E]thnic cleansing is a well-defined policy of a particular group of persons to systematically eliminate another group from a given territory on the basis of religious, ethnic or national origin. Such a policy involves violence and is very often connected with military operations. It is to be achieved by all possible means, from discrimination to extermination, and entails violations of human rights and international humanitarian law.”

 * Now read the HWR that Jahangard has complained doesn’t mention anything about ethnic cleansing:

 * “Pro-government paramilitary groups entered Dushanbe, the capital of Tajikistan, on December 10, 1992. Led by the Popular Front of Tajikistan, the main pro-government army in the civil war, they conducted a campaign of summary executions and "disappearances" of people of Pamiri and Garmi (regions of Tajikistan that had supported the DPT-IRP coalition) origins, killing more than 300 and "disappearing" hundreds of others. According to eyewitnesses interviewed by the Moscow-based human rights group Memorial and Helsinki Watch, Popular Front soldiers and other pro-government forces stopped buses and trolley buses, stopped people on streets, and deployed forces at the Dushanbe airport in order to check individuals' documents. In many instances, those whose passports indicated that they were born in Pamir or Garm were killed or simply taken away and not heard from again. Graves containing as many as twenty or thirty corpses were exhumed in several places in and around Dushanbe.

 * The Popular Front committed summary executions in villages on the outskirts of Dushanbe after DPT-IRP rebels had already retreated, and, in at least one instance, the village of Subulak, in places that had never been a base for rebels. In another village called Kyrgyzon in January, the Popular Front, apportioning to itself law enforcement responsibilities, arrested and executed a thirty-one-year-old man (of Garmi origins) whom a neighbor had accused of murder. The summary execution was preceded by a two-minute "people's trial" in front of villagers.

 * ….It is not known how many people disappeared in 1993. The disappeared were principally individuals who supported the DPT-IRP coalition or who were of Pamiri or Garmi origins. Their captors were paramilitary bands and warlords, mainly from Kuliab, one of the regions of Tajikistan that supports the current government. In some cases law enforcement officials mayhave been involved in the disappearances. A highly-placed Ministry of Internal Affairs (MVD) official, in an informal conversation with Memorial, alleged that MVD staff members sometimes collaborated in kidnapping. In addition, he stated that the MVD was most likely aware of the general pattern of disappearances and the reported existence of so-called "informal prisons." In the second half of 1993, disappearances became more professional and, in at least two cases, took place in the full view of local government or law enforcement officials.”

 * Is it just my POV that an ethnic cleansing campaign occurred or do all the sources I’ve cited in the article agree? I know only two of the sources are available online, but if need be others will be posted.––David Straub 01:02, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

 * Your analysis of HRW report is an example of unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position, which is the definition of Original Research in Wikipedia. Jahangard 18:04, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

 * Jahangard, what exactly is your problem with this article? That the term ethnic cleansing is used or that historians, NGOs, and the UN have documented the fact that Garmis were killed in mass, raped, expelled from their homes. Don't forget, you didn't just tag this article for "Ethnic cleansing", you also tagged the Garmis article for use of the term "massacre". Is massacre to strong of a word? Is it original research to use that term? Do you think it is POV to use negative terminology to describe how thousands of Garmis and Pamiris were murdered and tens of thousands of their surviving relatives were driven from their homes over the border into Afghanistan where they had to live as refugees for most of the 1990s? I definately thought you walked over the POV line when you tagged the Abolqasem Lahouti with a Iranian Poets category, considering the fact that Abolqasem Lahouti is notable because he's a national hero in Tajikistan.––David Straub 01:02, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

 * THE HOLY GRAIL HAS BEEN FOUND!!! A HWR report that uses the term "ethnic cleansing"!!!! [Human Rights Watch Press Backgrounder on Tajikistan] from Oct 05 2001. The article states the following
 * “The war's greatest destruction and toll in civilian deaths was in the south, where Kuliabis and their allies conducted campaigns of "ethnic cleansing" against local residents of Gharmi and Pamiri origin.”

 * I’ve changed the wording of the article so that the above source is for the use of the term “ethnic cleansing” and that the term is contributed to Human Rights Watch.

 * Jahangard, I’ll give you the pleasure of removing the “accuracy dispute” tag :))))) ––David Straub 01:24, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

 * Jahangard, I think I've been a bit mean and uncivil about this. You had a legitimate question. Thanks for removing the tag. I hope there are no hard feelings.--David Straub 05:13, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I know that this issue was up more than 3 years ago, but... Claiming it to be "ethnic cleansing" cries out the question: what is "ethnicity"? Is Pamiri regional identity really "ethnicity"? And the fact that you found a HRW report that uses a word "ethnic cleansing" isn't really a valid argument, is it? I'd rather go with Olivier Roy and Lena Jonson who have written books on the issue (and said it to be regional) rather than HRW reports (written by people who have really never been to Tajikistan). Minff (talk) 03:56, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Picture is wrong
The picture used here is also used in the article on Dushanbe riots, which were in 1990 and directed against Armenian refugess from Azerbaidzhan. The title of the file says 1990. In other words, it does not belong here, since the article does not relate what happened after 1992 to what happened in Dushanbe two years before.--Paul Pieniezny (talk) 20:59, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Is there any other picture? InfocenterM (talk) 14:32, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Requested move 1 July 2015

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved to Tajikistani Civil War. Jenks24 (talk) 15:53, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Civil war in Tajikistan → Tajik Civil War – Must be consistent with articles in  format. Also concise. --Relisted. George Ho (talk) 09:02, 8 July 2015 (UTC) George Ho (talk) 06:38, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Tajik Civil War or Tajikistani Civil War? The demonym for the country is Tajikistani, and from what I understand (I could be wrong) "Tajik" usually refers only to the country's main ethnic group. Grutness...wha?  13:51, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Technically correct or not, "Tajikistani Civil War" is the least commonly-used name. I found several sources using it, but I'll present this year's sources instead: . Many sources use "Tajik"; here are recent examples: . Some of these sources use the current title, and this and that prove it. --George Ho (talk) 16:24, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

 * Tajikistan Civil War as it can't be confused with some schism within the Tajik ethnic community -- 67.70.32.20 (talk) 21:56, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong Support move to "Tajikistan Civil War" as per 67.70.32.20. Oppose "Tajik Civil War" because it is ambiguous, it can refer to Afghan civil war many of whose parties including Northern Alliance were ethnically Tajik dominated. Khestwol (talk) 22:25, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * With or without an "i" at the end? George Ho (talk) 23:20, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Without i at the end. This form seems more common. Khestwol (talk) 00:29, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Not really common. I found sources using it, but it's still not common. However, per WP:COMMONNAMES, even when commonly used, a name/title must be accurate and unambiguous. George Ho (talk) 01:11, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

 * Support Khestwol's suggestion. Grutness...wha?  01:07, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I suppose it's safe to say that even though we may not be in agreement on the right new name, we're all opposed to the current name, as am I. My personal preference is Tajik Civil War but I could except the other two proposals. Charles Essie (talk) 17:12, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support "Tajik Civil War" only – "Tajikistan" is not an adjective, and therefore cannot appear before "Civil War" in proper English. The correct adjective is "Tajik", and it must be used. "Tajik Civil War" is not ambiguous, because no part of the Afghan Civil War is ever called the "Tajik Civil War" by RS, rendering his concerns moot. This war, on the other hand is. RGloucester  — ☎ 18:08, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * "Tajikistan" can function as an adjective here. We have instances on English Wikipedia where the names of the stan countries do function as adjectives. See for example Yusufzai (disambiguation), where the phrase "an Afghanistan footballer" is used 3 times. There are also instances I have seen where "Kazakhstan" has been used as an adjective for anything/anyone relating to Kazakhstan. It is "Kazakhstan Stock Exchange" and "Kazakhstan Academy of Sciences", not "Kazakh Stock Exchange" and "Kazakh Academy of Sciences". Alternatively, we can also move this article to "Tajikistan's Civil War", however that would be less WP:CONCISE so I do not prefer that. "Tajik" is an ethnonym for the Tajiks (just as "Kazakh" is for the Kazakhs), it is not exclusively a demonym for someone from present-day Tajikistan. This article is meant to cover the present-day Tajikistan, not the entire Tajik territory (which also includes Afghan areas, but excludes Pamiri areas of eastern Tajikistan). Therefore saying "Tajikistan Civil War" is also more WP:PRECISE. Khestwol (talk) 21:24, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: but if and  insist so much on grammatical correctness then I am also fine with "Tajikistani Civil War" (with the i). Khestwol (talk) 16:34, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I wasn't insisting on which one is more correct; in fact, all of them are. Out of all correct titles, "Tajik" looks most common. But since you prefer "Tajikistan", that's fine and also correct. --George Ho (talk) 18:05, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * "Tajikistan" is more common than "Tajikistani", Khestwol. George Ho (talk) 18:06, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Except that "Tajik" is not a clear word for something relating to "Tajikistan". It is in fact either "Tajikistan" or "Tajikistani". Khestwol (talk) 18:09, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks though for agreeing with "Tajikistan Civil War" too. I am ok with both "Tajikistan Civil War" and "Tajikistani Civil War". Khestwol (talk) 18:40, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

 * Support "Tajikistani" per WP:PRECISE. Regarding "Tajikistan Civil War": country names are grammatically acceptable as noun adjuncts in some circumstances; there's a good (non-WP:RS) explanation at English Stackexchange. However I don't quite think "Tajikistan" falls into one of those circumstances. 58.176.246.42 (talk) 11:19, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Tajikistani Civil War. 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://web.archive.org/web/20110727094209/http://www.eawarn.ru/pub/Pubs/MultiEthnicEnglish/LGI_Olimov.htm to http://www.eawarn.ru/pub/Pubs/MultiEthnicEnglish/LGI_Olimov.htm
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20060617151815/http://eurasianet.org:80/resource/tajikistan/links/unmo22.html to http://www.eurasianet.org/resource/tajikistan/links/unmo22.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 19:44, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Role of Armenians in the conflict
There was not any anti-Armenian unrest during the war. I think that it should be delited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.68.237.47 (talk) 13:36, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm going to delete it, as it ain't backed by a single source.--83.37.244.205 (talk) 17:42, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:21, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Civil War in Tajikistan 1992-1997.png

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:52, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Civil War in Tajikistan1 1992-1997.jpg

Requested move 20 July 2023

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: (non-admin closure) Not moved and withdrawn by nominator. Walt Yoder (talk) 21:41, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Tajikistani Civil War → Tajik Civil War – Most people reffer to it like this. Plus, it’s just like the 2022 Kazakh unrest page name, which does not use “Kazakhstani” in its name. WikipedianRevolutionary (talk) 17:14, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:PRECISE. Tajiks are an ethnic group of people who live in a number of different countries, so the proposed title has ambiguity in it. "Tajikistani" makes it clear that it's a civil war that took place in the country of Tajikistan. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:37, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Understand now. I withdraw my opinion! WikipedianRevolutionary (talk) 16:30, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

 * Oppose per Rreagan007. estar8806 (talk) ★ 23:52, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Infobox "Result"
Please note that Template:Infobox military conflict states against "result" that "this parameter may use one of two standard terms: "X victory" or "Inconclusive"." The infobox has been amended to reflect this. Please read the template "result" guidance in full before amending or reverting. It would probably be best to discuss any proposed change here first to seek consensus. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:44, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Tajikistani Civil War


text:
Talk:Trienio Liberal

No consent to French actions
//Although the member states of the holy alliance shared a greater aversion to revolution than the British the organisation rarely met at this time and was described as: "A piece of sublime nonsense," "A ludicrous contract" and "A high sounding nothing," by representatives of Britain, France and Austria respectively, the latter a member of the alliance herself. //The quadruple Alliance did not issue a mandate for French intervention in Spain due to divisions of interests among its members. Instead French forces moved into Spain with the support of Russia, but with no Prussian or Austrian consent. The British expressly opposed the invasion, seeing it as a reversal of the peninsular wars. Indeed France's contradiction of the Alliance in her invasion of Spain has led many historians to declare this point as the effective end of the quadruple alliance.

82.9.197.45 18:54, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Not "Civil War"
I am sorry but I dont agree with the own existence of this article. The events in Spain between 1820-23 are never called "Civil War" in Spanish History. The 1820 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.103.37.88 (talk) 22:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

All about the French intervention
Nine-tenths of the article is about the French intervention. Fair enough, but that's what it should be called. The article should be split and the material on the whole period expanded. In Spain, the conflicts of 1820-1823 seem to be called the "liberal triennium". Say in the text that although it's not generally given the name of a civil war, the violence clearly anticipated the Carlist wars.

--JamesWim (talk) 16:04, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Status of the Article
I am firmly of the opinion that this article needs to be heavily revised at the least and perhaps more dramatic action needs to be taken as well. What sort of action needs to be taken I cannot say with any sort of confidence at this moment, but I will look into issue and reccommend a course of action once I have a better grasp of the subject matter. If anyone has any ideas at the moment, please feel free to opine. LeonidasSpartan (talk) 12:17, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Proposed correction
I believe that JamesWim have reason. I moved part of this article to "The Hundred Thousand Sons of St. Louis" and I recommend deletion of parts of "Trienio Liberal" about French intervention that I moved. I tried to make deletion but my changes were reverted, please view history of "Trienio Liberal" article and check if it's acceptable or not my proposed change dated 12 September. Thanks. 190.173.220.53 (talk) 06:30, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Why a Spanish name
Why was this article given a Spanish name instead of one that could be recognized and remembered by English speaking readers? I have no idea (nor do I care) what "Trienio" means or is supposed to mean. And why should I? Student7 (talk) 01:54, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

 * Student7, the word trienio is not Spanish, it is latin, and we have it in our own language as well (Trienium, like Millenium but three years). It is a cultism, I know, English use it hardly ever, but Spanish also do it in that way, just for the name Trienio liberal. I think the name is suitable for the article, but I don't think the same about the content. This articles refers to the invasion of the three million and seven sons of St. Louis. Trienio Liberal is just a politic period in which liberals took control of Spain, not a war... Piockñec (talk) 15:38, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

 * The word trienio is in Spanish and it means "a three-year period". The article was named as such because it is the WP:Most common name used in sources for this period of time. The meaning of the phrase should be, of course, explained in the first line of the article. Salut, --IANVS (talk) 04:53, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

french intervention content
i removed some of the content about the french intervention because it is already contained in Hundred Thousand Sons of Saint Louis, and the article about trienio liberal is mainly about a historical period and its political developments like the liberal goverment, the tensions between liberals and absolutist, the social impact of the liberal reforms, and much less of how it ended. Even so a small inset about the french intervention is included according to the relevance of the internationl implications of the liberal revolution.--Andres rojas22 (talk) 01:53, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

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

title: Talk:Trienio Liberal


text:
Beachwood Canyon, Los Angeles

Beachwood Canyon is a community in the Hollywood Hills, in the northern portion of Hollywood in Los Angeles, California. The upper portion of the canyon is the Hollywoodland community that was advertised in the 1920s by the original of what is now known as the Hollywood Sign. The neighborhood features its own market, cafe, private mailbox rental, florist and stables.

History
Home to more than 22,000 residents, Beachwood Canyon was first developed in the 1920s by a syndicate composed of West Hollywood's founder, Gen. M. H. Sherman; Los Angeles Times publisher Harry Chandler; and real estate mogul Sidney Woodruff (who also developed Dana Point). The architects and landscapers who developed the enclave drew inspiration from the southern regions of France, Italy and Spain, as well as the turreted castles of Germany, building in the Storybook house architectural style

Film directors have favored the canyon over the years, so movies such as the original Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1956) were filmed there, with terrorized masses running down Belden Drive.

Notable residents (past and present)

 * Steve Agee, comedian, actor, writer
 * Kevin Bacon, actor
 * Ned Beatty, actor
 * Jamie Bell, actor
 * Jack Black, actor
 * Humphrey Bogart, actor
 * Adam Carolla, radio and television personality
 * Guy Chambers, English songwriter and record producer
 * Steve Coogan, English comic actor
 * Lisa Coleman, Musician
 * Charlie Chaplin
 * David Cook, Musician and winner of American Idol
 * Chris D'Elia, American actor and comedian
 * Mac Danzig, American mixed-martial artist
 * William De Los Santos, poet, screenwriter and film director
 * Peter Deuel, actor
 * Dean Delray, comedian and actor
 * Alexandre Desplat, composer
 * Minnie Driver, actress
 * Gustavo Dudamel, Music Director of the Los Angeles Philharmonic
 * Fred Durst, musician
 * James Duval, actor
 * Peg Entwistle, Broadway actress who died by suicide from atop the HOLLYWOODLAND sign in 1932
 * Peter Freeman, multi-instrumentalist and music producer
 * Anna Friel, actress
 * Halsey, singer
 * George Furth, actor
 * Troy Garity, actor
 * Kim Gardner, singer and restaurateur
 * Heather Graham, actress
 * Aldous Huxley, English writer and novelist
 * Laura Huxley, author and lecturer
 * Maynard James Keenan, singer and songwriter
 * Anna Kendrick, actress
 * Anthony Kiedis, singer and songwriter
 * Mila Kunis, actress
 * Heath Ledger, actor
 * Sharmagne Leland-St. John, poet, author, filmmaker, concert performer
 * David Livingston, Television Director and Producer
 * Bela Lugosi, actor
 * Lykke Li, singer
 * Madonna, singer, actress, and director
 * Jason Mantzoukas, actor
 * Ray Manzarek, singer and songwriter
 * Chris Matthews, political commentator
 * Jack McBrayer, actor
 * Wendy Melvoin, Musician
 * Thomas Middleditch, actor
 * Moby, Musician, DJ, and photographer
 * D.W. Moffett, actor, writer, and director
 * Jack Nitzsche, musician, composer
 * Hal Ozsan, actor
 * Teresa Palmer, actress
 * Keanu Reeves, actor
 * Margot Robbie, actress and film producer
 * William N. Robson, musician and radio producer
 * Howard A. Rodman, screenwriter and novelist
 * Samantha Ronson, DJ
 * Axl Rose, musician
 * Camille Rowe, model
 * Andy Samberg, comedian, and Joanna Newsom, musician
 * Ben Schwartz, comedian, actor
 * Grant Show, actor
 * Jessica Simpson, singer, actor
 * Brooke Smith, actress
 * Michael Sopkiw, actor
 * Ralph Story, radio and television personality
 * Harry Styles, musician and actor
 * John Taylor, musician
 * David Thewlis, actor
 * Louis Tomlinson, singer
 * Peter Tork, singer
 * Dean Torrence, singer
 * Robert Townsend, actor and director
 * Mayra Veronica, singer and author, Miss USO
 * Antonio Villaraigosa, Former California gubernatorial candidate and former mayor of Los Angeles
 * Jack Webb, actor
 * Jane Wiedlin, guitarist and member of the all female band The Go-Go's
 * Forest Whitaker, actor, director and producer
 * Hana Vu, singer and songwriter
 * Charli XCX, singer
 * Regina King, actor, director, and producer
 * Bobby Lee, comedian, actor

Education
The neighborhood is zoned to LAUSD schools.
 * Cheremoya Elementary School
 * Le Conte Middle School
 * Hollywood High School

title: Beachwood Canyon, Los Angeles


text:
Talk:List of Roman civil wars and revolts

Sulla
Excuse me...but I was under the impression Sulla's march on Rome was a success (initial in 88BC). AFTER he left Rome Marius returned and conducted his slaughter. But if you classify Sulla's second march on Rome as separate it strikes me that you should classify Marius' march as distinct from Sulla's first march.

Also, I think the names of the Republican wars are unencyclopedic - such as 'Final War of the Roman Republic'.

I would agree with you, I've changed the 1st Sullan Civil War to a Sullan victory. However, it might be worth adding that Marius temporarily took Rome leading up to the 2nd Sullan war? - Norminator (talk) 11:38, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

why is this article on the republican civil wars only???
Why aren't any of the civil wars of the empire written about here? - PocklingtonDan 19:47, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

 * Because the article is incomplete. Most of Wikipedia's articles are incompleete, save - possibly - some of the article which have been edited to "featured" caliber. Feel free to expand when you find a lack. - Vedexent (talk) - 19:53, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Lepidus and Sertorius
Shouldn't we add the Sertorian revolt in Spain as a civil war as well and also add the revolt of Lepidus and Brutus in 77 BC? -- fdewaele, 12 July 2008, 12:53 (CET).

The article stats that ceasar fought against 'conservative republicans). This is incorrect and one can say POV. Ceasar fought against reactionarys that were in the senate. other civil wars that were listed stated senate forces against .....

should it not be ceasar against senatorial forces? After all sulla and his optimates beat the populares in his second civil war but it doesn't say Sulla versus Liberal republicans —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.117.17.200 (talk) 22:55, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

44 BC
The so-called Post-Caesarian civil war (44 BC) merely links to Battle of Mutina. Although treating the military history of individual battles is a good way to focus on the details of strategy, the history of the civil war in this year shouldn't be carved up into bits; that is, there's no reason to have a "post-Caesarian civil war" article that is separate from the Liberators' civil war (44–42 BC). I would suggest having a unified article on the war as a subject of history (political and social history), with separate articles on notable battles. Cynwolfe (talk) 20:52, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Servile Wars
Should the Servile Wars be included? I think they should be considered "civil wars" by an ordinary definition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by InformationvsInjustice (talk • contribs) 04:25, 6 October 2016 (UTC)


text:
RRD

RRD may refer to

 * Rejimen Renjer DiRaja, the Malaysian Army Royal Ranger Regiment
 * Reti Radiotelevisive Digitali
 * Rolls-Royce Deutschland
 * Round-Robin Database
 * RR Donnelley, a printing and communications company based in Chicago, Illinois

title: RRD


text:
Devario annandalei

Devario annandalei is a species of fish of the family Cyprinidae found in the Salween, Chao Phraya, and Mekong river basins in Myanmar  and Thailand. It grows to 9 cm standard length.

title: Devario annandalei


text:
User:Jasminek

Hello, i am jasminek, or dude if you prefer.

Interests

 * Buddhism
 * Unix like operating systems
 * Programming in c

Contact

 * e-mail: dude%apcoh,org
 * Gadu-Gadu: 1106075

title: User:Jasminek


text:
Lee Jung Hyun II

Lee Jung Hyun II is Lee Jung Hyun's untitled second album, it was released on June 1, 2000. It is sometimes called "Peace", "Lee Jung Hyun 2nd", or "You" since its official title was never revealed.

Track listing
Track listing and credits adapted from Melon and the Korea Music Copyright Association song database.

title: Lee Jung Hyun II


text:
Ray Muzyka

Raymond Alexander Muzyka is a Canadian investor, entrepreneur and physician. Originally trained as a medical doctor and practicing as an emergency department and family physician after graduation, he is the co-founder of video game developer BioWare, and was CEO, senior vice president, and general manager of the BioWare label of Electronic Arts. In October 2012 he announced that he was embarking on a 'third career' mentoring and angel investing in technology, new media, medical and social entrepreneurs, and impact investing at ThresholdImpact.

Career
Muzyka co-founded BioWare, which was incorporated in 1995, with Greg Zeschuk and Augustine Yip, in the early 1990s after they earned their medical degrees at the University of Alberta. After selling BioWare to Electronic Arts in 2008, Muzyka became a general manager and vice president at EA in addition to his CEO role at BioWare, and subsequently was promoted to senior vice president and general manager of the BioWare label at EA.

In addition to his project development role, Muzyka has also managed the financial, human resources, operations, marketing and legal business side of BioWare, and he completed his executive Masters in Business Administration (MBA) program in 2001 at the Ivey School of Business, UWO. He completed his Medical Doctorate (MD) in 1992 from the University of Alberta, and subsequently obtained his specialization from the Canadian College of Family Physicians (CCFP) in 1994. Muzyka was named as one of Canada's "Top 40 under 40" in 2001, received Ernst and Young's Entrepreneur of the Year award (Software and Information, Prairies) in 2001, and the BDC Young Entrepreneur of the Year award in 1997. Muzyka also graduated from Old Scona Academic High School in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada where he took the International Baccalaureate program, finishing fourth worldwide and first in North America the year he graduated. Muzyka was inducted into the Academy of Interactive Arts and Sciences' Hall of Fame in 2011., received the Lifetime Achievement award from the International Game Developers Choice Awards in 2013, and was named as the 2017 Allard Chair in Business at MacEwan University. He was named into the Alberta Business Hall of Fame in 2018. On December 27, 2018, Muzyka was appointed to the Order of Canada. In 2019 Muzyka received the Rod Charko Service Award from the Venture Capital Association of Alberta for his service to the startup entrepreneurial community in the province of Alberta.

Muzyka is an active member of the Young Presidents' Organization (YPO), and a Charter Member of the A100 since 2012. He has also served as the Founding Chair of the University of Alberta Venture Mentoring Service since fall 2013, a program intended to help develop, uplift and inspire University of Alberta student and alumni entrepreneurs by creating excellent mentorship experiences for both entrepreneurs and mentors. Muzyka served from 2014 to 2020 as a member of the University of Alberta Board of Governors, and as Chair of the Human Resources and Compensation Committee. He serves as a mentor in the Creative Destruction Lab (CDL West Prime and Health, CDL Rockies Prime, CDL Toronto Health). Muzyka was a board member of the Academy of Interactive Arts and Sciences from 2001 to 2008. He also served the Stollery Children's Hospital Foundation as a volunteer Director on their Board of Trustees from 2012 to late 2015.

In October 2012 Muzyka announced on the BioWare website that he was retiring from the video game industry and that he is moving on to a 'third career chapter', mentoring and investing in entrepreneurs in technology, new media, medical innovation, and social entrepreneurs and impact investing. He announced his new company, Threshold Impact, in early 2013, to be focused on "sustainable, profitable impact investing".

An avid poker player who plays in the WSOP and other events each year, Muzyka won the inaugural DICE poker tournament, in 2006 which featured a range of notable poker celebrities such as Scott Fischman, Chris Ferguson and Perry Friedman, playing heads-up with Mike Morhaime from Blizzard Entertainment at the final table. He also became the only player thus far to win the DICE tournament twice, when he chopped the final table with three other players for first place again in the 2010 DICE tournament. He competed in the 2008 WCPC CPT Main Event (Western Canadian Main Event, Canadian Poker Tour) and chopped the final table with the final four players to take home the 2008 WCPC ring. He finished 374th of 7319 players in the 2010 Main Event of the WSOP.

BioWare projects credited with platforms and dates

 * Shattered Steel (PC and Mac, 1996)
 * Baldur's Gate (PC and Mac, 1998)
 * Baldur's Gate: Tales of the Sword Coast (PC and Mac, 1999)
 * MDK2 (Dreamcast and PC, 2000)
 * Baldur's Gate II: Shadows of Amn (PC and Mac, 2000)
 * Baldur's Gate II: Throne of Bhaal (PC and Mac, 2001)
 * MDK2: Armageddon (PS2, 2001)
 * Neverwinter Nights (PC and Mac, 2002)
 * Neverwinter Nights: Shadows of Undrentide (PC and Mac, 2003)
 * Neverwinter Nights: Hordes of the Underdark (PC and Mac, 2003)
 * Neverwinter Nights: Kingmaker (PC and Mac, 2005)
 * Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic ("KotOR") (Xbox and PC and Mac, 2003)
 * Jade Empire (Xbox, 2005/PC, 2006)
 * Mass Effect (Xbox 360, 2007/PC, 2008/PlayStation 3, 2012)
 * Sonic Chronicles: The Dark Brotherhood (2008)
 * Dragon Age: Origins (PC, Xbox 360, PlayStation 3 and Mac, 2009)
 * Mass Effect 2 (Xbox 360, PC, 2010)(PlayStation 3, 2011)
 * Dragon Age II (PC, Xbox 360, PlayStation 3, 2011)
 * Star Wars: The Old Republic (PC, 2011)
 * Mass Effect 3 (PC, Xbox 360, PlayStation 3, 2012)

Awards and recognition
In 2009, he was chosen by IGN as one of the top 100 game creators of all time alongside BioWare co-founder Greg Zeschuk.

At the Game Developers Choice Awards, on March 27, 2013, Muzyka was awarded the Lifetime Achievement Award.

On December 27, 2018, Muzyka was appointed to the Order of Canada.

title: Ray Muzyka


text:
Devario laoensis

Devario laoensis is a species of danionin, a group of small minnow-type fish belonging to the family Cyprinidae. They are native to the fresh waters of Southeast Asia.

title: Devario laoensis


text:
User talk:Nineteenthly

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

deletions
At a guess, you share an IP address with someone who has deleted content anonymously. There should be no issues once you're logged in with this account. — Lomn | Talk / RfC 18:30, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Chat reminder
Welcome to Wikipedia! I am glad to see you are interested in discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 02:33, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of College of Practitioners of Phytotherapy
A tag has been placed on College of Practitioners of Phytotherapy requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for organizations and companies. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Halestock (talk) 17:43, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:03, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of College of Practitioners of Phytotherapy

A tag has been placed on College of Practitioners of Phytotherapy requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a company, corporation or organization that does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the. Ploni (talk) 16:27, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of College of Practitioners of Phytotherapy

The article College of Practitioners of Phytotherapy has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern: "No credible claim of significance."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Ploni (talk) 21:15, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

title: User talk:Nineteenthly


text:
Greg Zeschuk

Gregory Zeschuk (born 1969) is a Canadian businessman who was a VP at Electronic Arts and General Manager at BioWare Austin until 2012. He co-founded video game developer BioWare in Edmonton in 1995 with Ray Muzyka and Augustine Yip, after all three earned their medical degrees from the University of Alberta. Zeschuk announced his retirement from BioWare on September 18, 2012. He is currently involved in a number of projects related to the craft-beer industry, including the production of a web-based interview show known as "The Beer Diaries." Greg is also the chairman of the board of the smart playground technology startup, Biba Ventures based in Vancouver, BC.

In 2009, he was chosen by IGN as one of the top 100 game creators of all time alongside Ray Muzyka.

Early life
Zeschuk was born and raised in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. Growing up, Zeschuk played many role-playing games, including Dungeons & Dragons, saying he felt they were "always the strongest experience." During his childhood, he spent one summer making games on his Apple computer with a group of his friends.

Founding of BioWare
Zeschuk attended the University of Alberta, studying medicine, where he met fellow medical students Ray Muzyka and Augustine Yip working on medical simulation programs. During their residency, the first software they produced was called the Acid-Base Simulator. Zeschuk graduated in 1992, and was appointed Research Associate in the Division of Studies in Medical Education along with Muzyka. Zeschuk then spent two years training in both the US and Canada. In 1994, he and Muzyka began working on a piece of medical simulator software called Gastroenterology Patient Simulator. While working on this, the team realised they were more passionate about video game development rather than medical software. Zeschuck, Muzyka and Yip pooled together $100,000 and set out to make their first game. BioWare was incorporated on 1 February 1995 in a small room in Zeschuk's basement.

Awards and recognition
At the Game Developers Choice Awards, on March 27, 2013, Zeschuk received the Lifetime Achievement Award.

On December 27, 2018, Zeschuk was appointed to the Order of Canada.

title: Greg Zeschuk


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of NHL draft busts

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep (see my talk for full explanation) Wikibofh 17:03, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

List of NHL draft busts
Nomination: For same reasons that List of NHL Draft Steals should be deleted (and for the sake of consistency), this should be deleted. Specifically, the very fact that the opening sentence admits the topic is by nature unencyclopedic makes, to me at least, a very compelling argument for excluding it from Wikipedia. Concerns regarding its seemingly arbitrary inclusion criteria are also influencing me. Finally, I'm not moved by the fact that it's part of a wikiproject, as I don't think the fact that an entry's editors have formally grouped themselves together with a collective name entitles them or their articles to a looser reading of WP:NOT, particularly section 1.7 and the overarching principle that Wikipedia is not to become an indiscriminate collection of information. This, I feel, is essentially cruft, and cruft is cruft, and being part of a wikiproject shouldn't be treated as some sort of imprimatur on cruft. The Literate Engineer 18:31, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Inherently POV-based distinction, no matter how lengthy the lead-in text is and how many italicized phrases it contains. -The Tom 00:10, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, same as NHL draft steals. Inherent POV. Rhobite 02:12, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, same as NHL draft steals. However, this is a bit different because the criteria can be changed very easily too something along the lines of "this is a list of first-round draft picks who failed to play at least 50 games in the NHL". Croat Canuck 03:50, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Very Strong Keep While I agree that it can sometimes be difficult to determine which players belong on this list, there are plenty of players that can only be described as "Draft Busts". For example, can you really call Neil Brady any thing but a draft bust? While this article borders on POV, I feel that there are enough relevant players who belong on this list to make it NPOV. Is it possible to keep this if it was cleaned up and strong criteria was set for players to be included? I really think that this is a relevant list. For an example of an irrelevant list see here List of oldest MLB players. Now that list is unneccessary and POV. Masterhatch 03:58, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge with List of Sports Flops better off there --JAranda | watz sup 04:58, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * comment How on God's good green Earth is List of Sports Flops not up for deletion? How is it that Sports Flops are less POV than NHL Draft Busts? Let's compare: "List of Sports Flops": an incomplete simple list of players from many leagues with no stats or other information vs. "List of NHL Draft Busts": an almost complete list of which the players' stats are mentioned and a comparision to other players from the same year is made. I say clean-up the NHL draft busts article and keep it. List of Sports Flops survived the deletion process, so I have hope for this article surving. Masterhatch 06:32, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment Thanks for pointing out the sports flops list to me, yall. I'll be giving that its second nomination shortly.  The Literate Engineer 15:26, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: if the list of NHL (NFL) draft busts have to go, then so do all of these List of commercial failures, List of flops in entertainment, List of military disasters, List of political flops, List of famous failures in science and engineering, and List of commercial failures in computer and video gaming. There is already a precendent set on Wikipedia for this kind of thing. Why are sports exempt? While the NFL list needs a lot of work, the NHL list is pretty good. With some criteria setting, I see no reason why this list can't be kept! The aforementioned lists are just as valid as a list of draft busts. A player drafted 2nd overall who plays only 10 games and scores nothing can't be anything but a bust. Let's be consistent and either keep all or delete all. If it isn't POV to list video game flops, then it definately isn't POV to list Draft Busts. Masterhatch 17:00, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as per The Literate Engineer. -- Kjkolb 08:42, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, POV. --fvw *  04:09, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Keep. The very nature of sports involves superlatives that can be considered a matter of opinion, between players and teams widely believed to be "great" or "mediocre" and the subjectivity of performance in general.  That being said, there is in fact a reasonable consensus opinion, undisputed in the discussions taking place concerning the article, and a similar consensus in the hockey community at large.  RGTraynor 06:04, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Subject list without criteria, ergo unencyclopedic. Xoloz 12:26, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep I understand that some of the busts on this list may be debatable, but I feel that this isn't POV because the definition of a bust is pretty much solidified. For example, everyone believes that Brian Lawton, Doug Wickenheiser, and Alexandre Daigle are nothing but busts (although some could say that Daigle may be redeemed due to his comeback with Minnesota) and all of these players have had, in some cases, successful careers. Why are they busts? They are busts because, as the definition on the Draft Bust page says, they are "A first-round draft pick who has failed to live up to the expectations levyed upon the player when their respective team drafted him" At the same time, players like Jason Bonsignore, Alexandre Volchkov, and Neil Brady are busts for obvious reasons (like failing to solidify a spot on an NHL roster at any time in his NHL career). As you can see, the bust is pretty much a solid definition and there isn't much of a range for POV. The steal, however, is a different story and has caused uproar on this site. I believe the first sentence of the paragraph is pretty misleading. If I have time, i'll change it. --Hossmann 23:55, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep ccwaters 23:58, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, inherently POV. Jkelly 00:01, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. Even fvw and Rhobite thinks it needs to go. Ryan Norton T 02:12, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.


text:
Talk:King George's War

Note on the name
A blub at the begining should make clear that the name King George's War is only used in American (US) historiography. It has different names in English Canada, French Canada, the UK, and France. Kevlar67 20:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

 * I was a History major in college in the U.S., & never have heard the term King George's War. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:cf99:2080:9cbc:faa0:e212:c214 (talk) 00:57, May 7, 2017 (UTC)

Another name
The European names of those conflicts are more used in French. Therefore, it would be called Austrian Succession War as well. --ThoMiCroN (t) 23:06, 7 February 2018 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThoMiCroN (talk • contribs)

title: Talk:King George's War


text:
Talk:French and Indian Wars

request for peer review, Battle of the Thousand islands
Peer review/Battle of the Thousand Islands/archive1
 * I Just finished up the main body of this article on a relitivly small engagemet of the French and Indian War. I'm hopeing a peer review will bring some suggestions on how the article can be improved and hopfully bring some more info on the subject. I'd like to see more info on some of the personalities that don't have they're own page to link to, and some more detail on how the battle developed... Any input would be very much appreciated! Mike McGregor (Can) 18:13, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

 * The French and Indian Wars ended with the ejection of France from North America. The American War of Independence was heavily backed by Catholic France, and achieved the aim of dramatically reducing English power in North America -- the original objective of the French and Indian Wars.
 * The American War of Independence is, therefore, merely the "5th French & Indian War" -- like the previous 4, it involved France (and its allies) fighting England.
 * These 5 wars also need to be set in the context of the Catholic Counter Reformation against the Protestants.
 * It is no accident that these conflicts -- which were merely the local North American footprint of a much larger, indeed Titanic, global struggle -- pitted Catholic France against Protestant England. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.235.44.73 (talk) 20:38, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

 * No the French entered the war later and in smaller numbers than the other participants - and America stayed largely Protestant. The Americans were also backed by the Dutch - should this be the Fourth Anglo-Dutch War, too? Rmhermen — Preceding undated comment added 20:58, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

 * Yes. According to the Army.mil website (http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/books/RevWar/ss/langdon.htm), Catholic France had already begun exporting arms to the Americans by 1777.  They entered OVERTLY later, true, but COVERTLY they were in it from the outset.  Also, according to the Fourth Anglo-Dutch War entry (as of 28 May, 2006), the Dutch "Patriots" who enflamed public hatred towards Protestant England were "Pro-French", ie, pro-CATHOLIC.  And, proving the point, the Dutch also worked hand in glove with CATHOLIC Spain as well.  The Dutch were clearly 1) under the influence of pro-Catholic agents and 2) unambiguously and openly allied, in WAR, with the Catholic bloc.  The Fourth Anglo-Dutch War (1780-84) was a victory for CATHOLIC French diplomacy, by opening up another front against the hated Protestant English empire.  See also the note about Robin Reilly in the War of 1812 article:
 * Some historians, such as Robin Reilly, have argued that the declaration of war on Great Britain by the United States was a victory for French diplomacy, forcing Britain to divert its attention and some resources from continental matters. From a British perspective, there was certainly no reason to commence a war with the United States. Britain had been engaged in a desperate war with France since 1793 and depended on American supplies to maintain Wellington's army in Spain. Any combat in North America would merely be a distraction from the main effort to contain and defeat the French in Europe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.235.44.73 (talk) 23:06, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Adding information
I am in the process of adding a lot of information to the first 3 French and Indian wars, seeing as they have been neglected so. I'm starting with the 1690 Battle of Quebec. AmericanColumbia — Preceding undated comment added 05:25, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Intercolonial Wars
Re: "no one uses those names for these wars". First off - I do. Secondly, I appreciated your attempt to discuss it here first. Thirdly, I'm a history teacher in Quebec and I am required by law to teach my students the "Intercolonial Wars". If the students cannot identify which war was the second v.s. the fourth, then they will be penalized. Their final provincial history exams are requirements for a high school leaving certificate. Here are some links that use the "Intercolonial Wars" I didn't look to see if these are academic sources, but the point is that some people use the term. Frankly Rmhermen, I'm surprised by the speed at which you repeatedly moved on this item given your extensive and reputable contributions to Wikipedia. Trapper 05:46, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * http://www.gbl.indiana.edu/archives/miamis16/M65_1a.html
 * http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~wjmartin/chapter1.htm
 * http://web.cortland.edu/woosterk/deming.html

 * "1st Intercolonial War" yields zero Google hits, ditto "2nd...". Not to mention the obvious fact that these are not the first, second etc. wars between colonies, between American colonies or even between France and Britian in the American colonies. Neither your first nor your third link is using that as the title of a war and as a description it is clearly misleading and something we have no need to repeat. Rmhermen 05:55, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

 * Okay, I don't know why you are continueing with this but, type in "First Intercolonial War", "second.." etc. I don't know what else I can say. I thought my explanation was sufficient.  I told you there is a definite need for those terms yet you seem to be intent on ignoring my reason.  I will now scan the children's textbook to prove it to you.  Trapper 06:06, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

 * "First Intercolonial war" yields very few hits - less than a dozen, two duplicates from Quebec and 3 others from 1849, 1855 and 1904. Did I miss something? Also searched on Ask.com, msn, and yahoo found only one metadata in a book review and one timeline - using it not as a proper name.Rmhermen 06:12, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

 * "Very few hits" means people use the term. Below is the scan of the Quebec provincial text book "The History of Quebec and Canada in a nutshell", by Brian Maddock.  It is a required text province wide. Trapper 06:26, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

 * Well, it does appear that you use the translation of the French "la première guerre intercoloniale" in Quebec but that is not a widespread usage as shown by the web searches. Perhaps a comment in the table about the Quebec names of these wars is in order but certainly those names do not deserve first location in the table. Rmhermen 06:34, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

 * All I'm looking for is some sort of compromise where people in Quebec can be properly directed to the correct wars. I fully understand that the intercolonial wars are not significantly used outside of quebec, but when it's the only term used within quebec, the Wikipedia article might be difficult for some English speakers in Quebec to understand. Trapper 06:43, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

 * How's this version? Rmhermen 06:43, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

 * Very kind. Thank you. Trapper 06:45, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Went to french high school in Quebec and have younger siblings doing the same in the past decade; if the expression has currency in public education, it's extremely recent. Up to that point the wars were mostly refered to by their broader, european name or in a few cases in the early colonial period as the french-iroquois wars, but that's an episode of the beaver wars. 216.252.78.183 (talk) 21:15, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

 * FWIW, I was specifically looking up "Intercolonial Wars" and got here. Maybe it's not that big of a deal, same article / different name.  "French and Indian Wars" does smack of a distinctively U.S. (English colonial) point of view, however.  Certainly France- one of the two major belligerents in this series of conflicts- didn't think of this as a war against French & (American) Indians.  It also excludes the corresponding European theaters between the two colonial powers, not to mention the battles in Africa and India.  Maybe Intercolonial Wars should be an expanded version of this article? Canute (talk) 17:37, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Americanocentrism should be more evident
I should first mention I'm Canadian. Now, I've never heard these names for the North American theatres of the wars before (e.g. King William's War, Queen Anne's War, etc.) except for the French and Indian War, which I know as the American name for the Seven Years' War.

Though the article does state that the "French and Indian Wars" collective title is used in the U.S., it should be clearer that the usage of these names are (as far as I am aware) confined to the U.S. --Saforrest 04:43, 21 June 2006 (UTC)`

 * I'm not sure of Wikipedia's official stance on this, but... I would think that both refernences on the web, but also published works in books and magazines, etc. in the English language should be a determinant of whether an article name should be labelled on the basis of place used (French and Indian Wars vs Intercolonial Wars).  Now, often British terms might be better used on the basis of Internationallly-used English or European English (aluminum vs. aluminium, stevedore vs longshoreman) -- but this case of historical terminology... especially for wars that were fought on what is presently United States territory, I think a case can be made for keeping US terminology.  Usage of qualifiers like "usage confined to Canada" makes sense when its mere 32 million Canadian users and small publishing industry is compared to 300 million in the US with giant, one might even say dominant, English language publishing industries. "Confined to the US" smacks of anti-US sentiment rather than clarifying or enlightened terminology  Cuvtixo 17:31, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

canadian bent?
it seems to me that a lot of the history i'm reading on wikipedia lately has been written from a canadian perspective. first- thank you to the historians doing so much thorough contributions to this wiki. but i have to also say that though this is, in a way refreshing, it is also confusing. so, i guess this is a request for a more well-rounded take on these pages. (this coming from an "american" whose country creates a bias in all history....) it definitely raises some questions about how to write "general history" for a world-wide resource.

thanks 66.93.38.197 05:06, 17 June 2007 (UTC) honeyduck

Louisiana Purchase
Why is it needed to have this 'Wikimarkup'? At least create an WYSIWYG editor (within reason). Anyway the more I look at Wikipedia the more it's obvious that too much information is wrong. And with as little of Wikipedia as I read and as little as I know for me to be catching these says something.

Anyway, this article states that the War of Independence and the American Revolution and the series of 'French / English' caused the French to loose all their New World Territories but doesn't even mention the Louisiana Purchase which happened in the 19th Century.

And there is this 'Canadian / American War Nomenclature' business which is just ill. Using a commonly used European name for a war doesn't make you seem smart; given European history it seems to indicate the opposite. In cases where something has two or more commonly used names mention the names but don't try and stir up trouble with a he said / she said nonsense. ThunderCell (talk) 00:56, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

 * No error here. France gave Louisiana to Spain in 1762 at the end of these wars and reclaimed it only in 1800, shortly before selling it to the U.S. Which is all covered in the Louisiana Purchase article. Rmhermen (talk) 23:21, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

British imperialism
"In the longer term, however, the Covenant Chain was a tool of British imperialism, destructive to its Indian members." User:Dilidor is removing this sentence with the motivation: "outrageously one-sided perspective, regardless of having citation".

The question is: What shall we trust? An eminent scholar chosen as an author in Handbook of North American Indians by the Smithsonian Insitution, or Dildors unsubstantiated opinions? If they doesn't approve, I suggest they find a scholar with a different opinion. Creuzbourg (talk) 08:17, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

 * Creuzbourg: A) At the very least, you need to say "according to the views of so-and-so..." in order make it clear that this is the opinion of some modern writer; B) you have thrown out an immensely incendiary accusation concerning some "tool of British imperialism" without any explanation on how it was a tool or what it accomplished or what its ramifications were or why it was destructive or any of the myriad details which such an accusation raises, all of which would require a separate paragraph at least to explain—and balanced presentation would then urge you to present an alternate or opposing view in another paragraph; C) imposing modern sensibilities onto historical topics only serves to further some modern political agendas, it does not help us understand what happened or why it happened or what resulted—especially since these modern sensibilities and agendas did not even exist in the historical context of our topic; D) the sentence does not add anything useful to the article, other than some political viewpoints and agenda of some insignificant modern writer. —Dilidor (talk) 10:03, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

 * Thank you for answering me in a clear and concise way, although I do not appreciate your undoing of my reversion before reaching a consensus. I do not think the statements is based on modern sensibilities, but the balanced judgement of a historian, or ethnohistorian. But your other points are well worth considering. On a second thought, therefore, I would say that the sentence in question does not fit into a survey article as this. Development of the arguments would take too much space for a topic that is not at the core of the article. I will therefore let your reversion stand. Creuzbourg (talk) 10:16, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Dummer's War 1722-1725
if I click on Dummer's War I learn that it was from 1722-1725, which is outside the 1702-1713 limits of Queen Anne's War. Is it a 5th Intercolonial / French and Indian Wars war, or it's own thing? How can it be an alternate name for Queen Anne's War if it is outside the timeframe? Skates61 (talk) 19:09, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Tactics
The para about tactics is poorly written and inadequately referenced. Humpster (talk) 07:16, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

"European" wars
The table which lists various names has column headings "North American War" and "European War". Both are incorrect, so I propose to change them. "North American War" should be "Name in United States", while "European War" should be Global name or Global war, or perhaps "name everywhere else"

The page following the table states that naming conventions differ between Canada and the United States; I don't know about Mexico. Nevertheless, the column title is incorrect. Similarly, the seven years war was fought globally. I don't know if only European countries were involved. In either case, the column title is misleading. Although the logic seems unassailable, I'll leave this topic for comment before I make any changes. Humpster (talk) 02:09, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:French and Indian Wars


text:
Talk:King William's War

Untitled
I have read that the war started in 1690, should the start date of the war be changed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fishingmusic (talk • contribs) 02:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Note on the name
A blub at the beginning should make clear that the name King William's War is only used in American (US) historiography. It has different names in English Canada, French Canada, the UK, and France. Kevlar67 20:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

 * Feel free to add those names to the intro. I don't know what they are. Funnyhat 05:04, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

 * Yes. It must be made clear that KWW is the North American name for the Nine Years War. NOT just the name given to the north American theatre. Rebel Redcoat (talk) 13:55, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

 * Take the beginning of Queen Anne's War for example: "Queen Anne's War (1702–1713), as it was known in the English colonies, was the..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by DondeEsAntonio (talk • contribs) 21:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Great job
I just want to commend everyone who helped write this article. A lot of Wikipedia articles tend to "go in one ear and out the other", but this one was very easy to read and made sense, and was very helpful in providing the information I needed. Thankyou. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DondeEsAntonio (talk • contribs) 21:14, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Andros a Catholic?
Is there a reference for the assertion that Andros was a Catholic? If so, it should be added, and the entry on Anros be revised because it notes he was an Anglican. (I suspect the latter is actually correct.) AnthroMimus (talk) 02:21, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

 * From at least one source, Andros was accused of being papist by New Englanders. However, Puritans used this term as much to refer to conforming Anglicans as Catholics, at least when they were propagandizing.  Magic ♪piano 02:57, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

 * I see the reference, thanks, Magicpiano. (And sorry for the dely in response.) The question I have is if he in fact was Catholic why did the very Protestant establishment after the Bill of Rights of 1689 allow him to be returned as a crown agent in Virginia? Wouldn't it be safer to say "Andros, thought by many New Englanders to be a papist and in any event appointed by the Catholic King James ..."? AnthroMimus (talk) 03:17, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

 * The reality is that Andros' religion isn't really important in this article, so I've removed mention of it entirely. (It's certainly more relevant in other articles involving him.)  Magic ♪piano 13:33, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Merge?
This article includes links to Canada (New France) and New France. With the titles being almost identical and a lot of the content duplicated, the case for merging them seems quite strong. I know very little on this subject and lack the expertise to do it. What do other editors think? RASAM (talk) 21:52, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Inadequate Map of King William War
The map of King William's War does not adequately reflect the New England incursions into Acadia or the incursions on present-day Maine. Is there someone who could work on this?--Hantsheroes (talk) 08:59, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

 * Have you asked the map's author?  Magic ♪piano 14:13, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

The lead should be a summary
From the lead guideline "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies."

However to meet this requirement so that those who use search engines can navigate to the correct page it is necessary to get a brief description over in the first paragraph. If one searches for this using Google Search the current page returns

That does not help anyone understand what it is about, because all it is doing is listing alternative names. As it happens Google has recently been putting up its own definitions which it extracts from Wikipedia or from wikidata (I am not sure which). That description reads:

If potential readers are using a search engine other than Google then they are not so forgiving for example see for example a Yarhoo search, as ask yourself if the snippet returned for Wikipedia and www.u-s-history.com is more inviting to the potential reader:

I came here because I want to expand the section called "Operations" in the English Army article. I ought to be able to cut and past the fist paragraph or two be able to give a brief description of he war. At the moment this lead is not organised in a way that makes that possible. I suggest that those who edit this article regularly consider rewriting the lead with the common American and British titles in the lead (just two) -- footnote the rest of the alternative names (or move them lower down the lead) along with the their origins -- and use wording like that of the alternative Google lead and the lead used by www.u-s-history.com to summarise the conflict in a sentence or two. -- PBS (talk) 13:45, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Name left unexplained
You'd think the person who the war was named after would at least be referred to and said of what exactly he did, but he's not mentioned even once? Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 10:05, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on King William's War. 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/20120627115249/http://www.historicplaces.ca/en/rep-reg/place-lieu.aspx?id=14831 to http://www.historicplaces.ca/en/rep-reg/place-lieu.aspx?id=14831

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) 08:13, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Suggested Expansions
I agree with the Comment above that the Lead section needs rewriting - I'm happy to give it a go. Also, I think the accepted convention is to use the term Native Americans, not Indians. Anyone know?

Robinvp11 (talk) 11:15, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

title: Talk:King William's War


text:
Talk:Queen Anne's War

Note on the name
A blurb at the beginning should make clear that the name Queen Anne's War is only used in American (US) historiography. It has different names in English Canada, French Canada, the UK, and France. Kevlar67 20:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Merge

 * Support. No reason for a second article on the same war. Tempshill 20:13, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Against. While technically Queen Anne's War and the War of the Spanish Succession are the same war, they are not the same conflict. "Queen Anne's War" refers to the frontier battles between English colonists, troops, and Native American allies and French troops and their Native American allies. "The War of the Spanish Succession" refers to the battles in Europe between the British and their allies and the French and their allies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.4.232.241 (talk) 04:01, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Against. They are the same war, but it is useful to have a separate article concerning operations in North America during this war. Queen Anne's War is a convenient title for North American operations since that is what the war is called in the United States. BradMajors 16:28, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge. You can accomplish the same exact task within a subsection of "The War of the Spanish Succession".  If "Queen Anne's War" gets too long, then an article split would be in order.  However, given the material currently, that split is not necessary. KyuuA4 06:51, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Support merge. I agree with KyuuA above. This article is short and currently not well supported by references, and I feel it would benefit from being merged with War of the Spanish Succession. If it grows to an appreciable length, it can be split off again. However, since War of the Spanish Succession is a featured article, I'm going to bring it up on that talk page and try to get some more opinions and help before I perform a merge. -FrankTobia (talk) 14:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you please elaborate when you say this content would "benefit". You should also tag the War of the Spanish Succession article with the {mergefrom} tag. BradMajors (talk) 21:39, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I say "benefit" because the War of the Spanish Succession article is well-sourced, while this article appears to have no sources, so overlapping of sources would be one benefit. Another is that the subject of this article is one theatre of the war of spanish succession, and so 1) this article lacks an important context, and 2) the War of the Spanish Succession article isn't broad enough to include much on the north american theatre.  Additionally I feel this subject would be better looked after if it was within a now-featured article, rather than its own short one. Size concerns shouldn't crop up for some time. Lastly, I didn't want to clutter the War of the Spanish Succession with a {mergefrom} tag since it was unclear whether this reflected consensus among that article's editors. I left a message on the talk page, and since I haven't gotten much response I'll probably revisit the issue soon. -FrankTobia (talk) 00:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The sources for the War of the Spanish Succession can not be the same sources as those used for Queen Anne's War. New sources would have to be added to the Spanish Succession article that cover Queen Anne's War. For example, I have a book on my desk on the War of the Austrian Succession it has at total of three pages on Northern American operations. Because of the relative unimportance of North American operations the Spanish Succession article should have a similar weighting for Northern American operations of <2%.  You mention that the Spanish Succession article is a FA, but the affect of merging the Queen Anne's War article would make the Spanish Succession article a B class article.BradMajors (talk) 16:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

8 years after the last remarks in this discussion, the article is not only well-sourced, but one of the better historical articles on Wikipedia. 68.19.3.23 (talk) 17:45, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Literature
Have anyone some proposal for literature about this war (or internet resource)?--Vojvodaeist 17:42, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Anti-British bias
As with all wikipedia articles on the conflict between Britain and what is now the US, this article goes out of its way to show anti-British bias. I guess that since Wikepdia is controlled in the US, this is inevitable but it does general harm to the reputation. The defeat of French forces in North America was made inevitable by Britain's control of the sea and by the demands on French land forces of B itish victories in Europe. 80.169.162.100 (talk) 10:58, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Computer Proxy Problem
I must apologize, I tried to fix an incorrect link but a proxy on my computer, or something like that, added some gibberish that I can't seem to delete. Every time I try to edit something, it adds "Proxy-Connection: keep-alive Cache-Control: max-age=0" So maybe someone else who doesn't have proxy/cache problems can fix that. Sorry. :S —Preceding unsigned comment added by DondeEsAntonio (talk • contribs) 21:35, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Queen Anne's War. 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://web.archive.org/web/20100608020446/http://www.history.army.mil:80/Reference/colon/QUEEN.htm to http://www.history.army.mil/reference/colon/QUEEN.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:13, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Excessive use of "successfully"
Is it possible to "unsuccessfully capture" an enemy position? I think all the "successfully"s in this article, maybe with one exception, could be deleted. It doesn't even serve imply that there was effort involved, or unsuccessful prior attempts, or that success was uncertain right up to the end. For variety, perhaps "succeeded in capturing" would be an alternative. But "captured" would also suffice. Wegesrand (talk) 10:20, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Collective peace as "victorious" and "defeated"
Following this revert, I have edited the War of the Spanish Succession accordingly. RedUser (talk) 18:15, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Newfoundland and Labrador
I was surprised at this revert, so I'll explain the edit here. The modern Canadian province changed to the name "Newfoundland and Labrador" in 2001, so referring to "St John's, Newfoundland and Labrador" for a 18th century event is anachronistic. At the time, the Newfoundland colony did not have jurisdiction in Labrador, which was part of the French colony "Canada". This is kind of like referring to a 19th century event in Königsberg, Prussia, as having happened in "Kaliningrad, Russia." The second part of the edit changed link text to "captured St. John's in 1709" instead of "captured St. John's in 1709". This avoids an Easter egg link. The current link looks like it would link to an article on the city instead of to an article on a battle. Are there objections to doing this edit again, or are there better ways to avoid the mentioned problems? Indefatigable (talk) 21:01, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

 * I agree with you. Calling the location "Newfoundland and Labrador" is like saying that Queen Anne's War took place in the United States. I would not object to you restoring the time-appropriate name for the location. --Ken Gallager (talk) 12:14, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

 * I've restored that portion of your edit. What I was actually reverting was the other edits on the links, which I've left as they were. —Dilidor (talk) 18:58, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Casualties
The casualties listed in the infobox are, at best, poorly illustrated and sourced, it seems. Can we get an update on them? 86.7.140.64 (talk) 16:56, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:Queen Anne's War


text:
Talk:Sixty Years' War

Name
Is this the Sixty Years' War or the Sixty Years War? I'm not sure why "Years'" is possessive. Mingusboodle (talk) 18:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

 * It's possesive, like Seven Years' War, Nine Years' War, Thirty Years' War, and Hundred Years' War. The apostrophe seems standard, if sometimes optional. —Kevin Myers 21:54, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Is this an example of the older American supremacism?
"Great Britain ceded the Old Northwest—the homeland of many of her American Indian allies—to the Americans". Shouldn't it be "to the European Americans" according to the newer liberal agenda? For example, in this major article, there is "fighting European American settlers on the frontier", clearly depicting non-Europeans as Americans.--Adûnâi (talk) 10:13, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I changed it to read to the young United States instead of to the Americans. Canute (talk) 13:05, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

What follows?
This article gives a good, broad overview of the conflicts mentioned, but it stops rather abruptly after the War of 1812. Should there be a little more follow up about the overall effects, or perhaps how this series of wars influenced and were influenced by other conflicts on the continent? I also wonder if how it transitions to some of the conflicts that follow, such as the Indian Removals or the Black Hawk War in 1832. I'm not really sure what to do, I'm just looking for opinions. There may be some good opportunities to expand this article, if it doesn't go beyond the scope. Canute (talk) 17:20, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It depends on what historians say. We can't do our own original information on Wikipedia after all. Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 01:00, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Surely there must've been wars over the Northwest before 1754?
King William's War, Queen Anne's War, and War of Jenkin's Ear? Or add it as a precursor section. Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 06:12, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, notably the Beaver Wars. But there was a large gap between those and the beginning of the French and Indian War.  Most war articles would have a section giving the background or context of the conflict, as you suggest.  I'm not sure what to do here, because it's a little different.  Is it better to add a precursor section before diving into the Sixty Years' War, or is this different because the concept of a "Sixty Years' War" is an academic framework created to understand the conquest of the region by European (and the United States) powers? Canute (talk) 13:16, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Sources without citations
The references section lists 3 sources that don't seem to be cited in the article: Tanner, Trask, and White. I've gone through the article history and it seems like they have been there for at least 10 years, but I haven't found a version where they've been cited in the article. (Trask was referenced in the text at one point, but there was no citation giving a page number.) Does anyone have these references? I don't necessarily want to delete them, but if they aren't used in the article, I don't see the point of listing them as references. Canute (talk) 13:14, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Spanish participation
I see the Spanish have been added, presumably because the Patriot War was concurrent with the War of 1812?

On these grounds, given that the War of 1812 was concurrent with the Napoleonic Wars, the Danish & French should be added, as enemies of the British, and the Russians & Swedish should be added as allies of the British.

I see no source-based evidence that Spanish forces were deployed and directly involved in operations on the Great Lakes in the period 1812 to 1814. Keith H99 (talk) 16:43, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Sixty Years' War


text:
Talk:List of Justice League episodes

Seasons misidentified
For "Justice League Unlimited," their should be three seasons listed, not just two. The "JLU" era of the show consisted of three seasons. The Season 1 finale was the two-part "The Once and Future Thing," and the Season 2 premiere was "The Cat and the Canary." I know they were released on DVD as one season, but that was a mistake made by Warner Bros., as has been noted by series creator Bruce Timm. So technically, there are three seasons of "JLU." - Michael24 14:56, 11 April 2010

 * I agree. (on the DVD the creators even refer to the Cadmus arc as being 2 seasons) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.94.157.128 (talk) 01:33, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Lots of speculative remarks either tagged or removed
I cleaned house a little bit, after looking around for citations that would support some of the more egregious comments/comparisons/evaluations, and pulled those that needed to be yanked like rotten teeth. I've tagged that info which might be citable, but I am unsure where folk are going to find it.

In short, the article needs a buttload of work. I'm willing to help, but doing it all isn't an appealing idea to me. - Hexhand (talk) 00:54, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

What happened to the individual episode articles?
A couple of years ago "major" episodes had their own episode-articles, but that seems to have been undone. Why? They were as useful as the ones for HIMYM or Community episodes - they seemed to serve a purpose. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.190.39.22 (talk) 01:23, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Where is the proof for this so called "Special" Taking place on July 22,2010? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.88.97.30 (talk) 21:52, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what's the big idea. There's no defined policy on articles about episodes. A lot of series have them. Honestly, it's all about wikieditors liking you and your work and having things done their way. A lot of people feel good about themselves after enforcing useless things. The real problem is the lack of clear, straight policies. --20-dude (talk) 01:36, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Page protected?
Don't get the wrong idea but there are times where my edits have been reverted because of "school" nonsense? If this is a place where anyone can edit, is there a double standard behind this? Is there a confusion between original research and updating summaries despite being neutral? It might not be the right place to chat but I'm starting to have doubts because the standards are getting higher each time.

Anyway, if you're going to answer me question, give it some thought. I just don't want to end up doing the wrong thing over something small to an overzealous big deal that cannot be allowed because of someone who wants to keep it the way it is. I'm just thinking. That's all.

Thanks. Johnnyauau2000 (talk) 13:29, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello, are you having a problem with a particular user who is unreasonably reverting changes?

Jabalong (talk) 3:09, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

 * Taking lame and transparent shots at me, Jabalong?--Atlan (talk) 10:27, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Episode title dispute: Kid Stuff vs Kids' Stuff
Hello, am having a dispute with user Atlan over the correct name of this episode and so am requesting others weigh with their opinions and break the impasse.

Atlan believes the title of the episode is "Kids' Stuff" using the information on a back of a DVD artwork as evidence.

I am arguing that it is in fact "Kid Stuff" using the information in the IMDB listing and most importantly how the title actually appears in the episode on screen!

As a Managing Editor by trade, I can attest that errors can enter into publication material. They are in no way infallible as they are often handled by departments and outside parties beyond the original production team. The source Atlan refers to is in error, it happens.

IMDB listings are of a higher reliability. They are not user-generated as Atlan erroneously believes. Rather, the content comes directly from: the studios or producers that made the content; agencies that represent the producers; people in the database or their legal representatives. And while errors could happen, as an online database subject to updating, they are much more likely to be corrected, unlike a static DVD cover artwork that may have one production run and be done with.

If this isn't enough, the clincher is that episode titles appear hardcoded on screen in the video themselves, and this episode clearly says "Kid Stuff". I can take a screenshot and upload if someone cares to explain how and where I should post it.

Jabalong (talk) 3:22, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

 * Really, this is much ado about nothing. I agree with you that the DVD cover may be a production error, but not that IMDB is a good source. I also don't see how this helps your case at all, since IMDB has the title as Kids' Stuff, which you state is the wrong title. Since you hold IMDB is such high regard, are you now going to change the title yourself, or flip-flop on you opinion of IMDB because it has now become inconvenient?--Atlan (talk) 10:07, 12 May 2017 (UTC).

 * See Citing IMDb and WikiProject Film/Resources regarding IMDB. As far as the name, I would think we can use the show it self as the source to at least verify the information. If a secondary source is found it can be added later. I just had a look at the episode and it says "KID STUFF" (yes, all in caps) 4 minutes and 40 seconds into it. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 01:56, 14 May 2017
 * Yeah I already explained about IMDB. Jabalong doesn't care. Before, the source was this cover scan. I consider them equal sources myself (episode title card and DVD listing).--Atlan (talk) 09:52, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Question
Why are "The Cat and the Canary", "The Ties That Bind" and "The Doomsday Sanction" labeled as part of the second JLU season? They aired just after "The Once and Future Thing, Part Two: Time, Warped", and there was a three month gap in airdate between "The Doomsday Sanction" and "Task Force X". Moreover, the last eps of the first season even have scenes of "The Cat and the Canary" in the opening and credits. 186.109.224.229 (talk) 20:01, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Because they are part of the second JLU season.--Atlan (talk) 10:35, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Problem about where justice league season one episode "Injustice For All" should be
On several other pages on Wikipedia there are references about "Injustice For All" occurring before "Fury". But on this page, it says that "Fury" occurred before "Injustice For All". The episode "Fury" itself even mentioned the events in IFA, meaning Fury should be after IFA. I think that IFA should be before Fury, though the Wikipedia says otherwise. So which one occurs before which? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.176.108.142 (talk) 11:50, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

 * You are correct. However, these episodes are listed in order by their air dates. Fury was incorrectly aired before IFA. I do believe the DVD release corrects this. I'll see if I can add this to the article.--Atlan (talk) 12:14, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

"Injustice for All" episode air date not correct
Original air date was Jan 7, 2002(pt-1) & Jan 14,2002(pt-2). This is also episode number 8 & 9 respectively. Source : Khaled Sazzad (talk) 20:21, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

"Twilight (Of the Gods)" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Twilight (Of the Gods). The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 October 21 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Gonnym (talk) 19:40, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

""This Little Piggy" (Justice League Unlimited episode)" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect &. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 October 21 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Gonnym (talk) 19:41, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:List of Justice League episodes