Talk:The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers

Still a stub. Will expand. I don't believe this work has been re-published since 1989 (which is actually sort of surprising). If anyone knows otherwise make note here. Marskell 10:35, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Edits

I hope my edits add to this entry and help entice others to read this book. For me it was a long and difficult read since a lot of this history was new to me (not taught a lot in US schools). The addition of the historical atlases helped immensely as well as a couple other historical references.

I found it quite hard to remove myself from my current political views on US economic policy while writing this and I really wanted to raise Kennedy's negative views of Reagan's deficit spending analogous to today.

-Todd 21:45, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Todd, you also fetishized the stats on pages 199-203, ignoring the 196 pages preceding them. Never mind that, I fixed the article. It's a good thing you didn't bring up irrelevant items that occurred after the book was printed: your article had enough incorrect summarizations, I was worried how far your misplaced zeal might've taken you. It's ok, a friend almost cheated, using your article summary to write an essay: had he done so, he would have been caught in a lie. A book this important shouldn't be summarized so poorly.

Furthermore, when is one of Jimbo's slaves going to remove "This article does not cite any references or sources[...] (July 2007)" which as per Wiki's own standards, has been rectified, unless you consider my copious transcription of quotes and tables to be irrelevant... not that such a response would surprise me. So we need to wait for an admin to bother cracking open the book? Kinda goes against your own 'open source' philosophy. It's a damned dirty joke to claim to be open source, but act like committee members of Gosplan. Somebody dislikes my comments enough to attribute them, but obviously doesn't care enough about wiki to modify the page's tag. Mobilize your army of asperger's addled OCDists and get to work! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.188.17 (talk) 02:19, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look up 'precede.' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.188.17 (talk) 16:23, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Greatpowers.jpg

Image:Greatpowers.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 22:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's standard for cites is bizarre. You allow Islamic revisionism and judgments regarding Judaism and Jewish history to go unchallenged (for example), yet have a ridiculous standard when it comes to citing references from books. I noted somebody cleaned up my reminder that you all are jackasses, but kept the rest of my edits in this article; interesting that there could be enough activity to clean up that test 'easter egg,' but not enough to strip this article of its 'need for cites.' Wiki's epistemology could benefit from admins who aren't basement dwellers and/or dilettantes. The major claims in the article have been cited and I cleaned up the lousy summary of the book that had preceded my edits. The book is considered primary data-- only a basement dweller would ask for a cite re: a primary source. I only cleaned up the article after an acquaintance referenced RaFotGP, using the incorrect summary from the old wiki article. There's a reason wikipedia's considered a joke amongst real scholars-- wiki's just training-wheels for idiots who fancy themselves budding scholars. Next time, read a book! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.188.17 (talk) 02:59, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments are not appropriate for a wikipedia talk page. Please see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines for information on how to discuss this article. Thank you.—RJH (talk) 17:36, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Greatpowers.jpg

Image:Greatpowers.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 23:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removed Tag

I am unable to see where the tag "This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (December 2008)" applies. I am going to remove it. It this is in error, please explain to me the reasoning. --Id447 (talk) 18:42, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Publication Data

The section mentions "... and is considered the most comprehensive overview of Great Power history." and then cites (as far as I can tell) an Amazon user review. Can I correctly assume that no one has a problem with me removing the phrase from the article? Almogo (talk) 22:28, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100101200602/http://www.wolfson.org.uk:80/historyprize.htm to http://www.wolfson.org.uk/historyprize.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:09, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]