Talk:World War I

Belligerents

Should it be like this: http://wiki.erepublik.com/index.php?title=World_War_I&oldid=16431 or http://wiki.erepublik.com/index.php/World_War_I

Reason: Those countries are not "officially" in the war are they? I am sure I am wrong but still good to discuss this. --Aryamehr talk 17:31, 29 August 2008 (BST)

Per the PEACE Charter, Clause 7.2b, "If a Member Nation shall be attacked, no vote is necessary. It is the duty and obligation of all Member Nations to defend other Member Nations in the event of war." All PEACE Nations are obligated to defend Hungary, despite MPPs not being active. All PEACE nations are at war with Romania, regardless of their Presidents' opinions, because all PEACE nations have signed the charter which explicitly says that, if a PEACE member nation is attacked, all members are duty-bound to defend that member. The belligerents should stay as listed. Nicolae Carpathia | | Talk 03:35, 30 August 2008 (BST)

Turkey haven't signed the PEACE yet. Also there is no official announcement about joining the fight.

Turkey is neutral right now. So please remove Turkey from the Belligerents list.

Actually I can delete Turkey from the Belligerents list but I know that John Daker will undo it immediately.

my rightness doesn't make any difference for him. He will continue to say this: "You're permabanned from the game, go do something else." and to undo my changes. --Nevugila 13:01, 30 August 2008 (BST)

For the next three days, Turkey will be without a leader, but the general consensus of the population and Congress is in favor of PEACE and the war. If you remove them now, they will only be added again on August 2 when their president is elected. - –Dr. AgentChieftain ^“PPP!” _{B / C / D / F / P / S} 13:07, 30 August 2008 (BST)

Dear Agent, Maybe the general consensus of the Turkish population and the Turkish congress is in favor of -PEACE and the war (maybe not). But it doesnt mean that Turkey is formally one of belligerents of this war, doesnt it ? --Nevugila 13:24, 30 August 2008 (BST)

Map

WW1.jpg -- I think this should clear some thoughts... --Belea2008 chew the fat 18:55, 29 August 2008 (BST)

It's good for now but we need a more serious better map, that looks like some childish map.--Aryamehr talk 19:17, 29 August 2008 (BST)

South Africa appears to be included in PEACE in that map. - –Dr. AgentChieftain ^“PPP!” _{B / C / D / F / P / S}

That map is poor but let it be until there is a better one made.

Updated map as made on referred source forum article. --Sandtux TALK|HIST 02:24, 1 September 2008 (BST)

South Africa is shown as neutral, the areas of South Africa that are shown as PEACE are occupied by Indonesia. And how the hell can a map be childish? - Brian Boru

Name Change

I think it's a bit early to call this World War I. The war is only in one front, Romania/Hungary. A real-world war would be spanning multiple fronts and continents, and fighting would probably erupt in South America, Iberia, Western Europe, Southeastern Europe, Siberia, and maybe even the Pacific. This is just one country fighting another, each having some form of foreign aid. There haven't even been a thousand fights yet. I propose this page be moved to Romania-Hungary War until enough fighting goes on to constitute it being called a World War. --Parsley Magnet 05:32, 30 August 2008 (BST)

This war encompasses 22 of 27(?) nations in the world. It is a world war. —Nicolae Carpathia | | Talk 06:06, 30 August 2008 (BST)

Disregard that, I wasnt aware the admins were referring to it as a world war. --Parsley Magnet 07:38, 30 August 2008 (BST)

Ireland, what?

I thought Ireland was not in this war and was going to be taken into ATLANTIS soon... hmm. Source for you being commanders and that Ireland is participating in this war? --Aryamehr talk 18:57, 1 September 2008 (BST)

"Irish Air Corps, National Guard and Irish Foreign Legion - ATTENTION!!!" posted by Irish-Romanian President Victor Petrescu on August 28. True Irish are either fighting for Hungary or staying neutral due to the confusion over the existence of the Northern Alliance. —Nicolae Carpathia | | Talk 20:31, 1 September 2008 (BST)

Who is the commander though? --Aryamehr talk 21:04, 1 September 2008 (BST)

Of the Irish-Romanians, I'm going to say Victor. Of the true Irish, some Irish dude put them up. —Nicolae Carpathia | | Talk 21:14, 1 September 2008 (BST)

Ireland is officially neutral, so I changed Ireland to the proper term (eIrish-Romanian Loyalists under Victor Petrescu), and added the Irish Republican Army to the Hungarian side, as they deployed to Hungary today, Sept 1, under irish_rebel as their field commander under my overall command. -Brian Boru Talk

Give source

"The Romanian declaration of war was expected by the PEACE Global Community, which had received intelligence reports indicating that Romania would declare war on a neighboring state within the week. Though PEACE was informed beforehand"

I demand source for this or It's getting removed. --Aryamehr talk 07:26, 25 September 2008 (PDT)

It was added by me. I'm the Secretary-General of the PEACE Global Community and therefore privy to all intelligence reports from the alliance. Furthermore, it was announced in a press release

"Early this morning, President Alex Craciun ... declare[d] war on Hungary, an act that confirms allied intelligence reports ..."

The original sources are classified so they're not going to be posted. —Nicolae Carpathia | | Talk 12:25, 25 September 2008 (PDT)

That's not source. Classified or not, there are no documents or anything to show that you actually knew this so I am removing it until you bring up sources. --Aryamehr talk 12:29, 25 September 2008 (PDT)

>"HAY GUISE, WE SHOULD RELEASE INFORMATION FROM OUR INTELLIGENCE NETWORK TO GIVE A SOURCE TO A MINOR DETAIL ON THE WIKI"

I was informed about Romania's plans about a week and a half before the inception of PEACE. Nicolae is telling the truth; PEACE is not declassifying it's sources to satisfy a poor troll. - –Dr. AgentChieftain ^“PPP!” _{B / C / D / F / P / S} 12:49, 25 September 2008 (PDT)

You don't even have a intelligence network and I don't really care what you say, as both of you are from this so called fake PEACE so as long as there is no sources or anything, then too bad. You didn't know. I can't go and write things in favor of myself then claim my sources are "classified" --Aryamehr talk 12:52, 25 September 2008 (PDT)

Just because every intelligence network isn't stupid enough to announce it's presence doesn't mean that they don't exist. - –Dr. AgentChieftain ^“PPP!” _{B / C / D / F / P / S} 13:22, 25 September 2008 (PDT)

That isn't quite how data works. First-hand information from major parties relevant to the event in question count as credible sources, both in the real world and in the e-world. Will be reverting, and please refrain from further vandalism. --AstroRANGER 13:06, 25 September 2008 (PDT)

No. You are the one vandalisming here by reverting something that can't be proven. I can't just go for example and write, "Aryamehr knew all about this World War I and exact things that would happen because of intelligence report, but can't be proven". Nothx --Aryamehr talk 13:10, 25 September 2008 (PDT)

>That isn't quite how data works. First-hand information from major parties relevant to the event in question count as credible sources, both in the real world and in the e-world.

Please re-read my first comment for an explanation, and as far as your example is concerned, please re-read my first comment with an emphasis on major parties relevant. --AstroRANGER 13:19, 25 September 2008 (PDT)

Daker, post the sources, or stop editing the damn thing.Boru 08:47, 23rd September 2008 (GMT)

Neutrality

The neutrality is not in dispute. Aryamehr is one person against, just looking at this talk page, four or five other users who disagree with his vandalism. —Nicolae Carpathia | | Talk 13:40, 25 September 2008 (PDT)

The statement, as it is written now, it cannot be proven, because (like you said) it involves classified information. Therefore, this cannot be called neutral, because it can be considered fictional or biased (I'm not saying it is). Try to rephrase it something like "PEACE Members claim that they knew about this war before it started. This claim is considered by some citizens to be a false statement..." - I mean rephrase it so that you present both points of view. --Belea2008 13:53, 25 September 2008 (PDT)

I am not editing this article so that Aryamehr is appeased. He is the only one complaining about it. If he has such a big problem with it he can start wiki.erepublik-aryamehrversion.com. —Nicolae Carpathia | | Talk 13:55, 25 September 2008 (PDT)

Belligerents pt. II

I don't know about you guys, but I don't like the way it looks when the name is too long for the template and takes a new line. Does anybody object to me listing my name as "A. Chieftain", Nicolae as "N. Carpathia", and the Irish Republican Army as the "IRA"? - –Dr. AgentChieftain ^“PPP!” _{B / C / D / F / P / S} 12:58, 26 September 2008 (PDT)

Good idea. --Aryamehr talk 12:59, 26 September 2008 (PDT)

Fantastic, you reverted it. What's the problem now? - –Dr. AgentChieftain ^“PPP!” _{B / C / D / F / P / S} 13:15, 26 September 2008 (PDT

Very simple, when you were supposed to add these shortened names, you also added the text that is disputed which was not mentioned at all. Why? --Aryamehr talk 13:17, 26 September 2008 (PDT)

Excuse me for adding it to what was the current version at the time. Why not be courteous and revert only your disputed content next time? - –Dr. AgentChieftain ^“PPP!” _{B / C / D / F / P / S} 13:38, 26 September 2008 (PDT)

You are right. I should of done that, but you can just just check the history and change those parts. No worries, right? Besides, you would get a "Conflicting edit" warning so apparently you didn't care about it. --Aryamehr talk 13:39, 26 September 2008 (PDT)

What else should I expect when a page is under dispute? Of course I ignored it, I wasn't trying to take part in a silly little conflict.

The edit war shouldn't be happening in the first place anyways. - –Dr. AgentChieftain ^“PPP!” _{B / C / D / F / P / S} 13:45, 26 September 2008 (PDT)

Looks much better now, good job. Brian Boru

Are you serious

What the hell is wrong with you people. An editing war? Stop being children --Emerick 17:59, 26 September 2008 (PDT)

Its not really a war , more like Koroush vs the rest --debildevil P 18:14, 26 September 2008 (PDT)

This happens almost every time he disagrees with something. Is it really that much of a surprise? - –Dr. AgentChieftain ^“PPP!” _{B / C / D / F / P / S} 18:21, 26 September 2008 (PDT)

Please say who the rest are; Pro-/v/akistan and PEACE people and everyone knows I am not with them so the majority of the active people here are /v/ers and "PEACE" people which will change soon. *wink*. Anyway, if I am always wrong funny to see in the end I most of the time I get it my way. qq moar --Aryamehr talk 03:15, 27 September 2008 (PDT)

“ The world community could not explain why Romania moved to declare war. Various hypotheses have been presented, ranging from Romania trying to shunt excess goods from its marketplace to territorial expansion and freedom of Slovakia. ”

“ Nicolae Carpathia, the Secretary-General of the PEACE Global Community, announced the day of the proposal that the Global Community had expected Romania to declare war on a neighboring state[1]. Sources to support this statement were asked by various citizens, but Nicolae Carpathia refused to give them.[!] ”

This is the version we propose. WE KINDLY ASK YOU NOT TO EDIT THEM IF YOU DO NOT AGREE WITH THIS PROPOSAL. State your opinion about these statements in this talk page. Thank you for your understanding! --Admin 04:31, 28 September 2008 (PDT)

I disagree. If we are going to do it like this on every page, it will not work. If it's supposed to be like this then I'll go to every page and add.."The World thinks blahblah, Aryamehr knew that Dio Brando would come back in Januray year 2001, citizens asked for source but none" alllll over the page, long pages and hard text.

It's very simple, if he can't prove what he is saying there is no reason for it to be there. Again, if it's going to be like this then every page will have hundreds of peoples "Opinion" without any evidence to back it off. This could be here if he even gave out a little hint before the proposal, there are no hints, no "secret messages" nothing that they knew. Normally those who know would do things like this. --Aryamehr talk 07:39, 28 September 2008 (PDT)

Or you can just add ^[?] to the back of it and not act snobby and condescending when asking him for a source. Civility, constructive edits, don't be a dick, etc.

I think this matter could have been solved just by adding Template:Ref to the back of it, instead of ripping it from the article and harassing PEACE representatives to declassify their sources. Observe:

“ Nicolae Carpathia, the Secretary-General of the PEACE Global Community, announced the day of the proposal that the Global Community had expected Romania to declare war on a neighboring state within the week[1]. Though PEACE was allegedly informed beforehand, neither they nor the world community could explain why Romania moved to declare war[?]. Various hypotheses have been presented, ranging from Romania trying to shunt excess goods from its marketplace[?] to territorial expansion and freedom of Slovakia.[?] ”

See how easy that is? When asking for a source, add the templates and a note on the talk page, and give him a day to two to respond. If he doesn't give you a response, then announce on the talk page that you want to change or remove the paragraph. If nobody objects, go ahead. If someone disagrees, have a civil discussion about whether the paragraph should stay or not. If they're still in disagreement, come to a compromise. Leave your ego out of it. - –Dr. AgentChieftain ^“PPP!” _{B / C / D / F / P / S} 12:42, 28 September 2008 (PDT)

I think the "Reasons" and "Opinions" sub-headers should be removed and the whole thing should be in one paragraph as it used to be. Furthermore, I think that it should read "Nicolae Carpathia, the Secretary-General of the PEACE Global Community, announced the day of the proposal that the Global Community had expected Romania to declare war on a neighboring state[1]. Despite a number of citizens requesting more information about how the Global Community supposedly knew about the attack, Carpathia and the Security Council declared documents regarding World War I 'classified' and refused to release them." —Nicolae Carpathia | | Talk 07:37, 28 September 2008 (PDT)

You know, it's not just Koroush. Reading it, it's obious that Nicolae's edits about himself are pretty much... Keep it unbiased! --Emerick 11:55, 28 September 2008 (PDT)

Removed

"Nicolae Carpathia, the Secretary-General of the PEACE Global Community, announced the day of the proposal that the Global Community had expected Romania to declare war on a neighboring state^[2]. Sources to support this statement were asked by various citizens, but Nicolae Carpathia refused to give them.^[3]"
We have removed this sentence because we do not see the relevance of this information on this War page. --Admin 05:18, 5 October 2008 (PDT)

Name

Don't you think that we jumped the gun on this naming this? Is the name World War really accurate? It was a war between two countries :\ What's the deal with calling it WWI? Because there were MPP's involved? That's every single war since the first few. --Emerick 10:54, 12 December 2008 (EET)

I think the admins referred to it as WWI in an eRepublik Insider article. It was called WWI because it was a conflict between PEACE and ATLANTIS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by QJ Lincoln (talk • contribs)

Is this page being expanded to cover all of the wars between PEACE and ATLANTIS nations? It doesn't seem fitting for {{Current}}, with one line about Spain's war declarations compared to the four paragraphs and table for the Romania-Hungary war. - –Dr. AgentChieftain ^“PPP!” _{B / C / D / F / P / S} 20:56, 12 December 2008 (EET)

The admins called it world war I because they're great at marketing. Just because two alliances supported their ally doesn't make it a world war. The name is still inaccurate. --Emerick 09:53, 6 January 2009 (EET)

I think it is a world war, cause you see, the amount of action involved is really massive. --Mini "Template boy" Bill have a biscuit 13:22, 6 January 2009 (EET)

I agree with Emerick, it's part of the whole World War II. The name should be changed into Romania-Hungary War, and World War II into World War I. If this page exist, maybe we should also create page World War III for Indonesia-Argentina War. CMIIW • Mimihitam  • 14:02, 6 January 2009 (EET)