Talk:1983: Doomsday

Before you start editing, please read the Editorial Guidelines.

Discussion Archives: Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8

Former Proposals: Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17
 * 18

Useful Resources:

A website showing potential nuclear strikes within the US can be found here. A map showing likely fallout patterns across the USA.

=GENERAL DISCUSSION= The following is for general discussion to improve the TL that does not involve article proposals Structured into rough sections for easier navigation.

Countries/Regions/Politics
Archives: Page 1 Page 2 Page 3 Page 4

Possible Unification of the British Isles in future
The Celtic Alliance is clearly the pre-eminent power in the islands, and will undoubtedly unite the archipelago. Now I've never been happy with the word Celtic because th e idea of modern Celts is a 19th century British invention. And I doubt that the nations in England will be happy about being lumped in with the Irish. And the Irish/Scots won't want to be British. So what do we call the future state? I have a few suggestions.

Britanniae-Britanniae is the old Roman term for all the islands, but 'Britanniaesh' hardly rolls off the tongue.

Albion-Could work very well, but usually refers to only Great Britain and England at that. And it is the name Cleveland and Northumbria will have when they unite.

Brutan-After Brutus, the legendary namesake of the Islands. Could equally appeal to the Celtic revival of old traditions and lore, and to the English states British nationalism.

Prydain-Welsh name for Britain, thus combining Britishness and Celticness.

Brittonica-Very old name for Britain thus combining the same ideals.

Avalon-Implies rebirth, and combines British and Celtic traditions.

Crytain-Old Welsh name for Ireland, bit heavier on the Celts than the Brits, but it does sound very much like Britain.

Aside from that, I was thinking we could call it the United States of _________ to imply a relative looseness of rule to deliver on the regional identities which will have emerged. Mumby 18:41, January 12, 2012 (UTC)

I have a thing for the name Prydain. Just sayin' - I love that word to bits. And it can be melded with Britain to form 'Pridain', 'Bridain', or 'Prytain' - which would be pretty acceptable for all. Fegaxeyl 18:48, January 12, 2012 (UTC)

....Huh?

The idea that they would merge makes no sense at all.

Lordganon 07:25, January 13, 2012 (UTC)

That's not what Mumby said; he said that the other British states would most likely be united under the Celtic Alliance and brought into it, rather than being equal partners. Fegaxeyl 08:27, January 13, 2012 (UTC)

The words "unite" and "merge" differ in meaning only slightly.

As I said, the idea makes no sense. Heck, his post even says why.

Lordganon 09:48, January 13, 2012 (UTC)

My view is that the British states will not be able to maintain their independence indefinitely. Either the OBN will evntually federate into a United States of Britain with the House of Percy at its head, or they will be subsumed into an altered Celtic Alliance. Considering the prosperity of the Alliance, this is more likely. The Celts have already shown themselves to be moderately successful at integrating Britons, though there is a significant contingent which calls for more autonomy for British provinces. Just extend that, and increase devolution, a Pryttish Federation is perfectly possible. Besides, you are not the whole community and cannot just barge in and veto. Mumby 17:10, January 13, 2012 (UTC)


 * LG is not vetoing it, he just said it does not make sense...and frankly I agree with him. Its been almost 28 years since Doomsday. And entire generation has grown up not knowing what the "United Kingdom" was, at least not in a real "this is my nation" sense. Their local leaders are more real to them. They are to ones who pulled them through the hell of Doomsday. Last time I check, the government of the United Kingdom left them for Africa. Mitro 18:38, January 13, 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not talking about a restoration of the UK. I'm talking about a unification of the British Isles under Irish leadership, and a reasonable degree of local government that allows them to choose their own mode of democratic government. However, I am merely voicing an idea that the community might find interesting. If it isn't plausible it needn't go any further than here. Other than that, the most likely result is a British Federation born out of the OBN. And the OBN states are looking for other avenues for expansion so they may be able to operate independently of the Alliance. Mumby 18:59, January 13, 2012 (UTC)

Your own posts, and Mitro's, are exactly why it wouldn't be possible. Something like that with the OBN states, maybe - but not with the CA. Lordganon 09:30, January 14, 2012 (UTC)

Northumbria and Cleveland will merge into Albion due to the unification of the crowns of these nations, however this will not happen for many years, they also have no intention of merging with other OBN nations and Cleveland's already voted on joining the CA and the vote came back 'no'--Smoggy80 12:43, January 15, 2012 (UTC)

There is absolutely no chance of this happening, What has happened since DD is that the old divisions in the UK North/South, extra have been exaggerated to such a point that the idea of Britain is probably no more than a distant memory. Yes the celts could absorb the other countries by force but I see no reason why they would want to extend themselves that way. Vegas adict 13:09, January 15, 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid I have to disagree. The Essaxons, Woodbridgers, and Newollanders have all stated their fond memories of the old country. Besides, its not even been thirty years. And the Celtic Alliance has repeatedly stressed that it is the inheritor of the British and Irish states. If there was no memory of what it is to be British that statement would not be important. I accept that a unification may not happen, but there is still a lingering British identity. The Pryttish Federation may well be more like the German Federation of the 19th century, less of a union more a loose union of states that keep order, peace and prosperity, with the Celts as the Pryttish answer to Prussians. Remember it was just an idea and I didn't mean anything by it. Mumby 13:56, January 15, 2012 (UTC)

Just because the Celts say something, does not mean anyone will actually listen. There's a far cry between feeling nostalgic about the old country, and being dominated by the Irish.

Thirty years means than something like half the population, and likely more, only know of Britain through stories. In 10 years, they will be in charge.

And, imo, that is an overly pleasant view of both Prussia, the German Confederation, and how Germany unified.

Lordganon 14:45, January 15, 2012 (UTC)

I was simply using Germany as an analogue. I know that unification was hardly pleasant, but here the Celts are in an even more dominant position to Austria since there isnt an Austria to keep them in check. But the Celts are far less militaritistic and far more enlightened than the 19th century Prussians. And does it not occur to you that there are moves in America to recreate the USA with precisely the same issues, if not more because of the distances involved, yet when I suggest a loose confederacy that isn't even a government as simply an idea, I get shot down for simply mooting it? Mumby 15:35, January 15, 2012 (UTC)

Germany unified primarily because Napoleon's expeditions through Germanic territory showed the German vulnerability to France. This catalysed efforts to group closer and closer together until the Franco-Prussian War sparked the formation of the German Empire.

A British unification will occur only depending on what the dominant power in the Isles, the Celtic Alliance, does. Or, an external threat could galvanize unification, but no such threat exists. At the current stage, the OBN as it currently exists is most likely, to counter Celtic hegemony in the Isles. If the Celts grew stronger, for example acquired more naval vessels, the OBN would gain a military arm and economic union would occur.

Simply put, the Celts are likely to grow stronger, galvanizing these transformations. In decades to come this TL might see a Celtic Alliance/British Union balance of power that eventually yields to one power controlling the Isles, but this won't occur for a long time. Gatemonger 19:53, January 15, 2012 (UTC)

You need to calm the heck down, Mumby.

The USA movement does have significant resistance. They won't get most of the former US, by a long shot. Think about how that applies to the Isles.

Your idea has not been shot down. We have merely stated that it is not very realistic. The locals have shot down all attempts, with good reasons. To them, it is, I'm sure, something akin to an Irish annexation.

And, there's no outside threats that could realistically harm the area, either.

Lordganon 10:38, January 16, 2012 (UTC)

There is of course the obvious option....Britain, not Great Britain, just Britain. Seeing as there is already a Organisation of British Nations it would make sense that any unification (which is unlikely to happen anyway) would be called Britain--Smoggy80 20:31, January 21, 2012 (UTC)

Personally I'm inclined towards thinking that if the various English survivour nations are going to become one with anyone, it'd be Cleveland/ Albion. It's already the biggest and the one with the most economic and military clout, not to mention that technically speaking they can fufil the "until such a time as a true heir to the British Crown arrives to take control of our nation" part of Southern England's constitution. . Plus, when Cleveland and Northumbria unite, they're going to be known as Albion. The weight of fictional tradition is behind them. Although that said, it wouldn't happen for a good long while yet, and even then it'd depend on how things go.Tessitore 17:54, January 25, 2012 (UTC)

True dat. Newolland is quite monarchyish, so to further British unification (which they are very in favour of) they might pledge fealty to Albion to retain their own unique monarchy. The only sticking point are the more republican nations of Woodbridge and Essex. They will be less likely to want to pledge fealty to a Northern kingdom. I can also see Lancaster pledging fealty to Albion, and Southern Scotland might well become some sort of 'Associated Republic'. That could be the solution for Essex and Woodbridge. Mumby 10:08, January 31, 2012 (UTC)

Lancaster is a bit complicated. On one hand, they and Cleveland are more or less the best of friends but on the other there is a bit of a rivalry going on (not even Doomsday could erase the legacy of the War of the Roses), partly because the Lancastrians are a tiny bit put out about Yorkshire (which Cleveland pretty much is) outdoing them. Or to put it another way, Lancaster is tsundere for Cleveland. What this would mean with regards to the possibility of them pledging fealty, even I don't know.Tessitore 22:54, February 2, 2012 (UTC)

France/ANZC Deal
I had an idea while reading this article regarding the French overseas territories. In the past, France has often used its colonies as bargaining chips to get concessions from the UK and other powers. I don't see why they wouldn't resort to the same realpolitik tactics here.

What if the French government offers the ANZC a deal in a secret agreement? This deal would trade France's overseas territories for ANZC assistance in reunifying France under its rule. France would obviously gain from this and the ANZC would essentially control trade through the Southern Ocean.

I wanted to put this here first So I don't end up deleting other people's work. Obviously this will be a topic of discussion between the owners of the two pages, but let me know what you think of this proposal. Gatemonger 00:00, February 11, 2012 (UTC)

Err.....

Far as I know, the RTFA already has ANZC backing, as well as that of much of the world. And the ANZC is already in the position you describe, too.

Lordganon 00:24, February 11, 2012 (UTC)

Nations in former France
Is anyone editing the nations in former France



I know Louisiannan set them up, but no editing has happened on some for over two years

--Smoggy80 13:06, February 24, 2012 (UTC)

A few of those are to one degree or another under another editor. Yank, for one. Lordganon 15:24, February 24, 2012 (UTC)

Angola's
Is anyone editing the Angola's


 * Republic of Angola
 * Soviet Kingdoms of Angola

Looking at the histories most of them haven't been edited for over a year--Smoggy80 21:33, March 10, 2012 (UTC)

Graphics / Visualization /Cartography
Section Archives:Page 1 {C {C Be sure to update the map for every 10 new nations or major territorial changes

Alternate Way of Drawing maps
Some of you have probably seen by now the map of Europe that posted on DeviantArt a few days ago (If you have not seen it yet go to the 1983DD Facebook page). That map was also posted on AH.com and after reading the comments, someone actually had issue with how much empty area there is. Now both Ben and I chimed in to explain why, so we do not need to rehash that, but does anyone know what the maps would look like if we included claimed areas along defacto control? Mitro 18:54, January 19, 2012 (UTC)

Many overlapping claims. Add to that that a lot of nations claims parts of each other, and many more haven't ever made any claims of that nature. Lordganon 09:34, January 20, 2012 (UTC)

I sort of did that with the China map, showing controlled and Sphere of Influence as well as territory in the process of being reclaimed. But yeah, too many overlapping claims to do a map that showed claimed area. Some areas would be fine, but for example with China, where Taiwan, the PRC, and I believe Imperial China all claim all of mainland China, with several other independent states in the area. We could probably do one that shows claims, but it would be incredibly messy.Oerwinde 11:56, January 20, 2012 (UTC)

We could try using a specific color for disputed areas. Or it could be done like OTL maps where it shows the country with the better/recognized claim to the area but has light borders over it from where other countries claim it as well, like Kashmir. Mitro 13:58, January 20, 2012 (UTC)

For local maps, maybe - we already do that often for that. But globally, continentally, etc? Just not workable. Plus, as I said, so many don't even have claims, and just expand their borders slowly outwards. Lordganon 14:20, January 20, 2012 (UTC)


 * The best way that I can think of is to draw a "Claims" map from a certain point of view. "The world as viewed by the USSR," for example, might show the claims that the USSR considers valid while excluding competing claims. As it stands now, such a map would be really incomplete and hard to make, since we haven't quite reached that level of depth on world diplomacy. But the results would be interesting and revealing. Benkarnell 19:48, January 27, 2012 (UTC)

Wiki/Timeline/Article Technicals
Section archives: Page 1

Templates
Where are the templates kept? is there a specific page? as I need to update the Africa and former UK templates--Smoggy80 13:11, February 24, 2012 (UTC)

No, there is not a page. To find them, either follow them so you can go back to them, or look at an article with said template on it and in the templates section, on the right, where there will be a link.

That being said.... Here is Africa and here is the UK.

Lordganon 15:22, February 24, 2012 (UTC)

Culture / Society
Archives: Page 1 • Page 2;

Essex and exporting labour
Hi all! I'd love for some input on my predicament. Here's the issue:

As you probably know, I'm the caretaker of Essex. As LG and the OBN editors will know, Essex is in the situation where it's in an economic rut. It has no real natural resources. It has very little industrial base; OTL there is light manufacturing but after DD the nation relies on material from up north to supply this industry. It has a very large population (the second largest in Britain, behind the Celtic Alliance) and as such is dedicated almost entirely to farming. Even this isn't great because as the territory surrounds London there is huge amounts of radiation-related crop failure, and the lack of economy means the nation can't afford better farming methods.

In order to address this issue the current administration in-universe is supporting centralisation, trying to capitalise on the creativity and limited resources in the towns. It's also supporting the creation of many 'chartered companies' to seize useful assets throughout the country, but in spite of the incentives to do this (a lot of self-management and exemption from many laws) they still lack the technical knowledge to make this a great scheme. It's also trying to establish itself as a trading centre, since it controls the Thames Estuary, but this isn't going to be great because it lacks the inherent wealth to be good at trading and is outcompeted by other seafaring nations.

Understandably, something must be done to prevent the nation from collapsing. I've been thinking and I think a good way to go about this would be for Essex to export its labour force. What I'm talking about is similar to the economic policies of Yugoslavia, and post-Soviet Poland: the government supporting its people working in foreign countries to bring back money.

The issue is, Essex is a small nation on an island. To the OBN editors, I ask where the best jobs are going locally; and to the wider community, I ask where Essaxon workers could go overseas. Are there any job vacancies for a rugged population which is used to settling in high-radiation areas? Or just a need for a workforce for crappy little jobs, like building and so forth? And crucially, is it plausible - how far could they go using European transportation technology, bearing in mind they have to be able to regularly send their money back home?

I look forward to input.

Fegaxeyl 14:44, February 12, 2012 (UTC)

Well, definitely not anywhere outside of Europe.

Off hand....

The IPA and ADC are doing large reconstruction projects in Southern Europe. The Prussians, Rhodopians, and the URC, are also doing lots of recovery work in former cities, etc.

They could also try their luck in the "frontier" nations in the forests of eastern Europe.

Lordganon 15:06, February 12, 2012 (UTC)

This is interesting because Newolland has the reverse issue. The population is low, so most of the economy is fueled by agriculture. But the economy remains weak despite the relative agricultural wealth present in the area because of dire labour shortages. This has only been exacerbated by recent expansion. Newolland is now a comparatively large nation in the British Isles but only has a few hundred thousand in terms of population. Therefore it makes some economic sense for an overpopulated Essex to send settlers to underpopulated Newolland.

On another point, an interesting question is raised if lots of Essaxons end up living on the wild frontier of Eastern Europe (Wild East?). We could end up with a Texas scenario. Not perfectly obviously. If a high concentration of low-paid foreign workers ends up in a sparsely populated resource rich area is there not a possibility of them attempting to break away and found their own nation? Clusters of English-speaking city-states in the wilds of Eastern Europe is an attractively crazy idea. Mumby 16:30, February 12, 2012 (UTC)

True, Newolland and the other British nations would work. There's going to be a lot of very unpopulated land, after all.

As for the Texas bit.... Northern Mexico, of that era, is basically the only time such things have occurred. For good reason, lol. Nor are these lands that anyone but the Russians or Belerussians would actually want to live in.

Lordganon 00:56, February 13, 2012 (UTC)

Lancaster could probably do with more miners since given it's trade arrangement with Novgorod the demand for coal would've gone up a fair bit and the current miners can only do so much. Plus there's the mills (processing bast fibres is pretty labour intensive which is why they were overtaken by cotton in the past), tourism in Blackpool during the summer, construction work and general labouring etc. It doesn't have the same sort of manpower shortage as Newolland but when the tech level is roughly Edwardian there's always a need for more hands. Plus the extra man power might encourage the expansion of a few industries.Tessitore 23:45, February 14, 2012 (UTC)

The Albion Railway Company are looking for 'Navvies' for the construction and renovation of the former West Coast Main Line The Singleton Clan would also be looking for transportation/protection people.

There are also the possibility of OBN led ventures for increasing the links between the OBN nations like Railways, Canals and other building projects like new ports etc

Newolland has started some new Coal mines in Northern Nottinghamshire, Cleveland is training them so they could do with some more people to make into miners--Smoggy80 13:35, February 20, 2012 (UTC)

Miscellaneous discussion
Archives: Page 1 | Page 2 | Page 3

Airbase nukes
Related to the above point but different enough to merit its own discussion.

Quite simply, airbases and airports: groundburst, airburst, or dependent on the circumstances? Fegaxeyl 22:11, February 4, 2012 (UTC)

When I wrote the UK page I summised that airbases, airports and other military barracks would have been hit with small 'tactical' i.e. low yield nukes (10KT or so, or less than Hiroshima/Nagasaki size) as the Soviets wouldn't have waisted large nukes on small (less than 0.5 mile across) bases, and you can stuff a lot more 10KT warheads into a missile designed for 1MT bomb (I was guessing at 15-20 warheads), plus the blasts from that one mssile would be almost at the same time.

Seeing as the 'tactical' nukes were smaller than 1945 Hiroshima/Nagasaki bombs then we can use them as examples, so 30 years later they would be safe, but totally overgrown.

--Smoggy80 10:09, February 5, 2012 (UTC)

....That wasn't really what was asked, Smog.

It would depend on the circumstances which one was used, Feg.

For instance, as smog has noted, tiny more minor ones, probably airbursts, so long as there's no cities, etc. around.

Groundbursts, if there is bunkers, etc. there, or it is larger.

Airports, probably always a ground burst, though again, dependent on the size.

Lordganon 07:36, February 6, 2012 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong (I won't mind, really), but would not tactical nukes by design be ground bursts to assure destruction of the target with the least collateral damage? In today's warfare (not TTL) that includes "smart bombs" that go right into a structure before exploding! In 1983, though, hitting a target directly on top of it would eliminate half of the destructive range due to the reduced (by half) fireball and shockwave. The EMP would also be reduced quite a bit, not that it matters to the target! SouthWriter 19:51, February 6, 2012 (UTC)

Despite what Smog's saying, those 10kt ones used in the UK wouldn't really be tactical ones in most manners except the size, given the delivery methods.

Yeah, tactical ones would be designed to be ground-bursts, I'm sure, almost entirely. I know that there was a few designed to go off further up, though, to take out waves of aircraft.

Lordganon 02:45, February 7, 2012 (UTC)

I quote direct from wikipedia:

The principal military advantage of an air burst over a ground burst is that the energy from the explosion (as well as any shell fragments) is distributed more evenly over a wider area; however, the peak energy is lower.

Nuclear weapons ''The air burst is usually several hundred to a few thousand feet in the air to allow the shockwave of the fission or fusion driven explosion to destroy the largest possible number of buildings, military units or vehicles, etc. This also minimizes the generation of irradiated soil and other debris (fallout) by keeping the fireball from touching the ground, limiting the amount of additional debris that is vaporized and drawn up in the radioactive debris cloud. For the Hiroshima bomb an air burst 1800 to 2000 feet (550 to 610m) above the ground was chosen "to achieve maximum blast effects, and to minimize residual radiation on the ground as it was hoped U.S. troops would soon occupy the city".''

This shows that an airburst blast would've been the preferable option, (even in cities) max damage, minimum radioactivity left over as fall out. After all, as it states, you usually bomb an area in order to take it over not just destroy it totally.

so air burst, max damage, min radioactivity. Ground burst, prob same amount of damage (roughly) but far more radioactivity.

--Smoggy80 12:56, February 11, 2012 (UTC)

Wyoming's OTL Preparation for Doomsday
So I was reading a bunch of articles on AOL and I came across a bill currently being pushed by lawmakers in Wyoming on what to do in an apocalyptic scenario, includeing making currency and forming a military, which are themes found in nearly every nation in this timeline.

Anyways if it's of any interest to you guys the line is here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/25/wyoming-doomsday-bill_n_1301710.html

Arstar 04:34, February 26, 2012 (UTC)

Suez Canal
I have recently been working on the history of Israel. In doing so several questions have arisen in my mind. I raised two on the Egyptian discussion page. However, I thought it best to raise the third here, regarding the Suez Canal. To the best of my knowledge there was never a discussion about the Suez. Recently, I was digging around in the various articles and ran across the Kemet piece which stated the canal was turned over to them in 2008 by the League of Nations. I have been contemplating what occurred before this. In doing so, I found myself creating an outline for an article on the canal.

The Suez was different from the Panama Canal because it was owned by Egypt and did not utilize a system of locks. It basically ran from the Mediterranean to the Red Sea. The only way to immobilize it would be to block it as Nasser did when he sank some forty ships in the Suez or lace it with mines. My suggestion is as follows. When war breaks out in 1983, Egypt initially closes the canal for safety but eventually reopens it, blocking access to any military vessel. When the extremists takeover, they block the canal using mines and sunken ships. In 1987 during the Israeli-Egyptian War, Israel invades and captures the Sinai, with troops crossing over and seizing the Suez.

Realizing the canal is more than they can handle at the time, considering the rebuilding underway in their country, they approach the GSU about working together to get the canal back up and running to promote commerce and jointly operate it. Negotiations take awhile followed by repairs. By the early 1990s, the canal is functioning. Protests slowly grow over time concerning Israel's involvement. They ultimately withdraw keeping a small presence. At some point the canal is turned over to the League of Nations because of its importance. The only concern I have is the League was created in 2008 but somehow gave Greece the mandate for the canal the same year. Maybe they could still give them the canal. I don't know and open to suggestions here. However, I feel the canal would not have been abandoned until 2008. Efforts would have been made to reopen it. I also strongly believe Israel would have grabbed the Suez during the 1987 war. As I said, these are my thoughts at this point. I welcome your imput and suggestions on the matter. Thanks. --Fxgentleman 05:46, March 2, 2012 (UTC)

..Not that there was any logic or basis to the ones you left on the Egypt talk page. {C The Canal was abandoned by the Egyptians, following fighting inside Egypt itself, fighting with Israel, and fuel shortages. Both unmanned and damaged - and with ships sunk/stuck inside it as a result of events - it would be useless. {C Israel, as should be obvious, is not going to be in a position to do anything about it. Especially when their priority is rebuilding their own nation. {C As stated on the Egypt page, the thought that the Israelis and Arabs would do such a thing is ludicrous. Especially when, after a fashion, the Egyptian government has at least de jure control of the western banks, though obviously not really de facto.

Greece took control of the western bank of the canal in 2003. And, after the creation of the LoN in 2008, in a move that was hated in the region, and the confederation itself, as it took away Greek lands, after a fashion, parts of it became the Canal Zone - which then combined with the other Greek territories, compounding the matter. And considering all things, the Israelis are going to feel the same way about whatever bits on their side they give up in the process, though their border obviously stays more or less on the canal. Call it that in exchange, they get a share of the funds earned from it. {C Now, sometime between 1990 and 2008 the Canal gets fixed up. I'll give Fx that one. But it sure as heck wouldn't be the Israelis and/or the GSU that do it. So, we have to assume it was in the 2003-2008 period that it became more than slightly passable, which I'd chalk up the the Israelis in the intermittent period. Seriously, most of this is already on the Egypt and Kemet pages, or an obvious assumption. What on earth is the point of this? Lordganon 09:51, March 2, 2012 (UTC)

I had three concerns. Two were more specific to Egypt which is why I posted them there. I posted my thoughts on the Suez Canal here separately because I felt it was more community related. I read the articles for Greece and Kemet. It was not clear to me based on my reading they took over the canal in 2003. I did not see the Suez mentioned by name until 2008 when it given to them by the LON. I raised the thought about Israel possibly capturing the Suez because they came close to doing so in the past. If they captured the Sinai, it would not be improbable for them to move forward and take the Suez given it was so close and the disorganization of the enemy. If they took it, they would try to fix it. This is why I was hypothesizing about them asking for help from others. As I stated on the Egypt page I was in error when I brought up the GSU, because they had not been formed yet. I chalk that up to the late hour when I posted. My alternative suggestion is that Israel initially takes the Suez in 1987. They begin work to fix it, but ultimately decide to withdraw for reasons to be determined; maybe because they wish to devote more time on their infrastructure. This would leave the door open for Greece in 2003 to resume work on the canal. Thoughts anyone?--Fxgentleman 14:43, March 2, 2012 (UTC)

Why on earth would the Israelis do anything to it? It's more or less useless to them, and a better defensive barrier if it's not at all passable.

Suez doesn't at all need to be mentioned in Kemet/Egypt. It's something that should be obvious.

Israel doesn't at the time even have the resources to fix itself. Why on earth would they try and repair the canal in that context? Obviously, they wouldn't.

Lordganon 16:04, March 2, 2012 (UTC)

Suez Canal, and the area around it are part of Kemet, therefore part of Greece

And I quote the Kemet page: ''Also in 2008 the League of Nations seeing the work Greece was doing in the area, as well as them already controlling most of the nearby area granted Greece the mandate of the Suez Canal Zone. Through negotiations with the League of Nations, the territory of the Suez Canal Zone and the Nile Delta Territory were merged into the Greek Mandate for North Africa''

And the Egypt page states ''In 2008, the Greek Confederation was granted a mandate over the Suez Canal Zone from the League of Nations. This area was merged with the Greek Protectorate of Kemet, and at the same time, Egypt announced that it was relinquishing any claims to the Sinai Peninsula, mainly because they were focusing on the new Eonile.''

Israel may have control of the Sinai (which is mostly desert), LoN had control of Suez, until they gave it to Kemet in 2008, however this was when the LoN was founded so control between 1984 (the nuking of Cairo) and 2008 (handing over from Lon to Kemet) is up for debate--Smoggy80 16:25, March 2, 2012 (UTC)

...As I said, the Greeks have it and give it up to the LoN, who then gives it back to them in a different form. De jure Egyptian on the west bank of the canal prior to that, Israeli on the east. Lordganon 16:40, March 2, 2012 (UTC)

The Suez Canal is currently under Greek control, as mandated by the LoN. I don't think anyone here is disputing that.

As for the period between 1984 and 2008, Fx's argument has some merit. Kemet wasn't formed until 2003, so certainly the period between 1984 and 2003 is currently undefined. In my opinion, Israel would logically seek to control the Suez Canal after it conquered the Sinai. The Suez Canal is a natural defensive position with major global strategic significance and it has huge revenue potentials as trade recovers. Taking control of the canal itself would be fairly simple after the collapse of the Egyptian government.

As for repairing the canal, it actually wouldn't be that difficult. It has no locks. Reparing it would be a fairly straightforward matter of removing any mines and sunken ships. It's time consuming, but not hugely expensive. That being said, trade through the canal would be low since North America and Europe, where most of the ships that pass through the canal go, are non-factors in the world of international trade so the impetus to repair it quickly wouldn't really be there. Paring that with the reconstruction needed within Israel proper, repairing the canal probably wouldn't be high on their priorities list. That would, in all likelihood, be the reason why only minor repairs occured when the canal was under Israeli control.

I think the most realistic scenario is this. Egypt controls the entire Canal until 1987-88. After the collapse of the government, Egypt retains some sort of de jure control over the west bank of the Canal, but the Israelis control the east bank of the Canal and control all shipping through it. From 1988-2003, the Israelis, for all intents and purposes, control the Canal. In 2003 after the formation of Kemet, Greece takes control of the east bank of the Canal. From 2003-2008, the Canal is divided between the Greeks and Israelis. There can be some bilateral agreement between over usage and repair of the canal or the Israelis could maintain de facto control of it. In 2008 after the LoN is formed, the LoN votes to make the Canal an international territory. The Greeks and Israelis both, begrudgingly, give up their respective control of the Canal and it is placed under an international mandate. During the short period it is under LoN control, the international community provides the necessary investment and resources to complete the repair of the Canal. Finally, there is a vote on the future status of the Canal. For whatever reason (you guys can think of one), the LoN deems that it unnecessary that the Suez Canal remain under international proprietarship and it should be placed under the control of either Greece or Israel. During the course of the ensuing diplomatic debate, Israel, and its supporters, lose and the LoN votes to place the Canal under Greek control. I believe all of this conforms to canon and merely fills gaps in the various related articles. However, I would propose that since the LoN wans't formed until late 2008, the first thing they would do would probably not be to take control of the Suez Canal. Also, repairing the canal would take several months so it would need to remain under LoN control for at least 3-6 months. Then, the debate and bureaucratic procedures to transfer control of the canal would take at least another 1-3 months. So I would say that the Suez Canal shouldn't be transferred to Greek control until late 2009 or early 2010. This is a fairly minor change that would make it all a more realistic process.

LG, none of this is obvious nor is it actually detailed in any of the aforementioned articles. This isn't a major issue, but it is one that should be elaborated on. I think you and Fx can easily work this out through a farily straight forward process. A few paragraphs across the three articles are all that are really needed. [[User:Caeruleus|Caeruleus 21:21, March 2, 2012 (UTC)]]

As stated: control of a damaged and impassable canal does them nothing. Their control of the eastern bank givens them a very good defensive position. That's it.

Israel has lost its ports, for all purposes. Along with tons of infrastructure, and shipping. They have no real ability to fix the canal. No locks does not mean it cannot be damaged. Shells, mines, bombs... and more importantly, the bridges. Very easy to damage and block.

Over time, the best that they could manage would be to blow up the larger debris on the surface, and sink those ships blocking the passage. But that won't allow usage, worth mentioning. Passable to some small vessels, but useless in all other regards - effectively, unusable. Factor in that the Med itself is more or less impassable due to other factors, and no one would use it. Something that should be pretty obvious.

"De jure" means, more or less, "claimed."

Greeks take over the western side in 2003. Given their position, they are a group with the ability to fix it - and would do so, though it would take quite some time. Thus, the 2008 date. And when it is fixed, they give it up to the LoN, despite discontent with the move. Who then promptly gives it back, in a rather backhanded move.

What you're missing is that possessing the canal, and bordering it, are not the same thing. Israel borders it. Greece possesses it. Note the key difference.

Parts of this are said outright. And almost all of the rest is logical assumptions from what is already there.

Everything except the Israeli bits are already there. And Fx has repeatedly said he is working on that part.

Lordganon 02:27, March 3, 2012 (UTC)

LG....nothing you just said disagreed with anything I wrote. I pretty muched agreed with you on every point. All I'm saying is that you and Fx, in your respectively articles, need to actually explain what happens. Not base it off of assumptions or logical deductions. Caeruleus 11:01, March 3, 2012 (UTC)

Things are explained. And what you said is not what I'm saying. Lordganon 11:15, March 3, 2012 (UTC)

Everything you've outlined is in the scenario I proposed. And I just said I agreed with you. There's nothing to debate there.

Clearly, as this debate has revealed, things aren't explained. Most of what you've brought up or quoted isn't actually written. You're making deductions based on what already is canon. What Fx is proposing here is to simply hash out and write the history of the Suez Canal. Nothing in this debate is about changing canon. It's about whether or not to add a few paragraphs to a few articles. Since this hasn't been written out, it needs to be done. Caeruleus 23:40, March 4, 2012 (UTC)

No, that is not in the least bit true. Your "proposal" is most decidedly not what I said, at all.

On the contrary, things are explained. Fx had a problem with the story - not that it was not explained.

Lordganon 09:14, March 5, 2012 (UTC)

F&F in Britain
Considering radiation causes mutations and because of this huge portions of the UK remain unhabitable due to his, what would happen to the plants? Plants (including trees and flowers) are all living organisms and would also mutate growing in radiation. So the main question is; would new types of trees and flowers emerge?? Imperium Guy 22:03, March 4, 2012 (UTC)

Radiation causing mutations is mostly a comic book thing, unless you consider cancer a mutation. It mostly just kills things.Oerwinde 00:20, March 5, 2012 (UTC)

I suppose one plausible mutation could be some kind of super-reproductive algae - the kind that already chokes British waterways OTL, but mutated to breed even faster. You could see it clogging up entire waterways. Feg 07:53, March 5, 2012 (UTC)

Even that's probably a stretch, imo.

More or less what Oer said, Imp. Add to that that most of the UK is habitable, just large portions happen to be uninhabited at the present.

Lordganon 08:57, March 5, 2012 (UTC)

Depends where, within a mile or so of most strikes it would still be far too radioactive for anything to survive long, further away then, small mutations would occur, large mutations would kill the flora and fauna well before it could breed and pass it on, if the small mutations were advantagious then they would survive better, breed more and pass on the mutated gene, if not then they would die before they breed.

For a good example look at OTL Chernobyl, most of the wildlife survived just fine, even the red forest that was killed in 1986 is starting to regenerate.--Smoggy80 14:40, March 5, 2012 (UTC)

Even small mutations is likely an exaggeration. To the best of my knowledge, there's only been two "surviving" mutations out of Chernobyl, for instance, - one is a species of fungi that's grown to tolerate extreme radiation, having been discovered growing inside the reactor, and the other is larger leaves appearing on some trees. And aside from London, that's with far more radiation than anywhere in the UK would have gotten. Lordganon 15:31, March 5, 2012 (UTC)

As a biology student, I can tell you that mutations don't (normally) affect organisms for the better. Most would die out. :( GunsnadGlory 19:47, March 5, 2012 (UTC)

Two Questions
First off, is it possible to make an article about, say, a music band in some country?

Secondly, how many proposals can one person field at a time? GunsnadGlory 19:47, March 5, 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Very possible to do so.

We've talked about a limit in the past, but at this time there is none.

Lordganon 02:31, March 6, 2012 (UTC)

there is an existing one for U2 so i don't see why not, as long as they weren't all killed on DD obviously. There is also a proposal page Music (1983: Doomsday) --Smoggy80 17:08, March 6, 2012 (UTC)

I meant a new band, but thanks! GunsnadGlory 19:24, March 6, 2012 (UTC)

M.I.A.
You know there's a popular singer named M.I.A.. According to her biography, she lived during childhood in Sri Lanka, an country not destroyed in ATL by Doomsday, and she escaped with her family to London, UK in 1986 due to Sri Lankan Civil War. If DD happened, she would escape either to Brazil or Australia or Tamil Nadu (countries not destroyed by DD) and she would still make music, but different than OTL. What do you think about it?? Wijata Mateusz 09:32, March 9, 2012 (UTC)

Except that by the end of 1985, the Tamils of Sri Lanka had won their independence. They'd still be living in Jaffna, and happy. Lordganon 10:01, March 9, 2012 (UTC)

And, it occurs to me, as well: given her father's activities, he'd be high up politically, too. Lordganon 00:50, March 10, 2012 (UTC)

=CURRENT ARTICLE PROPOSALS=

Please list any and all current article proposals and their discussion here. If the proposals only involves a specific section of the article, please state that. Also remember to use  when reviewing new articles. To graduate an article, move to have the article graduated and if no one objects the article will be considered canon (see the for more information on this process). {C {C

Obsolete article resurrected by Arstar. Mitro 16:18, October 28, 2010 (UTC)

I have a question concerning this article, who currently is the caretaker? I ask because amongst my other work I have been studying up on Iceland out of curiosity and feel I could flesh this out more so it would be realistic. However, I don't wish to intrude on someone else's project. Thanks.--Fxgentleman 15:43, November 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe it is Arstar. I think if you ask though he would be willing to let you takeover. I do believe he is trying to shorten his list of proposals. Mitro 19:32, November 11, 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the information. I spoke with him and he gave me the okay to move forward.--Fxgentleman 03:45, November 12, 2010 (UTC)

Thought I'd leave this note here - that I left on its talk page quite some time ago - but the strike list on this article isn't plausible. Lordganon 07:56, May 18, 2011 (UTC)

This page has been sitting here for over a year, and I handed it over to Fx a while back. Is it at least stub suitable, or should it be obsolete? Arstar 07:31, December 3, 2011 (UTC)

No in both cases. There are major issues with it so we cannot graduate it in any form, yet, it is an article on an established nation, so we cannot mark it as obsolete. Lordganon 07:34, December 3, 2011 (UTC)

I am still working on the article and intend to complete it along with Greenland. The only issue I am aware of as of this date which was raised had to do with the strike zones I selected. The areas I selected would have been legitimate and logical military targets of a Soviet attack: NAS Keflavik, the Keflavik Airport, and the Distant Early Warning (DEW) radar stations located in Sangerdi and Hofn.

Although the Doomsday scenario does revolve around a Soviet attack based on the assumption they are under a sudden assault, there is nothing to indicate the Soviets would not have followed up with bombers in a secondary attack on targets. The DEW radar system was designed to detect such incoming bombers. This would make it a target by the USSR. Although this aspect of the war to the best of my knowledge has not been explored in any great way, it was established in the history of Victoria that coastal Canada came under attack by Soviet bombers and they were shot down.

The destruction of DEW radar stations in Greenland and Iceland coupled with the effects produced by the HANEs over the continental US would help to punch holes in the network and leave North America vulnerable to any bomber attacks from that direction. I can not explain why other writers never elaborated on the fate of DEW sites in the US, Canada, and the Faroe Islands. It may have been a simple oversight given how many areas there are to cover. The article on Alaska speaks to multiple attacks on the Aleutian Island chain against military targets. Although it did not specifically clarify the exact targets, there were DEW stations in the islands which almost certainly would have been among sites hit. --Fxgentleman 16:33, December 3, 2011 (UTC)

Except for the fact that not a single part of the DEW network was in range of the HANE blasts. By 2,500 miles, at least.

Not a single one of these sites was hit, anywhere. To hit a detection site after its job has been accomplished holds absolutely no point. We've never elaborated about the bombers because whether a site is hit by one or a ICBM doesn't really matter.

And the Alaska article is not referring to them, either. Why? Because those stations in the Aleuts had all been closed in 1969. What it would be referring to is Cold Bay Air Force Station, and likely Unalaska as well.

So, as stated: They were not hit, anywhere.

Lordganon 17:12, December 3, 2011 (UTC)

I stand corrected regarding the stations in the Aleutians. The sources I read gave me the impression they were open in 1983. I went back and checked and you are correct. You are also correct that the DEW system ran across the northern border of Canada and Alaska. I was thinking of the Pine Tree Line and the Mid Canada Line which I mistakenly lumped in with the DEW network. It was these two that I was thinking of when I made a reference to the HANE since some of their stations would fall under the EMP line. So my error on those points.

However, could you elaborate further why you think DEW sites would not be hit?

The DEW radar stations were designed to detect bomber(s) with a certainty of at least 99.9% that by the time they crossed the line the bomber(s) location, track direction, and time of detection had been ascertained and transmitted to NORAD. Once the last of the bombers passed the line then yes, you would be correct that the station's purpose has thus been served and to strike it would be pointless because what it was created to detect has already gone through. The question I would have to ask is since the bombers would have to be launched from the USSR and pass over the Polar Cap to reach Canada and the US how long would they take to reach the radar line?

Lets hypothesize for a moment. We know the Soviets received the warning at about 3:40 GMT+3 and launched their ICBMs roughly five minutes later. Since I don't know how long it would take to scramble Soviet bombers lets say hypothetically the first bombers begin scrambling at the same point the missiles are being launched and are airborne roughly ten minutes later or 3:50 GMT+3. At this point we have different groups of bombers inbound. I suggested the radar sites in Iceland were hit at about 4:05 GMT+3. I do not know how long it takes a bomber to leave its base and reach the radar line. But I don't believe that all the bombers would have already reached and over flown the radar line by that time. So logically until that last bomber goes over their existence creates a viable threat to the effectiveness of the Soviet bombers. Thus an early attack on some or all the stations would be a reasonable action on the part of the Soviets. My suggestion is this, I can reduce the attacks to missiles carrying conventional explosive warheads given they are small targets. This would serve the purpose of neutralizing the target while leaving a insignificant footprint on the area. What do you think, I am open to thoughts?--Fxgentleman 00:58, December 4, 2011 (UTC)


 * I have always understood that this scenario was basically an accidental war fought long-distance by ICBMs and some SLBMs. If there had been scrambled bombers, they would have been sent out by both the USA and the USSR, and perhaps many NATO and some Warsaw Pact nations as well. All of this means planes in place to shoot down each other, and perhaps a few incoming ICBMs and SLBMs. The accidental war would have been over the Arals and Canada as Bombers met each other. We don't have this in any of our story lines. There is some of it, but not over the lower 48 states. The damage was done by the first strike almost exclusively, as I interpret it. There may have been waves, but as I understand it, it was mostly over in a few hours (except for border wars such as that in Alaska). Introducing bombers is too much for the time line as we have it to absorb, in my opinion. SouthWriter 05:24, December 4, 2011 (UTC)

Having reviewed and considered South's comments I have gone ahead and removed any mention of the narrative regarding the DEW stations. I have to say though it is indeed very confusing from my point of view. I agree with South in that I always subscribed to the theory of how the war evolved, sudden rather than planned using just missiles in the US and Canada. The Victoria article when I read it a time ago had changed my thoughts regarding the whole business since we now had bombers flying in from Russia to attack. I just took it on faith it was simply another part of the story which had never been addressed. Under those conditions I felt DEW stations could not be ignored for the reasons I addressed earlier since they would just be to much of a threat for the Soviets to not strike. Hopefully, sometime in the future, another writer will take up the challenge of addressing the bomber aspect of what occured so we can square that part of the war. --Fxgentleman 06:39, December 4, 2011 (UTC)

Basically, Fx, it's what you said in all of that: By the time the bombers arrive at the line, everything (for all purposes) is known. Their existence, and a lot of the details, would already be known by the destruction of any of them could occur. I figure there'd be a few minutes delay with the bomber launches, but it still stands. Destroying them, in this regard, really doesn't accomplish much of anything.

And, too, the radiation and EMP from such blasts would screw up any future waves a fair amount.

By the time the bombers get to anywhere that they can be harmed, the EMP and many ICBMs have gone off, crippling a lot of them. Same goes for their adversaries, and most people to whom the data would mean much of anything.

It's really a waste, at best. Largely, entirely ineffective. They know about them the entire time, so there is no point in destroying them.

As for Victoria.... really, those ones would have likely flown over the edges of the continent, and survived the EMP, etc. like that. To assume that the bombers would all fly straight is a little off, in my opinion.

Past that, as South said.

Lordganon 10:10, December 4, 2011 (UTC)

One of the things I learned during my recent research was in 1983 there was an active discussion on going about revamping the entire DEW radar line. I was surprised in my reading to find out how bad a shape the network was actually in, reports describing it as decrept. Soviet bombers could fly under 10k feet and avoid it. Apparently the Soviets had a far better and more effective network to stop US bombers. The Reagan administration was discussing as of 4/83 of spending $2 billion to revamp the entire network and trying to force Canada to cover part of the cost. This data was part of the reason my thoughts were finally swayed. Based on all these points, Soviet bombers would have had no real concerns. Nice to find out how well we were protected in 1983. --Fxgentleman 15:31, December 4, 2011 (UTC)

An obsolete article resurrected by myself. Its a brigand group made up of former fraternity guys who banded together shortly after Doomsday when chaos broke out across Central Illinois. Mitro 16:18, October 28, 2010 (UTC)


 * Defunct state, armed faction sans territory, something else? Benkarnell 23:06, October 31, 2010 (UTC)
 * More like what I am doing with the Chinks in Eureka. Just another group of survivors who became hard cases. Mitro 04:20, November 1, 2010 (UTC)


 * Hello, I have a few ideas that in process that would help expand and grow the Illini Republic area. I may start contributing soon, I just need to finalize how I am going to approach the topic. I am open to discuss, contribute, collaborate, or critique.
 * Jroak 06:48, October 8, 2011 (UTC)

Considering our rules, the only thing you're doing is discussing. Lordganon 07:24, October 8, 2011 (UTC)

The history of the Illini Republic can be made in narrative form, with bits and pieces of documentation and documentaitonal clippings chronicalling post-Doomsday events. Based on the Doomsday history of Illinois, a timeline of events can be established chronicaling the evolution of a midwest unversity town into a land of lawlessness. I am approaching this from three lines of ATL historical narrative.

1. At the time of Doomsday, a senior undergraduate student at the University of Illinois, who is originally from Chicago, now finds himself in the role of a student, refugee, graduate student researcher, and later one of the last official administrators of the University. The role of the University during this time, its attempts to stay neutral, and an evacuation of "knowledge," both books and people, to Purdue University in West Lafayette, IN shortly before the local civil government collapsed in 1986.

2. An Illinois Central Gulf railroad engineer whose knowledge of the region's current and former rail routes allows for resource scavenging and for those who want out, a less vulnerable way to travel than staying on the main roads. With help from other surviving Champaign-Urbana (C-U for short) railroad workers, many of whom would have been incapacitated from the strike at Chanute AFB, if they had been on yard duty that night, prove valuable in this capacity. Air Force technicians who were in Champaign at the time also prove helpful to keeping basic machinery usable. But not everyone wants to play nice with this collective knowhow of knowledge.

3. Bulletins and minutes from post-Doomsday news spreads and campus meetings.

Premises (Still formulating details)

The C-U area would have been immensely affected by a strike at Chanute Air Force Base in Rantoul, IL. As a training base for aircraft, ICBM, and eletronics maintainance, its target value would to be deny repair and recovery. I'm going to life hard and say it received two hits in the 100Kt range.

Aside from flash and blast damage, if the winds were from the south, this would blow some of the short term fallout away from C-U. I'll deal with this detail when I find out what weather conditions were like that day.

Any college town (and rural area) for that matter will have more than its fair share of 20 year old vehicles. 1983 C-U will be no different. Vehicles that survived the EMP and can run are highly sought after. Unfortunately this will create some initial problems in post-Doomsday.

Refugees from Decatur would probably find it easier to come to C-U via I-72. Refugees from the Chicago area are few in number and start to die relatively quickly. Refugees from Indianapolis travel west on I-74. Those who settle in Danville have fare better than those in the C-U area.

Any thoughts? Jroak24.1.29.37 07:34, October 10, 2011 (UTC)

The majority of that is things that aren't possible, or are at best logic holes. The three points are not possible.

Past that....

Winds go east-northeast. Meaning that the area gets whacked with radiation from Springfield and Decatur.

Only blast, and likely bigger than that.

No fuel, no vehicles. Simple.

Only survivors from Decatur could get there, at all. And that's kinda doubtful

And you've missed the point of this. These are brigands in the ruins. With little to nothing to do with the previous inhabitants.

See previous statement, too.

Lordganon 07:57, October 10, 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi, JR, thank you for your interest. That you have done some work on getting this article - only a place holder for at least a year - on the road to realization is commendable. The proper protocol is to ask to 'adopt' the article, seeing that it has been dormant for so long. Mitro is no longer an active editor, but he does check his messages occasionally, so his permission should be easy to come by.


 * As for the scenario, make sure you read what Mitro wrote on the Eureka page and aim at getting to that point in much the same way as did the "Chinks." As Mitro wrote in February the Illini Republic was founded by "University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign fraternity and sorority members who banded together during the collapse of Urbana–Champaign." There is, therefore a link to the "previous inhabitants." However, the evacuation of Urbana-Champaign and the university may not have been as smooth as you see it.


 * The train and the cars would be available with only what fuel was in their tanks. Fuel out of storage facilities would be accessed only by mechanical pumps that would have to be manually operated - and then only if authorities could keep them out of the hands of bandits and such. That being said, the cars would be used sparingly, and possibly only by whatever emergency governments that arose. However, the evacuation by auto would have been possible in cars with a fair amount of fuel even with low efficiency, for the trip was only 90 miles.


 * Assuming for a moment that a locomotive with adequate fuel had been available, please remember that tracks may not have been clear everywhere. And without communications the engineer would not know of any blocked tracks. Exit during comparitively quiet times would have been possible, though.


 * All that being said, the evacuation would only been nominally successful, given the picture that Mitro draws in his Eureka article. I would not encourage anything like the orderliness that you portray in your notes. SouthWriter 20:38, October 10, 2011 (UTC)


 * Just a question here, but it seems a bit unlikely that the local government would survive so long as three years. The Japanese government nearly collapsed in WW II despite just two cities (Hiroshima and Nagaski) being nuked. Even then, it still had quite a bit of power, but it was an entire country. Here, most of the authorities would be shocked to the level of the refugees. As long as we are assuming that the air force base was nuked, army support would be very limited. I would estimate a local government collapse at a year at the most.
 * 98.14.126.83 01:16, November 21, 2011 (UTC)

Article created by Yank. Mitro 16:42, November 22, 2010 (UTC)

Is this going anywhere? Lordganon 14:59, April 6, 2011 (UTC)

I'd be willing to allow someone to work the kinks out of it. I just have one request. I request that it is not to be annexed by another nation.

Yank 15:05, April 6, 2011 (UTC)

I suppose in light of that, and time passed, would there be objections to putting it up for adoption? Lordganon 05:13, May 8, 2011 (UTC)

Put up for adoption. Lordganon 11:44, May 12, 2011 (UTC)

Thought I'd leave a note here to say that this page has been adopted by a new user, Martin1983. Note, too, that he, despite the name, seems to have nothing to do with Owen. Lordganon 22:55, October 18, 2011 (UTC)

.....Or not. I undid all of that stuff he put in, as per policy. Lordganon 10:13, December 4, 2011 (UTC)


 * So...can we obsolete this? Mitro 19:48, December 23, 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's still up for adoption. So, no reason to do that, I'd think. Lordganon 01:07, December 24, 2011 (UTC)

This article has been up in the air for a year and a half. Just because it's up for adoption doesn't mean we should keep it. Unless Yank works on it in the next week I think we should obsolete it. Arstar 02:09, January 8, 2012 (UTC)

The article is perfectly valid, and just needs to be completed. So, I have to oppose that idea. Lordganon 11:12, January 8, 2012 (UTC)

Article created by Arstar. Mitro 03:42, January 6, 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how I can make this work at the current moment as it was one of several dozen projects I started that aren't appropriate to the direction my projects took over the past year. Any objections to me making it obsolete? Arstar 01:12, December 4, 2011 (UTC)

Yes. It's good, just needs a little work. As with a lot of things you left, it's on my list of things to finish, and I'll get to it at some point. Lordganon 10:15, December 4, 2011 (UTC)T

I'm going to try to make this article work by starting it over from scratch. Arstar 01:51, January 8, 2012 (UTC)

Seoul
It is a city proposal by me, PitaKang. PitaKang 01:24, February 17, 2011 (UTC)

I think it's ready. Any objections? PitaKang- (Talk|Contribs) 21:51, February 23, 2011 (UTC)

Same one as I've told you several times now with regards to the terrorists. Lordganon 05:08, February 24, 2011 (UTC)

So.... no more objections? PitaKang- (Talk|Contribs) 22:30, March 2, 2011 (UTC)


 * What does LG have to say? Mitro 03:05, March 17, 2011 (UTC)


 * He's fixed it, though sloppily. Lordganon 11:05, March 17, 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you guys have any suggestions to make it better? PitaKang- (Talk | Contribs) 19:29, March 17, 2011 (UTC)

There's now a whole series of objections to this on its talk page. Lordganon 13:13, April 1, 2011 (UTC)

I have fixed those objections, so are there any more? PitaKang- (Talk | Contribs) 19:20, May 12, 2011 (UTC)

You have fixed one of those objectives, and smoggy just gave you a couple more. The article is still somewhat unrealistic in its wording and what it seems to say. You also still neglect to mention that the entire region is under military control, and that your presented view of the area is thus too... pleasant, I suppose, is a good word. 

Also, Desert was indeed correct about much of the article being things that should be on the Korea article. They should be removed to that location.

Lordganon 02:25, May 13, 2011 (UTC)

Is this page going to be amalgamated into the Korea page? as it doesn't really add anything that is not already on the Korea page (in fact in places it contradicts the Korea page)--Smoggy80 16:32, July 22, 2011 (UTC)

Parts of it are going to have to be, but most of it would form the article still. Pita seems to have dropped off the face of the earth, however. Lordganon 16:59, July 22, 2011 (UTC)

Anyone have any objections to changing this to obsolete? Pita's dropped off the planet and i think everyone apart from Pita realises this should be part of the Korea article--Smoggy80 17:20, November 25, 2011 (UTC)

None. BrianD 02:07, November 26, 2011 (UTC)

Funny enough, I have to oppose making this obsolete. While as it stands this thing is not close to possible, and much of it would go instead on the Korea article, it is still on some level a valid article. Rather than obsolete it, how about we put it up for adoption instead? Lordganon 22:39, November 27, 2011 (UTC)

If the article is viable, then adoption is fine. BrianD 03:33, November 28, 2011 (UTC)

Put it up for adoption. However can I add, that it should be reviewed for parts to be transfered to the Korea page before any more work occurs on it?--Smoggy80 18:11, November 29, 2011 (UTC)

I have now marked it as up for adoption. Lordganon 01:00, December 6, 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I had adopted it not long ago. Are there any objections now? Monstermans 19:50, March 5, 2012 (UTC)

Hello? World? Monstermans 22:42, March 6, 2012 (UTC)

Graduation, as per procedure and protocol, occurs after a waiting period. Barring objections, it'll get graduated in due time. Lordganon 11:50, March 7, 2012 (UTC)

I started an article on the actives of the Former Beatles(Paul, Ringo,George) following the 1983 Doomsday Event. I hope to finish it soon. Is this an acceptable topic to write about? If not please let me know. (Jer1818)


 * I've moved this section from the archive page to this one. Let's see where the page goes, since for now it's just a recap of the OTL biographies up to 1983. Benkarnell 04:56, March 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * Welcome, Jer! I've made a few comments on the article's talk page. BrianD 06:49, March 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * I updated Paul's and Ringo's Postdoomsday activities...read them and let me know what you think Jer1818 22:16, March 6, 2011 (UTC)

Ok to graduate?--Smoggy80 14:59, March 3, 2012 (UTC)

No. It's definitely not done. Lordganon 20:21, March 3, 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Ganon's assessment on the talk page, Paul McCartney's demise must be mentioned in order for the article to be complete. SouthWriter 04:17, March 10, 2012 (UTC)

Issaquah-Snoqualmie
I made an article stub for a survivor community in the Cascades near where I live. The geography of the area forms a pretty protected valley in Issaquah (It's located between two mountains and home construction on those mountains had yet to begin in earnest in 1983 - they arrived as a result of the Microsoft boom. This also means that the population would be smaller than in OTL, since Issaquah's growth spurt didn't happen until this past decade.) There are a lot of highlands and whatnot in Issaquah proper to protect the city from the shockwaves 25 miles away in Seattle, although some radiation would probably occur there too.

Snoqualmie itself is located further up the mountains, near the town of North Bend. Don't worry, I'm not trying to turn North Bend into a massive empire like *cough* certain people did, but its protected up in the mountains and is far enough away from Seattle to suggest that it would have survived almost completely intact. I propose Issaquah-Snoqualmie as a minor conurbation of small communities stretching through the Snoqualmie pass from up in the mountains to the foothills. Pasco is pretty far from this area but likely enjoys healthy trade with Issaquah-Snoqualmie thanks to their outposts in central Washington (Ellensburg), as is established in canon. Again, to reiterate, I'm not trying to transform the Issaquah-North Bend corridor into a mighty Cascade empire - it would be a self-sufficient, hectic and maybe even wild-west style survivor town in most of the 1980's saddled with refugees from the Seattle/Bellevue area.

On the note of Victoria, I doubt that at least until the mid-2000's or even now, they would have bothered crossing an irradiated wasteland to get to Issaquah, even though the communities between Issaquah and Snoqualmie technically fall within their claimed territory.

Issaquah, culturally, was much more of a rural and exoburban city in the 1980's, even though today it's full of rich assholes (My personal bias. Fuck those guys.)

KingSweden 19:53, March 6, 2011 (UTC)

Well, looking at the much more zoomed in map on the Victoria History article itself I think it could work in some form. Issaquah is on the border line, and the other community is definitely outside of it. Though, that map is a little old, so.... Definitely could have lived through the blasts, etc. mind - radiation would have went to sea. Oer, thoughts? Lordganon 22:33, March 6, 2011 (UTC)

I've got no problems. Victoria is too busy with the Olympia and Aberdeen areas and bringing the newly aquired south into the fold, along with establishing a border with Astoria to worry about some small mountain towns.Oerwinde 09:54, March 29, 2011 (UTC)

So, what's the plan for this one, guys? King, are you planning on doing anything with it? Lordganon 22:45, November 27, 2011 (UTC)

Are there any objections to making this a stub?Arstar 22:43, January 13, 2012 (UTC)

Yes. There is no reason at all to even consider it at this time. The article is far from done, and unlike the stubs, has entire sections blank. Lordganon 09:39, January 14, 2012 (UTC)

Superior Election Articles

 * 1984 Republic of Superior Congressional Elections (1983: Doomsday)
 * 1986 Republic of Superior Congressional Elections (1983: Doomsday)
 * 1994 Republic of Superior Congressional Elections (1983: Doomsday)

Though created by an anon, they allegedly follow canon and were originally red linked. Mitro 17:21, March 10, 2011 (UTC)

The first two have no basis in canon at all - virtually no reference to numbers and political positions of the two parties or the like with the congress of Superior exist for that era that actually indicate things one way or the other like this. The independent numbers are.... not possible, either. The 1994 one is the only one with some actual accuracy as it currently stands, though even it has to be massively re-written. Lordganon 20:21, March 10, 2011 (UTC)


 * Well I think we should mark the first two obsolete and put the last up for adoption. Any objections? Mitro 18:31, March 20, 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure this won't come as a surprise to anyone who's been paying attention to the newsbits and edits with Superior I've been doing lately, but I'm adopting these articles, and am going to be adding many more of them. Lordganon 00:11, August 12, 2011 (UTC)

President ones first, then congress, then governors. Lalalala.... 07:15, August 26, 2011 (UTC)

All right, I believe I'm done with the Presidential elections. The 2012 one is ongoing, obviously, but should be graduated too, I think.

Any objections to their graduation?

Lordganon 14:46, September 26, 2011 (UTC)

All right, they've been graduated. Lordganon 23:00, October 18, 2011 (UTC)

Arstar, why on earth did you do that? The articles that I asked about were graduated months ago. Lordganon 11:17, January 8, 2012 (UTC)

Article created by Crimson. Mitro 17:25, March 10, 2011 (UTC)

So, where is this going, Crim? Lordganon 22:47, November 27, 2011 (UTC)

Any objections to graduation as a stub?--Smoggy80 15:03, March 3, 2012 (UTC)

Yes. There's nothing here, really, to graduate, and as it stands it's not plausible. Lordganon 20:21, March 3, 2012 (UTC)

Article by Sunkist. Mitro 19:42, March 17, 2011 (UTC)

So what are we doing with this? It's pretty obvious that Sun's more or less abandoned it. Should we obsolete it? Or what? Lordganon 22:48, November 27, 2011 (UTC)

Anything done with it has to tie into Kentucky. I could adopt this, as part of my proposal to flesh out the DDTL state of Indiana. BrianD 03:33, November 28, 2011 (UTC)

That would work well, though I'd talk to Zack about it first. Lordganon 05:30, November 28, 2011 (UTC)

Has BrianD adopted this?--Smoggy80 15:04, March 3, 2012 (UTC)

More or less. Lordganon 20:21, March 3, 2012 (UTC)

Article by South. Mitro 19:42, March 17, 2011 (UTC)

I've worked on a few paragraphs. Let me know what you think. SouthWriter 01:46, July 20, 2011 (UTC)

South, you still working on this? BrianD 03:33, November 28, 2011 (UTC)

Brian, since I am no good at creating fictional characters, would you mind adding to this article. You can use the characters that you created for me earlier. I can't get into the evil mindset the way you can. The article can be an extension of your fascinating one on Athens. It will make a great addition to the post DD history of the tri-state area. SouthWriter 04:13, November 28, 2011 (UTC)

Ok to graduate? --Smoggy80 15:05, March 3, 2012 (UTC)

It's not done yet - they periodically add to it. By the looks of things, it's about half done.

This is an article by an ambitious and energetic young man going by the user name "God Bless the United States of America." We call him GB for short. He is very young and just learning the ropes, so let's all try to help him in this first attempt at a full article in 1983DD. This is a small isolated community on the coast of North Carolina. It needs help so as not to run all over what we know about Elizabeth City and the Outer Banks (OB being primarily "mine" so far). SouthWriter 14:07, March 24, 2011 (UTC)

Thanks South for getting the word out, well anyone can edit the article, I see it as a chance to be another collabertive article for the senior editors to join in to, and allow us young bloods to help. God Bless the United States of America 03:18, March 25, 2011 (UTC)

So what's going on with this article? Lordganon 22:50, November 27, 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Is GB even around anymore?BrianD 03:33, November 28, 2011 (UTC)

LG inadvertantly 'scared' GB away soon at the end of August. He played a map game or two until mid-September, and then, I'm guessing, he went back to school. As for this article, I did some rewriting on it, and he invited everybody to edit as they wished. LG and I once had to save the article from unwanted changes by Outer Banks resident "Alexanders," but I guess the article is "mine" by defalt. What changes or additions do you guys suggest to get it moved to "stub" status? SouthWriter 04:32, November 28, 2011 (UTC)

Far as I can remember, all it really needs is to be done to be graduated. For stub status, any history at all would likely make it good for that. Lordganon 05:31, November 28, 2011 (UTC)

The Ipswich Incident
Ongoing article. Semi-collaboration between Verence and I. Fegaxeyl 21:27, May 1, 2011 (UTC)

Feg, Verence, what's the story here? Lordganon 22:52, November 27, 2011 (UTC)

Proposal by GB not previously put here. It's got..... major issues, but is indeed a start. Lordganon 11:18, May 18, 2011 (UTC)

Is GB still the owner of this article? I have read through it and would like to take it over and expand it based on research I have been doing and also bring it into line with what I am doing for Delmarva. If anyone can let me know, thanks.--Fxgentleman 13:24, August 11, 2011 (UTC)

Yes, he is. And you are definitely the person who should take over and do the article. Lordganon 14:27, August 11, 2011 (UTC)

What's the progress on this article? FX, you still want to take it over?BrianD 03:33, November 28, 2011 (UTC)

By my best guess, he's doing some research and will get to it when he's ready. Lordganon 05:33, November 28, 2011 (UTC)

Ok to graduate as a stub?--Smoggy80 15:06, March 3, 2012 (UTC)

No. There's barely anything here, and what is here... well, it really isn't the case of what would happen. Lordganon 20:21, March 3, 2012 (UTC)

My apologies for not responding sooner regarding this. I had not thought to look at the discussion regarding this for awhile. It is still on my list of things to do and I have not forgotten it. Unfortunately, the duties of my job often take alot of my time and energy and things have been especially hectic since December 2011. If I don't appear to respond and there is a concern/question please just message me on my discussion page or email me and I will respond. Thanks and sorry.--Fxgentleman 22:45, March 4, 2012 (UTC)

More or less what I've been saying about your articles on this list, Fx. No worries, overall - I know some of us are very busy. Lordganon 09:11, March 5, 2012 (UTC)

Survivor state in former Slovakia, by Jnjaycpa. Here's hoping that it doesn't end up like all of his other proposals and he actually works on it. Lordganon 08:00, May 20, 2011 (UTC)

....I suppose I'm not shocked to see this, but since I posted that there has only been two days that it has been edited, and virtually all the problems and blankness remain. Yet, Jnjaycpa has been around. So, what should we do with this? It is somewhat valid, so I'm really not of a mind to make it obsolete. Maybe make if ofa? Lordganon 22:58, November 27, 2011 (UTC)

OFA works for me. It would be good to see Jay return to it and finish it out. BrianD 03:33, November 28, 2011 (UTC)

I have now marked it as open for adoption. Lordganon 01:01, December 6, 2011 (UTC)

I would like to request this article for adoption. Gatemonger 17:31, January 5, 2012 (UTC)

You don't need to ask if it has the banner. Power to you, Gate. Lordganon 01:41, January 6, 2012 (UTC)

Has this been adopted?--Smoggy80 15:07, March 3, 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Smog. Gate's clearly done so. Lordganon 20:21, March 3, 2012 (UTC)

Article by Feg and Vegas. Lordganon 11:32, June 21, 2011 (UTC)

It appears to be all finished now, so any objections to graduation?--Smoggy80 14:54, August 7, 2011 (UTC)


 * One thing I noticed: No casualties or losses mentioned or listed on the template. I think it needs to be fleshed out just a bit, but I don't know much about 'battle articles' (the only war I did was incorporated into the main article).


 * Before we graduate this one, and the one below it, I thought I'd point out the irony of the two being adjacent: The Invasion of Kent & Superman! :-)


 * SouthWriter 04:56, August 8, 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. And, too, the invasion goes from 15th May, 2011 to 2nd June, 2011, but only May 15th-17th is written down. Not even any idea what the consequences/results are, either.

Basically, it is over, but there's no events listed right now. We could probably get away with stubbing it, but... I would really rather avoid that.

Lordganon 06:54, August 8, 2011 (UTC)

Well, since then Vegas has added a little to this, but it remains mostly the same. Feg, Vegas, what's happening with it? Lordganon 22:59, November 27, 2011 (UTC)

Is this article finished? can it be graduated?--Smoggy80 15:08, March 3, 2012 (UTC)

No to both counts. There's basically nothing here. Lordganon 20:21, March 3, 2012 (UTC)

Article by a new user for the Nordic Union member of Denmark. Currently, it is horribly formatted and filled with errors in general. Lordganon 05:00, July 16, 2011 (UTC)

Looks much better now, ok to graduate?--Smoggy80 15:09, March 3, 2012 (UTC)

There has been no improvements, nor is it complete. So, no. Lordganon 20:21, March 3, 2012 (UTC)

Article by me about post-Doomsday Tanganyika. Caeruleus 20:35, July 26, 2011 (UTC)

This article is complete and ready for graduation, if there are no objections. Caeruleus 04:08, September 11, 2011 (UTC)

Yes.

The idea that all of these states would have good relations with the Tanganyika remnant and join that organization makes no sense at all.

Same goes for the situation in most of these states. Have a good, hard, long look at where the economic power in the nation actually is, and where is actually poor: it's not how you show it, at all.

Lordganon 08:29, September 11, 2011 (UTC)


 * They have good relations with the Republic of Tanganyika for two reasons. First, they have to if they want access to their ports. With Mozambique having a civil war to the south and Kenya allying its export policy with that of Tanganyika's, if they want access to wider markets, they have to be nice to Tanganyika. Second, Tanganyika rejected its goal of reunification in 1990, which removed the immediate threat it presented to the newly indepedent states.


 * Tanganyika controls the ports, the commercial capital, most of the region's industry, and the only operational gold mine. At the very least, Tanganyika would be wealthiest because it could tax any exported through its territory. However, if you have evidence to the contrary, I would like to see it. Caeruleus 16:32, September 11, 2011 (UTC)

I suggest you have a good long look at your EAC article. It specifically states that unifying the area is its long-term goal. So no, it has not rejected it.

Ports are overrated whenever you write something. Note the big lake in the northeast? The population around that lake is self-sustaining, and not dependent on the rest of the area or those ports at all. Largest inland fishery in the world. There is no economic pressure that can be done to them, for they have no need to export.

Operational Gold mine? No gold mines were operational at the time. Most only opened in the late 1990s, and the others went out of business by the 1950s. And they would all be in the breakaway states, too.

Commercial Capital means little - and that city would be where most deaths and refugees occur. With exports and imports gone or sharply reduced, the "commercial" aspect goes.

So does industry, which is almost non-existant. Especially since until recently, there was basically nothing in that direction. Most of the exports and agriculture are from the breakaway states. Those on the lake are going to have a higher GNP ratio than Tan~ itself. It's also dependent on them for food, which you failed to notice.

Who's got the economic power? In some regards, Tan~ has some but overall? Not them, by a long shot.

And all that avoids entirely the aspect of relations in general. These states revolted. And you are trying to make them have good relations. That is ridiculous. A few of them, sure. But all? That is just not possible. Each and every time a nation has broken up, especially by force, not all of the parts have been friendly. And yet, you have them all loving each other. That's impossible and makes no sense whatsoever.

Lordganon 02:04, September 13, 2011 (UTC)

Please read through the new updates. Any remaining objections? Caeruleus 03:17, October 5, 2011 (UTC)

A definite improvement, though you missed the point about economic power, and population.

The states on the lake are not dependent on the rest of the nation, in any real way. The population overall fails to include any real number of deaths or refugees.

Lordganon 06:30, October 5, 2011 (UTC)


 * The economic power portions have been revised. The poulation is fine. It's 10 million less than OTL, which is more than enough to count for the number of deaths and refugees. Caeruleus 07:20, October 5, 2011 (UTC)

No. Half the article reads like it is an article on the remnant, the other half reads like an article on the area. If it is overall, that may work as a population. But for the remnant, not in the least. By and large, it appears to be the remnant.

Lordganon 08:01, October 5, 2011 (UTC)


 * It's the total population of the entirety of Greater Tanganyika. Caeruleus 08:19, October 5, 2011 (UTC)

Then you need to re-write the article. That is only about a quarter of what it actually says. Most of it is an article on The remnant. Lordganon 09:40, October 5, 2011 (UTC)


 * It progresses from talking about the remnant to the survivor states, while remaining somewhat focused on the remnant in the context of the other survivor states. After a certain point, "Tanganyika" stops referring to the remnant and begins referring to the region. I'll go through and change references to the region to Greater Tanganyika" in order to clarify that. Caeruleus 13:34, October 5, 2011 (UTC)

Much better. Lordganon 19:18, October 5, 2011 (UTC)

with the improvements is it ok to graduate this article then?--Smoggy80 15:10, March 3, 2012 (UTC)

There are still problems with the "focus," so to speak, of the article. Lordganon 20:21, March 3, 2012 (UTC)

Article by me about Kenya. Caeruleus 19:55, July 27, 2011 (UTC)

This article is complete and ready for graduation, if there are no objections. Caeruleus 04:06, September 11, 2011 (UTC)

Yes.

That this remains intact while most of Africa collapses, despite the major drought just after Doomsday, makes no sense. Earlier on, you had a couple of the provinces go. And yet, then you had them re-join. That is not plausible.

Lordganon 08:33, September 11, 2011 (UTC)

And, to add, there's several statements in it, such as "largest economy in East Africa" which are suspect, and probably not true at all. Lordganon 08:56, September 11, 2011 (UTC)


 * It's the largest economy in East Africa OTL and that would hold true here as well.


 * As for the drought, droughts don't necessarily cause a collapse of government. The only thing that is assured to happen is a higher death toll for the duration of the drought. During droughts, Kenya does need food aid, but it still produces enough to feed a majority of its population. At most, only a few million have ever needed food aid and, even without aid, the situation could still be handled by the government. Caeruleus 16:04, September 11, 2011 (UTC)

Caer, you don't make statements like that. Ever. And, for the record, it is very likely that they are not the largest economy. With the reformation and such that occurred in Ethiopia, it is likely that it, Mozambique, or Madagascar hold the title anyways. Especially given the economic aspects relied on in Kenya, which would have collapsed the economy quickly.

You'll note that I did not say it collapsed. A dictatorship, with a coup attempt barely a year prior, in a multi-ethnic - very multi-ethnic - state with regional divisions. Otl, with massive relief getting sent to them, half of the herds died, and massive amounts of crops. More than half the country is drought-prone. The blasts are on record as warming the earth slightly, making it a touch worse. And, the drought ran from 1983 until 1985, too, throughout all of East Africa. To boot, after that period there was massive floods to make the effect even worse.

http://worldvisionnews.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/horn-of-africa-drought-map.png

and

http://writingtowellness.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/horn-of-africa-drought-map-29-july.jpg

While the two maps are from modern droughts, they show the at-risk areas well, in combination. That has long been the same. Think about it.

You have a few million starving people. And no food to give them. Did you know that the average person is only three meals away from civil disobedience? Do the math. Atl, they are going to have trouble feeding the army. Good luck keeping stability like that.

Collapse outright? Not likely. Remain whole? That's crazy.

Lordganon 05:03, September 13, 2011 (UTC)

I've made some changes. Any remaining objections? Caeruleus 03:18, October 5, 2011 (UTC)

A definite improvement. But you fail to actually take the droughts into effect, at all. Lordganon 06:31, October 5, 2011 (UTC)


 * There's not much to be said about the droughts other than that they happened and had some effects. Caeruleus 07:15, October 5, 2011 (UTC)

Not what I mean. You do not go into details about its effects, and mention it in passing, for the most part. Not only that, but a population 2 million lower, only? A fair portion of the area is constantly fought over, a few massive droughts happened, along with general chaos, and only two million lower than otl? Not plausible in any fashion.

Lordganon 08:05, October 5, 2011 (UTC)


 * I made a minor adjustment to the population. Still, nothing really needs to really be elaborated on about the drought. It happened, there was a famine, and obviously some people died and/or suffered because of it, which contributed to political instability. What else would you like included? Caeruleus 08:54, October 5, 2011 (UTC)

Better, but you've not gotten the point. You just mention it. It's like a non-event. That just does not work. Lordganon 09:42, October 5, 2011 (UTC)


 * It's a drought. They happen. It wasn't some seismic event. What happened and what it did are pretty basic. Do you want me to include specific information about what areas were affected and death tolls and such? Caeruleus 13:38, October 5, 2011 (UTC)

A massive drought, causing many deaths and society-wide problems. And you just mention it. It's not a question of figures - though some sort of those is a must - but actually mentioning more than "it happened." Currently, you fail to do so. Lordganon 19:21, October 5, 2011 (UTC)

Much better, but now you've made it sound like droughts never happen again. They will. Lordganon 21:57, October 6, 2011 (UTC)


 * How is it that there can be a blossoming of the Sahara in Egypt based on a proposed increase of rainfall by mere inches a year while insisting that the droughts and desertification in Kenya remain the same? I have been told that we cannot generally expect the weather to be predictable, but here, on the edge of the equatorial rainforest things remain the same!


 * There is no mention at all of this drought, or any since 1983 for that matter, on the Wikipedia page about Kenya. It should not be a requirement for such to be an article on this wiki either. I agree, droughts happen, and people cope. In the case of this drought, with no help from the USA in 1984, there would have been a few thousand more deaths - maybe even a million in the poorer regions. The people affected, though, are not those who would revolt after a few days. They live day by day any way, gladly receiving aid when it comes, coping in other ways when it doesn't.


 * Meanwhile, back in Nairobi, well away from the suffering, life goes on. The army might fight the neighbors who take advantage of the drought, but the government would at the same time reach out to the Indian Ocean community for aid (Malyasia, Indenesia, and Australia, especially) when the emergency of the famine developed.


 * This is a very good article, though it might be improved with mention of coping without US aid in the particular emergency. I am in favor of graduating it in spite of the lack of dealing with the drought. However, I would say more attention should be shown as to how the new connections with New Britain, Australia and New Zealand would come into play when droughts inevitably come. SouthWriter 18:18, October 22, 2011 (UTC)

South, the Sahara has almost nothing to do with the rainfall, and everything to do with redirecting the river partially.

Google "Kenya drought" and either "1983" or "1984." You'll find that there was a drought then that otl, effected 200,000 people greatly even with massive food imports. This drought is referred to as one of "the most severe resulting in loss of human life and livestock, heavy government expenditure to facilitate response and general high economic losses of unprecedented levels." Which, otl, was followed by massive flooding in 1985. These droughts, btw, hit the region every few years, and especially hard every ten years or so - in 1974, 1984, 1994, and 2004, otl. These hit the entire region. 50-75% of cattle died before food aid came otl - and here, it's not coming. There was severe food shortages, too. This drought has even been called the first in the last century by some. Food crops were 50%, in the case of corn, to 70%, in the case of wheat, lost to it in Kenya. This is a drought that killed three million people in the region. Millions in Kenya were dependent on food imports to survive. And here, there isn't any.

Ever hear the addage "The average person is three meals away from civil unrest?" Think about it. The death toll will be on a disturbing level in this case.

Again, no contact with the outside world during the drought. Nor could they help at all, anyways.

And, the climate changes - wetter, etc. - are unlikely to have much impact here overall. Changes otl aren't, so why would this? And, changes here are not happening in the first few years, either. so there's no impact form them.

So, I say again: The article mentions the drought in passing. Yet, this drought has such an impact, that it needs to actually be dealt with. Caer is failing entirely in that regard.

Lordganon 05:49, October 23, 2011 (UTC)


 * First, I did do a search for the 1984 drought, and it is seen as a border issue. The fact that the Wikipedia article does not even mention it should be taken as a hint that the Kenyans indeed adjust to these seasonal emergencies. In fact, the actions of President Moi, not the US government, are what mitigated the effects of the drought and accompanying famine. Since trade with the US had vanished in TTL, agreements with nations in the southern hemisphere would have been used instead. This response was touted as a model for famine relief. Far from causing conditions for revolt, the Kenyan government was able to mitigate the situation getting the population through.


 * I know this is counter to my suggestions above, for they were just suggestions lacking LG's superior investigative abilities. I would say that Caer should indeed mention the effort since it even if the Wikipedia article in our day did not. It enhances the article to point out the effectiveness of the Moi regime - no matter where it was able to get outside help. If nothing else, help would be available from surplus in Malaysia and Indonesia (sources of year-long exports to the US and other nations of the north pre-DD).


 * One more thing, the deaths in this drought measured two million in the region, not in Kenya. The losses to Kenya were only 200,000 in its northwestern sector. In a nation of 30,000,000 that is hardly a disaster that would topple a strong regime like the one in Kenya.


 * Long story short, I agree that the drought should be 'dealt with,' but not that it is essential in validating the article. The drought would not, in my opinion, have altered the history of Kenya in this time line any more than it would have int our time line. SouthWriter 20:24, October 23, 2011 (UTC)

Actually, South, it is not mentioned in the Kenya article because it was not an issue there otl. However, this is not otl.

They imported millions of tons of food. Millions. That is why they were barely effected otl. Not because the government or the people was able to adjust to anything. But because unlike their neighbors, they were able to import massive amounts of food. Which is not happening here.

You say that it was the actions of the President that "mitigated the effects of the drought and accompanying famine." While that is true, you also missed what he did. He imported food. Which, as established, is not happening.

Again: They have no contact with the outside world until after the drought is long over. At best, it will be 1986 before it is restored between this area and the SAC/ANZC to any degree. And the entire matter is long gone by then.

I said in the region three million died otl. Not in Kenya. Most of those were in Ethiopia, which got no imports, and only a small amount of aid. Here, atl, Kenya gets no food imports, or aid. The impact will be worse. Far, far, worse. Half of crops in the country failed, and a large majority of the herds died off, otl, with imports of food and aid. Go from there.

So, we have millions dying. Which is a heck of a lot worse than otl. And as such, the history is drastically altered.

Caer has failed to deal with the drought itself in any degree, and it needs to be rectified before graduation.

Lordganon 23:27, October 23, 2011 (UTC)


 * I am keeping this civil, not going into addressing either of you in second person. As mentioned above, I believe there would be communication and trade with Malaysia and maybe even Indonesia, neither of which would have been embroiled in the politics in Australia or South America (neither of which had formed new alliances to any degree in 1984). Unless we are going to assume that geosynchronous satellites directly above were out of commission (see discussion at bottom of this page) and regular cables across the Indian Ocean were disrupted by by the bombs that hit one city in western Australia, then there is no reason why arrangements could not be made with the governments around the Indian Ocean for at least adequate aid, if not in the amount of the US sent in our time line.


 * I see that Indonesia had early contact with Australia and Malaysia but not with the rest of the world (Africa and South America). Malaysia seems a bit more stable than Indonesia because of its smaller population but lost a third of its land to tiny Brunei. So perhaps they would not have been quite as inclined to help an African nation. But I can't see the lack of contact in that direction as a reason. It is enough to lay out options with no need to be dogmatic on these things. This is a community effort and no one editor - not even an administrator - should have the last word on how a small African nation might have fared with the absence of the US in time of crisis. --SouthWriter 03:11, October 24, 2011 (UTC)

Simple truth: as I have laid it out is the current fact. Not my opinion, or yours. You need to recognize that fact. You don't like it, fine. But as things stand, it is fact. You need to recognize that.

Past that....

To quote the ANZC history:

"Communications were restored with Papua New Guinea, Indonesia, and most of the Pacific island nations by Christmas of 1983"

Contact obvious

"....met with Indonesian President Suharto in February 1984...... He believed that Indonesia needed to move forward on the assumption that the Australia, New Zealand and Singapore markets would eventually bounce back to near pre-Doomsday levels"

Contact with Malaysia, Singapore, and Brunei

"In February, an unexpected radio message from North America came: the American President, Ronald Reagan, was alive, as was Vice President George Bush and several other staffers and cabinet members, and they were trying to find out who else was alive in this post-Doomsday world."

"No one had been able to establish contact with anyone outside the Mount Weather or Greenbrier regions, and certainly not from Canada, Japan nor Western Europe."

"The one contact other than Australia the U.S. had been able to establish was with Mexican military south of Mexico City; they learned that Mexico had survived Doomsday and was not only functioning but was apparently taking American survivors from the southwest border states."

"Bush arrived in Canberra on Air Force Two on May 6 from Auckland, greeted personally by Hawke only to be told that the RAAF lost contact with Air Force One."

Contact with American Remnants, and Mexico

And, from the Vatican, we have already established, somewhat, that contact between Mexico and the rest of Latin America is up by sometime in 1984. And that contact throughout the south, is, on some level, restored enough by April of 1987 to have most of the Southern Cardinals attend a conclave. Probably, sometime in late 1985 at the latest for contact.

Contact with rest of the Southernmost Hemisphere

Note, too, that this applies to areas from Senegal south in western Africa, and Mozambique south in the east - though, this could be made further north n the east, and probably will be. But it remains: contact and trade are restored with East Africa in the latter half of 1984 at best.

And guess what? The drought has already done its damage by then.

Your "aid" has no effect. The deaths have already happened.

As stated, Caer needs to actually deal with this. He barely mentions it. Yet, it happened. The problem here is pretty big, and obvious.

Lordganon 05:40, October 25, 2011 (UTC)


 * LG, nothing you say is fact until it is established as fact by the community of this TL. That goes for you and everyone else. Also, keep in mind that the issue of communication is under review with a majority of editors so far leaning towards changing it. If it is decided to change it, all the passages you've quoted will be invalidated. Caeruleus 05:55, October 25, 2011 (UTC)

Me saying? What I have quoted is the current established fact. Until this article recognizes that or something else changes, there is no reason at all to graduate it.

And, as for the "review"? The info I quote invalidates the entire thing.

Lordganon 06:27, October 25, 2011 (UTC)


 * What LG has cited represents wide-spread utilization of communication in the southern hemisphere and even from the subtropical regions of the northern hemisphere. The communications from North America, though 'unexpected,' prove that they were operative via the communication satellites encircling the equator - one or two above Kenya, in fact. Furthermore, the fact that these particular incidents are mentioned only go to show the view point of the people involved (and the assumptions of the editors of the articles). Though the discussion is not in the "review" section, it does not mean that it is not an official process to which we need to pay serious attention.


 * The 'early warning systems' were well in place for the Kenyan government as the drought began with a failure of the "short rains" that began soon after DD (October - November, 1983). Since the government would be aware of the probable loss of the US and Europe via broadcast during the attacks if not after them, contingency plans would be made. Most of the yellow maize imported came from Thailand and the result of yellow maize being the main import caused those of means within the nation to ration other foodstuffs to compensate.


 * Without due consideration to the drought, though, the article does suffer from a loss of a good study in the alternatives the Kenyan government faced with a loss of both the US and European community. This is what this time line is all about. Though not directly affected by the nuclear war, the contacts that the Moi regime had were drastically reduced. And so, I agree that this article needs to include a paragraph of how the regime 'pulled this off' to remain stable. If that cannot be demonstrated, then the article needs to be revamped before graduation. SouthWriter 15:36, October 25, 2011 (UTC)

And now, we're off-topic. Sigh.....

Widespread? Contact in some form does not mean widespread, at all. The majority of this contact would be by ship, and minimal at best.

Actually South, they don't prove they were operative. Quite literally, there are only 4 places with any sort of contact in NA at that time - and that, with each other: Bush, Reagan, NORAD, and on a very low level the Wyoming remnant. Really, the word "unexpected" would much more so be due to their deaths having been expected. And those satellites would be unlikely - really, there are some EMP hardened sats up there, which both NORAD and the executives would have access on some degree to, though highly fractured by the EMP blasts and the ground/air bursts.

Bush and Reagan, having been airborne and in their EMP hardened planes, have functioning radios, at least to some degree. That's how they can be in contact. Between each other, it's pretty simple. Past that, the military satellites are still going to be functional at that point, at least to some degree. They would also have high-powered radios - though, their performance obviously hindered somewhat - along with, I'm sure, a few other toys we're not aware of.

NORAD is pretty obvious in itself, with the location, the story set up, and the radiation, etc. severely impacting things afterwards. But that is limited, too.

Got nothing for Wyoming, really. Where that is mentioned really needs something like "through NORAD" added to it, as it makes little sense otherwise. Proximity to NORAD, call it.

Really, those are quite reasonable. Contact between the four will be extremely sporadic, and static-filled, with little to no ability to reach beyond the continent. Sure, a few more sources may have heard them - but that means almost nothing, given codes, static, and that the further it gets, the more unintelligible it would be. That they talked to the ANZC at all through that atmosphere is a stretch, quite frankly.

Thailand. Something, as stated, only in contact with in mid to late 1984. And suffering somewhat in its own right.

No matter the plans put into place, you still have a massive food shortage. And no aid until it's more or less over, and even then in much smaller amounts than in otl. Millions will die.

As stated, my issue with this is that the drought gets a mention "in passing." Yet, it has so much more impact than that. Nor is it a "minor famine" like it says right now. It was more or less that otl - that it is going to be far worse here is a given. It's not so much the stability, in my mind, though that gets glanced over badly too, among other things that South has noted. As it stands, it's basically glanced over, being "swept under the rug," so to speak.

And that? We can definitely say is not right.

Lordganon 07:58, October 27, 2011 (UTC)

Article by an anon. Only a single sentence, absolutely nothing else. Lordganon 14:34, August 7, 2011 (UTC)

No progress since I added this one. Yet, it's definitely an article to keep. Would there be any objections to putting it up for adoption? Lordganon 23:14, November 27, 2011 (UTC)

Put up for adoption. Lordganon 01:05, December 6, 2011 (UTC)

Adopted by Godfrey Raphael. Lordganon 01:28, February 13, 2012 (UTC)

Has this been definitely been adopted? as it is still only one line?--Smoggy80 15:13, March 3, 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it has definitely been adopted. Lordganon 20:21, March 3, 2012 (UTC)

Article by GB, in the Channel Islands of California. Needs a ton of work, however. Lordganon 03:46, August 27, 2011 (UTC)

I agree, this needs a ton of work. GB has asked me to oversee the development of this article due to his needing to concentrate on school work. I read the talk page, and the San Nicolas Island article on Wikipedia. The concept is challenging, to say the least. GB's only request is that it remain loyal to the CRUSA and eventually becoming a part of the USA. It seems much too small to pass as a state, much less a 'nation,' so it is going to have to end up 'attached' to some part of a willing Californian nation-state that joins the USA. I'm open to suggestions. SouthWriter 01:46, September 22, 2011 (UTC)

Far as I know, the government at Placerville is the only one with any interest in the new USA, though that depends on how factions in the MSP play out. Lordganon 05:34, September 22, 2011 (UTC)

That's fine. That's the "California" that matters anyway, as far as re-establishing a successor state goes. I have done some work on the article, bringing early contact with Mexico (via a plane out of Baja) and the rescue of about a hundred refugees stranded on uninhabitable Santa Barbara Island. It's going to take a lot of work just to make the island produce crops. Anyway, I am up way too late already. SouthWriter 05:47, September 22, 2011 (UTC)

I've changed the name of the article to "Pacifica (1983: Doomsday)" and the 'long form' is now "United Islands of Pacifica." As a result of this article, I am creating another article which I am inserting below as a new proposal.

Is this ok to Graduate?--Smoggy80 15:14, March 3, 2012 (UTC)

It's still not complete - large portions of it remain missing. Lordganon 20:21, March 3, 2012 (UTC)

Avalon (1983: Doomsday)
This is an article I created to go along with Pacifica. The town becomes the name of the city-state that encompases the whole island known in our time line as "Santa Catalina Island." This city-state can stand alone if Pacifica fails to be canonized. SouthWriter 18:25, September 23, 2011 (UTC)

Graduate as a stub or leave it until more work is done on it?--Smoggy80 15:15, March 3, 2012 (UTC)

As with Pacifica, wait until it's actually done. There's not even any content to this one right now. Lordganon 20:21, March 3, 2012 (UTC)

An article by myself. Caeruleus 19:12, September 10, 2011 (UTC)

This article is now complete and ready for graduation, if there are no objections. Caeruleus 06:34, September 11, 2011 (UTC)

It is still ridiculously impossible. Simply put, it is not plausible that a bunch of breakaway states would agree to this when the major power is the one they split from militarily and the eventual goal of the organization is integration.

That is not plausible, at all. Some, maybe. But all, and many for reasons that make no sense locally? Not plausible.

And, you have no authority at all to include Zanzibar in this at all.

Lordganon 08:27, September 11, 2011 (UTC)

And none of that changes with Kenya helping to "convince" them, either. Lordganon 08:30, September 11, 2011 (UTC)

The current goal of the organization is economic integration, which is desirable to all the states in the region. The coastal states want access to the resources of the inland states and the inland states need access to the ports of the coastal states for trade. The ultimate goal of political unification is far off and may never actually happen. Just because it's a stated goal does not mean that's the reason they joined or that they expect it to happen. Plus, the EAC is a regional embodiment of PanAfricanism, an ideology that is strong among the regional elite. Even if the organization is particularly popular, the political elite in several of these countries would push for membership, like with the OTL EAC and other regional supranational organizations in Africa. Caeruleus 16:18, September 11, 2011 (UTC)

Really? Pan-Africanism? Do you have any idea at all how inflated that concept is? It would seem not. And, for the record, the political elite in the area otl do not support the concept - that will remain true here.

No. The stated goal of it, as it says on the article itself is economic and political integration. Which is precisely why many of the little states will avoid it like the plague. Little nation-states, joining a political organization whose eventual stated goal is political integration with a nation that they revolted from - that just doesn't work. At all.

Even without that being the stated goal, that is just not plausible. A few of the remnants, maybe. But all of them? That doesn't work, at all. Have a good look at that type of thing, overall, and you'll find that many of them cannot stand each other. Either they hate the remnant of the nation they revolted from, or one another. End result is the same. Which you have failed to understand or include, at all.

As already established, the inland states have no need for the coast, and vice-versa.

Lordganon 05:36, September 13, 2011 (UTC)


 * I went through and made some changes. Any continued objections? Caeruleus 03:16, October 5, 2011 (UTC)

Better, but you still fail to get the point about the states on the lakes - more so, Lake Victoria. They have little to no need for the coast, at all.

This also cannot graduate, sensibly, until the nations do.

Lordganon 06:32, October 5, 2011 (UTC)

I edited the portion about the importance of the ports. If there's nothing else, this will graduate when the other articles do. Caeruleus 08:54, October 5, 2011 (UTC)

No, you removed it. That does not change the fact that they do not need them in any form, and that the article entirely fails to get that concept. Lordganon 09:50, October 5, 2011 (UTC)


 * The article isn't about the ports of East Africa. Since including them as a reason for Tanganyika's economic superiority was overstated, nothing else needs to be said about them once that portion was removed. Caeruleus 13:40, October 5, 2011 (UTC)

You frequently use words like "inevitable." While the port sections were removed, the article still reads like that is the reason for joining. At the very least, no motive is given. It also still sounds like economic reasons are why things are happening, which as shown is not. the case. Lordganon 19:25, October 5, 2011 (UTC)


 * Economic reasons are why things are happening. Lowering trade barriers and increasing cooperation will result in accelerated economic growth in the region, regardless of whether or not the ports are particularly important. That's the principle reason most of these states are joining. There are other reasons, like security aid for Kagera and pro-reunification leanings for Ruvuma, but the economic advantages remain a major reason for membership. Caeruleus 18:46, October 6, 2011 (UTC)

You are not getting the point. It still reads like pressure is being applied, yet there is no pressure to apply. And, again, the use of words like "inevitable." Lordganon 01:21, October 7, 2011 (UTC)


 * The inevitable comment is made in specific reference to the future direction of the TFTA, not the EAC. Other than that, there are no references to pressure being applied. Caeruleus 03:26, October 7, 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't matter what that word is in reference to, at all. You use other words that mean the same blasted thing throughout, as well. The whole thing reeks of it. Lordganon 06:43, October 7, 2011 (UTC)


 * I have no idea what you're talking about. It doesn't reak of that, at all. Caeruleus 14:42, October 7, 2011 (UTC)

Oblivious, as usual, then. You are continually referring to future things in a definite manner that would be speculation. That doesn't fly. Lordganon 01:11, October 8, 2011 (UTC)


 * No, I'm not. The only future things the article refers to are in the "Future Developments" section, which makes perfect sense. Other than that, I don't know what you're talking about. Caeruleus 22:33, October 8, 2011 (UTC)

Again, you're failing to get the point. You are referring to things as definite. Doesn't work, or make any sense, especially in the future developments section. Lordganon 07:20, October 9, 2011 (UTC)

This could work, Mark as obsolete until made more plausable?--Smoggy80 15:17, March 3, 2012 (UTC)

No, there's only small changes needed to it - which, as per usual, he's refused/declined to make. No need for that. Lordganon 20:21, March 3, 2012 (UTC)

An article by myself after the post-Doomsday Zimbabwe. Caeruleus 06:34, September 11, 2011 (UTC)

This article is now complete and ready for graduation. Any objections? Caeruleus 06:47, September 29, 2011 (UTC)

How on earth can an inland nation, more or less cut off from the outside world, especially one this poor, have any real increase in manufacturing abilities, or industry? Simply put, it won't. It would decrease. As in no fuel, or materials to make such things with.

You ignore entirely why the white population was leaving. And what would happen to them, being forced to stay.

That population is 100% unrealistic. Not only is that almost higher than the population of the entire country otl, but also ignores one simple fact: AIDS exists, and would be far worse.

Lordganon 08:22, September 29, 2011 (UTC)


 * Small scale growth in industry, through the replication of existing industry, is possible even in relative isolation, though Zimbabwe still had access to the outside world through Mozambique. While the basic technology wouldn't have advanced much, if at all, since Doomsday. They have access to native and neighboring supplies to expand existing industry. I will clarify that section.


 * Actually, the population is fairly accurate. The OTL population doesn't include refugees that reside outside the country, most of whom fled during the 2000s with the economic chaos in the country. I accounted for the death toll during the two civil wars, kept the White population, and factored in the lack of refugees. I will revisit the figures though.


 * White Zimbabweans left because they lamented their loss of political dominance and feared what could happen. While low-level racism and civil strife existed, the mass, state-driven discrimination they feared didn't occur until the late 1990s OTL with the land seizures, which didn't occur in North Zimbabwe. Being forced to stay, White Zimbabweans would contribute to the nation regardless because their own prosperity depends on the prosperity of the entire nation. I'll also clarify those passages though.


 * As for AIDS, the first case of AIDS in Zimbabwe was in 1985, after Doomsday. With the collapse of global trade and travel, the virus would spread much more slowly. I will investigate more about that first reported case and AIDS's expansion paterns. However, the AIDS epidemic wouldn't be much worse because even in OTL, the problem was largely ignored until the early 2000s and Zimbabwe's health care system collapsed in the mid-2000s. Caeruleus 13:24, September 29, 2011 (UTC)

First reported case. In a time that AIDS cases went unreported, and almost nothing was known about it. By the end of the 1980s, 10% of the population of Zimbabwe had it. I suggest you look into how long these things went unidentified. The first recorded case in Africa - in retrospect, mind, from persevered samples - was in 1959. It's believed that one may have happened in the late 50s, too. I'm sure you can guess how rare preserved samples are. Spread to NA in about 1970, and existed in West African ports at that time.

To think that it was not present in Zimbabwe in 1983 is very foolish on your part. And without campaigns in the area against it and methods - imported methods - to help prevent it, it's going to be as bad or worse.

Your population is horrifically out to lunch.

How on earth do you get the idea that they have contact outside their small area of Africa? Mozambique barely has any in 1987. And you think Zimbabwe has it in 1985? That's not possible. They would literally be lucky to maintain what they have. Expansion just isn't possible on any real level.

And you assume that the white population would be all right? And that there would be no refugees? You have a Civil War. Do the math.

The violence against the white population likely would not get so bad, true, but as I said, they were leaving for a reason. And you, for some reason, think that would just go away. Simply put, it won't. And it will get worse, too, in the aftermath of Doomsday - who do you think will be blamed for it, and will get it by extension?

The idea that they have outside contact in 1985 is not possible, at all. And you should know better than that.

Lordganon 23:19, September 29, 2011 (UTC)


 * I'll look into AIDS and add something about it.


 * "...horrificially out to lunch." I've got to say that's definitely a new phrase for me. Care to explain what specific problem you have with the current population numbers rather than making blanket opposition statements with no detail that make no sense, even if they are rather humorous?


 * Zimbabwe had native industrial capacities before Doomsday and had become largely self-driven in terms of industrial growth due to the isolation of Rhodesia. While the technology used would not have progress significantly, physical expansion of existing industry is well within the realm of possibility.


 * I never said the White population was "all right." The article states that they remained within the nation and contributed to economic growth. There would be issues, but the White population would have no where to flee to and would be too small to mount any significant military or political resistance. Ultimately, they would acquiese like the remaining OTL White population in Zimbabwe. And just because Westerners caused Doomsday doesn't mean the White Zimbabwean population would face massive retribution for it, especially since Zimbabwe never got nuked.


 * Like you said, the current Mozambique article makes no sense. They lost contact with everyone, even their neighbors, when they weren't even nuked. While I wait for someone to fix the article, I will continue on the reasonable assumption that regional communication would be minimally affected and communication with other unaffected states, like Nigeria and the Gulf States, would be reignitiated shortly after Doomsday. Caeruleus 00:39, September 30, 2011 (UTC)

I never once said that Mozambique made no sense. How many times to I have to tell you to actually read things, and to not put words into my mouth? Jeez.

You really do fail to get the point. Contact between South America and the ANZC is barely functional in 1987. Nor is either in contact with the Gulf States at the time. And you're trying to say that this inland nation has contact with all of them, plus the Gulf States and Nigeria, in 1985, through a state fighting a massive Civil War? Do you have any idea how ridiculous you sound? That is not remotely plausible, whatsoever. So long as you say things like that, there is no way this can ever graduate.

You have almost an extra three million people in Zimbabwe than in otl. I've already given ample reason why that makes absolutely no sense, but I'll repeat myself: Racial tensions, Civil War, refugees, no medicine, AIDS. As stated, out to lunch.

Expansion of industry? Not happening. An increase in goods made in the home? Maybe. But Industry? Just not possible. You have no fuel but coal, remember. Or any real natural resources besides a little coal, some diamonds, and some agricultural products.

You have a Civil War, to some extent caused by problems stemming from DD, and you think the white population would be not blamed? And that they wouldn't get attacked, even without any blame? Get real. Both would happen. This is a country where they had only just finished a different Civil War in 1980, against whites. And you're saying that they would be contributing? They can still flee south to the Pretoria area, under the remnants of the SA government, or more likely, die. There is a reason why Mugabe was able to do all of the garbage he did otl. And atl, it is still there.

Lordganon 07:08, September 30, 2011 (UTC)


 * I moved back the date of contact/trade with the wider world. That was somewhat implausible. As for the population, you're still not understanding why it's so high. OTL Zimbabwe has a population 12.5 million plus 3.4 million refugees who aren't counted in the national population figures and largely fled after the economy began to collapse. That makes the total number of Zimbabweans about 15.9 million OTL. You also have the white Zimbabweans population, another 300,000 people, who never left the country. Neither the civil war, racial tensions, or HIV/AIDS would cause, even collectively, substantial declines in the population, which is why the population is what it is. I've accounted for everything and the population of North Zimbabwe will stand at 11.1 million.


 * White Zimbabweans are not going to just stop working or work. If Zimbabwe suffers, they suffer, so of course they're going to contribute. As part of the negiotiations with the former Rhodesian government, the early Mugabe government agreed to actively work to maintain racial stability, for the good of the country. Also, state-sponsored racial discrimination didn't begin until the late 1990s when the economy was already declining and most of the Whites had already left. The post-Doomsday Zimbabwean government would have an economic interest in maintaining racial stability because of the skills the White population possess. Additionally, Mugabe was assasinated in 1991, which weakened ZANU and the strong authority figure who was necessary to lead efforts similar to the OTL land grabs and subsequent rise in racial tensions.


 * As for industry, I've clarified what type of industrial expansion would occur, but some type of expansion is assured. Coal is the only fuel source you need for industry in the country and most of their industry is low-tech or labor-based, which doesn't require any technology that was not natively available. Pre-Doomsday Zimbabwe also had one of the best established industrial infrastructures on the continent, whihc would give them a strong base from which to expand. Keep in mind, the level of technology most of Zimbabwe's industry uses is still at the 1980s-level. The resources to physically build the factories and such would also be available, either natively or from their more stable neighbors. 128.135.100.102 21:03, October 4, 2011 (UTC)

Caer, I'm not a bloody idiot. I know about the refugees. You, however, are failing to get the point.

The population is too high. You have a few losses from fighting in a civil war. No refugees from fighting, no AIDS/HIV deaths, no racial tensions, and you're even adding medicines to blunt the impact that would not exist. None of that is possible or reasonable.

The drugs used to deal with that virus were developed in labs, or had the related effects discovered in labs. Largely, these were in nuked areas. At best, that tech will be at about a 1990 level. And, with a global cutoff in contact, its spread outside of Africa has been curtailed, drastically, which when combined with the destruction of cities, where most of those afflicted were, and the likely - rapid, too - fate of anyone surviving the blasts with it in the Northern Hemisphere. Simply put, outside of Africa below the Sahara it's not a major issue.

Those afflicted with it in this area are not going to last even as long as in otl. Deaths are going to be major. And given that the reasons for it spreading in this area in Africa are cultural in nature, there will be just as much problems with changing that as in otl. More hospitals and schools? Maybe a few, but thinking that a large number is possible, or would actually help to the extent you say is just not possible. The number is barely going down otl, with a ton of outside money and aid. Here, that's not happening. And, 1981 recognition of it? Ha.

The SA border guarded? That has no net effect on them leaving, really. They are still going to keep fleeing. And, after the start of the civil war, they are going to flee in droves. They are in a position of wealth. Guess what happens to those people in Civil Wars?

Yeah, Mugabe did say that. And you believe it? He only kept that around for aid. Once that started to slip, so did the policy. Think about it. Note, too I never said state-sponsored.

You also fail to think about a Civil War. Massive fighting, lots of military and civilian dead. But, a ton of refugees too. Those near the front are going to flee. Agricultural production - which goes down overall anyways, lack of fertilizer, etc. - will drop drastically. That is always the case in such a conflict.

Note, I said a little coal. Nor do you at all mention that the industry is virtually the same level as at DD. Expansion past that, not happening. Stability by modern times, somewhat possible.

The majority of this applies to the South as well.

Simply put, you are failing to take into account everything that impacts this area and the people. You have dropped the population by nearly a million, overall. Needs closer to two.

Lordganon 07:32, October 5, 2011 (UTC)


 * I will take another look at the population figures, but there won't be any major decrease in the population. The deaths from AIDS won't be that major. The issue was largely ignored until the late 1990s, even with the presence of medicine. Up until that point, the lack of drugs would neither hurt nor help the infected. Also, the total number of infected is about the same as OTL. The only difference is that South Zimbabwe has a higher infection rate while North Zimbabwe has a lower one.


 * White Zimbabweans are not going to flee to a collapsing South Africa where Whites are being slaughtered by Blacks and vice versa. The fact that there's a civil war has little to do with the White population. They are a non-factor in the war and the war actually would make their presence even more beneficial due to their technical skills. The racial tension would be an issue, but racial violence would only occur if the government allowed, even if they didn't sponsor it as you said. The government would have a vested interest in maintaining racial harmony, which even existed OTL despite the White flight.


 * Refugees will exist but they will be internally displaced persons (IDL). ZANU supporters in the south will flee north and ZAPU supporters in the north would flee south. The percentage of the population near the border is fairly small, in the few hundreds of thousands. Most of these would simply flee deeper into their respective countries. They wouldn't have any options to flee anywhere else anyway. Botswana is sealed, Mozambique and South Africa were in a state of civil war, and Zambia is too far away. Very few of the refugees would end up leaving the region.


 * Zimbabwe, before Doomsday, was agriculturally self-sufficient, including with regards to fertilizer due to the isolation of Rhodesia. Also, Zimbabwe produces enough coal to meet all its needs plus it has a hydroelectric power plant. Electricity would not be a problem for the country's industry. I will go into more detail about the state of the country's industry though. Caeruleus 08:54, October 5, 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. Ignored. And with medicine, many died. Here, little to no medicine. Easy math to do. Figures are double, minimum. Same goes for the infected. Without the contraceptive campaigns of otl by aid groups - note, too, that the locals will not do this on their own, culturally - it will be higher than otl.

Collapsing stopping them? Not likely. At all. And, that ignores the Pretoria state. You also failed entirely to understand the point of a civil war. Everyone is fighting, and chaos ensues in any areas with it, especially, and a bit everywhere. They can, and will, be targets. The racial equality stuff was a ploy to get aid. Nothing more. Here, they have no reason to do so except a slight economic reason. And how long will that last? Not long. Especially in a civil war. Seriously, actually look at what happens in those. While the government will likely try to stop them, and denounce them, there will be mobs, etc. Whites will die, and the rest will fear for their lives. They will not sit around. Simple. Many will flee.

Really? You think that will be all that happens, only internal refugees? There is a Civil War. A heck of a lot more will flee elsewhere, being unable to get to the area controlled by their factions and facing death, etc. by staying where they are. Doesn't really matter what the situation elsewhere is, much. The place where they are is bad. No matter what, elsewhere may be better. It's an easy choice, repeated through history. They will leave. Simple. Even the Civil War in Moz~ may be a better situation. Even if not, it beats being killed by your opponents.

Civilian death tolls along fronts are sky-high. But, you never even thought of that.

Isolation? I suggest that you have a better look into that. They were largely isolated. That is one heck of a difference. They were agriculturally self-sufficient, true, but in fertilizer? I doubt it. Everyone can produce some, true enough, but the South African Government was, in fact, still involved with the Rhodesians, and they got supplies from there. You are exaggerating their industry.

That Dam is on the border with Zambia. It may remain operational, true, but not for long. It's called the situation in Zambia, plus parts - or the lack thereof. The coal is in the "south", and the power plant? Not even under construction in 1983. So yeah. One heck of a problem.

As I said, the overall population needs to go down another million. And you need to look at what actually happens in Civil Wars, especially in Africa.

Lordganon 11:07, October 5, 2011 (UTC)

I've split up the Zimbabwe article into the two states, North and South Zimbabwe. Caeruleus 15:25, September 12, 2011 (UTC)

Are there the same problems with South Zimbabwe as north Zimbabwe?--Smoggy80 15:19, March 3, 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Lordganon 20:21, March 3, 2012 (UTC)

With Zimbabwe being under three years old on DD is it not possible that racial problems kicked off (what with Mugabe being in charge in OTL and ATL) and the white settlers may have tried to head for South Africa (hearing of South African Union or even New Britain, not making it and setting up south Zimbabwe (or even renamed it New Rhodesia) in the 1990's.--Smoggy80 18:27, March 7, 2012 (UTC)

or more likely that it collapsed and split along the lines of Mashonaland, Matabeleland, Manicaland and Masvingo, as these have a great indivduality from each other--Smoggy80 18:37, March 7, 2012 (UTC)

Wouldn't have the numbers to do that.

I think, quite frankly, that you're exaggerating the different groups. Zimbabwe's never really had much trouble, in that regard - its problems, the black/white bit aside, has been political in nature. Not that there wouldn't be some problems, but fairly minimal, I'd expect.

Basically, overall, these two articles just kinda ignore the deaths the effects of DD would cause, what a civil war entails in that regard, refugees and the chaos they bring, and that HIV/AIDS would be far worse. It amounts to some of the text, and lowering the population to a plausible level.

Lordganon 07:27, March 8, 2012 (UTC)

This article is an outgrowth of my ongoing work on Delmarva. Although I adopted the article on Norfolk Naval Base, I got to thinking there should a be a larger article looking at what happened to the entire region of Hampton Roads since it included a number of military sites besides the base. I will be updating the article on the base as well as adding to the ongoing work on Delmarva, New Jersey, and other peices. I have not been able to contribute for a while due to personal reasons, however I am trying to find the time to work once again. --Fxgentleman 05:28, September 25, 2011 (UTC)

Ok to graduate?--Smoggy80 15:20, March 3, 2012 (UTC)

Far as I know, Fx still doesn't think it's done. So, probably not. Lordganon 20:21, March 3, 2012 (UTC)

Hi. It would be okay to graduate it. The only thing I have to do is to add some of the ships like the Nimitz which were in port and destroyed. Otherwise, I think it is good to go.--Fxgentleman 22:48, March 4, 2012 (UTC)

Martinsson Crime Family
A proposal of a crime family in Sweden. Still updating and working on it, doing my research. But for now it looks good for me for being official. Doctor261 18:48, November 14, 2011 (UTC)

What's the story here, Doc? Lordganon 01:36, February 13, 2012 (UTC)

Is this a relevent article? it doesn't link with any others?--Smoggy80 15:21, March 3, 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it's relevant. Or will be when it's done, I assume, lol. Lordganon 20:21, March 3, 2012 (UTC)

Latgalia
A proposal for an article on a Latgalian state in former Latvia.

Yank 20:33, November 14, 2011 (UTC)

Is anything happening with this article, it appears to be a bare bones page--Smoggy80 15:22, March 3, 2012 (UTC)

Yank's working on it. Lordganon 20:21, March 3, 2012 (UTC)

A proposal by Yank. Seems to be for some sort of state near the Apalachicola National Forest of Florida. Lordganon 22:32, November 27, 2011 (UTC)

Hey Yank, this is my ancestral home. (I lived in Wewahitchca, Blountstown, Bristol AND Hosford. My mom and dad met in Port Saint Joe. What do you have in mind? According to sources in the area, that forrest would have been the safest place in the world to be living in the case of a nuclear war. I won't let just anthing pass on this one. I would really rather adopt it from you, but I am willing to hear what you have in mind. SouthWriter 19:19, December 21, 2011 (UTC)

Deal. I have way too much stuff on my plate. The article is basically my riff on the idea behind New Montgomery. The living-in-a-forest part, not the rascist part.

Yank 19:25, December 21, 2011 (UTC)

I hereby officially adopt this proposal as my own. I will try to be wary of the "home town syndrome." SouthWriter 19:46, December 21, 2011 (UTC)

As south has adopted this, is it ok to graduate?--Smoggy80 15:25, March 3, 2012 (UTC)

Smog, there's no content. It's not ok. Lordganon 20:21, March 3, 2012 (UTC)

A proposal for the sub-unit of Denmark and member of the Nordic Union, by Brad30977. Lordganon 22:32, November 27, 2011 (UTC)

Graduate as a stub?--Smoggy80 15:27, March 3, 2012 (UTC)

Again, no content at all. Lordganon 20:21, March 3, 2012 (UTC)

Yank's proposal - it'd be with Fx and Caer as well, I figure - for the remnant state of the former Iraqi government. Lordganon 22:32, November 27, 2011 (UTC)

Another article by Godfrey Raphael. It's about a book atl - no relation to Obama's otl one - by someone from Reading. Really, in my opinion, should get a name change, and the PoD in the "book" should change from a reverse of the timeline's PoD. Lordganon 22:32, November 27, 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually quite a clever idea, having Jon Gosselin seek his moment of fame without the big family and the TV show he had in our time line. Supposing the PoD as being Doomsday would be the obvious choice. It would mean Gosselin would have to assume the politics of Reagan would have succeeded in ending the cold war as we know it did. I'd change the officer's name to not reflect the then name of the American author and his wife, though. On the other hand, how much would a survivor in the US know about pre-Doomsday Russia? It would probably be just as good to assume an American point of view since apparently the real cause of the war does not seem to ever have been discerned. Americans know that they did not fire the first shots, but that's about it. Gosselin was a pre-teen in 1983, so most of what he would write in 2010 would be from research, not memory, concerning the days before the war. --SouthWriter 04:00, November 28, 2011 (UTC)

What I meant, more so, was that this is exactly what happened otl, or nearly so. While it would be possible to be what the PoD is in the "book," I just have to doubt it, you know? Lordganon 05:36, November 28, 2011 (UTC)

Second Yugoslav War
The war that me and Owner have been planning for a while. Will be ongoing for quite some time. Lordganon 08:50, December 5, 2011 (UTC)

Jamaica (1983: Doomsday)
I figured as big a nation/state as Jamaica is, it needed a page. Suggestions are welcome. --SouthWriter 22:48, December 18, 2011 (UTC)

Wait,is Jamaica independent from the ECF, or is this a member-state article? Just wondering, thanks. Arstar 02:51, January 1, 2012 (UTC)

....It says in the first sentence that it's part of the ECF. Lordganon 14:53, January 1, 2012 (UTC)

Kivu
A state by me on former eastern Zaire (South Kivu and Maniema to be more exact). Fed (talk) 17:00, December 22, 2011 (UTC)

I wondered when (or if) both articles are canonized, if there would be some meeting between Isiro and Kivu? Based on Isiro, it would probably be in the form of a war of some sort....GunsnadGlory 19:39, January 13, 2012 (UTC)

and isn't Kivu in Zaire? GunsnadGlory 21:26, January 14, 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, Kivu is in Zaire... Fed (talk) 23:11, January 14, 2012 (UTC)

Which is east of Kongo... why would Kabila flee INTO his enemies territory, then found a state there? GunsnadGlory 02:03, January 16, 2012 (UTC)

Zaire is a Congo - what was called Zaire in 1983 is today the Democratic Republic of the Congo, as compared to the Republic of the Congo you're referring to, Guns. There's two of them. And Kabila operated in the region, by and large, anyways. Lordganon 10:42, January 16, 2012 (UTC)

What LG said. When Kabila lost the first Congo Crisis in the 1960s, he fled to eastern Africa (Uganda, Kenya, Tanzania, etc). As a fellow Kivuan, he came back to the region as soon as Doomsday happened. Fed (talk) 12:33, January 16, 2012 (UTC)

I knew that... temporary fit of madness, hehe. GunsnadGlory 19:33, January 16, 2012 (UTC)

There isn’t much information about what happen to Zambia after doomsday, so I felt this would be a good topic for me to write my first 1983 doomsday proposal about. ~Goldwind1 Graduate as a stub?--Smoggy80 15:31, March 3, 2012 (UTC)

No. Almost no content/history, and what is there is.... well, so full of various mistakes that it's a little disturbing. Lordganon 20:21, March 3, 2012 (UTC)

Central African republic
Their isn't any information on its history after Doomsday and its pre-doomsday history is more interesting then expected though it would be a good article to make. Brad30977 03:44, January 26, 2012 (UTC)

I (accidently) started an article in the same region. Obviously, if you want, I'lll delete it, but I would prefer a merging or some other arrangement GunsnadGlory 19:21, February 12, 2012 (UTC)

Ignore all my posts about this please. GunsnadGlory 21:32, February 15, 2012 (UTC)

Coulee
An small nation between Victoria and Paso. By Enclavehunter

As I'm noted on the talk page for the page, this is not plausible. There is a whole section of history that you have missed of the region. Have a look at the Utah article.

What it amounts to is that this area is so close to Spokane, that the regime there would have destroyed it - especially since the dam would have been a target for them.

Lordganon 02:31, January 30, 2012 (UTC)

Yeah. I know. I changed it around to say it was an destroyed nation, does that still go against plausiblity. Enclavehunter 02:37, January 30, 2012 (UTC)

I think I fixed, does it still look like its talking about an surviving nation. Enclavehunter 15:28, January 30, 2012 (UTC)

The history, not so much.

Th rest still should get toned down - really, knowledge of this state would only be known from the memories of those few who fled or managed to survive, and what explorers encounter at the site.

Also, somebody needs to find the site to document it. Pasco or the new USA would be the ones likely do it.

Lordganon 21:35, January 30, 2012 (UTC)

Tamanrasset
Nation in Southern Algeria/Northern Niger/Eastern Mali--Smoggy80 11:36, February 4, 2012 (UTC)

Open for adoption--Smoggy80 18:25, February 14, 2012 (UTC)

Tamahaq
Nation in Southern Algeria/Northern Niger/Southwest Libya--Smoggy80 11:36, February 4, 2012 (UTC)

Open for adoption--Smoggy80 18:25, February 14, 2012 (UTC)

Tamil Nadu
Nation comprising of the former Indian state of Tamil Nadu Imperium Guy 16:10, February 7, 2012 (UTC)

I think it is ready for graduation, it has no complaints as of now. Imperium Guy 20:04, March 7, 2012 (UTC)

We still have yet to do recent history. I'm working on some research, though not as fast as I'd like, for.... obvious reasons. Lordganon 07:28, March 8, 2012 (UTC)

... As in, I flaked on that? GunsnadGlory 19:44, March 8, 2012 (UTC)

No. More like squabbling with people, in a section below this one on this page. Takes up a lot of time trying to argue with people that are wrong, and refuse to even entertain the concept. Lordganon 23:53, March 8, 2012 (UTC)

That ought to do it. Objections? Lordganon 08:55, March 9, 2012 (UTC)

Proposal for the African nation of Malawi, by Gold. Lordganon 00:21, February 8, 2012 (UTC)

Propasal by me (and with loadsa help from Imp) about another China remainder. GunsnadGlory 21:32, February 15, 2012 (UTC)

And... it's done. Objections? GunsnadGlory 02:26, February 22, 2012 (UTC)

Um yeah...a lot of demands are still going unanswered on the talk page. All the problems such as the size, army, economy, etc. need to be addressed before we canonize this. Arstar 02:41, February 22, 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Lordganon 08:04, February 22, 2012 (UTC)

Really? The size is less than half the current province, the army has been changed to be really weak and the economy has been described as poor. Hows about now? GunsnadGlory 19:39, February 29, 2012 (UTC)

Much better on the army and economy, except for that they wouldn't know about the rare earth bits at all.

Guns, have a look at the territory. It sticks out in the current otl political borders, into nothing. That just makes no sense, as I've said before, and really isn't possible.

Lordganon 07:56, March 1, 2012 (UTC)

I disagree, but I'll try to work something out. GunsnadGlory 19:49, March 1, 2012 (UTC)

That's it, I think. GunsnadGlory 19:21, March 2, 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I satnd corrected. That wasn't it. Now, though, I thinkest it is ready GunsnadGlory 19:20, March 5, 2012 (UTC)

Proposed nation on the west coast of Africa. Proposed by Monster Pumpkin 04:21, February 16, 2012 (UTC)

Proposed ECF member state, by me. Objections? Regentage 02:13, February 27, 2012 (UTC)

Needs more of a recent history. Also, some sort of reasoning for the flag, considering how different it is from the flag the region has had for a long time. Lordganon 04:12, February 27, 2012 (UTC)

Addressed those concerns. Is it sufficient? Let me know if there's anything else. ^^ Regentage 16:14, February 27, 2012 (UTC)

Well, more content with regards to Guatemala should probably be added. Lordganon 00:18, February 28, 2012 (UTC)

Added some more in reference to history with Guatemala. Is that good? There's quite a few references, now. Regentage 20:21, February 28, 2012 (UTC)

....that's probably taking it a bit too far, imo. Compare it to the Guatemala article a touch to see what I mean.

Really, the idea that the ECF and Guatemala would be at that degree of loggerheads is just too much.

Lordganon 02:14, February 29, 2012 (UTC)

Updated, removing the most outstanding of conflicts. It consists of the same things as in the Guatemala article now; icy but existing relations, troop massing and saber rattling. Regentage 14:03, February 29, 2012 (UTC)

Much better. Lordganon 18:30, February 29, 2012 (UTC)

Excellent! Anything further, anyone? Regentage 02:58, March 1, 2012 (UTC)


 * I did not go back and look at this in the process of forming over the past few days, but I did research a little on Belize and its government. Prime Minister and founding father George Cadle Price seems to have been too easily dismissed as a figure as a result of the "democratic socialist" uprising by apparently fictional Tomás Renault, looks to me to be a little overkill. In OTL the PUP was defeated by the UDP in 1984, so it is reasonable to hold that the people were getting tired of the "People's" party, but an revolution in a small town does not seem plausible. However, I am much more comfortable with using real people (or their hypothetical descendants) in an alternate history.


 * Anything is possible, if not plausible, in alternate history. Your having the "remaining British troops" join the rebellion is another problem I see. If anything, the 1500 troops left behind would support the government that they were sworn to protect. And unless these troops largely abandoned their post for more pleasant surroundings (like Jamaica, for instance), they would be the bulk of the military of the country. The rather rapid and total success of the revolution seem to me to be far out of kilter with the nature of the population as it was in 1986.


 * If this socialist government arose like you present it, it would have a problem with being accepted among the ECF. I may be wrong, and your article seems well put together, but I it seems to me that it has more in common with its neighbors in Central America than it does the ECF.


 * One more minor detail, you need to include the Republic of Yucatan as being to the north. I realize that the rise to poser of Renault is the keystone of your article -- and a really good piece of fiction I might add -- so if the community approves, I see no problem in letting it be part of this time line. I have no ax to grind, I just offer an differing opinion. I thank you for your contributions so far and look forward to many to come. SouthWriter 03:35, March 2, 2012 (UTC)

Another ECF member state proposal by me. Regentage 17:10, February 29, 2012 (UTC)

The SAC, and especially the Netherlands Antilles, wouldn't be viewed as a threat. Lordganon 06:12, March 1, 2012 (UTC)

Right. Resolved that. ^^ Thank you. Anything else, anyone? Regentage 13:27, March 1, 2012 (UTC)

Washington
Article about the former US state of Washington by me. Enclavehunter 18:50, February 29, 2012 (UTC)

I fixed it. Anything else I missed? Enclavehunter 15:10, March 1, 2012 (UTC)

Yeah... but don't worry about it. I slid it in for you, and cleaned the article up as well. Probably good to graduate now, I think. Objections? Lordganon 08:01, March 8, 2012 (UTC)

Republic of Upper Volta
Autocratic nation in West Africa, (became OTL Burkina Faso in 1987, but that never occurred)--Smoggy80 11:40, March 1, 2012 (UTC)

Can anyone think of anything I need to add to this article so it can be graduated?--Smoggy80 16:28, March 7, 2012 (UTC)

Well it could probably use more of a history. But, overall, it really needs some information besides the stuff on government and history that is there right now, you know? Lordganon 07:36, March 8, 2012 (UTC)

Banfora
Kingdom in west of former Republic of Upper Volta--Smoggy80 12:51, March 1, 2012 (UTC)

Also Constitution of Banfora--Smoggy80 14:38, March 4, 2012 (UTC)

Can anyone think of anything I need to add to this article so it can be graduated?--Smoggy80 16:29, March 7, 2012 (UTC)

Well it could probably use more of a history. But, overall, it really needs some information besides the stuff on government and history that is there right now, you know? Lordganon 07:36, March 8, 2012 (UTC)

Leeward Islands
ECF Member State. Last one for a little bit, I promise. x3 Regentage 21:58, March 1, 2012 (UTC)

Errr.... the ECF page indicates that the three states you have merged into this thing are rather separate, not one nation. Lordganon 00:00, March 2, 2012 (UTC)

Remember Monserrat will still have been devestated by the volcanic eruption thats been going on since 1995, agriculture on the scale shown in the article would be impossible--Smoggy80 16:43, March 2, 2012 (UTC)

Azanian League
So, its been canon for a few years, but no one has done anything regarding it, so I figured it was about time. Oerwinde 06:45, March 4, 2012 (UTC)

Amazigh Confederation
This is a place holder for the Berber tribal confederacy that survives outside the present boundaries of Cyrenaica. SouthWriter 06:46, March 6, 2012 (UTC)

Murzuq
Another place holder -- for the Tebou refuge city of Murzuq in former Libya. SouthWriter

Once again: this city is inside of Egyptian territory. Lordganon 11:53, March 7, 2012 (UTC)

Actually, it is at the border of your arbitrary line of expansion. The text of the article on Egypt only hints at the extent of western expansion. The only reason the Egyptian would go that far is for the oil (which was not discovered in TTL). Besides, in a refuge city, the Tebou are not a threat to Egypt, only protected. Like I say, this is an article about the city. It can go any way the consensus wishes for it to go. SouthWriter 14:58, March 7, 2012 (UTC)

Erm... Could be wrong?? But surely the whole reason why the Libya article is under review is that fact that this, the one above and the next state down on this proposal list are impossible? Until that review is decided and it is now looking like the tide of opinion is turning against these states, then these should not be on here as proposals?--Smoggy80 16:26, March 7, 2012 (UTC)

Could be, Smoggy. Look at the change in emphasis as to each entity. All idea of "states" is gone for good. Murzuq may or may not be independent, but it still exists. That is the only point of this article, to provide a link to explain the fatie of the Tebou tribes that you and Mitro put in the original article.

Berber identity will not disappear altogether, and all the artilce in proposal does is present a historical resistance movement 'in remission,' if you will, until such a time as instability once again makes resistance possible. The name of the article could be changed to "Berber people" as it appears in Wikipedia.

I almost removed Fezzan from the list, but hopefully the region has at least a few thousand people left in it. If not, it can be written as to indicate the complete abandonment of the whole region as a barren wasteland awaiting reclamation. But then, after discussion, it is decided that there is nothing to write about, then it goes obsolete -- or can even be deleted (if it is decided that it absolutely cannot have ever had a history after DD, that is). SouthWriter 20:57, March 7, 2012 (UTC)

No. It is, without question, inside of Egyptian territory. Nor does making maps that way work at all. A question of scale, and size differences, mean that anything you do to it will be off.

That article still has these states in it, and refers to them in language that clearly indicates that they are such. When they cannot be.

Both this one and Fezzan are not possible, in the slightest. And the other one? It's not better than they are. And completely ignores that they would never do such a thing.

Lordganon 08:46, March 8, 2012 (UTC)

Fezzan
Still another place holder -- for the other Arab tribes in their self-proclaimed Union of Libya. SouthWriter 06:46, March 6, 2012 (UTC)


 * These three are up for adoption, the shells available to flesh out the gaps in what is left unclaimed in southwestern Libya. SouthWriter 06:46, March 6, 2012 (UTC)
 * Fezzan, as a "realm" for the influence of the "Union of Libya," is being withdrawn. However, since it is a legitamant geographical area, the shell of the article may still be useful. I will remove content from it sometime on Wednesday. SouthWriter 04:58, March 7, 2012 (UTC)

Proposal by Vlad, and I think maybe Oer/Arstar too? Lordganon 19:03, March 6, 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that is correct, Arstar and I are the principal creators of the idea and Oer helped as well. Vladivostok 14:43, March 7, 2012 (UTC)

Detonation
Article on a rock band formed in 2006... GunsnadGlory 19:57, March 6, 2012 (UTC)

Guinea
Member of the West African Union--Smoggy80 13:32, March 9, 2012 (UTC)

The Gambia
Member of the West African Union--Smoggy80 13:32, March 9, 2012 (UTC)

People's Republic of Benin
Socialist Republic in West Africa--Smoggy80 14:25, March 9, 2012 (UTC)

=CURRENT REVIEWS=

Review Archive

Sometimes articles are graduated into canon even though they contradict current canon or are so improbable that they are damaging to the timeline. If you feel an article should not be in canon, mark it with the   template and give your reasons why on the article's talk page and here. If consensus is that you are correct, the article will need to be changed in order to remain in canon. If it is changed, the proposal review template is removed once someone moves to graduate it back into canon. If the article is not changed in 30 days, the article will be marked as obsolete. If consensus is that you are wrong, however, the proposal review template will be removed without having to change the article.

Well, Caer's gone and done it. His additions have finally gone against canon, lol.

Basically, he's trying to slip in a bunch of states in the desert of Western Libya.

Egypt, and the Greek state of Cyrenaica, have been expanding into former Libya without any resistance from anyone other than a few tribal nomads. Taking only as much as they could chew at a time, obviously, and even dividing the east up between themselves. Yet, what he's trying to do is change that canon and make it so that they stopped because of these "states." Heck, the more "ethnic" of the ones he's trying to shove on us do not actually live in the regions he's trying to give them.

Now, what he's trying to do is suddenly get these nomads to form states in the desert, along with the large towns forming a pair. Ignoring, of course, that they are nomads, and that the large desert towns are gone.

Basically, the large desert towns have expanded beyond what they could sustain on their own. And, while Libya and neighboring nations were not nuked, virtually all of them collapsed. So, there's not going to be any outside help for these ones - and as a result, they will die, go northwards to fight, or go nomad - which is what canon says they did. Only the small ones, with a few thousand, would survive. Yet, he's ignored this.

Even more so, he's put in states of nomads right against both of the aforementioned nations. Yet, their activities, and the fact that they are nomads means that this is not possible. Drawing artificial lines where none at all exist, which form into states that cannot possibly exist, as per canon.

His goal is simply to stop their expansion, which is very much so in line with the majority of his moves - i.e. making moves that aren't plausible in an attempt to weaken Greece, and any states at all associated with them, thus making his Sultanate and its long-dead Viziers stronger by relation.

His picture of how Egypt expanded is not accurate either, imo.

Now, I've told him all of this, but as is not very shocking for him, given all of the foolishness that went on with his Turkey article, he's not listening, at all.

Now, what will fix this, you may ask. Quite simple, really.

Basically?

Remove the red, orange, and pale blue "states" that violate canon from both the map on that page, as well as the content of the article. The sections about "Politics" also needs to be fixed to actually represent what the Egypt article says, not what this article currently states, which is incorrect.

Simple fix, and one he refuses to make, even when faced with the facts that it does violate canon. So, now I'm forced, after having been quite reasonable, to come here and do this. Beats arguing with him for months about something again, anyways, since I know no one will give an opinion otherwise.

Lordganon 23:11, February 9, 2012 (UTC)

As I told LG on the Libya talk page, none of this is the case. The Greece article clearly states that Greece conquered the Libyan article from various warlords. The Egypt article clearly states that Egypt made several military expeditions into the region and was eventually invited to take over eastern Libya by the tribes living there. Clearly, neither of these things imply that their expansion was without resistance as LG says.

The "states," as LG calls, are more accurately called tribal confederacies, which is what they are labelled in the article and what I told him in our discussion. They are a semi-formal ethnic coalition of the various tribes that live in eastern Libya. These are not states in the formal sense that Greece or Egypt are states. These are states in name only. It's a title their claiming, even if it's not particularly realistic. The article states as much. As for the borders, they are rough, porous borders. Nothing concrete or representing anything that violates canon.

The collapse of Libya makes the region chaotic, not cutoff. Desert trade and smuggling routes have existed for centuries and would continue to operate post-Doomsday. In addition, all of these ethnic groups have tribal allies in neighboring states with whom they would cooperate.

As for the depiction of Egyptian expansion, it was written by Smoggie, who wrote the Egypt article. I expanded it when I adopted the article, but everything was taken directly from the article.

Also, these tribes are only semi-nomadic. There are nomadic elements, but most of their population live sedentary lives in the various oasis towns. There are thousands of people who live in western Libya. As I have said, they would suffer somewhat after Doomsday due to the lack of investment and centralized control from coastal Libya. However, the population of this region has never increased significantly and, at the time of Doomsday, was minimally developed. The major development that led to expansion of many towns in this region, such as Sabha, didn't occur until after Doomsday OTL. Therefore, there will be population declines, but nothing catastrophic.

LG, as I said before, nothing everything I do is about Turkey and Greece. Frankly, I stopped caring about my issues with the Greece-Turkey thing a while ago. You need to move on as well. Caeruleus 04:03, February 10, 2012 (UTC)

Caer, where on earth did you get any of that from?

No, there is no mention at all of tribes in the Egypt article. Rather, it is the small surviving desert towns. This is clearly said in that article. There is nothing there about any tribes.

That is not what I said about Greece, you said about Greece, or even exactly what the Greece article says. Not in the least. The Moreans conquered the coastal cities in that regard, true enough, but the zone of control in Libya has been expanding without issue ever since. Again, something I've told him, but he doesn't notice/listen.

Even his statement about the "tribal confederacies" tells us that it does go against canon, as they cannot exist there. Areas where the nomads mostly are? Yeah, that's probably true, except in the case of the Berbers, who live in territory that is part of Greece. But any sort of organized stated, which is exactly what a tribal confederacy is? Not even close to canon. Not even remotely.

Again, Libya and all of its neighbors collapsed in some form, which is something I've told him a few times now - and he has glossed over each and every time. They ain't getting anything.

What Smoggy wrote on the Egypt article, and what is on this one, are, once again, not the same thing. And, Caer is the one who added the false description of these events to this article, not Smog. Don't tarnish her name because you got it wrong, Caer. Everything that has been added to this article that has went against other canon in the last few months has been his doing, not hers.

Again, canon states that they are nomads. Not semi-nomadic, but nomads. That they are semi-nomadic otl, with jobs and an actual government helping and financing them, is irrelevant.

Sabha, along with all the rest of the major cities in the area, has seen a massive increase in its population recent decades. 28,714 in 1973, 70,905 in 1984, and an estimated 96,872 today. Something mirrored in the other desert cities. This is far, far, higher than its historical population, and not at all possible to sustain without outside trade. So, it dies - as will any other cities and large towns, for the same reason.

Caer, you keep saying that it isn't true that everything you do is to try and make your article stronger, but your actions usually speak otherwise. I want to believe you, but then you do something like this.

For the record, this is, as most of them are, indirectly doing it. His goal is to weaken Greece and Egypt and/or put more enemies around them, so he can, against all logic, crush them and make the Turkwank happen. Seen it before, seen it again.

Lordganon 07:20, February 10, 2012 (UTC)

LG, we've been through this and neither of us are agreeing, nor do either of us have the power to unilaterally solve this impasse. How about we just wait for others to chime in? Caeruleus 07:49, February 10, 2012 (UTC)

You have entirely no basis for any of what you're arguing, and that post there reflects that. Though I have to say, it's nice to actually have you say something reasonable for a change. Lordganon 08:51, February 10, 2012 (UTC)


 * Okay, let's take the points one by one.


 * "His additions have finally gone against canon "
 * What do the canonical articles claim? Here's the extent of the Greek Federation's expansion:


 * In 1986 Morean forces landed in Libya, which the lack of international trade and support, and harsh government treatment of the population, had caused it to collapse into many splintered warlords and city states. By 1988 Morean forces had conquered much of Cyrenaica, including the capital of Benghazi. With the stability offered by the Morean occupation, many Libyans actually supported the invaders, and the Morean system of offering full citizenship in exchange for military service caused their ranks to fill with Libyan recruits. In 1990 Michaloliakos fell ill, with his son and his nephew both vying for power. As he didn't want to see a succession crisis tear apart Morea, he instead created the Kingdom of Cyrenaica and installed his nephew as King. 


 * Note: the extent of the occupaton and the new kingdom does not go beyond "much of 83DD-GFAdminMap.pngaica" including the coastal capital of Benghazi. The map makes it clear that this includes only the coastal privinces. Nothing in the Greece article speaks of continuing expansion of Greece beyond the coast. The effort would be counterproductive since, as is admitted, there is not much except desert on the otherside of the Nafusa mountains which are clearly the natural boundary of any coastal nation.


 * The article about Cyrenaica only refers to the above as far as boundaries, but states:


 * Cyrenaica has recently open relations with Egypt over oil fields in the south of former Libya, Egypt will mine the oil and control the land and Egypt will also build an oil line to transport oil to the town of Ras Lanuf which is to the west of the capital city, any oil revenue will go to the Cyrenaican government. 


 * And so, the nation of Cyrenaica works with Egypt over oil fields that are in land now claimed by Egypt. What lands are these? Again, a map and the text:


 * In 2006 army expeditions into the area formally ruled by Libya, finding only small chaotic Egyptian_Expansion.jpgements. After talking to the leaders of these small townships it became apparent that contact with the governement in Tripoli was lost shortly after Doomsday and after several years of raiding by former libyan military forces, a relative peace in the area began in late 1998. Once news of the country of Egypt surviving to the east was discovered by these small townships they asked to become part of Egypt, as they had been in the early twentieth century. The area was been provisionally named Al Kufrah province.


 * Note that Al Kufrah province hardly reaches the tribes in question, barely going beyond the boundaries of the Kufrah District of OTL Libya. though the tentative boundaries of the Libyan "nations" push against this, the only real divining line in the area is where the oil fields may be. This presents a problem with the map, for the oil found in "south Libya" is not included in the original map.


 * "Basically, he's trying to slip in a bunch of states in the desert of Western Libya."


 * As early as Feb. 14 of last year Smoggy saw that a conflict was coming over the oil. Mitro adds mention of the Berber tribes on March 17, concurrent with making the Lybia article canon. LG's map of April (close up seen above) did not reach far enough over to indicate actual acquiring of the oil fields in question. Even so, even then, conflict is not ruled out. The oil, found in 1997 in OTL and 2011 in TTL, is outside the boundaries shown here, requiring an extension of the claims from Egypt. The actual expansion to the oil fields is mentioned in an insertion on August 27 in the Egypt article by Smoggy. Note that the expansion AND the possible tribal resistance are by Smoggy. The resistance, of course will be futile given the strength of Egypt's forces, but the nation would likely make attempts to deal with the natives.


 * So, why should not the tribes work together? It is LG's opinion, and not in the articles, that establish them as "nomads" apparently unable to work together. Nomads depend on access to resources to survive. In times of war they would not just wander into the war zone. They would stay put in the oases around which small towns are built. These towns could very easily form the basis for an organized resistance, if not organized states. Such small city-states are popping up all over the Northern Hemisphere, so why not among the tribes of northern Africa?


 * In short, the seeds of the "nations" were planted in the original article almost a year ago. It is up to the challenger to indicate why these tribes could not form alliances in order to survive the changing political situation. To quote the additions by Caer:


 * "The Berber tribes coalesced into the Amazigh Confederacy, based south of the Nafusa Mountains."


 * The tribes around the Nafusa Mountains, the northern boundary of the Sahara, have long been resistant to the government in Tripoli. They would be quick to take the opportunity to organize at the fall of Qadaffi.


 * "The Tebou tribes formed the state of Murzuq, based around the town of Murzuq."


 * Note, a city-state, not a "nation." There is strength in numbers. The oil is discovered just north of here.


 * "Controlling the largest swath of western Libya, the Arab tribes united to form the Union of Libya, which claims the title of successor state to Gaddafi's Libya."


 * This union is the least plausible of the changes, for it is puts ambition in the Arab population that may not be this far south. But then again, it is only a claim. It is among these tribes that the oil was found. Would Egypt attempt negotiations with the Greek puppet state over land this far the two nations' former borders? Or would they seek peaceful negotiations instead with the residents of the province in question?


 * "The Libyan Touareg joined with their tribal brothers in the nation of Tamahaq, which slowly took control of parts of southwestern Libya in the late 2000s." 


 * This is a slow effort among tribal members to cease the moment. It hardly warrants much fuss as to whether to be recognized on a map. It's desert, for goodness sake.


 * "Egypt, and the Greek state of Cyrenaica, have been expanding into former Libya without any resistance from anyone other than a few tribal nomads. Taking only as much as they could chew at a time, obviously, and even dividing the east up between themselves."
 * This has not been demonstrated in the articles on Greece or Egypt. That LG edited in both a strong military and a monarchy (after discussion) in the article about the Greek Confederation indicates that he is biased in this discussion. To assume the "few tribal nomads" are so insignificant as to not offer any resistance to the invasion is presumptious. But given that, the article itself says nothing about expanding into the desert. Why would they want to any way? The Greek nation had plenty of oil fields in the east end of easily controled coastal areas.


 * Egypt, on the other hand, had to cross a lot of desert to get to the oil in order to discover it in land they had not previously claimed. There is no indication that the land was even claimed by the Cyrenaicans. To bargain for resources based on strength is what built empires in the 1800's, so it would certainly happen here. But, as I pointed out above, the Libya article planted the seed for possible resistance long ago.


 * "Remove the red, orange, and pale blue "states" that violate canon from both the map on that page, as well as the content of the article. The sections about "Politics" also needs to be fixed to actually represent what the Egypt article says, not what this article currently states, which is incorrect."
 * LG's "fix" is to take out the most recent additions entirely. This is based on his opinion that the existence of tribal confederations is a threat to the expansion of Greece into Africa. I never followed the whole Greek expansion saga, though I can appreciate the historixcal friction between Turkey and Greece (OTL division of Crete, for instance) along religious lines.


 * The overthrow of most of Northern Egypt by Greece (or did Egypt just give it away?) is confusing, but now the two are agreeing to split up what's left of Qadaffi's Libya. Fine, but why squabble over some tribal land owned by African Arabs? The new river in Egypt (very interesting invention) seems to have compensated with the loss of the "Lower Nile" and the Suez Canal.


 * Such a "fix" is not the way a collaborative time line works. One man, not even one of the "Brass" can do that. If there is to be a fix, it will have to be some sort of compromise. Reduce the claim of the Arab tribes as the "Union of Libya" if we must, but other than that, leave the changes. None of them "violate canon." The problem, I figure, is in the original contention that oil would even be discovered! Who is going to be nosing around in the hostile desert to find it in the first place? But, that having been written in and graduated, we won't argue over that.


 * That is a lot, and I hope it gives the community a bit to consider. I have other projects "off wiki" that I have to attend to, so I'll leave you to further discussion. SouthWriter 04:07, February 11, 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to comment SouthWriter. I appreciate it. Caeruleus 04:46, February 11, 2012 (UTC)

As the person who has written the Egypt, Libya and Tamahaq pages i've brought over the map from the Libya page for easier description. {C}


 * Cyrenaica already had control of the coast of Libya when I started writing Libya, so its pre-Libya canon - so it stays - obviously.
 * Egypt - it was written into the page by me that Egypt had taken over the eastern oil fields with the consent and assistance of Cyrenaica (as some of the oil is going to them) theres no major townships in that area, just small oil towns - its canon - so it stays.
 * I've taken over the Algerian survivor nation of Tamahaq, it would've made sense for it to expand over the border (the nation of Libya no longer existed so the border would've been irrelevent) there would be small villages along any camel trade routes that would want to be included in any trading nation so that the trade routes remained through their towns.

The rest of the area I was going to leave blank as it is, was, and will be desert, despite a little bit of rainfall it will remain desert for a long time. All you have to do is look at google earth,

The south is almost pure sand with some big rocky areas. No major nations could possibly set up in there.

To the north theres no way there could be a nation near the Tunisian border (once again all rock and sand) but its more likely Tunisia would've crossed the border and taken the desert area for themselves, but only if there are resources in that area worth taking (like oil) which i don't think there is, so its unlikely Tunisia would expanded.

The desert areas (both north and south) would be in the most uninhabited, maybe with some small trading towns along camel trade routes, but nothing major, its possible that the area could be claimed by a large nearby nation, but not inhabited.

--Smoggy80 12:42, February 11, 2012 (UTC)

South, I've asked you before to not try and arbitrate any disputes such as this, because you have shown yourself to not be neutral with regards to me. Please do so in the future.

As for your points, of which you've ignored something like half of the ones I've stated in above posts...

No, it's not mentioned in the article that it's been expanding inland somewhat. Nor should it have to. Logic dictates it will do so, overall. But, you want some proof? Then look at all of the maps, and their histories. It is expanding inland. And only tiny amounts of resistance are referred to anywhere, except this violation of canon. Nor, as already stated, is that early history anywhere remotely relevant in the atl present. Hell, it furthers the argument that there's nothing but small towns in the south.

If you look at map of oil/gas in Libya, you'd see that not only is there oil at the western edges of the Egyptian territory marked on that map, but also in the long-abandoned areas between Cyrenaica and Egypt, where pretty well any infrastructure is long gone. It's also fairly obvious that this is the oil meant, too. More a rediscovery than anything. And, in the context of Libya, virtually all of the oil is in the "south."

And, that Egypt quote is exactly what I meant when I said that his picture of Egyptian expansion is not in the least bit accurate. This blasted article refers to "tribes" when prior canon already shows that to be false. Virtually that entire paragraph of this article is the same way.

Not only that, but note the reference to "small chaotic settlements" being the only things left in Egyptian Libya? Or, exactly what I've been arguing the situation was? Where all of the large towns and cities die?

Thank you for that map. I'd completely missed/forgotten that in my arguments, and it makes them stronger. A third of the state marked as "Murzuq," including the titular capital city, are Egyptian. As is the southeastern fifth of the one marked "Fezzan," including, as I've established, the ruins of Sabha.

Such a state is not possible anyways. As shown, the population is not remotely sustainable, especially in the context of after DD, and what happened in Libya as a result. And, it's fairly obvious, as I've said and South's quotes show, that it went even further downhill from there in the region. The only other major center in the region, Ubari/Awbari, has tripled in size since 1984, as well - also not in the least bit sustainable. Virtually the same thing can be said for all of the cities in the area, to varying degrees. And, to boot, articles on the region go out of their way to say that it's mostly desert, as well.

There's one hell of a big difference between some tribal resistance by the nomads of the region, and them having a state.

Nor did I say even once that they could not work together in some form. Nor is it my opinion that they are nomads. That part, is a fact.

Add to that that these tribal nomads have never got along.

Again, the Nafusa Mountains are under Greece. And there's no Berbers south of them. So how on earth can they be there in such a form? Simple - they cannot be.

City-states are nations. And, much of Murzuq, including said town, is Egyptian. Not that it would survive, anyways, as established.

Again, there is no one left to form such a "Union of Libya." And, the Arab inhabitants of the region otl are city-dwellers, only living in small areas of the region. The rest is desert.

Notice how I did not say a word about Tamahaq?

"Possible Resistance" is not organized states as Caer is trying to claim. It's been shown to be tribal nomads. That's not my doing, at all.

And, as for bias? Caer's got so much of it that it's actually been a problem on several occasions. This being another.

It is not my opinion. It is an established fact. And one supported by data, and the reality that is is a desert.

Each and every one of Caer's false nations violates canon, in more ways than one. They also defy all logic and common sense about the desert, which he's been unable to grasp.

I've said what needs to be fixed. And a compromise may be workable. But so long as this impossible stuff is allowed to stand, that can't happen.

As for missed things....

Caer is the one that added all of the impossible things, taking the roots into a complete implausible place. The article history shows this. But, he blamed it on Smoggy, which is decidedly false.

Population in the region, from migration, oil production, and the military, has skyrocketed. Without outside aid, it's toast.

No outside aid would be coming to these places. That much, is obvious.

Tribal Confederacies are organized states. Not possible, and there's a very long history that shows exactly why.

Tribes are not what the Egyptians found and talked to in the east. Not even close.

He has also, no doubt, purposely done these "states" for his own goals. Something he has done elsewhere on multiple occasions.

And, despite all evidence to the contrary, he's ignoring the simple fact that it is a desert.

@Smog

Thanks, lol. That's the crux of the argument overall, and it's nice to see someone else say it. Southern Libya, except for oasis towns, is nothing but rocks and deserts. And most of these towns have gotten too large to support themselves whatsoever. All you need to do to support this is, as you say, look at Google Earth. Or even Google Maps. It's pretty obvious, overall.

Tunisia's not been in anywhere near a position to claim territory, either.

Lordganon 10:12, February 12, 2012 (UTC)

So much for letting other people deliberate independently. First of all LG, you can't say people can't offer their stance on this. You neither have the power or the right.

Secondly, the problem with both LG and Smoggy's argument is the notion that people can't live in a desert. They can. They have for millennia and they are going to continue to do so. Oasis towns and such would survive between native resources and trading with neighboring states and tribes. Doomsday would limit their growth, not result in their destruction. Everything you've pointed out about the population expansions OTL are true. What would happen to the towns in western Libya is simple: they wouldn't expand. At worst, they'd experience a population decline, which is entirely plausible, however, such a decline would be slow and gradual, not catastrophic or result in the widespread collapse of established towns in the area. The few cities in the region, like Sabha, would experience potentially large population declines, but these towns would not be reduced to "ruin" as you say. They would just be smaller.

As for the borders issue, the map used is originally Smoggy's map and he correctly identified the borders of Greece and Egypt. Neither Murzuq or Sabha are within Egyptian territory. You are simply wrong about that.

In addition, Berbers do live south of the Nafusa mountains. Most of the Libyan Berber population does live in the Nafusa mountains, but a significant portion of them live south of there, concentrated in the regions highlighted in the map, primarily around Ghudamis. Also, the Libyan Arab tribes have, in fact, cooperated with each other when necessary. The fact that they would band together is not at all unfeasible.

There's a fact you and Smoggy are both forgetting. These are not "states" or "nations" as you keep describing them. They are tribal confederacies that claim the mantle of statehood, which is very different from a state or nation. These are essentially independent, autonomous tribes that cooperate with each other on major issues, such as external security and trade, but otherwise are totally independent. The only exception to this rule would be the Amaizigh Confederacy, which would technically qualify as a nation and many Berbers have long wanted their own Berber state.

Even if the situation in eastern Libya was chaotic, that in no way means the situation in Western Libya would have been the same. The population of Western Libya is larger and more diverse than that of eastern Libya. Inter-ethnic pressures, along with the Greek presence to the immediate north and the more recent Egyptian presence to the east, would force some level of cooperation in the region as the various tribes would be forced to organize in order to attempt to fend off potential threats. Caeruleus 19:42, February 12, 2012 (UTC)

I've asked South before to not attempt to be a mediator, because he isn't capable of being neutral towards me any longer. I am well within my rights to remind of of that fact. Nor did I say anything remotely like that.

Caer, you are entirely missing our point about it being a desert.

Historically, populations here have been tiny. Yet in the past few decades, which even you have admitted, this has more than doubled.

These may be oasis towns - notice how we both said that? - but they have expanded far beyond the amount of people that they can at all support. Except in the case of the tiny towns, there being an oasis is irrelevant.

For a third time: What neighboring states? They are, for all purposes, gone. There is no aid coming from them. And if you think that the tribes could at all help the situation, you are sadly mistaken.

These towns and cities, except for the small oasis towns, are gone. No food for everyone, and maybe enough water to stay alive? And not enough of either in the large cities? Food riots break out within weeks, alongside starvation. They will be entirely depopulated within a few months. And the few survivors will kill off even more areas.

Caer, you really need to learn to look at histories - told you before, and now I'm saying it again. Not only is the Africa map something that predates that Libya map by 10 months, it's also been used by Smog right next to that Libya one, and has even been on the Libya article for that same 10 months. There is no question that the Africa map is the one that is correct. And, btw, Smog is a her.

I am not wrong about that in the least. Without question, you are, Caer.

You're also very wrong about the Berbers. The majority do live in those mountains - which is the entire southern orange area on that blasted demographic map. And the rest? They live on the coast near Tunisia. There is none to the south of them.

You are entirely missing what the North African tribes are like. They never join together long-term. Ever.

Caer, for the... what, fourth time? A tribal confederacy is a state. And, for the third time, the Berbers live in Greek territory.

Western Libya is worse. A larger population, with no food, little water, and no outside contact? It is gone. And as for the tribes, I must respectfully ask you to actually have a look at these tribes, tribes in general and how their relations actually work. The most they would possibly do is stop fighting each other occasionally. And even that is highly unlikely.

Lordganon 10:11, February 13, 2012 (UTC)

First, LG, I did not post as a "mediator," but even if I did, it is not up to you to forbid it. I took the points you brought up and tried to determine if they met they could stand as challenges to canonized material. I attempted to show that the material of related articles does not preclude the new material added. I only added the information as I see it, and it is just my own analysis -- as good as I could make it and not having an interest in the articles otherwise.

I did not take it on as a challenge to LG, though I did note on the article's talk page that I think that his attack on this minor detail is rather "petty" in my opinion. I have laid down all the arguments I am going to offer on this string. LG has as the right to challenge whatever he wants to challenge, but he cannot, and must not, challenge other editors' rights to post at will. SouthWriter 06:23, February 14, 2012 (UTC)

Again, I did not forbid anything. What on earth is wrong with you two?

I have asked you, nicely, in the past to not try and mediate anything else between myself and others, because you are no longer capable of a neutral opinion. I cannot stop you, but I can ask. And, claim you're not being a mediator all you want, but that's what it amounts to.

This is not a minor detail. Nor is it in the least bit petty.

And please, in the future, if you're going to offer an opinion, could you at least comment on everything, instead of half of it?

Lordganon 10:37, February 14, 2012 (UTC)

Right then! I really didn't want to go and do this, in fact I don't even know if I can do this? but here goes! As the original writer of the Libya article and the person who gave it to Caer, I formally rescind Caer's adoption, I am retaking my article back. All nations apart from Egypt, Tamahaq and Cyrenicia will be removed.

--Smoggy80 13:03, February 19, 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't believe that can be done like that, Smog.



However, overall, I do believe that the result of this is rather obvious - Caer needs to remove the offending parts. Especially since South did not even address our main concern, overall, meaning no opinion on it.

Lordganon 14:51, February 19, 2012 (UTC)

I thought just saying that would be too easy? Surely the original writer must have some authority of their page? whether or not they've adopted it out?--Smoggy80 10:41, February 20, 2012 (UTC)

No, I don't believe so. Though far as I'm concerned you still have every right to edit it. Lordganon 15:18, February 20, 2012 (UTC)

I'll contact Caer and make it clear what needs to happen and the fact that if he does this again I will claim my page back whether he likes it or not--Smoggy80 20:22, February 20, 2012 (UTC)

As Caer is refusing to remove these impossible states, i've given a altimatum (i know thats not spelt right!), either remove them or i will and he will loose his rights to edit the page. I have given him one week to remove the impossible states--Smoggy80 13:41, February 21, 2012 (UTC)

Whoa, calm down.

That being said, I agree with the sentiment.

Lordganon 17:39, February 21, 2012 (UTC)

As Caer has refused to removed sections deemed impossible, I have.

I hereby transfer editorship of Libya to Lordganon

I have also locked editing so that only Admin can edit it.

--Smoggy80 19:14, February 29, 2012 (UTC)

Like LG said, you can't do that. Secondly, I don't have to remove anything. The review is inconclusive. You lack majority approval, much less a consensus on the flaws with the article. Whether you like it or not, the article is still mine and no changes must be made as of now. If this review is concluded and it is decided by a consensus, or at least a substantial majority, that anything in this article goes against canon, I will remove those sections. Caeruleus 20:09, February 29, 2012 (UTC)

That's not what I said.

The review is conclusive, and does have majority approval. You have entirely no ground to stand on.

You were given a week to make the needed changes. You refused to do so. Far as I'm concerned, that forfeits it, overall.

Smog has now removed the parts in error. I believe that means that we can end the review now.

Lordganon 08:00, March 1, 2012 (UTC)

The article was Caer's to edit as he saw fit. Then LG disagreed with his editing and put it up for review. That's two parties in disagreement. The reviewer's complaint was acknowledged by the offending editor who turned it over to the community. That's where I stepped in as a third party, attempting to address the complaints as I saw them. Then Smoggy, the original creator of the article stepped in as a fourth voice. That makes four voices. Two for and two against the changes. There is no majority, and so the article is not ready to be removed from review. A fifth voice is needed to "rule" on this before it can be determined whether the article is (1) returned to active status, or (2) marked obsolete as is. Those are the only two options available. What has been done (taking an article away from its present caretaker) is not allowed.

Therefore, the additions need to be returned until the fifth voice is found. To be fair, there must not be any "case" made to that individual other than what is stated above. I hope for the sake of the community that an editor will step forward and render a verdict on this. Incidentally, the "week" that was "given" to Caer is short in comparison to any article that I can recall that has been put up for review (two of which were by my request if I recall correctly). SouthWriter 01:55, March 2, 2012 (UTC)

Wrong on all counts.

I turned it over to the community. Not Caer. What on earth do you think posting here was if not that?

Again, you're not a third party, and cannot be regarded as being neutral in any dispute I am involved in. We've been over this. And that's exactly why I asked you to not try and mediate like this. Not that you listened.

In your posts on this page, you only addressed half of the issues - something which I told you, but you ignored. And are precisely missing the point of the overall problem.

You'll notice that the ones you took issue with were more or less tossed aside? Given that, in light of you not commenting on the rest, your opinion thus has no bearing on the remainder. That - the desert, and severe overpopulation, as well as the majority the population of a least one of his non-canon states being inside of Egypt - is exactly what the crux of the problem was/

Thus, a majority favored changes. And, Oer seems to have noticed things and not cared overall, if that means anything at all to you.

Far as I'm concerned - something with which, Smoggy agrees - refusal to go along with a review, when the page is something that cannot be marked obsolete, means that any rights to the page, especially when the person undoes the mandated changes, are stripped from the individual in question. But if it makes you feel any better - not that it will - I'm going to go mark is obsolete right now, and then remove it. Poof! Protocol has now been followed to a "T."

And, a week? Caer had weeks before that without any ultimatums being given to change things. That's one hell of a lot longer than a week. He refused, as was mandated, to do so. The week was merely the last straw - which, again, he refused to do anything about, or at all recognize, so the results are his own fault. Which, overall, was more or less what I expected, given all of the trash that went on with his Turkey article.

The changes have been made, as per the majority-ruled result of the review.

Lordganon 10:17, March 2, 2012 (UTC)

LG, I didn't refuse to cooperate with the review. I said I disagreed with what you believed violated canon and presented my argument against it. That is in no way "refusing" to cooperate.:

Secondly, neutrality is irrelevant. What various editors think, say, or have said in the past does not preclude them from having their voice heard or from having a voice in the review process. If SouthWriter chooses to disagree in any way, regardless of what he says, it counts as a "no" vote. It's 2-2. Therefore, there's no majority. All changes made so far are invalid, the review is inconclusive, and the article is still mine. Caeruleus 21:25, March 2, 2012 (UTC)

No, you refused to go along with the results. Multiple times. Thus, you refused cooperation. Hell, you didn't, despite your claims, even try to compromise, when it was open to you.

Neutrality is not irrelevant. I swear, it's like you two are failing to read that bit.

South failed to disagree with the biggest concerns, and even added some more - which you also refused to address. On the ones he addressed, there is a draw. But on the biggest concerns? 2-1. And the stuff that South noted, which you failed to address? 3-1. You have entirely no standing in any of this.

The changes have not been done in the proper manner, I'll admit. Smog should have waited a week. But overall, that's irrelevant. The majority has ruled. The review is conclusive, and you, as a result of refusals to follow, have lost the article.

And, South? If you are going to try and tar and feather me - for things that I did not do and merely supported - do it here. Not on Caer's page.

Lordganon 02:37, March 3, 2012 (UTC)


 * I was going to leave this alone, but then things got out of hand. Here is what I have to say about the other points:


 * LG:


 * Now, what he's trying to do is suddenly get these nomads to form states in the desert, along with the large towns forming a pair. Ignoring, of course, that they are nomads, and that the large desert towns are gone.


 * Basically, the large desert towns have expanded beyond what they could sustain on their own. And, while Libya and neighboring nations were not nuked, virtually all of them collapsed. So, there's not going to be any outside help for these ones - and as a result, they will die, go northwards to fight, or go nomad - which is what canon says they did. Only the small ones, with a few thousand, would survive. Yet, he's ignored this.


 * Even more so, he's put in states of nomads right against both of the aforementioned nations. Yet, their activities, and the fact that they are nomads means that this is not possible. Drawing artificial lines where none at all exist, which form into states that cannot possibly exist, as per canon.


 * Caer:


 * The collapse of Libya makes the region chaotic, not cutoff. Desert trade and smuggling routes have existed for centuries and would continue to operate post-Doomsday. In addition, all of these ethnic groups have tribal allies in neighboring states with whom they would cooperate.




 * Also, these tribes are only semi-nomadic. There are nomadic elements, but most of their population live sedentary lives in the various oasis towns. There are thousands of people who live in western Libya. As I have said, they would suffer somewhat after Doomsday due to the lack of investment and centralized control from coastal Libya. However, the population of this region has never increased significantly and, at the time of Doomsday, was minimally developed.


 * SW:


 * Though I did touch on the “nomad” issue, I left Caer's response to stand on it's own. The challenge was that the Greek and Egyptian articles covered this, and that the tribes could not become nations in any form. I dealt mostly with the first issue and did not say that my remarks were exhaustive. Everyone who comments does not have to comment on every point. The argument for the size and nature of the population of the area's towns is “up for grabs.” I was dealing only with the original challenge, and the terms of the challenge should not be changed in mid-stream.


 * LG:


 * No, it's not mentioned in the article that it's been expanding inland somewhat. Nor should it have to. Logic dictates it will do so, overall. But, you want some proof? Then look at all of the maps, and their histories. It is expanding inland.




 * Again, the Nafusa Mountains are under Greece. And there's no Berbers south of them. So how on earth can they be there in such a form? Simple - they cannot be.




 * If you look at this map of oil/gas in Libya, you'd see that not only is there oil at the western edges of the Egyptian territory marked on that map, but also in the long-abandoned areas between Cyrenaica and Egypt, where pretty well any infrastructure is long gone. It's also fairly obvious that this is the oil meant, too. More a rediscovery than anything. And, in the context of Libya, virtually all of the oil is in the "south”.


 * And, that Egypt quote is exactly what I meant when I said that his picture of Egyptian expansion is not in the least bit accurate. This blasted article refers to "tribes" when prior canon already shows that to be false. Virtually that entire paragraph of this article is the same way.


 * Not only that, but note the reference to "small chaotic settlements" being the only things left in Egyptian Libya? Or, exactly what I've been arguing the situation was? Where all of the large towns and cities die?


 * Thank you for that map. I'd completely missed/forgotten that in my arguments, and it makes them stronger. A third of the state marked as "Murzuq," including the titular capital city, are Egyptian. As is the southeastern fifth of the one marked "Fezzan," including, as I've established, the ruins of Sabha.


 * SW:


 * The maps show very little expansion, but only occupation of the coastal provinces. They prove nothing. I said as much. The mountains in the west provide a natural boundary and the oil in the disputed areas is the only reason that Cyrenaica might even wish to expand into the desert.


 * The oilfields in the east would not be the ones to which the article was referring. The “rediscovery” is an invention. Besides, these oilfields are far away from the disputed “states” that are under discussion. If the new oil is not being considered, then the remarks about Egypt are moot. They would have no reason to expand over into the southwestern region.


 * The Egypt article does not indicate expansion as far as the Fessan region. Smoggy's map does not match the one that you created, for it does not reach over near as far. It is accurate to the story, reaching approximately as far as the edge of the the Al Kufrah district of OTL for which the new Egyptian district is then named. It is self-serving for the approximation made by LG to be used as the measure of the area in question. Even if we accept LG's map, the extension of Egypt happens to “just” reach the towns of Murzuq and “established” ruins of Sabha. The ruins are only established in the opinion of LG and have not been proven. The map show that the resistance to unwarranted Egyptian expansion that far west may very well have been enough to mark the extent of the expansion.


 * The results of the recent civil war in Libya in our time line should show that if Qadaffi had fallen in 1984 or so, those of the resistance could very well have fended for themselves. To assume that people used to living in the desert would wither up and die is preposterous. That they would form alliances to survive is altogether reasonable. What LG and Smoggy have done is take what was unspoken, but assumed and “declared” it to be fact.


 * I have "unprotected" the article and made some changes to attempt to answer LG's concerns. I have suggested that the three "nations" become proposed articles instead of simply being inserts here. Also, I am unclear as to how much the Egyptian article claims. The line about Libyan tribes being a part of Egypt in the early 20th century refers only to tribes in the far southern tip of Libya. The region is called Al Kufrah, leaving the impression that it was just the eastern portion that Egypt occupied. If LG is correct, the oil fields in question are just south of the Greek state of Cyrenaica (NE Libya), then I don't see any reason to transverse the desert as far as LG's map indicates (see above).


 * I do not wish to "tar and feather" you, LG, but we need to play by the rules, not make them up as we go along. You agree that what Smoggy did was wrong, but then you reinforce it when you get the chance. Let this issue be played out in the next week (the end of the 30 day period, per the rules). After that, we will go with what the community has decided. SouthWriter 20:52, March 3, 2012 (UTC)


 * [I apologize lack of formatting. I hope the indentions help. SouthWriter 21:23, March 4, 2012 (UTC)]

Holy unreadable post, Batman! If you're going to quote out of context, could you at least make the tiny bit of effort needed to make it readable, please?

What South misses entirely is that the terms of the original review post have included everything discussed here, except the map issue that he himself brought to light, since day one. Nor did he deal with anything other than the "first issue" - not "mostly," like he's claiming - in his first post, and indeed, this last one too.

There we go. Even South admits that expansion is indeed occurring - and there is no resistance inland from the coast, and from the east. As has been stated numerous times, the Federation controls those mountains almost entirely. And, the Berbers do not live south of them.

South. Please read the earlier posts again. To quote:

"Caer, you really need to learn to look at histories - told you before, and now I'm saying it again. Not only is the Africa map something that predates that Libya map by 10 months, it's also been used by Smog right next to that Libya one, and has even been on the Libya article for that same 10 months. There is no question that the Africa map is the one that is correct."

Something which Smoggy agreed with.

As noted - what, three times? - the population of the cities and towns - which are not tribal, either - is so far in excess of the carrying capacity of the land without imports from outside that it is not even funny. The math is pretty darned easy to do - hundreds of thousands die. And, used to living in towns and cities in a desert environment is on heck of a lot different than living in the desert.

It is not at all "assumed," or "declared." But a recognition of reality.

With regards to the part on Egypt, I must quote this, which South has ignored, again:

"And, that Egypt quote is exactly what I meant when I said that his picture of Egyptian expansion is not in the least bit accurate. This blasted article refers to "tribes" when prior canon already shows that to be false. Virtually that entire paragraph of this article is the same way."

It's pretty obvious that that's wrong. And the quotes further up in this regard by South from the two pages show this without question.

Nor did I ever say that the northeastern oil was the only one they were getting into.

Also, South's "changes" did nothing.

Please, South. You've done exactly that on Caer's page. You've made several claims of things I'm done, most of all not following the rules when I've done nothing of the sort.

The community has decided. And Caer's refusal to do anything compounds the problem.

Lordganon 10:21, March 4, 2012 (UTC)

Ok, not going to comment on all of it, just going to state something, but the western oil fields that I believe it was mentioned were discovered OTL in 1997? Well those won't have been discovered here at all, so there would be no reason for anyone to expand into western Libya other than to say they have more land. Cyrenaica has its hands full handling the population it has, and likely wouldn't bother trying to expand into useless desert. The agreement with Egypt over the oil benefits them as they don't have to supply and administrate a desert, but reaps the benefits of refining the crude. Because of the eastern oil, they may, decide to go into the desert in the west in search for oil, but that would be something recent. Some sort of organized resistance may form from the tribals at that time, but they wouldn't be organized now. Thats all I have to say.Oerwinde 10:32, March 4, 2012 (UTC)

...which more or less concludes with the goal here. Thank you for a reasonable opinion, Oer. Lordganon 11:20, March 4, 2012 (UTC)

I'm just going to explain something that everyone seems to be missing. The organization in western Libya isn't new. It existed pre-Doomsday. Cooperation between the tribes increased after Doomsday because of the civil war and again after the respective Greek and Egyptian invasions. This region never existed in anarchy. Tribal organization has existed for centuries. The nations I mention are merely semi-formal identifiers, not radically new groups. Caeruleus 22:10, March 4, 2012 (UTC)

Well, I support Caer in this matter, as we need to see that post-dd tribes will go on to organize themselves better, and the Greek and Egyptian invasions will only help their cause. Imperium Guy 22:46, March 4, 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Imperium. Now, this review is 3-2 against alteration.

Btw, this discussion has gotten ridiculously long. If anyone has any issues/suggestions that don't deal with the existence of these nations themselves that they would like me to address, please list them on my talk page or the Libya article talk page. It would make it much easier for me to address. Thank you. Caeruleus 09:20, March 5, 2012 (UTC)

No, we are not missing anything, Caer. Rather, you are. Repeatedly. As shown by your inability to count. Which is par for the course, and something you're done several times in the past.

Such "organization" is new. Once again: these tribal nomads don't get along. Not between groups, not within groups, not with anyone. There's a pretty darned good reason why they don't like/get along with governments. They are only family bands, as has been the case for millennia.

Furthermore, one of these tribes lives in Greece. Yet you're sticking them in desert south of their lands.

Nor are there, as you are so fond of stating, "Arab tribes." What there is is Arab city-dwellers. Which is one heck of a big difference from being "tribes." Towns which, in the vast majority of cases, are massively overpopulated. And will die without outside supplies.

So, to summarize: The Arabs are dead, and the tribal nomads are not organized. And yet, he's trying to have them exist in organized states.

Imp, please read more than the last post before commenting on things on here. Caer's post is not the matter, not by a long shot. Saying that without doing so is irresponsible, and gives a false impression that you're supporting his views.

Lordganon 09:34, March 5, 2012 (UTC)

As I've said before, most of the Berbers do live in Greek territory, however, some of the live south of it. That's something you're simply wrong about. The town of Ghadamis represents the southern most edge of Berber inhabited territory, which is far south of Greek territory. Everything between there and Greece would be inhabited primarily by Berbers.

You clearly have no conception of a tribe. Where they live is irrelevant. It's a purely ethnic label based on bloodlines, which continue to exist regardless of their location. Libyans live in a variety of places, but most of them continue to identify with one tribe or another. It is that tribal identity that forms the basis of the tribe, not their location.

And you're assumptions on massive overpopulation are also wrong. Is there some overpopulation, compared to resources available, in some of the larger towns like Sabha? Probably. However, these cities would not be cutoff until the conquest of the coastal warlords by Greece cuts them off from coastal agriculture and trade. Massive death tolls would never occur. Minor famines and related events? Also probable.

So, to summarize, the Arabs ''aren't dead. The tribes 'aren't nomadic so please stop saying that already. '''The tribes already exist and are already organized, reasons for which are given above. Their jump to statehood is in name only, as I've repeatedly stated, and largely deals with formal semantics. Caeruleus 10:28, March 5, 2012 (UTC)

You keep saying about Sabha, to quote OTL Wikipedia Sabha's importance is due to its being the air and road transport hub of the Fezzan, a military base, and the centre of a remarkable agricultural industry in the desert

However in ATL
 * There would be no military base
 * There would be no hub for air travel.
 * There would be no or very little road transportation, so no hub for that either.
 * There would be no agriculture in the desert, as that project didn't start till the 1990's.

as such there would be no reason to stay there, the population would've moved to somewhere where life would be easier, most likely the coast, which is now Greek. The same would happen for the majority, if not all the major towns and villages in the desert--Smoggy80 14:51, March 5, 2012 (UTC)

...and now, we need to add, to my previous statement about counting, the words "to read." As in Caer has entirely failed to do so. Again.

No, Caer, you've not said that line about them living inside of Greek territory before. At all.



Notice the orange on that map? That's where the Berbers are. Yes, there's going to be small numbers elsewhere. Your little town, right on the Tunisian/Algerian borders, is a case in point - a tiny island of Berbers, in an area surrounded by other cultures. But, you're entirely failing to grasp that overall, the Berbers do not live there - notice that it's in an area filled with brown and purple? Sure as heck not going to be a state of them. And the line about "everything between there and Greece being inhabited by Berbers" is an outright lie, too.

No, Caer, I'm afraid that it is you that has no idea of what a tribe is. You state it well enough, about halfways, but then you miss the concept entirely.

"Bloodlines" describes it very well. Each tribe is composed of clans, and below that, family units. All of these have been in existence for centuries, and divide up the various tribes. Past that, each ethnic group, is divided up into many "tribes." And between them, the squabbles and histories would make the Hatfields and the McCoys seem like upstarts. Yes, they may temporarily join together for some purpose. But permanently, as you are trying to have us believe? Not even the slightest chance in Hades.

And, as stated: The Arabs are not tribal. True, there's some Arabized tribes. But they are most decidedly not tribal.

Some overpopulation? Sabha, as an example, despite being in the middle of the desert, more than 'doubled its population over the ten year span before DD. Heck, of that district of Libya, the population of that city - currently, nearly 100k - is more than two thirds the population of the district. Something which would have been the case in 1983, too. And you call that Some?

Moreover, virtually the same thing is seen throughout the region. Not all towns, true - I've said as much, often - but there's a lot of them like that.

You're honestly trying to tell us that the coastal warlords traded with these guys. When they are fighting a civil war and suffering shortages of their own? That's crazy. And even if your impossible scenario were true? You do realize that the effects only get delayed, right? Plus, you're also conveniently ignoring that there'd be a war going on in the south, too.

Entire cities, as seen globally, are going to be depopulated. What starvation doesn't accomplish, fighting will.

Again, the desert tribes in the south are nomadic.

Smog's got the right idea, though they'd never make the coast. A few would stay and survive - as in a single percent, at best, of the original population - and a few more may make it to surviving towns that can take them in. But, by and large, anyone that flees will disappear in the sands.

Once again: The Arabs are mostly dead, the tribes are not organized, nor would they ever do so as Caer is claiming, and they sure as hell aren't going to be living in organized states, as he is also claiming. And as for it being "in name only?" That's just a lie, too.

Lordganon 16:21, March 5, 2012 (UTC)

For a state to exist, they will need water and food. If someone can tell me how the state can get both of these, then my vote will stay with Caer, but if not, I would retract my vote. If you have these two essentials, then states and all other things are possible, if not... then 1000s will die. Imperium Guy 17:17, March 5, 2012 (UTC)

They would be self-sufficent water wise. Most of Libya's water supplies are held in desert aquifers. Many of these were tapped before Doomsday and Libya has the necessary technological know-how to maintain them after Doomsday. Simplier wells and such service smaller population centers. Some food can be grown in very limited amounts in irrigated desert farms. Most of their food supply is received through imports. They would primarily receive these imports from coastal Libya, Niger, Algeria, and later Egypt. Famine would occur during the middle to later phases of the Civil War and after the Greek conquest of the coast. After each famine, the population would stabilize at a lower level. The population would certainly be lower than OTL due to losses from famine and refugees. Neither would be totally devestating to the population though. Caeruleus 20:18, March 5, 2012 (UTC)

Well, it would be devestating to the population, I would say. Coastal Libya is going to be cut off when Greece invade and take over the coast while the other states will take time to stablize. So I think around half of OTL population would be likely, 3/4th at a stretch. This is because you are going to have Famine in regular intervals until '95 when patterns stablize and there will be a population boom. Imperium Guy 20:54, March 5, 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. I was imagining around 40-75% of the OTL population for the region. Caeruleus 21:08, March 5, 2012 (UTC)

The other problems were of the tribes. Well, in Scotland, the tribes were basically ruling their own land until the 1700s, and when they had a population decline, they had to join with the remaining portion of the Scottish controlled areas. With tribes losing people, this is probably what will happen here as well. And for the state, it necessarily does not need to be one unified state, maybe a bunch of smaller states independent/semi-independent or in a confederation. Imperium Guy 21:41, March 5, 2012 (UTC)

That's what they are. All of these states are decentralized tribal confederacies. Caeruleus 22:00, March 5, 2012 (UTC)

Well that could work. Although you might need to have parts where some tribes were about to split away and were stopped while others had to be conquered/reconquered by the confed. Imperium Guy 22:06, March 5, 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't planning on detailing the history of these states. All I was planning on stating was that these states formed after pre-existing tribal alliances were strengthened by the encroaching of Greece and Egypt. Beyond that, I think I'm going to go with SouthWriter's suggestion that the specifics of these nations become separate articles for anyone who cares to write them. Caeruleus 22:11, March 5, 2012 (UTC)

Well, you might have a few states for that but ok, one state could emerge, but it would need time and harsh treatment by the invaders for this to happen (which I think will happen). Imperium Guy 22:18, March 5, 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I wasn't gonna post on this, but this is reallt ridiculous.

Caeruleus, you're entirely failing to notice that although there sure are aquifers and Libya has the technology to extract water, Gadaffi's government is very different to a group of semi-nomadic to entirely nomadic Berber and Tuareg tribes with bare, if any, knowledge of settled civilisation.

Scottish tribes and Tuaregs have something that makes them very different-Scotland had water. Libya doesn't have enough water in its inside to hold enough people, it does not have enough transport ability to have a trade route save it, and sure as hell the large cities don't have enough of anything without government aid to help the artificial populations, something LG has repeatedly stated.

In optimistic measures, Sabha and Murzuq will lose about 80% of its population to famine, violence and nomadization. In realistic ones? Say goodbye to any city with over 5,000 inhabitants.

And really, a tribal confederation is a state, just like a one-party system with fair elections is still a democracy or Shiites are Muslims even if they are strongly different.

All this I've written has a base in LG's points, which you seem not to have read. This "nomad" states you're proposing are not sustentable at all. Fed (talk) 03:43, March 6, 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for that ,Fed. That's more or less entirely what I've said, in all regards, repeatedly.

Caer's entirely out to lunch, Imp. Now he's claiming things about other articles which are also baldfaced lies.

But, other things first...

Libya cannot maintain access to such aquifers. The pumps that allow access to the water there function on parts that, at best, could be under production in the capital. And not even likely there. That's ignoring, of course, that the aquifers that actually exist in the south of Libya in the west are tiny. And the massive one that supplies water in the area otl was not discovered until after DD, and lies far to the east.

For the umpteenth time: these tribes do not get along. Why in hell would they do anything that Caer is claiming? They would not do it. Each and every time they have temporarily done anything remotely like this, it has lasted only a very short time.

To quote a wikipedia article about one of the revolts:

"The Berbers fiercely resisted both Spanish and French incursions into Morocco. However, the Berbers had been unable to consolidate power, and had continually returned to ethnic fighting and tribal division. The Great Revolt of 1912 against French rule was a complete failure due to the fact that any tribal alliances created during the Great Revolt came apart within months."

Virtually all such instances in history have ended the same way. And Caer is actually trying to argue that this would be different? That's not even remotely possible. For pete's sake, these tribes are worse than clans like the Hatfields and McCoys are.

Moreover, that's ignoring the fact that any such movements into that region are very recent. And Caer's actually arguing that these guys are organized now, in any form - especially an organized state? That makes no sense whatsoever.

Now, more importantly...

Imp, Caer's saying that these cities are still going to be able to get food imported. There is no way on earth that that could possibly happen.

For starters, the state itself is no longer importing food from the outside world, for obvious reasons.

Moreover, within a year of DD, food rationing in Libya has gotten bad enough to provoke riots, and a military coup. Followed by a civil war. Obviously, there's no food to spare - let alone send inland. They are starving. Why on earth would they send food anywhere?

Niger suffered a drought after DD, killing 80% of its crops. Of which, there wasn't any to export in the first place. Niger is, after all, on the edge of the Sahara in an area where crops barely grow, at best. Starvation and fighting killed off in the range of 85% of its population. Add in a state of civil war. No way on earth is food coming from there.

Egypt devolved into a Civil War, though short, very rapidly after DD, because the people were starving. And the problem failed to rectify itself, overall. No food from there, either.

Algeria went into a state of civil war just as fast as Egypt - without a conclusion. Same problems with food imports as all of the other nations. No food from here, either.

And, to remove them as things he could add....

Chad went only slightly better than Niger, with an even worse civil war. Definitely no food here.

Tunisia is probably the best off of the lot. But even there, there's rebellions and fighting. Add to that that they have their food imports cut off too. No food from here worth mentioning.

Past all of that, even Caer admits - though I expect a denial of it, given things - that "Some food can be grown in very limited amounts in irrigated desert farms." Note the word limited. "Limited" feeds nobody.

And, when people starve, do they sit and take it? No. They riot, revolt, and cause mayhem. Worsening the problem, and spreading refugees, which compound the problem.

This isn't a case of "famine." It's a case of mass starvation. Hundreds of thousands will die. There'd be more than 90% of the population dead. Probably more than 95%. And as a result, the mer concept of a state in this area is, quite literally, impossible.

Lordganon 05:00, March 6, 2012 (UTC)

In case anyone is interested, Caer made further concessions. I chipped in and vicerated the groups in question a little bit more, though not down to the 5-10% that is proposed in the paragraph above. If though, the community wishes, those figures can be written in. I put up placeholder articles on Caer's proposed political entities that are open for both discussion and adoption. SouthWriter 07:05, March 6, 2012 (UTC)

No, he hasn't made a single one. The fact is that those states are impossible. And those articles, which you jumped the gun horribly in making, should be marked obsolete. Lordganon 08:05, March 6, 2012 (UTC)

To chip in about surrounding nations (as I wrote them, as well as Egypt and Libya), Niger to the south collapsed into civil war and the north (next to the south of Libya) was totally abandoned due to drought in the five years after DD. Niger as a nation does not exist beyond 1985, the population dropped from 6 million in 1983 to 1 million in 1989.

Chad to the south suffered from an equally severe drought in the five years after DD and the north (The bit near Libya) was also severely de-populated dropping from nearly 2 million to 100,000(ish). following the drought was a civil war that has only just finished.

With the two nations directly to the south suffering such massive drought, starvation and de-population then why would Libya not? as for aquifers they are deep (approx 500M) and need pumps to drive them, usually powered by diesal, which would work for maybe a few weeks after DD till the fuel runs out. To be truthful the big project, the great manmade river project, didn't start till OTL 1984 so would never of started in ATL.

Also looking at the 'tribal' map you'll notice the big grey areas, these are uninhabited, then and now.--Smoggy80 17:04, March 6, 2012 (UTC)

Libya has its own oil supplies and refineries. Supplies would continue sufficiently until 1985, when the civil war fully destabilized the country. After that, gas supplies would be dependent on the coastal warlords who controlled the refineries. They would be completely cutoff from these sources by the end of the 1990s after Greece conquered the coast. By that point, the necessary supplies could have been acquired from Algeria and Tunisia or through smuggling routes. Fuel would be a problem at times, but the situation would have been managable.

I never referred to the Great Manmade River. Aquifers in southern Libya had been tapped long before that project began. The Great Manmade River greatly expanded these aquifers and delivered the water north to the coast. The pre-Doomsday systems merely extracted the water and used it in the local area. The water needs of the region were met by these systems. The Great Manmade River was built to give the much larger coastal population access to larger water supplies.

Inhabitation has nothing to do with territorial claims so that affects nothing. Caeruleus 19:10, March 6, 2012 (UTC)

I feel guilty saying this, but Smog's and LG's argument has swayed me. There are too many factors going against the original proposal. Yes they will get some gas from warlords and yes they might smuggle in some fuel but eventually famine, civil war, drought and not so good tribal relations will eventually crack wide open and whatever populace is left will probably rebel and fight amongst themselves. Maybe one or two towns could survive, which control the refiners, but 90%+ will die. :( Imperium Guy 19:25, March 6, 2012 (UTC)

Oil supplies which are entirely dependent on both being refined, and having power to extract.

The idea that the warlords would share in any form, or that the guys inland would send them the fuel in the first place, is ridiculous.

Civil War in Algeria, no resources in Tunisia. And, after 2004, until the present, Tunisia is Sicilian.

And, that's avoiding that by 1990, they are all dead.

Again, the aquifers are dependent on pumps. In addition, of course, to using up all the water and being unable to gain access to more.

Inhabitation does have to do with territorial claims.

Thank you, Imp.

Lordganon 20:25, March 6, 2012 (UTC)

I must admit I too am swayed by Smoggy and LG's opinion. But I think we should remember something overall: this world is a dystopia. I think the unwritten, zeroth law of the timeline is 'the shit hits the fan'. If it's a fifty-fifty toss-up, go for the worst option. So in this case, even though I can agree that Caer has done his research, and while it's not impossible that his described course have action could have followed, the dystopian 90% casualties option is the way to go. Feg 20:33, March 6, 2012 (UTC)

Pretty sure there is not a "the" in the proverb!! :P But I have to agree this would be a dystopia. If dday wasn't half as bad, I would go up against Smog and LG for this prop, but we need to see DD really devestated the world. Imperium Guy 21:15, March 6, 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, he's had a problem remembering that one in the past. The Turkey article and the African articles have been/were marred by more or less the same problem in the proposal process. Nice to have some support in it for once, lol. Thanks guys.

That is not a fix, Caer. Not only does it miss what the decision here is, but you're making moves that aren't possible in an attempt to fix it. Lordganon 12:01, March 7, 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I admit I read the rules wrong. The 30 days is IF the article is not changed at all after the challenge! Since there have been good faith attempts in the last week to satisfy the objections, there is no 'limit' to the review process. The article can stay in review indefinitely, as have most that have ended up in this section. Consensus is moving toward the challenger's position that the tribes and the population in southwestern Libya were decimated (the 'improbable' clause for review). Caer has knocked himself out to make the changes to suit the consensus. LG does not have the right to practially "demand" that the "fix" be to his exact specifications. To declare significant changes to be "not a fix" is incorrect. It may not be an acceptable fix, but it is a fix.

In short, since changes have been made, the discussion goes on. If Caer does not make satisfactory changes, then the review template will remain, but the article remains under Caer's oversight. It may, however, remain under review until such time as there are no further objections. If my analysis of the rules stated at the beginning of this section is flawed, I would appreciate a reasoned and reasonable response to the contrary. SouthWriter 21:06, March 7, 2012 (UTC)

More or less accurate, except on two things: You've missed entirely what the phrase "not a fix" refers to, on one hand. And, on the other....

It says "not changed in 30 days." It's been changed.... once, and not near good enough to meet the decision above. At best, that extends the review time.

Lordganon 08:49, March 8, 2012 (UTC)

Well the thirty days is up. Do we have concensus? are we in agreement that the nations/city states/ large tribal bases in the Libyan desert are not possible. Or are there people who think they are possible? because Caers still editing as if the review has not happened--Smoggy80 18:43, March 10, 2012 (UTC)

=FUNDAMENTAL ISSUES= Archive 1, Archive 2

''This subsection is for decisive and vital issues concerning the 1983: Doomsday Timeline. Due to the complexity level we have reached with 1983: Doomsday now, each of these issues might have world-spanning consequences that affect dozens of articles. Please treat this section with the necessary respect and do not place discussions that do not belong here.''