133 doesnt have a user page to leave answers to. you seem to have some input in this debate. I would suggest you answer my question then as i have some degree of account. why does the word new, alone in combination with an expansive term like imperialism, combine to make a term that at some point or another can be called to be applied to something more recent? ---Sv
I should hope that I have some influence over this article. I wrote the vast majority of its content, after all. I agree with 131 since 3New Imperialism2 is a very commonly used term in historiography to refer to this era specifically. The introductory paragraphs, thanks to some additions to my original text, make this point abundantly clear almost ad nauseam. The term 3High Imperialism2 is popular as well in reference to this era, but is less common. The version that he keeps restoring also makes the point that New Imperialism had inextricable links the breakdown of Pax Britannica.
Comment on the articles sometime too!
well, attachment is a vice here, im sure you agree. And at least Vera cruz and zoe disagree with you in principle from what i understand, though vera notes that the dates are arbitrary. -Sv
i will add nothing more on it. its not a well chosen battle, and not all that interesting. ---Sv
I1m not emotionally 3attached2 to that article, if that1s what you1re insinuating. I simply disagreed with the redirect for the above reasons. I welcome all changes that are constructive.
I1ve had my differences with Vera Cruz only because he kept stipulating that the article remain a mixed-up, jumbled mishmash, and with Zoe for construing baseless, intuitive charges regarding bias while knowing little about the history of the topic or the historiography pertaining to the era.
172, your presence on Wikien-l has been requested by the owner of this website Jimbo Wales. You can sign-up with that list by going here. You can read the Wikien-l archives here. Specifically, look for the threads titled: "172 :-(" and "It's time for 172 to be banned" --mav
Those condemations were mostly from Ericd and Zoe. If you look at the articles to which I have contributed and the related talk pages, you1d see that the vast majority of these crticicisms have been discounted by other users who were more informed about the topics of those articles. You1d also see that the vast majority of all my contributins have survived dozens of revisions by some highly intelligent, expert contributors.
If those charges were anyting but baseless slander, why would the vast majority of my contributions remain intact, in spite of the fact that I stopped paying attention to most of those 3controversial articles2 weeks ago?
Thank you for the advice. I1m not worried about those charges of political bias anyway. I1ve been accused of every extreme of bias. That1s what I get for trying to balance biased articles, regardless of the bias. When you1re accused of every form of bias, you know that you1re doing something right. -172
And What about anti-Chinese forces ? Ericd
I have probably contributed tens of thousands of words of text. I1ll be the first to admit that it wasn1t always perfect. More than a single sentence though is needed to discount that work.
--172
Hi, 172. You're generating a lot of controversy, but my preliminary assessment here is that you just need to pay a little bit more attention to community norms of politeness and explaining yourself. In any event, contrary to the claim by 142.177.99.163, there is no kangaroo court, and there is no gang. There's a bunch of people who are sincerely committed to making this a great project, that's all. You aren't being "summoned" to the mailing list, you're being _invited_, because I strongly suspect that with some explanations and discussions there, you can win over your detractors.
People aren't banned for their political views -- but it is strongly inappropriate to insert political views into any article. The Wikipedia takes no position on any controversial issue. We have established procedures for dealing with controversial issues, such that the wikipedia itself merely presents the facts and all sides of a given debate. Obviously, at times this can be difficult as partisans may have a hard time seeing that their own ideology does not constitute what all right-thinking people must agree upon.
Even so, please come to the mailing list. I think you'll find it welcoming and instructive. --Jimbo Wales
172, I don't think I can be much help. I cannot reason with VC once she takes it into her head to start "improving" an article with a thousand cuts and changes any more than you can. I don't mean that the task is difficult, I mean that the task, so far as I can tell, is impossible. It makes no real difference if there are dozens of other contributors bringing evidence and reasoned argument to the task: once VC has decided to "improve" an article it just becomes a mindless edit war until she either gets her way or makes a tactical withdrawl in order to concentrate on "improving" something else for a while. Sometimes, these really are improvements. I'm not sure if this is evidence of an intermittent desire to contribute useful information; a camouflage tactic for the real intent; or simply examples of the usual random changes which just happen to be useful ones.
The only two things you can do, so far as I can see, are (a) resign yourself to an eternity of filling up the Wiki database with endless reversions when you could be doing something productive, or (b) on VC's arrival, give up on whatever article she is infesting and go elsewhere.
Here in Australia there is a species of bird called the Noisy Miner, a type of honeyeater. When miners arrive in an area of forest, they aggressivily chase all other creatures out, even ones much bigger than themselves, and then settle down to eat the lerps. (Lerps are the sugary secretions of a leaf-sucking insect, they form little white spots on the eucalyptus leaves.) Unlike other lerp-eating birds, miners take the secretion but do not eat the insect itself. In consequence, the lerp psyllids multiply explosively. This provides the colony of noisy miners with ample food, but eventually destroys the trees that the lerps are parasitic on. The patch of forest dies and the miners move on to invade another area, leaving their former colony empty. Slowly, it begins to recover, other creatures are free to move back in, and life goes on.
The admins banned VC some time ago (under the name "Lir" and before I was here) but seem to have decided to ignore this renewed presence under another name. I have no idea why.
As I wrote on the mailing list (you can find it by clicking here, it would take only a week or so to turn New Imperialism into a truly excellent article which people from all sides of the political spectrum could agree with. But to do that we must be able to work together in a cooperative spirit. I cannot see any realistic possibility of that happening until VC moves on to another part of the Wiki forest. Tannin 23:41 Jan 18, 2003 (UTC)
A PS: I really do recommend that you take one of those links to the mailing list above. (Or just click here.) You can read this month's messages there, and click "refresh" now and then to read the latest ones. If you want to contribute, you have to do it by email. (Yes, email lists are primitive and very user-unfriendly, but my guess is that this format is retained for a good reason, which I won't bore you with here.) If you do want to say something on the list at any time and find the procedure difficult to understand, just drop a note on my talk page and I'll walk you through it. Tannin
172, thanks for asking, but I just do not have the stomach for dealing with Vera Cruz. It is too upsetting. My best contribution is to go off to some other topic where I can be productive and hope that VC doesn't find me and decide to make a mess of that one too. It is the contention, the enraged response, the endless discussion, that feeds VC and I don't care to feed VC. I do wish you'd join us on the mailing list as suggested by several people above, including Jimbo Wales, who owns the server and originated the idea of the Wikipedia. I have just sent mail to the list pointing out that VC is Lir (as many others have) and that Lir is banned and so should be VC. I have defended you on that same list, perhaps not in ways you would personally care for, but vouching for your sincerity. Ortolan88
You are welcome. I also left a message for Mav who, despite some history between the two of you, has done a lot of work for Wikipedia and usually intervenes in edit wars constructively. Now, would you mind looking at the Irish potato famine article? there has been considerable debate between Stevertigo and JTD -- in part over whether or not the famine constituted genocide, and in part over what a history article should and should not include. Sv is more concerned with the former, and JTD with the latter. Although the debate has at times been acrimoneous, I do think it has led to a much stronger article. Recently, however, Two16 has intervened. I'd like to know what you think of the article as well as Two16's recent intervention -- if you think you have something constructive to add, you do not need to respond directly to me; just do it. Slrubenstein
Hi, I just reverted your revert in Botany, independently from Marj. We don't put all the flowers on the botany page, for obvious reasons (meaning, it would get too long). Please put that link somwhere else. Maybe on List of national flowers or something. --Magnus Manske 22:24 Jan 19, 2003 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for the onservations on the Irish Famine page. After a pretty pointless and abusive debate there, it is nice to receive intelligent, thought-provoking commentary from someone. I haven't have a chance to read it through in detail yet, but I will do so. I might quibble with minor linguistic points; not in terrms of what it says but just in terms of keeping one linguistic style throughout the whole piece. But overall it is deeply appreciated and thought-provoking.
You know what it is like to be caught in an edit war. I know you have your Vera Cruz war. Maybe Bush should send them to Iraq, I think they could probably bore Saddam to death! I've had a nightmare on the Famine page, not least with one person taking a section, rewriting it to read the exact opposite of what the original said and what historians say, then plonk it in again. Even worse, then add in offence POVs (calling the famine a 'so-called' famine, calling the views of Irish historians the 'British point of view', etc) Then doing small 'minor edits' that really were major edits, in which dramatic changes were hidden as supposed spelling changes, meaning that to revert meant having to wade through four or five versions to find one that hadn't been chopped around and twisted. Hence I'm not even replying to your contribution on the famine page, but here. If I do, I'll be subjected to yet more abuse from the same two people. Or even worse, meaning ramblings that no-one can make head or tail of, all about 'tyrants', 'revenge' and bad attempts at poetry. JTD 23:15 Jan 19, 2003 (UTC)
Oh no. Stevertigo's at it again. If you thought the New Imperialism saga was head-wrecking, wait until you have Stevertigo and Two16 on your back over genocide and the Irish famine!!! You'll be sorry you ever got involved! You'll be wishing for the 'easy ride' with Vera again! I'll pray for you. I'll help you out in whatever way I can, but then, considering the abuse poor Mav got from Two16 for merely sticking up for me, you'll probably be labelled the 'agent of the PhD Brit-loving Tory Tyrant'!!! Cheers and best wishes on your task! :-) JTD 03:54 Jan 20, 2003 (UTC)
I'd like to start a new article on the history of capitalism. What do other users think about this ambitious project?
Too radioactive?
Excellent. One problem though, 172. The size of the whole article. It was already almost at maximum size to be read on many browsers. I fear it may now be too big to be accessed by some. It seems to be too large for mine, hence the lopping off of the end, when the tried to edit to add in one letter. And that is before PML adds his bits. One suggestion I would make is to remove the entire genocide section to a separate linked page, with a short summary left on the main page. Otherwise we are going to end up with an encyclopaedic article the size of an encyclopaedia, with the risk that a lot of people who hit edit to make a minor change may inadvertently wipe a chunk of the end, as happened to me. I mentioned that to Mav a moment ago. I know if I suggest everyone stop for a moment until we work out the size question, I'll get accused (yet again) of censorship and stiffling debate . . . yada . . . yada . . . yada. I think maybe you could suggest it (I've also suggested it to Mav). A temporary halt simply until we solve the size problem. (Though even touching the genocide bit could re-ignite the whole war again, over whose version forms the template. (aaagh!).) But good work so far! JTD 05:41 Jan 20, 2003 (UTC)
By the way I am with you on history of capitalism, but it has been a long time since I read Dobbs and Wallerstein and I don't know much more than what they wrote, so I am ignorant of what I am sure is a very vast field.
On another note, ff you have a chance can you look at Colonialism: shock or meeting of cultures? I deleted the article, as Vicki Rosenzweig I think did once before, and she moved it to talk and I explained why I deleted it again after someone reverted her change. I think there is another Lir or Sv out there and I'd like to nip it in the bud -- I hope you'll have time to add your two cents. Slrubenstein
Hey are you around? Given your interest in the history of capitalism, perhaps you have something to add to the recent discussion on the talk page (involving a revert I did today), Slrubenstein
Love the pics on the top of the page. JTD 00:01 Feb 22, 2003 (UTC)
Please take a look at the most recent exchange on the capitalism talk page, and political economy, when you have a chance, Slrubenstein
In the Great Depression article, you use the term sociationalism. I wasn't able to dig up a definition for this term. Could you define it? thx -- RobLa 04:36 Mar 7, 2003 (UTC)
172, this is dated news I guess, but i still felt compelled. You wrote a nice little rant a couple months ago on the user page of Roadrunner. You were disturbed by the use of "layman" to project people's feelings on the supposedly uneducated masses. Your argument affected me. I'll be more careful in the future. Thanks. Arthur 20:13 Mar 14, 2003 (UTC)
I haven't seen you in a while - Welcome back! :) --mav
Many people less argumentative than you have PhDs and they don't even care if you know. You should try to avoid squabbling, it only leads to war. Try being more peaceful. Dietary Fiber
A response is on my talk page. --mav
You are being argumentive. Just yesterday you said I dont know anything about history. You are condescending, belittling, and argumentive. Dietary Fiber
As you know, all edits to the wiki are recorded.
http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Talk:Robert_Mugabe&diff=786710&oldid=786709
Re: your exchange with Danny concerning Mugabe. You ought to know by now that ad hominem attacks are never effective here; when one makes them against someone as well-respected as Danny, they can only backfire. I sympathize with the complexities of the article on Mugabe. Personally, I am glad -- no matter what -- that ZANLA won. I am also heartbroken by the economic collapse and state-supported violence in Zimbabwe. I know it will not be easy to craft an accurate and fair NPOV article. Fortunately, since wikipedia is an ongoing project, we have all the time in the world to achieve that goal. You didn't ask for my advice, but I have appreciated your contributions in the past. My advice is: more patience, and les vitriol, and you may actually end up with something you and others are happy with. In the meantime, I do not believe that anyone faults you for taking an unpopular position -- only for using insults to promote it. Slrubenstein
Thanks for the vote of confidence, 172! The history of Brazil and of modern Russia are both areas about which I know very little, so I'll be restricted to plain vanilla copyediting, and I am way overcommitted right now, but I'll take a look at them over the next few days from the point of view of clarity and accessability for the non-technical reader. Tannin
I'll be glad to, though I won't claim to know a lot about the area. Great to see you back. STÓD/ÉÍRE 00:55 Apr 2, 2003 (UTC)
I liked your edit to kimjongilia:
You have the makings of a superb contributor. Keep up the good work! --Uncle Ed 23:14 Apr 3, 2003 (UTC)