Talk:New Imperialism/Archive 8

This is an archive of past discussions about New Imperialism. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Im getting pretty tired of User:172s constant disparaging remarks against me, and his threats to ban me. I also would like to know why nothing has been done with regards to his attitude. Several users jumped all over me last month for making too many edits in recent changes -- why is it that such actions are considered so offensive, yet 172 is allowed to act the way he does? Pizza Puzzle

I request that New Imperialism be protected so that the link to New Imperialism (temp) is visible and prominent. I do not think it is fair that I went out of my way, bending over backwards to agree to 172s demands, that I not edit his page; and yet, Im not even allowed to link my version so that anybody can read it. Pizza Puzzle

I don't like this solution -- there should be one page on New Imperialism, and it should be located there. If there are disagreements over what to put there, perhaps someone other than you or 172, but knowledgeable about the subject (which excludes me) could mediate. --Delirium 03:55 27 Jul 2003 (UTC)

That would also be a good solution, although it looks like Pizza Puzzle's version has been summarily rejected. Even if the alternate page path is taken, another person will ultimately be needed to mediate. Daniel Quinlan 04:18 27 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Great - in the meantime where would u like me to demonstrate my alternative? I certainly can't do it at New Imperialism because 172 protects the page to keep me from editing it. Pizza Puzzle

I normally put them in my user space (eg user:MyRedDice/jewish ethnocentrism, some time ago). YMMV. Martin 15:05 27 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I think alternate versions of articles are best avoided, but sometimes articles are so broken that it's necessary to get a new article written to the point, especially when the current page is being so actively protected. Daniel Quinlan 04:18 27 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Anyway, I don't know how serious 172 was, but I'm not in favor of banning Pizza Puzzle. In my limited interaction thus far with 172 (limited because his primary form of communication was reverting article edits), I think 172 could use much more restraint. I've had NPOV disagreements with other people, but have always been able to resolve them through discussion and joint-editing until a recent (near?) edit-war with 172. I'm not sure what to say about New Imperialism vs. New Imperialism (temp), but a short-term link while a new page is worked on seems reasonable to me. The article is so lengthy and hard to read (and the temp one has too many bloody links, I think) that it's hard to say which is better. Perhaps the link off of the current article would go over better if Pizza Puzzle used a more neutral phrasing for the link and the note at top of the temp version. For the appearance of Wikipedia, it might be better to limit the link to the Talk: page and perhaps the relevant meta pages. Daniel Quinlan 04:18 27 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I request that New Imperialism be protected so that my contributions are not censored. Pizza Puzzle

What PP wants is to be allowed to put a link to his personal unique version drafted as a temp, on the community-drafted page. We don't put rival articles on the same page. The temp page is not the live version right now. It could theoretically become so, but it isn't as of this minute. It is clearly linked on the talk page as a rival draft. But PP want to insist that a link to his alternative draft appear on the article page. FearÉIREANN 13:23 28 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Jtdirl and 172 systematically and continuously attack me. 172 has protected both the primary article, and its talk page. They have not only attacked me, they have attacked other users. They are not willing to accept the overwhelming community consensus that the page be edited -- they demanded that I not edit the page (using their sysop powers to ensure that I could not) and "suggested" that I create a temp page. Now that I took their suggestion - they are intent on suppressing New Imperialism (temp) which shows, very plainly, how much work their page needs. Pizza Puzzle

If this article is not brought beneath the 32KB limit by Monday (28th July), I am going to split it in two and move one half off to New Imperialism part 2. This is not an ideal solution, but it is a damn sight better than having an article that people with certain browsers can't edit. A better way of dividing the article can always be done at a later date if nobody's going to do it now. --Camembert

How the hell are you to be giving ultimatums? Wipe the foam off your mouth and retract your statements. My status on Wiki is equal to yours and I'm not going to accept threats. There are scores of other articles that are of comparable length and this article is no more pressing than the others. We have decided on a History of Germany-style series, which is going to be quite difficult. Those dividing this article are going to have to be experts in the subject or well-versed in it, taking into consideration both the proper historical periodization and the structure of the article. 172

I don't think he meant to threaten the article, articles are more like plants than animals, articles don't always die when split. כסיף Cyp 10:23 26 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Cool it, 172: for a start, it's not your personal property, which means any contributor is entitled to change an article if they at least don't make it worse. In this case, I happen to agree with Camembert that the thing's over-long and needs splitting, though I don't like "part 1" and "part 2". Putting the whole "Theories of ..." section at that title is indeed the best thing to do - and the same could be done with the history if length remained a problem. That's after all what redirection is for, though you wouldn't think it to look at half of the stuff on Wikipedia (I agree there are plenty of other similar or longer articles, most of which I think are all but useless for the conveying of information except to nit-picking obsessives and plagiarists). Nobody's making threats and nobody should be called upon to retract fair notice that they're going to make a perfectly legitimate alteration which it's their right to do even if an author disagrees. How long do these articles need to be, for God's sake? It's not as if it increases readability. You've some good points to make (though I'm going to correct some factual inaccuracies - don't take it personally), and I'd rather they were made accessible than just passed over with a despairing "Oh god, another droning sub-thesis" sigh. Graculus 10:57 26 Jul 2003 (UTC)

172, I'm sorry if what I said seemed like a threat - I just wanted to give warning of what I intend to do. As I've said several times, this article is too long for some people to edit, so it has to be divided up in some way. You don't think this is urgent, but I think that people not being to edit an article is actually a matter of some importance, better dealt with sooner than later. I know that just cutting it into "part 1" and "part 2" isn't a very good way to do it, and I do hope that somebody more knowledgeable than me will divide it up in a better way at some point in the future - cutting it in half like this is meant only as a temporary measure so that everybody can edit it, not just those with unfussy browsers. It's not meant as a personal reflection on you or anything like that - I don't mean to suggest the article is necessarily poor or that you're being tardy in splitting it up (I know we all have other things to do than edit the wikipedia), I just want to make editing the article accessible to all rather than just some. If there are other articles of comparable length, I'd appreciate it if you could point them out to me - I don't mean to pick on this article in particular, it just happens to be the only one that I know is too long. --Camembert

Actually, forget it. This is more trouble than it's worth. I'll stay away and let others do what they will with it. I do hope it gets divided up soon though, one way or another. A wiki with pages that can't be edited isn't much of a wiki. --Camembert

Is it inappropriate to link to New Imperialism (temp) from the article? כסיף Cyp 10:23 26 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Yes. The article is not more concise. It is just incoherent.

I have created a version of New Imperialism which is under 32k at New Imperialism (temp). Pizza Puzzle

And it's just like the version that you kept on posting on the main article when you were named Vera Cruz, causing the biggest edit war in Wiki history and getting you banned. Contributors who have been banned less than a dozen times have decided that no content will be removed and that a series will be created. 172 22:55 26 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Graculus:

First, I don't regard this article as my personal property. If you'd take a look at the article's history you'd see that almost every sentence has been changed since I posted the original version. Thus, it wasn't fair to attribute the points that are historical inaccurate or imprecise to me. In fact, during the more tumultuous period of the edit war, I let some weak points get by since restoring the original version, not the mess Vera Cruz (a user who has been banned under at least a dozen different identities) was trying to post. Just now, I removed a point stating that the 'impulse was primarily economic in origin,' which is an over-simplification.

Second, I have written many long in-depth articles and none of them are as controversial or have attracted as much attention as this one. The history of the controversy of this article started when Zoe, a scrupulous professional editor, but no historian, accused it of having an 'anti-Western' and 'anti-American' 'bias,' probably because she was thrown off by a single reference to TR's racist views. Then, another user accused it of having the other tilt, making a charge of Euro-centrism because of a single sentence about property-ownership in Sub-Saharan Africa. They had reasons to be suspicious, perhaps, since I was a new contributor (this was December 2002) at the time who made a less than magnanimous debut to Wiki. But those charges gradually disappeared once other experts jumped in and backed up the content after it had been better organized. However, the disaster came when Vera Cruz jumped in and decided to hijack the article by playing each side against each other and totally remaking it in an unacceptable version in a series of dozens of "minor edits". All the other experts found his version unacceptable and a back and forward edit war went on for weeks with no progress being made in shortening the article or copyediting it for readability. Vera Cruz eventually got banned for his conduct on this page. But now he's back, under a new name, trying to stir up tension by promoting his 'alternative version' and attacking me on this talk page and user page. The version that he's promoting is so laden with reductionisms, and over-simplifications that would not go unnoticed by any historian of the period or any well-informed reader. The reason that I frankly haunt this page is to keep a lid on Vera Cruz/Pizza Puzzle. And I'm a bit edgy right now because I know that when Pizza Puzzle is present and a repeat of the last edit war is possible. I have never not welcomed constructive edits, like yours to this page, or any page on which I've worked. I've written other in-depth articles, and there you'd find that I'm begging for other editors. 172 22:55 26 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Cheers, 172: I just didn't want this latest controversy getting out of hand, and I'm sorry if I gave the impression that I was blaming you for the factual errors. My feeling remains that the article as it stands offers a quite neat split between the history and the theories, of which the latter should also serve to take a chunk out of the similarly lengthy British Empire - perhaps an "Economics of imperialism/colonialism" might also be useful. I agree with Camembert that editing is actually easier with such a split, making each article more cohesive, and I think it should be done now rather than waiting. Please don't go down the "Part 2" serial route, though - they're just horrid. Graculus 23:46 26 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions. It's great to have someone of your caliber working on this article for a change. But I'm not really inclined to separate social, economic, and political history. It's so intertwined. Thus, an intertwined article can usually be the most suggestive, explanatory, and historically precise. Second, the theories section could eventually be separated, but only when it can be linked to the main article and all the related articles by a series box. You're probably familiar with the rich welter of historical literature on the subject. Since this is such a contentious subject with such a rich literature, a theory section is a good idea to help readers make sense of things and decide for themselves the significance of each development, what kind of legacy New Imperialism has had on the contemporary world, and why history unfolded as such. 172 23:57 26 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Indeed, 172, nobody wants to fragment the whole so that the core article is unsupported by more detailed analysis, but I think that given the length issue, the latter should be distilled here and gone into more detail elsewhere, with suitable text links (I'm not keen on series boxes - to me the text should incorporate as many of the links as possible, though some might have to be listed at the start or end depending on their relationship to the content). Graculus 00:16 27 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I aggree. When I'm ready, I'd like your help when dividing this article. 172 01:20 27 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Sure thing. Graculus 01:27 27 Jul 2003 (UTC)

-- A note to Nommonomanac:

While I have a pile of non-Wiki paper work in front distracting me from really going through your edits thoroughly, they seem to be improving readability. However, I'd like to explain the context behind the reference to Hobson as a "bourgeois economist to Lenin's liking." It's an allusion to the opening of V.I. Lenin's Imperialism: the Highest State of Capitalism, which begin with Lenin praising the work of J.A. Hobson, despite the fact that he's a "bourgeois economist". I guess I should be more straightforward when writing for a general audience. 172 01:20 27 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Ah right... I was wondering about that. Yeah, some of us aren't well read enough to get jokes like that ;). You might want to check the edit I made on the Dependence Theory stuff, in case I made too much of a pig's ear of it. -Nommo

Well, actually, Lenin's study was far more than the ramblings of a Communist dictator. For one, this came out before 1917. And this is also the study that really popularized the work of Hobson and popularized the study of this era, an impetus for the work of scholars defending his general thesis and detractors. My favorite recent survey text on this era is Bernard Porter's Third Edition of The Lion's Share. It's not only a solid work of history, but something worth reading for its writing style alone. He is incredibly well-versed in analysis of the period. But what stands out the most is how well-versed he is in the primary sources. The use of historical allusions is remarkable. He understands the mindsets of the major historical actors so well you'd mistake his narrative voice for one of them at times. While his theses are fairly close to Hobson's, he derides the reductionisms of Hobson and the neo-Marxists, and he can come across as a fairly condescending English country gentleman at times. It's an excellent book if you want to get a rousing reaction from students too. Non-academic readers usually judge his three editions by whether they find it pro- or anti- imperialist enough for them. And if anyone has a strong opinion about the morality of the era, they'll be offended by his prose in many places. He stays clear of the noble/ignoble debate and just sets out to explain Britain's relationship with the outside world in the late 19th century, why Britain chose to covert this relation into a formal colonial one. Sorry for this digression. I just wanted to promote a good book on this era full of colorful historical allusions. 172 01:47 27 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Fair enough. -Nommo

Talk to Talk:Economic theories of the New Imperialist era

Pizza Puzzle, the banned user formally known as Lir and Vera Cruz, is linking his temp version of the page to the main article. I suggest that another sysop come and protect the page from his vandalism. As you'd be able to see from this article's history, many have been editing this article over the past few days and have not felt the need to edit his incoherent gibberish, laced with reductionistic and overly-simplified claims that would make historians of the era cringe. He has no right to claim that his article is "concise". Although short, it is utterly incoherent. The main article, on the hand, has been the subject of very active peer-editing. It is not a "172" article, as Lir/Vera/Pizza claims, but an article, as is evident from its history, that has received exceptionally active attention from many other contributors, including other experts. Lir/Pizza's actions would be tantamount to a single user starting his own incoherent, sloppy truncated version of WWII (another page subject extensive editing by a very large number of contributors) on a temp page and advertising it as a "concise alternative" on the main article. The ramblings of a single banned user, in short, is not an alternative to a project that has received substantial attention by many in the Wiki-community. 172 03:48 27 Jul 2003 (UTC)

If the page was protected, would you continue to edit it? -- Tim Starling 03:52 27 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I personally don't like the (temp) thing. Making a new page makes it very difficult to eventually merge to one article. Instead, Pizza Puzzle should identify specific problems with this article and discuss changing them. As for length, that can be solved by providing some sort of outline or summary if it's deemed desirable, but the short summary version should be in sync with the full version. --Delirium 03:53 27 Jul 2003 (UTC)\

I did identify specific problems (for starters this page is too long -- it is off topic -- it rambles), 172 deleted them and protected the talk page. He then demanded that if i wanted to write about this topic so bad, that I create a temp page. I conceeded to his demands and now he is attacking me for that. Pizza Puzzle

Yes, I won't touch it if it gets you to protect it. However, please protect the version without the link to the gibberish. 172 03:55 27 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I think New Imperialism (temp) is a superior article and should replace this one immediately. 198.81.26.78

Looks like we have Pizza Puzzle's IP address!

Although New Imperialism (temp) is a work in progress - it is an actual wiki article. The article here has been in a state of incompetent disarray, apparently for months, and 172 is clearly not the expert he pretends to be. I doubt anyone has actually read this page, because it is crap.198.81.26.78

Pizza Puzzle. Don't insult the intelligence of the other users by pretending to be someone else. Who the hell is dumb enough to believe that that's not you heaping such boundless praise on your loopy garbage as an anon? This is the kind of manipulative behavior that has gotten you banned so many times. Exposing your IP address is just an opportunity for someone to save us all and ban you once again. 172 04:03 27 Jul 2003 (UTC)

These comments weren't made by me. Apparently 172 thinks anyone who disagrees with him is all the same person. Pizza Puzzle

172 and Pizza Puzzle: please don't have a revert war, there are more important things to be done, and successive reverts make it harder to track any defects in the text. 172, there's a difference of opinion here which has been resolved temporarily and imperfectly by the creation of a parallel article, and I have no problem with a link to New Imperialism (temp) so long as there's a neutral link there to this New Imperialism too. Pizza Puzzle, I'd like to here what you want done with New imperialism; are you satisfied with the proposal that's emerging for paring down the "theories..." part of New Imperialism and putting the more detailed theoretical analysis in Theories of imperialism? If so, I propose that both articles should stand - with mutual links - until we have New imperialism down to a manageable size, when (temp) will no longer be needed.

This situation is really getting out of proportion to what seems to be the underlying disagreement (I don't know the past history,172, but we need to give people a chance to mend whatever ways we think need mending), and we need to move on if we're to achieve a result. I'd like both of you to be happy with the outcome, but we're not going to get anywhere if we spend our time on reverts and end up attacking people. Tolerance, please: if anyone is being deliberately destructive it'll come out soon enough. Cheers, Graculus 04:16 27 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Graculus -- 172 deleted theories of imperialism after I discovered an early user had proposed that (and been attacked by 172) -- I then recreated the article. (check the talk history) Pizza Puzzle

172 said to User:Camembert: "Wipe the foam off your mouth and retract your statements." He has said worse things to me. He has protected both New Imperialism and the talk page, in order to keep me from making any edits whatsoever. He has told other users that they are ignorant and incompetent because they don't like this page. Pizza Puzzle

This matter can only be put to rest when this page is protected and Pizza Puzzle is no longer able to promote his over-simplifications as "concise." And just to note, I have only stated that PP's contributions (on the temp page he's promoting with his multiple identities) are historically unacceptable. I haven't had a problem with the edits of anyone else. 172 04:24 27 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Would you mind commenting upon the perceived historicaly errors? Pizza Puzzle

Tim:

That would be fine, but it's unfair to all the other contributors who have worked on this article. It's also irresponsible to link such an incoherent page to an article that has attracted the kind of peer editing that we've seen on prominent articles, such as WWI and WWII. This is not solely my article, as PP claims. In fact, over the past week I haven't been doing anything more than minor linking, copyediting, and removing links to PP's gibberish. Others have been doing substantial work. You're giving PP's version too much credit when you call it a "suggested alternative". It's an incoherent sandbox for a user with multiple times who has been banned countless times. I don't even have an idea how many times he has been banned. I hope that the next much-belated banning comes soon. 172 04:31 27 Jul 2003 (UTC)

How about just a link at the top of the talk page? That's more or less standard in these situations isn't it? For example, Talk:Main Page. -- Tim Starling 04:46 27 Jul 2003 (UTC)