Talk:New Imperialism/Archive 14

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. 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.
Just making sure people can find their way around the talk page archive.

Ксйп Cyp 09:55, 1 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Why was there an incohate list of 19th century historical figures on the top of this page? Any comparative historical article, one on long-term historical processes, macro-level structural change, international relations, etc. could start off with a list of hundreds of key actors of the era. Let's keep these kinds of lists on articles related to dates. Wenteng 19:26, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)

question for Lir

Hi Lir, just curious: why did you remove the name of Bakunin? -- Viajero 09:47, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

If you have a question for me, you should ask it on my talk page (so I am sure to see it). In response to your question: Wentent didn't seem to like the list, so I shortened it by removing what I felt was the person least associated with the time period; Bakunin died at about the same time the historical period was beginning. Lirath Q. Pynnor

I still think that Wenteng's objections to list were valid. We do not start articles on complicated international trends in certain historical eras with lists of major figures. The list belongs in one of the timelines of the era. Perhaps Lir would like to create a New Imperialism time line, with dates for major events and dates when many of the key actors assumed important roles? I'd be very pleased to see him start that project. But on the main page of the series article, the list is out of place. 172 23:36, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

How about, if you want a page like that, you create a page like that. Until you do, the information will just have to go on this page; because, I don't have time to do your work for you. It's your idea, you do it -- do not revert my work, simply because you don't like its location. Lirath Q. Pynnor

Lirath Q. Pynnor:

A number of users, including professional academics, have been impressed with many of your contributions and have welcomed, along with myself, your return as a constructive user. I was very impressed by your work with privatization a couple of months ago.

But whether or not I like the list of historical actors is irrelevant. My point is that it serves little function and is an unorthodox way to begin an encyclopedic entry. In addition, the idea of a timeline was merely a suggestion. If you don't want to do it, that's fine.

It would also behoove you to note that Wikipedia is a collaborative effort. There is no such thing as "your work." Please note the disclaimer on the bottom: "All contributions to Wikipedia are to be released under the GNU Free Documentation License." When you click on "save page" it ceases to be merely "your work." In effect, you have donated it and forfeited all rights to it. "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, then don't submit it here," says Wiki policy. Just because your don't want to move the list somewhere else, no one is restricted from revising "your work." 172 12:41, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Sorry Lir, but I have to side with 172 on this matter. I don't think that that list is a good stylistic device with which to begin an article. People here reguarly refer to News style as a guideline, and while it may not apply to all forms of historiography, its principles are still useful. By bringing forward essential elements of ths story, the intro should draw reader onward into the body of story; such a dense paragraph of names is more likely to cause the reader to lose interest. Ask yourself: what purpose does such a listing a serve? In some contexts, it might be useful; here it contributes nothing. -- Viajero 15:21, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)

The list is a small part of my edits, if you have a problem with it -- then you find somewhere more appropriate to put it. Lirath Q. Pynnor

Sorry, I didn't see the others. Indeed, the paragraph on Pax Britannica is quite good . -- Viajero 21:26, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)
172, I reasoned with Lir and tried merging the two versions to no avail. After three reverts, I give up. Wish I could have been of more help. -- Viajero 23:13, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Re. the section on the word Imperialism. Good question. There are some people here, like Ed Poor for one, who believe that information should never be duplicated in WP, that everything should be stored once and linked as need be. From a software engineering point of view (Ed is a software engineer), this is an elegant solution, but we are writing an encyclopedia, not programming a computer. I believe strongly that even though Wikipedia is not paper, every article should be an organic whole; that -- figuratively speaking or otherwise -- if you print an article it, it is complete. Links should only be pointers towards additional information, not essential information. Hence, in this case, because the article is building on and is so closely allied with an existing theme, it makes sense to given the reader a few lines of background information to set the context. Personally, I would not say that the reader ought to read Imperialism; just provide the link at the first occurence of the word; this is enough. As the rest of the text now stands, I find the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs a bit dense, but I am not sure I want to get involved in editing it just now. -- Viajero 14:09, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Lir, that paragraph (thank you for copying it to my Talk page) does not make a meaningful contribution to the discourse.

Scholars continue to debate the causes and ramifications of the...

This could probably be said about just about every historical topic from the Pharonic age on. You offer no evidence of any particularly acute unresolved issue.

most notably, the relationship this period has with the Great War, [etc]...

As I and others tried to point out to you, this long list supports no particular argument. Yes, all of these things happened at the same time. So what? Unless you draw some obvious conclusion with it, it serves no purpose.

This is writing which looks meaningful but contributes nothing. Every word, phrase, every sentence has to have a function in a text. Part of writing well is editing your own texts to this standard; otherwise, at least in the case of Wikiepdia, others will do it for you. -- Viajero 13:59, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)

A list of historical figures from a historical era is hardly contributing nothing. If you don't like lists, too bad. Lirath Q. Pynnor

I have nothing against lists; they serve many uses, it is simply that this one does not belong here. As 172, this information belongs on a timeline. -- Viajero 14:45, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Time to revert! Lirath Q. Pynnor

Lir, please do not keep reverting. Find another place for your list of historical figures. It does not belong in the introduction to this article. Thanks. -- Viajero 12:18, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)

If you do not feel that it belongs in the introduction, it is your job to move it somewhere more appropriate. The information is valid and related to the subject matter, it will be reverted and replaced. Lirath Q. Pynnor

If Lir's contribution is moved out to something like People connected with New Imperialism would that be acceptable to all? Pakaran. 04:08, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I would have two objections:

  • The paragraph is too short to deserve its own page.
  • The paragraph is a summary overview of key figures, groups, and events of the period. It belongs somewhere near the top of the main article; before this article discusses the Long Depression -- one should see the paragraph. Before this article dissuses the Second Industrial Revolution -- one should see the paragraph.


  • Viajero is arguing that "[e]very word, phrase, every sentence" should have a specific role in the overall argument(s) of the article. My list has the specific role of providing a list of important people, places, and events.
    • The basis of his objection is that "this long list supports no particular argument." Hardly, these are important people, places, and events.
    • Essentially, his objection is that the list would be more appropriate under the "see also" link list (reformatted, of course), as it is simply a more-or-less random collection of links of people, places, and things having *something* to do with New Imperialism.
    • Viajero's objection still seems to be, "I don't understand why anybody would want to know this stuff, it should all be deleted" -- I do not understand such an objection.
This is a ludicrous, infantile distortion of my position. All of topics in your list are worthy of a reader's consideration. However, the list does nothing to explain what New Imperialism is and as such has no place in the article. It is as simple as that. -- Viajero 22:29, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)

An interjection

If it's a distortion of your position, then I have some apologies to make. You see, Lir and I have been having an email exchange, and one of the items we have discussed is his conduct on this page. Lir stated that he did not see the point of your post dated January 11, so I was attempting to rephrase or convey your position in a manner that Lir would comprehend. The full quote below is authored by me; portions have been taken verbatim by Lir and posted above.

"Viajero is arguing that "[e]very word, phrase, every sentence" should have a specific role in the overall argument(s) of the article. The basis of his objection is that "this long list supports no particular argument", i.e., it doesn't tell the reader in what relation the listed items stand with respect to the concept of New Imperialism as a period in history. Essentially, his objection is that the list would be more appropriate under the "see also" link list (reformatted, of course), as it is simply a more-or-less random collection of links of people, places, and things having *something* to do with New Imperialism."

If this is a distortion of your position, then I must apologize to both you and Lir for misrepresenting your position. It was certainly not my intent. -- Cyan 00:45, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)

We now continue your regularly scheduled discussion.

It does a great deal to explain what New Imperialism is, it is something related to a number of wars, world leaders, and developing national powers. Please refrain from personal attacks, you are not helping your position by being so degrading towards me. Lirath Q. Pynnor

New Imperialism may indeed, as you say, be "related to a number of wars, world leaders, and developing national powers" but simply listing them as such doesn't make the argument. Your paragraph is simply a detour. Nothing personal though, I assure you. -- Viajero 00:14, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)

In order to discuss the wars of the period, we should first list them. I fail to understand why you would not want to mention related subject material. You seem to believe that the goal of this article is to make an argument, please read up on NPOV -- we are not here to make arguments, we are here to present information. As we both know, your "nothing personal though, I assure you" was yet another passive-aggressive personal attack. Lirath Q. Pynnor

Thanks, I am well acquainted with WP's NPOV, though at this point I probably should reread Wikipedia:Don't feed the trolls. Regarding the noun argument please consult your dictionary. Mine, for example, offers the definition: "A course of reasoning aimed at demonstrating truth or falsehood". 172 makes the implicit "argument" that a collection of phenomena in late 19th C world affairs can be described as "New Imperialism" and then goes describe what this is. -- Viajero 09:46, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Why do you feel the need to make a personal attack with every comment you make towards me? You made two personal attacks in your previous comment! 172 does make such an argument, I agree with his argument and my paragraph sums up notable events, persons, and places of the period. For example: My paragraph furthers 172s article, by allowing the reader to (at a glance) see a list of the wars which were fought during this period. Lirath Q. Pynnor

For the final time: your list of relevant topics is very nice, but it doesn't belong in the article, least of all in the introductory paragraphs. It contributes nothing to the understanding of what New Imperialism is. Why are you being so stubborn about this? If you do not like having your writing edited, do not submit it to Wikipedia. -- Viajero 21:57, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I'm being stubborn because during this period there were a number of wars and national power shifts, those events should be mentioned here. If you don't like having your editing being edited, do not edit here. Lirath Q. Pynnor

For crying out loud, why don't you just allow those things to be added? Sure, she may have "no supporting arguments", but... what's the harm in leaving them? The dispute over citric acid cycle is one thing, but... it will provide more info, it's NPOV, what exactly is wrong with it? Of course, nobody listens to me, a mere 13 year old sysop... maybe I need to get into more edit wars (just kidding...). ugen64 04:31, Feb 16, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your concerns. I tried to forge a compromise at User talk:Lir, to which Lir has been somewhat receptive. We might have longer-term projects in plan - perhaps two new daughter articles. 172 13:16, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

What I am receptive to is editing the information I am trying to add. What I am not receptive to is Viajero's agenda of deleting the information. Lirath Q. Pynnor

Lir:

I thought that we were in agreement that the list of historical figures is a good idea, but not ready for the intro paragraph yet. I kept the first part, however, given reasons I already laid out on your user page. 172 05:30, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I have contributed more than a mere list of historical figures. I will move them to another part of the article. Lirath Q. Pynnor

Yes, and I kept those sections in the article. I kept the major wars and treaties in the article, along with the notes on the Long Depression and the newly industrializing nations. However, the list of historical figures isn't ready to be put in the article yet. 172 05:40, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

This is a work in progress, why shouldn't such a list be placed in the article (where it will encourage people to add, edit, correct, modify, and improve it). I agree that a list of names doesn't belong at the beginning, but rather, at the end -- in any case, it certainly belongs. Lirath Q. Pynnor

I like you idea of moving it to the bottom. 172 05:56, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I believe Eduard Bernstein should be included in the list, as he is the founder of evolutionary socialism. During this period of social darwinism -- it seems reasonable to also note some of the key members of the opposition. We have included proponents of armaments, we should also include notable opponents of armaments. The development of evolutionary socialism was a substantial break from "revolutionary" socialism -- and it occurred during the period of the New Imperialism. Lirath Q. Pynnor

I understand your argument, but perhaps it's expecting a bit too much to expect users to be able to draw this connection. 172 06:20, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

What connection are we expecting the reader to draw? The connection is simply that Eduard Bernstein is a notable historical period from the period in question -- surely that claim isn't too much? Lirath Q. Pynnor

Concise version

  • Someone keeps restoring a more confusing, less concise version. 131.247.157.96 (from the village pump)
  • Anon IP deleting paragraphs. Lir (from requests for page protection)