Talk:New Imperialism/archive 10

10
Talk:New Imperialism/archive 1
Talk:New Imperialism/archive 2
Talk:New Imperialism/archive 3
Talk:New Imperialism/archive 4
Talk:New Imperialism/archive 5
Talk:New Imperialism/archive 6
Talk:New Imperialism/archive 7
Talk:New Imperialism/archive 8
Talk:New Imperialism/archive 9
Talk:New Imperialism/Linking to the alternative version from the top of the article
Talk:New Imperialism/archive 10 (You are here.)
Talk:New Imperialism/archive 11
Talk:New Imperialism/archive 12
Talk:New Imperialism/archive 13
Talk:New Imperialism/archive 14
Talk:New Imperialism/archive 15
Talk:New Imperialism/archive 16
Talk:New Imperialism/archive 17
Talk:New Imperialism/archive 18
Talk:New Imperialism/archive 19
Talk:New Imperialism/archive 20

Hoolie Doolie this thing is huge! I tried to take a look at it just now to get my mind around the issues, but it's just too darn big. That talk page I just archived was 54k! Let's start afresh.

First up, the article is so long that I can't hold a picture of it in my head in order to think about it sensibly. Indeed, it would take me all night to read it as carefully as one should read something that has been as heavily disputed as this thing. It has to be broken up, one way or another. It occurs to me that the best person to break it up would be the person who is most familiar with it - i.e., 172. Let's face it, most of the rest of us probably have difficulty conceptualising an article as long as this clearly, let alone debating it. Wikilove to all. Tannin 14:17, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)

To everyone:

I would like to clarify weak sections of the article rather than remove them. I'd also like to improve sections for readability rather than having a user pick out a typo or two, an unclear sentence or two, and use it as a pretext to attack the entire article. I'd also like to engage in a dialogue with users well versed in the subject over the proper division. Would people agree to give this a chance and move past all this squabbling? Please, this is very complex subject matter. A lot of content is needed to explain all the important points. I'll go through them below.

The most important is the transition from informal control to formal rule, the motivations behind this, and the factors underpinning this shift, which are extremely complex because we're dealing with one broad trend, but not carried out everywhere, among many rapidly changing nations dealing with an even greater number of rapidly changing colonies. We're also going to need to deal with imperial rivalry; why less developed nations, such as Italy, decided to follow Britain's lead in formal colonialism; and the role of all parties involved (finance, adventurers, explorers, missionaries). While accomplishing this, we're going to need to deal with the promotion of imperialism in the main powers, and all the shifts involved (as an aside, the promotion of French imperialism is notable for shifts reflecting developments in the history of France, such as the founding of the Third Republic, its humiliation in the Franco-Prussian War).

While some users have proposed going into great detail on the colonial encounter (the role of race and class in colonial societies, the emergence of nationalism, de-colonization, and the emergence of the "North-South divide"), these are best left as concluding remarks since there are specific articles on the histories of colonial societies.

The current article accomplishes most of these tasks. If I'm given a chance to copyedit it thoroughly for readability, I'd be able to present it in a more effective manner more approachable to lay readers.

I'd also like to add this very brief paragraph:

"Technological advancement facilitated overseas expansionism. Industrialization brought about rapid advancements in transportation and communication, especially in the forms of steam navigation, railroads, and telegraphs. Medical advances were also key, especially vaccines for topical tropical diseases. The development of malaria treatment enabled vast expanses of the tropics to be penetrated in the first place."

BTW, due to so many edits by so many writers, I can't be blamed for everything! 172 16:05, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Etymology, etymology, it all comes down to etymology.

Not to harp on the matter too much but the history of the word imperialism is somewhat strangely constructed. To say that OED claims that 1856 "imperialism" was used to describe "Pax Britannica", is very problematic. To start with; the term "Pax Britannica" is first used 1886. (if we are to believe OED).

Well, I suppose they still could have used it to refer to the phenomenon itself. But the quote in the OED (well, the one I have) definitely doesn't attest that in any conclusive way. After the murky 1856 quote there are a few quotes about the "romans". The closest to an early British reference in the OED is a mention that the "Keltic race" had a definite disposition towards imperialism, referring (well, maybe. They chop way too much context from their quotes (Not that I would like a double sized dictionary)) to the reluctance the Irish folk of that time in embracing republican ideals against following autocrats. That is a quote from 1861.

Then (again forgetting the references to romans) we have 1868 a mention about German imperialism. And the first real mention of a national policy being described as imperialism is the French in 1870. (still all according to OED, so don't point your fingers at me)

The first mention of British imperialism is from the mouth of J.Chamberlain. The Year is 1878, and the reference is not to a national policy, but to a fringe element in British politics. And the word used is not imperialism but imperialists, if there is a distinction. (and maybe there is, it refers to a number or individuals, rather than even a movement.)

In fact, the first mention of imperialism in the sense of an anglo-american hegemony, is from the year 1899. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo-stick 16:10, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Lets not forget the vote.

This is copied from the archived talkpage or whatever. Please read (well, skim at any rate) through Talk:New_Imperialism/Linking to the alternative version from the top of the article before voting here.

Voting ends 14:45, July 30th'

Link to the temp version in the current version:

• CGS
• Pizza Puzzle
• Graculus (see below)
• Daniel Quinlan (only for one week with NPOV link terminology only)
• Martin 22:57 28 Jul 2003 (UTC) (what Daniel Quinlan said)
• Angela (No harm in a link if accompanied by the normal 'the neutrality of this page is disputed' type comment if necessary.)
• Cimon Avaro on a pogostick (anything less would be patently unfair, purely as a matter of principle)

Don't link to the temp version in the current version:

• 172
• —Eloquence (I do not really see replacing this article with the very short temp version as a serious option, and PP does not seem to want to use it as an executive summary only)
• FearÉIREANN 16:18 28 Jul 2003 (UTC)~ (As this temp is not a communal new edition about to go live but a rival version whose future is uncertain, putting two alternative articles linking to the main page is non-encyclopædic and makes it look like 2 POV articles are being offered, not 1 NPOV version.)
• Evercat - We need a single NPOV page.
• Wik (clearly the shorter version has less information; if the 32K limit is a problem, the original article will just have to be split in two, but it's no reason to cut out relevant information)
• Wenteng 06:04, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC) On the bottom of the page I point out areas where more content should be added. It would be reasonable to split it up according to the table of contents. Please see the bottom of the page for my comments on areas that, IMHO, deserve attention.

P.S. The deadline should probably be adjusted, since Tannin understandably didn't notice to to move this to the new talkpage. But how much, is a question I leave to wiser heads. I am just about beat. -- Cimon Avaro

It was only hidden for an hour or so maximum. CGS 18:10, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC).

Why? Today was proposed, and it's so far 7-6 for a link. I'm editing this overblown mess down anyway as soon as it's free (though I doubt I'll get it to 32K), so it's really rather academic. Graculus 17:06, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Ok, it's decided: the majority thinks that there should be a link. I'll add it. How long it should stay there is another matter (according to Daniel Quinlan). CGS 15:20, 30 Jul 2003 (UTC).

Actually wiki have been almost unusable for a lot of today for many users. It has taken me 2 hours to get on, and every second link talks about larousse and connections. (I took me eight attempts over the last hour to get into the page. FearÉIREANN 18:06, 30 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I clarified some of the more glaring problems in the article. May I post the changes, which aren't very significant, on the main page? 172 16:52, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)

And precisely why should one contributor be allowed to edit when others aren't? Graculus 17:06, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)

There's a difference between minor editing and major restructuring. I merely want to make some changes for readability and add a few clarifications. If you want to do the same (and not remove huge chunks) I'd be more than willing to endorse your desires to go right ahead. 172 17:48, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Please! No amount of your endorsements will allow a non-sysop to change a comma in the article. And editing it in the most minuscule fashion defeats the whole purpose of the protection anyway... -- Cimon Avaro

How about I unprotect the page again? Martin's said he won't make the edit that 172 disagreed with again (and that was the reason for the protection, wasn't it?), so there probably won't be a problem. I'll keep a close eye on goings on here in case something requires it to be reprotected again. --Camembert

That'd be great. I don't intend to edit the article (or sub-articles) for the next week or so. Martin 21:14, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Extending the deadline of the vote.

Okay. I am unilaterally SUGGESTING that we extend the vote to 16:00 of the original timezone, since the vote was out from the talk page for what; two and a half hours. My solution would be to split the difference. I will not complain, if an extension to 1730 is requested however. But make it known either way. Just so we don't stumble on that detail. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogostick

Are we voting on this? I say no. And could you clarify the time? By my reckoning, the vote was called at 14.42 UTC, which means the whole additional allowance has now elapsed, it being now 17.32. Graculus 17:32, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)

On the 30th I think, not the 29th.

Indeed so. Graculus 18:16, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Perhaps the protection can be lifted. But can we all enter into a gentlemen's agreement whereby we agree to making no major changes and just focus on readability and clarity? Could we all go back to editing without having Martin remove the theories section before the series is created? Could Graculus edit without removing large chunks dealing with economic trends, Russia, or imperial rivalry? Just for now. Can we focus on clarity? 172 18:05, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)

s/remove/move. There's a subtle difference. Martin

I wlll focus on clarity. What gives you the right to imagine that this version alone has to be the basis of any revision, and no other? Or that it can indeed only undergo trifling amendment when others have consistently argued for fundamental revision? You reverted my thorough (35K) redraft three minutes after I posted it: I think it's time others were able to judge it for themselves. Then they can do as they see fit. Graculus 18:16, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)

There is a reason there was an edit war at this article...Watch out Graculus or 172 is going to accuse you of being the banned user DW. Pizza Puzzle

I reverted Gracs changes to New Imperialism (temp) - I dont understand what he was doing and I tried to move it to a secondary temp page -- but it was over 32k and I couldnt. Pizza Puzzle

No worries. Graculus 18:26, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I have the following points that I feel should be noted:

• Discussion of various persons should be extremely concise (ie Chamberlain - Disraeli) - these people have their own pages
• Discussions of regional affairs should be extremely concise (ie Congo Free State)- they have thier own page
• Discussions of word origins should be extremely concise (ie imperialism) - these have their own page
• Discussions of imperialist theories should be extremely concise (ie [[theories of imperialism) - these have their own page

Statements that the New Imperialism (temp) page lacks these topics are somewhat exagerrated - since all this information is linked to from the temp page.

Pizza Puzzle

Editing of protected page

Can a non-edit-warring sysop (IE, not me, to my shame) please revert 172's latest edits, which took place while the page was protected? Thanks. Martin 19:39, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)

He said he wouldn't challenge any revert, so I've done it. Although I have expressed some opinion here (ie in the vote), I was actually on 172's side there, so I think I can reasonably do it... :-) Evercat 19:46, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Someone has just protected Talk:New_Imperialism/archive_9. This is getting ridiculous. Martin 19:52, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Actually, I should invoke Hanlon's Razor on myself, and suggest that the most likely culprit is myself, by clicking the wrong button by accident! I'll take my paranoid hat off and unprotect it... :) Martin 20:04, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Just how long is it proposed that this article is to remain protected? Until 172's return? How nice for those of us who have spent hours on revisions only to have them reverted unread, and who now find ourselves unable to restore them. I propose that since an edit war of the kind we have seen in the past seems unlikely in the 12 hours that 172 says he will be absent, the interim should be made available for others to submit and discuss alternative drafts should they so wish. Then 172 can revert back to his last version on his return, which will doubtless be the case. Graculus 19:58, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)

So is that it, then? 172 gets sysops to watch over his page while he's away? What a joke! Graculus 20:17, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I really haven't been following this so much, but if you wish to prepare a version for when the page is unprotected, you can create a temp version, possibly in your own userspace. I'll copy the entire wikicode of the page to a place of your choosing, if you like. Evercat 20:19, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)

There already is a temp version. How many people have to create them because 172 won't contemplate parting with his monopoly of this article? Graculus 20:21, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I believe the page can be unprotected. If it helps, I have no intention of editing it over the next week, and, as noted, 172 is currently away. I am hoping that in the next week someone will successfully split this thing up and save me the trouble of doing so. Martin 20:47, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)

"Can be ..." But will it be? I find it quite bizarre that this article should be protected against edit wars when the contributor involved in every recent edit war isn't here. Meanwhile I'm barred although I didn't even counter-revert my lost re-draft when it was removed after three minutes. What's going on? Graculus 21:04, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Graculus to mav, 21:30, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I am asking you to unprotect New Imperialism. So far as I can see the contributor with the greatest tendency to revert is absent from the site for some time, while others are prevented from editing what remains a profoundly unsatisfactory article. I am amazed that the article should be thus closed to someone (myself) who has made repeated constructive edits, lately restructuring the whole thing and rewriting a large part of it to make it more readable, objective and informative than the present disorderly assemblage of rambling, repetitive and circular claims.

I set myself the goal some time ago of bringing this article into editable size (so far from 35K to 50K, with no loss of valuable content}, and believe that I should be entitled to present the results for review and discussion like anyone else. I am quite at a loss as to why one contributor appears to be the beneficiary of so much use of administrative privilege - to the extent even of having "his" page protected in his absence although he is quite happy to revert others' work without even reading it - when the result has in fact not to date been (and is in my opinion unlikely to be) any significant improvement to the article in question.

Counter revert? That hardly sounds like it is coming from a noncombatant who will give his best effort not to continue an edit war if the page is unprotected. In fact it sounds like somebody who is eager to get back into the fray. I have not seen much by the way of constructive dialog here that would convince me that the page is now safe to unprotect. All work is still in the edit history and this article isn't going anywhere at the moment - there was a temporary revert back to a version that existed before the, sad to say, most recent edit war. In the meantime, there are over 140,000 other articles to edit while everyone involved cools-off. --mav

Re your supposedly clever picking up of "counter-revert", the point is I didn't when I could perfectly easily have done so. How long are we to see this one user treated to the benefit of every administrative mechanism in the book? I'm getting frankly sickened by this whole business, and can't see the point of even starting any other articles if this is a foretaste of the onesidedness of the project's "enforcers". Graculus 22:06, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Getting increasingly angry is going to do the opposite of what you want. Link to the version you want to work on and I'll give you a copy of the wikitext. --mav

What now?

One thing seems to be certain; this article is way too long for an encyclopedia. However, since Wikipedia doesn't really have space concerns, we can have this level of detail but it somehow must be better organized into a set of articles instead of just one huge article. History of Germany, I believe, sets a good example on just how a huge subject (German history) can be summarized on a top level page and the detail explained in depth on daughter articles.

However, looking through the edit history of this article, I see that at least one user has consistently blocked the efforts of others who have been trying to bring the length of this article down to a manageable size. The merits of their particular edits may or may not have been good, but the intent is in the right direction, IMO. But a wait of a mere 3-8 minutes before a revert to the longer version of the article on each attempt to fix the known size issues doesn't seem to be in the spirit of cooperation. It also seems doubtful that the two versions of the article could even be read for comparison in that time.

So I'm asking everyone to please respect the work of others: those people who want a short article here; please move the detail to daughter articles and summarize the major sections here; to the other side; please consider each of these changes to be attempts at improving the article and not as something that should be reverted without serious consideration. If factual errors are made then please fix those errors instead of just reverting the page. I'll unprotect the article as soon as both sides agree to work together (preferably under the terms I expressed above). --mav 23:14, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Thanks mav, that's something: I'm willing to co-operate (that's why I edited the original from top to bottom and offered the result in the first place, then resisted the temptation to get into an edit war), but I have to say I consider the original beyond repair: if an alternative can even be seriously discussed that'll be a step forward, but for that it has to be at least allowed an existence and time for discussion, which seems a vain hope here. I have to repeat, though, that this situation hasn't been helped by sysop heavy-handedness, overwhelmingly it seems on the side of the one party. Graculus 23:34, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I don't see how the current page protection is favoring any party - I offered you the opportunity to work on any version you wished but you didn't take up the offer. --mav

Its really easy to understand mav. 172 doesnt want the article to change. Thus, the page protection is "helping" him maintain his monopoly. Pizza Puzzle

But the page is protected, and therefore I assume any such work will go elsewhere. If I didn't take up your offer it's because I didn't understand it. Graculus 23:58, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Here's the series box. What does everyone think? If it's accepted, we'll then have the opportunity to add a strong narrative history, which would really make this article understandable to users not well versed in the subject. 172 06:13, 30 Jul 2003 (UTC)

The "New Imperialism" is an era of imperial colonial expansion spanning the late 19th and early 20th centuries, between the Franco-Prussian War and World War I (c. 1871 - 1914). English writers have variously described the New Imperialism as the "era of empire for empire's sake", "the great adventure", and "the scramble for Africa".

I know that the title to the series is awful. But the title couldn't be "New Imperialism" for obvious reasons. 172 07:05, 30 Jul 2003 (UTC)

The required reorganisation can be accomplished within the present article with daughter articles as required, if only people other than 172 are allowed to revise it in the way it so desperately needs. The above arrangement is frankly nonsensical. Why is the history (erm... the facts, in case you haven't noticed) relegated to the end? Why is Britain (the last adherent of free-trade informal empire) at the beginning and Germany (actually, the Entente, better covered elsewhere) toward the end, while France and the U.S don't even rate a mention? Why should "Loss of British comparative advantage in manufacturing" and "*Loss of British comparative advantage in manufacturing" and "Amalgamation of Industry" merit whole sections as if British industrialists' concerns explained everything? Why a section on "Russian expansionism" which mainly just about India Office paranoia and actually misses the period when Tsarist policy approximated most closely to the "New imperialism"?

My own draft (which 172 reverted without reading) arranged the whole into a far more coherent framework, capable with minor editing of being viewed on one page as a parent article. Why must we be subjected to more of this ill-organised, overworded and repetitive nightmare? Graculus 07:45, 30 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I see 172 is already creating these awful spinoff articles while others among us are prevented from even working on this article. What was the point of asking above what we thought of the suggestion when he was going to do it anyway? This is a disgraceful abuse of page protection, using sysop intervention to present all other contributors with a fait accompli that only more drastic administrative action can undo. Why is this being allowed to happen? Graculus 07:54, 30 Jul 2003 (UTC)

What are you advancing some kind of personal vendetta or something? The whole point was to split the article up into the series. Well, it's split up. If the series page can be redirected to the main New Imperialism article, then you'd be able to edit all the daughter articles and add as much content as you'd like. You'd even be able to create your own daughter articles.

But in case people haven't realized, this is an extremely difficult and complex subject requiring many articles that go into detail. That's why I'm not the only one agreeing that a series be created. I'm not at all happy with the current state of the articles in the series, but the division was necessary if content is to be added. 172 08:05, 30 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Hey - cool it a while, guys. Why don't we all cut 172 a little slack here. He has a scheme in mind, give the man enough rope to try his hand at it. If it turns out to be a mess, well, we can edit it up then, or list it on VFD if need be. 172 does have a formidable amount of expertise in this area, so my expectation is that he will more than likely effect a substantial improvement. Cool out, take a few days away from this page (and it's daughter pages) and let's see what happens. Time enough to criticise & edit after he has had a chance to get his sub-pages in order. Tannin 08:11, 30 Jul 2003 (UTC)

First, thanks to Tannin for burdening himself with this disaster area. Second, Graculus can go nuts editing the daughter articles right now for all I care. Less work for me. They need SUBSTANTIAL work! But it might be best, from his vantage point, to wait until the series gets redirected to the main page, which would require the consultation of Mav, Jtdirl, and Tannin. After all, if the series isn't redirected to the main page, I'll be the first advocating listing the daughter articles on the VFD. But whatever happens, the major work required won't happen until we unite behind a format for the series. Until then, I'll write more and more content, esp. on the weak points Graculus points out, on Word or the daughter articles. 172 08:21, 30 Jul 2003 (UTC)

The articles that are now being created were never agreed: the titles and structure are nonsense. Why didn't 172 wait for responses to his proposals before doing this unilaterally, something he's always insisted on reverting in the past before asking his sysop friends for protection against anybody else's edits? This isn't a collaborative article, its one user's hobby-horse, which is a total perversion of what Wikipedia is supposed to be about.

To Tannin, I don't like to question people's ability, but I have to say that while he's read Hobson and his critics, I consider 172's expertise in the geopolitical and regional history side of this subject extremely limited, as shown be the persistence of factual schoolboy howlers through successive edits until I removed them a couple of weeks ago. That's not a vendetta, 172, and I can assure you that such remarks give me no pleasure. The limitations of any single individual are why this thing needs to be worked on collaboratively, not monopolised by one contributor as has been the case recently. 172 doubtless believes that the whole can be worked into some collaborative form, but refuses to compromise on emphasis or organisation.

I'm inviting anyone who wants to produce a proper collaborative article to look at, criticise and if appropriate edit New imperialism, which I think offers a far better framework than this fatally compromised (and presently uneditable) venture. And no, I don't intend to work on this or any of its daughters if in all important aspects it's just going to be someone else's preserve. Graculus 09:39, 30 Jul 2003 (UTC)

That's it. I'm deleting my user page. And I'm out of this site for good. Didn't I say that the article was far from finished? Didn't I explain that my edits have been very limited for a long time? I don't like being slandered. 172 09:46, 30 Jul 2003 (UTC)

That isn't what I want, I want us to work together to improve this mess, but it is a mess, one that predates your contribution: the fact that you've only made limited edits (while reverting anything more drastic) is of little consolation: it's your unwillingness to consider (or even read) any alternative approaches that's caused this row. Graculus 10:18, 30 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Nice rhetoric aside, Graculus, 172 is no problem at all to work with if you know something about the subject and actually try to cooperate. (And on this point I speak from personal experience.) Here is a hint: cut someone a little slack next time, huh? Tannin

 The transition from informal control to formal rule

 Imperial rivalry

 New Imperialism in Asia

 New Imperialism and the scramble for Africa

Unprotecting

Since 172 has apparently left the project (probably not for good, I hope) and these series of edit wars have mostly been 172 vs others, then I see no further reason to keep this page protected. The current version is an older one so please somebody revert it to what you think is a more acceptable version. Let's all work toward summarizing the main points here and having the detail in daughter articles. --mav

Is anyone in favor of redirecting the series to the main article now that the page is unprotected? 172 18:28, 30 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I thought you were gone 172. But no - there is no reason to redirect the series article here. That is just plain silly. This article needs to be a broad summary of the subject and the detail should be in the daughter articles. If another edit war erupts again then I, or another Admin, will protect the page again. So will you please work with the other people who what to break up this monster? ---mav

"I'm out of this site for good" 172 09:46, 30 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Ok, now I'm confused. Martin 18:38, 30 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Sorry to disappoint you, Martin. Perhaps I overreacted to Graculus' vicious personal attacks and slander and your less than magnanimous presence. But disregarding that, will the above box be an acceptable series once a summary for all the daughter articles is created? So far, I'm the first to have 'broken up this monster' into a series.

I'm not very attached to the titles and the ordering of the series, but if anyone wants, the names can be easily changed by redirecting the daughter articles and the sequencing of the articles can easily be changed by editing the series box.

But it's impossible to write the executive summary until we know what the main articles being summarized are going to be. So some discussion of the series would be helpful.

As a note to Graculus, virtually everything that he added to his reverted version has been placed in the daughter articles, which have been the subject to a good deal of reorganization and editing for readability since the content was borrowed from the main page. 172 19:25, 30 Jul 2003 (UTC)

There is now an executive summary with links to daughter articles on it. Click here. As I mentioned above, the sequencing of the series, along with the names of the daughter articles, can easily be changed by editing the series box. Since we have long agreed to split the article up into a series linked to executive summaries of the daughter articles, can this be redirected to the main page? 172 04:34, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC)

No. The name "The New Imperialism Series" is not the name of an article. If anything the content there should be placed here (or better yet the even more naming convention compliant new imperialism) and that page redirected. The table is way too wide, BTW. --mav 05:01, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC)

That's exactly what I've been proposing. I was proposing that the article "The New Imperialism Series" be deleted and its content removed to this article. I'm fully aware that the article doesn't meet naming conventions. I just opted to name it "the series" because it would've been rude to edit the main article. And about the series box, Eloquence demonstrated how the width of the boxes can be reduced. I'm setting out to fix that problem right now. 172 05:05, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC)

OIC. I'm sorry for misreading you then. --mav

Done. I've fixed all the series boxes. Thanks to Eloquence.

Mav: now that I've clarified the proposal and fixed all the tables, what do you think? Can we get rid of the monster on New Imperialism? 172 05:23, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I like the new format and summaries, but wait to see what other people think. --mav 05:30, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Thanks. Actually, I'm not really happy with the daughter articles and summary (Graculus accused me of being ignorant for what was not presented in the article, but that's only because I couldn't add more facts and details to such a huge article subject to edit wars, and you know how I like going in depth), but it would be a great improvement over what we have now and would enable people to finally add much needed content to short daughter articles. 172 05:39, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I have absented myself from this site for 24 hours in order to avoid inflaming an unfortunate situation. I am glad to see 172 back, and I hope we can work together on achieveing the improvements that are required. Now that the site is unprotected, I believe that I am entitled to offer a version of the article which better approaches the 32K target.

I feel also that I am entitled to respond to certain claims against me. I did not slander anyone. I did not call anyone ignorant. I stated that a contributor's expertise in a particular area of the subject was "extremely limited". I withdraw the adverb as quite inappropriate in comparison to average knowledge of the matter. But it's still limited. And that isn't ignorance in the pejorative sense: everybody's knowledge including mine is limited in something, or even extremely limited in most things. Graculus 07:52, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC)

It was an unfair charge. I've never had the chance to add a lot of missing details, that's all. 172 07:58, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC)

When you revert a revision containing corrections in favour of an earlier version without correcting the errors in the latter, you become responsible for the persistence of those errors. Whether you wrote them in the first place or not becomes irrelevant. Don't revert other people's work without reading it and incorporating any factual corrections or other improvements in your preferred version. Graculus 10:22, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC)

On this site you have to work at a fast pace. You cannot produce a perfect article on a very broad, complicated subject in a single edit. In a very contentious edit war, you also cannot make sweeping changes (and believe me, I would've love to have been able to chronicle far more dates and facts, focus on readability, and restructure the entire article) without alarming some party. Sometimes you have to accept that progress comes gradually on this site and that the extensive exchanges in a collaborative online project can get both excruciatingly tedious and abrupt. Believe me, I learned this the very hard way starting last December. Frequently, we resort to restoring imperfect versions as stopgaps. Since online collaboration is very awkward and the conflicts sometimes get very heated, we have to grow accustomed to dealing with a pace that is far less gentile and deliberate than in the real world. Mav can attest that I was a curmudgeon before I learned the culture of communication and collaboration unique to this site. So I make no apologies for restoring a flawed version. It was only a means to an end. 172 16:25, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Errors should not be submitted in place of accurate corrections, even when other text is changed. That's the difference between editing (which we're supposed to do) and immediate automatic reversion (which isn't). I look forward to a culture of communication and collaboration. Graculus 22:36, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Mav wrote: "I like the new format and summaries, but wait to see what other people think. --mav 05:30, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC)"

I agreed to wait until Graculus unilaterally made drastic changes and unilaterally rejected the broad consensus to create a series. I'm willing to have someone revert to the original article if Graculus too is stopped from making drastic changes prior to reaching an agreement. 172 08:11, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I think that Graculus wasn't aware that the executive summary existed... --mav

I've been considering the proposed version, which is far more consideration than anyone ever gave to my better-written draft. I'm willing to consider it as a basis for revision, if only 172 will actually enter into collaborative exchange rather than automatically rejecting all but "minor edits" and asking - yet again - that people be "stopped" from contributing substantive improvements. Graculus 10:22, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I still sense a bitter tone. I'm sorry for hastily reverting your 34 K version. However, we all agreed to split the article up rather than remove content. And despite the reversion, I did thoroughly review it. You will soon notice that everything you added in the 34 K version found a home in the new series. What you added was incredibly good, but I'm looking forward to adding much more.

There's also no need for the competitive overtones of your statement. Frankly, there was no competition. Prior to your posting of the 34 K version, I did not get a chance to copyedit the article for readability and clarify, reorganize it, and add the chronicling of facts that I still look forward to adding to the series.

In addition, I'm not committed to the titles in the series and the sequencing of the articles. So your input would be respected if it's offered in a magnanimous manner. 172 10:34, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I've been mostly sitting on my hands for a long long time during this whole exchange, since I personally am not any significant expert on the subject of imperialism, new or old. But before finally going for a long weekend holiday, let me leave you with my opinion on why this page is in such trouble at the moment. To my biased view it seems that everything that 172 does is according to consensus and wide aggreement after discussion on the talk page. On the other hand it seems that most of the other players are doing unilateral changes. Perhaps things could be better if 172 just did minor unilateral changes, and the rest just did drastic but consensus driven changes. It's just a thought. It is a sad thing if any one person should have the power to define what the consensus on any subject is. -- Cimon Avaro

I admitted that posting the series was a recent unilateral action reacting to Graculus' unlilateral action, which went against the consensus. The "consensus" of which I speak is only the agreement by the vast majority of those who have been participated in the talk page that an executive summary be posted on the main page with links to daughter articles. That's it.

There are no vast 172 conspiracies here. And furthermore, the implication put forward by one user that all the syspos are in cahoots together is absurd. Mav and I, for instance, practically get into a little dispute every other day. But we've always ended them amicably, much like I hope the dispute over this article gets resolved. 172 11:02, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Glad that some amount of rationality has been restored.

You,meaning whoever is interested, have to reintroduce the paragraph which talks about when the word imperialism first came to be used and then how it was applied retrospectively to earlier empires and how because of that the 19th and 20th century version of imperialism is called new imperialism. This forms the whole crux of understanding 'new imperialism'. Removing this paragraph causes a major missing link because you have to lead from a generally known concept-'imperialism' to a relatively unknown concept- 'new imperialism' as far as the general reader is concerned.

If I type 'New Imperialism' in the search area, I get another page, not the temporary one. So are there three versions totally? It is ridiculous. I am tempted to try my hand, I seem to have learnt so much about a topic that I didn't know existed at all!!!

The imperialism paragraph is not needed -- there is an article on that topic. imperialism. Pizza Puzzle

172 removed my link to the temp page. What am I supposed to do? Pizza Puzzle

If there is an evolving broadbased agreement on the restructuring of this page, do we need a link to one person's temp version that no-one else is seems to be interested in working on? FearÉIREANN 18:34, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC)

It doesnt seem to me that Graculus and 172 are agreeing. Even if they were, I have created a seperate version which you, Jtdirl, and 172 have worked very hard to censor (going so far as to use your sysop powers in breach of the rules regarding sysops) -- so its not surprising if nobody has been able to read it -- and anyways -- maybe nobody sees anything needing editing. Pizza Puzzle

Maybe nobody has bothered reading it. It isn't as if people don't know it exists. You've everything bar scribbling PP woz here, p.s. I've a temp page alternative of the article on the toilet walls in Hawkeye Community College or in Waterloo. FearÉIREANN 18:56, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC)

BTW PP, are you morally opposed to using the Show preview button or is there some other reason why you continually clutter up edit histories with save after save after save after save after save . . . ? FearÉIREANN 19:02, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Lol - Jtdirl is a troll Im not gonna feed anymore. Pizza Puzzle

you are great at asking questions, PP, but even better at dodging giving answers. And unlike certain other users I have never been banned, let alone hardbanned a couple of times. I think you could give courses on trollism, PP. Maybe that is what you do in both universities. lol FearÉIREANN 01:06, 1 Aug 2003 (UTC)