Talk:New Imperialism/archive 9

A PROPOSED ALTERNATIVE VERSION
OF THIS ARTICLE IS AT New Imperialism (temp)

Contents

1 Current topics

1.1 Graculus's major edit, 172's revert
1.2 Theories section
1.3 On the word "imperialism" itself
1.4 Edit war?
1.5 A series box.
1.6 Do we have to split it up anymore

Current topics

Good move, Tim. But you might need to protect the page to enforce your intervention. 172 04:57 27 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I hope nobody will protect this page as a means of "enforcement"... Martin 12:30 27 Jul 2003 (UTC)

re "Theories of imperialism" - This seems like a legitimate sub-topic to me, and since this page is so long it seems sensible to make a sub-topic. Could someone explain to me why it needs to be deleted? Martin 12:30 27 Jul 2003 (UTC)

It was a distraction started by the banned user Vera Cruz not linked to any other page. This article will be divided into a series, but right now that link's just a canard. Please feel free to delete it. 172 12:36 27 Jul 2003 (UTC)

For one, the title's god-awful. When this article's divided, if the theory is ever lumped together, it will need another title that makes it clear that:

1.) These are theories pertaining to a certain era, not imperialism in general. The page goes through a number of theories that set out to explain, or are being used to explain (most are broader in scope), Britain's relationship with the outside world in the late 19th century, why Britain chose to covert this relation into a formal colonial one, and why other powers sought to follow suit.

2.) That it's a sub-section of this article

Now the article's an obscure irrelevancy not linked to any other article. But the big problem is the title. 172 12:42 27 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Ahh. Thanks for mentioning the problem with the title - I didn't see anything like that in the talk archive - only cautious support from various folks. I'll fix the problem. Martin 12:48 27 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Why not just delete it. It's of, by, and for a banned troll (Vera Cruz) anyway. We'll get around to a proper name. It would be best if this were done in consultation with other contributors familiar with the theory. Although I have ideas, I want to do this in consultation with others rather than doing it unilaterally. Right now, the article should just be deleted since everything in it can be found here anyway. 172 12:55 27 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Well, I fixed the title (and added an intro), so that's better: Theories of New Imperialism. Seems that Slrubenstein seemed to think it was a good idea, back in the archives. As a mere reader, I think it makes for a sensible divide - often one wants to read only the history of some topic, without getting bogged down with theorising, and conversely sometimes it's the theories that are interesting, and one already knows the facts. What do you think? Martin 13:13 27 Jul 2003 (UTC)

In addition, much of the content in the theories page hasn't been edited over the past week, as the content here from which it was borrowed was. 172

That's easily fixed. Martin 13:13 27 Jul 2003 (UTC)

At last we're getting somewhere. Now all it needs is for someone to bite the bullet and take the "Theories of ..." section out of this article, because otherwise we're going to get into a horrendous mess not knowing which one any intervening edits have gone into. On a negative note, I have to say I don't like the unarticled "New ..." outside the title of this article - it should strictly be Theories of the "New imperialism" or some such construct, and I imagine quotes aren't even feasible in titles. The intro here should also begin "The 'New imperialism' ...". Good start, though. Graculus 15:24 27 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I just recalled after reading the above that we're not "taking it out" but editing it down - only to find myself unable to connect for the past two hours: it just shows how rapidly the mind decays during these episodes. Anyway, 172, are you content with the idea of undertaking the appropriate downsizing before we get even more confused? Graculus 17:48 27 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I have read both New Imperialism and New Imperialism (temp) and it seems to me that the later page is much more readable, and actually (despite being shorter) conveys more information, (in large part due to its being wikified and linked to other articles where 172s offtopic tangents are better discussed). I suggest that the current New Imperialism be moved to a temp page -- to make room for the upgraded version. 152.163.253.71

Take a look at the user history of the above IP address here: http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Contributions&target=152.163.253.71 It seems like Michael. Another sysop should use this opportunity to ban the address. 172 23:21 27 Jul 2003 (UTC)

The above IP is an AOL proxy. Thousands of people are behind this one IP. Michael would neither bother about New Imperialism nor would he be able to write such complex and well formed sentences. -- JeLuF 13:21 28 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Wikipedians should avoid banned user paranoia. Martin 13:25 28 Jul 2003 (UTC)

content to Talk:New Imperialism/Linking to the alternative version from the top of the article

I arrived after the rift that created this problem, but since then I've managed to get this article down from 50 to 44K at last count without, I hope, hurting anybody's feelings. I agree to some extent with 172's view that the (temp) article is too bitty, yet I'm for the link, since as far as I'm concerned, this article is still way too long, and until it's brought under control the other has a claim to some legitimacy as an alternative version.

The only reason I've worked on this one and not the (temp) article is that this one needed urgent surgery to cut it sown (mainly by eliminating an extraordinary amount of duplication) while the other was being worked up on a frequent basis by its creator. Now whenever Pizza Puzzle is done (or sooner, if he wants), I'll be just as happy to work on the other, and then we can perhaps draw on the better points of both (or better still, maybe they'll just end up identical, combining the best of this one's depth with some of the other's brevity).

I see a legitimate difference of opinion here which is exacerbated by suspicions of what Pizza Puzzle may or may not have done in an earlier guise. Whatever the background, I don't see his recent actions as vandalism, and I think he should be given a chance to show he's trying to make something better. Please, both sides, hold back the recriminations, it isn't helping anything. Graculus 17:44 28 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I'm also not aware of much of the Pizza Puzzle history, but I can look at the history of this page. It seems to me that:

the current page is not NPOV by giving too much coverage to specific theories favored by the page authors and is way too long
the temporary page is too linky and while more neutral (IMO), it does fail to cover various theories so it is also not NPOV, and goes way too far in terms of size reduction (the lists are horrible), the article should just be separated, reorganized (since some content is dupped elsewhere), and improved, not butchered
the page has been very excessively protected from edits
the two pages should be merged or reconciled as quickly as possible

Perhaps a more neutral party with a fresh perspective can resolve the editing problems... until then, I weakly support the addition of a link, but only for a short period of time (say, 1 week) and the page link needs to be described better and in more neutral terms as neither article is clearly superior. Daniel Quinlan 18:08 28 Jul 2003 (UTC)

On the NPOV point, I think the POV predates the present contributors - I've certainly spent most of my time just trying to get the thing down to a size and coherence that will make serious rewriting possible - deleting repeated paragraphs, mending damaged sentences (the result of repeated re-edits) and correcting factual errors. I'd like to see some of the politics come out to make it more accessible, but I don't think the politics are even the problem here. Graculus 18:49 28 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Yes, I should have been clearer. I wasn't saying the POV was (necessarily) the current authors. Just whoever wrote that particular content originally. Your efforts are definitely appreciated. Daniel Quinlan 20:20 28 Jul 2003 (UTC)

It is impossible to defend myself against the ~~propaganda~~ accusations of my attackers. Even on such issues as the temp page, they remain completely vague about why they feel the way they do. What is the POV of New Imperialism (temp) -- that they do not considered important information. Why do they state that the temp page is intended to remove or delete material, have they not read the talk page and understood that portions of this article must be moved elsewhere? Pizza Puzzle

Accusing people of propaganda is not in an appropriate spirit of WikiLove. Please rephrase.

content to Talk:New Imperialism/Linking to the alternative version from the top of the article

People interested in colonialism/ imperialism, why don't you have a look at 'Philosophy in colonialism'. There seems to be something not quite right there though I am not an expert.

Having said that I am not an expert, being a recent addition and having come to know about the fight to death encounter between someone called 172 and someone else called Pizza Puzzle by someone concerned called jtdrl in yesterday's berlios site, I can't help contributing my two- bit to this saga of new imperialism :-)

I don't know what the war is about- the structure or the details or the philosophy. For me at first impression, the article seems to be unwieldy( a case of too many cooks?)

As a layperson, I would first want to understand what is imperialism.

The introduction defines the term, and even chronicles the origin of the word. 172 07:44, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)

If it is a development of colonialism, then I would like to be made aware of it first and then its subsequent growth.

Right away, this article is making it clear that this period is focusing on formal colonial expansionism, mostly by Britain, France, and Germany, esp. in Africa, roughly from the Franco-Prussian War to the Great War. I believe that this is stated in the opening paragraph.

Since the way we organise knowledge is not just historical, before splitting into the various developments in different countries, it would be nice if we look at what is the motor behind imperialism- wealth, power, knowledge, etc.,

The opening section chronicles just that. It deals with why Europe's main colonial powers, with Britain in the lead, sought to widen the sope of their ties overseas, and sought to convert this relationship into a formal colonial one in the period framed by 1871 to 1914. People have always desired "wealth," "power," "knowledge," "etc," so we're going beyond simple explanations for the motives for what was very large number of events and trends involved. Under the section pertaining to causes, we deal with many economic, geo-strategic, and cultural trends explaining the drive to formal colonial expansionism. 172 07:44, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)

In this sense, you have to introduce theories of imperialism- not as a separate topic in itself [which someone had objected to], not even using the word theories, but as a concept. Since history is always at hind-sight, we have organised our ideas about imperialism over time and these ideas haven't just evolved from facts suddenly, we are only made aware of it after it. Post-colonialism, Orientalism, etc., I know are theories related to hegemony of discourse for material ends, I don't know what exactly imperialism is - is it more materialistic/ economic/ political? If you take nationalism, then different countries have different routes to it- European nations have a different trajectory whereas colonial nations such as India are considered by some as having forged an anti-colonial nationalism.

No, we're not dealing with ideologies such as nationalism or Orientalism. We're dealing with the rich tradition of historical research and historiography that this period has inspired. This period has attracted a wide variety of historical scholarship. In fact, this was one of the first periods known to its contemporaries as a new era, due, in large measure, to the rich tradition of literature generated by Hobson, his disciples, and critics. So far, the article deals with the most notable theories (the kind of theories that would be introduced at an undergraduate survey course) and the work of the most well-known and well-respected recent scholars of this period. 172 07:44, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Irrespective of when the term imperialism came to be used, as a concept if it is applied even to Roman Empire, then this can also be brought in at the beginning.

Actually, Rome is mentioned at the very beginning. At the very beginning we also laboriously clarify that this period of colonialism is distinct from those of other eras.

I would suggest this structure- 1. What is imperialism [ various defintions/meanings] 2. Evolution of imperialism - conceptually/ theoretically - chronologically - geographically 3. What is new imperialism 4. Whatever hard facts you want to offer.

Actually, this is remarkably close to the structure.

May the best side win, let truth alone triumph ! Conversely, if you are familiar with Foucaldian ideas of Power-Knowledge equations then truth is an innocent bystander.From a global perspective theories such as post-colonialism/ orientalism/ neo-colonialism are good examples of this!

I have suggested, and so has another user, a section on imperialism's legacies: decolonization, the North-South divide, the rise of nationalism in the developing world, wars of independence, etc. That's why dividing the article into a series and ADDING content would be a good idea. 172 07:44, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for your ideas. 172 07:44, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)

content to Talk:New Imperialism/Linking to the alternative version from the top of the article

Take a look at the below comments. They were posted earlier, but someone has finally articulated the real problems in this article. See below: 172 08:44, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)

You're saying the problem with the article is that it fails to make more strong conclusions? No, the real problem with the article, aside from its great length, is that it is too concerned with POV conclusions when it should be focused on factual statements and coverage of theories from multiple POV. I don't need to have the same underlying points beaten in again and again throughout an entire article as if I was reading Atlas Shrugged or The Handmaid's Tale. Daniel Quinlan 10:54, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I completed an unfinished article on the Fashoda Incident. When searching first to determine what kind of information about the topic was already available, I noticed that it wasn't included in the Scramble for Africa section. Since it was a key turning point, perhaps someone would like to add it. Wenteng 02:05, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)

After having read the article, I disagree that one of the shortcomings is length. It is very strong on the transition from informal control to formal control (which seems to be framing the era of "New Imperialism") and the motives and course of imperial expansion.

It goes into detail, but could afford more on the destruction of traditional societies and the colonial encounter. It briefly mentions the promotion of imperialism on the home front, but not detailing this nearly as well as some of the stronger points. The role of religion and missionaries is a glaring omission. As is the role of gender, race, and class boundaries in colonies, which I suppose is an optional point that could go under articles pertaining to the colonial encounter.

Concerning the general narrative, several important turning points deserve more attention, such as the Anglo-Boer War, Fashoda Incident, and Indian Mutiny of 1857 (a development outside Europe that contributed to the transition to the formal control characteristic of "New Imperialism." The conclusions are also strong, but relatively weak in comparison to some very strongly developed portions. Perhaps the article could end with some concluding remarks on the development of nationalism in the colonial world, the wars of decolonization, and the legacy of colonialism on newly independent societies. Wenteng 05:14, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Graculus's major edit, 172's revert

Graculus wrote: My response to the following from 172 re my redraft of this article, deleted by him here immediately on posting and presently in an improved form at New Imperialism (temp) until someone removes it from there too.

[172's message follows]: Why cut out so much important text? New Imperialism is essentially the trend in the late nineteenth century to convert the relationships of W. Europe's main colonial powers with the world outside Europe, which before had been largely "informal" (with missionaries, adventurers, and business establishing ties with the outside world), into a formal colonial one (characterized by military occupation, territorial claims, etc.). You were cutting out text that dealt with the causes of the transition from informal control to formal control and the motives of formal imperial expansion. Thus, it would be appropriate to propose ways of dividing the article (and the new table of contents looks great, doesn't it?) rather than hacking away at it until you get it under 32. There are many long articles (for instance, WWII is way over the length limit). Would you hack away at WWII or propose a way of dividing it? BTW, it would be best to restore PP's version on the temp page. I'm warning you, he'll have a fit if you don't. 172 08:33, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Graculus I cut out nothing important. I cut out filler that said nothing. I cut out gems like "[having been first recorded in 1858] imperialism was regarded as a new phenomenon deserving of a new word to describe it" (though I left in the equally dire "generally used only to describe English policies" in the hope that soneone with an OED at hand might explain what policies).

172's response: That was not a paragraph by me, but another user. However, I was very supportive of it being added. It is relevant since there are going to be users who are not familiar with the term "New Imperialism" and are going to want to know what sets this period apart from pervious periods of expanding empires. Furthermore, it is interesting to note that the Age of Imperialism was one of the first periods in history when contemporary observers were conscious that they were in a new, distinct "age."

Graculus's counter-response: I never said you wrote it. But you reverted it back in, which is the same thing as far as I'mn concerned. As for "new ages" - well, not at all like the Renaissance, the Enlightenment, the Machine Age or any of our other imagined epochs, then. The sentence still doesn't say what it meant.

Graculus: I edited down rambling digressions on British finance capital which made it appear the indisputable driving force in the phenomenon (not so, or even necessarily a principal one).

172's response: Hah. Admitting to a POV agenda now. BTW, where in the article does it state that "finance capital was the indisputable driving force in the phenomenon?"

Graculus's counter-response: Since when is wanting to give greater weight to less emphasised explanations POV? The whole middle section yells "finance capital dun it!". There are other factors, scarcely mentioned in the version here.

172: Maybe FROM YOUR POINT OF VIEW.

Graculus: No, I think it's yours.

Graculus: I cut out irrelevances like British trade in 1948 and fluff like "After the more gentlemanly service sector of the economy (banking, insurance, shipping) became more prominent — possibly at the expense of manufacturing — the influence of London's financial interest began rising precipitously." (Well it would, wouldn't it?).

172's response: Yeah. And structural changes in the economy were never historically significant, I suppose.

Graculus's counter-response: Read the "gentlemanly" sentence again. It's drivel. It became more important because it became more important? Thanks for sharing that with me.

172: Big deal. Some typos that may not have even been my fault. Fix the typos without hacking away at huge chunks of text.

Graculus: It's not a typo, it's just an example of the redundant "verbiage for its own sake" that took a 25K article to 50K and created this shambles in the first place.

Graculus: I cut out irrelevant talk of Russian industrialisation after 1905 and Orthodox Church designs on Constantinople.

172's response: Well, if you'd do some research on the main historical actors, especially among the British Conservative Party, you'd find out that Russian expansionism was a key motivation behind the military occupation of many regions where Britain had no other interests.

Graculus's counter-response: The same geopolitical concerns as in the 1820s, the 1850s and the 1870s, not New Imperialism": Tibet was the exception, and that's nowhere near Constantinople.

172: We're dealing with the origins of the shift, even if they extend before the time frame.

Graculus: It's not an origin: how did Kenya or the Sudan protect the Canal from Russia? Cyprus was supposed to, but that was Old Eastern Question, not New Imperialism.

Graculus: I cut prose about "'glorious' neo-aristocratic virtues and ... broad, nationalist sentiments".

172's response: The promotion of imperialism in Britain among the public is irrelevant, I suppose.

Graculus's counter-response: On the contrary, my version says more about it than yours.

172:Well, go back to your article and add it again. I had no problem with what you added, just what you removed.

Graculus: It's in my article - and not in yours.

Graculus: I cut "The US had garnered the coveted center of the world's capitalist economy following the Great War" as ungrammatical and irrelevant to discussion of the 1880s. I cut a rambling section on the 1904 Entente which was supposed to be about the rise of Germany and resulting rivalry.

172's response: A couple of great powers forming alliances and on the brink of war in large measure due to competing stakes in Africa is irrelevant too, according to Graculus.

Graculus's counter-response: But you said nothing to relate it to anything: "The Entente was concluded in 1904". So what? I put it in the context of rivalries, you didn't. And there was a lot more to it than "competing stakes in Africa".

172:It's a very significant section nonetheless. I can clarify it onces this chaos subsides.

Graculus: I doubt it.

Graculus: I recombined the two broken history sequences and put the theoretical discussion at the end, which is where I think it belongs. I rearranged the discussion of the US to make sense.

But I added more. I added a discussion of Russian (the right decade, this time) and Japanese expansionism, of alternative explanations of British action, of inter-imperialist rivalry (not just one agreement) and social effects.

172's response: And I have since tried to restore whatever I can of what your ADDED.

Graculus: Without taking anything away - another 50K mess.

Graculus: I added a discussion of China that didn't end up attributing the country's continued independence to the powers' contentment that "a highly advanced empire [was] unwilling to admit western (often drug-pushing) commerce" [sic - it makes no sense to me either].

172's response:] since New Imperialism was all about formal colonial expansionism, this paragraph was explaining why China was an exception, an area were "informal" colonialism prevailed. Clarify, don't hack.

Graculus's response: Your explanation takes no account of the obvious difficulty of taking over the country or the powers' utter disarray over what to do if they ever got it. I did clarify. Your version was wholly inadequate.

Graculus: And I redrafted the whole in a way which at least begins to make sense. But you don't know that, 172, because you never troubled to read it, and neither will anyone else because you reverted it in favour of a vastly inferior and rambling alternative three minutes after I posted it.

172's response:]I did read it.

Graculus's counter-response: Not judging by your statements here, you didn't. I wasn't going to re-edit. Forget it.

172 read it, considered it, and reverted it in under four minutes. Impressive, eh? Martin 13:59, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Come one. It only takes a minute. I was able to skim over portions that were not new. Don't suggest that I'm a liar. 172 14:09, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)

None of it was old. It was all at least restructured, and reads a darn sight better than this effort. Graculus 16:21, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Graculus: As for PP, he invited me to edit (temp), so I did. he can edit it back, but I hope he'll trouble to read it first and give others an opportunity to comment. Graculus 10:26, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Theories section

I moved the "theories" section. This has previously been discussed here, in several of the archives. Feedback has been good. The new title is lovely, and I'm not banned, thus answering 172's concerns.

Feedback welcome. Martin 10:44, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)

content to Talk:New Imperialism/Linking to the alternative version from the top of the article

On the word "imperialism" itself

(Graculus sp?) wrote:

"I cut out nothing important. I cut out filler that said nothing. I cut out gems like "[having neen first recorded in 1858] imperialism was regarded as a new phenomenon deserving of a new word to describe it" (though I left in the equally dire "generally used only to describe English policies" in the hope that soneone with an OED at hand might explain what policies)."

Well, what do you know? An OED? I never stay home without one. As far as I can tell the 1856 quote referred to the Roman Empire (it's not explicit). Definitely several quotes later than that referred to the romans. The first quote that explicitly refers to imperialism of a modern power is definitely not Britain but France (1870 is the date for the quote given in OED).

At least in my edition (Second edition, giving publication date 1989 for the 20ish volume set, 1991 for the "compact" version I have (printed 9 pages on a page, ultrathin paper)). So take it from there! -- Cimon Avaro on a pogostick

content to Talk:New Imperialism/Linking to the alternative version from the top of the article

Edit war?

Edit wars are bad - does this article need to be protected by an Admin not involved in the conflict? --mav 12:07, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I'll give way if 172 reverts it again. Martin 12:14, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)

That's not necessary. Both Martin and I are admins. And I will not let him divide this article unilaterally without discussing his ideas. 172 12:11, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Whether we are admins is entirely besides the point. If mav protected this article I would respect that. So would you, I hope. Martin 12:14, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I unprotected it, and I am not involved in the war in any way. I have instructed PP not to insert his link until the vote is over, if he ignores this, I will protect it again and move to have him banned. When the vote is over, we will have a decision on whether or not he link should be there, and I will enforce that decision. CGS 12:41, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC).

It needs to be protected from Martin's arrogant, unilateral actions. We've agreed that it will be divided into a series. Exactly how is uncertain. 172 12:17, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Please - no name calling. I'm protecting this page. That means nobody can edit edit even if you technically can do so - there will be no war of the wizards here. --mav 12:43, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Good move, Mav. Thanks for acting promptly. 172 12:46, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Let's see... it was discussed here previously. Starting at a massive five archives ago. It's been discussed by various people. General opinion appeared to be that it was a good idea. Nobody said that it was a bad idea. So I did it. And I dropped a note on the Talk page explaining why I did it.

This must be some new definition of "unilateral" of which I was previously unaware. Martin 13:48, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)

A series box.

History of New Imperialism.

blah

Theories of New Imperialism

blah

Let's complete this before removing massive chunks of text. IMO, it would be a good idea to create a series box that would resemble the table of contents' outline. 172 12:28, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Fine, do it your way -as long as it gets done. I made a start. Martin 13:48, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Do we have to split it up anymore

Now that people can edit single sections, do we have to split it up? Remember, Wikipedia is not paper, so as long as it can be edited, it doesn't matter how long the article is? Is this going to start another argument? CGS 14:33, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC).

Retrieved from "https://academickids.com:443/encyclopedia/index.php/Talk:New_Imperialism/archive_9"

Talk:New Imperialism/archive 9

Current topics

Graculus's major edit, 172's revert

Theories section

On the word "imperialism" itself

Edit war?

A series box.

Do we have to split it up anymore

Navigation

Search

Toolbox

Personal tools