User talk:172/Talk bloc 3
|
|
Hi. Thanks for the nice words. I do try to be a conscientious editor. -- Zoe
You mean the troll might actually start reverting his own rubbish!!! *grin* STÓD/ÉÍRE 04:52 Apr 13, 2003 (UTC)
An anonymous user is paying attention to your History of the Soviet Union article and I have my suspicions that it might be the vandal formally known as Susan Mason. better keep a look out. Someone needs to check out their IP just in case. STÓD/ÉÍRE 23:29 Apr 13, 2003 (UTC)
---
Re: New Imperialism
I understand your reservations, but I'm sure it would be possible to split the article (as opposed to dumbing it down). Sorry if the comment above sounded a bit n00bic. erzengel 15 Apr 2003 1533 UTC
--- There's going to be some professional overlap here. Contemporary Jewish history is my professional field. You said that what you wrote on Jews in the Soviet Union is a work in progress, so I am going to let it progress for a while. I cited Veidlinger as an example of one facet of the gradual persecution of Jews under Stalin. Personally, I do not think that it was something that popped up just before he died. Arkady Vaksberg (Stalin Against the Jews) traces it to "Marxism and the National Question," which he published in Enlghtenment in 1913. I personally think that his position is somewhat extreme, however, what he points to is that what makes historical figures interesting is not necessarily a uniform and cohesive ideology, but one that emerges over time and is wraught with contraditions, because what is really fascinating is how they negotiated these conflicts. Stalin was like that--particularly with regard to his policy toward Jews. As you've studied the period, you know how frequently and how often people switched sides and honed their views regarding the major debates of the day. There is no reason to assume that the leadership (incl. Stalin) was immune to this. Internationalism and the nationality question were certainly two key issues of the day. Finally, like it or not, many of the leading scholars of the period and the topic disagree with certain key aspects of the position you present in the article. You can certainly disagree with them, but there research and conclusions deserves to be heard as well. Danny
VANDAL ALERT
According to Tannin, a new user Olga Bityerkokoff is a banned ex-user. It might be Michael but possibly is Adam. *sigh* Tannin thinks it is DW/Black Widow. Either which way, revert revert revert. STÓD/ÉÍRE 01:04 Apr 16, 2003 (UTC)
You not had a threat yet from that fuckwit 'Olga' yet? Darn it. You must be feeling left out. I've come across some piles of horse manure in my time but this crackpot really stands out. If only the nutter's intelligence was even half as well developed as his arrogance, he might be able to contribute something to wiki. But about all this fuckwit does is give everyone a laugh as they count down to his next banning. A prize asshole of the highest order who thinks we all don't know who he really is. ÉÍREman 02:43 Apr 16, 2003 (UTC)
have a good break, a chance to recover from The Susan Mason Experience. Not to mention Loopy Olga and Her Legal Fantasies. ÉÍREman 05:25 Apr 16, 2003 (UTC)
I left you a note in the "Soviet Jews" piece. Coincidental that we're going away for a few days at the same time? As my Polish grandpa would have said to your Polish grandpa, Gut yontif! Danny
Hi 172, if you get a chance, could you look at the abortion page. I looked at it some time ago and thought the article poor and ineffective. I showed it to people in both the pro-choice and pro-life camps who are friends of mine and they agreed. I did a re-write, showed it to both sides before inclusion and both sides believed the rewrite had far more intellectual depth and explored the issue in a couple of opening paragraphs in a far more intellectually rigorous manner that both sides were happy with. Sirub isn't happy through and keeps reverting to a version that both sides who have read it think weak and ineffective, and americocentric (the curse of wiki). In fact people on both sides pleaded with me to undo his version and restore the one I had placed in. As an academic and an intellectual, I would value your judgment. I don't belong to either camp on the issue (I suppose being gay tends to leave me out of the debate on reproduction!) but do think wiki articles need rigourous intellectual depth (eg, the whole Irish potato famine issue) rather than weak, rambling articles, of which we have far to many, that dodge around the issue rather than being able to clarify the central issues with clarity. Sirub's preferred version in my view (and those I have shown a print off to) fails to clarify the core issues for both sides and meanders all over the place, creating a rather mediocre narrative that is all too typically wiki (you own work and some of mine and some others excepted!). 'Slan" ÉÍREman 19:18 Apr 19, 2003 (UTC)
I agree with your substantive point, that Brezhnev presided over certain policy initiatives etc. I think this is exactly what the word "leadership" connotes -- when we yanks call Buch our leader, believe me, NO ONE thinks he devised the battle plan for Iraq, or our fiscal policies. For most Americans, at least, "tutelage" connotes "tutor" or "guardian." I do not think it is really accurate to suggest that Brezhnv was instructing his economic planners in the finer points of economic theory, nor do I think that he personally was "protecting" them -- it just is not an appropriate word in this instance.
You are invested in a larger point -- that men like Brezhnev, Andropov, etc. did not have as much power concentrated in their hands as some Western leaders. Frankly, I think you are wrong -- I think you overemphasize the power that US presidents have, and do not recognize the economic and political constraintes that have limited them. Be that as it may, the question (comparing the concentration ofpower in US vs. Soviet leaders) is an obviously interesting one, and given Western rhetoric about totalitarianism, a very important question. I think it merits elaboration -- but not in an article on the history of the Societn Union; perhaps something like Comparative Cold War Politics?
As I said, I disagree with your larger point. But even if you were right, even if I were to agree, "tutelage" would still be a poor choice to communicate effectively your intended meaning.
I suggest that you leave my changes as they were, (i.e. keep tutelage out), but write a whole paragraph on the powers and limits to power of Party leaders.
Much as we all admire brevity, somethimes a concept is so complex that to reduce it to any one word will be to oversimplify or meerly mislead people. Perhaps there is a small group of experts in Soviet history who, reading the word "tutelage," would understand what you mean. But I assure you, the vast majority of readers, those who know only the barest (and partial/biased) outline of Soviet history, will not. Slrubenstein
I should have listened to some people who advised me to avoid the abortion article like the plague! I was warned that there are some people there who throw wobblies if anything that passes as proper intelllectual challenges are mentioned; that they like the article all meandering, poorly written, politically correct and utterly and completely americocentric. And they were right. No wonder so many people have just decided to avoid the article like the plague. You were right to avoid it. If people want a dog's dinner of a mess, with all the intellectual depth of french fries and the sort of preoccupation with America that makes non-Americans' skin crawl, they are welcome to it. Maybe we should start the sort of article that some people on wiki think is encyclopædic; One legged bass guitarists from Nebraska who play songs that don't don't feature the title in the lyrics!!! I think I'll join the rest of the people who just gave up on the article and let those who are happy with a pass-rate americo-centric article keep tinkering with it to keep anything remotely intellectual out of it. How's the History of the Soviet Union going? Sorry for not getting to it; I was wasting my time trying to improve pass-rate articles elsewhere. At least I know what you are involved in an article it will have some intellectual depth. Slán ÉÍREman 19:20 Apr 20, 2003 (UTC)
Thanks for your lengthy comment on my talk page -- I appreciate your responding to me. For what it is worth, I really am sympathetic to your position. My main point is that the word "tutelage" is less efective and accurate than "leadership" -- just a semantic point, not a substantive one. But I wholeheartedly agree with you that the content you wrote on my talk page should go in the article, and perhaps with even more detail. My sense for example is that CP politics and arrangements of power, and Brezhnev's leadership style, changed over the course of his "leadership" which ought to be addressed as well. Slrubenstein
Hi 172. I've intervened again. I put on my best Mav voice (*grin*) to appear a mixture of authoritive, factual, respectful etc with a strong degree of "stop it or else . . ." Fingers crossed that this may stop the messing. Slán. ÉÍREman 04:40 Apr 23, 2003 (UTC)
re-abortion - the article is such a mish-mash of cliché, of rampant americo-centrism, of POV-laiden NPOV that that is one article that should be entirely aborted, whatever your view on abortion! (but then maybe making a page that deserves aborting is itself POV by promoting one side of the argument!!!) I showed it some time ago to people I know on both sides of the argument and they all were agreed (wow! The first time the two sides actually agreed on something) that it was an embarrassing dog's dinner of a mess that was almost beyond salvage. I asked them what would help make it salvagable, they made suggestions. I wrote them up in front of them, had them read every word to make sure it was acceptable, all sides accepted it, I put it in and all sides were happy for ages until Sirub came along, reverted all the changes, made the article even worse than before, made it even more americocentric (something I thought impossible) and stands guard over it like a clunking hen for fear anyone would touch his beloved egg. At this stage I am so tempted to put it on the votes for deletion page. But it really is an appalling piece of tripe, with all the intellectual insight and depth of a stale cheese-burger, with probably even less use. (Even Zoe would be hard-pressed to deny wiki's americocentrism on reading it.) I am not even going to look at the rubbish any more, it annoys me so much. ÉÍREman 04:59 Apr 23, 2003 (UTC)