shebs at apple.com wrote:
Re: "Well, I've spent a bunch of time in the library checking 172's content, and found some serious problems. Unfortunately, my attempts to discuss it were so frustrating that I turned away from those articles, and it now falls to others to fix them."
Since a lot of users buy into your distortions of the truth (users with whom I'd like to work cooperatively) , I've enclosed in this e-mail excepts from our two longest running interactions of the year. Despite your claims, I'm sure that fair-minded users will see once and for all that I have struggled to be as fair and helpful to you consistently. I think that they'll find that in the end I should've really been the one guilty of all the things of which you accuse me.
The first is from the talk page of History of the United States (1980-1988) and the second is the discussion on the proposed reogranization of the Cold War series.
-172
-------------
Taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Talk:History_of_the_United_States...
-------
==18 Feb 2004 [2]==
As long as somebody is sufficiently unsatisfied to put the notice up, it is simply dishonest to remove it without their agreement; you have to get positive agreement, not just declare that you think the arguments are without merit. :I simply stated that there were no arguments made against the current version of the article. Now that you have cited some in this posting, a justification for the neutrality dispute has been made. [[User:172|172]] 09:01, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I have asked repeatedly for you to add references to the scholarly works upon which the various claims are based, still haven't seen anything. :And I stated repeatedly that the endnotes would be inserted along with a new section outlining the historiography. However, I now finally have some concrete inquiries from you. I'll start you off with the following; ask if you want more. I also took the time to find you some free access articles online if you want quick (and free) overviews. [[User:172|172]] 09:01, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
The Sunbelt stuff is full of sweeping illogicalities; if the West is conservative, then how is it that California is not? I live in Nevada, and it's actually become '''more''' liberal in the past couple decades, because of people moving in from elsewhere - it's certainly not a solid base for the Repuglicans. :''Reread'' the section on the Sunbelt and the New Right. These exceptions are addressed. In other words, the increasingly Democratic voting patterns in California in more recent years are briefly mentioned later in the section. For a discussion of changing voting patterns in the Sunbelt in more recent years, see Paul Starr, "An Emerging Democratic Majority" in Stanley Greenberg and Theda Skocpol, eds., ''The New Majority'' (Yale University Press, 1997) for . Starr's article was adapted and reprinted in [http://www.prospect.org/print/V8/35/starr-p.html ''The American Prospect'' no. 35 (November-December 1997)]. On gentrification, the Sunbelt, and cities, see Daphn Spain (1992) "A Gentrification Research Agenda for the 1990s." ''Journal of Urban Affairs'' 14:125-134 for a good general overview. For the other side of the coin, see Douglas Glasgow's ''The Black Underclass'' (1980), which studies the plight of African Americans in the inner cities. For a more recent journal article see W.J. Wilson's "Studying Inner-City Social Dislocations: The Challenge of Public Agenda Research." ''American Sociological Review'' 56:1-14. Going back a generation, the political implications of the rise of the Sunbelt were heralded by Kirkpatrick Sale ''Power Shift'' (1975). More recently, you have Lisa McGirr ''Suburban Warriors: The Origins of the New American Right'' (2001) I found you a site with reviews and excepts from at the Princeton University Press website if you want to take a look: http://www.pupress.princeton.edu/titles/7031.html. For more on the rise of conservative sentiments in the late '70s early '80s, see ''The Politics of Social Policy in the United States'', eds Margaret Weir, Ann Shola Orloff and Theda Skocpol. For your convenience once again, here are [http://www.pupress.princeton.edu/titles/4196.html more reviews]. Abramson, Paul R., John H. Aldrich, and David W. Rohde. Change and Continuity in the 1980 Elections. Rev. ed. Washington, DC: CQ Press, 1983 comes to mind for the elections of 1980 as a major political realignment. [[User:172|172]] 09:01, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Supply-side economics is still being described as if "everybody knows" it's bad, but I'll bet it has lots of respected defenders today who would take exception to the description here; so it needs to be described neutrally, not negatively. :This shot seems to be coming from nowhere. Where is the article attacking supply-side economics? The debate is over whether to blame either tax cuts or runaway government spending for the deficit. However, this is merely a side note in an article that provides a very general overview. [[User:172|172]] 09:01, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC) Thomas Byrne Edsall's ''The Political Economy of Inequality'' and Sidney Weintraub and Marvin Goodstein, eds., ''Reaganomics in the Stagflation Economy'' (1983), discuss the Reagan administration's economic policies. George Gildner's ''Wealth and Poverty'' (1981), deals with the economic ideology of the Reagan revolution. See also Robert Heilbroner et al. ''The Debt and the Deficit'' (1989). On the presidency, Ronnie Dugger, ''On Reagan'' (1983), is a hostile account. Ackerman, Frank. Reaganomics: ''Rhetoric vs. Reality''. (1982) is another hostile account. Roland Evans and Robert Novak ''The Reagan Revolution'' (1981) is an admiring chronicle. Laurence I. Barrett, ''Gambling with History'' (1984) is another good source on Reagan in the White House. [[User:172|172]] 09:01, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
And of course there's the extreme irony of casual references to "rightwing military dictatorships in Latin America" by the same person who steadfastly resists characterizing certain socialist leaders ([[Josef Stalin]]) as dictators. I'm not quoting everything that I think is slanted, just an assortment, because once again I've wasted my WP editing time trying to convey the scope of the problem. :First, the next time I hear this bullshit about me being a Stalinist, I am taking it up to the mailing list. BTW, this paragraph was removed. To go on, LaFeber's ''Inevitable Revolutions'' (1983) is still the seminal work on the US in Central America. I found you a site citing reviews [http://www.usd.edu/~amorriso/lafeber.htm here]. The articles cited don't come with free access. Raymond Bonner's ''Weakness and Deceit: US Policy and El Salvador'' is also a leading work on this subject, though starting off with LaFeber would probably be best. [[User:172|172]] 09:01, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
::You said "Stalinist", not me, and the sentence "The Reagan administration supplied funds and weapons to rightwing military dictatorships in Latin America." is still there as I write, so that's a pretty definite use of the D-word, plus the sentence after that says "Somoza family dictatorship". I have no problem with the D-word, but it's certainly biased to accept it for the rightwingers and not the leftwingers. Maybe just a word, but given your energy to remove it from certain articles, I assume that you agree it's an important word. [[User:Stan Shebs|Stan]] 14:12, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I know that this article is not representative of professionally-written US history, because it's not at all like the books I've read - in fact most of this I remember reading in nakedly-biased and poorly-researched articles in leftie newspapers of the period. :Well, what do you expect for a general overview on the past twenty years of recent US history? And what books were those, BTW? For a general outline, however, it isn't at all unorthodox. Do a search for course syllabi on yahoo and google, for example, and you'll see similar outline sketches. If this is too much to ask from you, I'll send you some more links. [[User:172|172]] 09:01, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
::I'm going to have a pretty high expectation from someone who claims to be a professional, reverts changes by others for being "emotional", and has a habit of telling people not to give the "Fox News version". I haven't read any book purporting to be a "general history of the US since 1980", I was comparing to US history in general. I don't think course syllabi from the net are authoritative; there are a lot of, shall we say, "less-abled" professors. WP can only be as good as its sources, so we need to rely on the leading authorities, not the assistant prof from Podunk U. [[User:Stan Shebs|Stan]] 14:12, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
That's why it's important to know what books are to used as authorities - I'll buy/checkout copies and compare content. [[User:Stan Shebs|Stan]] 06:25, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
:Thanks for the refs - LaFeber was already on my list, am visiting the library this weekend. I note that your Reagan-era books are from '''during''' his presidency, which isn't really adequate for perspective - has nobody written anything in the 15 years since? [[User:Stan Shebs|Stan]] 14:12, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
--------- --------- ==18 Feb 2004 [2]==
As long as somebody is sufficiently unsatisfied to put the notice up, it is simply dishonest to remove it without their agreement; you have to get positive agreement, not just declare that you think the arguments are without merit. :I simply stated that there were no arguments made against the current version of the article. Now that you have cited some in this posting, a justification for the neutrality dispute has been made. [[User:172|172]] 09:01, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I have asked repeatedly for you to add references to the scholarly works upon which the various claims are based, still haven't seen anything. :And I stated repeatedly that the endnotes would be inserted along with a new section outlining the historiography. However, I now finally have some concrete inquiries from you. I'll start you off with the following; ask if you want more. I also took the time to find you some free access articles online if you want quick (and free) overviews. [[User:172|172]] 09:01, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
The Sunbelt stuff is full of sweeping illogicalities; if the West is conservative, then how is it that California is not? I live in Nevada, and it's actually become '''more''' liberal in the past couple decades, because of people moving in from elsewhere - it's certainly not a solid base for the Repuglicans. :''Reread'' the section on the Sunbelt and the New Right. These exceptions are addressed. In other words, the increasingly Democratic voting patterns in California in more recent years are briefly mentioned later in the section. For a discussion of changing voting patterns in the Sunbelt in more recent years, see Paul Starr, "An Emerging Democratic Majority" in Stanley Greenberg and Theda Skocpol, eds., ''The New Majority'' (Yale University Press, 1997) for . Starr's article was adapted and reprinted in [http://www.prospect.org/print/V8/35/starr-p.html ''The American Prospect'' no. 35 (November-December 1997)]. On gentrification, the Sunbelt, and cities, see Daphn Spain (1992) "A Gentrification Research Agenda for the 1990s." ''Journal of Urban Affairs'' 14:125-134 for a good general overview. For the other side of the coin, see Douglas Glasgow's ''The Black Underclass'' (1980), which studies the plight of African Americans in the inner cities. For a more recent journal article see W.J. Wilson's "Studying Inner-City Social Dislocations: The Challenge of Public Agenda Research." ''American Sociological Review'' 56:1-14. Going back a generation, the political implications of the rise of the Sunbelt were heralded by Kirkpatrick Sale ''Power Shift'' (1975). More recently, you have Lisa McGirr ''Suburban Warriors: The Origins of the New American Right'' (2001) I found you a site with reviews and excepts from at the Princeton University Press website if you want to take a look: http://www.pupress.princeton.edu/titles/7031.html. For more on the rise of conservative sentiments in the late '70s early '80s, see ''The Politics of Social Policy in the United States'', eds Margaret Weir, Ann Shola Orloff and Theda Skocpol. For your convenience once again, here are [http://www.pupress.princeton.edu/titles/4196.html more reviews]. Abramson, Paul R., John H. Aldrich, and David W. Rohde. Change and Continuity in the 1980 Elections. Rev. ed. Washington, DC: CQ Press, 1983 comes to mind for the elections of 1980 as a major political realignment. [[User:172|172]] 09:01, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC) ::Heh, there's no lack of stupid stuff - but which of these are authoritative? As someone who was personally in the Democratic caucus last week that was so large that it had to move out onto the football field (got to shake Kerry's hand, my wife practically mauled him :-) ), I'll say that people who characterize Nevada as a conservative state don't know what they're talking about. Dem/Rep split in Nevada is very nearly 50/50, and if Bush hadn't come and told baldfaced lies about Yucca Mountain, Nevada would have gone Demo and Gore would be in the White House today. [[User:Stan Shebs|Stan]] 06:14, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC) :::They're all "authoritative." They may be writing from one of competing schools of thought or approaches, but if you can recognize this, it's no problem. I can give you more, but this should be enough to give you steer you in the direction of finding other works on the subject matter. BTW, Who's describing Nevada as solidly conservative? No one's denying that there aren't exceptions in "the Sunbelt." Nevada has Las Vegas and the gaming industry. Often forgotten, Democrats can be competitive in Montana as well, given the legacy of a strong union activity in the Western mining region of the state. [[User:172|172]] 07:18, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Supply-side economics is still being described as if "everybody knows" it's bad, but I'll bet it has lots of respected defenders today who would take exception to the description here; so it needs to be described neutrally, not negatively. :This shot seems to be coming from nowhere. Where is the article attacking supply-side economics? The debate is over whether to blame either tax cuts or runaway government spending for the deficit. However, this is merely a side note in an article that provides a very general overview. [[User:172|172]] 09:01, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC) Thomas Byrne Edsall's ''The Political Economy of Inequality'' and Sidney Weintraub and Marvin Goodstein, eds., ''Reaganomics in the Stagflation Economy'' (1983), discuss the Reagan administration's economic policies. George Gildner's ''Wealth and Poverty'' (1981), deals with the economic ideology of the Reagan revolution. See also Robert Heilbroner et al. ''The Debt and the Deficit'' (1989). On the presidency, Ronnie Dugger, ''On Reagan'' (1983), is a hostile account. Ackerman, Frank. Reaganomics: ''Rhetoric vs. Reality''. (1982) is another hostile account. Roland Evans and Robert Novak ''The Reagan Revolution'' (1981) is an admiring chronicle. Laurence I. Barrett, ''Gambling with History'' (1984) is another good source on Reagan in the White House. [[User:172|172]] 09:01, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
And of course there's the extreme irony of casual references to "rightwing military dictatorships in Latin America" by the same person who steadfastly resists characterizing certain socialist leaders ([[Josef Stalin]]) as dictators. I'm not quoting everything that I think is slanted, just an assortment, because once again I've wasted my WP editing time trying to convey the scope of the problem. :First, the next time I hear this bullshit about me being a Stalinist, I am taking it up to the mailing list. BTW, this paragraph was removed. To go on, LaFeber's ''Inevitable Revolutions'' (1983) is still the seminal work on the US in Central America. I found you a site citing reviews [http://www.usd.edu/~amorriso/lafeber.htm here]. The articles cited don't come with free access. Raymond Bonner's ''Weakness and Deceit: US Policy and El Salvador'' is also a leading work on this subject, though starting off with LaFeber would probably be best. [[User:172|172]] 09:01, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
::You said "Stalinist", not me, and the sentence "The Reagan administration supplied funds and weapons to rightwing military dictatorships in Latin America." is still there as I write, so that's a pretty definite use of the D-word, plus the sentence after that says "Somoza family dictatorship". I have no problem with the D-word, but it's certainly biased to accept it for the rightwingers and not the leftwingers. Maybe just a word, but given your energy to remove it from certain articles, I assume that you agree it's an important word. [[User:Stan Shebs|Stan]] 14:12, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC) ::::Just luck-of-the-draw about Stalin - Mugabe and Jong-il also came to mind, I chose randomly. [[User:Stan Shebs|Stan]] 06:14, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC) :::::I don't use the "D-word" ''arbitrarily''. But I am sorry about using the using it ''inconsistently''. However, the biases affecting my usage of "the D-word" go back to Max Weber, not Karl Marx. Let me elaborate. Going back to Weber's concept of "sultanism," comparativists point out regimes resting on patrimonial leadership, rather than rationalized modern bureaucracies with generalized norms and procedures. Consider the Somozas, the Trujillos, Saddam and his sons, Assad and his sons, Papa Doc and Baby Doc, Batista, Ceausescu, the Kims, Macros, Idi Amin, Iran under the Shah, and "Turkmenbashi." Since the defining feature of leadership here is low institutionalization, this concept is not applied to all authoritarian regimes. Among Communist regimes, I've only seen Romania and North Korea classified as personalistic. BTW, for the benchmark work on this concept, see Juan Linz and Alfred Stephan's ''Problems of Democratic Transition and Consolidation'' (1996). Similarly, Michael Bratton and Nicolas van de Walle use the concept of "neopatrimonialism" in their account, which is the most comprehensive work on the subject for Afica. To illustrate my point with an example, I would avoid the "D-word" vis-à-vis China today, while using it more loosely vis-à-vis the Somoza dynasty. Although this isn't the ideological bias that you made it out to be, your post clearly highlighted the confusion generated by the term's usage. Thanks for alterting me to this. I'll try to avoid it all together on Wiki. And sorry for the "massive verbiage." [[User:172|172]] 07:13, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC) I know that this article is not representative of professionally-written US history, because it's not at all like the books I've read - in fact most of this I remember reading in nakedly-biased and poorly-researched articles in leftie newspapers of the period. :Well, what do you expect for a general overview on the past twenty years of recent US history? And what books were those, BTW? For a general outline, however, it isn't at all unorthodox. Do a search for course syllabi on yahoo and google, for example, and you'll see similar outline sketches. If this is too much to ask from you, I'll send you some more links. [[User:172|172]] 09:01, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
::I'm going to have a pretty high expectation from someone who claims to be a professional, reverts changes by others for being "emotional", and has a habit of telling people not to give the "Fox News version". I haven't read any book purporting to be a "general history of the US since 1980", I was comparing to US history in general. :::I wasn't referring to solely covering 1980-present. Survey US history texts, however, will give you a brief overview in a single chapter. The more general the better. Keep in mind, e.g., that we're often trying to sum up in a single sentence what's being presented in any several of some of the sources that I provided. In effect, writing such a general overview is a process of summarizing and outlining. [[User:172|172]] 07:13, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC) I don't think course syllabi from the net are authoritative; there are a lot of, shall we say, "less-abled" professors. WP can only be as good as its sources, so we need to rely on the leading authorities, not the assistant prof from Podunk U. [[User:Stan Shebs|Stan]] 14:12, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC) :::You're still confusing my point. The point is to compare course syllabi. Perhaps I should've been more clear. Downloading about a dozen would enable you to compare the syllabi, giving you a good idea of what's widely published. Moreover, I wasn't saying that my standards are low for this article. The Stalin crack left me a bit irritated, so perhaps I was getting a bit snappy at the expense of clarity. Anyway, let me clarify my point. Given such restrictive space constraints, the article can merely provide an outline sketch of the Reagan years. It cannot be on par with the academic literature; the historiography merely helps you sort out what belongs in such a brief outline sketch.
That's why it's important to know what books are to used as authorities - I'll buy/checkout copies and compare content. [[User:Stan Shebs|Stan]] 06:25, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
:Thanks for the refs - LaFeber was already on my list, am visiting the library this weekend. I note that your Reagan-era books are from '''during''' his presidency, which isn't really adequate for perspective - has nobody written anything in the 15 years since? [[User:Stan Shebs|Stan]] 14:12, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC) ::Not all of them are from the eighties. Maybe I forgot to note which texts had new editions. I'll add some more recent stuff, but I'm running short of time now. [[User:172|172]] 02:08, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
---- [[User:172|172]], six weeks ago you agreed that it was POV to call rightwing regimes "dictatorships" but not their leftwing counterparts, and yet after all that time your only effort on this article has been to '''remove''' the NPOV dispute notice. Since I'm not the sort to revert other people's changes without prior discussion, I'll wait one day to see some changes in content before re-adding the dispute notice. [[User:Stan Shebs|Stan]] 21:01, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC) :Don't misrepresent me. I said that I tend to use the term more freely when referring to personalistic regimes, irrespective of whether they're dubbed "rightwing" or "leftwing" by some. If you have a problem with some of the diction in the article, change it. That'll work out better than expecting me to read your mind. [[User:172|172]] 10:25, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC) ::I'm not going to bother touching the text unless you promise to improve on my edit and not just revert the whole change without discussing it first. I'm simply '''not''' going to get into an edit war on content here, which means that if you revert me, my effort will have been completely wasted - there are 200K+ articles that I could have been working on instead. [[User:Stan Shebs|Stan]] 15:56, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC) :::You're getting really jumpy. Please, just calm down. This isn't a big deal. Make your changes, and I will compare the versions line by line. [[User:172|172]] 23:09, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC) ::::"Jumpy"? Not hardly - I'm leaning back in properly bad posture, full of Cherry Garcia and a little drowsy... So, does the "compare the versions line by line" amount to a promise that you will critique on the talk page first rather than mass-revert? You may not think reverting is a big deal, but let me clue you in - the people you revert really really hate it. [[User:Stan Shebs|Stan]] 05:04, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC) :::::If you insert something like "MUHA PINHEADS YOU ALL R WIERD U WIERDING WIERD WIERDOS," a winner that I found off the deletion log, you'll get reverted. Not having any idea about what you want to do, I cannot say how I'll react to your changes. Really, I don't know what you want for me as of this point. [[User:172|172]] 05:26, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Ya know, I've cleared out far more vandalism than you have, turned more junk stubs into useful articles, am #44 among the most active editors on WP as a whole, developed some of the standards by which other people write their articles, and despite all this activity, have been involved in maybe 2 or 3 edit wars at most; it says a lot about you, that you think there's even the remotest chance that I would vandalize this article. What I want is simple; a promise not to revert my entire edit without discussing it here first. Is that really so hard an undertaking? [[User:Stan Shebs|Stan]] 17:48, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC) :All a correlation implies causation fallacy! You seem to be suggesting that you're characteristically civil and reasonable, whereas I'm not, as evidenced by your observations that (a) you're a more active user than I am (b) but get into fewer edit wars. Ironically, such assertions ''really'' cause arguments to turn personal, accomplishing nothing while generating personal feuds on a daily basis on WP. While I try to brush off these lines of attack more often than not, this time I'll defend myself for the hell of it.
:Yes, I get into more edit wars. But the reason I'm more likely to get into edit wars has more to do with the particular articles on my watchlist, and my corresponding practices as a user, than personality, hasty reverts, a lack of civility, or wherever you're pointing fingers. Given my background, I focus on the history and politics articles, which spark the lion's share of edit wars. Although you work in these fields as well, consider your role in, say, the [[Stamps and postal history of New South Wales]] article (great job, BTW), and then juxtapose it with, say, the role of Slrubenstein, John Kenney, and me on [[Fascism]] for the past couple of weeks. The article on Fascism (a controversial and widely familiar topic), attracts trolls and partisans, extreme POV rants, and scores of arbitrary, poorly written, asinine edits for, say, several weeks running. But the page history of Stamps and postal history of New South Wales is - how should I put it? - very stable. And BTW, notice that I avoid edit wars when working on a relatively obscure subject on WP, say, [[Li Ruihuan]], rather than, say, [[Karl Marx]].
:Maintaining encyclopedic standards is an uphill battle when partisans enter the fold in [[Fascism]], [[Catholicism]], [[East Germany]], [[Red Scare]], etc. Since I grapple with this more often, I get into more edit wars. Consequently, you're completing many articles in the time that I spend struggling to ''remove'' a paragraph or two, a sentence or two, and even a word or two from a single article. But this is worthwhile, as these are the articles in my fields that generate the largest volume of hits.
:Also, I tend to spend a far smaller share of my time on WP proofreading articles for grammar, clarity, and style. Unlike me, you've made thousands of minor edits fixing grammatical and spelling errors. However, I'm simply not the best when it comes to proofreading content ''online''. I need stronger glasses, skim text too fast for my own good, and lack experience using computers. So, we're both doing different things on WP, and hence picking up different habits as users. [[User:172|172]] 09:08, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)
:All true, although as someone versed in the ways of politics it seems like it ought to be easy for you to negotiate with the people on the various sides, and to find out more about people before dissing them (for instance, in addition to insinuating vandalistic tendencies, you lumped Stan the big Democratic donor and convention delegate in with the Fox News crowd - oops!). Anyway, getting back to the point, I'm still waiting for a promise not to mass-revert without prior discussion. Without it, I won't edit, except to add the POV dispute notice back, which I'll do tomorrow if we've made no progress. [[User:Stan Shebs|Stan]] 15:10, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC) ::If you're enticing me to sign a contract before reading it (i.e. promise to get your permission before I make another change), you must think that I'm a real dupe! You've worked in some pretty damn competitive fields, so I'm probably no match to you. But I'm not that bad! Anyway, if you're worried about an ''arbitrary'' "mass-revert" (whatever that is), don't worry. Unless it's an accident, I don't make changes arbitrarily.
::BTW, if you want to know why you've been having trouble dealing with me, it's the result of attacking my credibility for months. Often, you do this before I have a scant idea about how you specifically want to change an article. This is read as a bullying tactic, i.e. an attempt to seize a rhetorical high ground. One can either fight back or give into bullying. ''Because'' I take you seriously, I'm often left having to respond to your attacks on my credibility rather than your concerns with content. I can dismiss the antics of trolls, vandals, and the "Fox News crowd," but it's harder to dismiss you. But I can work with you if I'm given specifics, facts, and sources instead, I can follow the rational give-and-take. [[User:172|172]] 10:56, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC) :::I just asked for discussion, not permission - as you say, it would be foolish to agree to something unseen in advance. I'd be more trusting except that I have seen you mass-revert good faith changes by other people without discussion. But I think you generally understand me, and that's good enough. [[User:Stan Shebs|Stan]] 14:07, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC) ::::Why do we keep going in circles with this? Just make your changes already. I have no idea what you're up to. [[User:172|172]] 23:27, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)
---- Bleah, first pass done, but what a pain - nothing like going through line-by-line to see the flaws. There is still a lot of redundant material - for instance 1980 election results are more accurately covered in [[U.S. presidential election, 1980]], and this article links to that one. The basic percentages and electoral numbers are more than enough. There is still some leftover junk from the subdivision process - 1991 is not between 1980 and 1988, and this article needs just a sentence to presage 1991 and link to the appropriate article. It's also sort of funny to have a history of the 1980s that doesn't mention the introduction of the IBM PC... one of the reasons to prune ruthlessly is so we can hear about the doings of more US citizens than just the one with the initials RR. [[User:Stan Shebs|Stan]] 05:18, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC) :Nice job. And that wasn't a big deal. In fact, you could've used the minor change feature. You're changes gave the article a much needed round of copyediting. [[User:172|172]] 23:07, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)
[[Talk:Cold War/temp]] Taken from:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Talk:Cold_War/temp&action=edi...
I added a couple example sentences that I think are plausible "lead sentences" for their respective sections. Also, as a way of forestalling partisan edits, I had the idea of addressing partisanship issues at the top, right after the normal lead content, and linking to a historiography article. I suspect a lot of people who have strong opinions on the Cold War don't know that all of the issues have already been debated intensely, many years ago in some cases, and so by putting historiography up close to the top we let them know that there is a body of scholarship that they ought to know about before scribbling on the article.
Another thing that I think we'll want to do is to address the distinction between objective facts (which tend not to be in dispute) and their presumed motives and causes, over which the historians call each other bad names. :-) A size limit of 20K or so will mean that the main article will have to stick mostly to facts and offer opinions on motivation less often, and the connected subarticles would then get the more in-depth analysis about cause and effect - they can also cite the more specialized books and literature for the benefit of the truly fascinated. [[User:Stan Shebs|Stan]] 04:46, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I like it and think it would be a great improvement. The one thing I do not like are the many purely date headings with some though I think most of them can be made into names like Détente or the [[Vietnam War]], or descriptions like "Interventions in the Third World" or "Renewed Tensions." A danger with articles like this is that they become nothing more than timelines and leave out the crucial links and interconnections between events. - [[User:SimonP|SimonP]] 05:17, Apr 15, 2004 (UTC)
I also think we should eventually have a great number of topical spin-offs. Both because they are important topics that would not be adequately covered in 4000 words, and because we have much of the content already written. e.g: *[[Historiography of the Cold War]] (your suggestion) *[[Space Race]] (already exists) *[[Cold War in the Third World]] (and perhaps [[Cold War in the Middle East]], [[Cold War in Latin America]], [[Cold War in South Asia]]) *[[Nuclear arms race]] (currently a poor redirect) *[[Intelligence services in the Cold War]] *[[American Cold War foreign policy]] -[[User:SimonP|SimonP]] 05:17, Apr 15, 2004 (UTC)
Right now, I lean in favor Stan's proposal. Organizing the article by region is a bad idea. I'm not aware of any survey text that does this either. I favor a roughly chronological organization, but with topics in the headings instead of dates. Below is my ''very rough'' (and unfinished) draft. [[User:172|172]] 10:42, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)
* Origins ** Britain and the expansion of Tsarist Russia ** The U.S., Russia, and the development of Manchuria ** The Bolshevik Revolution and Allied intervention ** The First Red Scare in the U.S. ** Soviet-U.S. trade in the interwar years ** The Munich Conference and the Non-Aggression Pact ** Wartime mistrust ** Atlantic Charter ** Yalta ** The end of the Great Depression and international trade ** Potsdam ** Germany ** Atomic control ** United Nations ** Postwar reconstruction in Central and Eastern Europe ** The Iranian and Turkish crises of 1946
* Kennan and Containment ** George Kennan, Kennan's 'long telegram', and the "X" article in ''Foreign Affairs'' ** The crisis in Greece ** The Truman Doctrine ** The Marshall Plan and the Molotov Plan
* Truman and NSC-68 ** Chinese Revolution ** The Soviet atomic bomb ** NSC-68 ** Korea ** McCarthyism
* Eishenhower-Dulles Cold War ** Rise of Khrushchev ** Eisenhower-Dulles "new look" ** Francis Gary Power's U2 mission and the Paris Summit ** Sputnik ** H-Bomb ** De-colonization ** Defense pacts in the Third World ** Covert action in the Third World ** Mossadegh ** The CIA in Latin America ** The Suez Crisis and rifts within the Western alliance ** Indochina (The Eisenhower administration, Dienbienphu, and the Geneva Conference)
*Cold War of Kennedy-Johnson **Bay of Pigs and the Cuban Missile Crisis **Gulf of Tonkin Resolution **Vietnam and "flexible response" **Vietnam War...
* Rise and fall of Détente ** Threats within both blocs ** Oil shock of 1973 ** Vietnam spending and "Vietnamization" ** Arms control ** Islamic Revolution ** Afghanistan
* End of the Cold War ** Reagan administration ** "Low intensity conflicts" ** Summits ** Perestrokia and Eastern Europe ** Collapse of the USSR ** Legacies
Cool, I'll merge all these in later today or tomorrow and we can see what it looks like then. A great many of these subjects have their own articles already, although they are, uh, "variable" :-) in their depth and quality... [[User:Stan Shebs|Stan]] 17:26, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC) :Great! Our goals seem to be one-in-the-same. But perhaps we need a little more time before we start merging things. I sketched the above outline pretty hastily, so we'll probably need to play around with the arrangements a bit. Also, just to make sure, we're creating a NI-style series with daughter articles, right? If that's the case, the existing content in the series, for the most part, runs parallel to the above outline. So writing the summary on the main page will require the most work. [[User:172|172]] 18:10, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC) ::BTW, I'm making some changes the outline draft above in this posting. [[User:172|172]] 18:41, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I've now merged the bits, tinkered with some section titles. Still need to get in list of 3rd world involvements by name. Interesting that some of the key terms apparently have no article... [[User:Stan Shebs|Stan]] 06:09, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Jonah speaking, I don't know where a McCarthyism link fits in to your template, but I noticed it wasn't in the current Cold War section either. I guess someone was bound to bring it up eventually, but I'm just giving my two cents. 04 May 2004
==Kingturtle, Stan, 172 (moved here from Talk:Cold War (1947-1953) and its origins)==
This article is called ''Cold War (1947-1953) and its origins''. But the first 3/4s of the article deal with events before 1947. I think this article should be split up into ''Cold War origins'' and ''Cold War (1947-1953)''. I am going to take this bold step Friday night if no one objects. [[User:Kingturtle|Kingturtle]] 03:15, 7 May 2004 (UTC) :I agree. Stan and I are working on a possible reorganization. I'm still drafting my proposals on MS Word at home. My idea is the following split: Origins of the Cold War (to 1941), Origins of the Cold War (1941-1947), Cold War (1947-1953), Cold War (1953-1957), Cold War (1957-1962), Cold War (1962-1973), and Cold War (since 1973). Before this is done, we need to expand on some aspects of the current content.
:And this article - [[Cold War (1947-1953) and its origins]] - is hardest to split out of the three articles that exist right now. The three articles that I'm proposing (Origins of the Cold War (to 1941), Origins of the Cold War (1941-1947), Cold War (1947-1953)) will need to expand a great deal on content already posted here.
:I'd favor different organization as opposed to the one in place right now. For example, here's my idea for the organization of the to 1941 origins article: *Origins of the Cold War (to 1941) **Tsarist Russia and the 'New' Imperialism (to the 1890s) **Manchuria **The Russo-Japanese War and the West **Wartime alliance **Allied intervention in the Russian Civil War **The First Red Scare **"Socialism in One Country" **U.S. recognition of the Soviet Union (1933) **The Munich Pact and the Non-Aggression Pact
:For the next article in the series...
*Origins of the Cold War (1941-1947) **Lend-lease payments and the second front **The Atlantic Conference **Breton Woods **Yalta **Potsdam **Hiroshima and Nagasaki **The Iran Crisis **Germany and the Oder-Neisse boundary *Reparations payments and the Berlin blockade **Greece **Domestic pressures on Soviet foreign policy **Domestic pressures on U.S. foreign policy **The Truman Doctrine, the National Security Act, and the proposal of the Marshall Plan
Just to reassure you, this is all very tentative. I appreciate advice while I'm drafting my proposals. [[User:172|172]] 06:00, 7 May 2004 (UTC) *Ok, glad to hear this is already in the works. I won't make any bold moves. And I am happy to help figure things out. [[User:Kingturtle|Kingturtle]] 06:04, 7 May 2004 (UTC)
*Not to be too negative, but we '''really''' don't want to do series - a series is just chapters in a book, and here we're supposed to be doing articles, not book chapters. So for instance to pick on the 1941-1947 segment, there are thirteen topics. In a single-article design, each will get 1-2 sentences saying what it was and how it connects to the others. All in-depth stuff would go to the topics, for instance [[Yalta Conference]], which at present seems OK in terms of basic facts, but is sorely lacking the explanation of why anybody might think it was the beginning of the Cold War. Yalta's significance ''could'' be put in the main Cold War article, but that's how the main narrative becomes bloated. It also does the reader a disservice when they link to [[Yalta Conference]] from somewhere else, then can't learn about its significance without trudging through a long narrative about other things. To make the single-article goal, we have to be very disciplined. [[User:Stan Shebs|Stan]] 00:57, 8 May 2004 (UTC)
::We have to have place for weaving it all together in contexts that can be more specified than in a single article/summary page. Everything that I'm outlining could be a daughter article of an executive summary page, like on [[New Imperialism]]. Just to reassure you, I'm certain that the vast majority of the content in all the articles I'm proposing will come from the three existing articles.
::BTW, perhaps you're misunderstanding what I'm proposing in those outlines. I'm including, say "Yalta" and "Potsdam" in the headings, but the way everything's organized makes it a more or less chronological arrangement; really you can read the subheadings as milestones acting as stand-ins signifying place and time. Thus, we wouldn't be ''just'' giving an overview of Yalta under the "Yalta" heading - to use this as an example again - in the text of the daughter article I'm proposing, but rather staying focused on developments in the spring of '45 and how they relate to the course of the emerging Cold War. [[User:172|172]] 02:11, 8 May 2004 (UTC)
:::I think we have a misunderstanding here. My goal is to have a single 20K article that covers everything. An article entitled "Cold War (1947-1953)" is completely wrong for an encyclopedia, whether as an "article in a series" or as a "daughter article". The point is not to write more and more into a single narrative, but to be succinct. The "weaving it all together" happens in the single main article. Specific events have text that connects back to the main article and to related events - that's how most of Wikipedia is written, there's no reason for this to be different. I want to be clear on this, because it seems like you generally have the urge to write single long narratives, to the point of duplicating material that is already present in existing articles. My whole point here is '''not''' to do the ever-expanding narrative; the single main article should be complete at 20K, and further expansion will occur in topical articles like [[Yalta Conference]], not in "Cold War (15 April 1950 - 23 May 1950)". [[User:Stan Shebs|Stan]] 05:30, 8 May 2004 (UTC) ::::Well, these articles don't even exist yet, and we might as well agree to disagree until then. I'll help you out with the 20K summary page, but there's no harm having additional daughter articles, which will be able to draw the vast majority of their content from the existing pages. [[User:172|172]] 11:41, 8 May 2004 (UTC)
== End of participation ==
I'm no longer going to work on this, it's going to be way too frustrating. Use, delete, whatever. [[User:Stan Shebs|Stan]] 16:47, 19 May 2004 (UTC) :Okay, I'm not going to delete it - you had a number of good ideas that I'd like to adopt at some point. I hope that this isn't an overreaction to one disagreement on Vietnam War. I think that you are being a bit cranky about that article, but that doesn't taint my opinion of your contributions to other articles, the vast majority of which are supurb, IMHO. [[User:172|172]] 16:54, 19 May 2004 (UTC) ::This is an overall reaction to all your reverting and arguing on various articles; just looking at it makes me want to quit working on WP altogether, so I'm cutting loose instead, will spend time in areas where I find the people more enjoyable to work with. [[User:Stan Shebs|Stan]] 17:32, 21 May 2004 (UTC) :::Do you have disagreements of substance with any of my recent changes to other articles, aside from Vietnam War? Or are you just coming here to mouth off and insult me? [[User:172|172]] 17:43, 21 May 2004 (UTC) ::::I have a whole host of disagreements with your edits, but it would give me an ulcer to deal with all of them, and WP doesn't pay me enough for that. Your reference to "insult" here is a perfect example; I just gave you the straight facts about how I felt, anything else is in your own mind. [[User:Stan Shebs|Stan]] 12:11, 22 May 2004 (UTC) :::::I have a whole host of disagreements with your edits as well, but you don't see me taking it personally and negative character judgments against you. Lighten up. [[User:172|172]] 21:49, 22 May 2004 (UTC) ::::::Now that we have that [[Vietnam War]] disagreement behind us, do you want to start work on this article again? [[User:172|172]] 04:46, 24 May 2004 (UTC)
_________________________________________________________________ MSN Toolbar provides one-click access to Hotmail from any Web page FREE download! http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200413ave/direct/01/