On 5/17/07, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
On Wed, 16 May 2007, Charlotte Webb wrote:
Charlotte, in my view you'd be wrong. Paderewski was hugely and internationally famous as a pianist, whereas his fame as a Prime Minister of Poland is largely limited to Poland ...
'''Ronald Wilson Reagan''' ...
The United States is bigger and much more important in international politics than Poland, and being president of it is much more notable. President of the US and Prime Minister of Poland just don't produce equal amounts of fame.
If you look at the article for Grace Kelly, being an academy award winning actress is mentioned before being princess of Monaco.
Right on. After all, size is all that matters, and only the last few hundred years of history have any meaning.
KP
On Fri, 18 May 2007, K P wrote:
Charlotte, in my view you'd be wrong. Paderewski was hugely and internationally famous as a pianist, whereas his fame as a Prime Minister of Poland is largely limited to Poland ...
'''Ronald Wilson Reagan''' ...
The United States is bigger and much more important in international politics than Poland, and being president of it is much more notable. President of the US and Prime Minister of Poland just don't produce equal amounts of fame.
If you look at the article for Grace Kelly, being an academy award winning actress is mentioned before being princess of Monaco.
Right on. After all, size is all that matters,
Size isn't all that matters, but it's one thing that matters. (Or more precisely, importance, which is often related to size.)
and only the last few hundred years of history have any meaning.
I believe that Paderewski was a pianist and a Prime Minister during the same historical time period. The same for Grace Kelly being an actress and princess of Monaco.
On 5/19/07, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
On Fri, 18 May 2007, K P wrote:
Charlotte, in my view you'd be wrong. Paderewski was hugely and internationally famous as a pianist, whereas his fame as a Prime Minister of Poland is largely limited to Poland ...
'''Ronald Wilson Reagan''' ...
The United States is bigger and much more important in international politics than Poland, and being president of it is much more
notable. President of
the US and Prime Minister of Poland just don't produce equal amounts
of
fame.
If you look at the article for Grace Kelly, being an academy award
winning
actress is mentioned before being princess of Monaco.
Right on. After all, size is all that matters,
Size isn't all that matters, but it's one thing that matters. (Or more precisely, importance, which is often related to size.)
and only the last few hundred years of history have any meaning.
I believe that Paderewski was a pianist and a Prime Minister during the same historical time period. The same for Grace Kelly being an actress and princess of Monaco.
I know a little bit about grammar and sometimes putting something at the end of a sentence is supposed to draw attention to it, so mentioning something first doesn't neccesarily mean it's more important. I don't deny the US is important in world politics today, but that fails to take into account anything that happened before the US even existed or any nationally important stuff from other countries. Their influence doesn't matter. All countries are notable and should be treated equally independantly of size or influence.
Mgm
On 19/05/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/19/07, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
I know a little bit about grammar and sometimes putting something at the end of a sentence is supposed to draw attention to it, so mentioning something first doesn't neccesarily mean it's more important. I don't deny the US is important in world politics today, but that fails to take into account anything that happened before the US even existed or any nationally important stuff from other countries. Their influence doesn't matter. All countries are notable and should be treated equally independantly of size or influence.
Which is why [[Georgia]] is a disambig, not the country - because of a straw poll where, for the most part, Americans voted "disambig" and non-Americans voted "country".
- d.
On 19/05/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 19/05/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/19/07, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
I know a little bit about grammar and sometimes putting something at the end of a sentence is supposed to draw attention to it, so mentioning something first doesn't neccesarily mean it's more important. I don't deny the US is important in world politics today, but that fails to take into account anything that happened before the US even existed or any nationally important stuff from other countries. Their influence doesn't matter. All countries are notable and should be treated equally independantly of size or influence.
Which is why [[Georgia]] is a disambig, not the country - because of a straw poll where, for the most part, Americans voted "disambig" and non-Americans voted "country".
The last one I found was in favour of "country", but was closed as "no consensus".
On 5/19/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
The last one I found was in favour of "country", but was closed as "no consensus".
If I'm correct in guessing that "in favor of" means "strict majority, but not supermajority or anywhere near rough consensus", closing as "no consensus" probably makes the most sense.
-Matt
On 5/19/07, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
If I'm correct in guessing that "in favor of" means "strict majority, but not supermajority or anywhere near rough consensus", closing as "no consensus" probably makes the most sense.
Though I'd note that Americans are not pressuring the country to change its name, refusing to recognise it, or trying to make everyone refer to it as something like "FSROG" ...
(let's combine our flamewars for maximum effect!)
-Matt
On 19/05/07, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/19/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
The last one I found was in favour of "country", but was closed as "no consensus".
If I'm correct in guessing that "in favor of" means "strict majority, but not supermajority or anywhere near rough consensus", closing as "no consensus" probably makes the most sense.
All the more reason to have a bizarre status quo...
On Sat, 19 May 2007, David Gerard wrote:
Which is why [[Georgia]] is a disambig, not the country - because of a straw poll where, for the most part, Americans voted "disambig" and non-Americans voted "country".
Georgia is a disambig and not a country because the state is larger than the country and many more people looking for information about Georgia want the state than want the country.
On 20/05/07, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
On Sat, 19 May 2007, David Gerard wrote:
Which is why [[Georgia]] is a disambig, not the country - because of a straw poll where, for the most part, Americans voted "disambig" and non-Americans voted "country".
Georgia is a disambig and not a country because the state is larger than the country and many more people looking for information about Georgia want the state than want the country.
Which is an argument for [[Georgia]] being the state with a disambig template at the top...
On Sun, 20 May 2007, James Farrar wrote:
Which is why [[Georgia]] is a disambig, not the country - because of a straw poll where, for the most part, Americans voted "disambig" and non-Americans voted "country".
Georgia is a disambig and not a country because the state is larger than the country and many more people looking for information about Georgia want the state than want the country.
Which is an argument for [[Georgia]] being the state with a disambig template at the top...
Yes, so think of the disambig as a compromise.
On 5/20/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
On 20/05/07, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
Georgia is a disambig and not a country because the state is larger than the country and many more people looking for information about Georgia want the state than want the country.
Which is an argument for [[Georgia]] being the state with a disambig template at the top...
Watch out for that argument - I'm sure at one point most people looking for [[Socrates]] were looking for [[Sócrates]] the Brazilian footballer rather than Socrates the ancient Greek philosopher.
Was going to make a point about [[Teresa May]] and [[Theresa May]] but they have one letter different.
On 5/20/07, Sam Blacketer sam.blacketer@googlemail.com wrote:
Watch out for that argument - I'm sure at one point most people looking for [[Socrates]] were looking for [[Sócrates]] the Brazilian footballer rather than Socrates the ancient Greek philosopher.
I doubt it, he's not American.
On 5/21/07, Christopher Hagar cmhagar@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/20/07, Sam Blacketer sam.blacketer@googlemail.com wrote:
Watch out for that argument - I'm sure at one point most people looking for [[Socrates]] were looking for [[Sócrates]] the Brazilian footballer rather than Socrates the ancient Greek philosopher.
I doubt it, he's not American.
When did Brazil stop being part of the Americas?
On 5/20/07, Philip Sandifer snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
On May 20, 2007, at 12:20 PM, Ken Arromdee wrote:
many more people looking for information about Georgia want the state than want the country.
{{fact}}
Based on way more inward links to [[Georgia]] wanting the state than the country. Based on the population, GDP, and every other measure you care to name putting Georgia-the-state over Georgia-the-country.
There's also the facts that (a) Georgia-the-state is significantly older than Georgia-the-country, and (b) Georgia-the-country isn't even named that in the country's official language.
The fact is that here we have two things named the same, both of which are fairly well known. That's what disambiguation pages are for.
-Matt
On 5/20/07, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/20/07, Philip Sandifer snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
On May 20, 2007, at 12:20 PM, Ken Arromdee wrote:
many more people looking for information about Georgia want the state than want the country.
{{fact}}
Based on way more inward links to [[Georgia]] wanting the state than the country. Based on the population, GDP, and every other measure you care to name putting Georgia-the-state over Georgia-the-country.
There's also the facts that (a) Georgia-the-state is significantly older than Georgia-the-country, and (b) Georgia-the-country isn't even named that in the country's official language.
The fact is that here we have two things named the same, both of which are fairly well known. That's what disambiguation pages are for.
-Matt
"(a) Georgia-the-state is significantly older than Georgia-the-country,"
I'm awestruck. Awestruck.
KP
"(a) Georgia-the-state is significantly older than Georgia-the-country,"
I'm awestruck. Awestruck.
Technically speaking, modern Georgia has only existed since the fall of the Soviet Union (or there abouts), which is presumably what Matt was referring to. The article does, however, include plenty of information about pre-Soviet Georgia, so that argument doesn't really hold water. Were the article specifically about modern Georgia, he would have a point.
The state is bigger in terms of population and economy, although (according to Wikipedia) it is slightly smaller in terms of area, which I would consider a "measure [I] care to name".
I really don't think there is a better solution than to have a disambig page. There are two major meanings to the word, so we list them and let the reader choose. It works.
On 5/21/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Technically speaking, modern Georgia has only existed since the fall of the Soviet Union (or there abouts), which is presumably what Matt was referring to.
Indeed.
The article does, however, include plenty of information about pre-Soviet Georgia, so that argument doesn't really hold water. Were the article specifically about modern Georgia, he would have a point.
My point, though, is not to say 'Georgia-the-state is much more important, of course it should have the un-disambiguated title', but rather that the position that Georgia-the-country, because it has been for sixteen years an independent state, should AUTOMATICALLY have primacy is ludicrous.
The state is bigger in terms of population and economy, although (according to Wikipedia) it is slightly smaller in terms of area, which I would consider a "measure [I] care to name".
My mistake; I'm remembering this from the last time this got argued on this list, and my memory clearly was wrong here.
I really don't think there is a better solution than to have a disambig page. There are two major meanings to the word, so we list them and let the reader choose. It works.
Exactly.
It irritates me that this issue is trotted out as an example of 'US-centric Wikipedia' every single time, when it's only a simple case on the surface and relies on a knee-jerk reaction for its popularity.
The reasoning behind complaining about this assumes that Wikipedia naming and disambiguation should rely on a rigid taxonomy of importance in which nation-states have automatic primacy over the constituent states of a federation. This creates the simplistic cry of 'These damn Americans think that a mere internal division of the US is more important than a EUROPEAN NATION STATE! How dare they?'.
Personally, I don't think that the US State of Georgia should have primacy either, and I would oppose any attempt to make the US state occupy the [[Georgia]] title just as strongly as I would oppose any attempt to make the country occupy it.
The current status quo ([[Georgia]] being a disambiguation page) is an outrage only if one accepts the rule that nation states should automatically have primacy.
-Matt
G'day Matt,
<snip/>
My point, though, is not to say 'Georgia-the-state is much more important, of course it should have the un-disambiguated title', but rather that the position that Georgia-the-country, because it has been for sixteen years an independent state, should AUTOMATICALLY have primacy is ludicrous.
"This is ludicrous" is the mailing list (née USENET) way of saying "I disagree with this".
<snip/>
It irritates me that this issue is trotted out as an example of 'US-centric Wikipedia' every single time, when it's only a simple case on the surface and relies on a knee-jerk reaction for its popularity.
Suppose Federation had occured slightly earlier, such that Queensland (which we'll be calling "Germany" for this experiment) had existed as an Australian State for longer than Germany has as Germany. How many Australians would be demanding that Germany the country should not be at [[Germany]], because a disambig (at least) or even the state belongs there?
<snip/>
On 5/21/07, Mark Gallagher m.g.gallagher@student.canberra.edu.au wrote:
"This is ludicrous" is the mailing list (née USENET) way of saying "I disagree with this".
Thank you for catching me at the same level of hyperbole as I'm ticked at in others! ;)
Suppose Federation had occured slightly earlier, such that Queensland (which we'll be calling "Germany" for this experiment) had existed as an Australian State for longer than Germany has as Germany. How many Australians would be demanding that Germany the country should not be at [[Germany]], because a disambig (at least) or even the state belongs there?
Quite a few, no doubt. Of course, the situations aren't quite the same in your experiment; the English-language mindshare of the nation vs. the state would be quite substantially different. Even in America. Even if Germany was an American state instead of Australian in this thought experiment.
-Matt
Mark Gallagher wrote:
G'day Matt,
It irritates me that this issue is trotted out as an example of 'US-centric Wikipedia' every single time, when it's only a simple case on the surface and relies on a knee-jerk reaction for its popularity.
Suppose Federation had occured slightly earlier, such that Queensland (which we'll be calling "Germany" for this experiment) had existed as an Australian State for longer than Germany has as Germany. How many Australians would be demanding that Germany the country should not be at [[Germany]], because a disambig (at least) or even the state belongs there?
Sounds like the kind of chauvinistic demands that the Greeks put on Macedonia.
Ec
On 5/22/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Sounds like the kind of chauvinistic demands that the Greeks put on Macedonia.
Similar only in that it involves two places using the same name, and some degree of nationalistic pride no doubt.
However, the Wikipedia Georgia vs. Georgia squabble differs quite substantially from the Macedonia vs. Macedonia one. For one thing, I've never heard anyone claim that either should not be named Georgia. They did not arrive at their names through a common source, either; the state after a British king, while the nation and former SSR seems to have acquired the name through a mangling of a Greek name for part of its territory into English, according to the Wikipedia article.
Another factor seems to be that few taking sides or weighing in on this, in all the half-dozen at least times that I've seen this argument come up, are actually residents of either geographical entity. I am not a Georgian in either sense, being a British citizen living in the United States, and I don't think many of the others who've ever argued about this have been either.
It's in the end a disagreement about the natural ordering of things in an encyclopedia context, and does not involve national pride for many participants - although it's arguable that regional bias or simply an wherever-centric point of view are in play as well.
-Matt
K P wrote:
On 5/20/07, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
<snip>
"(a) Georgia-the-state is significantly older than Georgia-the-country,"
I'm awestruck. Awestruck.
KP
I'm thinking "stunned" is more accurate for myself. -kc-
Puppy wrote:
K P wrote:
On 5/20/07, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
<snip>
"(a) Georgia-the-state is significantly older than Georgia-the-country,"
I'm awestruck. Awestruck.
KP
I'm thinking "stunned" is more accurate for myself.
Very few are willing to admit that they have joined such a large fraternity.
Ec
On 5/21/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
"(a) Georgia-the-state is significantly older than Georgia-the-country,"
I'm awestruck. Awestruck.
Read the article and find out, KP. It should be obvious from context that I do not mean that the land has been unoccupied or that there is no history there. It is, however, the case that the modern independent state has only existed since the division of the Soviet Union. Prior to that, it was an administrative division of the USSR with similar status to the state of Georgia within the United States; approximately the same area was briefly independent 1918-1921 after the collapse of the Russian Empire.
Thus, prior to 1991, the area was (except for three years) a division of a larger nation during the previous 250 years or so, and thus of similar status to the Georgia in the US.
-Matt
On 5/21/07, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/21/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
"(a) Georgia-the-state is significantly older than Georgia-the-country,"
I'm awestruck. Awestruck.
Read the article and find out, KP. It should be obvious from context that I do not mean that the land has been unoccupied or that there is no history there. It is, however, the case that the modern independent state has only existed since the division of the Soviet Union. Prior to that, it was an administrative division of the USSR with similar status to the state of Georgia within the United States; approximately the same area was briefly independent 1918-1921 after the collapse of the Russian Empire.
Thus, prior to 1991, the area was (except for three years) a division of a larger nation during the previous 250 years or so, and thus of similar status to the Georgia in the US.
-Matt
This doesn't really make me any less awestruck, as, again, it's all about political identity from a Western, and primarily an American, cultural perspective. Soviet Georgia didn't have similar status in the USSR to the state of Georgia within the US, by the way, as the Soviet government under communism was a very different government from that of the USA during the same years.
Poland has only been a state for a brief amount of time, but few people would argue against its longevity and importance.
There is nothing wrong with heirarchies, putting nations above states in order of importance, as the latter are simply parts of the former. The simplest solution is to make the primary the disambiguation page.
KP
On 5/21/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
This doesn't really make me any less awestruck, as, again, it's all about political identity from a Western, and primarily an American, cultural perspective.
Note that I am not an American.
Soviet Georgia didn't have similar status in the USSR to the state of Georgia within the US, by the way, as the Soviet government under communism was a very different government from that of the USA during the same years.
In terms of the kind of rough status implicit in any idea of natural hierarchy (which you appear to support), they were both subdivisions of a larger state, with some internal autonomy but no ability to act as a nation in international affairs. In detail, of course, both situations were very different, based on the character of the two nations and their political structure.
There is nothing wrong with heirarchies, putting nations above states in order of importance, as the latter are simply parts of the former.
I disagree when it comes to Wikipedia disambiguation between two well-known entities.
The simplest solution is to make the primary the disambiguation page.
I'm not sure what you mean by this sentence; I can parse it to mean any of several different solutions. My apologies for the misunderstanding.
When it comes to writing for our readers, the correct solution where there are two well-known claimants to the same name is to make the bare name a disambiguation between them. There's no overwhelmingly right choice that most of our readers will be looking for.
For our writers, making the plain name a disambiguation is the best service in this kind of case as well. If someone links to [[Georgia]], they could mean either the nation or the state. Since no mainspace page should link to the disambiguation save the disambiguated pages themselves, this automatically marks them as needing human intervention to disambiguate the link. If one of the alternatives is at the bare name, some of the internal links will be correct, some incorrect, and there is no sure way to tell them apart.
And from the point of which of the three choices will cause the least disruption, it is likely to be equal disambiguation. Putting one above the other in a case like this is, I suspect, likely to cause a greater degree of anger among the "wronged" and cause more internal strife than does the low-level discord created by equal disambiguation.
-Matt
On 20/05/07, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
On Sat, 19 May 2007, David Gerard wrote:
Which is why [[Georgia]] is a disambig, not the country - because of a straw poll where, for the most part, Americans voted "disambig" and non-Americans voted "country".
Georgia is a disambig and not a country because the state is larger than the country and many more people looking for information about Georgia want the state than want the country.
Most inward links to [[Cork]] were for the city in Ireland, yet people overruled the status quo and moved the city to a separate article having [[Cork]] as disambig (the city article had a disambig header).
Zoney
On 5/21/07, Zoney zoney.ie@gmail.com wrote:
Most inward links to [[Cork]] were for the city in Ireland, yet people overruled the status quo and moved the city to a separate article having [[Cork]] as disambig (the city article had a disambig header).
Zoney
You are forgetting the second element of page rank. The context of the links. How many of those incomeing links come from articles of significance (ie articles that have lots of links to them) and how important are those links within the article (harder to come up with an automatic check for this although there a few ways a start could be made).
On 21/05/07, Zoney zoney.ie@gmail.com wrote:
On 20/05/07, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
On Sat, 19 May 2007, David Gerard wrote:
Which is why [[Georgia]] is a disambig, not the country - because of a straw poll where, for the most part, Americans voted "disambig" and non-Americans voted "country".
Georgia is a disambig and not a country because the state is larger than the country and many more people looking for information about Georgia want the state than want the country.
Most inward links to [[Cork]] were for the city in Ireland, yet people overruled the status quo and moved the city to a separate article having [[Cork]] as disambig (the city article had a disambig header).
Inbound links is a less relevant measure here, With Georgia/Georgia you're at least comparing like for like - people will add a wikilink most times they use a place, so you'd expect wikilink numbers to be a rough proxy for usage.
[That said, a caveat - [[Georgia (country)]] is a more obvious disambig than [[Georgia (U.S. state)]] - it could be (state) or (US) or (USA) or (U.S.A.) or... etc - so you'd expect a slightly higher proportion of links relating to the latter to just go to the disambig and hope for the best. Probably lost in the noise, though]
However, with Cork, you're comparing at least three different things (place, object, material), and whilst we invariably link to places when mentioned in the text, we link to common objects far less...
On 5/21/07, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
Georgia is a disambig and not a country because the state is larger than the country and many more people looking for information about Georgia want the state than want the country.
I'm not at all sure we consistently apply the rationale of whatever people are most looking for is what we serve.
Steve
MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
On 5/19/07, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
On Fri, 18 May 2007, K P wrote:
Charlotte, in my view you'd be wrong. Paderewski was hugely and internationally famous as a pianist, whereas his fame as a Prime Minister of Poland is largely limited to Poland ...
'''Ronald Wilson Reagan''' ...
The United States is bigger and much more important in international politics than Poland, and being president of it is much more notable. President of
the US and Prime Minister of Poland just don't produce equal amounts of fame.
If you look at the article for Grace Kelly, being an academy award winning
actress is mentioned before being princess of Monaco.
Right on. After all, size is all that matters,
Size isn't all that matters, but it's one thing that matters. (Or more precisely, importance, which is often related to size.)
and only the last few hundred years of history have any meaning.
I believe that Paderewski was a pianist and a Prime Minister during the same historical time period. The same for Grace Kelly being an actress and princess of Monaco.
I know a little bit about grammar and sometimes putting something at the end of a sentence is supposed to draw attention to it, so mentioning something first doesn't neccesarily mean it's more important. I don't deny the US is important in world politics today, but that fails to take into account anything that happened before the US even existed or any nationally important stuff from other countries. Their influence doesn't matter. All countries are notable and should be treated equally independantly of size or influence.
It's difficult for me to resist someone's fatuous comments about the last few hundred years of history. Perhaps he has never heard that those who ignore the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them. The lessons have been there for a long time as evidenced by the [[Classic of History]]. Over the years others too havemade keen observations about issues, and it is amazing how much influence Aristotle and Plato still retain over modern political thought. Perhaps the less said about the role of the US in today's world the better. It suffices to say that there is a sharp contrast between such attitudes within and without the United States about the importance of the United States. Most experienced Wikipedians from both camps are acutely aware of the distinction, and are willing to moderate their views in the intrest of NPOV.
Ec
Part of the issue is a tendency to consider recent things more important in general, not directly linked to American importance. Although, nuclear weapons and worldwide military power and communication do skew traditional notions of importance. The United States is, after all, more important to the Chinese than the Roman Empire ever was.
On 5/19/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
On 5/19/07, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
On Fri, 18 May 2007, K P wrote:
>Charlotte, in my view you'd be wrong. Paderewski was hugely and >internationally famous as a pianist, whereas his fame as a Prime >Minister of Poland is largely limited to Poland ... > > '''Ronald Wilson Reagan''' ...
The United States is bigger and much more important in international politics than Poland, and being president of it is much more
notable. President of
the US and Prime Minister of Poland just don't produce equal amounts
of fame.
If you look at the article for Grace Kelly, being an academy award
winning
actress is mentioned before being princess of Monaco.
Right on. After all, size is all that matters,
Size isn't all that matters, but it's one thing that matters. (Or more precisely, importance, which is often related to size.)
and only the last few hundred years of history have any meaning.
I believe that Paderewski was a pianist and a Prime Minister during the same historical time period. The same for Grace Kelly being an actress
and
princess of Monaco.
I know a little bit about grammar and sometimes putting something at the
end
of a sentence is supposed to draw attention to it, so mentioning
something
first doesn't neccesarily mean it's more important. I don't deny the US
is
important in world politics today, but that fails to take into account anything that happened before the US even existed or any nationally important stuff from other countries. Their influence doesn't matter. All countries are notable and should be treated equally independantly of size
or
influence.
It's difficult for me to resist someone's fatuous comments about the last few hundred years of history. Perhaps he has never heard that those who ignore the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them. The lessons have been there for a long time as evidenced by the [[Classic of History]]. Over the years others too havemade keen observations about issues, and it is amazing how much influence Aristotle and Plato still retain over modern political thought. Perhaps the less said about the role of the US in today's world the better. It suffices to say that there is a sharp contrast between such attitudes within and without the United States about the importance of the United States. Most experienced Wikipedians from both camps are acutely aware of the distinction, and are willing to moderate their views in the intrest of NPOV.
Ec
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Oh for God's sake. Nazis are more important than America.
There. The thread is now Godwinned. Go home.
-Phil
On May 20, 2007, at 12:42 AM, Christopher Hagar wrote:
Part of the issue is a tendency to consider recent things more important in general, not directly linked to American importance. Although, nuclear weapons and worldwide military power and communication do skew traditional notions of importance. The United States is, after all, more important to the Chinese than the Roman Empire ever was.
On 5/19/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
On 5/19/07, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
On Fri, 18 May 2007, K P wrote:
>> Charlotte, in my view you'd be wrong. Paderewski was hugely >> and >> internationally famous as a pianist, whereas his fame as a >> Prime >> Minister of Poland is largely limited to Poland ... >> >> > '''Ronald Wilson Reagan''' ... > > The United States is bigger and much more important in international politics than Poland, and being president of it is much more
notable. President of
the US and Prime Minister of Poland just don't produce equal amounts
of fame.
If you look at the article for Grace Kelly, being an academy award
winning
actress is mentioned before being princess of Monaco.
Right on. After all, size is all that matters,
Size isn't all that matters, but it's one thing that matters. (Or more precisely, importance, which is often related to size.)
and only the last few hundred years of history have any meaning.
I believe that Paderewski was a pianist and a Prime Minister during the same historical time period. The same for Grace Kelly being an actress
and
princess of Monaco.
I know a little bit about grammar and sometimes putting something at the
end
of a sentence is supposed to draw attention to it, so mentioning
something
first doesn't neccesarily mean it's more important. I don't deny the US
is
important in world politics today, but that fails to take into account anything that happened before the US even existed or any nationally important stuff from other countries. Their influence doesn't matter. All countries are notable and should be treated equally independantly of size
or
influence.
It's difficult for me to resist someone's fatuous comments about the last few hundred years of history. Perhaps he has never heard that those who ignore the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them. The lessons have been there for a long time as evidenced by the [[Classic of History]]. Over the years others too havemade keen observations about issues, and it is amazing how much influence Aristotle and Plato still retain over modern political thought. Perhaps the less said about the role of the US in today's world the better. It suffices to say that there is a sharp contrast between such attitudes within and without the United States about the importance of the United States. Most experienced Wikipedians from both camps are acutely aware of the distinction, and are willing to moderate their views in the intrest of NPOV.
Ec
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 5/19/07, Christopher Hagar cmhagar@gmail.com wrote:
Part of the issue is a tendency to consider recent things more important in general, not directly linked to American importance. Although, nuclear weapons and worldwide military power and communication do skew traditional notions of importance. The United States is, after all, more important to the Chinese than the Roman Empire ever was.
On 5/19/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
On 5/19/07, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
On Fri, 18 May 2007, K P wrote:
>>Charlotte, in my view you'd be wrong. Paderewski was hugely and >>internationally famous as a pianist, whereas his fame as a Prime >>Minister of Poland is largely limited to Poland ... >> >> >'''Ronald Wilson Reagan''' ... > > The United States is bigger and much more important in international politics than Poland, and being president of it is much more
notable. President of
the US and Prime Minister of Poland just don't produce equal amounts
of fame.
If you look at the article for Grace Kelly, being an academy award
winning
actress is mentioned before being princess of Monaco.
Right on. After all, size is all that matters,
Size isn't all that matters, but it's one thing that matters. (Or
more
precisely, importance, which is often related to size.)
and only the last few hundred years of history have any meaning.
I believe that Paderewski was a pianist and a Prime Minister during
the
same historical time period. The same for Grace Kelly being an
actress
and
princess of Monaco.
I know a little bit about grammar and sometimes putting something at
the
end
of a sentence is supposed to draw attention to it, so mentioning
something
first doesn't neccesarily mean it's more important. I don't deny the US
is
important in world politics today, but that fails to take into account anything that happened before the US even existed or any nationally important stuff from other countries. Their influence doesn't matter.
All
countries are notable and should be treated equally independantly of
size
or
influence.
It's difficult for me to resist someone's fatuous comments about the last few hundred years of history. Perhaps he has never heard that those who ignore the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them. The lessons have been there for a long time as evidenced by the [[Classic of History]]. Over the years others too havemade keen observations about issues, and it is amazing how much influence Aristotle and Plato still retain over modern political thought. Perhaps the less said about the role of the US in today's world the better. It suffices to say that there is a sharp contrast between such attitudes within and without the United States about the importance of the United States. Most experienced Wikipedians from both camps are acutely aware of the distinction, and are willing to moderate their views in the intrest of NPOV.
Ec
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
The problem is also speaking of the past in the present tense. The world was, gasp, a different world in 1914 than it is in 2007. I'm just aghast at the lack of an historical perspective that comes across in so many Wikipedia articles. When I see statements like the above about all American prime minsters being more famous than Polish ones it really makes me wonder about the type of thinking that even went into the statement--the world of international relations does not exist in a vacuum, and Poland is not Monaco. Not even close.
KP
K P wrote:
The problem is also speaking of the past in the present tense. The world was, gasp, a different world in 1914 than it is in 2007. I'm just aghast at the lack of an historical perspective that comes across in so many Wikipedia articles. When I see statements like the above about all American prime minsters being more famous than Polish ones it really makes me wonder about the type of thinking that even went into the statement--the world of international relations does not exist in a vacuum, and Poland is not Monaco. Not even close.
So tell me: Who is the most famous American prime minister of all time? :-)
Ec