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(a)telus.net> wrote:
MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
On 5/19/07, Ken Arromdee
<arromdee(a)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(a)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