User talk:Jtdirl/Archive 9
Hi!
If you have time to spare, why not look at: Talk:Frederick VIII of Schleswig and Holstein? -- Ruhrjung 08:42 24 Jul 2003 (UTC)
You accidentally deleted Gulf of Aqaba, when it was Aqaba Bay (an erroneous redirect to Gulf of Aqaba, which is not a Bay) that was listed on VfD for deletion. I restored it though, so no worries. --Delirium 00:09 25 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Good job with the Catholicism stuff. The section should be at the bottom, and I think the current version does a good job of highlighting the important issues. I would sugjest though, that a link to the (American) Catholic priests' sex abuse scandal be integrated into the text. Also, please note that I've moved the stuff about Brendan Smyth to it's own article, which is now linked to in the footnote.
On another note, thanks to adding some balance to my somewhat eurocentric coments on modern catholicism. For some reason it didn't occur to me to contrast it with the growth in the third world, even though I was completly aware of it. - Efghij 02:30 25 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Re: "more illegal identities on wiki than Pavorotti has had hot dinners": I laughed. Out loud. Though I'm not sure about the Hot/Cold distinction<G>. -- Someone else 04:47 25 Jul 2003 (UTC)
As much as I dislike burdening you with traversing through disasters, you should take a look at the British Monetary Crisis.
- BTW, sincere thanks for your thorough defense of my protection of Catholicism on the mailing list! 172
Yeah, your edit seems reasonable. Hopefully the whole issue has blown over by now. :-) Evercat 17:16 25 Jul 2003 (UTC)
You know, I could tell you'd been working on Royal Prerogative without even looking at the page history! Deb 17:35 25 Jul 2003 (UTC)
I almost choose the wrong side on Divine right of kings. Its definition is much narrower than its "face value". Maybe the mini edit war would not happen if the note was there at the beginning. This happens frequently in natural science, but I don't know that it also happens in history and political science. wshun 01:23 26 Jul 2003 (UTC)
I made a redirect because a "Guess Who" article already existed, and I came across a link to "The Guess Who" that didn't go anywhere yet. I always thought it was just "Guess Who" because it was supposed to be a joke at first, but now that I Google for it, you seem to be right that The Guess Who is
their real name. Adam Bishop 03:09 26 Jul 2003 (UTC)
On the subject of Divine right of kings (about which you are of course correct), do you happen to know whether the phrase itself was in use before James I used it as the title of his book, ie. was he just quoting an already well-defined concept or did he actually make up the expression himself?
BTW, your talk page needs pruning again.
Deb 14:37 26 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Good work on reverting the Royal prerogative nonsense (when I first saw it moved I Averted My Eyes and hid), but looks like you've got a green biro wielder on your case now. Good luck. :) -Gritchka 20:17 26 Jul 2003 (UTC)
I've just found out about the Hlavac controversy. What is it about royalty that attracts the most mindless and loopy trolling? I'm glad that you, Jiang, and Roadrunner finally have those pages under control.
BTW, I have to praise Jiang and Roadrunner, along with the other contributors to articles on Chinese history. The contributors to the China-related articles seem to have the most efficient network operating on Wiki. As someone who frequently adds content to the China-related pages, it's incredible how rapidly my own text will be corrected if I've ever posted a typing error, forgot to link something, wrote an unclear sentence, used an outmoded spelling, etc. But anyway, I've been making these digressions all day. In the mean time I'll keep an eye on this Hlavac havoc. 172 02:18 27 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Hmm...well, the official website doesn't have a hyphen ([1]), and I didn't put it in when I made all those templates because the List of Canadian Governors General page didn't have one. Of course, that page then says "governors-general" with a hyphen, so now I don't know... Adam Bishop 21:43 27 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Sir, you and I are wholly at odds over "royal prerogtive" and "divine right" though your comments border on rude and insulting, starting with 'dodgy' in your very first. You idea that somehow these two terms are merely the creation of the british parliament after James 1st are ludicrous, pedantic and myopic. You still are trying to claim that royalty exercised some other form of power (that you have not bothered to even try to explain) -- and that now miraculoulsy they were defined for all by the Brits and only for the Brits. But you don't even want to 'agree to disagree.'
I have not once ever altered or removed or made disparaging remarks about your work -- in fact, I called it "an able explanation of the situation in the United Kingdom" -- it is you 'vandalized' my work -- starting from removing my comments on a totally 100% page that sat untouched for months and then publically calling be "dodgy." Now all of a sudden you come to 'rescue' me and others from my idiocy? You surely jest? No? Or is it merely a continuation of old idea that the sun never sets on the empire?
Then I tried to separate your still apt description of the United Kingdom's version of this IDEA -- not the damn LAW as WRITTEN -- the IDEA -- surely there are ideas left in the universities of that Island? Ideas that are deeper than the actual laws as written. But that too would not satisfy you -- I even linked directly to your entire text without one editorial change whatsoever. I merely retitled it "European Royal Prerogative" and let stand your work, where anyone remotely interested in it would be able to find it untouched.
Yet you will go down swinging on the rather absurd idea that no royalty outside of England at any point in time or place excerised a Royal Prerogative or had a divine right -- because the English Parliament didn't make it so until James 1? Egad man, are you daft?
I endeavored to show that the idea was worldwide -- which it is -- and that your explanation of it is English -- and thus English-centric -- and therefore just totally ingores the reality in the rest of the world -- where EVERY KING EVER ON EARTH CLAIMED A DIVINE RIGHT AND EXCERCISED ROYAL PREROGATIVE. It makes no difference that they came at the idea from different antecedents, historical realities or religious beliefs. I also made every attempt to generalize the statement of the IDEA -- so that others -- such as yourself could give local versions -- which I do not quarrel with.
You complain about me 'undoing' your work -- when in fact I did no such thing -- I merely cordoned off your highly legalistic and localised view and explanation as "European" and you don't even like that, so I guess I shall cordon it off again as merely "English View of Royal Prerogative" But once again I state -- I MADE NO CHANGES WHATSOEVER TO YOUR TEXT. To accuse me of doing so is false.
Furthermore, you are engaging in an effort to quelch a valid view that the IDEA is a worldwide phenomenon, unfortunately still practiced.
I am wholly willing to listen to and explore any local version, with as much information as you provided about England, and which another gentlemen talked about in China -- which are merely minor variations on the theme.
But it is impossible for me to concede that the IDEA is only British -- because that would prevent me from understanding how royalty throughout history and all cutlures generally viewed themsevles.
Alas for poor Britania -- the world does goes beyond Land's End.
I haven't read your message yet. I'm a bit distracted by far less though-provoking matters; Pizza Puzzle is stirring up trouble on New Imperialism again. 172 04:11 27 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Thanks for both recent comments, especially the royalty one. Once I go outside for a cigarette, put this New Imperialism matter to a rest, and get this paper work out of the way, I'll respond to it in a deserving matter. It's a very convincing and interesting answer to my rhetorical question on your talk page (the 'why does royalty attract so many trolls' question). 172 04:37 27 Jul 2003 (UTC)
I strongly agree with your point about the personal, emotional power of monarchy. Not just in attracting weird attention on this website, but with all the points in your comment. Some recent current events have gotten me to think about absolute and constitutional monarchs as well.
Lately, I've been noticing the striking parallels between the ongoing civil war in Nepal and the struggles against monarchy in the Revolutions of 1830 and 1948; with King Gyanendra (a supposedly constitutional monarch) sacking of the elected government last year; with the legitimate parliamentary opposition led by the Communist Party of Nepal-United Marxist and Leninist (which, despite its name, is a "loyal opposition" and parliamentary party leading a parliamentary coalition with many parties that primarily find their electoral base among poor urbanites); and with a revolutionary opposition among the Maoists. In the middle, parliamentary leftists denounce the "undemocratic" ways of the King, support talks with the Maoists (who find their support base among certain elements in the countryside), while denouncing that the rebels had been intimidating activists of the parliamentary left. It's almost reminiscent of France in 1848 with three factions fighting in the remains of Louis Phillippe's crumbling regime, with the democratic moderates who favored order and constitutional democracy attacked by working class mobs after the Second Republic had been established. Gyanendra, like some of the nineteenth century's more reactionary monarchs (e.g. Nicholas I, Alexander III, etc.), is striving to rule like his strong-willed grandfather, and eschewing the leadership style of his popular, slain father, who was a broadly beloved more "liberal" figure. I wonder where this chaos is going. I'm seeing parallels with Russia's "Czarist cycle," exemplified by Alexander III inheriting the thrown, eschewing the liberal ways of his "Czar liberator" father. Being such a personalized system, the left- and extreme-left- opposition in Nepal could exploit this and vilify him as a tyrant. This won't be effective soon, however, because they're so busy fighting each other for support among somewhat overlapping bases.
While of course I'mfamiliar with all the shortcomings of this simplistic class/"superstructure" relationship (I can't believe that I'm going on with this after cursing the over-simplifications and reductionisms left in PP's article), but it's equally interesting when you have a workable constitutional monarchy, like, let's say Sweden. The Marxists of the nineteenth century would see the aristocratic/feudal "superstructure" of the monarch intact, with a competitive "bourgeois" parliament functioning, with the "working class" government of Swedish Prime Minister Goran Persson as the ruling party. So, unlike Nepal right now and France in 1848 you have a leftists, parliamentary government, and a monarchial head of state peacefully coexisting. In countries such as Britain, Sweden, Spain, and Belgium, monarchy has been a pillar of national identity and conciliation.
Thinking about Kim and Saddam in the news, it's striking to note how many single party or dictatorial rulers have emerged from crumbling absolutist or monarchial systems and have assumed the mantle of a quasi-monarch inadvertently to popularize their new regimes (such as Stalin's Russia, North Korea of the Kims, Saddam's Iraq, the Syria of the Assads, etc.) with their elaborate personality cults. It's striking that communism advanced with great strives in the early part of the 20th century in countries such as Korea, Russia, and China, which were late to emerge from absolute monarchy. And It's not surprising to see the United States turning Saddam's personalistic leadership style upside down, personalizing the Iraq war to such a great extent, which has helped to popularize the war effort among the public here so well. 172 06:22 27 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Alright, it should just be a simple matter of making List of Canadian Governors General redirect to a page with the hyphen in it. I've seen the hyphen used officially in Canada, and I would have used it myself, but I figured it would be easier just to link to the page that already existed. Adam Bishop 23:29 27 Jul 2003 (UTC)
- As I've already posted on User talk:Adam Bishop, the [Governor General's own site] does not use a hyphen. I also point out to you Consolidated Statutes and Regulations from the Canadian Department of Justice, checking out the Constitution Act, 1867, checking out section 18(2) of the Interpretation Act, for example. Every current official source I've checked has come up without the hyphen. (Because of its inaccuracy, I haven't even run it through Google.) - Cafemusique 22:11 28 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Hi. It's hard for me to comment on the Catholicism article since I really know little about the subject. Sorry. :-) Evercat 01:00 28 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Well, it's no surprise to see PP wasting no time to edit New Imperialism after Wiki went back online. Your predictions on the temp page were prophetic. But I was a step ahead of you the Communist state idea this time. While Wikipedia was offline I did a yahoo search for "New Imperialism Wikipeida" and found the Wiki article. Then in clicked cached and found the text. Then I did the same for Irish Potato Famine and communist state! Of course, I couldn't get the hyperlinks and the headings, but I posted the text for those three articles.
Click http://www.internet-encyclopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Communist_state to find the article on Communist state on Fred-ipedia! I wonder what his reaction will be.
BTW, take a look at Fred's "ban on articles with explicit sexual content or other material which may be offensive to any significant number of people" (click here for the link), stating "There are any number of sites on the internet where one may access explicit sexual material; recipes on how to make bombs; how wonderful various totalitarian regimes are, etc. Internet-Encyclopedia serves no need by presenting such material or any similar material." I guess this means that you won't find protracted debates on adding a photo of a clitoris or anything by user Paektu on his family friendly Reaganite encyclopedia. According to those guidelines, I might be banned for adding Communist state, wipe with all its whitewashing of history and historical revisionism. 172 14:28 28 Jul 2003 (UTC)
I'm going to have to go offline soon. I'm sorry to leave right now, with all this chaos. And on top of the PP matter (this is how he repays you for bending over backwards for him!!?), it looks like Hugo Chavez is going to have to be protected. Yesterday's ranting Chavez vandal is back with a user name. I guess the trouble-makers are venting all the pent-up energy they've accumulated while Wiki was offline. 172 15:17 28 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Okay. I'll protect Hugo. BTW, check out the latest rant he tried to post. It seems like he saw the temp page. 172 15:27 28 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Hey, could you take a look at my comments on Talk:List of Succession to the British Throne? It's been bugging me, and nobody has responded as yet. Basically, for the higher up people in the list, those who are Catholic or married to Catholics are skipped, but then for later parts of the list, there is no effort made to delete even obvious Catholics (like Habsburg Archdukes)...anyway, I'm not sure what the solution is, but inconsistency is nobody's friend. john 22:44 28 Jul 2003 (UTC)
- While we're requesting editorial advice, I wonder if you'd take a look at Bay Middleton and see if I've made any obvious errors about his Irish career... -- Someone else 23:05 28 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation re Hugo Chávez - as I say, I'll keep an eye on it for any funny business. I quite like the idea of people calling me an "arch-communist" - it has a sort of olde worlde, Cold War, super-villain charm. I might even put it on my passport as my occupation... --Camembert
Don't know if you've been following the history of fag and faggot, but this is important - are faggots an Irish dish? Deb 21:09, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)
OK. Almost time to put this together...I went to the library. They've (apparently) thrown out their Revised Statutes of Canada and refer folks to the online site at http://www.legis.ca/ I did check the provincial statutes, and found that they used "Lieutenant Governor" (without hyphen). And the online version put out by the Government of Canada of all their statutes uses "Governor General". So, I think the evidence is pretty clear that Canadian usage is without the hyphen. - Cafemusique 22:30, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)
I've attempted to copy all relevant discussion from above to consolidate discussion on the issue at Talk:Governor General of Canada. - Cafemusique 00:31, 30 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Would you be interested in unprotecting the New Imperialism page? I'm only interested in focusing on readability right now. Perhaps if I've been given the chance to edit the article, whose prose has been becoming increasingly convoluted due to the extensive editing that Vera Cruz and now PP have attracted over the course of half a year, it would lessen the urge of Martin and Graculus to hack away at its contents indiscriminately.
In addition, Martin seems willing to wait for a series to be created before hacking off a huge section at a whim. Graculus has been told by Mav not to help solve the length problem by not removing text either. And nobody seems interested in PP's version whatsoever (with its list of any figure, regime, ideology associated with the nineteenth century at the top). So the main conflicts might have subsided.
In the coming days, I need to add a lot of content to that article, especially narrative history. I've just never been able to do it because the article's long been the subject of edit wars. Since December the extent of my involvement has been preventing Vera Cruz and now PP from turning the article into an incoherent list. And now, despite the claims of Graculus that I have a "monopoly" over the article, I've done nothing other than preventing other users, brought into the fray by PP, from hacking away at it indiscriminately. 172 02:27, 30 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Thanks for replying. Mav and Cam don't seem to be around. So I guess that I'll have to wait. Maybe it' for the best. The article desperately needs more narrative on the course of imperial expansion. While the underlying factors contributing to the transition from informal control to formal control is well developed, I suppose that it isn't approachable for those who really didn't have a grasp of the facts beforehand. So I suppose that I have to chronicle the course of imperial expansion in India, Africa, Indochina, etc. At least right now the article is a basis for what could become a good series on the Age of Imperialism. So maybe it's best that I have more time. 172 03:35, 30 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Do you know if all the major editions of New Imperialism are saved? If someone wants to write a history of edit wars in Wikipedia, then New Imperialism should be a classic example. I never really understand this topic, but I think the edit war by itself is already interesting. Wshun
- Interesting? How about enraging? This series has caused me physical pain! Anyway, in a probably futile attempt to put this matter to rest, there is now an executive summary/series linked to daughter articles, which is to what we all agreed. Although unfinished, redirecting the series/summary (seehere) to the main article could finally enable us to add much need content and even new daughter articles, such as the promotion of imperialism on the home front, more on the colonial encounter, the rise of nationalism in the colonial word, decolonization, etc. Your input on this proposal would be helpful. BTW, sincere apologies for dragging you into this mess. 172 04:59, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC)