Talk:Economic theories of the New Imperialist era

Talk from talk:New Imperialism
(original title was theories of imperialism)

there is a very good reason why 172 was accusing me of deleting 90% of his article. See: theories of imperialism. Vera Cruz


 * I do not see the good reason. I think given the complexity of the topic and contributors knowledge of the topic, the article is going to be relatively long.  Let's face it: many articles are short because most of us do not know enough about the topics.  Perhaps at some point as Ortolan88 thinks, the article can and should be broken up -- but I do not think we are even close to that point.  In the meantime, we need to be crystal clear about two very diffferent sources of length: amount of detail, versus poor organization.  My recent comments have been aimed at making the article shorter, but not by cutting any content at all, but rather by trying to make the organization more logical, which will remove redudancies. Slrubenstein

I believe the section on "theories of imperialism" should be the last section, following all the history. In part, this is merely chronological -- the theories by and large were developed after the events. But it is also pedagogical: I do not think one needs to know the theories to follow the history, but I do believe one ought to know the history if one is to be able to understand and evaluate the theories. What do others think? Slrubenstein


 * I think we can probably move most of it to another page, such as theories of imperialism Vera Cruz


 * I agree with Vera Cruz's proposal concerning Theories of imperialism but I'd like toknow what Tannin and 172 think, before making such a major change. Slrubenstein

Given the unique abundance of literature on this subject in particular, the history and historiography are inseparable.

Besides, the section pertains to theories of New Imperialism, not imperialism in general.

172


 * okay, but still -- I think it should be at the end of the argument for reasons I stated above. What do you think?  Slrubenstein

My feeling is that a good, clear exposition usually has the structure: Of course, the second and third of these can be very difficult to disentangle sometimes. I am inclined to think that a single article would be better, so long as there is a logical structure to it, but that splitting it into two related parts could be considered if the length becomes a problem. Tannin
 * this is what happened
 * this is why it happened
 * this is the significance of what happened


 * I think you are right about what is hard to untangle -- but in any event, I think your proposed (albeit general) structure makes excellent sense and should be relied on as a guide, Slrubenstein

Time passes...
For everyone's information, theories of imperialism was an article that Pizza Puzzle created under the banned user name, Vera Cruz. It's a useless article that hasn't been edited by a single user, not linked to a single page. I favor deleting it. 172


 * I don't have a clue why 172 thinks I am some other user. Pizza Puzzle

A page was created some months ago called theories of imperialism. As there was a discussion at Talk:New Imperialism I looked through the history and discovered the earlier page which was apparently part of an attempt to shorten New Imperialism; upon mentioning it I was attacked by User:172 who then attempted to hide the entire conversation (claiming he was "archiving" the conversation) and then, without using the votes for deletion page he deleted theories of imperialism. Its a bit ridiculous. Pizza Puzzle

On the delicate matter of splitting this page, it seems to me that moving the Theories section out to its own page is one of the better, or at the very least easier options. I think that would probably be the thing to aim for, but I'll give it another read tomorrow when I'm not so tired. Just thought I'd throw my oppinion in. -Nommo


 * Yes, that is why the page theories of imperialism was created. Pizza Puzzle

New talk
Why economic theories? Shouldn't we include economic and non-economic theories together? Martin 10:46, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)