User talk:Davidstaniunas

Hello! Thanks for your contributions and help on Scramble for Africa. My English may not be perfect, however, I do believe that it is fundamental speaking of the Fashoda Incident & others crisis in the intro. Brevity mustn't means simplification, and it is quite impossible to understand how in hell could the Scramble for Africa be related to World War I if you don't pass by these historical crisis; hence the motives for their inclusion in the intro. Maybe you could help in including them in a correct way. Thanks, Lapaz 19:01, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I just want to add that the intro must be as concise as possible but, more importantly, should provide the global context need for the understanding of the article. In other words, it shouldn't repeat what the article says itself, but link it to worldwide event. This means linking it to the First World War, and thus speaking of these important international crisis. I leave the issue of the Russo-Japanese War up to you, although it could be included as, although I may have awkardly put it, it is the first war won against Europeans, and thus lead to a radical shift in mentalities (the Yellow Peril, etc.): White Man could be beaten. Furthermore, it signals a shift of alliance since the war was possible only insofar as the Anglo-Japanese Alliance was concluded a few years earlier. If the article itself attempts to discuss the Scramble in details, the intro shouldn't be limited to three sentences except if you manage to explain all of this in three sentences. Eitherwise you're just asking for the creation of an "introduction" subsection, which would of course be redundant. Regards, Lapaz 19:05, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi! thanks for answering! Concering the "Yellow Peril", Wikipedia does not self-reference itself. Whatever is written in that, I have many history textbooks which cite the Russo-Japanese War as a turning point and as the source of 'yellow peril in Europe. By "colored people", that may be awkard, but is to convey the sense that the Japanese weren't Western. In other terms: it is the first war won against Europeans, Western people, or at least was conceived in this way. So it is fundamental, and is rightly quoted as such in my textbooks at least. Complexity is something all too relative, since of course it depends on what you know. I do not think talking about Fashoda, the Moroccan incidents and the Russo-Japanese War is "complex", it is what any high school student learns - at least what I was taught in when I was in high school. I think John A. Hobson is a classic enough example to be quoted, gives a relatively common view, and it is always good to know who was more or less the first one to expose this or that view. "However, according to the classic thesis of John A. Hobson, exposed in Imperialism (1902), which would influence authors such as Lenin's Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism (1916), Trotsky or Hannah Arendt's The Origins of Totalitarianism (1951), this shrinking of continental markets was a main factor of the global New Imperialism period." that's just one sentence, which ties his work to Lenin & Arendt, too important accounts of "imperialism", which of course is more than relevant here. In short, I think we differ on our understanding of complexity. If I do agree with you that this is general public and should be clear, clarity shouldn't be opposed to complexity. The facts that they are wikilinks can create still further in-depth investigation (for ex., John Hobson's theories may be discussed more in depth in his article) thus making a balance between complexity, in-depth investigation, and resume of main events. Again, I do not understand how one can understand anything at all in the Scramble for Africa if he does not relate it to the international European crisis which were one of the main causes of WWI... This is'' fundamental, isn't it? Lapaz 17:20, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Contra drugs
Hi! I've posted my reply in my talk page.--Atavi 10:38, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Again. Sorry for the belated reply, but I've been away from editing from a while, as you have probably seen by my contributions listing. Anyway:
 * I agree with everything you've said.
 * The order should be chronological, so that someone new to the subject, but even not so new perhaps, should have a straightforward overview of events.
 * I agree with peripheral articles, although some of them might not be long enough to fully justify an own article.
 * You're absolutely right about the drug links. Most of the material should be moved / merged into the dedicated article.
 * Keep me updated.

--Atavi 18:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)