User talk:Jimmacintosh100

article you want to work on
I saw your post at the help desk. I'm new here myself so someone else may give better advice, but it's ok to put notes or rough drafts on pages in your user space as well as bringing things up on the talk page. That way you can do some writing or some organizing of your thoughts outside of the actual article. (Just let people on the talk page know to take a look at it.) If you want a new user page to use for notes just click on this link to create the new page. Then you just need to put a note or sign at the top of the page saying that it's not an official article. There's some standardized signs (called templates) already made to do this. Here's one template and here's another template that you could use. Cloveapple (talk) 19:48, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Perseverance
Glad to see you're persevering in your editing of confidence-building measures. With the war crimes in the Tigray War (very likely a genocide) and now federal forces' war crimes against the Amharas, the full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine, and the new cycle of war crimes and very likely crimes against humanity in and around the Israeli-occupied territories, the knowledge that you've gained is incredibly important, despite those social media that promote hate speech and the mainstream media considering CBMs as off-topic.

If you look through User:Boud/Draft:WikiProject Peace and check the editing histories and styles of people who have said they're interested, you might find someone who can help you get through the tricky issue of how to present your own research without doing self-promotion. I won't choose any names - you can judge for yourself based on the different people's public editing histories.

You can also see at User:Boud/Draft:WikiProject Peace a big list of related articles that you might wish to contribute to, such as 1986 Stockholm Document, which is apparently extremely important, but is currently a "red" article (not created yet). We're clearly much below the threshold of an active group of users on the topic. Peace doesn't grab media headlines and social media interest like war and war crimes do. Boud (talk) 16:12, 17 October 2023 (UTC)


 * As noted earlier, I have found making changes/providing additions to the entry quite challenging, due to the fact that I was involved in developing the literature in the first place. The entry is satisfactory at this stage, largely due to someone else vouching for the credibility of the research by noting it was presented to the UN by Canada. However, if I could just wave a wand, I would jettison the entries on "mathematical model," "Embassies," and "validity of model in the internet era." I am aware, however, that that would further highlight my own work at the expense of others.
 * Not entirely clear what changes were introduced on 17 October 2023, other than removal of "fullest expression." Perhaps a better way to phrase the underlying thought would be "most comprehensive articulation." The point was that the various CSCE/OSCE "documents" are the most comprehensive collections of actual CSBMs. CSBMs are central to them.
 * On a more general note, I remain uncertain even today about whether or not the CSBM/CSCE experience was largely idiosyncratic to a specific time, place and history revolving around the dissolution of the Soviet Union. There may not be a lot of general insight to derive from that bit of history. It was grappling with this question that motivated the exploration of the "process approach" and the identification of the potential relevance of a CSBM epistemic community. I kept asking myself why and how using CSBMs could make a constructive difference?
 * In any event, there does not appear to have been much interest in confidence building (theoretically or practically) since the end of the 1990s. Jimmacintosh100 (talk) 18:32, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Your mention of the Stockholm Document encouraged me to amend the Cold War history mention of CSCE/OSCE CSBM efforts to include all major Documents. Not sure at this stage that I want to do more than that. I am an old fart now and really should leave this to newer generations of analysts. Jimmacintosh100 (talk) 16:21, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Glad that we built at least some level of mutual confidence :). At least one of your major works is now online as a pdf: and you now exist on Wikidata . The CBMs article may attract some attention next week due to the upcoming June 2024 Ukraine peace summit, even though the conference only makes sense in what I would guess is innovative from a theoretical point of view: this is a conference to build broad international confidence/consensus even though the aggressor country is absent from this stage of the process.Regarding theoretical prospects, the possibilities of databases registering military resources and threats have become a lot more practical than before due to Moore's law, and the psychological and sociopolitical aspects of confidence and trust - and distrust and fear - continue to be an extremely complex issue, including not just government and corporate points of view but also both deliberate disinformation campaigns by certain national governments as well as hate speech amplification by GAFAM + BATX for reasons of maximising market value. Academic studies of these that define things properly and use empirical data would be great, but obviously difficult.What is definitely needed in Europe (and the world more broadly) are steps towards a renewal of the equivalent of the CSCE process - including, to reframe your 1985 perspective, realistic assessments of the Russian threat and its possible evolution. Boud (talk) 01:19, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for letting me know that my monograph has been made available in Wikidata. I would likely never have known otherwise. Perhaps its availability will stimulate some greater interest in the theoretical aspects of confidence building and security management approaches more generally. At this stage, given the state of international relations, the main focus must be on the preliminary generation of an epistemic community of scholars and policy analysts/makers willing to explore the nature of confidence building. I would think addressing conflictual relationships involving China will be at least as important a focus as Russia, perhaps even more. Thanks again. I made a slight adjustment to the Cold War paragraph in the main confidence building entry, something I have been meaning to do for some time. Your message motivated me. Jimmacintosh100 (talk) 13:38, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I am a bit confused. Are both monographs ("Perspective" and "Process") now in Wikidata? I am not super-happy after re-reading the "Cold War" revisions as current version seems repetitive and a bit confusing, but it is OK. I will not fuss with it anymore. It is good enough. Jimmacintosh100 (talk) 14:49, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I was hoping to take break, not expecting you to answer so quickly ;). For the moment just a quick clarification about Wikidata. The pdf of your 1985 monograph ("Perspective") can be found with the help of Wikidata, but it is not stored on Wikidata. Only metadata about the monograph are stored there. You can read Wikidata or some of the introduction pages there to start getting a feel for what Wikidata is, and if you click on d:Q126443813 you'll get a concrete example, and you'll see that your pdf is hosted primarily on a website run by Global Affairs Canada, i.e. the renamed Department of External Affairs that now has both a long name and a short name; and secondarily there is an archived version of the pdf on Wayback Machine.Since you asked the question, you can now click on d:Q126464216 to find metadata for your 1996 monograph ("Process"), again including a link to GAC and to an archive. There may be some odd behaviour in the archives of the two pdfs - this is a tech issue and I won't go into details unless you're really interested, especially since I'm mostly making educated guesses, but the key thing is that web archiving is vital to our modern knowledge system - especially Wikipedia - but is non-trivial both technically and in some cases legally (for copyright reasons). Boud (talk) 18:25, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification. Lazy day today, so got to this sooner than I normally would. Jimmacintosh100 (talk) 19:06, 9 June 2024 (UTC)