text:
International Relations/Environment and World Politics

< International Relations

Green politics is a body of political ideas informed by environmentalism aimed at developing a sustainable society. It is considered by its advocates to be an alternative to both left and right views and parties, although adherents to both views tend to view Greens as "on the other side". Certainly it is true that Green parties advocate measures that appear to conventional politicians different from those grouped into labour and capital by economic interests.

Some of these views include:
 * a commitment to the methods of consensus decision making, participatory democracy and deliberative democracy wherever feasible
 * a green tax shift that would increase consumption and sales taxes on all resource-intensive items, while reducing income tax and capital gains tax - a position also associated with Libertarianism and seen as extreme by many on the left and right.
 * a cessation of all taxes levied against strictly local production and trade - a position shared only by some advocates of Libertarianism
 * local and moral purchasing provisions for government especially, requiring the source of supply to follow similar environmental and labour standards as those prevailing in the consuming jurisdiction - a position usually associated with liberal religious groups, pacifists, and left-feminism
 * measuring well-being as an alternative to consumer price index based means of measuring economic growth - seen also as a radical left-wing position especially as it would impact the money supply and measures of inflation.
 * full cost accounting and an end to dirty subsidy of pollution by government - another economically neoliberal position, ending corporate welfare and requiring corporations to compete on the basis of energy and waste savings.
 * against nuclear power and the buildup of persistent organic pollutants - based on a strict adherence to the precautionary principle where technologies are rejected unless they can be proven to not cause significant harm to the health of living things or the biosphere
 * an end to biological forms of pollution and human health damage via the subsidy of dairy farming and the meat industry - a position that cuts against the tendency of both left and right to support family farms without limit or conditions
 * treating waste as a resource - a commodification of something of negative value, previously dumped into the commons without full cost accounting
 * investing heavily in human capital - usually a left wing position when done by the public sector, and a right wing one if the investment is via the private sector
 * accounting reform that would probably disadvantage both labour and large investors in favor of small investors, customers, and the public at large - more of a left wing position but not considered as a key issue by most left parties
 * an end to the War on Drugs in the United States and Europe - seen as both a radical left wing and Libertarian position
 * an end to the War on Terrorism and the curtailment of civil rights - focusing instead on growing deliberative democracy in war-torn regions and the construction of a civil society with an increased role for women - this position is seen by many as a somewhat radical position
 * urban secession by major cities to permit them to shake off control of the suburbs and renew their economies in ways that they cannot do if they require the permission of their surrounding regions, e.g. to tax, ban cars in downtowns, or put money in mass transit instead of highways - this view is usually more associated with Libertarianism and extreme decentralization movements of both left and right
 * bioregional democracy reflecting ecological boundaries in politics directly - a scale which tends to be smaller than existing nation-states, and thus is a de facto secession movement, favored more by left than right in modern times, although historically the right wing was often defined by ethnic and tribal identities.

Because it lacks clear identification with powerful interest groups, and tends to appeal more to a world-view or mindset, Green politics tends to grow slowly but also not to easily lose ground to other views or parties over time. In developed nations Greens have typically stood at 3-12% of the vote for long periods of time without making breakthroughs, usually participating in government as a minority partner, or working at municipal or regional levels. Most Greens reject radical centrist politics though there is a strong overlap between that perspective and what is occasionally referred to as the "realist" wing of the Greens.

Basic statements of Green political values include the Four Pillars of the Green Party originally adopted by the European Greens, the Ten Key Values of the Global Greens adopted by most English-speaking Greens in the 1990s, and the six core Green principles accepted in 2001.

Greens often refer to productivism, consumerism and scientism as examples of "grey" views, which implies age, ashphalt and obsolete ideas of human social organization, including globalization of economic relations. Many Greens are important players in the anti-globalization movement. This involvement includes the full spectrum from street protesters to those building local alternatives to global economic monoculture.

Green politics is usually said to include the green anarchism, eco-anarchism, anti-nuclear and peace movements - although these often claim not to be aligned with any party. Some claim it also includes feminism, pacifism and the animal rights movements. Most Greens support special policy measures to empower women, especially mothers; to oppose war and de-escalate conflicts and stop proliferating technologies useful in conflict or likely to lead to conflict, and such unusual measures as Great Ape personhood to end ape genocide, which they see as akin to genocide of primitive human populations, e.g. Stone Age Amazon tribes.

External link

 * Global Greens Charter, Canberra 2001

w:Category:Political ideology entry points


text:
International Relations/War and Peace in a Globalised World

< International Relations

Globalization (or globalisation) is a term used to describe the changes in societies and the world economy that are the result of dramatically increased trade and cultural exchange. In specifically economic contexts, it refers almost exclusively to the effects of trade, particularly trade liberalization or "free trade" Between 1910 and 1950, a series of political and economic upheavals dramatically reduced the volume and importance of international trade flows. In the post-World War II environment, fostered by international economic institutions and rebuilding programs, international trade dramatically expanded. With the 1970s, the effects of this trade became increasingly visible, both in terms of the benefits and the disruptive effects.

Meanings of Globalization
"Globalization" can mean:
 * The formation of a global village — closer contact between different parts of the world, with increasing possibilities of personal exchange, mutual understanding and friendship between "world citizens", and creation of a global civilization. The World Bank defines globalization as the “Freedom and ability of individuals and firms to initiate voluntary economic transactions with residents of other countries”.
 * Economic globalization — 'free trade' and increasing relations among members of an industry in different parts of the world (globalization of an industry), with a corresponding erosion of National Sovereignty in the economic sphere. The IMF defines globalisation as “the growing economic interdependence of countries worldwide through increasing volume and variety of cross-border transactions in goods and services, freer international capital flows, and more rapid and widespread diffusion of technology” (IMF, World Economic Outlook, May, 1997).
 * The negative effects of for-profit multinational corporations — the use of substantial and sophisticated legal and financial means to circumvent the bounds of local laws and standards, in order to leverage the labor and services of unequally-developed regions against each other.
 * The spread of capitalism from developed to developing nations.
 * "The concept of Globalisation refers both to the compression of the world and the intensification of consciousness of the world as a whole" - Roland Robertson

It shares a number of characteristics with internationalization and is used interchangeably, although some prefer to use globalization to emphasize the erosion of the nation-state or national boundaries.

Globalism, if the concept is reduced to its economic aspects, can be said to contrast with economic nationalism and protectionism. It is related to laissez-faire capitalism and neoliberalism.

History of globalization
Since the word has both technical and political meanings, different groups will have differing histories of "globalization". In general use within the field of economics and political economy, is, however, a history of increasing trade between nations based on stable institutions that allow individuals such as Masa and Kellie and firms in different nations to exchange goods with minimal friction.

The term "liberalization" came to mean the combination of laissez-faire economic theory with the removal of barriers to the movement of goods. This led to the increasing specialization of nations in exports, and the pressure to end protective tariffs and other barriers to trade. The period of the gold standard and liberalization of the 19th century is often called "The First Era of Globalization". Based on the Pax Britannica and the exchange of goods in currencies pegged to specie, this era grew along with industrialization. The theoretical basis was Ricardo's work on Comparative advantage and Say's Law of General equilibrium. In essence, it was argued that nations would trade effectively, and that any temporary disruptions in supply or demand would correct themselves automatically. The institution of the gold standard came in steps in major industrialized nations between approximately 1850 and 1880, though exactly when various nations were truly on the gold standard is a matter of a great deal of contentious debate.

The "First Era of Globalization" is said to have broken down in stages beginning with the first World War, and then collapsing with the crisis of the gold standard in the late 1920's and early 1930's.

Globalization in the era since World War II has been driven by Trade Negotiation Rounds, originally under the auspices of GATT which led to a series of agreements to remove restrictions on "free trade". The Uruguay round led to a treaty to create the World Trade Organization or WTO, to mediate trade disputes. Other bilateral trade agreements, including sections of Europe's Maastricht Treaty and the North American Free Trade Agreement have also been signed in pursuit of the goal of reducing tariffs and barriers to trade.

Signs of globalization
Globalization has become identified with a number of trends, most of which may have developed since World War II. These include greater international movement of commodities, money, information, and people; and the development of technology, organizations, legal systems, and infrastructures to allow this movement. The actual existence of some of these trends are debated.
 * Increase in international trade at a faster rate than the growth in the world economy
 * Increase in international flow of capital including foreign direct investment
 * Greater transborder data flow, using such technologies such as the Internet, communication satellites and telephones
 * The push by many advocates for an international criminal court and international justice movements (see the ICC and ICJ respectively).
 * Greater international cultural exchange, for example through the export of Hollywood and Bollywood movies.
 * Some argue that even terrorism has undergone globalization. Terrorists now have attacked places all over the world.
 * Spreading of multiculturalism and better individual access to cultural diversity, with on the other hand, some reduction in diversity through assimilation, hybridization, Westernization, Americanization or Sinosization of cultures.
 * Erosion of national sovereignty and national borders through international agreements leading to organizations like the WTO and OPEC
 * Greater international travel and tourism
 * Greater immigration, including illegal immigration
 * Development of global telecommunications infrastructure
 * Development of a global financial systems
 * Increase in the share of the world economy controlled by multinational corporations
 * Increased role of international organizations such as WTO, WIPO, IMF that deal with international transactions
 * Increase in the number of standards applied globally; e.g. copyright laws

Barriers to international trade have been considerably lowered since World War II through international agreements such as the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). Particular initiatives carried out as a result of GATT and the WTO, for which GATT is the foundation, have included:
 * Promotion of free trade
 * Of goods: reduction or elimination of tariffs; construction of free trade zones with small or no tariffs
 * Of capital: reduction or elimination of capital controls
 * Reduction, elimination, or harmonization of subsidies for local businesses
 * Intellectual Property Restrictions
 * Harmonization of intellectual property laws across nations (generally speaking, with more restrictions)
 * Supranational recognition of intellectual property restrictions (e.g. patents granted by China would be recognized in the US)

As defined through lecture series given by Dr. Cullenberg, Professor of Economics at the University of California, Riverside, globalization can be basically understood from an economic perspective through the following seven aspects:
 * International Trade: Exports and imports of goods and services. Creation of increased interdependency and the creation of a balance of trade.
 * International Portfolio Investment: Assets, cash, international currency, stocks, bonds, real estate, etc.
 * Migration: Movement of people.
 * Foreign Direct Investment: Movement of whole companies.
 * International Environment: Global warming, O-zone layer, water resources etc.
 * Global Culture: Creation of understanding and meaning, and international communication.
 * International Governments: Control and power nationally and internationally.

Anti-globalization
Main article: "Anti-globalization".

Various aspects of globalization are seen as harmful by public-interest activists as well as strong state nationalists This movement has no unified name. "Anti-globalization" is the media's preferred term. Activists themselves, for example Noam Chomsky, have said that this name is meaningless as the aim of the movement is to globalize justice. Indeed, "the global justice movement" is a common name. Many activists also unite under the slogan "another world is possible", which has given rise to names such as altermondisme in French.

There is a wide variety of different kinds of "anti-globalization". In general, critics claim that the results of globalization have not been what was predicted when the attempt to increase free trade began, and that many institutions involved in the system of globalization have not taken the interests of poorer nations and the working class into account.

Economic arguments by fair trade theorists claim that unrestricted free trade benefits those with more financial leverage (i.e. the rich) at the expense of the poor.

Many "anti-globalization" activists see globalization as the promotion of a corporatist agenda, which is intent on constricting the freedoms of individuals in the name of profit. They also claim that increasing autonomy and strength of corporate entities increasingly shape the political policy of nation-states.

Some "anti-globalization" groups argue that globalization is necessarily imperialistic, is one of the driving reasons behind the Iraq war and that it has forced savings to flow into the United States rather than developing nations.

Some argue that globalization imposes credit-based economics, resulting in unsustainable growth of debt and debt crises.

Another more conservative camp in opposition to globalization are state-centric nationalists that fear globalization is displacing the role of nations in global politics and point to NGOs as impeding upon the power of individual nations. Some advocates of this warrant for anti-globalization are Pat Buchanan and Jean-Marie Le Pen.

The main opposition is to unfettered globalization (neoliberal; laissez-faire capitalism), guided by governments and what are claimed to be quasi-governments (such as the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank) that are supposedly not held responsible to the populations that they govern and instead respond mostly to the interests of corporations. Many conferences between trade and finance ministers of the core globalizing nations have been met with large, and occasionally violent, protests from opponents of "corporate globalism".

The movement is very broad, including church groups, national liberation factions, left-wing parties, environmentalists, peasant unionists, anti-racism groups, libertarian socialists and others. Most are reformist (arguing for a more humane form of capitalism) and a strong minority is revolutionary (arguing for a more humane system than capitalism). Many have decried the lack of unity and direction in the movement, but some such as Noam Chomsky have claimed that this lack of centralization may in fact be a strength.

Protests by the global justice movement have now forced high-level international meetings away from the major cities where they used to be held, and off into remote locations where protest is impractical.

Some "anti-globalization" activists object to the fact that the current "globalization" globalizes money and corporations and at the same time refuses to globalize people and unions. This can be seen in the strict immigration controls that exist in nearly all countries and the lack of labour rights in many countries in the developing world.

Pro-globalization (globalism)
Supporters of democratic globalization can be labelled pro-globalists. They consider that the first phase of globalization, which was market-oriented, should be completed by a phase of building global political institutions representing the will of World citizens. The difference with other globalists is that they do not define in advance any ideology to orientate this will, which should be left to the free choice of those citizens via a democratic process.

Supporters of free trade point out that economic theories of comparative advantage suggest that free trade leads to a more efficient allocation of resources, with all countries involved in the trade benefiting. In general, they claim that this leads to lower prices, more employment and higher output.

Libertarians and other proponents of laissez-faire capitalism say higher degrees of political and economic freedom in the form of democracy and capitalism in the developed world produce higher levels of material wealth. They see globalization as the beneficial spread of democracy and capitalism.

Critics argue that the anti-globalization movement uses anecdotal evidence to support their view and that worldwide statistics instead strongly support globalization. One effect being that the percentage of people in developing countries living below $1 (adjusted for inflation and purchasing power) per day have halved in only twenty years. Life expectancy has almost doubled in the developing world since WWII and is starting to close the gap to the developed world where the improvement has been smaller. Child mortality has decreased in every developing region of the world. Income inequality for the world as a whole is diminishing.

Many pro-capitalists are also critical of the World Bank and the IMF, arguing that they are corrupt bureaucracies controlled and financed by states, not corporations. Many loans have been given to dictators who never carried out promised reforms, instead leaving the common people to pay the debts later. They thus see too little capitalism, not too much. They also note that some of the resistance to globalization comes from special interest groups with conflicting interests like Western world unions.

Globalization in question
There is much academic discussion about whether globalization is a real phenomenon or only a myth. Although the term is widespread, many authors argue that the characteristics of the phenomenon have already been seen at other moments in history. Also, many note that those features that make people believe we are in the process of globalization, including the increase in international trade and the greater role of multinational corporations, are not as deeply established as they may appear. The United States' global interventionist policy is also a stumbling point for those that claim globalization has entered a stage of inevitability. Thus, many authors prefer the use of the term internationalization rather than globalization. To put it simply, the role of the state and the importance of nations are greater in internationalization, while globalisation in its complete form eliminates nation states. So, these authors see that the frontiers of countries, in a broad sense, are far from being dissolved, and therefore this radical globalisation process is not yet happening, and probably won't happen, considering that in world history, internationalization never turned into globalisation—(the European Union and NAFTA are yet to prove their case.)

However, the world increasingly shares problems and challenges that do not obey nation-state borders, most notably pollution of the natural environment, and as such the movement previously known as the anti-globalisation movement has transmogrified into a movement of movements for globalisation from below; seeking, through experimentation, forms of social organisation that transcend the nation state and representative democracy. So, whereas the original arguments of anti-global critique can be refuted with stories of internationalisation, as above, the emergence of a global movement is indisputable and therefore we can speak of a real process towards a global human society of societies.

References and further reading

 * Jagdish Bhagwati: In Defence of Globalization (2004), Oxford University Press, ISBN 0195170253
 * David Held, Anthony McGrew, David Goldblatt, & Jonathan Perraton (1999). Global Transformations: Politics, Economics, and Culture. Stanford University Press, ISBN 0804736278 — The difinitive academic publication on globalization
 * Hirst & Thompson: Globalization in Question (1996), Polity Press, ISBN 0-7456-2164-3
 * Naomi Klein: No Logo (2001). A popular book which is very much against globalization. ISBN 0006530400
 * Michael Hardt & Antonio Negri: Empire (2000), ISBN 0674006712. Hardt and Negri set out with a bold vision to describe the mechanisms of modern globalization and it's disconents, often refered to as the Communist Manifesto of the 21st century.
 * Philippe Legrain: Open World: The Truth About Globalization (2002) ISBN 034911644X — A largely pro-globalization book which responds to many of the complaints of the anti-globalization movement, written by a former Special Adviser to the World Trade Organisation Director-General.
 * Hans-Peter Martin: The Global Trap: Globalization and the Assault on Prosperity and Democracy (Die Globalisierungsfalle, 1996) ISBN 1856495302
 * David Ransom: The Trojan Horse: A Radical Look at Foreign Aid (1975), pp. 93–116
 * Arundhati Roy, Ordinary Person's Guide To Empire, Consortium Book Sales and Dist, September 15, 2004, hardcover, ISBN 089608728X; trade paperback, Consortium, September 15, 2004,	ISBN 0896087271
 * Manfred Steger: Globalization: A Very Short Introduction (2003), Oxford University Press, ISBN 019280359X - A good short introduction.
 * Joseph Stiglitz: Globalization and its discontents (2002) — A book largely sympathetic to the theory of globalization from the 2001 Economics Nobel Prize winner. However, he is sharply critical of the global institutions, the International Monetary Fund, the WTO and the World Bank, regulating the process. ISBN 014101038X
 * Thomas Friedman: The Lexus and the Olive Tree (2000), ISBN 0374185522. Deals with the conflicting processes of tradition and progress, which ultimately influence the progression of globalization throughout the Middle East and the world.
 * Martin Wolf: Why Globalization Works (2004). Wolf uses data he has collected since the 1980s to put together a comprehensive defense of globalization by showing figures which show increased standards of living and income in nations which have globalized.

News publications

 * Evaluating The World Bank's Approach to Global Programs: Addressing the Challenges of Globalization
 * The Globalist | Front Page
 * Pravda: a Russian's analysis of what he calls "World war IV", globalisation.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
Hokkien

These Hokkien lessons are based on the Amoy dialect of Min Nan, native to the city of 廈門（Tai-lo : E7-mng5, Pinyin: Xiamen) in 福建（Fujian), China. The Amoy dialect is mutually intelligible with the dialects of 泉州（Tai-lo: Tsuan5-tsiu1, Pinyin: Quanzhou) and 漳州 （Tai-lo: Tsiang1-tsiu1, Pinyin: Zhangzhou), that border the city of Xiamen to the north and south respectively. In Taiwan, Taiwanese Hokkien is often referred to as just Taiwanese. In Southeast Asia, the Amoy and related Tsuan-tsiu and Tsiang-tsiu dialects are usually known as Hokkien.

The romanization scheme used for this book is the Taiwanese Hokkien Romanization System, which is very similar to Peh-oe-ji.

title: Hokkien


text:
User:Ethica~enwikibooks

=About me= Name: S.R.I.

Age: 13

State: OH

Favorite bands: Slipknot, No Use for a Name, New Found Glory, Cannibal Corpse, Sum 41, Blink 182, Shadows fall, Greenday, Lamb of God, System of a down, Weezer, NOFX, The Ataris etc...

Ethnicity: Japanese

That's all about me

This is my Japanese account: ja:&

title: User:Ethica~enwikibooks


text:
Cookbook talk:Table of Contents/Archive 1

it is very nice to have transparent bikini

New URL
In time we will have to move to a new (hopefully shorter) URL like maybe"food.wikipedia.org" to support unique cookbook-only features like unit conversion, moral purchasing tags, etc. Maybe we should propose doing that right now, to have "pl.food.wikipedia.org" and "en.food.wikipedia.org". Eventually make it "wikook" or something distinctive - sounds like "we cook". Why not do this right now?

 * "Wikook" is cute. I suggest you purchase the domain name (both .com and .org) and donate that to the Wikimedia Foundation. However, I'm not sure if a cookbook project by itself will be broad enough to be viable (remembering that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, almanac and gazetteer; Wiktionary too is more than just a dictionary since it is also a thesaurus and a translating dictionary and grammar guide). Is there anything similar that can be tacked onto the subject of cooking that is complementary? The last thing we need is another project that is so focused that it is still born (like the Sept11wiki - which, as I suggested, should have been a general tribute wiki). --Maveric149 08:37 12 Jul 2003 (UTC)
 * No risk whatever of that - cookbooks are the largest single segment of, and have among the longest shelf life, of any books. Compare that to the Sep11 tribute books.  I suspect also that many people cook and share recipes and such who are not so interested in documentation in general, nor less in textbooks.  It would be good to attract in "church ladies" and chefs and cooking teachers  (especially).  I can't see them caring much about the concerns of say an organic chemistry textbooks.

 * Isn't cooking technicle organic chemistry?

 * As for complementary issues, read the page: group and institutional nutrition, hospitality, kitchens and utensils and table manners and settings and condiments of different cultures, ingredient sourcing and the relationship of that to your environment, community, health and ethics.  There's lots more to go through, and ideas like cooking competitions to explore - maybe we can get the rights to republish rights from cooking shows or restaurants, for publicity.  Go to a cookbook section and you'll see a lot of full-spectrum cookbooks.  Aside from what Slow Food does, imagine a treatment like Diet For A Small Planet by Frances Moore Lappe, which has recipes and implications of them for the whole planet.  This could be the largest subproject going, it's easy to imagine

 * Yes! That is what I was talking about - a broad based project about all things related to food. --Maveric149 06:32 13 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Wikook sounds good to me. I think one thing that should be resolved swiftly is a template for recipies that is complete enough to accomodate the wide variety of cuisine there exists.

I concur with the above, and wonder: the 'nutrition' link, for one, should that be a cookbook link or a wikipedia link? --Jake Nelson 23:38 28 Jul 2003 (UTC)

 * I think they can link to Wikipedia first but eventually should be imported and integrated into the Cookbook. Kpjas

Is somebody going to buy wikook.org/.com before some cybersquatter does? I would, but I've already bought 6 domain names for Wikimedia - time for somebody else to have fun! ;) http://www.godaddy.com registers domain names for less than 10 bucks American each for a one-year plan. --mav

Wouldn't Wikicook be a bit easier for new users ? Think Grandma. The URL would be something like http://food.wikimedia.org, right ? --Karl Wick 13:31 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)

 * Wikook = We Cook. It doesn't get any better than that. --mav

 * I dont plan on being a big contributor to a cookbook, but I dont think many people would "get it".

Wait -- wouldn't it be, http://cook.wikibook.org or http://food.wikibook.org ? (And then maybe the textbook site would be http://tb.wikibook.org .. as long as "tb" is taken as textbook and not tuberculosis. --Karl Wick 00:32 30 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Moved from the page
Authors of this Cookbook might be interested to know and integrate an open cookbook by Matthew Balmer which is available here and is released under GNU FDL 1.1

 * We can't use it - it has Invariant Sections. Permission will be needed to use it here without the Invariant Sections. --mav 22:21 1 Aug 2003 (UTC)

 * So, has anyone contacted Matthew Balmer about this? I'm almost positive he'd be ok with our licensing, considering it's already released under the GFDL. I'll do it if no one else has, just let me know.-- Merphant 07:29 4 Aug 2003 (UTC)
 * Matt Balmer writes:  You have my permission to incorporate parts of the cookbook into the project, but I have one request: I'd like to know what you're importing. Is it whole chapters, individual recipes, or what? I'm just interested in knowing how people are using my cookbook.  Also, if you would like portions of your cookbook integrated into mine and given a nice, professional print look (for people that want a print version), I would be more than happy to integrate parts of your project and put those in the PDF and PostScript versions I will be distributing with 0.5. Let me know if you're interested.

 * Great! I've started an info page for this book: Cookbook:Balmer Open Source Cookbook. Let's take this discussion there. -- Merphant 09:32 6 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Talk concerning the old main page
Talk about ambitious. Added Japanese cuisine and first two points to outline. Hope I don't make a total mess of it.

Also changed links in Learning section from Country/culture to Country/culture Cuisine. Japanese pointed to a Japanese language text. Question: Shouldn't the word cuisine in the page titles be capitalized? I capitalized the links I changed, but noticed later that the links in the outline section are lower case. Which way do we go? CyberMaus 20:02, 8 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Atkins
Atkins is listed on http://www.quackwatch.org, in other words, he's a quack suspect! I vote that we remove any commerical affiliations with this cookbook, and that we immediately remove the Atkins section of the book. Keep the Atkins recipes fine, but remove their affiliation to Atkins and do not endorse any recipes as part of any sort of diet. Wikipedia should not advertise nor advocate any eating habits. 207.112.53.29 03:11, 14 Oct 2003 (UTC)

 * It's a good thing we ain't Wikipedia then. --mav

 * Atkins is not a quack. There is ample scientific evidence behind it. If wikipedia (I assume you mean to include Wikibooks) can't endorse any diets, than there goes low fat diets, low calorie diets, and not caring about what you eat at all. Everything is a diet. Atkins has become a generic term, so I wouldn't worry about that issue either. The Atkins diet is more sustainable than other diets and has the same, if not better, results for weight loss in most people. LittleDan 22:40, 16 Oct 2003 (UTC)

 * Atkins is controversial, yes. There are other specialised diets, such as vegetarian though; why not Atkins?  I vote for keep; I'm a vegan, which is about as far as you can get from Atkins, and I think Atkins is an unhealthy fad diet [although good for quick weight loss], but there's absolutely no reason to delete the section.  If people want to put in recipes which match their diet, including in a specific section, why stop them?  The type-of-diet things are a great convenience; now all we need is better cross-referencing.  Wikipedia is not advertising or advocating eating habits; people who share eating habits sort recipes by them.  Big difference.

What to do with recipes at wikipedia
Should we port over all of the recipies from the regular Wikipedia to this cookbook? The recipies should really be here, not at Wikipedia proper. Right now, there is no interwiki page moving feature, though. LittleDan 22:40, 16 Oct 2003 (UTC)

 * My preference is that this should be done sooner than later, in order to get this project rolling. However, there is one small problem.  Wikipedia gets more visibility than wikibooks does.  How do we ensure that we get traffic?  The search engine on Wikipedia does not search through wikibooks does it?  I guess we can just rely on Google to pick up our pages over time.  dave 17:37, 5 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * Well, hopefully once the cookbook here is a little more functional we'll be able to move everything from wikipedia proper here and have the old articles there link to here. -- Grimm

 * May I make a request? Over on Wikipedia, I did a lengthy, detailed reworking of the article on chili con carne, which incorporates a number of actual recipes by way of illustration and to distinguish between types of chili. I have no objection to copying those recipes to this cookbook -- but please do not simply delete them from that article in the process. The article would completely meaningless without them. --Mksmith 21:19, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Library of Cookery
"Library of Cookery" by the Women's Institute is now online at Project Gutenberg. Vol 1, Vol 2, Vol 3, Vol 4, Vol 5. It's roughly 2 megs of text, and quite a few images so it could probably get this cookery section off to a good start. -- Jimregan 10:05, 2 Nov 2003 (UTC)
 * There's also 365 Foreign Dishes -- Jimregan 15:07, 9 Nov 2003 (UTC)
 * 365 Foreign Dishes may not be of much use. I only gave it a quick glance but it contains such helpful advice as "cook until done". Yes that really is all the information the recipie gave on determining when to stop cooking. Grimm

Spices and herbs
Just a small note: I am currently building better pages for spices and herbs. I have a template Wikipedia:WikiProject_Herbs_and_Spices going, and I have ported a few pages over to this format. Some herbs and spices already have an article written but it is in a plant/botanical slant. I rename those to spice_name (plant)] and create a new cooking/spice slanted page at [[spice_name (spice) or spice_name (herb). All of the spice pages listed at Spices should be moved over to this wiki eventually.  I could wait until we have some interwiki moving feature.  dave 17:37, 5 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Alphabetical listing of recipes
I have created a space for alphabetical listing of recipies (probably a good place for recipies to begin their life in the cookbook) and also begun to copy over some recipies from the en Wiki's List of recipies. The Grimm Ripper

Should we include cooking techniques
How about in addition to recipes, Wikook includes basic cooking skills-how to boil, how to roast, how to stir-fry, etc. Thoughts? Kagredon 03:06, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * I'd think that Wikook (cute name btw) would cover everything to do with food, and be a kind of culinary encyclopedia. There's an infinite variety of things to write about, and I'm excited to help work on it. All I need to know is where to do it! I was doing some of this kind of stuff in the wikipedia... Karen J., who'd better register here if this is where the wiki cookbook will be.

Page too ugly
IMNSHO, this page is too ugly to be the first page everyone comes to when they click Cookbook. This page seems more like a planning or orginization page, so propose that the page be moved to Cookbook:Cookbook planning, and a new, Table of Contents type page replace it. That page should have only a few links, such as Cookbook:Ingrediants, Cookbook:Techniques, Cookbook:Equipment, Cookbook:Cuisines, and Cookbook:Recipes, as well as a link to the planning page.

Any thoughts? Gentgeen 18:18, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * If anyone wants to see what I'm thinking, I've put together Talk:Cookbook/Temp. The current page would move to Cookbook:Planning, or something similar.Gentgeen
 * I've my own version at Talk:Cookbook/Temp2 to further separate out planning stuff and provide a place for more links (which is appropriate for a table of contents, IMO). TUF-KAT 22:15, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * I like your version better, but there should be links to the various types of dishes, not just the cuisines, as well as the recipe index. Gentgeen
 * Added them. Gentgeen 23:37, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * Here is another vote for TUF-KAT's version. Looks pretty nice to me. Not that I have edited the cookbook ... --Karl Wick
 * I agree, the TUF-KAT version is even more eye-catching. I would retain the title centered at the very top as in the Gentgeen version, however— and perhaps make the type a bit larger. Look at German:Contents for an example of larger centered titles at the very top - Marsh 02:35, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * Have moved temp2 to Cookbook, and the old version to Talk:Cookbook/Planning. TUF-KAT 19:54, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I haven't had any internet access for the last few days... so this is the first I've seen of the new page and I hate it! I don't see any logical place to hang actual useful articles off that table of contents. What happened to the index list I was working on last week with cookbook sections that needed to be worked on? I agree that was WAS on the page before was a hideous mess but I don't really think this is much better. Instead of too much information now we're presenting the reader with none at all. There's got to be a middle ground. (One of the reasons I HATE tables is that I don't have a clue how to edit them, and nor do a lot of people...)KJ 12:22, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * I agree that the new main page is rather... terse and I too hate editting tables. This is why I keep a copy of the HTML 4.whatever specs under my pillow: http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/ Grimm

As featured in Slashdot (sort of)

 * Slashdot mention #1
 * Slashdot mention #2

Also, check out this link to another cooking wiki:

TastyWiki

TOC vs Intro
Regarding the new design of this page -- I changed it because I figured this should be the table of contents for the Cookbook. Perhaps the old text should be integrated here, but I'm also considering redesigning the table itself. There are undoubtedly more subjects to be incorporated in a table of contents, and a new format might make it more wieldy to read and edit. TUF-KAT 07:50, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

We need a link to Cookbook:Glossary of Ingredients to store things like comparisons/conversions between different countries. I don't know how to edit tables or where it would best go. KJ 07:57, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Also, thinking about the front page, people have been adding a lot of ingredients to the little lists, and they're starting to get pretty long so it's hard to read them. We can't put EVERYTHING on the front page of the book! I'd suggest revamping the front page a bit and instead of having categories for meat/veg/fruit/grains/dairy etc we amalgamate them all into the category of INGREDIENTS - then put the meat etc over in the examples column and people can go to Meat to find buffalo etc. This would also allow us to add a section for Pantry Cupboard Staples or Dry Ingredients or Baking Ingredients (not sure what you'd call it) to cover all the myriad of explanations that we really need... (oops, forgot to sign) KJ 08:05, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * I've put your idea of an Ingredients row, with all the various ingredients on their own page, together at Talk:Cookbook/Temp3. I agree that it clears up much of the clutter of this page. Gentgeen 13:29, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * That test version looks so much neater! It's great... I'd give it my vote :) KJ 02:56, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Another question. I was just trying to fix the Italian Cuisine page because it was broken... but when I tried to link pasta back to Italian Cuisine it said there is no such page and I discovered that whoever made the index used 'Cuisine of Italy' for the page title (and most of the other countries too) Why use the awkward title 'Cuisine of France' 'Cuisine of Germany' etc. If you're going to mention it in an article you're going to write 'French cuisine' 'German Cuisine' etc. Why not just give the page the most obvious title? KJ 04:14, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * You could create redirect sets in one way or the other... Dysprosia 04:23, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * I saw the "Cuisine of xxx" page somewhere, and just accecpted it as the standard without thinking about it. If I remember correctly, that naming convention came to us from Wikipedia, where the cuisine pages are part of the "Culture of xxx" pages.  I prefer the "xxx cuisine" name myself, but what do we call food from New Zealand? Gentgeen 05:06, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * I think it was simply established on en and bled over here. I don't see either title as being much better than the other, but there are pros and cons for both sides.

 * I think the single biggest reason for using "Cuisine of XXX" on Wikipedia is that it is has less of an ethnic connotation. "Cuisine of Japan" could mean ethnic Japanese in Japan, or ethnic Japanese in Europe, or Ainu, Okinawans or Russians in Japan, as well as info on how the Cuisine of Japan has had an impact elsewhere.  Another objection is that many countries have a rather obscure adjectival form (Nigerian cuisine vs. Nigerien cuisine, for example) or one that is simply awkward (New Zealander cuisine, Solomon Islander cuisine) -- for consistency's sake, then, the adjectival form should be avoided even in "Cuisine of Italy" or "Cuisine of Japan", where these issues are not as prominent.  On wikibooks, all this seems less important, so it doesn't much matter, as long as there is consistency and the other form is a redirect. TUF-KAT 07:14, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It's looking good! Much less messy :) Well done on the change :)

cookbook gfdl(Open Source Cookbook)
Look what I found. Perl 21:35, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Oh yes, the Open Source Cookbook. He apparently takes submissions of recipies and compiles them into a book.  Unfortunately, it hasn't been updated in a while.  THe recipes definetly need to be ported over (it's under the GNU FDL).  It's hosted at http://www.ibiblio.org/oscookbook/.

I have several recipies of my own for "hot and spicy dip". It's great for potato chips, french fries, stuff like that. Let me know where you'd like me to contribute it at. --Phantom 03:18, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

 * We love all recipes. Just use put it at Cookbook:Hot and Spicy Dip, or anywhere else if you think up a snappier title.  When you're done, make a link there from Cookbook:Recipes, and anywhere else it belongs. Gentgeen 05:42, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

 * Done. I've got a bunch of recipies around here somewhere, I'll post more when I find em. --Phantom 12:35, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Could we port all of the recipes from that cookbook? Since it's open-source, we may only have to provide credit to the authors. --OMouse 3:36, 5 Mar 2005 (EST)

Recipe Template
I was nosing around the German cookbook (Kochbuch), after they put alink at the top of ours, and noticed they have a nice recipe template (Kochbuch/Rezeptvorlage, with a machine translation into English here) that's more developed, and I think much better, than ours (Cookbook:Policy/Recipe template). Anyone object to ditching the old template and making a new one based on the work of our German cohorts, but tweaked a little to match our style? Gentgeen 12:08, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

Redesign Needed for Recipe Search

 * I think that the main page should be redesigned so that the link to all recipes is much clearer, rather than just being a small "more recipes" at the bottom of the "Featured Recipe" box. Why not in LARGE letters at the top of the screen?  That's the logical place for a visitor to start looking.

Also, why doesn't the "search" function work better?

I wrote a recipe for "tartiflette" that was in the main Wikipedia for a while before being moved here a day or so ago. If you're in the Wikipedia and type "tartiflette" into the "search" you then get a link to it as well as a link to the Wikibooks cookbook. But if you then go to the cookbook by error you can't use "search" to find "tartiflette...."Hayford Peirce 17:45, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Um, there is another link to the recipe index as one of the main links on the left hand side of the "Table of Contents" area below the featured ingredient and recipe. As far as searching, I understand that the search index is currently not being updated, but that it is only a temporary situation. Gentgeen 23:00, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Is there an automatic way to alphabetically list every recipe that is in this category? For example: I create a recipe with 'Martian cuisine' on the header. Do I have to add it to the Martian cuisine list of recipes or it could be done automatically? It would also be really nice to have it for ingredients... if I click on cucumber I get in some way the complete list of recipes that use cucumber. --Sbenza 18:22, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

public domain sources
I searched Project Gutenberg to see what books it had concerning cooking and came up with some historic and possibly still useful books. They are below:
 * Woman's Institute Library of Cookery 5 Vol. set.
 * The Healthy Life Cook Book, 2d ed.
 * School And Home Cooking, A home economics text.
 * Simple Italian Cookery
 * There are a whole bunch. Just go to http://www.gutenberg.net and search for "cook" in the title field.  It gives some false positives for Captain Cook but other relevant resources as well.

Government sites: The following sites have recipes that come from government sites and may be useful for the purposes of this cookbook.
 * http://www.metrokc.gov/HEALTH/nutrition/cookbook.htm - I liked this one because it has a nutrition facts included. If there is question about the copyright, I have an email I can post here that gives permission. They asked that I cite them if I do use a recipe. No problem. liblamb 21:56, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Ingredients vs Basic Foodstuffs
When clicking on the "Ingredients" link on the Cookbook main page, it links to a page named "Basic Foodstuffs." It would be more consistent to title this page "Ingredients" but I'm not sure what the purpose of the page is. I would like to add "pasta" somewhere but I don't know that I would call it a "basic foodstuff" but it is an ingredient. There is a large class of manufactured/processed ingredients such as pasta, breakfast cerials, and sauces that don't fit well into the present basic foodstuff categories. Anybody have suggestions? liblamb 17:17, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Recipes from copyright-protected cookbooks.
"Mere listings" of ingredients are not subject to copyright. http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl122.html mentions this. What -is- potentially subject to copyright is the directions.

How willing/resistant is this wiki cookbook project to the inclusion of recipes from still-protected cookbooks, with the directions entirely rewritten and potential modifications to the ingredients list, along with a note of the original source and the fact modifications were made? I'm not proposing taking whole cookbooks and treating them this way, but there are a few specific recipes which I quite enjoy and are adapted from mildly to unrecognizably from relatively current cookbooks, and would like to put up here.
 * I personally would not like the idea of merely just taking recipes from cookbooks or recipe sites and then posting them here, unless they were the Open Source Cookbook or one of the public domain cookbooks. Even then, we should still cite them as sources.  That's just my opinion.--Alsocal 08:30, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * If someone writes a book with the recipe for 'Boiled Water', it means that I can't use it here anymore? Most recipes are of public domain and most cookbooks are just recopilations of these kind of recipes. --Sbenza 18:33, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * The directions to a recipe are a procedure, and procedures are not copyrightable under US law (although they can be patented, but that's another matter). The part of a recipe that can be copyrighted include the descriptive blurb at the top, any photographs, and perhaps the layout of the recipe if it (the layout) is new or novel.  If we rewrite those parts, and make sure to use the Cookbook:Cookbook/Recipe template, we should be fine. However, IANAL. Gentgeen 23:44, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

everything2.com is packed with recipes. Uh, what are we doing here?

AlbertCahalan 06:39, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * recipe guidelines
 * copyright info for US recipes
 * categorized

another new layout
I've come up with another layout for the main cookbook page, again. I've updated Talk:Cookbook/Temp with the new layout. Any suggestions or comments will be appriciated. Gentgeen 05:07, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * The alternative layout looks good. I don't have a preference between the two.  Of note is that the new look wouldn't hold featured recipe pictures very well.  Both seem to have too many links but that follows the pattern of much of Wikibooks.  I haven't thought of anything better myself so I don't have room to talk :-) liblamb 21:39, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

A matter of philosophy
Here's a question - should we generally exactly dictate ingredients and cooking times, which seem to me to cut out matters of personal taste, or should we instead strive to explain the concept of a dish and the methodology behind its production, and leave matters as to, for instance, whether the ideal roast turkey brine employs maple syrup or apple juice, or what the exact right poultry rub for fried chicken is up to individual chefs?

My feeling is that it is more helpful to explain what one is doing than it is to simply give a list of directions, and that ingredient lists should only contain those items necessary to fulfill the technical requirements of the dish. Certainly guidance on possible seasonings should be included, but I think the distinction between stuff that must be done in order for the recipe to work (It is simply a bad idea, for instance, to make fried chicken with no breading) and the stuff that makes the recipe your fried chicken (Corn flakes or flour?) is important to make clear in the recipes. Snowspinner 06:34, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * If people don't realize recipe's can be changed "to taste," even in drastic measures, then they really should be following the directions carefully. If I have a way to cook something that I think is best, why not tell others the exact way. They can create their own best recipe by modifications themselves. My two cents. liblamb 21:46, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * I agree for most cookbooks, but this is not most cookbooks. Unless we intend to have a wild multiplication of pages on various recipes, we are faced with the problem of a multiplicity of views on how to cook something. The problem is analagous to the problems that require a NPOV policy on the encyclopedias. We need some method of ensuring, for lack of a better word, culinary NPOV. Snowspinner 15:13, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * Well, the template for recipes (which only about 20% of recipes use, sorry, I burned out on converting recipes) provide a place for variations. It's also easy to set up a new page and link to it, for example at Cookbook:Chocolate Mousse, where we link to the Atkins-freindly version.  We also might suggest more specific naming of recipes, so that we don't have a recipe at Cookbook:Chili, for example, but use that page for a collection of recipes.  Just some suggestions. Gentgeen 17:34, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * I think, though, that a lot can be done with explaining the methodology of a dish, and that this is, in the end, more useful than being just another cookbook. I'm thinking something more in line with either of Alton Brown's cookbooks - containing directions for how to do something, but also containing a whole lot of explanation of what you're doing, and clear guidance of when it's OK to divert from the recipe, and when it's going to be disastrous. Snowspinner 04:25, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * Snowspinner, I see what you're saying about the cookbook scaling. Though, I wonder if it would be a problem to have a multiplicity of recipes as long as the variation section is used appropriately. But, "appropriately" could be a thorny decision. I'm not sure I understand what your suggested alternative is so it may be better.  An example would be nice. liblamb 15:26, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * Cookbook:Fried chicken is a good example of the sort of recipe I think we should have. Snowspinner 23:15, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * Nice recipe. I've got a copy of AB's first cookbook, and another one called What Einstein told his cook by Robert L. Wolke ( ISBN 0-393-01183-6 ) which has a similar style, and I agree that explaining what is going on is really more important than providing just a recipe.  However, I think we could put these "teaching someone about their kitchen" segments in the ingredient, technique, and cuisine modules, with links to example recipes.  For example, Cookbook:Sautéing  describes the cooking method, compairs it to other similar methods, and lists recipes that call for food to be sautéed. We've still got a long way to go with this project. Gentgeen 00:16, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * Thanks Snowspinner, I now know what your talking about :-) While the recipe is presented well and gives something concrete for people to use (except the spice which is understandable), I'm not sure it will keep recipes from proliferating any better than making use of the "variation" section. For example, I know that if I were to add a fried chicken recipe it would be different enough to require another page; the only fried chicken I've seen cooked in a home before was in an iron skillet and was not soaked in brine. I think your recipe could be presented in our current template format that included the same info but was presented differently. The Procedures section would just have three parts, The spice rub, Brining the chicken, and Prepping the chicken. Comments about ingredient variations could be split out to go into the variation section. liblamb 04:40, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Going left again - my feeling on the brining is that it is not so much a specific POV on the recipe as an underused technique. Since you can, if you want, just use a water brine (Though I think it's boring), it amounts to a particular way of salting the chicken that's really effective on meats.

As for pan-frying, I know of that style. I just didn't go with it because, well, iron skillets of oil scare me. But, again, this would amount to a little note in the frying section indicating that you can pan-fry it. Again, I think this is superior to a variations section, though, because it presents the variations not as different recipes, but as different ways of achieving the same goal on a single recipe (whether it be seasoning, roasting, or whatever). Maybe this is just me, but I view a food not as a set of six or seven possible recipes, but as one process with a differance of opinion on each step of the process. But I don't think the process itself changes that much from recipe to recipe. Just the nagging details. Snowspinner 05:19, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

For my own part I think we should have detailed recipies with notes indicating how they may be modified (and we should encourage people to modify and be creative). I would humbly submit my own (thus far) Cookbook:Gyoza (they're better known as 'Potstickers'). I give a detailed list but with a number of suggestions for alterations and leeway within the recipie to allow people to season the dish themselves. I must admit I do actually have some more ideas for alterations to this that I've held back but I'm afraid they may cause the dumplings to break during cooking. On the other end of the argument there are some recipes without much room for alteration (for example a roux should always be made from the same ratio of fat and flour but after one has a roux an infinite number of uses exist). Grimm

Completely disagree, this will dissuade amateur cooks. As they take grow more expereienced and know what make what tastes like ____, they themselves will make changes to the recipe. Explanation will be good, but still give exact measurements please! Rogers 02 Dec 2004

 * I agree with Rogers. Experienced cooks will already look at a recipe and think of ways it could be modified to meet their individual tastes. Amateur cooks, on the other hand, such as myself, need specific instructions because we often aren't yet familiar enough with the ingredients and possibilies out there to have a personal taste, or to articulate it if we do have one. The fried chicken recipe is about as minimal as it could be and still be useful to a beginner. The section about the spice rub was, in fact, a little too vague to be of use. It was helpful, at least, that it suggested some spices to use, but it would have been better if it had suggested a complete ratio of spices to use for a sample spice rub. Certainly I could throw some random spices together and find out through experimentation whether they worked; but the reason a beginner comes to a cookbook is because they want to be told some answers without having to waste time and food on experiments that often don't work out. --209.108.217.226 22:03, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)


text:
Talk:Blender 3D: Noob to Pro/Fluffy Material

I think that is this tutorial without pictures useless... --Popski 04:54, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree, In it's current state this is an extremely advanced 'tutorial'. There are no screenies, and the language used is terrible.* I mean no offense to the writer whatsoever, but please understand that beginner users WILL get confused by these tips. --Radialronnie (talk) 14:58, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

 * by 'terrible' I mean that the terminology is very incorrect.

Ok, I revamped this page, What do you think about it now?--Radialronnie (talk) 15:50, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


text:
User:Solangel.Fernandez

Solangel Fernandez She dreams in colors, now is studying in UK.

BA. in Architecture and Urban design - UNI, Peru / Professional Degree: Architecture - UNI, Peru / MA Urban Design - Oxford Brookes University, Uk / MPhil Planning Growth and Regeneration - Cambridge University, Uk

title: User:Solangel.Fernandez


text:
User:Paulgiron~enwikibooks

Paul is a human being living now on the Earth since more than 300 months ago.

title: User:Paulgiron~enwikibooks


text:
User:Ninomy

ja:User:Ninomy - m:User:Ninomy

title: User:Ninomy


text:
Wikijunior talk:Solar System/The Mystery of Space

Does anyone know of any useful places I could go to get some info on this topic? - Enaam