text:
Talk:Great Expectations

Margaret Cardwell
Prairieplant, this doesn't look right:
 * "Charles Dickens; Margaret Cardwell (1993), Great Expectations, Oxford: Clarendon Press, ISBN 978-0-19-818591-8, introduction and notes by Margaret Cardwell"

Surely Cardwell is the editor? See Norton edition for example. I will see if it can be fixed.Rwood128 (talk) 23:42, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

, my contribution was simply to add her name to distinguish 2 entries that were both Dickens 1993, and confused the short ref- to - long ref connection. I was worried that some inline citations were to the other Dickens 1993, just above it. I changed all inline citations to the edition with Cardwell’s name.

 * I thought she wrote the introduction for this 1993 edition, and notes on the text, but I never saw this edition. See another post below, it was written in the Editions section of the article. Many refs are to pages with lower case Roman numerals; one of these had words saying it was a ref to Cardwell. I deleted those words when I added her name to the ref. Was that wrong? Is the other 1993 listing needed in this article?

 * WorldCat describes it this way here.
 * Oxford, the publisher that uses Clarendon Press, says this, but the most interesting description is limited to subscribers (front matter and end matter) & I am not a subscriber. Publisher page is here.
 * When I looked online yesterday I found text mentioning her insights, naming her. Today I see there is a 2008 edition, which adds another person as writer of the intro. Have to be specific with the year of publication. - - -Prairieplant (talk) 22:30, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

--Prairieplant (talk) 23:38, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

 * Sorry for so many typos above, I am working from my mobile phone right now instead of my computer. - - Prairieplant (talk) 22:33, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I corrected most of my typos now that I am using my computer. --Prairieplant (talk) 00:11, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

 * Your removal of her name from the long reference generates errors in the short refs, immediately. I will add her back as editor=, and hope that still works with linking short refs to that long ref while you sort out if she did write the intro and can be author. I will shift to my computer now. - - Prairieplant (talk) 22:43, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

 * This is text quoted from the Editions section of the article, and I put the text about Cardwell in bold - "Robert L Patten identifies four American editions in 1861 and sees the proliferation of publications in Europe and across the Atlantic as "extraordinary testimony" to Great Expectations's popularity.[63] Chapman and Hall published the first edition in three volumes in 1861,[2][3][4] five subsequent reprints between 6 July and 30 October, and a one-volume edition in 1862. The "bargain" edition was published in 1862, the Library Edition in 1864, and the Charles Dickens edition in 1868. To this list, Paul Schlicke adds "two meticulous scholarly editions", one Clarendon Press published in 1993 with an introduction by Margaret Cardwell[64] and another with an introduction by Edgar Rosenberg, published by Norton in 1999.[54] The novel was published with one ending (visible in the four online editions listed in the External links at the end of this article). In some 20th century editions, the novel ends as originally published in 1867, and in an afterword, the ending Dickens did not publish, along with a brief story of how a friend persuaded him to a happier ending for Pip, is presented to the reader (for example, 1987 audio edition by Recorded Books[65])"

 * Meanwhile, I am testing out her name as editor so the reference linkage still works, and learned that the Wordsworth edition was issued in 1992, and that makes only one cited edition in 1993, because I changed the Wordsworth edition to be year=1992. Making Cardwell an editor does NOT solve the reference linkage problem. Either 1) I put all those cites back to Charles Dickens 1993 or 2) we add Cardwell back as second author. I will wait for you to say if Cardwell wrote the intro and is therefore a second author.
 * I think a person who writes an introduction is a second author. That is the status I gave to others named as writing an introduction to other editions of Great Expectations in the Works cited list. Okay? --Prairieplant (talk) 23:38, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Prairieplant. As Cardwell is the author only of the introduction and notes it is confusing to list her as the joint author of the whole text. I was interested to see the World Cat page and remember seeing translators similarly listed as authors. In a sense translators are authors, I suppose, (more so with poetry), but it is better to clearly distinguish between authors, editors, and translators. Footnote 6 refers to page 1 of the "Introduction", so in my opinion the citation should just mention Cardwell as the author, within Dickens' novel.

 * I'm more comfortable with, say, the Chicago style of formatting:

 * Thoreau, Henry David. “Walking.” In The Making of the American Essay, edited by John D’Agata, 167–95. Minneapolis: Graywolf Press, 2016.
 * Jhumpa Lahiri, In Other Words, trans. Ann Goldstein (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2016), 146.

 * I take the World Cat entries as library shorthand rather than an accurate reflection of reality. Rwood128 (talk) 12:34, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

 * I see that my library's e-book citation shows Cardwell as co-author, though strictly speaking she is only the editor. To add to the confusion I now find that the "Introduction and Notes" were written by Robert Douglas-Fairhurst. Shouldn't the author of the source for citation no. 6 get credit? And so forth. I prefer full acknowledgement of sources, including differentiating author and editor, etc. but I need to check Wikipedia's guidance on this!

 * The details for the Penguin Classics edition are surely wrong? Rwood128 (talk) 14:48, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

 * There are several references to the introduction to the Oxford edition wrongly attributed to Cardwell. I will work on this.

I have checked the copyright details from the 2008 online text I accessed. This shows that Robert Douglas-Fairhurst's introduction and notes were added to a new edition in 2008. I haven't been able to check the earlier version, but a review of the 1993 edition indicates that Cardwell provided an introduction. I should have checked more carefully. Rwood128 (talk) 10:59, 5 May 2021 (UTC) Rwood128 (talk) 13:38, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

 * I am glad that you found the same information I did, as to the difference between the 2008 edition and the 1993 edition. I guess I do not understand why writing the introduction does not make a person an author, a secondary author, but that is your call. I will remove Cardwell's name from the short references, the harvnb versions that appear in the article text, so that the short references will link to the long references when the cursor is placed over the short ref or the short ref is clicked, in the Reference section. That is the mechanics of short and long refs, nothing to do with style. There is just one Dickens 1993 long reference now, so the links will work and your phrase indicating introduction by Margaret Cardwell will inform the reader. As to the style of the long references, they are formatted and now show up as the default style. There are ways to make them look like Chicago style, but I have not learned how to do that as yet, sorry. -- Prairieplant (talk) 18:23, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

 * Thanks fr your patience, Prairieplant, and sorry for creating all this fuss. There are obviously a number of citation styles and clearly Wikipedia has adopted a very liberal approach. I like what you have done. Rwood128 (talk) 22:06, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Recent edits
The edit by Joombi are slightly better, subject to correcting for British style. Rwood128 (talk) 11:57, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

A look at British style re full stops
Here is a paragraph from The Guardian, a British newspaper using British style, showing how they do not use full stops in the initial of a person's name, bold added by me. "Pasternak's work is also difficult because his mind-set is unpredictably complex, evocatively associative, synaesthetic and polysemous. His vocabulary is exceptionally wide, and his intellect has a pronounced metaphysical cast. In an uncollected letter to TS Eliot, Pasternak explores their shared aesthetic in ambitiously faulty English. Eliot's art, he writes, like his own, is "a casually broken off fragment of the density of being itself; of the hylomorphic matter of existence. . ." Pasternak became much more accessible in his later work. Doctor Zhivago was suicidally vivid and forthright. The poems that accompany it are translucent." from here. Do not put the full stops back. Let your eyes get used to this aspect of British style. -- Prairieplant (talk) 05:22, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

 * The same poet, when discussed in The New York Times, an American newspaper, has full stops after his initials. American style, not British style. "The estate of T.S. Eliot has gifted the struggling museum, which reopened in late August after being closed since March, 20,000 pounds (or approximately $26,000) last week. The donation was first reported by the BBC." from here. -- Prairieplant (talk) 05:22, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

 * Prairieplant and as far as I can see there is no standard British style in this case. As I noted previously, the London Review of Books uses periods with initials. I randomly checked four books published in England, including two by Oxford U.P. and they all also use a period. And TLS! This is becoming tedious. Rwood128 (talk) 13:07, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

 * How many times do I need to explain this to you? Wikipedia has a style guide which governs how initials in biographical names are formatted. That style guide is the Wikipedia Manual of Style. The relevant section is here: MOS:INITS. It does not matter how the Guardian does it, because Wikipedia is not the Guardian. It does not matter how the Times does it, because Wikipedia is not the Times. You are overestimating the latitude national styles of English are given at Wikipedia. By all means, write "Mr Micawber" and "honour". Be my guest. But MOS:INITS is unequivocal. I will be reverting. Until you can come up with something better than "I would win the argument if we were writing at the Guardian", please give it a rest. I understand that you don't like Wikipedia's style. Noted. I will suggest once again that you should get used to it, or else go work to change the MOS. But you don't get to just declare this page exempt from the rules. Regulov (talk) 13:15, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Prairieplant, as there is no British style in this case there's no need to continue this debate. Rwood128 (talk) 13:54, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

 * When I started editing articles using British style years back, other editors from the UK made sure I learned this rule by changing text to match what they knew, and I saw it in practice in British newspapers and in Wikipedia guidance. If you two want to erase it, without bringing in any other voice, one known to be from the UK, then go ahead. I am not from the UK, which is why I had to be taught the British style. I assume it is like US style — not every publication follows exactly the same rules, so counter examples can always be found. It has been good working on the articles on books by Dickens up to now, a good learning experience with good editors. It is time to step away now that has taken over, on periods and apostrophes. - - Prairieplant (talk) 10:37, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

 * Prairieplant, I'm no expert and left Britain long ago, but my conclusions about British-style are based on what I found in British books and journals. I just checked a book published by the Liverpool U.P. and they use periods after initials, and "s's". Again, University of Wales Press's author's guidelines has:

 * apostrophe
 * Jones’s, Thomas’s, Wales’s, but classical names have no extra ‘s’, e.g. Diogenes’, Ulysses’. This convention may appear incongruous at times – e.g. Krauss’s critique, Glass’s Guide – but should be followed consistently.

 * abbreviations and contractions
 * Generally, a full point for abbreviations (Fig., a.m., p.m., ed., vol.), but not for contractions (Mr, Dr, Revd, St (for saint; St. is the accepted contraction for street), Figs, eds, vols). Plural forms of some common abbreviations are effectively contractions, which means no point is required: ed., vol. and ch., which have a full point in the singular, are given as eds, vols and chs without a point in the plural (for use in notes and bibliographies).

 * To be clear this means periods after initials. Perhaps, Prairieplant, you might look at actual current practice in Britain, and check the examples that I provided previously, or simply examine books that you own that were published in Britain. I haven't yet found any evidence to support what you claim. I am not siding with Regulov, just checking the facts. Rwood128 (talk) 14:25, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

 * Also see Great Expectations, Oxford World Classics edition. Rwood128 (talk) 15:12, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

 * I really wish I could get through to you. This is not about what I want. It doesn't matter what I want. It doesn't matter where an editor comes from. It doesn't matter what British publications do or do not do. It doesn't matter what people used to do at Wikipedia. And it doesn't matter that no one has noticed before now. The overriding consensus is the one that resulted in the relevant sections of the Wikipedia Manual of Style.

 * If you feel strongly that there ought to be an exception to the rules in question on grounds of national style of English, you have the option of raising the issue at Talk:MOS, and you can see what other editors there think about changing the MOS. It is, after all, a guideline, and subject to change. Of course, that effort will fail, because while competent English writers, editors, and publishers do indeed style possessives and initialisms differently, the cleavage does not align neatly with British and American English. Arguing the MOS should permit multiple styles just because multiple styles are found in the world would be even more hopeless: the whole point of a house style policy is to make (admittedly somewhat arbitrary) rulings to which editors can refer when disagreements (like this one) arise, in order to forestall or at least truncate edit wars, and to lend the publication consistency by the way.

 * But I can't emphasize strongly enough that even if your case were better, it would not matter unless and until you successfully changed the MOS. This is not the right venue for your arguments, . You are making arguments that only have any value in the context of an effort to amend the MOS. But the MOS is, if you'll permit me, essentially the law, and now that I've brought it to your attention, you're bound to make a good faith effort to abide by it. You aren't allowed to revert my edits, now that the situation has been explained to you. Are you allowed to "make a mistake"? If plain orneriness compels you, can you go ahead and add new text sprinkled with "GK Chesterton" and "Dickens' novels"? I suppose that's between you and your conscience. Look, you're right that these are small details; but rather than waxing wroth because Regulov makes small details a point of principle rather than giving up and going away, why not simply accept that the MOS does not perfectly reflect your personal preferences, or your long-held idea of what constitutes "British style"? The details are as small for you as they are for me. Be big. Regulov (talk) 15:57, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

 * Well I did say bye because Regulov is too much. However I saw this discussion on the Talk page of another article, regarding points, as they called full stops or periods. Consider it in your views of "laws" in Wikipedia, this discussion f a move that did happen, taking the period after Mr in the article title.

 * The Mysterious Mr. Quin → The Mysterious Mr Quin – -- There is no period in book's title per original cover and UK MOS custom at the time. Quis separabit? 21:46, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

 * Support. Informal investigation suggests that the original styling of the title (and of the text) consistently had no point after "Mr", in accord with long-standing British usage. Several sources, even those devoted to this author, add a point. But the author's preference is certainly most important; and WP:ENGVAR would decide the matter anyway, even if there were no evidence of the author's and original publisher's preferences. The article needs revision throughout, to establish uniform British usage. NoeticaTea? 23:09, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Support This is the title. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:21, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Support "Mr Quin" it should be. Bielle (talk) 23:46, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
 * End of quoted discussion from The Mysterious Mr Quin  -- Prairieplant (talk) 19:31, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

 * I don't really see the relevance of this. Did you, Prairieplant, not read my comments above about British style? It has already been established that "Mr" is British usage, whereas "Mr." is American-style. Rwood128 (talk) 11:27, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

 * Please be careful to sign your comments, . Regulov (talk) 06:45, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Big long-term tasks
Hope everyone's well. Reread the article today and had some thoughts. Jotting them down while I remember. Most of these are overarching, ongoing, long-term tasks. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 11:55, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * tighten the prose
 * verify references support the text that cites them. Definitely a long-term project.
 * use any unused references to expand the article (which were translated and copied from the French-language Wikipedia article, possibly the version that was promoted to GA or FA there)
 * change the publication schedule table into a plain list
 * Combine the § Novels influenced by... and § Adaptations into a § Legacy section?
 * Trim and proseify § Adaptations, use proper subsection headings instead of bold (WP:PSEUDOHEAD)
 * Update article with more recent literary analysis and criticism. For example, expanding on or responding to postcolonialist readings, feminist analysis, analysis through an economic lens (capitalism and its influences?).

Seems like a weird thing to say?
Section about pips sister after the attack;

"Mrs Joe changes and becomes kindhearted after the attack"

Does she? I think she has serious brain damage... 82.17.47.75 (talk) 19:09, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Title
The title was borrowed from Philip Sidney's sonnet sequence Astrophil and Stella:

21 Your words, my firend, (right healthful caustics) blame My young mind marr'd, whom Love doth windlass so, That mine own writings like bad servants show My wits, quick in vain thoughts, in virtue lame; That Plato I read for nought, but if he tame Such doltish gyres; that to my birth I owe Nobler desires, lest else that friendly foe, Great Expectation, were a train of shame. For since mad March great promise made of me, If now the May of my years much decline, What can be hoped my harvest time will be? Sure you say well, "Your wisdom's golden mine, Dig deep with learning's spade." Now tell me this, Hath this world aught so fair as Stella is? Eroica (talk) 10:53, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

New images added and reverted
I have again deleted the images recently added by User:Richardgrayson3451 to David Copperfield and Great Expectations:

•	The images were uploaded to Wikimedia Commons by User:Richardgrayson3451, and the source is shown as own work. To then add them to articles which they have been editing appears to be self-promotion and a conflict of interest.

•	User:Richardgrayson3451 was requested on their talk page by User:Rwood128 to identify the source of these images, and has not responded. If the images are not their own work then, without knowing their origin, it must be assumed that they do not have permissions and should not be in WP.

Per WP:COIADVICE, if the addition of an image is challenged by another editor, it is controversial. Editors should rely on talk pages when images may be controversial or promotional. User:Richardgrayson3451, if you wish to restore these images, I suggest you make proposals to do so on the respective articles' talk pages so other editors can consider if these images actually improve the articles. Masato.harada (talk) 13:21, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

 * The Following Images are my own creation from AI and not stolen and belong to me. Richardgrayson3451 (talk) 19:47, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Richardgrayson3451 I don't doubt that you are trying to improve the Dickens' article, but this isn't really doing that as far as I can see. Rwood128 (talk) 20:13, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Masato.harada, I think we need a clear ruling as to whether or not this is self-promotion – though that seems pretty obvious to me. Rwood128 (talk) 20:10, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * what exactly do you mean my self promotion? Richardgrayson3451 (talk) 20:11, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Its a better portrayal of art and depiction of what AI thinks Dickens was showing.
 * its a second opinion. Richardgrayson3451 (talk) 02:41, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

 * You are the creator, using AI (it needs you). This is a lot of pretentious twaddle! Sorry to use unparliamentarian/unWikipedian language. Rwood128 (talk) 14:22, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * If you are interested in pursuing this further, you can raise this matter at Wikipedia Commons , under Commons talk:AI-generated media. Rwood128 (talk) 15:04, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Great Expectations


text:
Dawn chorus (birds)

The dawn chorus is the outbreak of birdsong at the start of a new day. In temperate countries this is most noticeable in spring when the birds are either defending a breeding territory, trying to attract a mate or calling in the flock. In a given location it is common for different species to do their dawn singing at different times.

In some territories where bird life is extensive and birds are vocal, the sound of a dawn chorus may make it difficult for humans to sleep in the early morning.

Timing
In a 2007 study of the Ecuadorian forest, it was determined that birds perching higher in the trees and birds with larger eyes tend to sing first. This may be due to differences in the amount of light perceived by the birds.

Moller used a play-back technique to investigate the effects of singing by the black wheatear (Oenanthe leucura) on the behaviour of both conspecifics and heterospecifics. It was found that singing increased in both groups in response to the wheatear. Moller suggested the dawn (and dusk) chorus of bird song may be augmented by social facilitation due to the singing of conspecifics as well as heterospecifics.

International Dawn Chorus Day
An annual International Dawn Chorus Day is held on the first Sunday in May when the public are encouraged to rise early to listen to bird song at organised events. The first ever was held at Moseley Bog in Birmingham, England, in 1987, organized by the Urban Wildlife Trust (now The Wildlife Trust for Birmingham and the Black Country).

New Zealand
Early explorers and European settlers noted that the New Zealand forest had a loud dawn chorus. The dawn chorus is no longer as loud as it once was, owing to extensive loss of forests, the introduction of bird predators and competing species such as wasps. The bellbird and the tūī are two of the birds that would have formed part of the dawn chorus since they have a vocal and melodious call.

United Kingdom
In the UK the dawn chorus may begin as early as 3am in early summer.

United States
The dawn chorus may also be heard in the United States.

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

title: Dawn chorus (birds)


text:
Talk:New Imperialism/Archive 2

2 Talk:New Imperialism/archive 1 Talk:New Imperialism/archive 2 (You are here.) Talk:New Imperialism/archive 3 Talk:New Imperialism/archive 4 Talk:New Imperialism/archive 5 Talk:New Imperialism/archive 6 Talk:New Imperialism/archive 7 Talk:New Imperialism/archive 8 Talk:New Imperialism/archive 9 Talk:New Imperialism/Linking to the alternative version from the top of the article Talk:New Imperialism/archive 10 Talk:New Imperialism/archive 11 Talk:New Imperialism/archive 12 Talk:New Imperialism/archive 13 Talk:New Imperialism/archive 14 Talk:New Imperialism/archive 15 Talk:New Imperialism/archive 16 Talk:New Imperialism/archive 17 Talk:New Imperialism/archive 18 Talk:New Imperialism/archive 19 Talk:New Imperialism/archive 20

Let me answer as many questions as possible:

1.) “New Imperialism” is the most common term used in historiography to refer to era between the Franco-Prussian War and World War I. In the beginning of my article at least, it states that the term is used to differentiate this era between mercantilism and the era of free trade colonialism between the Congress of Vienna and the Franco-Prussian War.

Mercantilism seemed to be on the wane after the American Revolution and the publication of Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations. Yet nearly a hundred years later, an increased drive toward formal colonialism (empire for empire's sake) was evident. That's why there's a seperate article on this era, New Imperialism.

2.) Vera Cruz picks out one word in a large article and uses this as an excuse to delete the vast majority of it.

3.) Vera Cruz says that he will continue to delete my text unless I go through it line by line with him on AOL instant messenger. This request is a bit extreme, isn’t it?

4.) So many historical trends have been linked to the rise of New Imperialism: the industrialization of Germany, the industrialization of the United States, Union victory in the Civil War, the Panic of 1893 in the US, the Long Depression of 1873 onward in Europe, trade unionism, the rise of socialism, amalgamation of industry, the schism of the Liberal Party, conflict in Ireland, the Spanish American War, protectionism in Germany, protectionism in the United States, the unification of Germany, the unification of Italy, the fall of Napoleon III, stability under the Third Republic, the Indian Mutiny, Romanticism, the liberal nationalism of Garibaldi, mass-psychology, the rise of mass-society, centralization of nation states, Social Darwinism, racism, Britain’s relative decline, Britain’s strength, Russian conflicts with the Ottoman Empire, strategic threats to the Suez canal, etc.

Vera Cruz is not connecting them. He’s not illuminating why these events were unfolding during this era, not expressing an appreciation of underlying economic, political, and cultural changes that are pushing Europe into this era of aggressive nationalism.

His sweeping edits have left the text, which had been meticulously organized in order to weave all the sections together, utterly incomprehensible. As I’ve said earlier, he’s left a jumbled mess of topics that no non-expert could understand in context. All these events are mentioned, but that’s only because he’s leaving my original heading with one or two topic sentences intact.

5.) If a word in the text is objectionable, delete the word, not something like 2/3 of the text.

172

--- Let us be clear 172, I found over 66% of your text to be objectionable, in excess of 90% of it was modified in some form. I am picking out your entire article and using that as a reason to make changes, not one mere word. If you are confused about something in this article, plz ask and I will try to re-write it so that non-experts can better understand it.

That being said, I have asked you to go through this line by line, so we can find out just what exactly you object to, since you still have not addressed anything within the article, instead preferring to give a general critique. Vera Cruz

Vera Cruz:

Your article cannot be understood by non-experts.

You have a list of historic trends.

No non-expert reader will be able to understand why they are there in the article in the first place and why they might be connected.

You can't just say that find 2/3 of an article objectionable and delete 90% of it.

Please, other users, help me!

172

Vera Cruz:

Copy the text and make these "minor revisions" on Word or some word processing program on your computer.

You might be making minor changes to your version, but you're still deleting 90% of the text of this article each time.

Just because the article is shorter, doesn’t mean that it’s more understandable.

172

--- Just because your article is longer doesn't mean that it's more understandable. Vera Cruz

---

My longer article is more understandable.

It explains why each listed historical trend is linked to the rise of aggressive nationalism in this era. That's why it's longer! I teach a course on this subject, I know what I'm talking about.

172 -

Instead of arguing that you are an expert, why don't you pick out something particular that u feel isn't properly explained, and explain how u would better explain it. Vera Cruz

--- Vera Cruz:

Your article consists largely of cut/pasted sentences from mine. It’s an incoherent, jumbled mess that you feel is more understandable simply because it’s shorter.

I’ll point out grave flaws in historical accuracy. For one, your references to the “African Power Vacuum” are way off. The “power vacuum” was in the North due to the decline in Ottoman power, not in Sub-Saharan Africa.

Lord Salisbury’s reference to “dying nations” did not refer to crumbling, European empires in Africa. Portugal held on to Mozambique and Angola, for instance. You’re confusing the reference to “dying nations”, which referred to the great, absolutist empires of the past that had not industrialized, such as China and the Ottomans.

Your brief overview of the Long Depression is also a vast oversimplification. The Long Depression was not merely the cause of Britain’s relative industrial decline, as it was experienced throughout continental Europe. You also don’t really link the relationship between the Long Depression and the flight of capital to non-industrial markets overseas, such as India, China, Latin America, and the formal colonies. So aside from being historically inaccurate, your version doesn’t even articulate why this section is in the article.

You refer to the rise of finance capitalism, but don’t link it to the amalgamation of industry. In turn, you don’t link these broader economic trends to New Imperialism.

This is just to name a few problems. I don't have time to explain why the article in general tells us little about New Imperialism.

172

When every single line of an article (a long, poorly written, and tendentious one) has been changed six times between midnight and breakfast, no one, no matter how patient, is going to help either Vera Cruz or 172. I came here with a simple question, still unanswered, except by appeal to unstated authority. Why call this "new imperialism" when the term imperialism was invented in the 19th century to distinguish a new phenomenon from previous phenomena? My authorities for this are the Oxford English Dictionary and J. A. Hobson. I have no horse in this race. As far as I can see, 172 is a committed leftist bringing up some undisputed information and some unwelcome viewpoints in a challenging way and Vera Cruz is. . . I just can't figure it out. Vera Cruz might even be working towards some kind of dialectic success that we could all applaud, but the truculence and deceptiveness make it impossible to tell. Next year, after all the fuss dies down, we might have an article, but as long as that obfuscating "new" is in there, I doubt it. Ortolan88

-

Ortolan88:

The term "New Imperialism" is not my invention. There is no other more common name to refer to this era of imperialism (1871-1914).

It was considered an era of “new imperialism” at the time. Mercantilism seemed to be on the wane after the American Revolution, yet after the Franco-Prussian War there was an intense drive toward formal empire once again in Western Europe that cumulated in the scramble for Africa. As a historian, I’m not of liberty to come up with new terminology. I have to use the most commonly recognized term to refer to this era.

User:172

--

Yes, people should chronicle other eras of imperialism.

But I’m having enough trouble chronicling the era between 1871-1914, the era known as New Imperialism. My article keeps on becoming a jumbled mess because non-expert contributors edit it after coming to baseless conclusions.

1)	Some suspect me of being biased somehow. I’ve been accused of being anti-Western and Euro-centric. (contradictory?) 2)	Some suspect that the article is flawed because it’s so long. Some say that it reads like a textbook, suspecting that it’s a copyright violation. Others say that the writing is incomprehensible. (contradictory?)

In short, a lot of people dislike me, but few have read the article that I keep restoring. Granted the earlier version was flawed, but I’ve since edited it substantially. Most criticism has come from readers who haven’t read but a few sentences, not realizing in the first place that the era between 1871 and 1914 was notable in itself due to the an increased drive toward formal colonialism. Ironic once again though, since this distinction is noted in the first paragraph.

---

Ericd:

Deleting rude comment by Ericd.

Please don't make sarcastic comments. Your not helping the article.

172

- Ericd:

I’m not dispensing that energy to salvage a few sentences. I’m dispensing that energy because I started and wrote that article and Vera Cruz is arbitrarily deleting 90% of it.

I don’t want to engage in petty, personal arguments with you anymore. I’d rather engage in more constructive dialogue.

It’s easy to accuse of bias. But what biases are evident in the article? I truly doubt that you’ve read my revised version in its entirety.

172

- "Who haven’t read but a few sentences" Only a few sentences are enough make an article partial. Dispending such energy to maintain these sentences makes you biased. Ericd

 * "Rude insults" : Terrorisme intellectuel

There is no way to be constructive with you and you have no sense of humor. Pouaaaaah !

---

Ericd:

You continue to call me names, accusing me of bias. Why don't you describe this bias, giving concrete examples? That would beconstructive than calling me a terrorist because I’ve offended you for some inane reasons.

172

PLEASE please please cut it out. If anyone here is not acting in good faith, insults will have no effect; if someone is acting in good faith, insults will have a bad effect. I believe that 172 knows a good deal of history. I also believe that his/her original contribution was poorly written and had NPOV issues. I have made some minor edits myself to the first three paragraphs, to addd a little balance and to cut a lot of unnecessary words, and I do not think 172 or anyone else has taken issue with my changes. But a glance at the history of the article shows a lot of reversions and wasted effort. Let's just take one paragraph at a time, discuss specific issues on the talk page, and make changes one step at a time, please...

And if Ericd and 172 insist on snapping at one another, could you please do it on your personal pages? Believe it or not, I take both Wikipedia and this page seriously. So I keep looking at the pages when there are changes. Only to find that the changes do not relate directly to specific improvements in the article. I do not mean to stop you guys from expressing yourselves, but please, you have your own pages just for this purpose. Slrubenstein

--- Slrubenstein:

Why did you restore the earlier version of the opening paragraph? That earlier version I wrote. I agreed with Vera Cruz with regard to that paragraph.

Please, before criticizing the article, keep an open mind and read the whole thing. You might have read it a while ago, but it's much improved now.

I wish people would read the whole article before criticizing it and editing it.

172 - 172 why did you cut ?

For goodness sake, 172, stop being so defensive and argumentative! I did not restore an earlier verzion, I made some changes. Also, along with the changes I entered "see talk." Haven't you been around long enough to know that this means that an explanation is forthcoming? Haven't you been around long enough to know it takes time to write an explanation? Can't you wait five minutes before reacting? Here is my explanation:

I made three changes to the first paragraph.

1) I changed "is" to "was." The article clearly locates this set of polities in a particular time period in the past, therefore, we should use the past tense.

2) I cut some extraneous words from the first paragraph -- I do not believe my edit has any effect on content.

3) I deleted this:
 * Ushering out the gradual, rational empire-building of the mid-Victorian era known as the age of Pax Britannica, the late nineteenth century late-Victorian era was an one of "empire for empire's sake".

Perhaps this belongs in the article, but I contend for structural and argumentative reasons it does not belong in the opening section. The sentence makes two claims that I suspect historians disagree over, and even if there is consensus these claims need considerable explanation. The first claim is that earlier empire building was "rational." Rational in what sense? According to whom? I am not rejecting the claim, only pointing out that these questions must be explained, and such explanation is better suited to the body of the article rather than the intro. Second, what does "empire for empire's sake" mean? If anything, the article itself argues against this characterization, because it provides various reasons to account for New Imperialism; it was not an end in itself but a means to otehr ends.

I repeat: I am not saying this material does not belong in the article, only that it does not belong here. There should be one section on how historians differ over how to characterize earlier imperialism (was it rational? According to whom?  In what way) and there should be a section on how historians debate over how to characterize New Imperialism (as an end in itself or as a means to other ends). These claims do not need to be in the intro. Slrubenstein

-

Slrubenstein:

You’re restoring flawed, earlier versions. The reference to Spanish mercantilism is too controversial. Other historians would emphasize the succession of the Bourbons in metropolitan Spain, arguing that the wars of independence in Latin America were largely conservative, backed by elite Creoles fearful of some liberal constitutional changes after the War of Spanish Succession. In addition, nation-state shouldn’t be capitalized.

 * 172, yes, the wars of independence were largely conservative (according to most historians) but some historians argue that in many ways the American revolution was conservative too. That is not the point.  The point is that mercantile colonialism was replaced by other forms of imperialism, because mercantilism collapsed -- and the American revolution is one sign of its collapse, but so was the collapse of the Spanish empire.  In any event, these facts do not mean that the reference to Spain should be deleted, it means it should be expanded on (perhaps elsewhere).  But if you are going to cut the reference to New Spain and Peru, you should cut the reference to the American revolution.  By the way, this may be why some people think of you as Eurocentric -- as you point out, they are wrong to do so but I think the problem is that they are not expressing themselves articulately.  In some ways the article is very strong on global connections, but in some places it is too narrow and I think it is this occasional narrowness people react to.  As for the capital N, wikipedia article begin with capital letters and this is a link. By the way, whatever you do please do not reinsert this awkward phrase "a disciple of Adam Smith was Richard Cobden;" common English usage is to put predicates after subjects. Slrubenstein

-- I complement some changes, such as the deletion of that sentence with the world "rational". But I noted the above flaws.

I just don't think that we need to mention Spain because it leaves the door open to too much irrelevant debate. Spain was only a big player in the era of New Imperialism insofar as the US and Britain were eclipsing it in its traditional spheres of influence.
 * Most Latinos would not consider it irrelevant, in general. But you are right that it is not central to New Imperialism.  But neither is the American revolution -- so cut that, too.  But I thought the line about the American revolution was there because the issue was -- in this 'graph -- mercantilism (not New Imperialism).  If the issue is mercantilism, the Spanish empire is very, very relevant indeed.

I think that we both can agree that the continental order following the defeat of Napoleon, defined by the Congress of Vienna, played a larger role in ushering in the age of free trade colonialism and Pax Britannica than the Latin American wars of independence.

 * yes -- and a greater role than the American Revolution too. If you want to cut the reference to Latin America for this reason, cut the reference to the US for this reason too.

You'll find some poor writing in the beginning (e.g. the Cobden sentence) because the beginning was edited so much.

 * again, please do not be so defensive. I do not care who wrote it, or how it came to be, but when you reverted my changes you reverted back to this sentence, and I was simply pointing out that this was another one of my changes (besides including reference to Latin America), Slrubenstein

-

The American Revolution played a large role in the political discourse in Britain, contributing to the decline of mercantilism. I’ll live with your changes though since you articulate this matter subtly.

 * Okay -- the point is, the decline of mercantilism had structural as well as discursive causes. On another matter, why did you change English to British?  I will defer to you as I am no expert on British history, but I thought the union with Scotland only came in the mid-late 1700s, that the thriteen English-speaking colonies in North America were colonies of England and not, generally, Scotland, Ireland, or Wales or some union of the four.  I am not asking you to change the article or add any of this information -- I am just curious. Slrubenstein

 * in 1776 they were considered british
 * and, in that same year, revolted against the british to regain their british rights

Ortolan-try editing my version instead of going through 172s article-there you will find that, unlike 172, i am quite willing to accept your edits. Vera Cruz

What good will that do? 172 will just revert whatever he didn't write. -- Zoe

 * I just added my little note about the origin of the word at the bottom of the version I found here and then like an old plow horse I plodded through the rest copy-editing, fixing markup, etc. I will be glad to do the same to your version.  Where is it?  Ortolan88

 * Although I have had my own differences with 172, I do not think Vera Cruz's proposal is at all constructive, and not for Zoe's reason. Like it or not, Wikipedia is a collaborative effort.  Over the past year or so I have seen far greater conflicts over an article.  In no case was the sollution found through two competing articles.  The question of whther or not Wikipedia will survive (let alone thrive) is precisely this issue: can a contentious process in which people with conflicting opinions and styles produce good articles?  I know some people (I thinkg Larry Sanger is one, if I remember his recent postings correctly) have come to doubt it.  Nevertheless, this is the proposition.  I will not choose to work on 172's version or Vera Cruz's version.  There is only one version, Wikipedia's version, and 172, Vera Cruz, Zoe, Ortolan88, myself and others will all work on it... Slrubenstein

 * Good luck. I've decided that I'm  not interested in pursuing this article or any other article that 172 writes as long has he continues his policy of reversion of anything he didn't write.  -- Zoe

 * I'll do the same Ericd

 * Let's see if my little note on word origin and usage survives. I agree with Slrubenstein that there really is only one article, and no author.  I haven't had much luck "working" with either 172 or Vera Cruz, but I'm an easygoing guy.  All I want is an interesting, well-written, reliable encyclopedia.  If this article doesn't work out, I'll come back to it next year some time.  Ortolan88

--

Good job on your contribution to the article on New Imperialism. It was much needed. Do you think that it would be a good idea to place it earlier in the article? That would clarify some confusion early on, right?

Thanks to the person how italicized “Pax Britannica” as well.

All the recent changes are quite constructive!

172

 * Thanks, Why was it such a hard job to convince you?  Move it up if you like.  I started this by saying that I thought new imperialism was confusing and needed explanation.  I should have just put it in the article in the first place, but I have lost stuff in edit wars before and didn't care to lose this one.  I also did the markup on pax brit and other and fixed the headers and got rid of half the "scare" quotes, all noted carefully in the summary line.  Ortolan88

Restoring the more descriptive version edited by Ortolan88 and Slrubenstein. Their contributions, namely editing the entire text and adding much needed background, were invaluable. Vera Cruz’s version is too choppy, lacks historical background, and is not properly woven together yet. Also, it removes the vast majority of the former article edited by Ortolan88, Slrubenstein, and myself.

172

Vera Cruz: Other than being dreadfully long for a Wikipedia article, what is wrong with the longer version? I read selections from about half of the deleted text and it didn't seem to merit outright deletion (much of the text needs to be moved to other articles and summarized here however). --mav

Can u be specific as to what i have outright deleted? Furthermore, is there no way to include whatever that is back into my version, isntead of completely reverting it to 172s pet project? Vera Cruz

 * To give you ( Vera Cruz) the benefit of the doubt, I think you are attempting a copy edit. I know you are making this a flabbier article.  I suspect you are smuggling some kind of secret thesis into the article.  Could you state in 200 words or less what your aims are so they can be judged outside the context of an endless edit war.  I am probably as suspicious of 172 as it is possible to be, but verbose as it is, his version has a beginning, middle, and end, sections, a theme.  It is simply too much trouble to figure out what you are trying to do.  172 has calmed down.  If you would calm down too, we might get something accomplished.  Ortolan88 22:16 Jan 5, 2003 (UTC)

---

Contributors! New Imperialism is the subject of a huge amount of historical literature. This article’s bound to be long. If anything, more is needed! The latest ADDITIONS have been much needed.

172

If it is too long then people won't read it or even attempt to edit it. Anything over 30,000 bytes is way too long for a Wikipedia article and must be summarized and the detail spun-off into sub-articles (hint: summarize each section and move the more detailed text to another article linked from that section: See United States for an example). We are an encyclopedia and therefore we summarize human knowledge and make it accessible to the largest possible audience. That doesn't mean we shouldn't have a great deal of detail but it does mean that any particular article on a subject needs to be relatively brief. --mav

-

Mav:

The article makes good use of headings. Readers will be able to skip sections that don’t interest them. Maybe some, for instance, will only be interested in the causes; maybe some will only be interested in the chronology. This topic is the focal point of so much literature that a shorter article probably could not give the complexities of the era justice. --172

 * Again. This is a top-level article meaning that it should introduce the subject of New Imperialism. Complexities can and should be explained in other articles that are linked from this one. The greatest talent any writer can have is the ability to write succinct introductions of complex subjects. The summary for the history section at United States and the introuction of the whole article above it are clearly written succinct introductions. We have already gone over this with the history of china article. --mav

Plz, I can't understand why this is being said.

"I suspect you are smuggling some kind of secret thesis into the article." Ortolan

Would somebody explain to me what this is all about? How can I defend myself against people who oppose my article merely on the grounds that they are suspicious? What is so wrong with my version of the article? Vera Cruz

 * Okay, sorry, Vera, suspect and smuggle were unfair. I should have said I fear that you have some motive that I can't detect in all the flurry of unfathomable, unfollowable edits.  If you would just slow down for a minute and state in 200 words what you think needs to be said and done about the period of European imperialism between 1850 and 1920 (roughly) then we could all sit down together and go to work.

 * Judging from the respective user pages, I'd have a lot more fun knocking a few back and staring into the fire with you than with 172, but the fact is that you won't tip your hand and your actions in continually deconstructing and recompounding this article don't speak well for you, while 172 seems to have backed off from his previous intransigence.

 * I am in no pact with anyone except the people who want to make a good encyclopedia. Maybe Slrubenstein will have me.  As far as I can see, both you and 172 have made sound contributions to that end, but for some reason you've got your sights set on leaving this article muddled and incomplete, while 172 seems willing to rise above any personal preferences.  Ortolan88 02:51 Jan 6, 2003 (UTC)

Vera Cruz doesn’t realize that the older version has been edited substantially by other users and myself.

This is the sentence regarding mercantilism:

The collapse of the British and Spanish empires in the New World following the American Revolution and revolutions in the viceroyalties of New Spain (to become Mexico) and Peru (to become Gran Colombia) signaled the failure of mercantilism and contributed to the appeal of the classical liberalism of Adam Smith” Note the phrase “signaled”.

The word “pigheaded” has been removed as well. I understand the bad connotation, but the word merely means “stubborn”. His headstrongness, after all, was infamous. Nevertheless, it’s gone.

Even if these changes weren’t made, it would still be little recourse to arbitrarily remove the vast majority of the article. That’s why I keep restoring the more descriptive version edited by Ortolan88 and Slrubenstein and proofread by Mav and others. --172

Vera Cruz, please stop reverting to the shorter version and help us summarize the sections in the longer version and spin-off much of the detail into other articles. --mav

Vera Cruz, I restored the previous version of the article. You seem to be the only one who objects to it as a whole -- otherwise, there seems to be an emerging consensus on everyone else's part that this version should be the basis for the article. I myself believe it has superior narrative flow and organization -- your last version was choppy and poorly organized. Please do not take offence: no one is saying that you do not have valuable contributions to make. Just, please, do not revert this article again. Share with us in these talk pages your specific and substantive concerns, and we will continue improving the article bit by bit. Slrubenstein

-- Vera Cruz, the first paragraph looks good to me. Nice intro in fact. --mav

The latest revisions have been very constructive. Congratulations to everyone!

172

Okay, I hate to be a pain in the ass, but I have problems with the first paragraph. I won't make any changes; let me explain my problems, and then see if others agree and have solutions.

First, I object to mentioning the decline of Pax Britanica as one cause in the first sentence for two reasons. For one thing, I just do not think the first sentence is the place to mention causes -- it should specify the place, time, and general characteristic, no more. But I also think it is problematic, highlighting Britain so much given that this is a global phenomena. If there are reasons why Britain is the paradigmatic or most important case, fine, but explain why in detail in the body of the article (which it does, I think), but just do not bring it up in the first paragraph, it raises too many questions. Second, although I think it is useful to mention how others refer to this phenomena (I am referring to the phrases in bold, like "Empire for Empire's sake") I think these appelations have to be contextualized. Do people still refer to it this way, or are we refering to contemporaries (in which case, the sentence should have the past tense). Who refers to the phenomenon this way -- politicians, advocates, critics, journalists, historians? This information should be there, I think Slrubenstein

I agree with Slrubenstein. The first para should aim at simply giving an overview, something like (rough draft off the top of my head):
 * NI was an era of rapid European colonial expansion spanning the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Between the Franco-Prussian War and World War I, a renewed drive for economic conquest developed amongst the world's most powerful nations. During this period, Europe added 20% of the Earth's land area (nearly 23,000,000 km²) to its collection of overseas colonial possessions. As the only continent not already formally or informally occupied by the Western powers, Africa was the primary target (although expansion took place in other areas too, notably .... (short list of most prominent ones: Phillipines? Expansion of European enclaves and influence in China? etc.) Contemporary writers in England (other places too?) variously described the New Imperialisim as "The Era of Empire for Empire's Sake", "The Great Adventure", and "The Scramble for Africa".

 * Secomd para or section: Clarification of terms: why "new" imperialisim. (Much as it is at present)

 * Decline of the Pax Britannica is probably best left to a subsequent section.

I also agree with Mav: this article is starting to turn into something of real value. Congratulations to all. Tannin

 * That's a better version. The purpose of the inclusion of the nicknames "Scramble for Africa" is the classic writing tactic of "tell 'em what you're going to tell 'em", but they are much better placed at the end of the first paragraphs rather than in the middle.  Make sure you get rid of that extremely twee twixt while you're replacing the lead.  Ortolan88

 * I too think this is better, but I defer to Tannin or others to make the actual changes if we have a consensus, Slrubenstein

This is a historical subject and the context is history.
 * Onecontext is work by historians -- but there are other contexts for usage, honestly: novelists, journalists, essayists, and others were talking about imperialism before, during and after the time period. A good article will acknowledge that

People have and do still refer to it this way.
 * swell. The question is, who?  I do not men individual names, but which groups of people?

Whether somebody did in 1870 I do not know.
 * Obviously nor do I. But hopefully someone out there, who has been contributing to this article, has done serious historical research and should be able to add this important information to the article.

The decline of Pax Britannica is a major cause, seeing as how that led to international competition and the end of Britian as the lone superpower.

 * Vera Cruz, I do not know why you are saying this since no one has disputed it. My point is simply that it is poor style to single out this one cause in the first sentence. Slrubenstein

Other causes, if u wish to add to paragraph, are militarization and industrialization. I felt it would be best to give the preceeding era, much as we give the preceeding monarch, in this case, as Britain had a global empire, the decline of Britian is a global issue.Vera Cruz

 * Contradicting myself, I agree with this also. The trouble with describing thetransition from the PB to thet NI in the first para is that, for balance, it needs to be very brief (a single sentence of moderate length would be best), and yet, for clarity, it should not assume that the reader already knows all what the PB was. A tricky bit of drafting, that - which is why I suggested consigning it to the body of the article where it can be dealt with at more length. Tannin

 * I agree... And I still think one has to be clear about what we mean by "cause."  Certainly PB declined prior to the rise of NI.  But just because one thing precedes another doesn't mean it is the entire cause.  I think that the decline of PB and the rise of NI both had another cause, or causes, and the article should do justice to this without oversipmplifying  Slrubenstein

Furthermore, the term has also been applied to the aggrandizement of lesser powers by great powers since earliest history. <What does this mean? Vera Cruz
 * If you don't know what aggrandizement means, you're in the wrong article. "increase the power, wealth, rank".  Ortolan88

Now, is it appropriate to say that greater powers aggrandize lesser ones, when it is arguable that they "decrease the power, wealth, rank" of said lesser powers? Vera Cruz
 * Ah! Fixed it.Ortolan88

How about, for the second para:
 * The expansions of the NI took place against a background of increasing competition for resources, income and prestige between the nations of newly industrialised Europe (who were by this time no longer content to leave the Pax Britannica unchallenged), a power vaccuum left by the crumbling Chinese and Ottoman Empires, and the rise of finance capitalism. Scholars continue to debate the causes and ramifications of this period of imperial colonialism, most notably, the relationship this period might have to the First World War.

Tannin

NI is not solely Europe, it includes USA and Japan Vera Cruz

 * Tannin, I really like both this and your rewrite of the first paragraph above (see my new embedded comments). I think you should cut and paste them in.

 * Vera Cruz, I agree with you which is precisely why it is not right to privilege Bristish history. Slrubenstein

Can we reverse the policy of writing at the bottom? If I have to keep waiting to download long talk pages Im gonna scream. Vera Cruz

 * Sorry, but I think this is a very bad idea. I too get frustrated with my slow computer (which gets me into lots of edit conflicts.  But this is a Wikipedia convention and if we change it we will exclude lots and lots of people.  Also, please identify edits as minor only if you are correcting spelling or grammar... Slrubenstein

title: Talk:New Imperialism/Archive 2


text:
Talk:613 commandments

Relationship to halakha
Today I added to the intro the sentence:
 * It is part of the larger Jewish law or halakha.

...trying to add context since the article Halakha says:
 * It includes the 613 mitzvot ("commandments"), subsequent Talmudic and rabbinic law and the customs and traditions compiled in the Shulchan Aruch

you reverted this addition with the edit summary "Not a good idea." I'm curious about the reason? I usually like to make it clear in the intro of articles if they are part of something larger; not sure if you're objecting to the claim or to where I put it or how I phrased it or something else? -- Beland (talk) 00:22, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

 * I find it hard to explain what precisely made me press the revert button, on what seems a reasonable edit, although I clearly feel something is wrong with it. I will try and explain what I mean, but I will also post on WT:JUDAISM to receive input from other editors, to see if perhaps they can put a finger on the issue, or perhaps to the contrary will disagree with me.
 * I think the point is that the mitzvot stand at the basis of part of the halakha, but have been much elaborated upon, both by interpretation as well as by addition. Add to that the fact that not all mitzvot can be implemented nowadays, and strictly speaking that would mean that currently they are not part of the halakha, which term applies to applicable observances. In short, I think that for a lead section, it would be incorrect to make the general statement as you phrased it, and it would be better to avoid the issue in the lead. Debresser (talk) 09:18, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

 * I don't think there's even a little bit of a problem with that edit. Halakha is bigger than the 613 mitzvot, but they are a part of it—even the basis of it—and just because one can't perform a mitzva right now doesn't mean it's not part of the halakha. StevenJ81 (talk) 14:21, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

 * OK, I put that sentence back in for now, though I'm open to revision if there are more opinions. -- Beland (talk) 19:43, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * First of all, I disagree with you that there is support for this sentence. You added it, and one editor removed it. You opened a discussion, that same editor continues to disagree while one other editor agrees with you. No further discussion. That is not consensus.
 * Secondly, I decided to remove that whole paragraph. For two simple reasons. 1. The lead should summarize the article. Nowhere in the article is the Law of Moses mentioned. 2. The Law of Moses is not the 613 commandments. Add to that, that I still think the statement as you added it is not correct, or at least not clear enough as to the connection between the commandments and the halakha. Debresser (talk) 21:24, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Talk???????????????¿Alllday.💤🐘🖕￼ 2607:FB91:17CD:47B2:AC39:C1B2:6B07:9877 (talk) 13:14, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Sourcing
Continuing discussion from User talk:SheriffIsInTown:

Everything on Wikipedia needs sourcing to reliable sources so keeping this in mind, last half of the section Dissent and difficulties and complete Works enumerating the commandments section is currently source-less and should be removed. Your logic of list of books not needing sources is a baloney and not enshrined in any policy. Please add the sources instead of just keep denying a simple policy matter. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 17:29, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Why don't you tag what you feel needs sourcing. And it's not baloney that a list needs sourcing, it's common sense that if I have a list that is wikilinked. We don't need to overlink. Sir Joseph (talk) 17:43, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Again, it's a list of books discussing the topic, you don't need a ref for that, these are the refs. Sir Joseph (talk) 17:52, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Everything which I removed initially needs sourcing so what's the point of tagging it. I told you that it needs sourcing and WP:BURDEN is on you to provide those sources. As I said we are not keeping that content without sources, either you provide sources if you want to keep it or I will remove it. I am not going to keep it tagged, once you tag and forget about it then it can stay tagged for years and no one adds the sources so you add sources or it is a goner. And yes, list of books alongside the statements needs sourcing to other third party sources. You cannot just add a book into a list and then make a statement regarding what it is about and do not support it with a source. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 18:14, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Why are you so interested in this topic if I may ask? And again, I challenged you on the deletion, and now we discuss. Tagging is the polite and proper thing to do. When I go through some of the articles, if I see a tag, I can research it. If it's deleted I can't. And a list of books is a bibliography, it doesn't need a source or ref, it is the ref or source on the topic. Sir Joseph (talk) 18:19, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Leave my interest on the side, I am all for keeping information authentic and true. Let 's say that I am interested in learning about Judaism and I came across this page, I want to make sure that what I am reading is authentic and true and only way to confirm is to support it with the sources that might not make it authentic and true in real life but would make it authentic and true in Wikipedia world. There are no polite or meaner ways here. I challenged some information and removed it, you want to restore it and keep it, the burden is on you to provide the sources so you can keep the information otherwise for me or for anyone else, there is no way to know if that information is true and authentic. Please check out the Bibliography section on this featured article, this is the way to add bibliography, at the end of the article with proper formatting without any additional statements and I can allow that on this article as well if you want to list them like that. Everything else except the name of the book and author will need to be removed because that is some body's original research, let's take the opening statement of that section for an example There is no single definitive list that explicates the 613 commandments. Lists differ, for example, in how they interpret passages in the Torah that may be read as dealing with several cases under a single law or several separate laws. Other "commandments" in the Torah are restricted as one-time acts, and would not be considered as "mitzvot" binding on other persons. - Who says all of this? Where is the source? (There is none because this is all written by a layman Wikipedia editor like me and you.) Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 18:52, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Lists of books, and in general Further reading, Bibliography or External links sections are not sourced. Debresser (talk) 15:39, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
 * As I described above, this is not just the list, there is a lot of original research text in that section. Furthermore, the bibliography section is usually at the end of the article and formatted in a certain way and if it is very verified that a specific book is not relevant to the topic then it cannot be listed even in the bibliography section. So, if you move the list to a bibliography section at the end of the article then I am fine for you not sourcing it but if they are added the way they are added now then you must source each and every item or they get removed from the article as it is against the policy to keep unsourced content on Wikipedia and I will make sure that the policy wins over original research and bigotry! Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 18:57, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
 * May I remind you of WP:BATTLEFIELD. Language like "policy wins over bigotry" is insulting and indicative of the wrong attitude.
 * That having said, did you tag the parts you find problematic? That will help editors to find sources. You might even try to find some sources yourself. Debresser (talk) 17:40, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

All of this removed content needs sources, now you know that, please do not restore without adding sources. I do not want this content on Wikipedia unless you add supporting sources. WP:BURDEN is on you to add sources, not on me! Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 22:07, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

I have restored it for now and tagged it to give you an opportunity to source it but know that I will not keep it tagged forever as I am seeking its removal unless editors comply with WP:BURDEN and source it! Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 22:19, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

 * I don't like your tone. Debresser (talk) 18:38, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

If everything had to be sourced, there would be a lot less information on Wikipedia. And who says the source is good? Readers should be warned to take unsourced information with a pinch of salt. Riskit 4 a biskit (talk) 22:50, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Spelling
Does the proper spelling of תרי״ג מצוות really contain a quotation mark? Hairy Dude (talk) 15:43, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * In Hebrew yes. The "quotation mark" is not a quotation mark, but an indication of an acronym. Debresser (talk) 02:26, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Apologies, I thought it looked out of place, because it sticks up above the x-height. At some point it was actually a straight quotation mark ("). But checking it closely, it is in fact U+5F4 HEBREW PUNCTUATION GERSHAYIM. Hairy Dude (talk) 12:39, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Add do’s/dont’s/temple indicators to the listings
Can the 2 tables be modified? Have to go back to the editor who posted the lists?

Can the lists be displayed in a table with columns and search/sort/filter capability? Riskit 4 a biskit (talk) 20:25, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

The mitzvah to write a Torah scroll
At The mitzvah to write a Torah scroll, the article states The mitzvah to write a Torah scroll (Hebrew: מצוות כתיבת ספר תורה) is the last mitzvah of the 613 Jewish commandments., while this article lists this mitzvah as second to last, with Not to drink wine poured in service to idols as the last, or Not to retain her for servitude after having sexual relations with her in the list labeled Typical Order. 57.135.233.22 (talk) 07:54, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Daughter of father's wife
You quoted an English Bible translation, and I don't think that's a good source for a Jewish tradition. I think a change here needs a better source, a Jewish one. Rsk6400 (talk) 19:00, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:613 commandments


text:
Hans Heinrich Thyssen-Bornemisza

Hans Heinrich August Gábor Thyssen-Bornemisza de Kászon, Baron Thyssen (13 April 1921 – 27 April 2002), was a Dutch-born Swiss industrialist and art collector. A member of the Thyssen family, he had a Hungarian title and was heir to a German fortune.

He was born to a German father and an American mother. Daniel M. Frost and John Kerry are members of his maternal family. His paternal grandfather was August Thyssen.

Thyssen lived in Spain for most of his adult life. His fifth and last wife, Carmen "Tita" Cervera, is a former Miss Spain.

Early life
Thyssen-Bornemisza was born in Scheveningen, Netherlands, the son of Heinrich, Baron Thyssen-Bornemisza de Kászon de Impérfalva (1875–1947) and his first wife, Margit, Baroness Bornemisza de Kászon (1887–1971). The Thyssen family's fortune was built upon a steel and armaments empire: Heinrich Thyssen had abandoned Germany as a young man and settled in Hungary in 1905. In Budapest, Heinrich married the daughter of the king's Hungarian chamberlain Gábor Bornemisza de Kászon et Impérfalva (1859–1915) who, having no sons of his own, adopted Heinrich, the Emperor Franz Joseph I of Austria-Hungary extending his father-in-law's baronial title in the Hungarian nobility to Heinrich and his male-line descendants in 1907. Baroness Margit Bornemisza's grandparents were the Baron Albert Bornemisza de Kászon (1832–1899) and the Countess Gabriella Kornis de Gönczruszka (1834–1902).

Career
With his father's death, Thyssen-Bornemisza inherited  TBG (Thyssen-Bornemisza Group) Holdings N.V., a business empire that included oil, naval construction (Bremer Vulkan) and large parts of Rotterdam harbor, as well as a major art collection with hundreds of paintings of European masters from between the 14th and the 19th centuries.

Thyssen-Bornemisza was also an avid horse lover. From then on, his business was limited to art. He bought more old masters, from Duccio to Francisco Goya; and fifteen years after his father's death, he bought his first piece of modern art, a watercolor painting by Emil Nolde dated from between 1931 and 1935, starting the entry of 20th century's paintings in the collection (including Edgar Degas, Piet Mondrian, Pablo Picasso, and Fernand Léger). His preference however went to German Expressionism, and he soon became a real expert in painting.

Assets dispute
As part of an attempt to dissolve a trust, thereby acquiring control of her third husband's assets, Tita cast doubt on the paternity of Baron Georg Heinrich Thyssen-Bornemisza, alleging that his father was actually Count Iván Batthyány de Német-Ujvár (1910–1985), the husband of Thyssen's sister, Countess Margit Batthyány (1911–1989). However, a settlement was reached between the parties before the baron's death, which brought to a "peaceable" conclusion the wrangling over control of the vast Thyssen art collection, which is to remain in Spain, Hans Heinrich having been the founder of the Thyssen-Bornemisza Museum in Madrid. One of the paintings in the museum, Rue Saint-Honoré in the Afternoon, Effect of Rain by Camille Pissarro, belonged to a Jewish couple who were forced to give it to the German government in exchange for an exit visa to the United Kingdom shortly after Kristallnacht in 1939. By 2015, their descendants had filed a lawsuit against the museum, on the grounds that it was stolen by the Nazis.

Personal life
He first married at Castagnola-Cassarate, 1 August 1946, Austrian Princess Teresa Amalia Franziska Elisabeth Maria of Lippe-Weissenfeld (21 July 1925 – 16 July 2008), daughter of Prince Alfred of Lippe-Weissenfeld (1896–1970) and Countess Franziska of Schönborn-Buchheim (1902–1987). She belonged to the cadet branch of House of Lippe who had been reigning princes until the fall of the German Empire in 1918 (following their divorce on 14 May 1954, she married secondly in 1960 Prince Friedrich Maximilian zu Fürstenberg (1926–1969), by whom she had further issue). Their only son was:
 * Baron Georg Heinrich Thyssen-Bornemisza de Kászon (b. Lugano-Castagnola, 19 March 1950 - d. Zürich, 30 September 2022), chairman of TBG (Thyssen-Bornemisza Group) Holdings N.V., who has one son (born out of wedlock) by Countess Catharina Eleonore von Meran, former wife of Alexander Kahane and daughter of Count Maximilian von Meran (born 1930) and his wife, Princess Colienne zu Schwarzenberg (born 1937):
 * Simon Thyssen-Bornemisza de Kászon (b. Vienna, 1 December 2001)

Second marriage
His second marriage was in Colombo, Ceylon, or Paris, 23 June 1954, Anglo-Indian fashion model Nina Sheila Dyer (1930–1965), an heiress to properties in Ceylon; they had no children and divorced on 4 July 1956, pursuant to the settlement of which she received a château in France. She later married and divorced Prince Sadruddin Aga Khan and committed suicide in 1965.

Third marriage
He married for the third time at Lugano-Castagnola on 17 September 1956 New Zealand-born British photographic and fashion model Fiona Frances Elaine Campbell-Walter (b. Takapuna, New Zealand, 25 June 1932). They divorced on 20 January 1965, and she went on to have a well-publicized relationship with Greek shipping heir Alexander Onassis, the only son of Aristotle Onassis. She was a daughter of Rear Admiral Keith McNeil Walter (later Campbell-Walter) (1904–1976), aide de camp of King George VI and his wife, Frances Henriette Campbell (born in 1904), a maternal granddaughter of Sir Edward Campbell, 1st Baronet. Their children were:
 * Baroness Francesca Thyssen-Bornemisza (born Lausanne, 7 June 1958), married at Mariazell, 31 January 1993 to Karl Habsburg-Lothringen (divorced in 2017), heir to the defunct Austro-Hungarian imperial throne, and had issue.
 * Baron Lorne Thyssen-Bornemisza de Kászon (born 15 June 1963), who converted to Islam; he is the producer and director of the 2003 film, "Labyrinth" and executive produced "The Garden of Eden" in 2008. He is the Chairman of Thyssen Petroleum and founder of the Kallos Gallery in London. He married in 2005 Alexandra Wright; they have one daughter.

Fourth marriage
He married for the fourth time at Lugano-Castagnola, 13 December 1967, Lilian Denise Shorto (b. Recife, 23 December 1942), a Brazilian banker's daughter, from whom he was divorced 29 November 1984. They had one son:
 * Baron Wilfrid "Alexander" August Thyssen-Bornemisza de Kászon (born Zurich 1974), unmarried and without issue.

Fifth marriage
His fifth and final marriage was in Daylesford, Gloucestershire, on 16 August 1985, María del Carmen Rosario Soledad Cervera y Fernández de la Guerra, popularly known as Carmen "Tita" Cervera, (born Sitges, Barcelona, 23 April 1943), who was Miss Spain in 1961. They had no children, but Hans Heinrich adopted her son, Alejandro Borja (born Madrid, 1980, son of Manuel Segura), who married at Barcelona, 11 October 2007 Blanca María Cuesta Unkhoff and had two children: Sacha Thyssen-Bornemisza de Kászon on 31 January 2008 and Eric Thyssen-Bornemisza de Kászon on 5 August 2010. His widow has also adopted two baby girls, twins, called Guadalupe Sabina and María del Carmen in July 2006.

Death
Hans Henrich died in Sant Feliu de Guíxols, Spain. He is buried in the family burial vault of Schloss Landsberg in the Ruhr valley near Essen, Germany.

title: Hans Heinrich Thyssen-Bornemisza


text:
Yayoi period

The Yayoi period started in the late Neolithic period in Japan, continued through the Bronze Age, and towards its end crossed into the Iron Age.

Since the 1980s, scholars have argued that a period previously classified as a transition from the Jōmon period should be reclassified as Early Yayoi. The date of the beginning of this transition is controversial, with estimates ranging from the 10th to the 3rd centuries BC.

The period is named after the neighbourhood of Tokyo where archaeologists first uncovered artifacts and features from that era in the late 19th century. Distinguishing characteristics of the Yayoi period include the appearance of new Yayoi pottery styles, improved carpentry and architecture, and the start of an intensive rice agriculture in paddy fields. A hierarchical social class structure dates from this period and has its origin in China. Techniques in metallurgy based on the use of bronze and iron were also introduced from China via Korea to Japan in this period.

The Yayoi followed the Jōmon period and Yayoi culture flourished in a geographic area from southern Kyūshū to northern Honshū. Archaeological evidence supports the idea that during this time, an influx of farmers (Yayoi people) from the Korean Peninsula to Japan overwhelmed and mixed with the native predominantly hunter-gatherer population (Jōmon).

Features
The Yayoi period is, generally, accepted to date from circa 300 BC to 300 AD. However, although highly controversial, radiocarbon evidence, from organic samples attached to pottery shards, may suggest a date up to 500 years earlier, between ca. 1000 BC and 800 BC. During this period, Japan largely transitioned to a more settled, agricultural society, adopting methods of farming and crop production that were introduced to the country (initially in the Kyūshū region) from Korea.

The earliest archaeological evidence of the Yayoi Period is found on northern Kyūshū, though that is still debated. Yayoi culture quickly spread to the main island of Honshū, mixing with native Jōmon culture. The name Yayoi is borrowed from a location in Tokyo, where pottery of the Yayoi period was first found. Yayoi pottery was simply decorated and produced, using the same coiling technique previously used in Jōmon pottery. Yayoi craft specialists made bronze ceremonial bells (dōtaku), mirrors, and weapons. By the 1st century AD, Yayoi people began using iron agricultural tools and weapons.

As the Yayoi population increased, the society became more stratified and complex. They wove textiles, lived in permanent farming villages, and constructed buildings with wood and stone. They also accumulated wealth through land ownership and the storage of grain. Such factors promoted the development of distinct social classes. Contemporary Chinese sources described the people as having tattoos and other bodily markings which indicated differences in social status. Yayoi chiefs, in some parts of Kyūshū, appear to have sponsored, and politically manipulated, trade in bronze and other prestige objects. That was made possible by the introduction of an irrigated, wet-rice agriculture from the Yangtze estuary in southern China via the Ryukyu Islands or Korean Peninsula.

Direct comparisons between Jōmon and Yayoi skeletons show that the two peoples are noticeably distinguishable. The Jōmon tended to be shorter, with relatively longer forearms and lower legs, more deep-set eyes, shorter and wider faces, and much more pronounced facial topography. They also have strikingly raised brow ridges, noses, and nose bridges. Yayoi people, on the other hand, averaged 2.5–5 cm taller, with shallow-set eyes, high and narrow faces, and flat brow ridges and noses. By the Kofun period, almost all skeletons excavated in Japan except those of the Ainu are of the Yayoi type with some having small Jōmon admixture, resembling those of modern-day Japanese.

Origin of the Yayoi people

The origin of Yayoi culture and the Yayoi people has long been debated. The earliest archaeological sites are Itazuke or Nabata in the northern part of Kyūshū. Contacts between fishing communities on this coast and the southern coast of Korea date from the Jōmon period, as witnessed by the exchange of trade items such as fishhooks and obsidian. During the Yayoi period, cultural features from Korea and China arrived in this area at various times over several centuries, and later spread to the south and east. This was a period of mixture between immigrants and the indigenous population, and between new cultural influences and existing practices.

Chinese influence was obvious in the bronze and copper weapons, dōkyō, dōtaku, as well as irrigated paddy rice cultivation. Three major symbols of Yayoi culture are the bronze mirror, the bronze sword, and the royal seal stone.

Between 1996 and 1999, a team led by Satoshi Yamaguchi, a researcher at Japan's National Museum of Nature and Science, compared Yayoi remains found in Japan's Yamaguchi and Fukuoka prefectures with those from China's coastal Jiangsu province and found many similarities between the Yayoi and the Jiangsu remains.

Further links to the Korean Peninsula have been discovered, and several researchers have reported discoveries/evidence that strongly link the Yayoi culture to the southern part of the Korean Peninsula. Mark J. Hudson has cited archaeological evidence that included "bounded paddy fields, new types of polished stone tools, wooden farming implements, iron tools, weaving technology, ceramic storage jars, exterior bonding of clay coils in pottery fabrication, ditched settlements, domesticated pigs, and jawbone rituals". The migrant transfusion from the Korean peninsula gains strength because Yayoi culture began on the north coast of Kyūshū, where Japan is closest to Korea. Yayoi pottery, burial mounds, and food preservation were discovered to be very similar to the pottery of southern Korea.

However, some scholars argue that the rapid increase of roughly four million people in Japan between the Jōmon and Yayoi periods cannot be explained by migration alone. They attribute the increase primarily to a shift from a hunter-gatherer to an agricultural diet on the islands, with the introduction of rice. It is quite likely that rice cultivation and its subsequent deification allowed for a slow and gradual population increase. Regardless, there is archaeological evidence that supports the idea that there was an influx of farmers from the continent to Japan that absorbed or overwhelmed the native hunter-gatherer population.

Some pieces of Yayoi pottery clearly show the influence of Jōmon ceramics. In addition, the Yayoi lived in the same type of pit or circular dwelling as that of the Jōmon. Other examples of commonality are chipped stone tools for hunting, bone tools for fishing, shells in bracelet construction, and lacquer decoration for vessels and accessories.

According to several linguists, Japonic or proto-Japonic was present on large parts of the southern Korean peninsula. These Peninsular Japonic languages, now extinct, were eventually replaced by Koreanic languages. Similarly Whitman suggests that the Yayoi are not related to the proto-Koreans but that they (the Yayoi) were present on the Korean peninsula during the Mumun pottery period. According to him and several other researchers, Japonic/proto-Japonic arrived in the Korean peninsula around 1500 BC and was brought to the Japanese archipelago by Yayoi wet-rice farmers at some time between 700 and 300 BC. Whitman and Miyamoto associate Japonic as the language family of both Mumun and Yayoi cultures. Several linguists believe that speakers of Koreanic/proto-Koreanic arrived in the Korean Peninsula at some time after the Japonic/proto-Japonic speakers and coexisted with these peoples (i.e. the descendants of both the Mumun and Yayoi cultures) and possibly assimilated them. Both Koreanic and Japonic had prolonged influence on each other and a later founder effect diminished the internal variety of both language families.

Languages
Most linguists and archaeologists agree that the Japonic language family was introduced to and spread through the archipelago during the Yayoi period.

Emergence of Wo in Chinese history texts
The earliest written records about people in Japan are from Chinese sources from this period. Wo, the pronunciation of an early Chinese name for Japan, was mentioned in 57 AD; the Na state of Wo received a golden seal from the Emperor Guangwu of the Later Han dynasty. This event was recorded in the Book of the Later Han compiled by Fan Ye in the 5th century. The seal itself was discovered in northern Kyūshū in the 18th century. Wo was also mentioned in 257 in the Wei zhi, a section of the Records of the Three Kingdoms compiled by the 3rd-century scholar Chen Shou.

Early Chinese historians described Wo as a land of hundreds of scattered tribal communities rather than the unified land with a 700-year tradition as laid out in the 8th-century work Nihon Shoki, a partly mythical, partly historical account of Japan which dates the foundation of the country at 660 BC. Archaeological evidence also suggests that frequent conflicts between settlements or statelets broke out in the period. Many excavated settlements were moated or built at the tops of hills. Headless human skeletons discovered in Yoshinogari site are regarded as typical examples of finds from the period. In the coastal area of the Inland Sea, stone arrowheads are often found among funerary objects.

Third-century Chinese sources reported that the Wa people lived on raw fish, vegetables, and rice served on bamboo and wooden trays, clapped their hands in worship (something still done in Shinto shrines today), and built earthen-grave mounds. They also maintained vassal-master relations, collected taxes, had provincial granaries and markets, and observed mourning. Society was characterised by violent struggles.

Yamataikoku
The Wei Zhi, which is part of the Records of the three Kingdoms, first mentions Yamataikoku and Queen Himiko in the 3rd century. According to the record, Himiko assumed the throne of Wa, as a spiritual leader, after a major civil war. Her younger brother was in charge of the affairs of state, including diplomatic relations with the Chinese court of the Kingdom of Wei. When asked about their origins by the Wei embassy, the people of Wa claimed to be descendants of the Taibo of Wu, a historic figure of the Wu Kingdom around the Yangtze Delta of China.

For many years, the location of Yamataikoku and the identity of Queen Himiko have been subject of research. Two possible sites, Yoshinogari in Saga Prefecture and Makimuku in Nara Prefecture have been suggested. Recent archaeological research in Makimuku suggests that Yamataikoku was located in the area. Some scholars assume that the Hashihaka kofun in Makimuku was the tomb of Himiko. Its relation to the origin of the Yamato polity in the following Kofun period is also under debate.

title: Yayoi period