text:
Talk:New Imperialism/Archive 10

10 Talk:New Imperialism/archive 1 Talk:New Imperialism/archive 2 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 (You are here.) 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

Hoolie Doolie this thing is huge! I tried to take a look at it just now to get my mind around the issues, but it's just too darn big. That talk page I just archived was 54k! Let's start afresh.

First up, the article is so long that I can't hold a picture of it in my head in order to think about it sensibly. Indeed, it would take me all night to read it as carefully as one should read something that has been as heavily disputed as this thing. It has to be broken up, one way or another. It occurs to me that the best person to break it up would be the person who is most familiar with it - i.e., 172. Let's face it, most of the rest of us probably have difficulty conceptualising an article as long as this clearly, let alone debating it. Wikilove to all. Tannin 14:17, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC) - To everyone:

I would like to clarify weak sections of the article rather than remove them. I'd also like to improve sections for readability rather than having a user pick out a typo or two, an unclear sentence or two, and use it as a pretext to attack the entire article. I'd also like to engage in a dialogue with users well versed in the subject over the proper division. Would people agree to give this a chance and move past all this squabbling? Please, this is very complex subject matter. A lot of content is needed to explain all the important points. I'll go through them below.

The most important is the transition from informal control to formal rule, the motivations behind this, and the factors underpinning this shift, which are extremely complex because we're dealing with one broad trend, but not carried out everywhere, among many rapidly changing nations dealing with an even greater number of rapidly changing colonies. We're also going to need to deal with imperial rivalry; why less developed nations, such as Italy, decided to follow Britain's lead in formal colonialism; and the role of all parties involved (finance, adventurers, explorers, missionaries). While accomplishing this, we're going to need to deal with the promotion of imperialism in the main powers, and all the shifts involved (as an aside, the promotion of French imperialism is notable for shifts reflecting developments in the history of France, such as the founding of the Third Republic, its humiliation in the Franco-Prussian War).

While some users have proposed going into great detail on the colonial encounter (the role of race and class in colonial societies, the emergence of nationalism, de-colonization, and the emergence of the "North-South divide"), these are best left as concluding remarks since there are specific articles on the histories of colonial societies.

The current article accomplishes most of these tasks. If I'm given a chance to copyedit it thoroughly for readability, I'd be able to present it in a more effective manner more approachable to lay readers.

I'd also like to add this very brief paragraph:

"Technological advancement facilitated overseas expansionism. Industrialization brought about rapid advancements in transportation and communication, especially in the forms of steam navigation, railroads, and telegraphs. Medical advances were also key, especially vaccines for topical tropical diseases. The development of malaria treatment enabled vast expanses of the tropics to be penetrated in the first place."

BTW, due to so many edits by so many writers, I can't be blamed for everything! 172 16:05, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Etymology, etymology, it all comes down to etymology.
Not to harp on the matter too much but the history of the word imperialism is somewhat strangely constructed. To say that OED claims that 1856 "imperialism" was used to describe "Pax Britannica", is very problematic. To start with; the term "Pax Britannica" is first used 1886. (if we are to believe OED).

Well, I suppose they still could have used it to refer to the phenomenon itself. But the quote in the OED (well, the one I have) definitely doesn't attest that in any conclusive way. After the murky 1856 quote there are a few quotes about the "romans". The closest to an early British reference in the OED is a mention that the "Keltic race" had a definite disposition towards imperialism, referring (well, maybe. They chop way too much context from their quotes (Not that I would like a double sized dictionary)) to the reluctance the Irish folk of that time in embracing republican ideals against following autocrats. That is a quote from 1861.

Then (again forgetting the references to romans) we have 1868 a mention about German imperialism. And the first real mention of a national policy being described as imperialism is the French in 1870. (still all according to OED, so don't point your fingers at me)

The first mention of British imperialism is from the mouth of J.Chamberlain. The Year is 1878, and the reference is not to a national policy, but to a fringe element in British politics. And the word used is not imperialism but imperialists, if there is a distinction. (and maybe there is, it refers to a number or individuals, rather than even a movement.)

In fact, the first mention of imperialism in the sense of an anglo-american hegemony, is from the year 1899. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo-stick 16:10, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Lets not forget the vote.
This is copied from the archived talkpage or whatever. Please read (well, skim at any rate) through Talk:New_Imperialism/Linking to the alternative version from the top of the article before voting here.

Voting ends 14:45, July 30th'

Link to the temp version in the current version:
 * CGS
 * Pizza Puzzle
 * Graculus (see below)
 * Daniel Quinlan (only for one week with NPOV link terminology only)
 * Martin 22:57 28 Jul 2003 (UTC) (what Daniel Quinlan said)
 * Angela (No harm in a link if accompanied by the normal 'the neutrality of this page is disputed' type comment if necessary.)
 * Cimon Avaro on a pogostick (anything less would be patently unfair, purely as a matter of principle)

Don't link to the temp version in the current version: P.S. The deadline should probably be adjusted, since Tannin understandably didn't notice to to move this to the new talkpage. But how much, is a question I leave to wiser heads. I am just about beat. -- Cimon Avaro
 * 172
 * —Eloquence (I do not really see replacing this article with the very short temp version as a serious option, and PP does not seem to want to use it as an executive summary only)
 * FearÉIREANN 16:18 28 Jul 2003 (UTC)~ (As this temp is not a communal new edition about to go live but a rival version whose future is uncertain, putting two alternative articles linking to the main page is non-encyclopædic and makes it look like 2 POV articles are being offered, not 1 NPOV version.)
 * Evercat - We need a single NPOV page.
 * Wik (clearly the shorter version has less information; if the 32K limit is a problem, the original article will just have to be split in two, but it's no reason to cut out relevant information)
 * Wenteng 06:04, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC) On the bottom of the page I point out areas where more content should be added. It would be reasonable to split it up according to the table of contents. Please see the bottom of the page for my comments on areas that, IMHO, deserve attention.

 * It was only hidden for an hour or so maximum. CGS 18:10, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC).

Why? Today was proposed, and it's so far 7-6 for a link. I'm editing this overblown mess down anyway as soon as it's free (though I doubt I'll get it to 32K), so it's really rather academic. Graculus 17:06, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Ok, it's decided: the majority thinks that there should be a link. I'll add it. How long it should stay there is another matter (according to Daniel Quinlan). CGS 15:20, 30 Jul 2003 (UTC).

Actually wiki have been almost unusable for a lot of today for many users. It has taken me 2 hours to get on, and every second link talks about larousse and connections. (I took me eight attempts over the last hour to get into the page. FearÉIREANN 18:06, 30 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I clarified some of the more glaring problems in the article. May I post the changes, which aren't very significant, on the main page? 172 16:52, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)

And precisely why should one contributor be allowed to edit when others aren't? Graculus 17:06, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)

 * There's a difference between minor editing and major restructuring. I merely want to make some changes for readability and add a few clarifications. If you want to do the same (and not remove huge chunks) I'd be more than willing to endorse your desires to go right ahead. 172 17:48, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Please! No amount of your endorsements will allow a non-sysop to change a comma in the article. And editing it in the most minuscule fashion defeats the whole purpose of the protection anyway... -- Cimon Avaro

 * How about I unprotect the page again? Martin's said he won't make the edit that 172 disagreed with again (and that was the reason for the protection, wasn't it?), so there probably won't be a problem. I'll keep a close eye on goings on here in case something requires it to be reprotected again. --Camembert

 * That'd be great. I don't intend to edit the article (or sub-articles) for the next week or so. Martin 21:14, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Extending the deadline of the vote.
Okay. I am unilaterally SUGGESTING that we extend the vote to 16:00 of the original timezone, since the vote was out from the talk page for what; two and a half hours. My solution would be to split the difference. I will not complain, if an extension to 1730 is requested however. But make it known either way. Just so we don't stumble on that detail. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogostick

 * Are we voting on this? I say no. And could you clarify the time? By my reckoning, the vote was called at 14.42 UTC, which means the whole additional allowance has now elapsed, it being now 17.32. Graculus 17:32, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)

 * On the 30th I think, not the 29th.

 * Indeed so. Graculus 18:16, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Perhaps the protection can be lifted. But can we all enter into a gentlemen's agreement whereby we agree to making no major changes and just focus on readability and clarity? Could we all go back to editing without having Martin remove the theories section before the series is created? Could Graculus edit without removing large chunks dealing with economic trends, Russia, or imperial rivalry? Just for now. Can we focus on clarity? 172 18:05, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)

 * s/remove/move. There's a subtle difference. Martin

 * I wlll focus on clarity. What gives you the right to imagine that this version alone has to be the basis of any revision, and no other? Or that it can indeed only undergo trifling amendment when others have consistently argued for fundamental revision? You reverted my thorough (35K) redraft three minutes after I posted it: I think it's time others were able to judge it for themselves. Then they can do as they see fit. Graculus 18:16, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)

There is a reason there was an edit war at this article...Watch out Graculus or 172 is going to accuse you of being the banned user DW. Pizza Puzzle

I reverted Gracs changes to New Imperialism (temp) - I dont understand what he was doing and I tried to move it to a secondary temp page -- but it was over 32k and I couldnt. Pizza Puzzle

 * No worries. Graculus 18:26, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I have the following points that I feel should be noted:

 * Discussion of various persons should be extremely concise (ie Chamberlain - Disraeli) - these people have their own pages
 * Discussions of regional affairs should be extremely concise (ie Congo Free State)- they have thier own page
 * Discussions of word origins should be extremely concise (ie imperialism) - these have their own page
 * Discussions of imperialist theories should be extremely concise (ie [[theories of imperialism) - these have their own page

Statements that the New Imperialism (temp) page lacks these topics are somewhat exagerrated - since all this information is linked to from the temp page.

Pizza Puzzle

Editing of protected page
Can a non-edit-warring sysop (IE, not me, to my shame) please revert 172's latest edits, which took place while the page was protected? Thanks. Martin 19:39, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)

He said he wouldn't challenge any revert, so I've done it. Although I have expressed some opinion here (ie in the vote), I was actually on 172's side there, so I think I can reasonably do it... :-) Evercat 19:46, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)

 * Someone has just protected Talk:New_Imperialism/archive_9. This is getting ridiculous. Martin 19:52, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)

 * Actually, I should invoke Hanlon's Razor on myself, and suggest that the most likely culprit is myself, by clicking the wrong button by accident! I'll take my paranoid hat off and unprotect it... :) Martin 20:04, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Just how long is it proposed that this article is to remain protected? Until 172's return? How nice for those of us who have spent hours on revisions only to have them reverted unread, and who now find ourselves unable to restore them. I propose that since an edit war of the kind we have seen in the past seems unlikely in the 12 hours that 172 says he will be absent, the interim should be made available for others to submit and discuss alternative drafts should they so wish. Then 172 can revert back to his last version on his return, which will doubtless be the case. Graculus 19:58, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)

 * So is that it, then? 172 gets sysops to watch over his page while he's away? What a joke! Graculus 20:17, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I really haven't been following this so much, but if you wish to prepare a version for when the page is unprotected, you can create a temp version, possibly in your own userspace. I'll copy the entire wikicode of the page to a place of your choosing, if you like. Evercat 20:19, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)

 * There already is a temp version. How many people have to create them because 172 won't contemplate parting with his monopoly of this article? Graculus 20:21, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)

 * I believe the page can be unprotected. If it helps, I have no intention of editing it over the next week, and, as noted, 172 is currently away. I am hoping that in the next week someone will successfully split this thing up and save me the trouble of doing so. Martin 20:47, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)

 * "Can be ..." But will it be? I find it quite bizarre that this article should be protected against edit wars when the contributor involved in every recent edit war isn't here. Meanwhile I'm barred although I didn't even counter-revert my lost re-draft when it was removed after three minutes. What's going on? Graculus 21:04, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Graculus to mav, 21:30, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I am asking you to unprotect New Imperialism. So far as I can see the contributor with the greatest tendency to revert is absent from the site for some time, while others are prevented from editing what remains a profoundly unsatisfactory article. I am amazed that the article should be thus closed to someone (myself) who has made repeated constructive edits, lately restructuring the whole thing and rewriting a large part of it to make it more readable, objective and informative than the present disorderly assemblage of rambling, repetitive and circular claims.

I set myself the goal some time ago of bringing this article into editable size (so far from 35K to 50K, with no loss of valuable content}, and believe that I should be entitled to present the results for review and discussion like anyone else. I am quite at a loss as to why one contributor appears to be the beneficiary of so much use of administrative privilege - to the extent even of having "his" page protected in his absence although he is quite happy to revert others' work without even reading it - when the result has in fact not to date been (and is in my opinion unlikely to be) any significant improvement to the article in question.

 * Counter revert? That hardly sounds like it is coming from a noncombatant who will give his best effort not to continue an edit war if the page is unprotected. In fact it sounds like somebody who is eager to get back into the fray. I have not seen much by the way of constructive dialog here that would convince me that the page is now safe to unprotect. All work is still in the edit history and this article isn't going anywhere at the moment - there was a temporary revert back to a version that existed before the, sad to say, most recent edit war. In the meantime, there are over 140,000 other articles to edit while everyone involved cools-off. --mav

 * Re your supposedly clever picking up of "counter-revert", the point is I didn't when I could perfectly easily have done so. How long are we to see this one user treated to the benefit of every administrative mechanism in the book? I'm getting frankly sickened by this whole business, and can't see the point of even starting any other articles if this is a foretaste of the onesidedness of the project's "enforcers". Graculus 22:06, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)

 * Getting increasingly angry is going to do the opposite of what you want. Link to the version you want to work on and I'll give you a copy of the wikitext. --mav

What now?
One thing seems to be certain; this article is way too long for an encyclopedia. However, since Wikipedia doesn't really have space concerns, we can have this level of detail but it somehow must be better organized into a set of articles instead of just one huge article. History of Germany, I believe, sets a good example on just how a huge subject (German history) can be summarized on a top level page and the detail explained in depth on daughter articles.

However, looking through the edit history of this article, I see that at least one user has consistently blocked the efforts of others who have been trying to bring the length of this article down to a manageable size. The merits of their particular edits may or may not have been good, but the intent is in the right direction, IMO. But a wait of a mere 3-8 minutes before a revert to the longer version of the article on each attempt to fix the known size issues doesn't seem to be in the spirit of cooperation. It also seems doubtful that the two versions of the article could even be read for comparison in that time.

So I'm asking everyone to please respect the work of others: those people who want a short article here; please move the detail to daughter articles and summarize the major sections here; to the other side; please consider each of these changes to be attempts at improving the article and not as something that should be reverted without serious consideration. If factual errors are made then please fix those errors instead of just reverting the page. I'll unprotect the article as soon as both sides agree to work together (preferably under the terms I expressed above). --mav 23:14, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)

 * Thanks mav, that's something: I'm willing to co-operate (that's why I edited the original from top to bottom and offered the result in the first place, then resisted the temptation to get into an edit war), but I have to say I consider the original beyond repair: if an alternative can even be seriously discussed that'll be a step forward, but for that it has to be at least allowed an existence and time for discussion, which seems a vain hope here. I have to repeat, though, that this situation hasn't been helped by sysop heavy-handedness, overwhelmingly it seems on the side of the one party. Graculus 23:34, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)

 * I don't see how the current page protection is favoring any party - I offered you the opportunity to work on any version you wished but you didn't take up the offer. --mav

 * Its really easy to understand mav. 172 doesnt want the article to change. Thus, the page protection is "helping" him maintain his monopoly. Pizza Puzzle

 * But the page is protected, and therefore I assume any such work will go elsewhere. If I didn't take up your offer it's because I didn't understand it. Graculus 23:58, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Here's the series box. What does everyone think? If it's accepted, we'll then have the opportunity to add a strong narrative history, which would really make this article understandable to users not well versed in the subject. 172 06:13, 30 Jul 2003 (UTC)

The "New Imperialism" is an era of imperial colonial expansion spanning the late 19th and early 20th centuries, between the Franco-Prussian War and World War I (c. 1871 - 1914). English writers have variously described the New Imperialism as the "era of empire for empire's sake", "the great adventure", and "the scramble for Africa".

I know that the title to the series is awful. But the title couldn't be "New Imperialism" for obvious reasons. 172 07:05, 30 Jul 2003 (UTC) The required reorganisation can be accomplished within the present article with daughter articles as required, if only people other than 172 are allowed to revise it in the way it so desperately needs. The above arrangement is frankly nonsensical. Why is the history (erm... the facts, in case you haven't noticed) relegated to the end? Why is Britain (the last adherent of free-trade informal empire) at the beginning and Germany (actually, the Entente, better covered elsewhere) toward the end, while France and the U.S don't even rate a mention? Why should "Loss of British comparative advantage in manufacturing" and "*Loss of British comparative advantage in manufacturing" and "Amalgamation of Industry" merit whole sections as if British industrialists' concerns explained everything? Why a section on "Russian expansionism" which mainly just about India Office paranoia and actually misses the period when Tsarist policy approximated most closely to the "New imperialism"?

My own draft (which 172 reverted without reading) arranged the whole into a far more coherent framework, capable with minor editing of being viewed on one page as a parent article. Why must we be subjected to more of this ill-organised, overworded and repetitive nightmare? Graculus 07:45, 30 Jul 2003 (UTC)

 * I see 172 is already creating these awful spinoff articles while others among us are prevented from even working on this article. What was the point of asking above what we thought of the suggestion when he was going to do it anyway? This is a disgraceful abuse of page protection, using sysop intervention to present all other contributors with a fait accompli that only more drastic administrative action can undo. Why is this being allowed to happen? Graculus 07:54, 30 Jul 2003 (UTC)

 * What are you advancing some kind of personal vendetta or something? The whole point was to split the article up into the series. Well, it's split up. If the series page can be redirected to the main New Imperialism article, then you'd be able to edit all the daughter articles and add as much content as you'd like. You'd even be able to create your own daughter articles.

 * But in case people haven't realized, this is an extremely difficult and complex subject requiring many articles that go into detail. That's why I'm not the only one agreeing that a series be created. I'm not at all happy with the current state of the articles in the series, but the division was necessary if content is to be added. 172 08:05, 30 Jul 2003 (UTC)

 * Hey - cool it a while, guys. Why don't we all cut 172 a little slack here. He has a scheme in mind, give the man enough rope to try his hand at it. If it turns out to be a mess, well, we can edit it up then, or list it on VFD if need be. 172 does have a formidable amount of expertise in this area, so my expectation is that he will more than likely effect a substantial improvement. Cool out, take a few days away from this page (and it's daughter pages) and let's see what happens. Time enough to criticise & edit after he has had a chance to get his sub-pages in order. Tannin 08:11, 30 Jul 2003 (UTC)

 * First, thanks to Tannin for burdening himself with this disaster area. Second, Graculus can go nuts editing the daughter articles right now for all I care. Less work for me. They need SUBSTANTIAL work! But it might be best, from his vantage point, to wait until the series gets redirected to the main page, which would require the consultation of Mav, Jtdirl, and Tannin. After all, if the series isn't redirected to the main page, I'll be the first advocating listing the daughter articles on the VFD. But whatever happens, the major work required won't happen until we unite behind a format for the series. Until then, I'll write more and more content, esp. on the weak points Graculus points out, on Word or the daughter articles. 172 08:21, 30 Jul 2003 (UTC)

 * The articles that are now being created were never agreed: the titles and structure are nonsense. Why didn't 172 wait for responses to his proposals before doing this unilaterally, something he's always insisted on reverting in the past before asking his sysop friends for protection against anybody else's edits? This isn't a collaborative article, its one user's hobby-horse, which is a total perversion of what Wikipedia is supposed to be about.

 * To Tannin, I don't like to question people's ability, but I have to say that while he's read Hobson and his critics, I consider 172's expertise in the geopolitical and regional history side of this subject extremely limited, as shown be the persistence of factual schoolboy howlers through successive edits until I removed them a couple of weeks ago. That's not a vendetta, 172, and I can assure you that such remarks give me no pleasure. The limitations of any single individual are why this thing needs to be worked on collaboratively, not monopolised by one contributor as has been the case recently. 172 doubtless believes that the whole can be worked into some collaborative form, but refuses to compromise on emphasis or organisation.

 * I'm inviting anyone who wants to produce a proper collaborative article to look at, criticise and if appropriate edit New imperialism, which I think offers a far better framework than this fatally compromised (and presently uneditable) venture. And no, I don't intend to work on this or any of its daughters if in all important aspects it's just going to be someone else's preserve. Graculus 09:39, 30 Jul 2003 (UTC)

- That's it. I'm deleting my user page. And I'm out of this site for good. Didn't I say that the article was far from finished? Didn't I explain that my edits have been very limited for a long time? I don't like being slandered. 172 09:46, 30 Jul 2003 (UTC)

 * That isn't what I want, I want us to work together to improve this mess, but it is a mess, one that predates your contribution: the fact that you've only made limited edits (while reverting anything more drastic) is of little consolation: it's your unwillingness to consider (or even read) any alternative approaches that's caused this row. Graculus 10:18, 30 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Nice rhetoric aside, Graculus, 172 is no problem at all to work with if you know something about the subject and actually try to cooperate. (And on this point I speak from personal experience.) Here is a hint: cut someone a little slack next time, huh? Tannin

Unprotecting
Since 172 has apparently left the project (probably not for good, I hope) and these series of edit wars have mostly been 172 vs others, then I see no further reason to keep this page protected. The current version is an older one so please somebody revert it to what you think is a more acceptable version. Let's all work toward summarizing the main points here and having the detail in daughter articles. --mav

Is anyone in favor of redirecting the series to the main article now that the page is unprotected? 172 18:28, 30 Jul 2003 (UTC)

 * I thought you were gone 172. But no - there is no reason to redirect the series article here. That is just plain silly. This article needs to be a broad summary of the subject and the detail should be in the daughter articles. If another edit war erupts again then I, or another Admin, will protect the page again. So will you please work with the other people who what to break up this monster? ---mav

 * "I'm out of this site for good" 172 09:46, 30 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Ok, now I'm confused. Martin 18:38, 30 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Sorry to disappoint you, Martin. Perhaps I overreacted to Graculus' vicious personal attacks and slander and your less than magnanimous presence. But disregarding that, will the above box be an acceptable series once a summary for all the daughter articles is created? So far, I'm the first to have 'broken up this monster' into a series.

I'm not very attached to the titles and the ordering of the series, but if anyone wants, the names can be easily changed by redirecting the daughter articles and the sequencing of the articles can easily be changed by editing the series box.

But it's impossible to write the executive summary until we know what the main articles being summarized are going to be. So some discussion of the series would be helpful.

As a note to Graculus, virtually everything that he added to his reverted version has been placed in the daughter articles, which have been the subject to a good deal of reorganization and editing for readability since the content was borrowed from the main page. 172 19:25, 30 Jul 2003 (UTC)

There is now an executive summary with links to daughter articles on it. Click here. As I mentioned above, the sequencing of the series, along with the names of the daughter articles, can easily be changed by editing the series box. Since we have long agreed to split the article up into a series linked to executive summaries of the daughter articles, can this be redirected to the main page? 172 04:34, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC)

 * No. The name "The New Imperialism Series" is not the name of an article. If anything the content there should be placed here (or better yet the even more naming convention compliant new imperialism) and that page redirected. The table is way too wide, BTW. --mav 05:01, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC)

 * That's exactly what I've been proposing. I was proposing that the article "The New Imperialism Series" be deleted and its content removed to this article. I'm fully aware that the article doesn't meet naming conventions. I just opted to name it "the series" because it would've been rude to edit the main article. And about the series box, Eloquence demonstrated how the width of the boxes can be reduced. I'm setting out to fix that problem right now. 172 05:05, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC)

 * OIC. I'm sorry for misreading you then. --mav

 * Done. I've fixed all the series boxes. Thanks to Eloquence.

Mav: now that I've clarified the proposal and fixed all the tables, what do you think? Can we get rid of the monster on New Imperialism? 172 05:23, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC)

 * I like the new format and summaries, but wait to see what other people think. --mav 05:30, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC)

 * Thanks. Actually, I'm not really happy with the daughter articles and summary (Graculus accused me of being ignorant for what was not presented in the article, but that's only because I couldn't add more facts and details to such a huge article subject to edit wars, and you know how I like going in depth), but it would be a great improvement over what we have now and would enable people to finally add much needed content to short daughter articles. 172 05:39, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I have absented myself from this site for 24 hours in order to avoid inflaming an unfortunate situation. I am glad to see 172 back, and I hope we can work together on achieveing the improvements that are required. Now that the site is unprotected, I believe that I am entitled to offer a version of the article which better approaches the 32K target.

I feel also that I am entitled to respond to certain claims against me. I did not slander anyone. I did not call anyone ignorant. I stated that a contributor's expertise in a particular area of the subject was "extremely limited". I withdraw the adverb as quite inappropriate in comparison to average knowledge of the matter. But it's still limited. And that isn't ignorance in the pejorative sense: everybody's knowledge including mine is limited in something, or even extremely limited in most things. Graculus 07:52, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC)

 * It was an unfair charge. I've never had the chance to add a lot of missing details, that's all. 172 07:58, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC)

 * When you revert a revision containing corrections in favour of an earlier version without correcting the errors in the latter, you become responsible for the persistence of those errors. Whether you wrote them in the first place or not becomes irrelevant. Don't revert other people's work without reading it and incorporating any factual corrections or other improvements in your preferred version. Graculus 10:22, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC)

 * On this site you have to work at a fast pace. You cannot produce a perfect article on a very broad, complicated subject in a single edit. In a very contentious edit war, you also cannot make sweeping changes (and believe me, I would've love to have been able to chronicle far more dates and facts, focus on readability, and restructure the entire article) without alarming some party. Sometimes you have to accept that progress comes gradually on this site and that the extensive exchanges in a collaborative online project can get both excruciatingly tedious and abrupt. Believe me, I learned this the very hard way starting last December. Frequently, we resort to restoring imperfect versions as stopgaps. Since online collaboration is very awkward and the conflicts sometimes get very heated, we have to grow accustomed to dealing with a pace that is far less gentile and deliberate than in the real world. Mav can attest that I was a curmudgeon before I learned the culture of communication and collaboration unique to this site. So I make no apologies for restoring a flawed version. It was only a means to an end. 172 16:25, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC)

 * Errors should not be submitted in place of accurate corrections, even when other text is changed. That's the difference between editing (which we're supposed to do) and immediate automatic reversion (which isn't). I look forward to a culture of communication and collaboration. Graculus 22:36, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC)

- Mav wrote: "I like the new format and summaries, but wait to see what other people think. --mav 05:30, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC)"

I agreed to wait until Graculus unilaterally made drastic changes and unilaterally rejected the broad consensus to create a series. I'm willing to have someone revert to the original article if Graculus too is stopped from making drastic changes prior to reaching an agreement. 172 08:11, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC)

 * I think that Graculus wasn't aware that the executive summary existed... --mav

 * I've been considering the proposed version, which is far more consideration than anyone ever gave to my better-written draft. I'm willing to consider it as a basis for revision, if only 172 will actually enter into collaborative exchange rather than automatically rejecting all but "minor edits" and asking - yet again - that people be "stopped" from contributing substantive improvements. Graculus 10:22, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I still sense a bitter tone. I'm sorry for hastily reverting your 34 K version. However, we all agreed to split the article up rather than remove content. And despite the reversion, I did thoroughly review it. You will soon notice that everything you added in the 34 K version found a home in the new series. What you added was incredibly good, but I'm looking forward to adding much more.

There's also no need for the competitive overtones of your statement. Frankly, there was no competition. Prior to your posting of the 34 K version, I did not get a chance to copyedit the article for readability and clarify, reorganize it, and add the chronicling of facts that I still look forward to adding to the series.

In addition, I'm not committed to the titles in the series and the sequencing of the articles. So your input would be respected if it's offered in a magnanimous manner. 172 10:34, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC)

 * I've been mostly sitting on my hands for a long long time during this whole exchange, since I personally am not any significant expert on the subject of imperialism, new or old. But before finally going for a long weekend holiday, let me leave you with my opinion on why this page is in such trouble at the moment. To my biased view it seems that everything that 172 does is according to consensus and wide aggreement after discussion on the talk page. On the other hand it seems that most of the other players are doing unilateral changes. Perhaps things could be better if 172 just did minor unilateral changes, and the rest just did drastic but consensus driven changes. It's just a thought. It is a sad thing if any one person should have the power to define what the consensus on any subject is. -- Cimon Avaro

- I admitted that posting the series was a recent unilateral action reacting to Graculus' unlilateral action, which went against the consensus. The "consensus" of which I speak is only the agreement by the vast majority of those who have been participated in the talk page that an executive summary be posted on the main page with links to daughter articles. That's it.

There are no vast 172 conspiracies here. And furthermore, the implication put forward by one user that all the syspos are in cahoots together is absurd. Mav and I, for instance, practically get into a little dispute every other day. But we've always ended them amicably, much like I hope the dispute over this article gets resolved. 172 11:02, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC) - Glad that some amount of rationality has been restored.

You,meaning whoever is interested, have to reintroduce the paragraph which talks about when the word imperialism first came to be used and then how it was applied retrospectively to earlier empires and how because of that the 19th and 20th century version of imperialism is called new imperialism. This forms the whole crux of understanding 'new imperialism'. Removing this paragraph causes a major missing link because you have to lead from a generally known concept-'imperialism' to a relatively unknown concept- 'new imperialism' as far as the general reader is concerned.

If I type 'New Imperialism' in the search area, I get another page, not the temporary one. So are there three versions totally? It is ridiculous. I am tempted to try my hand, I seem to have learnt so much about a topic that I didn't know existed at all!!!

The imperialism paragraph is not needed -- there is an article on that topic. imperialism. Pizza Puzzle

172 removed my link to the temp page. What am I supposed to do? Pizza Puzzle

 * If there is an evolving broadbased agreement on the restructuring of this page, do we need a link to one person's temp version that no-one else is seems to be interested in working on? FearÉIREANN 18:34, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC)

It doesnt seem to me that Graculus and 172 are agreeing. Even if they were, I have created a seperate version which you, Jtdirl, and 172 have worked very hard to censor (going so far as to use your sysop powers in breach of the rules regarding sysops) -- so its not surprising if nobody has been able to read it -- and anyways -- maybe nobody sees anything needing editing. Pizza Puzzle

 * Maybe nobody has bothered reading it. It isn't as if people don't know it exists. You've everything bar scribbling PP woz here, p.s. I've a temp page alternative of the article on the toilet walls in Hawkeye Community College or in Waterloo. FearÉIREANN 18:56, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC)

 * BTW PP, are you morally opposed to using the Show preview button or is there some other reason why you continually clutter up edit histories with save after save after save after save after save . . . ? FearÉIREANN 19:02, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Lol - Jtdirl is a troll Im not gonna feed anymore. Pizza Puzzle
 * you are great at asking questions, PP, but even better at dodging giving answers. And unlike certain other users I have never been banned, let alone hardbanned a couple of times. I think you could give courses on trollism, PP. Maybe that is what you do in both universities. lol FearÉIREANN 01:06, 1 Aug 2003 (UTC)

title: Talk:New Imperialism/Archive 10


text:
Sante Kimes

Sante Kimes (née Singhrs; July 24, 1934 – May 19, 2014 ) also known as the Dragon Lady, was an American murderer, con artist, robber, serial arsonist, and possible serial killer who was convicted of two murders, as well as robbery, forgery, violation of anti-slavery laws and numerous other crimes. Many of these crimes were committed with the assistance of her son, Kenneth Kimes. They were tried and convicted together for the murder of Irene Silverman, along with 117 other charges.

Kenneth made a plea deal in the murder of David Kazdin, pleading guilty and agreeing to testify against his mother in her trial for Kazdin's murder in return for her not facing a death sentence. Sante was subsequently convicted of that murder. The pair were also suspected but never charged in a third murder in the Bahamas, to which her son later confessed.

Early life and criminal history
Sante Kimes was born Sandra Louise Singhrs in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, the third of four children to Mary Van Horn (July 20, 1897 – November 11, 1969), a native of Illinois, who was of Dutch ancestry, and Prama Mahendra Singhrs (January 16, 1889 – June 22, 1940), an East Indian immigrant. When Sante was 3 years old, her father abandoned the family and her mother resorted to prostitution to support her children, resulting in Sante being molested by several adults. According to her estranged sister, Sante had an incestuous relationship with her older brother and was a pyromaniac who held lit matches underneath her sister's fingers against her will. As a child, she would tie up the goats and dogs on her family's farm and use hatpins to mutilate and torture them.

When she was a teenager, Sante moved with her mother and sister to Los Angeles, California, and was promptly adopted by Edwin and Mary Chambers, along with another boy. She moved with her new family to Carson City, Nevada, where she graduated from Carson High School in 1952. At school, Sante earned a reputation as a bully who frequently belittled and intimidated younger students. In 1956 she reunited with a former boyfriend from high school, Edward Walker. They married the following year and had one son, Kent Walker. After a 1961 shoplifting conviction in Sacramento, Sante separated and reconciled intermittently with Walker, but their divorce was not finalized until 1969.

Walker was a general contractor who built homes in the Sacramento area; in December 1960, Sante set fire to a house he had built to fraudulently collect insurance. She only destroyed the kitchen and received US$10000. During the course of their marriage, dozens of homes that Walker had supervised burned down, and Sante had a number of affairs with Walker's wealthy business associates. After her first divorce, Sante and her son travelled to Palm Springs. In 1971 she met motel tycoon Kenneth Keith Kimes Sr. (November 16, 1917 – March 28, 1994) after reading about his divorce in Millionaire Magazine and learning that he had a net worth of approximately $20million (equivalent to $ million in ). They married in Clark County, Nevada, on April 5, 1981. They had one son, Kenneth Kimes, Jr. (born March 24, 1975).

Kimes spent the better part of her life fleecing people of money, expensive merchandise and real estate, either through arson, elaborate con games, forgery or outright theft. She committed insurance fraud on numerous occasions, frequently by committing arson and then collecting money for property damage. Sante delighted in introducing her husband Kenneth Sr. as an ambassador, a ploy that even gained the couple access to a White House reception in the Blair House during the Ford administration, and sometimes even impersonating Elizabeth Taylor, whom she resembled slightly.

Kimes also committed many acts of fraud that were not even financially necessary, such as enslaving maids when she could easily afford to pay them. She frequently offered young, homeless illegal immigrants housing and employment, then kept them as virtual prisoners by threatening to report them to the authorities if they did not follow her orders. As a result, she and Kenneth Sr. spent years squandering his fortune on lawyers' fees, defending themselves against charges of slavery.

Kimes was eventually arrested in August 1985 and was sentenced by the U.S. District Court to five years in prison for violating federal anti-slavery laws and was successfully sued by Honolulu civil attorney David Schutter in civil court. Kenneth Sr. took a plea bargain and agreed to complete an alcohol treatment program. He and their son lived a reasonably normal life until Sante was released from prison in 1989. Kenneth Sr. died of a brain aneurysm in 1994.

Elmer Holmgren
On September 18, 1990, Kimes hired 50-year-old lawyer Elmer Ambrose Holmgren to burn her Honolulu home due to a lien on the property, and the fact it would have cost US$900000 (equivalent to $ million in ) to sell it. Insurance investigators interviewed Holmgren, who admitted his involvement in the arson. On October 24, Sante burned Holmgren's office because he possessed a number of legal documents related to the case which would have incriminated her.

Before a case could be brought to trial, Holmgren told his family that he was taking a trip to Costa Rica with Sante and Kenneth Sr. on August 2, 1991. He has not been seen since. In November 2000, Kenneth Jr. admitted that his mother had told him that she killed Holmgren by hitting him in the head with a hammer while she was in the backseat and he was riding in the front passenger's seat. His body was never found and no charges were brought against any member of the Kimes family.

Jacqueline Levitz
Kimes and Kenneth Jr. are suspects in the 1995 abduction of 62-year-old Mary Jacqueline Levitz, heiress to the Levitz Furniture fortune, from her home in Vicksburg, Mississippi. Levitz was last seen on November 18, 1995, by a store clerk at a business where she bought wallpaper for her new house, and was never heard from again. On November 20, a relative discovered Levitz' front door open. Her bedroom carpet and mattress were soaked in blood. Signs of a violent struggle, including torn-off fingernails, were scattered on the floor.

Police believe Levitz was the victim of a botched kidnapping and that her body may have been disposed of in the Mississippi River, which ran near her home. After the 1998 disappearance of Irene Silverman (see below), similarities were noted between her case and Levitz' unsolved kidnapping. However, neither Sante or Kenneth Jr. were ever charged in relation to this case. On November 18, 2000, Levitz was declared legally dead.

Syed Bilal Ahmed
Kenneth Jr. confessed to murdering 46-year-old banker Syed Bilal Ahmed, who was in charge of Sante's offshore bank accounts, at his mother's behest in Nassau, Bahamas, on September 4, 1996, which had been suspected by Bahamian authorities at the time. He testified that the two acted together to drug Ahmed, drown him in a bathtub and dump his body offshore, but no charges were ever filed in that case. Sante denied any involvement in or knowledge of the murders, and she claimed that Kenneth Jr. confessed solely to avoid receiving the death penalty.

David Kazdin
63-year-old David Kazdin had allowed Sante to use his name on the deed of a home in Las Vegas that was actually occupied by her and Kenneth Sr. in the 1970s. Several years later, Sante convinced a notary to forge Kazdin's signature on a loan application for $280,000, with the house as collateral. When Kazdin discovered the forgery through a letter sent from his bank and threatened to expose Sante, she ordered him killed.

On March 9, 1998, Kenneth Jr. murdered Kazdin in his Los Angeles home by shooting him in the back of the head. According to another accomplice's later testimony, all three participated in disposing of the evidence. Kazdin's body was found in a dumpster near Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) in March 1998. The murder weapon was never recovered, having been disassembled and dropped into a storm sewer.

Irene Silverman
82-year-old socialite and former ballerina Irene Zambelli Silverman was last seen at her townhouse on East 65th Street in New York City on July 5, 1998. Kenneth Jr. was a tenant in Silverman's mansion at the time she went missing, having moved into one of her apartments the previous month using an alias.

Authorities arrested Sante and Kenneth Jr. on the day of Silverman's disappearance with the initial charges stemming from a fraudulent check written in Utah for $14,900 earlier in 1998; they were charged with Silverman's murder in December 1998 and convicted in 2000. Authorities believe mother and son devised a scheme whereby Sante would assume the identity of Silverman and appropriate ownership of her mansion, which was valued at $7.7million (equivalent to $ million in ). The pair recorded Silverman's phone conversations and kept a set of fifteen notebooks on which Sante had written detailed descriptions of mortgage fraud schemes involving many intended victims, including both Silverman and Kazdin.

When he was arrested, Kenneth Jr. had in his possession Silverman's keys, cassettes of her tape-recorded calls, loaded firearms, wigs, masks, plastic handcuffs, $30,000 in cash, an empty stun gun box and a substance similar to a "date rape" drug. He also held a forged deed which approved the transfer of Silverman's townhouse to Sante's shell corporation for $395,000. During the trial for Kazdin's murder, Kenneth Jr. confessed that after his mother had used a stun gun on Silverman, he strangled her, stuffed her corpse into a bag and deposited it in a dumpster in Hoboken, New Jersey.

Investigation and arrest
The investigation into the Kimes family officially began on March 14, 1998, when Kazdin's remains were found in a dumpster near LAX. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) detectives assigned to the investigation focused on the mortgage application with the forged signature that falsely linked Kazdin to a house in Las Vegas which had been partly burned down in an attempted arson. The supposed homeowner turned out to be David McCarran, a homeless man who said Sante and Kenneth Jr. had lit the arson fire. He also claimed to have been forced to stay in the house by the Kimes family, who hoped to collect the insurance money from the loss of the house.

Investigators also located Stan Patterson, a second man who confessed to selling a handgun to Kenneth Jr. which he used to kill Kazdin. He was told of several potential felony charges stemming from the murder and mortgage fraud, and reluctantly agreed to cooperate with police in apprehending the pair to avoid prosecution. At the end of June 1998, Patterson got a call from Sante about an expensive townhouse in New York's Upper West Side she wanted to sell, and she needed his help with the paperwork. Patterson agreed to meet her in New York on July 5. He informed the FBI about the scheduled meeting before he left on July 3. Two days later, Patterson met Sante at the New York Hilton around 6 PM that evening. Around 7 PM, Kenneth Jr. arrived at the Hilton and approached Sante. Upon his appearance FBI and New York City Police Department (NYPD) officers arrested both of them.

Trials, imprisonment and death
The Kimeses were tried in New York first for the Silverman murder. Evidence recovered from their car helped establish the case for trying them for Kazdin's murder as well. The Silverman trial was unusual in many aspects, namely the fact that no body was ever recovered. Nonetheless, the jury was unanimous in voting to convict Sante and Kenneth Jr. not only of murder but of 117 other charges including robbery, burglary, conspiracy, grand larceny, illegal weapons possession, forgery and eavesdropping on their first poll on the subject.

The judge also took the unusual step of ordering Sante not to speak to the media even after the jury had been sequestered, as a result of her passing a note to New York Times reporter David Rhode in court. He threatened to have Sante handcuffed during further court appearances if she persisted and restricted her telephone access to calls to her lawyers. The judge contended that Sante was attempting to influence the jury as they may have seen or heard any such interviews, and that there would be no cross-examination as there would be in court. Sante had earlier chosen to not take the stand in her own defense after the judge ruled that prosecutors could question her about the previous conviction on slavery charges.

During the sentencing portion of the Silverman trial, Sante made a prolonged statement to the court blaming the authorities, including their own lawyers, for framing her and her son. She went on to compare their trial to the Salem Witch Trials and claimed that the prosecutors were guilty of "murdering the Constitution" before the judge told her to be quiet. When the statement was concluded, the judge responded that Sante was a sociopath and a degenerate, and that her son was a dupe and a "remorseless predator", before imposing the maximum sentence on both of them. This amounted to 120 years for Sante and 124 years for her son, effectively sentencing both of them to life imprisonment.

In October 2000, while doing an interview, Kenneth Jr. held Court TV reporter Maria Zone hostage by pressing a ballpoint pen into her throat. Zone had interviewed Kenneth Jr. in prison once before without incident. His demand was that his mother not be extradited to California, where the two faced the death penalty for the murder of Kazdin. After four hours of negotiation, Kenneth Jr. removed the pen from Zone's throat. Negotiators created a distraction which allowed them to quickly remove Zone and wrestle Kenneth Jr. to the ground.

In March 2001, Kenneth Jr. was extradited to Los Angeles to stand trial for the murder of Kazdin. Sante was extradited to Los Angeles in June 2001. During that trial in June 2004, Kenneth Jr. changed his plea to "guilty" and implicated his mother in Kazdin's murder in exchange for a plea deal that his mother should not receive the death penalty if convicted. He then testified in trial against his mother, exposing every detail about their multiple crimes and describing how she indoctrinated him into becoming her accomplice.

Sante again made a prolonged statement denying the murders and accusing police and prosecutors of various kinds of misconduct, and she was again eventually ordered by the presiding judge to be silent. The judge in the Kazdin case called Sante "one of the most evil individuals" she had encountered in her time on the bench. Sante was serving a life sentence plus 125 years at the Bedford Hills Correctional Facility for Women in New York, where she died on May 19, 2014. Kenneth Jr. is currently incarcerated at Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility in California.

In media
In 2000, NY Daily News crime reporter Alice McQuillan published They Call Them Grifters: The True Story of Sante and Kenneth Kimes. 2001 made-for-TV movie, Like Mother, Like Son: The Strange Story of Sante and Kenny Kimes, starred Mary Tyler Moore as Sante, Gabriel Olds as Kenneth Jr. and Jean Stapleton as Silverman. In 2006, another television movie based on a book about the case, A Little Thing Called Murder, starring Judy Davis and Jonathan Jackson, aired on Lifetime. Sante was also featured in a 2009 episode of the television show Dateline and a 2015 episode of Diabolical Women. The Kimes' story was recounted on Oxygen's Snapped, in an episode that aired on August 30, 2020. Gary Indiana's novel Depraved Indifference (2009) is substantially based on the Kimeses case. The season 5 episode of Cold Case "Thick as Thieves" is based on this case, as is the Law & Order season 9 episode "Venom". The book Son of a Grifter was written by Sante's non-criminal son, Kent Walker. Once Upon A Crime Episode 067: Murder in the Family: Sante and Kenny Kimes

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

title: Sante Kimes


text:
Talk:Petaluma

 Something weird happened to my first draft of Petaluma (just location so far --  Rome was not built in a day). I might try again later. This is what I get for being away from my computer for so long. Maybe after I relearn the editing commands, my contributions will stick. Reinventing HTML really does not make things simpler; the editing commands are just as hard as HTML. I believe that four tildes will insert my name with date and time --  I remember that from March. I hope this sticks.  ?alabio 03:44, 1 Aug 2003 (UTC)

There's already an article at Petaluma, California. You may want to edit that instead of creating a brand-new article. RickK 03:59, 1 Aug 2003 (UTC)

title: Talk:Petaluma


text:
User:Automaton~enwiki

Hello! I started making contributions in July 2003, after finding that my Google searches on unusual topics kept leading me to Wikipedia.

I have something of a peripatetic life, and have lived in England, Australia, Canada, and the US. I’m a paediatric surgeon, but if I could figure out how to make a living fly fishing, there’d be a career change in my future!

My interests are fairly broad, or maybe that should be "eccentric": history; theology; politics; mathematics; literature. Don’t worry; I am more focussed at the office.

What I like the most about Wikipedia is that its democratic nature is a powerful reflection of the fact that the greatest wisdom lies with the greatest number.

That and it's addictive...

title: User:Automaton~enwiki


text:
Mutillidae

The Mutillidae are a family of more than 7,000 species of wasps whose wingless females resemble large, hairy ants. Their common name velvet ant refers to their resemblance to an ant, and their dense pile of hair, which most often is bright scarlet or orange, but may also be black, white, silver, or gold. Their bright colors serve as aposematic signals. They are known for their extremely painful stings, (the sting of the species Dasymutilla klugii rated a 3 on the Schmidt pain index and lasts up to 30 minutes ), and has resulted in the common name "cow killer" or "cow ant" being applied to the species Dasymutilla occidentalis. However, mutillids are not aggressive and sting only in defense. In addition, the actual toxicity of their venom is much lower than that of honey bees or harvester ants. Unlike true ants, they are solitary, and lack complex social systems.

Distribution
Mutillidae can be found worldwide with about 230 genera or subgenera and around 8,000 species worldwide. Over 400 species occur in the North American Southwest.

North American Mutillidae have eight phenotypically distinct and geographically limited Müllerian mimicry rings (Desert, Eastern, Madrean, Texan, Red-headed Timulla, Black-headed Timulla, Tropical, and Western) making up one of the largest Müllerian mimicry complexes on the planet. These mimicry rings are the result of repeated convergent evolution of aposematic traits between co-occurring velvet ant species, rather than shared phylogenetic history. Through the evolution of aposematic traits in velvet ant species in the same ring, local predators have learned to avoid these well-defended wasps.

Description
The exoskeleton of all velvet ants is unusually tough (to the point that some entomologists have reported difficulty piercing them with steel pins when attempting to mount them for display in cabinets). This characteristic allows them to successfully invade the nests of their prey and also helps them retain moisture. Mutillids exhibit extreme sexual dimorphism. As in some related families in the Vespoidea, males have wings, but females are wingless. The males and females are so distinct in their morphology that entomologists often find it very hard to determine whether a given male and female belong to the same species, unless they are captured while mating. In some species, the male carries the smaller female aloft while mating, which is also seen in the related family Thynnidae. As is the case for all aculeates, only female mutillids are capable of inflicting a sting. The stinger is a modified female organ called an ovipositor, which is unusually long and maneuverable in mutillids. In both sexes, a structure called a stridulitrum on the metasoma is used to produce a squeaking or chirping sound when alarmed. Both sexes of mutillids also bear hair-lined grooves on the side of the metasoma called felt lines. Only two other vespoid families (Bradynobaenidae and Chyphotidae) have felt lines, but the females of these families have a distinct pronotum, with a transverse suture separating it from the mesonotum; in female mutillids, these two thoracic segments are completely fused. Members of the family Myrmosidae, formerly classified as a subfamily of mutillids, also have a distinct pronotum in females, but lack felt lines in both sexes.

Behavior
Adult mutillids feed on nectar. Although some species are strictly nocturnal, females are often active during the day. Females of Tricholabiodes thisbe are sometimes active up to two hours before sunset. Guido Nonveiller (1963) hypothesized the Mutillidae are generally stenothermic and thermophilic; they may not avoid light, but rather are active during temperatures that usually occur only after sunset.

Defense mechanisms
Predation is one of the strongest forces natural selection uses to drive the evolution of an organism's morphology, physiology, and behavior. During this coevolution, the prey either being consumed by the predator or escaping has resulted in a plethora of impressive defensive strategies in prey species to improve the likelihood of escape. Velvet ants avoid predation using the following defense mechanisms: a venomous sting (if female), aposematic coloration, a stridulatory organ in their abdomen, an alarm secretion from their mandibular gland, and a durable exoskeleton. This array of defenses has contributed to the velvet ants being attributed the title of "the indestructible insect." This title was bestowed on them after experimental interactions between velvet ants and their potential predators that resulted in the survival of the ant and the ultimate avoidance by the predator.

The venom that velvet ants inject through their stinger has an unknown composition. According to one researcher, the painfulness of the sting of Dasymutilla klugii outscored 58 other species of stinging insects tested; the only species this researcher rated as having a more painful sting were the Paraponera clavata (bullet ant), Synoeca septentrionalis (warrior wasp), and Pepsis spp. and Hemipepsis spp. (tarantula hawks). In an experimental setting, only two lizard species (one whiptail and one side-blotched lizard) attacked a velvet ant it was exposed to. In both cases the velvet ants were exhibiting rapid lateral and vertical movements to ward off an attack. Once the attack occurred the velvet ants would immediately sting the lizards. This sting resulted in the dropping of the ants in both cases and avoidance for the remainder of the trial. The side-blotched lizard was found dead in its tank 24 hours later. The side-blotched lizard is a natural predator of velvet ants, while the whiptail is not. The aposematic coloration of velvet ants often corresponds to a specific Müllerian mimicry ring consisting of dozens of species. This offers protection because many local predators have learned to avoid prey with this same coloration. To test the aposematic coloration on birds, mealworms were painted to resemble a velvet ant. During these trials, none of the painted mealworms were consumed, while all the control mealworms were consumed immediately. However, the painted mealworms were attacked by the birds, but the birds immediately ceased the attack. These experiments provide evidence that the aposematic coloration of velvet ants causes their predators to hesitate, acting as a visual defense mechanism.

The stridulatory organ that velvet ants possess produces an audible squeaking when the abdomen is contracted. This mechanism is an auditory cue warning predators that are about to attack to stay away. In one experiment, every time a shrew got within 1 meter of a velvet ant, the velvet ant would begin stridulating. Stridulations became more frequent as the predator moved closer to the velvet ant, and the shrew never attempted to attack the velvet ant. However, different scenarios with shrews have shown that the velvet ant would also stridulate after the shrew attacked it. Every time this occurred the shrew dropped the wasp.

The exoskeleton of the velvet ant is remarkably strong. It required 11 times more force to crush than that of the honeybee. As well as being durable, the exoskeleton is also round, making it more difficult for predators to pierce it with attempted stings or bites. During all the trials that led to the fracture of a velvet ant's exoskeleton, a total of 4 times resulted in the death of that velvet ant within 24 hours. Aside from protection from predators, the exoskeleton also helps control moisture.

Due to these strong defense mechanisms, local predators generally avoid the velvet ants, so it has been difficult to determine their predators. One study found tropical and subtropical iguanian lizards (Dactyloidae) to be a local predator of velvet ants in the Black-headed Timulla and Tropical mimicry rings.

Life cycle
Male mutillids fly in search of females; after mating, the female enters a host insect nest, typically a ground-nesting bee or wasp burrow, and deposits one egg near each larva or pupa. Only a few species are known to parasitize other types of hosts; exceptions include the European velvet ant, Mutilla europaea, one of the only species that attacks social bees (e.g., Bombus), and the genus Pappognatha, whose hosts are tree-dwelling orchid bees. The mutillid larvae then develop as idiobiont ectoparasitoids, eventually killing their immobile larval/pupal hosts within a week or two. Velvet ants exhibit haplodiploid sex determination, as do other members of the superfamily Vespoidea.

Taxonomy
Recent classifications of Vespoidea sensu lato (beginning in 2008) concluded that the family Mutillidae contained one subfamily that was unrelated to the remainder, and this subfamily was removed to form a separate family Myrmosidae.

title: Mutillidae


text:
Latin jazz

Latin jazz is a genre of jazz with Latin American rhythms. The two main categories are Afro-Cuban jazz, rhythmically based on Cuban popular dance music, with a rhythm section employing ostinato patterns or a clave, and Afro-Brazilian jazz, which includes samba and bossa nova.

"Spanish tinge"—The Cuban influence in early jazz and proto-Latin jazz
African American music began incorporating Afro-Cuban musical motifs in the 19th century, when the habanera (Cuban contradanza) gained international popularity. The habanera was the first written music to be rhythmically based on an African motif. The habanera rhythm (also known as congo, tango-congo, or tango ) can be thought of as a combination of tresillo and the backbeat. Wynton Marsalis considers tresillo to be the New Orleans "clave," although technically, the pattern is only half a clave. "St. Louis Blues" (1914) by W. C. Handy has a habanera-tresillo bass line. Handy noted a reaction to the habanera rhythm included in Will H. Tyler's "Maori": "I observed that there was a sudden, proud and graceful reaction to the rhythm...White dancers, as I had observed them, took the number in stride. I began to suspect that there was something Negroid in that beat." After noting a similar reaction to the same rhythm in "La Paloma", Handy included this rhythm in his "St. Louis Blues", the instrumental copy of "Memphis Blues", the chorus of "Beale Street Blues", and other compositions. Jelly Roll Morton considered the tresillo-habanera (which he called the Spanish tinge) to be an essential ingredient of jazz. The habanera rhythm can be heard in his left hand on songs like "The Crave" (1910, recorded 1938).

"Now in one of my earliest tunes, 'New Orleans Blues,' you can notice the Spanish tinge. In fact, if you can't manage to put tinges of Spanish in your tunes, you will never be able to get the right seasoning, I call it, for jazz—Morton (1938: Library of Congress Recording)."

Although the exact origins of jazz syncopation may never be known, there is evidence that the habanera-tresillo was there at its conception. Buddy Bolden, the first known jazz musician, is credited with creating the big four, a habanera-based pattern. The big four (below) was the first syncopated bass drum pattern to deviate from the standard on-the-beat march. As the example below shows, the second half of the big four pattern is the habanera rhythm.

"It is probably safe to say that by and large the simpler African rhythmic patterns survived in jazz ... because they could be adapted more readily to European rhythmic conceptions. Some survived, others were discarded as the Europeanization progressed. It may also account for the fact that patterns such as [tresillo have] . . . remained one of the most useful and common syncopated patterns in jazz—Schuller (1968)."

The Cuban influence is evident in many pre-1940s jazz tunes, but rhythmically, they are all based on single-celled motifs such as tresillo, and not do not contain an overt two-celled, clave-based structure. "Caravan", written by Juan Tizol and first performed in 1936, is an early proto-Latin jazz composition. It is not clave-based.

Jazz in-clave
The first jazz piece to be overtly based in-clave, and therefore, the first true Latin jazz piece, was "Tanga" (1943) composed by Mario Bauza and recorded by Machito and his Afro-Cubans the same year, 1943. The tune was initially a descarga (Cuban jam) with jazz solos superimposed, spontaneously composed by Bauzá.

The right hand of the "Tanga" piano guajeo is in the style known as ponchando, a type of non-arpeggiated guajeo using block chords. The sequence of attack-points is emphasized, rather than a sequence of different pitches. As a form of accompaniment it can be played in a strictly repetitive fashion or as a varied motif akin to jazz comping. The following example is in the style of a 1949 recording by Machito. 2‐3 clave, piano by René Hernández.

The first descarga that made the world take notice is traced to a Machito rehearsal on May 29, 1943, at the Park Palace Ballroom, at 110th Street and 5th Avenue. At this time, Machito was at Fort Dix (New Jersey) in his fourth week of basic training. The day before at La Conga Club, Mario Bauza, Machito's trumpeter and music director, heard pianist Luis Varona and bassist Julio Andino play El Botellero composition and arrangements of the Cuban-born Gilberto Valdez which would serve as a permanent sign off (end the dance) tune.

On this Monday evening, Dr. Bauza leaned over the piano and instructed Varona to play the same piano vamp he did the night before. Varona's left hand began the introduction of Gilberto Valdes' El Botellero. Bauza then instructed Julio Andino what to play; then the saxes; then the trumpets. The broken chord sounds soon began to take shape into an Afro-Cuban jazzed up melody. Gene Johnson's alto sax then emitted oriental-like jazz phrases. Afro-Cuban jazz was invented when Bauza composed "Tanga" (African word for marijuana) that evening of 1943.

Thereafter, whenever "Tanga" was played, it sounded different, depending on a soloist's individuality. In August 1948, when trumpeter Howard McGhee soloed with Machito's orchestra at the Apollo Theatre, his ad-libs to "Tanga" resulted in "Cu-Bop City," a tune which was recorded by Roost Records months later. The jams which took place at the Royal Roots, Bop City and Birdland between 1948 and 1949, when Howard McGhee, tenor saxophonist Brew Moore, Charlie Parker and Dizzy Gillespie sat in with the Machito orchestra, were unrehearsed, uninhibited, unheard-of-before jam sessions which at the time, master of ceremonies Symphony Sid called Afro-Cuban jazz.

The Machito orchestra's ten- or fifteen-minute jams were the first in Latin music to break away from the traditional under-four-minute recordings. In February 1949, the Machito orchestra became the first to set a precedent in Latin music when it featured tenor saxophonist Flip Phillips in a five-minute recording of "Tanga." The twelve-inch 78 RPM, part of The Jazz Scene album, sold for $25—Salazar (1997). Mario Bauzá developed the 3-2 / 2-3 clave concept and terminology. A chord progression can begin on either side of clave. When the progression begins on the three-side, the song or song section is said to be in 3–2 clave. When the chord progression begins on the two-side, it is in 2–3 clave. In North America, salsa and Latin jazz charts commonly represent clave in two measures of cut-time (2/2); this is most likely the influence of jazz conventions. When clave is written in two measures (above) changing from one clave sequence to the other is a matter of reversing the order of the measures.

Bobby Sanabria, who was Bauzá's drummer, cites several important innovations of Machito's band:
 * The first band to explore jazz arranging techniques with authentic Afro-Cuban rhythms on a consistent basis giving it a unique identifiable sound that no other band in the genre of Afro-Cuban based dance music had at the time. Cuban big band arranger Chico O'Farill stated: "This was a new concept in interpreting Cuban music with as much (harmonic) richness as possible. You have to understand how important this was. It made every other band that came after, followers."
 * The first band to explore modal harmony (a concept explored much later by Miles Davis and Gil Evans) from a jazz arranging perspective through their recording of "Tanga." Of note is the sheet of sound effect in the arrangement through the use of multiple layering.
 * The first big band to explore, from an Afro-Cuban rhythmic perspective, large-scale extended compositional works. e.g. "The Afro-Cuban Jazz Suite" by Chico O'Farill.
 * The first band to successfully wed jazz big band arranging techniques within an original composition with jazz oriented soloists utilizing an authentic Afro-Cuban based rhythm section in a successful manner. e.g. Gene Johnson - alto, Brew Moore - tenor, composition - "Tanga" (1943).
 * The first Afro-Cuban based dance band to overtly explore the concept of clave counterpoint from an arranging standpoint. The ability to weave seamlessly from one side of the clave to the other without breaking its rhythmic integrity within the structure of a musical arrangement.

Bauzá introduced bebop innovator Dizzy Gillespie to the Cuban conga drummer Chano Pozo. "Manteca" is the first jazz standard to be rhythmically based on clave. "Manteca" was co-written by Dizzy Gillespie and Chano Pozo in 1947. According to Gillespie, Pozo created the layered, contrapuntal guajeos (Afro-Cuban ostinatos) of the A section and the introduction, and Gillespie wrote the bridge. The rhythm of the melody of the A section is identical to a common mambo bell pattern.

On March 31, 1946, Stan Kenton recorded "Machito," written by his collaborator / arranger Pete Rugolo, which is considered by some to be the first Latin jazz recording by American jazz musicians. The Kenton band was augmented by Ivan Lopez on bongos and Eugenio Reyes on maracas. Later, on December 6 the same year, Stan Kenton recorded an arrangement of the Afro-Cuban tune "The Peanut Vendor" with members of Machito's rhythm section. Kenny Dorham "Minor's Holiday", "Basheer's Dream", Hank Mobley "Recado Bossa Nova" and Sabu Martinez jazz tune developed Afro-Cuban jazz from 50s to 60s.

Cuban percussionist Mongo Santamaria first recorded his composition "Afro Blue" in 1959. "Afro Blue" was the first jazz standard built upon a typical African three-against-two (3:2) cross-rhythm, or hemiola. The song begins with the bass repeatedly playing 6 cross-beats per each measure of 12/8, or 6 cross-beats per 4 main beats—6:4 (two cells of 3:2). The following example shows the original ostinato "Afro Blue" bass line. The slashed noteheads indicate the main beats (not bass notes), where you would normally tap your foot to "keep time."

Bossa nova
Bossa nova is a hybrid form based on the samba rhythm, but influenced by European and American music from Debussy to US jazz. Bossa nova originated in the 1950s, largely from the efforts of Brazilians Antonio Carlos Jobim and João Gilberto. Its most famous song is arguably "The Girl from Ipanema" sung by Gilberto and his wife, Astrud Gilberto. While the musical style evolved from samba, it is more complex harmonically and less percussive. Bossa nova emerged primarily from the upscale beachside neighborhoods of Rio de Janeiro as opposed to samba's origins in the favelas of Rio. Certain similar elements were already evident, even influencing Western classical music like Gershwin's Cuban Overture which has the characteristic 'Latin' clave rhythm. The influence on bossa nova of jazz styles such as cool jazz is often debated by historians and fans, but a similar "cool sensibility" is apparent.

Bossa nova was developed in Brazil in the mid-1950s, with its creation being credited to artists including Johnny Alf, Antonio Carlos Jobim and João Gilberto. One of the first songs was "Bim-Bom"(Gilberto). Bossa nova was made popular by Dorival Caymmi's "Saudade da Bahia" and Elizete Cardoso's recording of "Chega de Saudade" on the Canção do Amor Demais LP, composed by Vinícius de Moraes (lyrics) and Antonio Carlos Jobim (music). The song was soon after released by Gilberto.

The initial releases by Gilberto and the internationally popular 1959 film Orfeu Negro ("Black Orpheus", with score by Luiz Bonfá) brought significant popularity of this musical style in Brazil and elsewhere in Latin America, which spread to North America via visiting American jazz musicians. The resulting recordings by Charlie Byrd and Stan Getz cemented its popularity and led to a worldwide boom with 1964's Getz/Gilberto, numerous recordings by famous jazz performers such as Ella Fitzgerald (Ella Abraça Jobim) and Frank Sinatra (Francis Albert Sinatra & Antônio Carlos Jobim). Since that time, the bossa nova style maintains a lasting influence in world music for several decades and even up to the present.

The first bossa nova single to achieve international popularity was perhaps the most successful of all time, the 1964 Getz/Gilberto recording "The Girl From Ipanema", edited to include only the singing of Astrud Gilberto, Gilberto's then wife. The genre would withstand substantial "watering down" by popular artists throughout the next four decades.

An early influence on bossa nova was the song "Dans mon île" by French singer Henri Salvador, featured in the 1957 Italian movie Europa di notte by Alessandro Blasetti; the song was distributed in Brazil and covered later by Brazilian artists Eumir Deodato (Los Danseros en Bolero – 1964) and Caetano Veloso (Outras Palavras – 1981). In 2005, Henri Salvador was awarded the Brazilian Order of Cultural Merit, which he received from singer and Minister of Culture, Gilberto Gil, in the presence of President Lula for his influence on Brazilian culture.

The so-called "bossa nova clave" (or "Brazilian clave") is played on the snare rim of the drum kit in bossa nova. The pattern has a similar rhythm to that of the son clave, but the second note on the two-side is delayed by one pulse (subdivision). The pattern is shown below in 2/4, as it is written in Brazil. In North American charts it is more likely to be written in cut-time.

According to drummer Bobby Sanabria the Brazilian composer Antonio Carlos Jobim, who developed the pattern, considers it to be merely a rhythmic motif and not a clave (guide pattern). Jobim later regretted that Latino musicians misunderstood the role of this bossa nova pattern.

Beyond Latin jazz
Brazilian percussionist Airto Moreira became a professional musician at age 13. He won acclaim as a member of the samba jazz pioneers Sambalanço Trio and for his landmark recording Quarteto Novo with Hermeto Pascoal in 1967. Shortly after, he followed his wife Flora Purim to the United States. Once in the U.S., Airto introduced Afro-Brazilian folkloric instruments into a wide variety of jazz styles, in ways that had not been done before. In Chick Corea's original Return to Forever band, Airto was able to showcase his samba prowess on several percussion instruments, including drum kit. However, the terms jazz samba or Latin jazz are too limiting a label for the types of music Airto participated in the U.S. during the 1970s. Airto played in the two most important avant-garde electric jazz bands of the day—Miles Davis and Weather Report. He also performed on more mainstream albums, such as those of CTI Records. Besides energetic rhythmic textures, Airto added percussion color, using bells, shakers, and whistles to create evocative textures of timbre. Airto paved the way for other avant garde Brazilian musicians such as Hermeto Pascoal, to enter the North American jazz scene.

Another innovative Brazilian percussionist is Naná Vasconcelos. Vasconcelos contributed to four Jon Hassell albums from 1976 to 1980 (including Possible Musics by Brian Eno and Hassell), and later to several Pat Metheny Group works and Jan Garbarek concerts from early 1980s to early 1990s. In 1984 he appeared on the Pierre Favre album Singing Drums along with Paul Motian. He also appears on Arild Andersen's album "If You Look Far Enough" with Ralph Towner. Vasconcelos formed a group named Codona with Don Cherry and Collin Walcott, which released three albums in 1978, 1980 and 1982. While Vasconcelos uses Afro-Brazilian rhythms and instruments, he like Airto, transcend the categories of Brazilian jazz and Latin jazz.

Comparing Latin jazz with straight-ahead jazz
In comparison with straight-ahead jazz, Latin jazz employs straight rhythm (or "even-eighths"), rather than swung rhythm. Early Latin jazz rarely employed a backbeat, but contemporary forms fuse the backbeat with the clave. The conga, timbale, güiro, bongos, and claves are percussion instruments often used in addition to, or in place of the drum kit.

Formats
Latin jazz music, like most types of jazz music, can be played in small or large groups. Small groups, or combos, often use the bebop format made popular in the 1950s in America, where the musicians play a standard melody, many of the musicians play an improvised solo, and then everyone plays the melody again. Prominent Latin jazz big bands include Arturo O'Farrill's Afro-Latin Jazz Orchestra, Bobby Sanabria's Multiverse Big Band, Raices Jazz Orchestra, Mambo Legends Orchestra, Pacific Mambo Orchestra, as well as others. In Latin jazz bands, percussion is often featured in solos. Contemporary Latin jazz pieces by musicians such as Hermeto Pascoal are mostly composed for these small groups, with percussion solos as well as many wind-instrumentals.

Latin Jazz as Global Music
Most jazz histories emphasize the narrative that jazz is exclusively an American music—a style created by African Americans in the early 20th century, fusing elements of African rhythm and improvisations with European instrumentation, harmonies, and formal structures. The influences of musics from the Caribbean and Latin America—save Jelly Roll Morton's often quoted comments on the "Spanish tinge" rhythms of early New Orleans jazz, and trumpeter Dizzy Gillespie's famous Post-War collaborations with Afro-Cuban drummer Chano Pozo—have received little or no mention in standard jazz textbooks used in most American universities. Likewise, the influential 1973 compilation of recordings, the Smithsonian Collection of Classic Jazz, and Ken Burns' popular documentary film Jazz, make little mention of Latin jazz. More recent scholarship has challenged this paradigm, arguing that music from the Caribbean and Latin American were essential to the emergence of early New Orleans jazz, to the music's Post-War development in New York City, and to the continued evolution of jazz in twenty-first century urban centers. Proponents of this view advocate for the inclusion of influential Caribbean band leaders including Frank Machito Grillo, Mario Bauzá, Chico O'Farrill, Tito Puente, Ray Barretto, and Jerry and Andy Gonzalez in the broader jazz cannon. From this perspective, all jazz, including Latin Jazz, is not viewed as a uniquely American expression, but rather as "a global music" that is "transcultural in its stylistic scope."

title: Latin jazz