Talk:Scientific imperialism

message: I have removed the "prod" tag as it is quite inappropriate for this article. As you can see above it has already been proposed to AfD for deletion and was kept. This article has been around for months, has had several editors and is referenced. It should only be deleted if the discussion at AfD supports deletion. So, if you want it deleted, take it back to AfD. --Bduke 23:00, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hm, this page just popped up on my watchlist after lying dormant for months. You're thinking of fragmentalism, which was cleaned up by Tim Vickers during its AFD.  This page has had very little work done since its AFD, and remains a POV rant.  Skinwalker 09:24, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed deletion

message: The practice of identifying who made a statement with in-text attribution as well as an in-line citation can help a great deal with the tone of an article. So for this piece, instead of the article saying 
Instead saying:
Do you see how differently this reads? In the first example it could be seen as the author of the Wikipedia article making an argument, while in the second it is obvious to anybody reading the text that this is merely a summary of the source material. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:16, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, please just rewrite it in that style without making huge unnegoiated deletions like those others keep doing. Peter morrell 16:55, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Identifying sources in the text

message: Which sources, if any, should be kept from the huge bibliography and moved into a further reading section? Please justify inclusion here. Thanks, Verbal chat 16:57, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Its entirely self-explanatory why not read the books? you don't need this list placing here...stop hacking away at the article and dumping garbage on my talkpage. Please. It is clear to me what your true motivation with this article is. Peter morrell 17:06, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Why are they included? Either they should be used as references or it is simply a further reading section, and we should only include good references. My motivation is to turn it from an essay into a decent article, or redirect it to Scientism if some good references aren't produced. I've already directed you to WP:AGF. If you break the 3RR you will be blocked, so the warning was placed in order to stop you from being blocked. At the moment I see no justification for this section, but I assume (good faith) that some may be useful. Verbal chat 17:20, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Personally I think it should be limited to 3-5; 10 would be the absolute maximum. Any that can be used directly to support the text should, as at the moment it is a bit of an WP:OR mess. Verbal chat 17:23, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

text: Right, thanks, I have no objection whatsoever at renaming it as a "further reading" section. Why didn't you just do that in the first place, instead of deleting it? You just seem very keen on deleting whole swathes of stuff and NOT in making it into a decent article, but am happy if what you say is true and yes I shall also {{AGF]]. Peter morrell 17:31, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  There has been no deletion, I moved it here for discussion. You really need to work on your civility. Which 3-5 so you think are the most important? Verbal chat 18:26, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Further reading section 

message: :OK I would say the following are pretty core material
* Adas M., Machines as the Measure of Men: Science, Technology and Ideologies of Western Dominance (New York, 1989)
* Alam A., Imperialism and Science in Race and Class Vol. 19, 1978, pp.239-251
* Arnold D. (ed.), Imperial Medicine and Indigenous Society (Manchester,1989)
* Drayton R., Science and the European Empires in Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History, Vol. 23, 1995, pp. 503-510.
* Inkster I., Scientific Enterprise and the Colonial Model, Observations on Australian Experience in Historical Context in Social Studies of Science, Vol.15, 1985, pp.677-704
* Mackenzie J.M., (ed.), Imperialism and the Natural World (Manchester, 1990)
* Macleod R., On Visiting the “Moving Metropolis”: Reflections on the Architecture of Imperial Science in Reingold N and Rothenberg M (eds.) Scientific Colonialism (Washington, 1987)
* Macleod R., Passages in Imperial Science: From Empire to Commonwealth in Journal of World History, Vol. 4, 1993, pp.117-150
* Palladino P. and Worboys M., Science and Imperialism in ISIS, Vol.84, 1993 pp.91-102
* Petitjean P., Jami C., and Moulin A.M. (eds.), Science and Empires: Historical Case Studies about Scientific Development and European Expansion (Netherlands, 1992)
* Pyenson L., Cultural Imperialism and Exact Sciences revisited in ISIS, Vol.84, 1993, pp.10-108
* Reingold N. and Rothenberg M., Scientific Colonialism: A Cross Cultural Comparison (Washington, 1987)
* Secord J., King of Siluria: Roderick Murchison and the Imperial Theme in Nineteenth Century British Geology in Victorian Studies Vol. 25,1982, pp.413-443.
...and would be hard pushed to reduce the list further. Hope this helps.
Peter morrell 18:36, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: As a comment on this, there seems to me to be a split in usage between "imperial science" - related to colonialism and the 19th century, and more recent usage focusing on the role of science within western liberal democratic societies. The article presently does a poor job of distinguishing between these two, although that may be due to this distinction not really existing! Tim Vickers (talk) 18:49, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

text: This isn't a forum for your beliefs and WP:OR (WP:TALK), nor should the article be a coatrack for synthesis and OR. Can you provide some solid RS that this term is notable, and that this page shouldn't be redirected? At the moment the article seems to entirely consist of synthesis. Why are those references "core"? What is so important about them? Why aren't they referenced in the text? Verbal chat 21:28, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  By the way, the term allopathic is considered insulting and should be avoided. Verbal chat 21:29, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

text: Anyone can edit any page, please remain civil. All pages have to follow wikipedia policy. I was talking about your description of "scientific imperialism" being an established fact. If this is the case then there should be many solid WP:RS from prestigious philosophy and sociology journals, etc. Can you provide them? You might want to have a look at the Q.E.D. article to see how you've misused the term here. Verbal chat 21:43, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

text: My intention is not to bait, but to improve the project. I have not made any accusations against you, and I'm sorry if your feel attacked. This is not your article, and anyone can edit it - including removing unjustified or unsupported text (WP:OWN). Verbal chat 07:54, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I see no baiting here.  It seems to me that there is a great deal of synthesis going on here and original research.  The stuff about imperialism in the 1800s would have little to do with today.  Presently this reads like an essay, not an article about the topic. Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:35, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Core material

message: I have started a merge discussion on the Scientism talk page: Talk:Scientism#Scientific imperialism merger. Please contribute there. Thanks, Verbal chat 11:40, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge discussion 

message: Despite some of the apparent synthesis, "scientific imperialism" is a phrase used in the scholarly literature. See: . Some of this is in the context of disparaging science as scientism, i.e. scientific materialism and scientific imperialism, but some of it is in the context of work done by Western scientists in the developing world, for instance ecological studies, or recruiting people into medical studies. I am going through the sources now, and I'll list those that seem pertinent and reliable here. Fences and windows (talk) 21:32, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Amazing work, F&W! Thank you for all of your efforts here - past, present and future! -- Levine2112 discuss 00:51, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

text: Here's an interesting use of the term in another reliable source: . I don't think you've yet incorporated this one below. -- Levine2112 discuss 01:32, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

text: Thanks for those.  However, I think these references would be better employed in improving the scientism article rather than salvaging this one, as per the discussion on the scientism talk page. — Hyperdeath(Talk) 19:02, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Reliable sources

message: I note no mention whatsoever of opposing viewpoints. I am somewhat biased on this subject, so would have problems editing the article appropriately, but suggest to anyone who can keep neutral a couple of references for the modern-day clashes:
* 
* 
* As above, The Demon-Haunted World.
Not being a historian of science, I'm afraid I am not particularly able to bring forward opposing viewpoints on that aspect of things; looking into praise of "imperialism" and critiques of anti-imperialism would be helpful, not only in this article but for the imperialism article. I've also added a "See also" link for Experimental political science, which appears to be something being critiqued by the proponents of this viewpoint. (Given the lack of balance, I've labeled this as Start class; I am tempted to label it a Stub.) Allens (talk | contribs) 13:56, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Opposing views?