Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
Hello, FeydHuxtable, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! I am Avi15 and I would like to thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~), which are produced by clicking on the button; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Also, I think that you might want to join the the adopt-a-user project, where advanced editors can guide you in your first experiences here; so check it out if you want. Again, welcome!
You can help improve the articles listed below! This list updates frequently, so check back here for more tasks to try. (See Misplaced Pages:Maintenance or the Task Center for further information.)
Category Articles tagged for deletion and rescue not found
Hi, FeydHuxtable, welcome to the Article Rescue Squadron!
We are a growing community of Misplaced Pages editors dedicated to identifying and rescuing articles that have been tagged for deletion. Every day hundreds of articles are deleted, many rightfully so. But many concern notable subjects and are poorly written, ergo fixable and should not be deleted. We try to help these articles quickly improve and address the concerns of why they are proposed for deletion. This covers a lot of ground and your help is appreciated!
Some points that may be helpful:
Our main aim is to help improve articles, so if someone seeks help, please try to assist if you are able. Likewise feel free to ask for help, advice and clarification.
Many times we are asked to help rescue articles by people new to our notability and sourcing policies. If the article is not fixable we can help explain why and offer alternatives. Many of these editors are also new to Misplaced Pages so may see deleting "their" article as "bitey". Encourage civility and maybe even {{welcome}} them if they have only been templated with deletion messages.
The Articles for deletion (AfD) discussion is where the concerns regarding each article are brought up and addressed. To be an effective member of the project you need to know how AfD works as well as how to improve articles. Introduction to deletion process gives a good overview and some good advice for newcomers to deletion.
Our primary work is improving articles tagged for rescue. On this template you can see a drop-down list of current articles tagged. You can install it on your own page by putting {{ARS/Tagged}}. A more dynamic list with article links and description is on our current articles page. It is highly recommended you watchlist it.
If you have another language besides English, please consider adding yourself to the list of translators available. Articles and sources that use non-English languages often need translation for those of us who cannot translate for ourselves.
Thanks! I'd been hearing a lot about the document. First from the FT with reference to the G8 summit, from the vicars at my own church, at a meeting on financial architecture and regulation, and at a discussion I went to at St Pauls (one of the Church of Englands main Cathedrals) where one of are Bishops was talking about the need to respond to it. Im very glad someone liked my effort to meet the call! FeydHuxtable (talk) 22:57, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks
1. I read Lopokova's (only) biography a few months ago and don't have it in front of me. But wait a few minutes while I finish, and in any case don't revert - but rather refine - the edits. I'm in the process of refining them. 2. I have thousands of edits on wiki. I edit in a piecemeal way, so it'll take a while to refine the rough draft. 3. The current personal life section was almost entirely unsourced, I had written much of it earlier anyway, and it needs a little work. I have both the Skidelsky bios somewhere, I'll have a look for them. 4. There's nothing intentionally POV in my edits, especially since we're discussing his personal life, not his work. He's an important historical figure here in england, so biographical detail is relevant: the history of bloomsbury is its own academic subject.
Best Avaya 86.26.0.25 (talk) 14:44, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Youre welcome. I should have said editing from an apparent POV. I hope you can see why it comes across this way. Many of the edits painted the subject in a negative light, - alleging he was unfaithful while married, mentions of misogyny and racism, downplaying his personal financial achievements etc. If youre keeping up with the response to the financial crises, you'll know Keynes and his work has been prominent in the global struggle between public power and the free market – as such the article is a target for POV editors. Theres stacks of propaganda out their by folk who think they can discredit Keynesian policies by their ad hominem attacks.
Individually most of your edits were good additions, but collectively they have an unbalancing effect. They make him sound a rather unpleasant individual, and aside from Rothbard, even writers hostile to Keynes such as Schumpeter admit that as a person he was good hearted, generous and very charming. So the overall message of our article shouldn't present a contrary view. There are of course thousands of positive incidents that could be added to counter balance the recent additions, but the article is already close to being over sized.
In Wiki terms the above is more of a secondary argument. Its part of our core policy here that to achieve NPOV, the various themes relating to the subject should be presented according to the relative prominence they have in the quality sources. In the whole of Skidelskys single Vol Bio, Keynes racism is only mentioned in two lines that I remember, and then only as something that came up occasionally in his private correspondence, and that contrasted to his public actions and lobbying. Most bios don't mention it at all. In no Bio have I read assertions he was Misogynistic! That's new to me even after reading many pages of right wing propaganda .
That said, the refined edits you added to the personal life section are most valuable. I just think overall there's now undue weight on expressions of his dark side. Anyway Ill take another look in a few days.
PS - Theres plenty of room for exspansion in Bloomsbury Group and if you dont want to register an account I could even create Keynes and the Bloomsbury Group for you. FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:55, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
I hope you don't mind me moving the discussion here because other people use my IP. I understand the article and subject have recently become really politicised, especially in america, where they discuss him on fox news. On the question of balance, I think that, compared to similar pieces on wiki, the article has too little biographical detail. If you compare how much we have on Ludwig Wittgenstein (which does a better job of rounding out his complexities and putting his controversial statements into context). Even without his economics, Keynes was one of the most important english personalities of the century. Surely wasting space having duplicate photos of milton friedman here is more unbalanced.
I agree that the current section on his alleged "nazism" is potentially misleading. For example, Isaiah Berlin said that he was shocked by the way Keynes used the word "nigger". But in a letter to Duncan Grant, he writes that the only thing he likes about america are its "niggers" (again using that word). So it's probably less a matter of racism, than anachronistic terminology, which ignatieff implies keynes used simply in order to be shocking. The allegations of anti-semitism are similar. His letters (and one of his published essays even) contain a lot anti-semitic, but also philo-semitic, caricatures. At versailles he describes one Jew anti-semitically, but another one (melchior) philo-semitically (as a "beautiful noble jew" etc). (http://muse.jhu.edu/login?uri=/journals/history_of_political_economy/v032/32.4reder.html).
The reality isn't that he either was or wasn't racist. He evidently interpreted people in terms of national characteristics, race, sex and class. But he didn't have any kind of racist agenda, and it didn't seem to prejudice his actions or friendships. (You can see the same kind of controversy with Russell: Bertrand_Russell_views_on_society#Race).
The discussion of his marriage and affairs is relevant because they've generated a lot of historical interest - if nothing else, they're part of his historiography, and he's famous for his flamboyance.
As to his fortune. I originally wrote the sentence about his art collection. His art, on its own, would be worth a lot more than $16 million now (he bought it during ww1, and you can see most of it in the fitzwilliam museum now - they're mostly minor pieces by great artists). But I don't think you can describe his assets of £500,000 in 1946 as "a very substantial fortune" because that seems to imply a rothschild or carnegie, or at least one of the richest 200 or so in england, which he wasn't. 86.26.0.25 (talk) 19:58, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Youre right that the personal section is disproportionately small, though my point on balance was more concerning whether overall the material suggests he was a negative or positive person. I don't think we ought to go too far in expanding the personal section though, especially if it would require other sections to be trimmed. Keynes's economics has arguably impacted on the lives of almost the entire worlds population – whereas as a culture figure while very interesting he was very much B class with probably thousands one could pick out as more influential from Great Britain alone.
Looking at the sources, the 3 volume Skidelsky volume does admittedly have considerable detail on his flamboyant personal life, with many graphic quotes illustrating his outlook on sex. But thats pretty exceptional , most bios have well over 90% of their focus on his economics and political lobbying. Theres 3 books I have that have been released in the last few months. In Paul Davidson's The Keynes Solution there scarcely a paragraphs worth of personal detail in the entire book. In Keynes: The Return of the Master theres a biographical chapter but less than a page is personal detail. Peter Clarks Keynes is entirely a biographical book, Im only half way through reading it but so far it seems to devote less than 1% to personal details.
Youve brought some interesting perspective to this, so if you want to write extensively about his personal life it would be brilliant if we created something like The Peronal Life of John Maynard Keynes to have as a main article for that section.
Yep racism certainly was much more common in Keynes day. At Versailes, Keynes's boss Lloyd George made a blatant public anti semetic attack on Lousis Klotz the French finance minster as one of his power plays to smash the French blockage of humanitarian aid for German civilians, and everyone present at the meeting went along with it (or at least if anyone objected that doesnt seem to have been recorded). Anti Semitism was almost universal in those days, theres some good research on this in the first chapter of The War of the World by Nial Fergusson. Similarly with thinking the different races have inherently different mental qualities and traits - this was entirely main stream until after WWII . This I guess is another reason the quality sources don't make a big deal out of his occasional racist remarks.
£500K in 1946 is worth over £12 million today. Keynes made more money than any economist apart from Ricardo, and it only took him about 30 minutes a day , even though he often put principle over profit for example by refusing to sell on a falling market. This source for example says his "success was legendary" as a money maker, both for himself and others. But yeah we could drop the 'very', but substantial is probably a better word than moderate.
Hello, FeydHuxtable! This is just a note thanking you for participating in my recent Request for Adminship, which passed with a total of 93 support !votes, 1 oppose and 3 editors remaining neutral. While frankly overwhelmed by the level of support, I humbly thank the community for the trust it has placed in me, and vow to use the tools judiciously and without malice. KV5 (Talk • Phils)
RfA thanks
Thank you for voting in my RfA, which failed with 21 support, 39 oppose, and 11 neutral. This is highly belated, but I wanted to thank you for the support in the RfA discussion. I do apologize for taking so long to reply to you, after the failure I laid back for a while. I just dove into another article and am working more diligently on WP.
Hi! I note that in recent discussion at the notability talk page you referred to me as "arbitrator Vassyana". I just wanted to say that whenever I'm commenting in community discussions that I'm always just "Vassyana the regular editor" unless I specifically note otherwise. I'm just contributing and expressing my opinion like anyone else. If you would remove the title from my name in this spirit, I would truly appreciate it. As an aside, thank you for your well-considered comments there. Be well! Vassyana (talk) 09:24, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Done. Thanks for saying that about my comments , i worry im too extreme an inclusionist for them to be well considered! Hope youre keeping well to. FeydHuxtable (talk) 11:48, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! Regarding the position of your statements, that doesn't necessarily affect the quality of your comments. I'm pretty far to the other side of the spectrum (in that I'm pretty demanding of sources and enough independent material to create an unquestionably full article). Your contributions to the discussion seem thoughtful and reasonable. I may disagree with you, but that doesn't stop me from appreciating the quality or rational validity of your comments. Vassyana (talk) 21:08, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
How about putting it in the incubator for a week? You can get more suggestions about the article there. Also this would let other editors know about the article before it goes live, so that if their is an AFD, more editors will be aware of it. Ikip01:52, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Looking over the article, it looks great, and I think it will meet all guidelines, but more eyes on it is always a good thing. Ikip01:54, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Looks great to me to. Maybe you could email Kevin and ask if he has a pic he can release to public domain for the article? (I guess you might have already done this, personally I wouldnt create a BLP without first asking for a pic, as it gives them a chance to say they dont want an entry just in case.) Merry Christmas guys! FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:39, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Merry Christmas
A Nobody is wishing you a MerryChristmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!
Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Grrrrrrrr! A very strange AfD, and Im at a loss to imagine how to write the article in a way that would be both accurate and useful while being acceptable to the deletionists.
It was noted that Ikips OUP source made few explicit comparisons and instead mostly laid out the empires qualities and features side by side. Thats the approach the first rank comparative historians take like Spengler and (at least in the fraction of his work that ive read) Toynbee .
This was the approach you took yet bizarrely you were criticised for it – normally it considered a good thing for articles to follow the best sources for both form and content - and it shouldnt matter if your layout was based on intuition or actual knowledge of how the best scholars approach the subject. You did a good job picking out the key points to, the only genuine flaw seemed to be that some of the sources were not the best by our policies.
Im guessing part of the problem was the perceived POV issue. Our modern values being what they are, its impossible for the Han not to come out favourably against Rome in any fair comparison. In contracts to the Confucian ethic, Rome was a slave society that brutalised millions, and killed its very few great men that championed progressive causes such as the Gracchi. Not only were the Han more benevolent, they were far more successful, facing down same challenge that destroyed Rome and preserving Chinese culture into the 20th century. Heres a good extract about it from Spengler:
“
The decisive repulse of the Huns took place in 124-119 under the Chinese Trajan, Wu-ti; and it was he, too, who finally incorporated Southern China in the Empire, with the object of obtaining a route into India, and built a grand embattled road to the Tarim. And so the Huns turned westward, and in due course they appear, impelling a swarm of Germanic tribes, in face of the Limes of the Roman world. This time they succeeded. The Roman Imperium collapsed, and thus two only of the three empires continued, and still continue, as desirable spoil for a succession of different powers. To-day it is the "redhaired barbarian" of the West who is playing before the highly civilized eyes of Brahman and Mandarin the role once played by Mogul and Manchu, playingit neither better nor worse than they, and certain like them to be superseded in due course by other actors.
”
In America even right wing Christians look up to Rome, i think as its politicaly incorrect. In Europe, many of the second rank sources are infected by a long anti-Christian tradition stretching back to Gibbon which sees the classical world as superior. Theres still echoes of it today from some of the new atheists like Hitchens.
Its hard for new evidence to affect a change of view for such folk as their position is essentially emotional, so for that reason some might always object to any accurate version of the article.
I think the point Im getting to is it might not be a good use of time to re-develop the article in the face of what might be intractable opposition. I guess you could ask some of the leading deletionists for suggestions on what would be acceptable ? FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:03, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Teen, drop the "de facto deleted" saying, and stop complaining. What is done is done, if you took it to DRV, they would support the decision. Consider yourself lucky that you still have the edit history, and give the closing admin a barnstar for making a tough decision. I have seen much, much worse AFD closes, several bad admins come to mind.
Feyd is probably like me (although a little less it seems) he is not really interested in the subject beyond trying to save it, again, you need to find editors who are well versed on the subject to help you, and get their opinions.
I would stubify the entire article to just one very well referenced paragraph, moving the rest of the text to the talk page and collapsing it. Then in a week, moving it back to article space. Let other editors see what they can do with the article. What do you think Feyd?Ikip17:07, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Feyd, care to give our new editor some advice on his talk page? He appears to be self-destructing, refusing to accept the results of the AFD, and being accused of canvassing, and being threated with blocks.
Actually I am interested in this topic. I didnt used to be, as I thought Chinese culture was dead after Mao and how even after the ruling party realised they needed culture and religion they first favoured western art and Christianity. But then around 06 they launched their harmonious society drive which is reviving old ideas and I understand their Confucian / Tao influenced version of Bhudism is now effectively the state religion. It ties into prospects for rebalancing the global economy so its of enormous consequence. I found the article really useful for helping me grasp what the Han were about, by seeing it alongside Rome which Im already moderately familiar with. So if it was up to me id have kept it closer to its original form, though the new sociology section is interesting. Most regretable, but it looks like the deletionists are so resolute the best hope is for the moderate contributors closer to their view to reach a comprise. FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:36, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
WikiThanks That is a great idea! Maybe we can get some input from others once you write it, so although your name will be on the article, it will be a colaberative project. Man, I am SO glad I messaged you. You have now inspired me to working on this newsletter more. Ikip20:13, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
I hope others will contribute and I dont mind if my names on the article or not. Should have it ready some time next week as I need my work internet connection to research it. (i only have a 3G connection at home, so I never get tempted to waste time on online games!) Im very glad we have you keeping interest high in our noble ARS! FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:36, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Hello Feyd, do you have time over the weekend to work on this? I was hoping to get the new newsletter out this week (Jan 3 - Jan 10). I will ask Michael if he would like to help you with your "featured" section, as he is very interested in helping other editors. Ikip00:26, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Great contributions, I edited (taking out the word "deletionists") and expanded your contributions, nice job! I am asking other editors to assist with this too. Ikip17:36, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Dear FeydHuxtable, here is a little note to say thank you for your kind vote on my request for adminship which failed with a final result of (40/19/12).
Thank you for your participation in my RfA which I withdrew after concerns of my knowledge of policy. Special thanks are owed to Coffee, who defended me throughout and whom I cannot thank enough for the nomination; to 2over0 for being supportive and helpful; to A Stop at Willoughby for the thorough, thoughtful and articulate support rationale; to IP69.226.103.13 for maintaining composure and for a pleasant interaction on my talk page and, last but not least, to Juliancolton who was good enough to close the RfA at my request and, frankly, because an editor whom I respect so much found the time to support me! If the need for more admins at the main page is still apparent in a few months, I may try again. Thank you all for a relatively drama-free RfA and for providing me with much material from which to learn from my mistakes. You're all welcome to drop by my talk page any time. God save the Queen Wiki! HJMitchellYou rang? 19:01, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I have reverted to using the book source for the sales figures but have corrected it to billions (the book stated billions but I misread it). There were strong suggestions to use "dead-tree" sources in earlier reviews, so I figure it would be more appropriate to use that as the source instead. Thank you for spotting that mistake. Jappalang (talk) 14:11, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Community de-Adminship - finalization poll for the CDA proposal
After tolling up the votes in the revision proposals, it emerged that 5.4 had the most support, but elements of that support remained unclear, and various comments throughout the polls needed consideration.
A finalisation poll (intended, if possible, to be one last poll before finalising the CDA proposal) has been run to;
gather opinion on the 'consensus margin' (what percentages, if any, have the most support) and
ascertain whether there is support for a 'two-phase' poll at the eventual RfC (not far off now), where CDA will finally be put to the community. Matt Lewis (talk) 01:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Sacrifice (2001)
<font=3>Thank you for your participation at Sacrifice's FAC. With your support, the article has made it as a featured article! Enjoy James's (the God of Earth) offering as he launches this cow into the earth too many times with multiple castings of Bovine Intervention! Jappalang (talk) 03:57, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Re RfA talk page ownership
Many thanks, fellow Christian. (Will not discuss our MI5 connection, obviously. ^;^)
![[REDACTED]](https://u3vuiephb.global.ssl.fastly.net/File:Misplaced Pages-logo.png){kind=link}