Jump to content

Talk:East–West dichotomy

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Plagiarism from Dr Thorsten Pattberg's The East-West Dichotomy

[edit]

This article originated in language, thought, idea and expressions from The East-West Dichotomy by Dr. Thorsten Pattberg. I am the author of The East-West Dichotomy. The article was created from my book, as seen in the discussion link below. Certain editors initially applauded then decided that since the author wasn't notable as a graduate student at Peking University and Harvard University at that time, they could simple snatch his idea, rewrite the text, change a few references, and pose this article as their own ideas and research. The old discussion can be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:East%E2%80%93West_dichotomy/Archive_1 Sorry for the inconveniences. I hope that some editors can fix this. This plagiarism note should not be removed.

Plagiarism is the "wrongful appropriation" and "purloining and publication" of another author's "language, thoughts, ideas, or expressions," and the representation of them as one's own original work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TPattberg (talk • contribs) 20:50, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no plagiarism in this article now, whatever there may once have been. After initial complaints were aired, as an administrator who works copyright issues on Wikipedia, I rewrote it from scratch to address those concerns. I have never read your book and cannot have plagiarized. Instead, I found sources on my own. See Talk:East–West dichotomy/Archive 1 for more information. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:45, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You just admitted that you rewrote the entire article which was based on my book The East-West Dichotomy so as to make it look like your own research. It's like saying you didn't steal my car because you thus painted it yellow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TPattberg (talk • contribs) 05:02, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, I did not. The article which was inspired by your work was deleted years ago. This article has nothing to do with it. As I said, this one was written "from scratch" (this is an idiom that means "from the beginning") with sources that I found on my own. If somebody once plagiarized from you, that plagiarism has nothing to do with us or this existing article which is in no manner based on your work or your research. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:47, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Maggie Dennis, you again admitted that the article was entirely inspired by my work, The East-West Dichotomy, thank you. Yes, I am sure you did your best to first rewrite it a couple of times; then, when it still looked like my work, you "re-created" the article, complete with your own resource, as you say. Also, you took part in deleting the original article, the evidence to your various attempts to cover up your plagiarism. Yours is a blatant confession. Plagiarism is a serious thing, but I am sure you must know that as an academic. You purposefully failed to mention your source, the East-West Dichotomy (which the article was about and based on); on the contrary, you are even proud of announcing here in public that you did so well in obscuring and finally omitting the source of your inspiration. To be honest, I don't care any more if this article is corrected, since it is very obvious that I am the author of the The East-West Dichotomy. But I want people to see how you (and your possible collaborators) did it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:East%E2%80%93West_dichotomy/Archive_1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by TPattberg (talk • contribs) 15:00, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If somebody deletes an article and a new one is written with the same title, it in no way suggests that the content has the same basis. I have never read your work. This article is not in any way based on your work. The concept of the "East-West dichotomy" seems to precede you (to link to one example) - a quick google search finds many hits unrelated to you. It is quite possible to write an article on teh subject that in no way refers to you or your work, and that is what has been done here. Any article that might ever have plagiarized from you was deleted long ago, and none of that content is published on our website. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:00, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Of course the subject of the East-West Dichotomy precedes me, it's a history book, there are hundreds of historical quotes and sources in it. That's like saying Edward Said isn't the author of Orientalism because orientalism precedes him. Have you re-created his article, too, without mentioning him? I am the author of the East-West Dichotomy, on which the original article was based, and which tempted you to delete it, write up your own research, and omit the source of your inspiration. Your actions, and our conversations, are all on record on Wikipedia. You "re-created" the East-West Dichotomy article on purpose so to make it look your own, with no mentioning of The East-West Dichotomy. You sure had knowledge of both the work and the original article, and you sure knew what you did when you "re-wrote" it from scratch, and you sure knew you wanted to avoid reference to The East-West Dichotomy at all cost. I am not expecting you to change anything on the article, Maggie Dennis. All is said and done. We keep these comments here, so that investigators at least have a fair chance to follow down the traces of this article back to its origins. ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:East%E2%80%93West_dichotomy/Archive_1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by TPattberg (talk • contribs) 17:49, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If somebody deletes an article and a new one is written with the same title, it in no way suggests that the content has the same basis. I have never read your work. This article is not in any way based on your work. The concept of the "East-West dichotomy" seems to precede you (to link to one example) - a quick google search finds many hits unrelated to you. It is quite possible to write an article on teh subject that in no way refers to you or your work, and that is what has been done here. Any article that might ever have plagiarized from you was deleted long ago, and none of that content is published on our website. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:00, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Of course the subject of the East-West Dichotomy precedes me, it's a history book, there are hundreds of historical quotes and sources in it. That's like saying Edward Said isn't the author of Orientalism because orientalism precedes him. Have you re-created his article, too, without mentioning him? I am the author of the East-West Dichotomy, on which the original article was based, and which tempted you to delete it, write up your own research, and omit the source of your inspiration. Your actions, and our conversations, are all on record on Wikipedia. You "re-created" the East-West Dichotomy article on purpose so to make it look your own, with no mentioning of The East-West Dichotomy. You sure had knowledge of both the work and the original article, and you sure knew what you did when you "re-wrote" it from scratch, and you sure knew you wanted to avoid reference to The East-West Dichotomy at all cost. I am not expecting you to change anything on the article, Maggie Dennis. All is said and done. We keep these comments here, so that investigators at least have a fair chance to follow down the traces of this article back to its origins. ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:East%E2%80%93West_dichotomy/Archive_1
Oh, this may be the point of confusion - articles on Wikipedia are not owned. Hence, even though you were quoted in the original which was deleted in 2009, this has never been your article. It is an article on English Wikipedia on the subject of East-West dichotomy, and like all articles it is licensed for modification. There is no guarantee that any content on our website will remain published here and certainly not that it will remain unchanged and no guarantee that any source cited in any article will remain cited in the article.
But you keep using the word plagiarism, which is defined as "the practice of taking someone else's work or ideas and passing them off as one's own." This is not your work nor based on your work in any way, and these are not your ideas. There is no trace of the article that once referenced you here. You have also written about the subject and somebody else once referenced your writing here, but it was not in this article - that article was deleted long ago. None of that content is in this article, and it never has been.
If a canvas is painted over and somebody puts a new picture there, it isn't a copy of the original even if the subject is the same. The Archive you keep linking isn't going anywhere - it has been quietly sitting there for years and will continue to sit quietly there. Eventually, this may also be archived (although archivals are slow in low-interest subjects like this), but even when it is your notes will still remain published on Wikipedia. Policy is that such discussions are retained, so concerns about plagiarism in the history of this content will remain, as will the record of the removal of the content of which you speak. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:58, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

TPattberg continues his argument elsewhere. Bazj (talk) 20:11, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Bazj. The record here is clear that events do not unfold as Pattberg believes. The article, originally at East-West dichotomy, was created by User:Sakura china. One can see the article as he created it here. User:Sakura china was blocked in May 2009 for abusing multiple accounts shortly after the deletion debate on Pattberg (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thorsten J. Pattberg) concluded he did not at that time meet inclusion guidelines. I had no involvement in any of this. I had not heard of Pattberg or the article, which had been rewritten to use reliable sources months before, before an IP in China flagged it for copyright concerns in August 2009. Talk:East–West dichotomy/Archive 1 clearly demonstrates that I entered in September solely to deal with the concerns raised by that IP, who was personally satisfied with this outcome: [1], [2]. What we are seeing here is the same argument that was used years ago against another admin ([3]) (User:CactusWriter, in that case), transferred to somebody else. It's pretty clear to anybody who cares to look objectively that there is no plagiarism here; there was once an article on a subject. There is now a completely different article on the subject that has nothing to do with the original, that did not grow out of the original (it was not a revision of the original but constructed from the bottom up, source by source), that did not refer to Pattberg's copy or his research or his book. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:26, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Terminology

[edit]

Copied from archive since dab's comment provides useful info - M0rphzone (talk) 03:22, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"the problem with the "East-West" terminology is that it isn't fixed but shifting with context. There are in reality four large cultural blocks in Eurasia, Western Europe (Western Christianity, Latin-inluenced), Eastern Europe and Russia (Eastern Christianity, Greek-influenced), The Middle East (the Islamic world and Greater Persia, Arabic-influenced), South Asia (Greater India, Sanskrit-influenced) and the Far East (Chinese-influenced).

The "West" in this dichotomy is always Western Europe, but the "East" may be any one of the other three. So, by heaping up soundbites that just contain "East and West", this article runs a great risk of WP:SYN." --dab (𒁳) 09:07, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

potential resource

[edit]

Chinese President Hu Jintao warns of attempts to "westernise" the country by "hostile powers". (IOL) from Portal:Current events/2012 January 2 99.109.125.108 (talk) 23:32, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

potential resource

[edit]

Balancing the East, Upgrading the West; U.S. Grand Strategy in an Age of Upheaval by Zbigniew Brzezinski January/February 2012 Foreign Affairs 99.19.44.155 (talk) 16:14, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Rice theory"

[edit]

There is a relatively new academic theory explaining the difference in mentality between individualistic Western and communialistic Eastern cultures, the so-called "Rice theory", which states that growing rice and growing wheat requires a different mindset in society.

See http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2014/05/08/310477497/rice-theory-why-eastern-cultures-are-more-cooperative, but a Google search for "rice theory" will bring up other sources about it. A TED video by the academist: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-KWM7Shy4BQ --Rev L. Snowfox (talk) 21:26, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unrest

[edit]

While the West had many rulers in a short period of time, there was no unrest with the people.

Really? WithGLEE (talk) 21:13, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is what the article really said. I've removed the entire "Historical contrast between East and West" section as it reads like a mediocre-quality undergraduate essay. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 23:00, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Russia, Iran, Turkiye are East

[edit]

They are westernized (Iran is least of them in this regard) but they are as eastern as it comes, the one who's been drawing the distinction and included these into "West" (or likely, excluding them from the East) was bad-tripping. The entirety of Russian history, apart from 18-19 centuries westernization, is eastern, no one in their right mind calls Russia "west". Same for Turkiye, the fact that I found this article from clicking on the link in article about Orhan Pamuk, who, as that article suggested, wrote on the topic of this dichotomy, is telling.

And Iran, Iraq, Northern Africa, ... come on, they are entirely oriental and anyone not including them into "East" is completely off.

West is Anglosphere (Five Eyes) plus a chunk of Europe (up to Balkans and Eastern Europe, where things get fuzzy). Even Latin America is hardly western. So don't make it up, west is Anglos + Western/Northern Europe. The rest may arguably be called Westernized, but nothing more than that. 178.121.25.249 (talk) 16:21, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Non-Western culture" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

The redirect Non-Western culture has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 26 § Non-Western culture until a consensus is reached. Rusalkii (talk) 19:30, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:East–West_dichotomy&oldid=1215725484"