Talk:Semi-periphery countries/Archive 1

Archive 1

Neutrality?

Specific in-text problems include use of the word "exploits" and "political crises". Scientifically speaking, this is a worthless definition as it includes too many loaded phrases to be considered impartial. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.179.181.171 (talk) 03:08, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

found an interesting source

http://marriottschool.byu.edu/emp/WPW/Class%209%20-%20The%20World%20System%20Perspective.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by D.j.weingart (talk • contribs) 18:49, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Sources providing descriptions, discussions, development of semi-periphery countries

http://www.irows.ucr.edu/cd/theory/b5ch5.htm

http://www.people.hofstra.edu/geotrans/eng/ch2en/conc2en/coreperiphery.html (includes map)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Developing_country#List_of_emerging_and_developing_economies (also see references used in this article)

http://journals.cambridge.org/download.php?file=/RIS/RIS34_S1/S026021050800781Xa.pdf&code=6e242422ede58df23d961c531b3262e2 (article discussing Globo corporation in context of periphery and semi-periphery)

http://www.springerlink.com/content/2118h2x63n84u170/fulltext.pdf (THE SEMIPERIPHERY IN AFRICA AND LATIN AMERICA: SUBIMPERIALISM AND SEMIINDUSTRIALISM)

Generally, these articles are about the economic and political characteristics of semi-periphery countries. A couple articles provide specific examples while others are more theoretical. For the group, I would definitely read the Wallerstein paper that Dan posted a link to, as he seems to be the lead theorist on our topic. In the meantime, continue to look for articles that relate not only to your specific topic but the article as whole. Jcl41 (talk) 03:08, 15 October 2009 (UTC) Jon Luchansky

Editing of this article for a Class project

A group of 5 students from the University of Pittsburgh, enrolled in Global Society, will be editing this article.

see this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:School_and_university_projects/User:Piotrus/Fall_2009

d.j.weingart (talk · contribs) (dan weingart), PatrickJatkins (talk · contribs) (pat atkins), Chazz Aden (talk · contribs) (chazz aden), Eric wisniewski (talk · contribs) (Eric wisniewski), jcl41 (talk · contribs) (jon luchansky)

Eric: Definition of the Semi-periphery

Pat: Semi-periphery countries in the 13th century

Dan: Semi-periphery countries from the 13th to today

John: Semi-periphery countries Today

Chazz: Transitional Effects on Exising Systems —Preceding unsigned comment added by ::D.j.weingart (talk • contribs) 18:53, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I am looking forward to seeing the above plan fleshed out more, and your discussions to here to begin. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:33, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

To Do List

Each member of the Group will write one section of the Wikipedia Article. They will correspond as follows:
Eric: Definition of the Semi-periphery

Find a reliable source for the definition. Alternatively, one could form an original definition through synthesis of several ideas found in established sources such as print and online encyclopedias.

Pat: Semi-periphery countries in the 13th century

Formulate argument by using the book "Before European Hegemony" as a background, as well as supplementing it with additional sources found in the library and online. The section will follow the flow of the book, with sections focusing on The European Subsystem, The Mideast Heartland, and Asia.

Dan: Semi-periphery countries from the 13th to today

Formulate argument by using the book "Age of Empire" as a background, as well as supplementing it with additional sources found in the library and online. The section will follow the flow of the book, with sections focusing on the growing forces of democracy, the workers and communism during this time. There will be sections focusing on social and cultural revolutions, and how this effected the semi periphery.

John: Semi-periphery countries Today

Formulate argument through use of online sources and print sources such as periodicals, and scholarly nonfiction works. This section will attempt to be as conteporary and relevant to current day as possible, and will provide a brief prediction for the future of semi periphery.

Chazz: Transitional Effects on Exising Systems

Chazz will synthesize all of the new information learned in the Wikipedia article and use it to formulate a thesis on the transitional effects on existing systems.

The group has deliberated that meetings will occur within the group on a weekly basis to monitor the progress of the article. The function of these meeting will be to organize sources and references for the article, as well as refine its fluidity.

--D.j.weingart (talk) 02:41, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Good plan, D.j., but other members of your group should start posting here as well. Remember - discussing things on a wiki is a good strategy for collaboration. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:50, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

rough draft

so I put some rough information on the effects of the systems...I'll add more details later, this is just for now...let me know if there is anything in particular you want...

Chazz Aden (talk) 20:47, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

meeting today

hey guys, I'm really sorry I missed the meeting today...I thought someone else had taken today and we were on Wednesday. My bad. What should I be working on in addition to the usual stuff?

Chazz Aden (talk) 22:16, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I've updated my section on semi-periphery countries today. I still have additional content I want to include but I have a solid foundation. Just a reminder to make sure you are citing more frequently. I did my best to combine references if we used them more than once, so feel free to take a look at the cheat sheet to see how to do that. I was going to try to make the list of countries into a table but I'm not sure how to do that so I'll ask Piotr. Chazz, not a big deal about today. We're set for today's deadline. Just continue to update your sections and communicate within this talk page. Everybody's sections look good so far. Jon Luchansky Jcl41 (talk) 01:41, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Early review notes

Here are some notes for further improvement of your draft:

• Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.^[?]
• This article has no or few images. Please see if there are any free use images that fall under the Wikipedia:Image use policy and fit under one of the Wikipedia:Image copyright tags that can be uploaded. To upload images on Wikipedia, go to Special:Upload; to upload non-fair use images on the Wikimedia Commons, go to commons:special:upload.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading ==Magellan's journey==, use ==Journey==.^[?]
• Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
  • While additive terms like “also”, “in addition”, “additionally”, “moreover”, and “furthermore” may sometimes be useful, overusing them when they aren't necessary can instead detract from the brilliancy of the article. This article has 8 additive terms, a bit too much.
  • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
• As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2]^[?]
• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.^[?]
• There are unreferenced sentences, paragraphs and entire sections. Please note that references must be added before the article is ready for GA nomination. If a printed source is cited, you should also cite the page you are using. If possible (this is not obligatory), try to add link to appropriate pages via Google Print. See WP:CITE and WP:FOOTNOTES.

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:19, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

pics

if every one could add a relevant pic to their section, that would be cool

130.49.10.159 (talk) 00:43, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

lead

who wants to edit/revise the lead ?

D.j.weingart (talk) 00:46, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

hey

Im going to try to revise the lead, sorry i have not posted this weekend, i took a trip home.Eric wisniewski —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eric wisniewski (talk • contribs) 23:29, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I did 2 edits without being logged in

The ip adress of 24.3.18.33 are my edits, thanks Eric wisniewski 01:46, 13 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eric wisniewski (talk • contribs)

Did it againEric wisniewski 01:05, 16 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eric wisniewski (talk • contribs)

ANY SUGGESTIONS

any suggestions for the lead or item you would like incorporated?Eric wisniewski 02:32, 16 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eric wisniewski (talk • contribs)

nomination?

did anyone send in the nomination?

Chazz Aden (talk) 17:25, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

If they did, there would be a GAN template at the top of this article. See for example Talk:Proto-globalization. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:05, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I just nominated it -Jon Luchansky Jcl41 (talk) 22:53, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Semi-periphery countries/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: @harej 01:22, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   The introduction throws a lot of technical terms into the mix, and while they are linked, a brief explanation would also be good.

   "as Abu Lughod writes" who is Abu Lughod?

   "the impoverished Fourth World" this is the first I have heard of the "fourth world" -- then again, I don't pay attention to macroeconomic research. I have linked it as it is a technical term and not exactly in the common vocabulary as "third world" etc. are.

   "Generally stated, we contend that semiperipheral areas are likely to generate new institutional forms that transform system structures and modes of accumulation.[4] These changes often lead to the upward mobility of these same semiperipheral actors in the core/periphery hierarchy[5]. We will see that the semiperiphery is fertile ground for social, organizational, and technical innovation and has an advantageous location for the establishment of new centers of power." I need to emphasize at this time that Wikipedia articles are not dissertations. Encyclopedias, as tertiary resources, should be compiled based on already-published research with no novel synthesis. The relevant editorial policies are Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. If those claims are mentioned in the document which you have cited, rephrase it to indicate that you are referring to already-published material rather than making a claim of your own.

   B. MoS compliance:

   Make sure that citations are placed after punctuation; this is certainly unconventional outside of Wikipedia, but on Wikipedia, it's accepted practice.

   "between other, more major core cities" this method of linking is not really practiced on Wikipedia. It would be better to explicitly write out "between other, more major core cities such as Baghdad, Cairo, and Aden". The usage above with "one power" is more acceptable because it correctly emphasizes the fact that the Mongol Empire was the one power. The same can't be said for "Baghdad" and "other".

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   The entire article is referenced to reliable sources.

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   Plenty of that, though ISBN codes would be nice.

   C. No original research:

   None that I have seen.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   It definitely covers all the bases, though there is plenty of history yet not as much information about the effects of there being a semi-periphery. Is it correct to assume there is no more to say about the effects of the semi-periphery?

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

   Yes

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

   Stable

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   Yes

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   More or less, though the Hereford map should either be placed in a different section or not be in the article.

   Pass or Fail:

   Please address the concerns about the article, especially the prose at the beginning of the article.

@harej 02:03, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Another review

I've now copyedited much of the article. Here are my remaining concerns.

The following sentences need to be clarified:

• "These changes often lead to the upward mobility of these same semi-peripheral actors in the core/periphery hierarchy."
• "The semi-periphery plays a vital role comparative to that of the middle trading groups within an empire." What are 'middle trading groups'? Either furnish a link or explain.
• "These countries use dependent development to integrate into the world economy and establish local dominance." What is dependent development?

• I've attempted to clarify these sentences. Let me know if you think they need further development. Jcl41 (talk) 08:15, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

History:

• There is a huge gap in coverage; it goes directly from the 13th century to the 19th. A lot happened in that time, especially late 15th century onward.

Otherwise, the article is considerably closer to Good Article status. @harej 04:14, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Failed for now

Due to copyright issues, as pointed out on the talk page, this article has failed. Please re-nominate the article when the issues have been cleared up. @harej 03:23, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Examples

It would be great if you can find a more modern list of examples (Wallenstein's is certainly classic and should be kept, but being a 1976 list makes it in need of an update - if one exists, of course (but I am pretty sure it should)). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:19, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I am having some difficulty in finding a list defined as "semi-periphery." I have found a few lists that include countries considered to be within the "second world," but I am unsure if I can use it, though it seems the second world characteristics are similar to those of the semi-periphery. Let me know what you think. Jon Luchansky Jcl41 (talk) 08:35, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

general fixing

I can (and have already in a few spots) help with the general fixing of the article, though I haven't been able to find terribly much else to say about the effects...was anyone else able to find anything about them?

Chazz Aden (talk) 04:43, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Using templates and <ref name= > makes it much easier

Hello all, impeccable work on the article so far, Kudos all round.

I would however give a few pointers on how to correctly CITE and how to use <ref name= > and the use of citation templates.

The most common ref you are going to use for this article is {{cite book}} reading through the template pages should give you a very good idea of how to use them. You don't have to fill out all the information on every cite. however the more information the merrier. title= is the only field that is compulsory for {{cite book}}.

So using Globalization in World History as an example you would fill it out like this: <ref>{{cite book |last1=Hopkins |first1= A.G.|authorlink1= A.G._Hopkins |last2= |first2= |editor1-first= |editor1-last= |editor1-link= |others= |title=Globilization in World History|trans_title= |url= |format= |accessdate= |edition= |series= |volume= |date= |year=2003|month= |origyear= |publisher=Norton|location=[[New York City]] |language= |isbn=0393979423|oclc= |doi= |id= |page= |pages= |trans_chapter= |chapter= |chapterurl= |quote= |ref= |bibcode= |laysummary= |laydate= |separator= |postscript= |lastauthoramp=}}</ref>

As you can see this has left rather a large amount of fields unfilled, that's okay, in fact we can get rid of them, leaving us with this: <ref>{{cite book |last1=Hopkins |first1= A.G.|authorlink1= A.G._Hopkins|title=Globilization in World History|year=2003|publisher=Norton|location=[[New York City]]|isbn=0393979423}}</ref>

Now, obviously, you are using the book multiple times through the article so rather than cutting an pasting each and every time I'm going to show you how to use <ref name= > so what we are going to do is give the reference a name, we'll call it "hopkins", but you can all it anything "Globalization", "global" or even "asghd" or "iu43gh", ANYTHING, but to make it easy to remember we'll just stick with "hopkins" (it is cAsE SenSItiVE) so make sure you stick with either upper- or lower-case. So you simply put in <ref name= > the first time that you use the ref instead of <ref> and then every time you want to use that ref you simply put in <ref name=hopkins/> So now every time that you want to reference Globalization in World History all you need to do is put in <ref name=hopkins/>.

Now you want to quote an individual page, but you don't want to have to cut and paste and modify the cite each time you ref a page, so (as odd as this may sound) ignore what I just told you. Well, not entirely. we'll still use <ref name= > so when we want to quote page three multiple times we'll call our new ref "hop3" and when we quote page 21 we'll call that "hop21", but again it can be anything so now we'll fill the article full of this; <ref name=hop3>Hopkins 2003, page 3</ref> and this; <ref name=hop21>Hopkins 2003, page 21</ref>, then whenever you want to ref page three you simply put in <ref name=hop3/> and to ref page 21 use <ref name=hop21/>

Then we need to split the references section at the bottom in two: ==Notes== and ==References== in ==Notes== we'll stick the {{reflist}} template, and since it is a particularly large amount of references will split it into 4 columns by writing it like this: {{reflist|4}} this will automatically list all the <ref>'s throughout the article and sort them into 4 even columns for us.

Under the ==References== We'll list each of the books like this: {{cite book |last1=Hopkins |first1= A.G.|authorlink1= A.G._Hopkins|title=Globilization in World History|year=2003|publisher=Norton|location=[[New York City]]|isbn=0393979423}}. That way when people see "Hopkins 2003, Page 3" listed under ==Notes== they'll know to look for it under ==References== for Hopkins name.

If you've done it all properly it should look like below.

References

Hopkins, A.G. (2003). Globilization in World History. New York City: Norton. ISBN 0393979423.

You may also want to check out the various other citation templates and use those in the article.Sanguis Sanies (talk) 17:19, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

edits

so who wants to fix what part of the good article thing still needed? Chazz Aden (talk) 19:04, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

i dont believe i completely understand what needs to be done to it Eric wisniewski 02:22, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I can take care of the clarification of the three sentences. If everyone else could team up to fill in the history gaps, that would be much appreciated. Jon Luchansky Jcl41 (talk) 08:30, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

gaps

the only problem with the issue of filling in the gaps in history is that that is what we covered in class. Filling in the gaps would most likely involve an extensive research project of some kind as i don't know much about global history and i especially don't know any good sources off the top of my head. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.49.10.159 (talk) 09:57, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

In summary. Western Europe has dropped off into either the semi-periphery or the periphery, making the Byzantine Empire a primary power. By the 14th century, the Italian city states/republics (Genoa, Venice, Pisa) become major trading powers, Constantinople is sacked (1453), Columbus discovers America and Spain becomes a major economic power as a result. Because of the obsession with the New World, the Italian city states become less prominent in favor of countries such as Spain, England, and the Netherlands. Furthermore, the Americas become a massive semi-peripheral region, as seen in the American Revolution, where a massive social change occurs that would not be possible in an entrenched core nation like England or an unstable peripheral region. While the major players in the 13th century were the Byzantine Empire and probably China, by the 19th century, entire economic empires have risen and fallen/become less powerful. @harej 20:56, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, this assignment is supposed to engage you guys in extensive research; you are not supposed to just summarize part of our lectures or readings, but go beyond them in the specific area of the subject of your article (i.e. semi-periphery countries). We rarely know what sources we are to use off the top of the head - finding them is part of the research process (and this assignment). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:24, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

what would be a couple of good sources to start off with for the period you just referenced, other than checking the sources from relevant wikipedia pages? I figured you might have a couple in mind since you gave a pretty solid summary...

Chazz Aden (talk) 19:58, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Character of the semiperiphery

A major problem with this article (from an academic point of view) is that it characterizes the semiperiphery as a transitional, rather than a structural, state. In fact, all of the countries in today's semiperiphery were already there when Wallerstein defined the term in 1974, and really were there from the beginning of the modern economic record. Most world-systems theorists see the categories of Core, Semiperiphery, and Periphery as relatively stable features of the world-system, not as temporary statuses. On this, see especially the classic source: Arrighi, Giovanni, and Jessica Drangel. 1986. “The Stratification of the World- Economy: An Exploration of the Semiperipheral Zone.” Review 10:9-74.

My own work on this is freely accessible online at:

http://jwsr.ucr.edu/archive/vol11/number1/pdf/jwsr-v11n1-babones.pdf

Enjoy!

S. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbabones (talk • contribs) 09:10, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

copyright issues

Some parts of the article need to be rewritten due to WP:COPYVIO. For example, the sentence (currently in the lead) "The semi-periphery is fertile ground for social, organizational, and technical innovation and has an advantageous location for the establishment of new centers of power" added here is taken directly from Chase-Dunn and Hall (as can be seen here: source). Another example: this is too close to the orignal, per Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing (source). Compare: addition: "semi-periphery countries act as a peripheral zone for core countries and in some ways a core to periphery states" ; source: "in part they act as a peripheral zone for core countries and in part they act as a core country...". Changing "in part" to "some" is not enough. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:38, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

The article was probably more extensively plagiarized before I copyedited it. Here is a version before I basically rewrote half of it. Thus covering up most of the plagiarism, probably. Oops. @harej 03:30, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Your copyediting shouldn't have skewed my analysis, as I was basing it on content-adding diffs. Thanks for the copyediting, btw (although isn't is something that the editors of the article should be doing, not the reviewer...? :>). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 04:09, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Until these copyright issues have been cleared up, I am marking this review as "failed". @harej 03:21, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Bear in mind that this is not a final ruling; you can resubmit the article for consideration as soon as the copyright problems are resolved. Once you feel the article is ready to be re-considered, just add {{subst:GAN|Sociology}} to the top of this page. Then, the page will receive a new review. @harej 06:58, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

cites

i'm in the process of changing the cites, references, and notes to reflect the way wikipedia wants it to be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by D.j.weingart (talk • contribs) 05:42, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

ISBNs

who wants to look up ISBNs for all of our books we cited? —Preceding unsigned comment added by D.j.weingart (talk • contribs) 23:11, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll start looking for them Jon L. Jcl41 (talk) 19:57, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

It's really easy, just use Google Print. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:01, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

history

can whoever had the 13th century (I think that was Pat) cover the gap?

Chazz Aden (talk) 19:13, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I just did 1300-1450. I'm about to do 1450-1670 next. Feel free to edit if necessary. Jon Luchansky Jcl41 (talk) 22:29, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok 1450-1670 is completed. Once again, feel free to add or subtract details you feel are necessary. I'm going to try and find some info on the eighteenth century. Jon Luchansky Jcl41 (talk) 21:22, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Looks good, but could you provide (here) a direct quotation for Wallenstein's claim that "In this time period, Eastern Europe, most notably Poland... stood out as peripheral zones". I don't think Poland was ever seen as a periphery; semi-periphery - yes, but periphery? And the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth was, from its creation and till late 17th century, a major power. Later, Russia replaced it, raising from semi-periphery to core. Overall, I don't think that any Christian European domains were ever peripherial, and in particular, not with the raise of Europe on the world system. Of course, if Wallenstein disagrees, his referenced argument overrules my unreferenced arguments here - but I am curious if the sentence correctly summarizes his views. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:41, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

To directly quote: "Two areas, Eastern Europe (especially Poland) and Latin America, exhibited characteristics of peripheral regions. In Poland, kings lost power to the nobility as the region became a prime exporter of wheat to the rest of Europe." The link is here (bottom of page 15): [1] Jcl41 (talk) 08:25, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Interesting; Wallenstein is right about what happened to Poland (you may want to mention second serfdom specifically, and do note it also affected some other countries in East/Central Europe), but those processes (exports dominated by grain) did not became dominant till 17th century (something you should clarify). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:06, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Important note: the source you link has excerpt of Wallerstein, and than a summary and a review of his work. You should distinguish which and when you are citing; as the authors are different (the author of the summary is Paul Halsall). In particular, the sentence about Poland and Latin America from above is from the summary, not Wallerstein; I'd highly recommend you try to check some of your facts with the original source. For example, I'd expect Wallerstein would go into more details of Poland and Latin America than just two sentences, and he would allow you to qualify when those processes occurred (I'd expect near the end of the period described). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 06:20, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

In other news, I am still waiting for the 1670-1875 section... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:06, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I am hoping to work on that tonight.Jcl41 (talk) 22:16, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok...I think that take cares of the history and development section. Remember that if any of you want to add anything else to do so tomorrow. Hopefully we get some feedback before Friday.Jcl41 (talk) 06:08, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Good job adding a section on those times, I think it addresses the points raised quite well, although you still need to figure out what to do about the tiny gap of 1670-1700. Other than that, I think the article does a nice job of comprehensive analysis of chronological development of the semi periphery. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 06:14, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok. It seems that in Wallerstein's analysis he sets aside 1450-1670 as a specific time period and then jumps to the 18th century but I will go back through again and make sure that it is not something as simple as changing the previous section to "1450-1700," depending on the sources.Jcl41 (talk) 07:14, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Upon reviewing Wallerstein's essays, there really is not much mention of Poland specifically as a periphery. I thus removed mention of it as so, though much of the rest of Halsall's summary seems in line with Wallerstein's original work. In regard to the time period, Wallerstein identifies the end of the 17th century and the beginning of the 18th century as a transitional time into the reign of the mercantile class, so I extended the section from 1670 to 1700, as this seems to be the transition point. Latin America became recognized as a periphery around 1650, as Spain and Britain among other European powers exploited its natural resources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcl41 (talk • contribs) 08:40, 10 December 2009 (UTC)