Talk:Hillel Ticktin

Almost wikified

The only thing still needed is a Template:Infobox scientist or similar. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 15:15, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Notability

There is no indication that this academic is notable. There are few (no?) non-self published refs. Capitalismojo (talk) 21:43, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Absent indication that this person meets the WP:GNG general notability guidelines, this article should be deleted. Capitalismojo (talk) 21:48, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Reliable Sources

Scribd is user generated content. It has never been accepted at wikipedia to my knowledge. We can not use this as a ref. Capitalismojo (talk) 23:53, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

The other bio material was sourced to a personal blog of a woman in Ontario, again not Reliable Source. Capitalismojo (talk) 23:54, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Trotskyist

So, for whatever reason User:Rockypedia has decided to stalk my edits and follow me to this article, removing referenced material just for the sake of it. Now, I'm supposed to pretend on the talkpage that a liberal American airman somehow knows better than these references about a Trotskyist academic at a University in Glasgow. Go ahead Rocky, state what it is you supposedly have a problem with. Claíomh Solais (talk) 21:51, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

References

Your edits are decidedly POV and not supported by reliable secondary sources. Your first two references are not, by a long shot, anywhere near the standards laid down in WP:RS. Your third source is a reliable source, and clearly identifies Ticktin as "Emeritus Professor of Marxist Studies at the University of Glasgow." He is not identified as a Trotskyist in that source. Therefore, the long-stable version of the lead describing Ticktin as a Marxist should remain. My background has nothing to do with this assessment; my assessment is based on reliable secondary sources, not personal opinion. Rockypedia (talk) 21:57, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't know what Rockypedia's problem is, but I have my own issues with your edits. Aside from the neutrality concerns, none of the sources you list here are reliable sources that actually verify the proposed content. Remember that a source must state something expressly for us to include it in our article. Go find an independent secondary source that actually calls Ticktin a Trotskyist, and I will support inclusion. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:00, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Rocky, I don't think you know what POV means. What "position" is it that you think I'm supposedly coming from to try and enforce on the article? Ticktin openly identifies with the Trotskyist line of Marxism, rather than Marxist-Leninism, left-communism, etc, that is a non-controversial objective statement. Trotskyism is his intellectual tradition.

The reference from the University which you have just said is reliable states; "Originating as an anti-Stalinist Soviet Studies journal, with the editor accepting the analysis of Leon Trotsky as a corrective to the Stalinist distortion of Marxism, the initial aim of Critique was to analyze the empirical reality of Stalinism, while rejecting the empiricist method, in order to discover the objective laws of motion of Stalinism. The journal accepted Trotsky’s 1936 prognosis that the Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin’s program of socialism in one country would fail and that the capitalist market system would be restored."

So how is it POV to put his article in the category of Trotskyists, or linking anti-Stalinist left in a see also section. The other source includes a debate between Ticktin and a member of the Socialist Party of Great Britain where Ticktin defends the thesis of Trotsky pointing the way to socialism. I just get the sense that you do not know what you are talking about on this subject, you have made some ill-conceived presumptions that I have a POV to push and have aimlessly followed me here from elsewhere. Claíomh Solais (talk) 22:07, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Again, understand that the first two sources you listed are not WP:RS (are you reading any of these policy pages?) and therefore, whatever is written there is completely irrelevant in terms of what belongs in a BLP. Secondly, my opinion of whether Ticktin is a Marxist or a Trotskyist is also irrelevant - as is yours. The only thing that matters is what reliable secondary sources state. Your interpretation of the Glasgow page is the textbook definition of WP:SYNTHESIS; you'd do well to read that too. Rockypedia (talk) 22:18, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Bibliography sections

Rockypedia, did you mean to revert my removal of the two bibliography sections, or did that just get swept up in your revert of Claíomh Solais's edits? See WP:NOTBIBLIOGRAPHY. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:42, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

It got swept up, sorry. I didn't see that. Should I fix it? You are probably better suited to do it; I apologize for the error. Rockypedia (talk) 00:04, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

I did it, seemed straightforward. Rockypedia (talk) 00:05, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

No problem, thanks. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:27, 26 July 2017 (UTC)