User talk:The Four Deuces/Archives/2011/October

Project

Maybe you could add your name to the list of members to remove a point of conflict.   Will Beback  talk  02:17, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Done. TFD (talk) 02:35, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

You've probably done more work on articles in the project already than most of those on the list. ;)   Will Beback  talk  04:08, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Watching my Contributions?

Your nom of the category makes me wonder if you're following my edting too closely... – Lionel ^(talk) 04:24, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Did you really mean to say that?

[[1]] Should not avoid? I'm thinking that's a typo? Gerardw (talk) 13:43, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I have corrected it. TFD (talk) 13:54, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of L'Ordine Nuovo

The article L'Ordine Nuovo has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Only two sources and one is written by the papers founder.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. The Last Angry Man (talk) 18:05, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Neither of the two academic sources used were written by the founder. With your extensive knowledge of the history of Communism and Fascism, I am surprised that you were unaware of this publication. TFD (talk) 18:34, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Certainly this deserves mention. Perhaps it should be incorporated into the article on Gramsci? (I have only seen references to it in publications about Gramsci.)  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:15, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of L'Ordine Nuovo for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article L'Ordine Nuovo is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/L'Ordine Nuovo until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. The Last Angry Man (talk) 18:38, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Bad nomination when a quick glance finds lots of places referring to it. I suggest you reconsider this one TLAM - it is not going to go anywhere. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:18, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Collect. The main source used, which is a collection of Gramsci's writings, does not use writing by Gramsci, but by the editor of the book. While Gramsci was a major Marxist writer of the 20th century, I would not use his writings from the 1920s as a source, but the introduction by a British professor provides a good, although brief, description of the paper as part of his introduction to Gramsci's writings. I appreciate that you withdrew the AfD, AfDs are often a way to encourage editors to expand articles, which this one needs. TFD (talk) 05:18, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

The principle here is clear - and I trust you will give greater weight to my positions than heretofore - I am one of the only editors who is to the best of his abbility absolutely consistent. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:18, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Good that it survived, in some fashion .... Certainly it deserves mention. Perhaps it should be incorporated into the article on Gramsci? (I have only seen references to it in publications about Gramsci.)  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:15, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

It is referenced in several other articles as well.[2] It's significance as a stand alone article is that besides being at the centre of a political faction, it published many articles which are frequently cited. I think that Gramsci is sufficiently significant that we can have a separate article about the paper he founded. The reason you only come across mention of the publication in articles about Gramsci's writing may be that he is much better remembered than other figures of the Italian Left in the 1920s. BTW I also created a stub article about Guido De Ruggiero, someone who is frequently quoted, yet I can find little information about him. TFD (talk) 19:38, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

"Inline citation"

• Both the Guardian and Searchlight are reliable sources and therefore facts referenced to them should not use inline citations (e.g., "Searchlight...claimed"). [3]

I'd use a different term, "attribution". When we add a footnote to the end of a sentence, then we're using an inline citation. When we say that "someone" said something, then that we're attributing a statement to a speaker. All attributions should be followed by an inline citation, but so should most other types of statements too, even those which aren't attributed. Anyway, it's minor bit of pedantry.   Will Beback  talk  08:45, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I changed it. TFD (talk) 08:58, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Courtesy notice

I have mentioned you here. Writegeist (talk) 02:25, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

qaeda

You said you disagreed with this edit and preferred wahhabism or something. Is that still your position? Pass a Method talk 08:42, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

The edit is not supported by the two sources cited. And we should not state as a fact that a group misinterprets religious text, nor should we refer to religious documents as "holy". However, my objection to the use of the term "Salafi jihadism" was that it did not seem to have universal acceptance. TFD (talk) 13:05, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Do you think i should revert the edit or move it to a less controversial sub-section?Pass a Method talk 14:13, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

You should find a source that supports the point and phrase it in a neutral manner, for example, "mainstream religious experts consider al Qaeda's interpretation of Islam as misguided." TFD (talk) 14:26, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Would that not constitute edit-warring since i have been reverted by more than 1 editor? Pass a Method talk 17:24, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

"Salafi jihadism" does have universal acceptance TFD, it is used in textbooks. See Toward a Grand Strategy Against Terrorism by Christopher C. Harmon. The Last Angry Man (talk) 17:29, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Better to discuss this on the talk page. In the meantime, you need to distinguish betwwen the editor of a book and the writers of individual articles in the book. For example, articles by Marxist writers may be included in books about Marxism, but that does not make them rs. Also, you need to distinguish between an opinion expressed by an author in a rs and whether or not that opinion is broadly accepted. TFD (talk) 20:56, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I think the authors of See Toward a Grand Strategy Against Terrorism are mainstream and reliable, my point however which you seemed to have missed was that this is a textbook, hence this is mainstream terminology and thinking. The Last Angry Man (talk) 21:11, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Again, you appear to be confusing the editors of a book with the writers of articles in their book. Furthermore, you should understand that the fact a writer uses a term in his or her article does not mean that that term is widely accepted. For example, if a rs states " another theory is", it does not necessarily mean that we should call that theory "another theory". In any case, the issues should be discussed on talk pages, not here. Try to be specific when discussing sources. If you want to discuss theoretical issues, they should be posted to the talk pages of policy pages. TFD (talk) 22:05, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Again you miss the point, but perhaps you are just one of those people who find it disagreeable when their error is pointed out. The Last Angry Man (talk) 22:43, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Let's talk about content on article talk pages rather than here. TFD (talk) 00:42, 24 October 2011 (UTC)