Talk:Alessandro Orsini (sociologist): Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 19:30, 22 June 2023

Italy Unassessed

	Italy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Italy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Italy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ItalyWikipedia:WikiProject ItalyTemplate:WikiProject ItalyItaly articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Sociology Unassessed

	Society portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Deleted History

@Silver seren (or anyone who ends up working on this), let me know if you want me to restore the history from Alessandro Orsini (sociologist) if you think it will be helpful, content or sourcing wise. Star Mississippi 01:57, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the offer, but I think I'd rather just make it from scratch so there's no influence from the version that was deleted at AfD. Silver seren^C 02:13, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a good plan, happy editing! Star Mississippi 02:25, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do you - SilverSeren - have any objections to me editing the draft? Thanks, TrangaBellam (talk) 15:29, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, feel free. Silver seren^C 01:20, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. TrangaBellam (talk) 09:25, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, TrangaBellam, now I have objections to you editing this article. 1) It's rude to move this to mainspace without actually discussing it here first. 2) Most reviews of books aren't going to be subject-experts as the reviewer. That doesn't change the fact that they are reliable sources covering the work. We don't only allow specific subject experts to make commentary on published books. Silver seren^C 14:40, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FALSEBALANCE comes into play. Anyway, please see the next section. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:44, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Star Mississippi: At some point I for one would be interested in a list of references from the old article (either version). I haven't so far had much luck looking for older news sources (may just be a matter of kicking Google repeatedly until it recognises that yes, I want to see Italian newspapers, but on the other hand I may need URLs to plug into Wayback). A lot of the things raised by a keep !voter at the 2nd AfD were kind of sensationalist, but I've made a note of them and I hope there was more sober stuff cited. Could you list here any sources that, for example, give his hiring date at LUISS? Yngvadottir (talk) 10:36, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Yngvadottir it was phrased as his leadership as well as period as a professor. I don't read Italian well enough to provide details so here are the three URLS that per the deleted article text, support his time with LUISS:

There is also https://sicurezzainternazionale.luiss.it/autore/alessandro-orsini/ for which I got a security risk so I have not clicked it.

Feel free to ping me if you need other information or want the deleted history in your userspace or elsewhere that it won't impact @Silver seren's plan for working on this. Star Mississippi 13:43, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reviews on Red Brigade

We are back to charted waters (remember the Poland case?). A book gets smashed to smithereens by almost every academic working in the narrow domain but gets a couple of favorable reviews by outsiders - how do we strike a balance? TrangaBellam (talk) 14:43, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FALSEBALANCE doesn't apply to reliable sources, especially those in academic journals. Trying to omit positive commentary from reliable sources is the exact problem that Italian Wikipedia was having with their article. If you want to note the expertise difference between the reviewers, then you can just include, as you already have, the background of each person in their profession and such. That makes it clear whose commentary is more important than others. Silver seren^C 14:46, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have not read the page on it.wiki; it is affixed with a peculiar template and the history has literally vanished! That said, FALSEBALANCE comes into play; see the protracted discussions at this t/p thread. We are not an indiscriminate collection of information; that somebody has published a review does not automatically bind us to carry it. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:51, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The dueness of two reviews have been challenged by me; I have started a subsection for each. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:37, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Foreign Affairs

Freedman, Lawrence D. (September 2011). "Recent Books on International Relations: Military, Scientific, and Technological: Anatomy of the Red Brigades: The Religious Mind-set of Modern Terrorists/Mastermind: The Many Faces of the 9/11 Architect, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed". Foreign Affairs. 90 (5): 177–178.
What do you propose to add from this review? How is Lawrence Freedman a remotely qualified reviewer? TrangaBellam (talk) 14:54, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Lawrence Freedman, a British historian specializing in foreign policy, strategic affairs, and the Cold War, considered the book "remarkable" for including "stark and candid quotes" from Red Brigades members that came close to representing the mentality that leads to mass murder, but also noted that the book can be difficult to read at times due to Orsini's injection of personal views with "dollops of pedantic sociology"."

Something like that. And how is he unqualified exactly? He's a historian that focuses on foreign affairs, particularly of extremist nations like the Soviet Union and Middle Eastern nations. Silver seren^C 15:05, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Orsini's book is neither on Italy's foreign policy nor on Italy's strategic doctrines nor on the Cold War. To the best of my knowledge, Italy has never been a part of Soviet Union or the Middle Eastern States. Freedman is an IR doyen and resident capsule-reviewer for Foreign Affairs; that's it, and to the best of my knowledge, Freedman has never published anything on Italy. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:12, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So literally the only sources you will accept is someone who specifically researches only Italy's extremist groups? That is beyond reductive. Silver seren^C 15:15, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, it was me who added Christiane Olivo's review. You need to have some kind of familiarity with the subject matter which might come in the form of acquaintance with regional politics and history or ....

Neither Brian Sandberg nor Julian Bourg works on "Italy's extremist groups". TrangaBellam (talk) 15:17, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have this sort of absurd specificity for all published book reviews? Are reviews on a science book not allowed unless the reviewer is a scientist in that specific field? Are all reviews in newspapers automatically out for any book period because of that requirement? Silver seren^C 15:21, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Are reviews on a science book not allowed unless the reviewer is a scientist in that specific field? - Atleast in my field, we do not show such hubris at the first place lest we be asked uncomfortable questions later.

Are all reviews in newspapers automatically out for any book period because of that requirement? - These days, barring Foreign Affairs, MSM has largely done away with having resident-reviewers for non-fictions and instead, commission reviews from some specialist in the domain. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:33, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That seems like an avoidance of the question. And you are very incorrect about newspapers, especially since we're referring to reviews from over a decade ago. I've written a number of book articles for books in the past 20 years and there's been a number of newspaper reviews whose authors were either not field related academics or weren't academics at all. For example, this one, where the author is an expert on German social and political thought, not US economic and agricultural history. Or this one, whose author is just a science writer with a background in climate change. Or this one, whose author is just a journalist. Silver seren^C 16:15, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Let us get back to something fundamental. At the time of writing this comment, I have expanded from three reviews; yet to, from five. All of them are from specialists in different domains that his book belongs to. Why are these eight reviewers unanimous in (1) declaring the work as ahistorical, (2) highlighting Orsini's failure to get past a superficial reading of sources, (3) criticial of the antiquated scholarly apparatus used by the author, and (4) dismissive of the generalizations?

The unusually strong denounciations of the book by multiple specialists speak volumes and we shall not bend backward — on account of his litigious tendencies — to accomodate a couple (?) of positive reviews by random academics. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:07, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

From the sounds of things, you already have a negative position on the subject and want to ensure the article reflects that. Ie the primary problem with Italian Wikipedia and the OWNers over there who were also preventing any of the positive coverage of his work to be included. Also, is that really how you'd define the position of Christiane Olivo's review? Silver seren^C 16:15, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on content; not on contributors. I do neither know Italian nor have ever edited it.wiki; my interest was piqued from the Signpost article. If you feel that I have have summarised some review incorrectly, please be BOLD and fix it. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:18, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is your purposeful exclusion of content that's the problem. Silver seren^C 16:31, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Which part of WP:ONUS escapes you, Silverseren? TrangaBellam (talk) 16:57, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Paul J. Smith

Smith, Paul J. (June 2012). "Anatomy of the Red Brigades: The Religious Mind-Set of Modern Terrorists". Perspectives on Politics. 10 (2): 464–465.

Smith's research "focuses on transnational security issues and the international politics of East Asia" and he "teaches the Security Strategies course" at the Naval War College.

What makes him a qualified reviewer? To the best of my knowledge, the topic of Orsini's work has got nothing to do either with transnational security issues — pace his own formulations — or East Asia. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:03, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

He publishes on terrorism in general, the mentality that leads to it, and the issues of confronting it. He has a book published on specifically that topic. Do the Red Brigades not fall under terrorism studies? Silver seren^C 15:11, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No; Smith's work centers on modern state-sponsored terrorism. Terrorism is not a catch-all word. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:30, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey Herf

Concerning contributions

I thought you should know TrangaBellam that Luix710 is the editor (or one of?) on Italian Wikipedia who was in conflict with Gitz6666 regarding the negative biasing of the Orsini article over there. Which rather explains a lot of their editing here thus far. I just discovered this fact and how the article over there included a number of both unreliable sources criticizing Orsini including blog posts, but also things as petty as how he had poor grades in school. Silver seren^C 18:42, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, this explains it. I had reverted their edits and left a note on their t/p. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:48, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if Luix710 is too negative, you are too positive. The summarization of A.C. Bull was ridiculuos. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:21, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Silver seren, and @TrangaBellam i'd like to thank you for the help you gave me about the editing, i'm somewhat new here and i don't really know how enwiki works. however i need to specify that the italian article had no political bias whatsoever, Gitz6666 was the only one (alongside another user who was "stalking" the discussion page for over a year) who claimed it had one. the consensus was clear, the page was widely considered to be perfectly neutral, and as you surely know, it has been hided due to a menace of legal actions by Orsini. Luix710 (talk) 19:21, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Did it use blog posts as sources? Did it include his school grades for any reason whatsoever? Silver seren^C 19:23, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 51: / Line 51: @@
 :He publishes on terrorism in general, the mentality that leads to it, and the issues of confronting it. He has a book published on specifically that topic. Do the Red Brigades not fall under terrorism studies? [[User:Silver seren|<span style="color: silver;">Silver</span>]][[User talk:Silver seren|<span style="color: blue;">seren</span>]]<sup>[[Special:Contributions/Silver seren|C]]</sup> 15:11, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
 ::No; Smith's work centers on modern state-sponsored terrorism. Terrorism is not a catch-all word. [[User:TrangaBellam|TrangaBellam]] ([[User talk:TrangaBellam|talk]]) 15:30, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
+===Jeffrey Herf===
 == Concerning contributions ==