Talk:Alessandro Orsini (sociologist)

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)

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. Silverseren^C 02:13, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

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

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

No, feel free. Silverseren^C 01:20, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

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

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. Silverseren^C 14:40, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

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

@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)

@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:

• https://www.ilfattoquotidiano.it/2022/04/30/alessandro-orsini-la-luiss-chiude-losservatorio-del-professore-leni-ha-deciso-di-interrompere-la-collaborazione/6576202/
• https://www.lastampa.it/esteri/2022/05/05/news/orsini_anatomia_di_un_non_esperto-3280396/
• https://www.open.online/2022/05/05/alessandro-orsini-guerra-ucraina-russia-cv/

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)

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)

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. Silverseren^C 14:46, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

"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. Silverseren^C 15:05, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

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)

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

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)

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? Silverseren^C 15:21, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

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)

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. Silverseren^C 16:15, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

You are talking about pop-sci. I am talking about specialist works. TrangaBellam (talk) 21:25, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

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)

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? Silverseren^C 16:15, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

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)

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

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

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)

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? Silverseren^C 15:11, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

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)

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. Silverseren^C 18:42, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

@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)

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

I consulted the it.wiki entry via Wayback and I am unable to assume 100% good faith - even, the choice of the photo is disparaging, atleast to me. But my sympathies do not lie with Orsini either. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:33, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Elephant in the room

So, does there exist any high-quality source branding him as a fascist? TrangaBellam (talk) 21:08, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Reliability of a source

What do editors feel about this sarcastic profile? Thank you, TrangaBellam (talk) 22:00, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

What were you planning on using from it? Silverseren^C 22:21, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Tbh, nothing - just curious. TrangaBellam (talk) 07:14, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Balance

I see things moved fast while I slept. I had responded to Star Mississippi above but apparently failed to save it. So instead here are some more caffeinated thoughts.

I agree on mainspacing the article, and the section that has been added about his publications and their reception corresponds broadly to what I had been thinking of adding and had mentioned in my last edit summary. Thanks, TrangaBellam; I'm guessing you are better able to read Italian than I am.

However, as Andreas noted in the Signpost, the disparity in reviews of the Red Brigades book is not two-sided, there were several mixed reviews. The same goes for his later books. The Italian article is available at the Internet Archive; I used the version of 2 June for the facts of his early life and career, going back to the cited sources and adding a couple in corroboration. (Earlier versions likely contain at least one negative statement that was the subject of edit warring on it.wikipedia on BLP grounds.)

I haven't looked in detail at the article as it now is, but we must be extremely careful of due weight, and from my search for sources and those that were used on it.wikipedia and also those mentioned at the second AfD, it is apparent that Orsini has become a well-known commentator in Italy—his column in Il Fatto Quotidiano, but also a lot of TV appearances—and so there are just a ton of press articles about his stances, at all levels of high-browedness, and we need to distill that aspect of his career into a neutral statement or two. This article cannot become a précis of public debate in Italy over terrorism (in Italy or more broadly in Europe), NATO, or the invasion of Ukraine. It's a BLP about an academic who is both active in public debate and much discussed.

I would counsel that we be briefer than a quick glance suggests we are now being, with few quotes and instead, dry summary of a lot of specifics about what he's written and spoken about, and footnotes reflecting the range of newspapers as well as journals that have either critiqued his work or discussed his arguments and opinions. If we don't get into the weeds of why the THE reviewer didn't like the Red Brigades book, to take one example that was over-weighted in the it.wikipedia article, and instead summarize, we run less risk of in effect taking sides, which isn't our job as an encyclopaedia. And we don't need that level of detail to demonstrate his notability; the second AfD, in particular, in my view came to the wrong conclusion because it focussed on NPROF and missed seeing the strength of the case under GNG (plus I think an adequate NPROF case could have been made based on his publications). In any event, over the past year his notability has become obvious. So the article can be lean and mean providing it has the footnotes. Yngvadottir (talk) 23:15, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

@TrangaBellam and Silver seren: I'm quite concerned after checking the last edit to the article. This source is not only from Il Foglio Quotidiano, which should be used sparingly and carefully both because it has a marked political slant and because Orsini is one of their columnists, but it's in Italian, not English, and is by Giovanni Rodriquez, not John. Giving only a translated title is misleading to readers, and translating the writer's name is insulting and suggests machine translation. TrangaBellam, have you been using machine translation rather than reading the sources? If so, and if you can't read the Italian sources, I'm sorry, but it would be better to reverse your work and recreate the section. This is a BLP, and a touchy one. We have to get this as right as we can. Yngvadottir (talk) 06:41, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

WHAT? I did neither add the source nor use it for anything; on the contrary, I removed the one line which depended entirely on the source! It was SilverSeren who had added the source and used it to write a whole line. You have been here for long enough to know parsing diffs; so, please be more careful, assume good faith, and take your long-winded commentary with idiosyncratic edit-summaries elsewhere. TrangaBellam (talk) 07:04, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Oh good, I see you removed it. I am sorry; you are correct, but I did not realise it was already in the article. Plus I see I'm confusing Il Foglio with Il Fatto Quotidiano. So I presume my first assumption was correct and that you can indeed read Italian, and I'll do as you wish and bow out. But could someone please unescape the categories, which I added when the article was a draft in user space? Yngvadottir (talk) 09:11, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

I do not have any command over Italian; my rustic French is of no advantage, either.

My edits to this article have centered around (1) expanding the reviews, which you propose gutting for rather incoherent reasons, and (2) highlighting that, pace Andreas, reviews by specialists have been uniformly scathing. I did add a couple of Italian sources in the section on Ukraine but I could have done w/o them, too. TrangaBellam (talk) 11:01, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

My own Italian comprehension is less good than my French, but I'm very concerned that this article should not be written based on machine translations or preferring English-language sources. I thank you for your work, which as I stated above is broadly along the lines I'd suggested in my last edit summary to the draft. But primarily for BLP reasons, I think it should be redone by someone with a good reading knowledge of Italian (to be clear, that should be someone whose Italian is better than mine). Yngvadottir (talk) 12:34, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I do not really feel that this is a tough BLP.

The guy is clearly an incompetent scholar but so are dime a dozen in academia; he was cared about by nobody significant — unless, you consider the academe — in the grander scheme of things before he became a media sensation during the Ukraine War, courtesy spouting Russian viewpoints. Now, this Russo-Ukrain business (about which I, admittedly, understand little except the polarizing nature) needs to be covered by some native speaker, indeed. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:15, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Rolling Stone

"Bella vita e guerre altrui del professor Alessandro Orsini, gentiluomo". Rolling Stone Italia (in Italian). 2022-05-21. TrangaBellam (talk) 11:11, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

RS/N

I have asked for wider input on the suitability of the book reviews discussed above: see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Academic book reviews. Andreas JN466 16:32, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Hof summary

The summary of Tobias Hof's review, which is available to us through the Wikipedia Library at this link, is truly bizarre.

At the time of writing, we have: Tobia [sic] Hof, a historian of European terrorism, raised similar issues — lacking in "historical contextualisation", Orsini's study totally "neglected the political and social background as well as the historic tradition of violence in Italy", giving way to inane overgeneralizations.

There is no mention of "inane overgeneralizations" in Hof's review. The closest to that is Orsini wants us to believe that the physical annihilation of the ‘enemy’ was the final goal of the Red Brigades from the very beginning. However, recent studies on terrorism have convincingly demonstrated the importance of the communication process between terrorists, the public, and the state in this regard. Furthermore, Orsini neglects the political and social background as well as the historic tradition of violence in Italy. Thus his argument runs the danger of generalising and oversimplifying the very complex phenomenon of the radicalisation of terrorist groups.

And Hof also says, for example: Orsini offers a stimulating insight into the thinking of the Red Brigades, their ideology, and revolutionary roots. This is particularly significant since the ideology and mentality of this terrorist group has so far not been researched in depth. Therefore Orsini's original Italian version was mostly well received and was awarded the prestigious Acqui prize in 2010. A closer look at his work from a historical point of view, however, reveals some problems.

Hof's conclusion at the end of the review reads as follows: Orsini's book is not convincing in every aspect, especially when it comes to historical contextualisation and his sometimes apodictic arguments and conclusions. However, he presents a very interesting study which invites further debate. Without doubt it will have its place among the essential literature on Italian left-wing terrorism.

Now, do editors feel that the current summary matches the flavour of the original? Andreas JN466 16:49, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Oh my goodness, you are back? TrangaBellam (talk) 17:02, 23 June 2023 (UTC)