Talk:The Art of War (disambiguation)

This disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.DisambiguationWikipedia:WikiProject DisambiguationTemplate:WikiProject DisambiguationDisambiguation articles

Mao Zedong

I am the person to request this comment. I do not think that The Art of War is a work by Mao Zedong, and so does not belong on the Art of War disambiguation page. Mao never wrote a book entitled The Art of War. El Norte Press has assembled four works that Mao did write and called it the Art of War; so far as I can tell, they are the only press to have done so. While everything written by Mao is notable, titles invented by other people for compilations of his work are not. The Will to Power (manuscript), for example, was not written by Nietzsche, but is discussed often enough to be notable; this putative work by Mao is the same, except without any verifiable third-party discussion. The request for a third opinion on this issue [1] was answered by an editor who had never made an edit to Wikipedia before, raising the red flag of sockpuppetry. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 17:30, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And I would be the person to whom he is referring. I have provided evidence of notability, engaged in tedious debate with the editor above, won 3rd party arbitration on Wikipedia and would welcome additional eyes on this entry. It's a reference to a work by a notable author, which is available through reputable bookstores and libraries and was entered to distinguish between major authors who have books titled "The Art of War": Machiavelli, Baron de Jomini, Sun Tzu and The Art of War by Mao Tse-tung (Mao Zedong)

In regards to "titles invented by other people for compilations of his work are not...(notable)", again I offer the following example: Robert Frost: Prose and Plays (Richard Poirier, ed.) (Library of America, 1995) ISBN 978-1-88301106-2.

Although google search results, in themselves are not sufficient evidence, it shows a pretty clear picture. Coupled with the inherent notability of Mao as a subject matter, it merits a one line entry on the disambiguation page for the Art of War.--Digitalmischief (talk) 10:06, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RfC comments

the purpose of disambiguation pages is to distinguish among wikipedia articles with similar names. so if there were a wikipedia article on the thus-entitled anthology of works by Mao - or if the anthology were mentioned at all in the article on Mao Zedong - that would be a reason to include it on the disambiguation page. otherwise i don't see the point of including it. Sssoul (talk) 11:56, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand why there is an argument about whether the book “The Art of War by Mao Tse-tung” should merit a mention in Wikipedia. The book in question is listed for sale on virtually every venue that sells books. The essays by Mao deal with the intricacies of strategy in warfare and Sun Tzu's work is directly referenced by Mao several times in this collection. If for no other reason, it deserves a mention to distinguish it from the three other books with the same title - by Sun Tzu, Baron De Jommi and Machiavelli. The argument that this book should be excluded from mention because the title for this collection of essays was not from Mao’s own hand is not cogent. Surely Sun Tzu, himself, did not title his famous 13 chapters “The Art of War”. Undoubtedly the title was acquired in compilation and translation on the basis of the subject matter. Clearly, a collection of the most significant essays on strategy by Mao Tse-tung (Mao Zedong) should be accorded similar consideration and a mention in Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.246.178.149 (talk) 06:06, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

that's an argument in support of wikipedia having an article about the book - but the question at hand is whether the book should be mentioned on a disambiguation page even though there's currently no article about it. the purpose of disambiguation pages is to help readers locate wikipedia articles. until there's an article mentioning the book, listing it on a disambiguation page is pointless. Sssoul (talk) 06:15, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By that reasoning, there are 3 additional entries which should be deleted:

The Art of War by de Jomini, which doesn't have a corresponding wiki article, but is mentioned in the author's wiki article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antoine-Henri_Jomini

The Art of War, an SBS series and follow-up book by Betty Churcher which has no independent wiki article by title, and is not mentioned in the SBS article, but is mentioned in the Churcher page.

"The Art of War", a piece of violin music by Vanessa-Mae, as there is no independent page, nor is it mentioned by name in the article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanessa-Mae

There are 3 entries for books on this page... all referenced, all consistent with the the Art of War page, all notable authors beyond dispute, and each possessing inherent linked Wiki pages by title or author. I am only requesting that it be left intact. --Digitalmischief (talk) 07:40, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i guess i haven't been clear enough: if a title is mentioned on wikipedia - in its own article or in its author's article - then i see a reason for it to be on a disambiguation page. if not, i don't see a reason; if that applies to the Vanessa-Mae piece as well as to the Mao book, then sure: remove that one as well.

meanwhile, whoever initiated the RfC was presumably interested in hearing other wikipedians' views on this "issue". mine is one. good health to you. Sssoul (talk) 10:31, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of a disambiguation page is not just to distinguish between Wikipedia articles with similar names, but also to direct readers to an article related to the subject they're looking for. Since there is a published collection of Mao's writings titled The Art of War, it's conceivable that a reader might want to find more information on that collection. The fact that the title was applied posthumously and only in English seems immaterial to me. If we include the Mao entry, that says to a reader, "We don't have any more information on that collection, but here's more information on Mao Zedong if you're interested." I think that's appropriate. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:26, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Valid inclusion. Some readers will search for this and they should not be met with a blank. Who titled the book is irrelevant. The fact is that it exists. Ty 03:42, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The benefit to including it seems to be small (I think only a small number of those searching for Art of War would be looking for information on Mao) but I can't really see any cost so I wouldn't support removing it. --Cherry blossom tree 09:56, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't someone wanting to know about Mao just look up Mao? ~~I don't see the reason for inclusion if there is no article on it, and the subject itself is a total piece of cake to search for~~.--Asdfg12345 04:23, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

just took a look at the article. I don't believe it's out of place. It is just a mildly useful piece of information. I will confess that my reason for being against it is because I believe Mao was a really bad man, he killed many people, and left a horrendous legacy that continues to this day. Looking at it from another angle, it seems normal that the work be noted here.--Asdfg12345 11:07, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep — just because the author is a mass-murdering dictator, that isn't a reason to exclude his writings from Wikipedia. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]