Jump to content

Talk:Alessandro Orsini (sociologist)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Deleted History

[edit]

@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. SilverserenC 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. SilverserenC 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. SilverserenC 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]
WP:FALSEBALANCE talks about fringe theories produced by non-academics. It has nothing to do with this situaiton where all the sources being talked about here are academic.--Dronkle (talk) 15:52, 26 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]

I was actively involved in the deletion process and found it peculiar Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alessandro Orsini (sociologist) (2nd nomination). I was one of the anonymous users who advocated for keeping the article.

The individual responsible for the deletion appeared to be an IP user solely focused on that particular article, which, in light of the recent press attention, raises suspicions. They seemed to specifically target comments in favor of retaining the article.

Nevertheless, the article had a substantial number of sources prior to the events of 2022, making it inherently notable. The conclusion reached during the deletion process appeared to be somewhat biased or exaggerated.

Considering these aspects, I suggest reinstating the content. Orsini's significance was established before 2022 and continued throughout that year, even though the deletion occurred several months after he gained popularity. Furthermore, his notability has remained since then.

Given the chaotic circumstances, it is of utmost importance for Wikipedia to prioritize transparency. This would allow everyone to assess the article's status at the time of its second deletion and compare it with the procedural aspects, thus forming their own conclusions.

Personally, I hold a neutral position to Orsini's opinions and even a negative one on his character, and fail to see why he should be portrayed as a "martyr."

[Note:I utilized ChatGPT to refine this comment as English is not my native language. Unfortunately, I did not have access to such assistance earlier, which might have allowed me to express myself more clearly] —93.71.159.44 (talk) 06:20, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

IP 93, the article has been restored. If there's information missing, feel free to discuss below where @TrangaBellam @Silver seren et al have been evaluating specific content. Star Mississippi 11:56, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Star Mississippi: and thank you. Unfortunately, while I've searched for "deleted" and "restored" on this page I don't see the discussion you mention. I've searched draft space for an article about Alessandro Orsini, I've even looked at your contribs and logs to find the link, and the oldest contributions to this entry, but somehow I missed it. Could you (or someone) provide a link to the restored article, please? -- SashiRolls 🌿 · 🍥 13:20, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@SashiRolls sorry to confuse and for the delay in response. When @Silver seren initially began working on this iteration on 19 June, it was in Draft space. Subsequently, @TrangaBellam moved it to mainspace, that's what I meant by restored. There are still ~300 deleted edits at Alessandro Orsini (sociologist) from February 2010 through May 2022 when I closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alessandro Orsini (sociologist) (2nd nomination) (there's also Sandstein's close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alessandro Orsini (sociologist)). SIlver seren initially did not want the history and @Yngvadottir asked for specific info (provided above). I'd be happy to restore the old history if someone believes it would be helpful now. I don't have the ITalian language skills to access Orsini's notability but it's not a G4 and there are enough established editors here - yourself included - that I have no issues with the new verion. Star Mississippi 03:23, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
User:Star Mississippi it's me again. My request was for the entire history of the article to be made public, and it is unrelated to the current version. It could, since in any case I cannot remmeber all details... for examples there were sources in French, Russian and German. I still don't understand [1] your decision to confirm it as not notable, despite the presence of pre-2022 sources and the warnings and concerns expressed in the discussion. Please at least allow people to assess it. Transparency is what we need.—06:44, 6 July 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.46.41.167 (talk)

Summary of the reviews for "Red Brigades"

[edit]

The paragraph with the reviews of "Anatomy of the Red Brigades" is unnecessary too long, is even longer than the biography and even neglets the content of the book, such long text should include a summary of the content and then would belong to a specific separated article dedicated to the book itself.

I propose the following compact summary: In 2009, Orsini published the monograph 'Anatomy of the Red Brigades', which delves into the motivations of those who joined the Red Brigades, a well-known Italian far-left terrorist group. The work went on to win the Acqui Award of History. Two years later, a translation of the book was published by Cornell University Press and was chosen by Lawrence D. Freedman in the magazine Foreign Affairs as one of the top three 'military, scientific, and technological' books of 2011. However, the book received mixed reviews, with some highlighting the contribution to understand the modern terrorist mind-set, while others criticized in particular the lack of historicism. RedStormed (talk) 06:30, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:35, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@TrangaBellam why "no"? "No" is no argumentation.
The half (4536 characters) of the entire article (9088 characters) is occupied by quotations of reviews to a book which is not the main topic of the article, it is ridicolously unbalanced.
Reviews must be summarized, not entirely quoted. RedStormed (talk) 06:49, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody has "entirely quoted" the reviews. The book did not receive mixed reviews, please. Find me a source that states as such. TrangaBellam (talk) 07:00, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@TrangaBellam it received "mixed reviews" because some highly-regarded scholars endorsed it using expressions like "excellent" or "enormous contribution" to the field", or choosing it among the tree top books in its field.
You can play with words if you like, for example:
However, the book received mixed reviews, with some highlighting the contribution to understand the modern terrorist mind-set, while others largely criticized the lack of historicism.
or
However, the book received mixed reviews, with some highlighting the contribution to understand the modern terrorist mind-set, while many others criticized the lack of historicism. RedStormed (talk) 07:15, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I am somewhat amenable to it. Proposing my version, soon. TrangaBellam (talk) 07:17, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@TrangaBellam what about this?
In 2009, Orsini published the monograph 'Anatomy of the Red Brigades', which delves into the motivations of those who joined the Red Brigade, a well-known Italian far-left terrorist group. The work went on to win the Acqui Award of History. Two years later, a translation of the book was published by Cornell University Press and was chosen by Lawrence Freedman in the magazine Foreign Affairs as one of the top three 'military, scientific, and technological' books of 2011.
Ref: https://www.foreignaffairs.com/anthologies/2011-12-26/best-international-relations-books-2011
However, the book received quite mixed reviews: while some highlighted the contribution to understanding the modern terrorist mind-set,
Refs: Freedman, Lawrence (2011). "Anatomy of the Red Brigades: The Religious Mind-Set of Modern Terrorists, Reviewed by Lawrence D. Freedman". Foreign Affairs. Herf, Jeffrey (Winter 2012). "Alessandro Orsini, Anatomy of the Red Brigades: The Religious Mind-Set of Modern Terrorists, trans. from Italian by Sarah J. Nodes". Journal of Cold War Studies. 14 (1): 137–139. doi:10.1162/JCWS_r_00208. Retrieved June 22, 2023. Smith, Paul J. (2012). "Review of Anatomy of the Red Brigades: The Religious Mind-Set of Modern Terrorists". Perspectives on Politics. 10 (2): 464–465. ISSN 1537-5927.
many others criticized, in particular, a lack of historicism.
Refs: "Sandberg on Orsini, 'Anatomy of the Red Brigades: The Religious Mind-Set of Modern Terrorists' | H-War | H-Net". networks.h-net.org. Retrieved 2023-06-22. Hof, Tobias (May 2013). "Alessandro Orsini, Anatomy of the Red Brigades: The Religious Mind-Set of Modern Terrorists (Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press, 2011), 317 pp". Cold War History. 13 (2): 286–287. doi:10.1080/14682745.2013.789665. ISSN 1468-2745. Barry, Gearóid (November 2015). "Political Religion: A User's Guide". Contemporary European History. 24 (4): 623–638. doi:10.1017/S0960777315000375. Retrieved June 22, 2023 – via Proquest. Edwards, Phil (January 2013). "Alessandro Orsini: Anatomy of the Red Brigades: The Religious Mind-Set of Modern Terrorists. Trans. Sarah Nodes. (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2011. Pp. vi, 317.)". The Review of Politics. 75 (1): 168–171. doi:10.1017/S0034670512001283. ISSN 0034-6705. Bourg, Julian (September 2013). "Anatomy of the Red Brigades: The Religious Mind-Set of Modern Terrorists . By Alessandro Orsini. Translated by Sarah J. Nodes.Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2011. Pp. viii+317. $29.95". The Journal of Modern History. 85 (3): 706–708. doi:10.1086/670850. ISSN 0022-2801. Veugelers, John (2012). "Alessandro Orsini, "Anatomy of the Red Brigades: The Religious Mind-set of Modern Terrorists". Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2011, 317 pp". Sociologica (3/2012). doi:10.2383/72713. ISSN 1971-8853. Bull, Anna Cento (January 2013). "Alessandro Orsini, Anatomy of the Red Brigades: The Religious Mind-Set of Modern Terrorists". European History Quarterly. 43 (1): 168–169. doi:10.1177/0265691412469497ac. ISSN 0265-6914. RedStormed (talk) 07:38, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like a good idea to me. One might tweak the wording but the principle is sound. Andreas JN466 06:53, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, though it might be better to give a bit more weight to the criticism in the final sentence, e.g. However, the book received quite mixed reviews: while some reviews highlighted the contribution to understanding the modern terrorist mind-set, many others criticized, in particular, a lack of historicism". (the italics here are just to show the differences). I'd also be tempted to blue-link historicism. -- SashiRolls 🌿 · 🍥 07:13, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@SashiRolls this would be more acceptable, see my comment above with 2 proposal, one also containing "many". RedStormed (talk) 07:16, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I would put the two the other way round: "While many criticized ... others highlighted ..." Andreas JN466 07:19, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jayen466 would be also ok from my side. RedStormed (talk) 08:04, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@SashiRolls what about this?
In 2009, Orsini published the monograph 'Anatomy of the Red Brigades', which delves into the motivations of those who joined the Red Brigades, a well-known Italian far-left terrorist group. The work went on to win the Acqui Award of History. Two years later, a translation of the book was published by Cornell University Press and was chosen by Lawrence D. Freedman in the magazine Foreign Affairs as one of the top three 'military, scientific, and technological' books of 2011. However, the book received quite mixed reviews: while some highlighted the contribution to understanding the modern terrorist mind-set, many others criticized, in particular, a lack of historicism. RedStormed (talk) 07:21, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@SashiRolls @Jayen466
what about this?
In 2009, Orsini published the monograph 'Anatomy of the Red Brigades', which delves into the motivations of those who joined the Red Brigade, a well-known Italian far-left terrorist group. The work went on to win the Acqui Award of History. Two years later, a translation of the book was published by Cornell University Press and was chosen by Lawrence Freedman in the magazine Foreign Affairs as one of the top three 'military, scientific, and technological' books of 2011.
Ref: https://www.foreignaffairs.com/anthologies/2011-12-26/best-international-relations-books-2011
However, the book received quite mixed reviews: while some highlighted the contribution to understanding the modern terrorist mind-set,
Refs: Freedman, Lawrence (2011). "Anatomy of the Red Brigades: The Religious Mind-Set of Modern Terrorists, Reviewed by Lawrence D. Freedman". Foreign Affairs. Herf, Jeffrey (Winter 2012). "Alessandro Orsini, Anatomy of the Red Brigades: The Religious Mind-Set of Modern Terrorists, trans. from Italian by Sarah J. Nodes". Journal of Cold War Studies. 14 (1): 137–139. doi:10.1162/JCWS_r_00208. Retrieved June 22, 2023. Smith, Paul J. (2012). "Review of Anatomy of the Red Brigades: The Religious Mind-Set of Modern Terrorists". Perspectives on Politics. 10 (2): 464–465. ISSN 1537-5927.
many others criticized, in particular, a lack of historicism.
Refs: "Sandberg on Orsini, 'Anatomy of the Red Brigades: The Religious Mind-Set of Modern Terrorists' | H-War | H-Net". networks.h-net.org. Retrieved 2023-06-22. Hof, Tobias (May 2013). "Alessandro Orsini, Anatomy of the Red Brigades: The Religious Mind-Set of Modern Terrorists (Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press, 2011), 317 pp". Cold War History. 13 (2): 286–287. doi:10.1080/14682745.2013.789665. ISSN 1468-2745. Barry, Gearóid (November 2015). "Political Religion: A User's Guide". Contemporary European History. 24 (4): 623–638. doi:10.1017/S0960777315000375. Retrieved June 22, 2023 – via Proquest. Edwards, Phil (January 2013). "Alessandro Orsini: Anatomy of the Red Brigades: The Religious Mind-Set of Modern Terrorists. Trans. Sarah Nodes. (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2011. Pp. vi, 317.)". The Review of Politics. 75 (1): 168–171. doi:10.1017/S0034670512001283. ISSN 0034-6705. Bourg, Julian (September 2013). "Anatomy of the Red Brigades: The Religious Mind-Set of Modern Terrorists . By Alessandro Orsini. Translated by Sarah J. Nodes.Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2011. Pp. viii+317. $29.95". The Journal of Modern History. 85 (3): 706–708. doi:10.1086/670850. ISSN 0022-2801. Veugelers, John (2012). "Alessandro Orsini, "Anatomy of the Red Brigades: The Religious Mind-set of Modern Terrorists". Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2011, 317 pp". Sociologica (3/2012). doi:10.2383/72713. ISSN 1971-8853. Bull, Anna Cento (January 2013). "Alessandro Orsini, Anatomy of the Red Brigades: The Religious Mind-Set of Modern Terrorists". European History Quarterly. 43 (1): 168–169. doi:10.1177/0265691412469497ac. ISSN 0265-6914.. RedStormed (talk) 07:36, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@RedStormed Would you allow me to to reformat your ref links so the titles appear in your post rather than at the bottom of the page? Andreas JN466 07:47, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jayen466 yes please.
Do you like my "summary"? This way the article is not unbalanced anymore towards the reviews of the book, which now occupy about 50% of the whole article! RedStormed (talk) 07:52, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Orsini is an academic; for any academic, esp. in social sciences, the reviews are all that matter. So, reviews ought to occupy the majority of an acad-bio. TrangaBellam (talk) 07:56, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@TrangaBellam but here is not "academic", here it is an encyclopedia, and an article dedicated to him and not to the book.
In the wiki page for Albert Einstein I do not see any reviews to works for the Relativity. RedStormed (talk) 08:02, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's an interesting comment. Different content would be appropriate in an article about the book than in a summary article about Orsini's whole life and his overlapping careers as an academic sociologist, a consultant on terrorism and as a public intellectual. One of the points of dispute in the Italian article was the quote from the blog of someone who had previously been jailed for their actions when a member of the BR. If there was a longish article on the book it would be entirely appropriate to include a comment saying this is how a former member of the BR reacted to the book. The readers would then be able to decide for themselves how much weight to give the views of such an individual. From what I remember the it.wiki article gave just one paragraph to the book and included that individual's reaction without highlighting their history in the group. Dronkle (talk) 10:43, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reformatting done. I quite like your summary, though I'm worried it is a bit short. I mean, TrangaBellam is right in that reviews of his works do matter in his biography.
Having said that, if you want to spin out the content on the book to a stand-alone article and use your summary as a starting point, I'd be okay with that.
Ultimately though I'd expect the summary of Anatomy reviews to grow a bit longer again: for example, what is left in this bio should be at least as long as the paragraphs we have for the two other works. Andreas JN466 08:42, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's good, but agree it would probably be best to spin out the reviews to an entry on the book before making the change. That said, I'm not eager to do that myself for any number of reasons, not least of which that it's a sunny day. -- SashiRolls 🌿 · 🍥 09:44, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • most criticized, in particular, a lack of historicism but some highlighted its contribution to understanding terrorists' mindset. is the fairest representation. The assymetry is quite visible. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:05, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Conspicuous absence of comments from Italian scholars regarding the book on Red Brigades

[edit]

What profoundly bewilders me within the confines of this article is the conspicuous void encompassing the dearth of scholarly interjections by Italian savants vis-à-vis the literary opus in question. This conspicuous omission, perchance, evokes a sense of astonishment, for the Red Brigades, in their epochal ascendancy, epitomized a socio-political phenomenon that indelibly etched its mark upon the annals of Italian history. Moreover, it is crucial to underscore that the aforementioned subject matter, replete with its convoluted intricacies, had been the object of intensive intellectual disquisitions and polemical exchanges, whereby each treatise espousing its indomitable essence invariably engendered a brief yet fervent deliberation amongst the cognoscenti and erudite denizens of the Italian peninsula.

Astonishingly, the aforementioned chronicle of events, bereft of any allusion within the present discourse, serves to accentuate a distinct possibility that a calculated endeavor was undertaken to obfuscate the judicious perspectives proffered by Italian scholars and the masses at large, who were inextricably embroiled in the tempestuous tempest of the so-called "years of lead." The inconceivability that such intrepid intellectuals, endowed with a multitude of sagacious insights, refrained from articulating their sagacious musings concerning the probity and veracity of the literary endeavor under scrutiny persists as an unrelenting enigma.

In other words what astounds me in this article is the conspicuous absence of comments from Italian scholars regarding the book. Such an omission is highly peculiar, considering that the Brigate Rosse (Red Brigades) constituted a phenomenon that left a significant mark on Italian history. The topic was extensively discussed and debated, and every scholarly work published on this subject has invariably ignited a brief yet fervent discourse among Italian intellectuals and scholars. It is astonishing that no mention of this can be found in the article, almost as if an intentional effort was made to conceal the judgments of Italian scholars and the general public who experienced the so-called "years of lead." It is inconceivable that they have not expressed their opinions regarding the validity and credibility of this book.

Somethings is missing. Julius.it (talk) 22:05, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The reason is actually much simpler and not because of a conspiracy. It's because almost everyone involved in this article is an English speaker and doesn't speak Italian or know how to find said academic reviews of the book in Italian sources. If you can provide links to those reviews, they can be added in. SilverserenC 22:24, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I know an Italian who could probably help with that.  ;) I met him in Cyberia after a cold night's glocking. You should feel free to add the best Italian scholarship you can find, but please, in mainspace, it might be better to write with a bit less epochal denizenry & indomitable espousery. Also, I saw that in your first edit to the article and to en.wp you chose to add a blue-link. In the sentence you chose, you had the choice between any of three common words: "mosques", "garages" or "sheds". I'm embroilingly curious why you chose mosques, but the t/p probably isn't the place for that discussion, as long as everyone agrees with your choice. -- SashiRolls 🌿 · 🍥 22:58, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
However, it is truly peculiar. You claim that no one knows Italian, yet 30% of the citations (mostly on minor details or, at the very least, not directly related to the discussion of their thoughts) are sourced from written Italian material. It would appear that a cherry-picking of comments on their work has taken place. The Wikipedia:Neutral point of view requires to represent fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. Does this mean that in Orsini's homeland, there are either no significant views or very few on this sociologist's book? In addition, it seems that Orsini is primarily known to the public as a controversial commentator on television talk shows. Is it possible, then, that no one has debated or discussed his books? And does this mean that here on Wikipedia, it is almost concealed in just a few lines? I reiterate that the entry does not appear to be comprehensive. Is it possible to have comments from other editors as well? Why are there no positive academic reviews favoring the book expressed by Italian critics?-Julius.it (talk) 08:51, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So far I've only contributed to the talk page rather than to the article. As I said on my reply to you just now at the Signpost discussion and I have stated above, I think a lot of the problems with this article is that too much space is given to who likes and dislikes Orsini's books. It's much more important to get across things like the DRIA model which have been picked up on by other authors. The value of the secondary sources is to identify what other academics and researchers consider to be the key aspects of Orsini's writing.
Also it may be worth familiarising yourself with some English Wikipedia policies such as WP:BRD. If you find that people aren't being responsive to your suggestions, then you can go ahead and make a change to the article. Then if someone undoes it, you can have a further discussion here. Only if things get as tense here as they were on it.wiki does it become important to discuss all potential changes here first. The one proviso on this is if you are Orsini himself or his editor or something, then it's best to always propose things here first in order to avoid the appearance of conflict of interest. (See WP:COI) Dronkle (talk) 11:56, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hallo @Julius.it,
I reply here to this message in the Signpost page where you addressed me:
https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-06-19/In_the_media&diff=prev&oldid=1165000174
  1. I am not 'denying anything'; some weeks ago, I invested a lot of time searching and checking reviews, particularly in the JSTOR digital library. However, I could only find reviews from non-Italian scholars
  2. The last time I checked in detail the Orsini article on en.wiki was at the end of June, and there were still no reviews from any Italian scholars reported there. That is why I wrote 'to the best of my knowledge.' Only more recently (8 July 2023‎), a review from the italian author Panvini was found and added by another editor
  3. As another editor argued, when Orsini wrote the book was a young researcher, probably still not well-known to the general public and even to many of his Italian colleagues. Therefore, it is not surprising that he did not receive many (or any) remarkable reviews from Italian scholars
  4. Since English is an international language, I personally don't think that speculating on the nationalities of the scholars who reviewed or did not review a specific book is a topic of particular encyclopedic interest
  5. Regarding the Acqui Award of History, according to it.wiki (my translation): 'it is considered the most important Italian recognition in the field of scientific and popular historiography' (https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premio_Acqui_Storia).
Danieleb2000 (talk) 16:53, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Truth be told, it was reviewed favorably by a couple of scholars in Italy; will add them. If he had not opted for a translation, Orsini would have his reputation fairly intact. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:02, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Soma Chaudhuri

[edit]

Soma Chaudhuri, a sociologist studying gender, social movements and violence, [...]

Quite the scholar except that some people need to read beyond the first line of her faculty-profile: She studies how violence at the community and household level is used to legitimize structural and institutional level gender inequalities that specifically disadvantage women. Relatedly she explores the role of non-state actors in creating effective strategies for encountering such violence through empowerment programs, the impact it has on the women’s lives, and reasons for failure of such programs.

So, "Violence" is more like domestic violence, garden-variety misogyny etc. "Social movements" is more like feminist groups who mobilize against patriarchy. Can any of you point a single publication (CV as of March 2023) relevant to any kind of terrorism or extremism or any topic that has remote relevance to Orsini's work? This review is undue for inclusion because we already have a dozen reviews by far-competemt scholars and further, verifiability does not automatically guarantee inclusion.TrangaBellam (talk) 16:59, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Professor Soma Chaudhuri is a sociologist with a PhD and is currently an Associate Professor at the Department of Sociology at Michigan State [1]. Among her research interests are 'Social Movements' and 'Violence' [2]. Therefore, I really don't understand why her review is constantly being removed. Danieleb2000 (talk) 17:01, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@TrangaBellam:
You write "Can any of you point a single publication (...) that has (...) relevance to Orsini's work ?"
This statement implies that a scholar is only allowed to write a review on a specific topic only if they have previously published on the same topic. However, since everyone starts with zero publications, it would mean that nobody could even start to write any review on any topic.
Danieleb2000 (talk) 17:09, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Besides, it seems to me that either Bosworth and Chadouri are both an acceptable source, or none of them.
Bosworth is even not a sociologist and is a leading expert on Fascist Italy, but AFAIK never published on terrorism. So he seems to me even less acceptable than Chadouri, who at least is a sociologist with explicit interest in violence and social movements. Danieleb2000 (talk) 17:14, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously, Bosworth, arguably the world's leading expert (I can add a dozen citations but you know it, ofcourse) on Italian fascism, its socio cultural contexts, and its afterlife is not the ideal reviewer? Have you even read Whispering City: Rome and Its Histories? TrangaBellam (talk) 17:19, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@TrangaBellam Fascism and Benito Mussolini are topics that cover 1921-1945; Red Brigades were established in the 70's, so many years later, and were a far-left movement, so had bearing neither with Fascism nor with Mussolini. Bosworth could be eventually an ideal reviewer on far-right terrorist movements.
Therefore for me: both or none. Danieleb2000 (talk) 17:27, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To repeat myself, [h]ave you even read Whispering City: Rome and Its Histories? TrangaBellam (talk) 18:12, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@TrangaBellam, Orsini was writing as a sociologist interested in the sociology of how individuals become violent and was interested in generating a theory about this. Bosworth is not a sociologist and therefor is not an expert on how sociologists theorise. Chaudari is a sociologist and picks up on what Orsini was looking at. I'm pretty sure that the last paragraph of the Red Brigades book even explicitly says that he is looking at how ordinary people become violent. Chaudari's comments are therefore more useful in telling us what Orsini was about than Bosworth's which are just part of the junk clogging up this article with trivia abotu who did or did not like the books. Dronkle (talk) 17:56, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I assume that your reply is a tacit acceptance of having failed to find any relevant scholarship from Dr. Chaudhuri.
As to your question, PhD students routinely publish reviews provided the book falls in their topic area, they are being trained in; I see so evidence whatsoever that the reviewer in question is currently working on Leftist extremism or Italian politics or .... TrangaBellam (talk) 17:15, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://somachaudhuri.com/
  2. ^ https://drive.google.com/file/d/13XtE6ikeHJferAPNTj8nOYs_QO37rOf3/edit?pli=1

Requested move 4 January 2024

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Split outcomes. Sociologist article not moved as there is no consensus on it. There is a consensus to move the cardinal article. As such, a dab page is to be created at/moved to basename. – robertsky (talk) 15:10, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

– WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. The sociologist gets a lot more page views than the cardinal [2].  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:50, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject Sociology has been notified of this discussion. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:06, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Politics has been notified of this discussion. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:21, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Italy has been notified of this discussion. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:24, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support --Andreas JN466 18:12, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support at the least there is no primary topic. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:14, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Alessandro Orsini → Alessandro Orsini (cardinal) and oppose Alessandro Orsini (sociologist) → Alessandro Orsini. Instead, would support creation of an Alessandro Orsini disambiguation page listing both men. It may be also useful to glance at the two successful deletion discussions for the controversial sociologist's entry — 2016's Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alessandro Orsini (sociologist) and 2022's Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alessandro Orsini (sociologist) (2nd nomination). —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 20:16, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, very poor rationale, only based on page views. There are a couple of obvious reasons as to why the sociologist has many more views than the cardinal, first of all, the sociologist is a present-day figure, currently/constantly in the Italian news cycle for his positions on the Russo-Ukrainian war and his television fights, while the cardinal is a 17th century historical figure. I am not invoking recentism (or maybe I'm dong it), but I easily predict that when the war is over interest in him (and page views) will drop considerably. Second, the sociologist does not have a page on the Italian Wikipedia, so it is easy to assume that most of the accesses to his page come from Italian users, flocking here for lack of options. I can second Roman Spinner's proposal even if looking at Google Books, at first glance, most of the sources are about the cardinal, and I personally think that he has major long-term importance than the sociologist, at least for now (cardinal's page would really need to be improved, btw). --Cavarrone 00:12, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Why would it be useful to look at AfDs for a subject that dates to when the subject was questionably notable (at least for casual looking around for English-language sources), when now the subject is not questionably notable? The sociologist has no page on it.WP at present because the one there was an attack page which resulted in a legal threat, so admins took it down, and have not restored it and will not until the legal issue is resolved, because that version of WP is paranoid about legal threats (see sub-thread here). "Based on page views" is a common way to arrive at a primary topic determination. But there are others, of course: if you do a Google Scholar search, most results for "Alessandro Orsini" (in quotes) [3] are for the sociologist (there are more sociology and political science and related journals than ones on religion and Catholicism and the politics of religion and so forth, so this result would be predictable). Same with news search results [4]. Books results will show the opposite [5], of course, because the sociologist is not a long-term historical figure and books published before his time could not have mentioned him. It's also okay if a subject that is presently the primary topic some day becomes not the primary topic; we just move the pages again.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:34, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    you are 100% correct about why there is no page on it.wikipedia, but my point here is about why page views numbers on en.wikipedia are so inflated, and that's because Italian readers have this page as first (and basically only) Wikipedia option. Also, I am too lazy to look for influencers, gamers, youtubers who have the same name as important politicians, philosophers or religious figures, but I expect the former to have at least 10 times more page views than the latter. Page views are an excellent way to find a primary topic between compatible entities, but if one of them is currently a media "hot" topic (whatever unnotable and unknown until yesterday) and the other one a 17th century cardinal and Galileo Galilei patron, the results will be irremedially biased. Moving the page based on some INTHENEWS temporary notability and sentiment and then possibly move the page back is something we should absolutely avoid, I think we should look at the long-term significance, and probably Roman Spinner's solution is a good WP:COMMONSENSE compromise. Side note: Ukraine section really needs some expansion: it is the reason of his mainstream popularity and most news coverage about Orsini (95% or so) is about his positions on Ukraine. ::Cavarrone 08:17, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Cavarrone: It is true that some Italian Wikipedia users might come here because the Italian article for the sociologist has been locked. This could indeed artificially inflate the English pageviews of the sociologist's bio. But even if we allow for that, the interest in the cardinal both here and in Italian Wikipedia is simply minimal. Here for reference are daily average pageviews:
    This shows three things:
    • Most Italian users do not come here when faced with an empty article on Italian Wikipedia.
    • Even if you take the sum of Italian and English daily pageviews for the cardinal, the total is more than three times smaller than the total English pageviews for the sociologist.
    • Note also that a significant number of Italian users go from the cardinal's biography to the Italian disambiguation page, so a good proportion of users who end up at the cardinal's biography were actually interested in the sociologist.
    When things are so lopsided, we should go with the solution that inconveniences the smallest number of users. That means allocating Alessandro Orsini to the sociologist, and adding a note at the top pointing to the cardinal's bio.
    Incidentally, Google came to much the same conclusion, because the cardinal is nowhere in sight when you Google Alessandro Orsini. Regards, Andreas JN466 14:26, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps you missed it, but I already explained that an evaluation between a hot news subject and a 17th century figure based solely on page-views is inherently flawed and does not measure long-term notability/significance. Especially not with such low numbers, which are rather unimpressive for both subjects. Also, I never said anything absolutist like "Most Italian users come here when faced with an empty article on Italian Wikipedia", I said "most of the accesses to his page come from Italian users", i.e. a percentage of Italian users, when faced with an empty article on Italian Wikipedia, come here inflating numbers. And I don't really think it is up for discussion that the vast majority of page views come from Italy (we can discuss about it, but I consider it obvious for multiple reasons).
    Cavarrone 15:11, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I don't see why an Italian user who enters "Alessandro Orsini" in en:WP should be led to a disambiguation page when it's pretty clear they're most likely looking for the sociologist (the probability is at least 10 to 1 and probably far higher, given that most pageviews for the cardinal's bios are likely to be people who were actually looking for the sociologist). Italian users deserve to have the same convenience as everyone else, don't they? Andreas JN466 21:10, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose the first. No objection to the second if a dab page is created. The cardinal has been notable for centuries. A primary topic swap with a figure twice found non-notable by the community seems unwise. Srnec (talk) 00:25, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose 1st, neutral on 2nd. Latter may be primary topic by long-term significance, former only by WP:RECENTISM. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:16, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Alessandro_Orsini_(sociologist)&oldid=1267599768"