Misplaced Pages

Greetings Misplaced Pages Library members! Welcome to the inaugural edition of Books and Bytes, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of Books and Bytes, please add your name to the subscriber's list. There's lots of news this month for the Misplaced Pages Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved...

New positions: Sign up to be a Misplaced Pages Visiting Scholar, or a Volunteer Misplaced Pages Librarian

Misplaced Pages Loves Libraries: Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted.

New subscription donations: Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis??

New ideas: OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges

News from the library world: Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY

Announcing WikiProject Open: WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions

New ways to get involved: Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration

Read the full newsletter

Thanks for reading! All future newsletters will be opt-in only. Have an item for the next issue? Leave a note for the editor on the Suggestions page. --The Interior 19:55, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

LewRockwell.com

TFD, we haven't always seen eye to eye, but I'm generally impressed by your commitment to reasoned discourse and the use of reliable (i.e. mainstream/peer-reviewed) sources. We discussed the WP:Fringe nature of Murray Rothbard's economics on the Murray Rothbard page, and I've encountered similar material in relation LewRockwell.com, regarding articles it has published promoting AIDS Denial and claims that vaccines cause austism. I want to make sure I present this content neutrally on the LRC page while not white-washing the fringe nature of the material (it is covered by multiple RS). Care to give me a hand? Steeletrap (talk) 22:02, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

(You can see what I've posted thus far on the entry, both under responses and content.) Steeletrap (talk) 22:03, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you

Just to say a quick thank you for your intervention. I'd be grateful if you could - and have the time - keep an eye on what is happening at Tommy Robinson (activist) while I try to sort out the editorial mess that's happened. I'll be working on it the next hour or two (though I'm desperate to have some supper so may eat first!). Alfietucker (talk) 20:14, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I would be grateful too if you in particular can explain why it's WP:WYNTHESIS properly, because the way it is being applied is confusing me. Alfietucker cannot explain it properly. The policy says that if a conclusion is made its WP:SYN but I don't know what conclusion you and him and referring to. StuffandTruth (talk) 20:33, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

The conclusion is that Singh's case is relevant to Robinson. As well as being an EDL member, Singh is presumably a Sikh, and it would be wrong to add mention of his conviction to every article about people who happen to be Sikhs. You will probably argue that the two cases are different, but that is a matter of judgment, i.e., synthesis. So the connection must be made in sources. Alfietucker, it is on my watchlist and I will keep it there. TFD (talk) 20:52, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Nomination of Timeline of Rob Ford video scandal for deletion

The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Timeline of Rob Ford video scandal (2nd nomination) 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 high-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 notice from the top of the article. Mike (talk) 16:08, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Unsigned on Rothbard

Hi TFD. Could you please add a signature to your recent post on MR? Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 19:08, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Done. TFD (talk) 19:15, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Canada article

Thanks for clarifying my point in Wikipedeese (which I'm pretty sure is not the official lanugage of the English Misplaced Pages). I left for a few years due to silliness like that, and mine's rusty. Knoper (talk) 13:38, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

RSN Hoppe

Hi TFD. Regarding -- I'm wondering whether you intended to address this to me and if so what I might have said that prompted this reply? At any rate, some further differentiation of the principle you're advancing here would be helpful. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 13:41, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Right-wing terrorism

I would define right-wing terrorism as terrorism committed for advances in right-wing beliefs. Any righ-wing beliefs. Right wing is conservative. Conservative is preserving the existing social order. Ulster loyalism and British unionism are for preserving the existing social order in Northern Ireland. Ulster loyalist paramilitaries support these right-wing ideologies. Also, many support white supremacy and fascism. Parties backing Ulster loyalism and British unionism are right-wing and conservative. Also, the Provisional IRA and INLA are mentioned on Left-wing terrorism. These loyalist paramilitaries are the most active right-wing terrorists and one of the best examples. Reverend Mick man34 ♣ (talk) 18:46, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

The provos and INLA are mentioned in "Left-wing terrorism" in a section that compares left-wing terrorism with other forms. It does not say they were left-wing terrorists. The conflict in Ireland pre-dates the left-right spectrum, and it would be ahistorical to cast Jacobites as "left-wing" and English Republicans as "right-wing". One could equally argue that the Irish republicans were right-wing, because they advocated a return to the status quo ante, viz., the re-unification of Ireland. Similarly the U.S. and other civil wars would have to be re-cast as left-right disputes.

Most importantly, sources on terrorism cast the conflict as an ethnic/nationalist dispute. To them, the conflict was about whether NI should remain in the UK or be returned to Ireland. If they are correct, then one would expect most terrorists to agree to negotiate and to cease terrorist activities once the national issue was settled, which is what happened.

Sources do not say that "right-wing terrorism" means "right-wing"+"terrorism". It means terrorism with a right-wing objective. Keeping NI in the UK is not an inherently right-wing objective, even if its adherents were mainly right-wing.

TFD (talk) 19:44, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Notification

Hi, if you haven't already, please take note of the details of Template:Austrian economics enforcement. This is a general reminder, and not given in response to misconduct. I've decided to err on the side of caution to try to make sure that people involved in this topic area are aware of the discretionary sanctions. Consider this a "no-fault" notification. If you're already aware (which you probably are), feel free to remove this message. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:46, 25 November 2013 (UTC)