Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Malik Shabazz (talk | contribs) at 02:38, 29 July 2018 (→Benjamin Feigenbaum: further reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

User:Malik Shabazz/Tabs

If I have left you a message: please answer on your talk page, as I am watching it. If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, so please add it to your watchlist. Please click here to leave me a new message.

Search the Archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 5 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 2 sections are present.

Nat Turner sources

Thanks for {cn} on "Nat Turner" lede. That is indeed a case where sources are needed upfront, and I revised the text to be "deaths of 55 white men, women, and children, for which Turner was tried, hanged and possibly beheaded" where the claim of "60 white" seems to have been reduced, and the issue of "beheaded" needs more scholarly sources, as events after the hanging. Thanks again. -Wikid77 (talk) 16:36, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

My edit summary must not have been sufficiently clear. Turner was never tried for "causing the deaths of 60 white men, women, and children" (nor 55). He was tried for insurrection. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 19:34, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Category:People associated with Malcolm X has been nominated for discussion

Category:People associated with Malcolm X, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. --woodensuperman 09:08, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Benjamin Feigenbaum

Thanks for your edits, I agree it is unsupported to describe him as an anarchist. He is mentioned and acquainted with many anarchists and newspapers, but I am searching for proper proof, e.g. writing or formal organizational membership to indicate such. The publication Arbeter Fraynd, of which he was an editor of oscillated between exclusively anarchist, to socialist etc.. Shushugah (talk) 16:44, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi Shushugah. Any reliable source that describes Feigenbaum as an anarchist would be sufficient. I'll go through the indices of some of the books I have about anarchism and anarchists to see if they mention him. — MShabazz /_Stalk 17:32, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi again Shushugah. While I didn't find any reference to Feigenbaum being an anarchist, I found three things about him that may be of interest to you.

• In his book Anarchist Portraits, historian Paul Avrich has a chapter about Jewish anarchism in the United States. He mentions the movement's hostility to religion, particularly to traditional Judaism (they would hold balls on Yom Kippur). Among the pamphlets and tracts they circulated, Avrich writes, was "Benjamin Feigenbaum's Passover Hagadah According to a New Version, was imported from London and distributed in large quantities." The Kate Sharpley Library lists many of Feigenbaum's anti-religious tracts in its Yiddish Anarchist Bibliography. Evidently they were widely reprinted. Of Feigenbaum's "hagadah", Avrich wrote earlier in The Russian Anarchists: "... an early piece of anarchist literature which Der Arbayter Fraynd had published in 1886 in London but labeled 'Vilna' to deceive the tsarist police. In the form of a Passover Hagadah, or prayerbook, the pamphlet set forth the traditional 'Four Questions,' which begin, 'Wherefore is this night of Passover different from all other nights in the year?' but gave them a radical twist: 'Wherefore are we different from Shmuel the factory owner, Meier the banker, Zorekh the moneylender, and Reb Todres the rabbi?'" Let me know if you want bibliographic information to cite either of the Avrich books in the article.
• The New York Times ran an account in 1906 of a parade in New York to commemorate the anniversary of the first Russian Revolution. It mentions some of the speakers: John C. Chase, Abraham Cahan, Meyer London, and "B. Feigenbaum", among them. Let me know if you'd like me to send you a copy of the article, which only mentions Feigenbaum's name, or if you want bibliographic information to cite it as a source in the article.
• Finally, in 1932, the Times ran an obituary when Feigenbaum died. As was the style, it has four headlines that summarize the article: "B. FEIGENBAUM DIES; SOCIALIST LEADER. One of Founders of Workmen's Circle Long Associated With The Daily Forward. STUDENT OF THE TALMUD. Formerly Gave Lectures in Evening Public Schools Here to Popularize Scientific Subjects." Let me know if you'd like me to send you a copy of the article.

— Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 02:38, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Reverted edit on Iggy Pop

Hello Malik Shabazz, I recently added Underworld as an associated act for Iggy Pop, but you reverted the edit, describing it as "not significant to Pop's career, as required by template instructions". May I ask as to what constitutes for something to be significant to an artist's career? For example, there is Slash in the associated acts parameter on Pop's article, but it seems that Pop has sung vocals only on one Slash track. Can you please explain, how is this more significant to Pop's career than his collaboration with Underworld on four tracks? Is there a measure Misplaced Pages uses on these matters that I'm not aware of? According to Template:Infobox_musical_artist#associated_acts, this field can include "Acts with which this act has collaborated on multiple occasions, or on an album, or toured with as a single collaboration act playing together". Can you please explain the rationale behind your edit? Thank you. --Λeternus 20:48, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi Aeternus. Editors can, and no doubt do, argue about which "associated acts" are significant and notable to an artist's career. My basic criterion is very simple: if the collaboration with the "associated act" isn't important enough to be mentioned elsewhere in the article, it's not important enough to be in the infobox. We can argue about additional inclusion criteria, but to me, that's a basic requirement. Because Underworld isn't mentioned in the Iggy Pop article, they fail the basic inclusion requirement. — MShabazz /_Stalk 20:58, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

According to your interpretation of this criterion, if I go forward and mention this collaboration in the body of the article (by using reliable sources such as the review at The Guardian), then this grants automatic eligibility for it to be mentioned in the associated acts parameter? Doesn't sound right to me. However, with all due respect, I think your interpretation isn't based on any Misplaced Pages guidelines, but mine is, so I kindly ask you to add Underworld back to the associated acts parameter. Thanks. --Λeternus 21:09, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

That's not quite what I wrote, but I won't remove it from the infobox if the collaboration is mentioned in the article. As you know, nothing on Misplaced Pages is "automatic", and I can't guarantee that another editor won't remove it.

I don't know whether any Misplaced Pages policies or guidelines specifically support my viewpoint, but this is my rationale: the infobox is part of the lead section, which is supposed to summarize the rest of the article, not include information that isn't discussed elsewhere in the article. Likewise, the infobox should summarize facts in the article and not include facts that don't appear elsewhere in the article. — MShabazz /_Stalk 21:31, 28 July 2018 (UTC)