Talk:La Salute è in voi

Page count

 * D'Attilio 1982, p. 81: "At first, in 1906, it was quietly listed on the back page among the many other titles of the Library of the Social Studies Group. ... pamphlet of forty-eight pages"
 * Avrich 1996, p. 98: "In 1905 he published a forty-six page bomb manual"
 * p. 229fn17: "Cronaca Sovversiva, February 10, 1905, June 21, 1906; D'Attilio, 'La Salute è in voi,' pp. 81–82; Fideli, Luigi Galleani, p. 54 ..."
 * Larabee 2015, p. 39: "the forty-eight page manual"
 * p. 37: "In 1906 ... began running advertisements on its back pages for a book ..."
 * Relevant footnotes are about other topics and don't attribute D'Attilio


 * IISG archives (WC): 47 pages
 * LC Paul Avrich papers (WC): "6 unnumbered pages, 45 pages, 2 unnumbered pages" (the notes look like they're coming from Avrich's own description because they say the pamphlet was published in 1905)

Ultimately, I don't think it really matters, but I was comfortable going with Larabee, whether it's sourced to her or D'Attilio. If we go with Avrich, then we'd need to take the 1905 publication date too, which seemed awry. czar 05:24, 16 January 2022 (UTC)


 * why can't people just count properly the first time augh
 * Additional problem with the three library counts (the two you mention, plus the Ruhr), now that I think about it: it's literally impossible for a book to have an odd number of pages. They can if you're not counting an unnumbered verso, but the LoC records unnumbered pages too. (Unless there is some weird modernist convention to not count the back side of the last numbered page if it's odd? if so: modernists, why) Excitingly, IISG counts 8 unnumbered pages and 47 numbered ones. Conclusion: book is cursed.
 * If you asked me to bet money, I'd say 46 pp. But since we're not doing that, 48 is the winner by number of reports, so that's the one to go with after all.
 * I look forward to someday visiting one of these archives, asking if they would kindly let this foreign researcher see their bomb-making manual ("I need... to count the pages. It's for the Internet."), and finding that it is in fact forty-nine pages long. -- asilvering (talk) 06:26, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I've been to the Avrich archives a few times. LC staff are super helpful and yes a little unsettling but also delightful to read about anarchism in a pristine temple of knowledge. czar  06:40, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Hah, thanks to the IP who posted a pdf of the whole thing, we can see why people got confused, and also that Avrich is correct: 45 numbered pages, 46 pages of text. (47 pages if you count the index, which I suppose the IISG does, which is quite odd.) 48 makes no sense at all. A normal count would be viii, 46, ii. -- asilvering (talk) 22:45, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I note this is the number I said I'd bet money on. Just saying. -- asilvering (talk) 22:46, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * And one for good luck czar  03:19, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

S&V parting thoughts

 * D'Attilio 1982, p. 89: "they, themselves used its words in an appeal to their anarchist comrades. They appeared in the first number of the Defense Committee paper, La Protesta Umana (The Human Protest) that was printed shortly after the Massachusetts Supreme Court had denied motions for a new trial. (It is part of Felicani's Sacco-Vanzetti collection and can be seen on display as part of the exhibition that accompanies this conference.) The large headline reads, 'Our prisoners warn us La Salute è in voi (Health is Within You).' The statement of Sacco and Vanzetti, entitled 'The Testament of those about to Die," written by Vanzetti and signed by both, ends with the words, 'Remember La Salute è in Voi.
 * Larabee 2015, p. 46: "when Sacco and Vanzetti were denied their appeal and realized that they were on their way to the electric chair, they issued a final missive to their supporters, ending with the call, 'La Salute è in voi. (not expanded in footnote)

Note that the Protesta Umana is the 1920s one from Boston, not the 1900s one from Chicago. czar 06:03, 16 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I think I found their final letter (Aug 21, 1927, two days before their execution) and... it doesn't mention "Remember La Salute è in Voi" so I might be looking in the wrong timeline. There were two Supreme Court failed appeals according to our article: May 12, 1926, and April 5, 1927. czar  06:36, 16 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Case closed: Yes, it should be in the story that follows File:Protesta Umana, June 1926.jpg according to Avrich, p. 212. That doesn't resolve why some claim it was said shortly before their deaths (sourced to D'Attilio), despite there being a year between their May/June 1926 reaction and their 1927 execution. Also unsure how the letter got to the Defense Committee but I didn't find it in the Felicani digital collections (which are painful to search). czar  07:53, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Photos
@Buidhe, I'm struggling to understand your position. Since when are (free) images of the authors of a work "decorative"? The photos' subjects and their pertinence are prominently discussed in the text and the photos themselves are free, not afoul of fair use rules. Their association should be clear. Also, I imagine that you know, per WP:BRD, that your second reversion is edit warring. Please bring your contention to discussion here rather than reverting back and forth. czar 16:43, 15 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Per MOS:IMAGES, "Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative." I don't think it's unreasonable to ask an explanation for why you think these images are contributing to readers' understanding of the article. So far none have been provided. The default is non-inclusion of content that is disputed in good faith. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  17:12, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how to make it any clearer. Molinari and Galleani are commonly believed to be the authors of the work, the subject of the article, and the image caption said as much. The image caption is backed by the text that explains how Galleani was involved, how his newspaper published the work, how his Galleanisti followers were involved in its dissemination, how he was friends with Molinari, and how Molinari's prior work was a predecessor to this handbook. It's all laid out. Given their prominence and relevance to the topic, I think it's more than reasonable to depict who they are with free use images. It's all there in the text and my edit summary. Please revert your edit. czar  18:04, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I still don't understand how the images would help a reader better understand the article subject. If there is no encyclopedic information being conveyed I don't think they belong in the article, especially since the licensing on the second image is questionable. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  00:13, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * With respect, if your case is that the authors of a work (that is the subject of the article) are "decorative" in context of the article, I think that discussion needs to take place in a wider forum. It is very common on Wikipedia to show the author of a work in articles about the work.
 * The acceptable licensing of those works is a separate matter. Happy to discuss. czar  01:14, 16 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Pictures of the authors are obviously appropriate and normal. The picture of Galleani seems unclear and not as good as the lead picture in his article.  Perhaps we should use that instead? Andrew🐉(talk) 09:53, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The Galleani mugshot (from his article) has unclear provenance and comes from later in his life. We can discuss it at Talk:Luigi Galleani. The younger photo has the advantage of showing him closer to his age when this pamphlet was created. czar  11:30, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

TFA
If this were to run on the main page with WP:TFA, I'd suggest August 12th as Galleani's birthday. czar 07:12, 8 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Requested May 1st for next year after Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/August 2023. czar  16:38, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Book Infobox and template with book full text
This refers to my edit (8.26pm, 23 January 2024), deleted by "Ian Rose" (9.17pm, 23 January 2024). As I stated: why wouldn't a Book Infobox be needed in a page that describe a book? It is a template specifically designed for this type of pages. And why did he also deleted the full text of the book that I included in the page? The book full text is in the public domain, it is of sure interest here, and it was recently added to Wikimedia Commons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.236.180.121 (talk) 10:14, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Per WP:Infobox, The use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article. Whether to include an infobox, which infobox to include, and which parts of the infobox to use, is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article. This article was promoted to featured article status without an infobox, so adding one should be determined by discussion and consensus on the article talk page. As to the text, I missed that, and it's one reason why people are encouraged to use edit summaries to highlight what they've changed. In any case the formatting was incorrect, Czar has shown how it should've been done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:23, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Adding a Book Infobox to a page describing a book is common practice. It aims to give the reader an immediate overview of the most essential details of the book. I don't see how adding a Book Infobox could damage the quality of the page, to the point of even cause it to lose its featured article status. If you have any reasons why you think the page could be damaged by adding a Book Infobox I invite you to state them clearly, please. 95.236.180.121 (talk) 22:36, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The documentation linked above shows that it depends on content. The infobox parameters relevant to a book are not relevant here, as they read as factoids that can easily be understood from the existing lede paragraphs. czar  00:36, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I still think that the inclusion of a Book Infobox cannot degrade the quality of the page, but simply provide the reader with the opportunity to gain a more immediate overview of the book's most essential data. The reader will obviously then delve deeper into said data by reading the text of the page (since Book Infoboxes are not intended to replace the text of the page). However, if this is deemed superfluous or redundant by the majority here, do not include any Book Infobox. 95.236.180.121 (talk) 14:50, 26 January 2024 (UTC)


 * An infobox seems appropriate for basic bibliographic information. For example, the edit which was reverted created an infobox which gave the number of pages.  The lead does not contain this information and so is not an adequate substitute.  Even the body of the article seems weak on detail.  For example, it says that the pamphlet was "tall and oblong" but doesn't give the physical dimensions.  See First Folio for an example of an uncontroversial infobox. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:19, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
 * First Folio doesn't give the physical dimensions in its infobox either. This isn't crucial information for the lede or the article. The article reflects how it's covered in secondary sources by including in prose the pamphlet's page length and general description of shape. czar  11:54, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Proposal for changing the title of the page
In the title of the book the "s" is not capitalized, the "e" is apostrophized, not accented (which is a spelling error in Italian, but on the cover of the book the title is written that way), furthermore there is an exclamation mark at the end. For this reason I propose to change the title of the page from "La Salute è in voi" to "La salute e' in voi!". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.236.180.121 (talk) 15:14, 26 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Hi IP, it is not the purpose of a Wikipedia article title to represent the typography of the original book. For an obvious example, we have First Folio and not "Mr. WILLIAM SHAKESPEARES COMEDIES, HISTORIES, & TRAGEDIES. Publiſhed according to the True Originall Copies." -- asilvering (talk) 23:32, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Welp, it seems like almost all my contributions or suggestions here are unnecessary, for a reason or another. Too bad I can't delete that reference to that pdf file. You all could have gone on amiably for a few more months arguing about the correct number of pages in the book, an entertainment I have deprived you of. Bye bye. 95.236.180.121 (talk) 00:23, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
 * IP, I'm sorry this has been discouraging. The thing is, you've been making suggestions and edits to a Featured Article - this is an article that has had a lot of editorial work and discussion put into it already. Very few articles on Wikipedia are anywhere close to "done", but this is one of them. There are loads of articles that need lots of work, where you have an opportunity to really shape how the article turns out. If you're interested in books related to anarchism, there's a whole category of them that are at most only a few sentences long here: Category:Anarchism book stubs. Actually, the Anarchism Wikiproject is currently trying to reach a de-stubbing goal, so that kind of work would be really appreciated! There's a whole list of the project's stubs here: . -- asilvering (talk) 04:05, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Another way to put it is that we've already given consideration to these thoughts but that doesn't foreclose upon the many other valuable contributions you can make to Wikipedia where you are very welcome, such as the drive mentioned above. Please don't be discouraged by one or two initial suggestions not sticking. czar  04:40, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Protesta Umana, June 1926.jpg
 * I agree with the proposal. The article doesn't seem to explain the issue and amending the original punctuation without explanation seems bizarre and confusing.  Note that:
 * The Italian Wikipedia has the title as La salute e' in voi!. We should not try to be holier than the Pope.
 * The newspaper headline pictured in the article (right) has it with an apostrophe
 * Worldcat has the apostrophised form too: La salute e' in voi!
 * Andrew🐉(talk) 07:45, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The secondary sources (Avrich, Gage, Larabee, Attilio) commonly use é not e'. I don't think there is any issue, whether typographic limitation or something else, to be explained. The Italian Wikipedia article is translated from this one and how they title their articles is their prerogative. czar  12:04, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

TFA blurb suggestions
Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/May 2024 czar  14:21, 21 April 2024 (UTC)