Talk:List of pamphlet wars

This page should not be speedy deleted because...
This page should not be speedily deleted because this is hardly a controversial topic. The pamphlet war is one of the most important tools used during the Age of Enlightenment. See Pamphlet wars. This is simply a list of some of the most famous, just as there is a list of basil cultivars or any other such list on a given topic. --Kaz (talk) 18:38, 24 November 2018 (UTC)


 * True, the subject may not be, but what to include may be. For example, many of the entries on this list are not pamphlet wars, they are real wars that involved some pamphlets. Thus the list looks like OR.Slatersteven (talk) 18:41, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I have included a half dozen high-quality references that explicitly refer to those given entries as pamphlet wars. Furthermore, real wars often did involve pamphlet wars. There's no magical exclusionary principle that says you can't use the term "war" in two different contexts in one topic. Your objection, now, appears to only be a challenge to some of the specific entries, which you should then have addressed individually. In fact, there is no question at all that pamphlet wars existed, that they were an important part of history, and that a list of them could be accurately compiled. —Kaz (talk) 18:45, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is the fact that most of these are not sources, and their inclusion as " seminal pamphlet wars in history" looks like OR.Slatersteven (talk) 18:48, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * No, it looks like you're ignorant of the topic, and should have bothered to do a little research before jumping the gun and flagging something that you do not understand. There is nothing about this that looks like OR if you are even vaguely competent on the topic at hand. The ones that are not directly sourced are wikified to the articles they reference, which have plenty of sources on those exact topics. And, once again, you are clearly only objecting to specific entries, which a good editor would have addressed directly, instead of attempting a wholesale censorship of the article, when it clearly does contain non-controversial information in an accepted format. — Kaz (talk) 18:52, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * What makes them seminal, what sources say these are? Also are they famous, who said they are? Also you may link to articles but (for example) the Bishops' Wars makes no mention of a pamphlet war, and thus is unsourced. Thus is why I say this is littered with what criteria has been used for inclusion?Slatersteven (talk) 18:55, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Do you not know how lists work? When I made the List of basil cultivars, I didn't go off of an official list of which basil cultivars are important enough. I simply added all of the ones I knew off the top of my head (having a dozen different ones in my own garden), and then dug around for a few more that were sufficiently important to have a lot of documentation. That's how lists work. The contents of the list absolutely do not have to be produced by some official, objective, secondary source. I do think I should have called the article "noteworthy pamphlet wars" instead of "famous", which is a less encyclopedic term. But, once again, you are not in any way challenging the premise of the article itself, but specific pieces of content. Therefore attacking the entire article is bad editing, and you should switch to actually fixing it, instead. — Kaz (talk) 19:02, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Your objection to the Bishop's War entry illustrates the main problem here, your incompetence on the topic at hand. And a bit of laziness, because I did link to Milton's antiprelatical tracts, his contribution to that pamphlet war, significant enough to have its own entry. If you knew anything about the topic, or were responsible enough to have read over it more carefully instead of flagging this article seconds after it was first created, you'd be aware of that and not demonstrating your ignorance in this discussion. — Kaz (talk) 19:08, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Which does not call it a pamphlet war (by the way wars are two sided), so how notable is it as one. This is what I mean by OR.Slatersteven (talk) 19:11, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * And that is what I mean by your incompetence on the topic, and bad editing in attacking the entire article, instead of fixing that specific entry. You are again objecting based on your superficial skimming and ignorance of the topic, AND are trying to remove everything because you consider that one entry to be questionable. — Kaz (talk) 19:13, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * There is any number of such entries, plus OR about their importance, their similarity to blogs. There is the irrelevance about the internet. There is assumptions about their impact of history. It is not just one entry.,Slatersteven (talk) 19:15, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * It's certainly not the whole premise of the article. You could have been a responsible editor and worked to fix those things or flag them, instead of trying to censor the entire premise, when it's in no way controversial. And further, you say a war has two sides, yet the entry for the Bishop's War specifically mentions one of his opponents, William Laud, an opposing pamphleteer. If you had any knowledge of the subject, or were responsible enough to check when you wondered, we wouldn't be having this debate, we'd be working on raising the article to a higher standard, which is always a good thing. — Kaz (talk) 19:21, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * No it was yet another OR issue, reading more like your essay and opinions then a list based upon third party sources. Which was the point I made at the start of this. The list (as it stands =) is now better), but I am not sure what it really adds or why we need it.Slatersteven (talk) 19:40, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The list WAS based on third party sources. You could easily have added to the ones that did not have them, seeing that a half dozen did. But instead you tried to delete the whole thing without even allowing debate. If you hadn't been absurd enough to do it seconds after creation, while I was still editing the article to add citations, I wouldn't even have noticed and been able to stop it. And there is no list on Wikipedia that one could not claim "I don't know what it adds or why we need it", because lists are, by their nature and intent, just a gathering of summarized information from elsewhere on Wikipedia. They don't even generally need their own citation, unless someone is trying to wikilawyer them. It's akin to demanding that a disambiguation page have citations. The only thing a normal list "adds" is that it brings information together in one place. It's not SUPPOSED to "add" anything or be "needed" in any other sense. List of Led Zeppelin songs written or inspired by others does not "add" any information not on the pages for those individual songs. But it gathers them all into one place, in a way unique to Wikipedia. And that's what this list does. There is important information about pamphlet wars around, but it's scattered hither and yon. Now it will be in one place. Lists can also include information not sufficient to have its own article, like the Bank of Ireland Charter and Queen Anne's Governor, and that's why I did specifically add citations to those. Although I am planning to make articles for a few of them, if there's enough source material on the net. — Kaz (talk) 20:02, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

cites
Need page numbers, and cite without one can be challenged.Slatersteven (talk) 19:18, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * More evidence that you're simply wikilawyering. Page added. —Kaz (talk) 19:23, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * No its called wp:cs to aid wp:v. We need page numbers so we can check what the source says.Slatersteven (talk) 19:27, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, except that you've demonstrated that you don't care about verifiability, per se, you simply want to censor the whole article, and pulled out bizarre nit-picking of individual entries in an absurd attempt to justify removing the whole thing, aka wikilawyering. What I'd like to know is your actual motivation for wanting the entire concept silenced.—Kaz (talk) 19:30, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Odd then I have not done anything to the actually cited entries. Nor have I nominated the parent article for deletion, just a somewhat ORy looking list (which is not the whole subject).Slatersteven (talk) 19:39, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Then either you are bad at judging what is OR, or more likely you had some issue with this list en specific. There is no question that noteworthy pamphlet wars exist. Therefore no question that a list could be made of them. Even if you considered every single entry on this particular list questionable (which you did not), you therefore would have no cause for a speedy deletion, nor to think it's OR. Especially when six of the entries did have citations to good academic work referring to them as "pamphlet wars". Although, to be clear, something doesn't have to be officially called a pamphlet war, in order to be one...obviously. — Kaz (talk) 19:48, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes...they do. That is what I have been talking about. We need RS to say it, we do not get to decide.Slatersteven (talk) 19:51, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

page move
to List of pamphlet wars, this is a more accurate and less POVy title.Slatersteven (talk) 19:52, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with that, I actually prefer it, but had felt that it was better to not imply the list was exhaustive. — Kaz (talk) 20:03, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * If there's no objection, I'll just move it myself. — Kaz (talk) 20:08, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Just for the record, I did the move. — Kaz (talk) 20:51, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

while these could not be widely available via the internet they could "go viral",
Read a bit like teaching you grandmother to suck eggs. Also its off as they could not (in any number) be distributed via the internet, as it did not exist. I am not sure what this really adds, beyond stating the obvious (awkwardly). This either needs removing or a massive rewrite (and I am not sure what benefit retention has).Slatersteven (talk) 19:55, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * As with the citation I added, the parallel between the internet and previous information revolutions, especially pamphleteering with the advent of movable type, has been observed by various historians. This is, obviously, of interest not just to historians, but to people who use blogs or the internet, one or two of whom may also use Wikipedia and read this article. I'm fine with trying to make the wording more encyclopedic, and will continue coming up with sources for the point, which are plentiful. — Kaz (talk) 20:06, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Well then it should, be removed until it can by worded encyclopedicly, as this time it just reads...well plain daft.Slatersteven (talk) 20:50, 24 November 2018 (UTC)