User talk:The Four Deuces/Archives/2020/December

Marxism–Leninism
The lead of Marxism–Leninism has become a coatrack for criticism and the actions of communist party rule, another main topic. I have tried to reasonate with them and explain the issues as you did ("Since the article is about the ideology, the material does not belong there. This section reads more like criticism of Communism than criticism of Marxism-Leninism. For example, genocide in Poland was not part of the official ideology. There were no explaining when it was in society's interest and it was not used to justify government policy in Poland, where it would be most unpopular, even among Polish leaders"), but with no use. I think the issue may that we use Pons and Service, when they are discussing more communist party rule than Marxism–Leninism, the ideology, the supposed main topic of this article. Not even for Fascism do we mention the atrocities, genocides, political repression and the Holocaust; of course, that is not because Wikipedia is fascistic but because that lead is actually respecting the guidelines. Too bad the same standard and guidelines are not applied at Marxism–Leninism. I know that you mainly comment on talk pages, but I think it would be really helpful if you could write a draft for the lead and also tag unverified sources that does not support the text or say different things, and vice versa. Until here, we had The Spectator as a source in the lead. We should follow the literature such as Soviet Marxism-Leninism: The Decline of an Ideology, not any source about Communist regimes. Davide King (talk) 20:19, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

ARW Conway
Re the discussion on George intervening in recruitment - I suggest you ask for the exact page numbers where Conway makes this statement (so far, over 70% of the references I've checked in the article are wrong. Robinvp11 (talk) 17:57, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Local news for local people
Hi, thanks for your feedback about foreign local news sites. Is what you said about using only national/international sources for big news 100% sure? The problem I have is whether an opinion by an individual given in an interview with a local news web portal can be included in the article, or whether only those comments made by this individual to a national paper should be included. The individual is not very notable in himself, but the comments made to the national paper were reported in a couple of papers at least, whereas the much more detailed comments made to the local organisation seem not to have been.Boynamedsue (talk) 22:28, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Then the issue is weight not rs. There is little doubt that the local paper accurately reported what the person said, especially since major newspapers have taken the reporting as accurate. But then you would have to explain why comments made by a non-notable person and reported in a local newspaper are noteworthy enough to include in an article. TFD (talk) 23:49, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think you are right in terms of it being a notability issue. It's a slightly ambiguous one, there appear to have been two interviews, one with a national and a more detailed one with the local. It's further complicated by the fact the individual became a sort of go to talking head for one publication, but is still not notable enough to have his own article in his native wikipedia. Thanks again. Boynamedsue (talk) 13:08, 28 December 2020 (UTC)