Talk:Galleanisti

Bresci Circle action

The second paragraph of the section currently says: "Several months after the 1914 Ludlow Massacre, the type of capitalist violence that incensed Galleanists, a group of anarchists carried a bomb to the Tarrytown estate of the Ludlow coal mine owner, John D. Rockefeller, in July 1914. They miscalculated, both in failing to trigger the device and since Rockefeller was out of town.[7]"

The problems with that is John D. Rockefeller Jr. was the controlling owner of the mine, per that article. His father, John D. Rockefeller, was apparently not in control of the mine. The latter article states: "The United States Commission on Industrial Relations conducted extensive hearings, singling out John D. Rockefeller Jr. and the Rockefellers' relationship with Bowers for special attention."

However, it's not clear where the Bresci Circle activists took their bomb: To the residence of the Senior or Junior? Please help to clarify this and share your thoughts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kirby777 (talk • contribs) 02:49, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Page was moved from Galleanists to Galleanisti

This page was moved from Galleanists to Galleanisti by User:Czar with the explanation that "this appears to be the more common formation." However, the common name is not the full criteria as it comes with the restrictions that the name needs to be recognizable, natural and use English. Hoyt's PHd dissertation quotes the label "Galleanisti" and indicate those who were so labelled did not use the term, themselves. Instead, calling themselves subversives, though using the equivalent Italian term. The term "Galleanisti" is the Italian formation for "followers of Galleani", while the English formation would be "Galleanists". I am not clear if "Galleanisti" is really the commonly recognizable English term used in [English] sources, although I recognize the term, I see it as an Italian word, that has the English translation of "Galleanists". I know this is a single letter difference, but I think this page move should have been discussed, first, perhaps even proposing this as a formal page move request. However, now that the change has been made, I think the article needs to point out that both terms are applicable and both have been used in Wikipedia, so the article needs to discuss both word options as well as the etymology of the concept and settle on which usage ought to be used in Wikipedia in relation to Galleani and his followers activities. Basically, if one is going to move a page, be prepared to follow through and clean up the consequential mess in other articles. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 03:27, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

I wrote the article and I put in the category rename request so, with respect, I am "following through". Sources say both Galleanisti and Galleanists so I think calling that a "mess" is overblown. As I said in the rename explanation, it's based on my read of the sources. Hoyt's dissertation (there are more reliable sources) and Tejada 2012 (the most recent Sacco and Vanzetti study) both use "Galleanisti". Hoyt's is titled "they called them Galleanisti" because they didn't call themselves either Galleanisti or Galleanists—it is a term applied retroactively to that group. No source makes a point of discussing the difference between the terms so I don't think it warrants discussion in the article. What exactly is the issue here? czar 03:43, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

@Czar: The issue is that one of Wikipedia's naming conventions is to use English for an article title. Some of the references relevant to the subject of this article use the term "Galleanists" - For example: America's Forgotten Terrorists:The Rise and Fall of the Galleanists by Jeffrey D. Simon. While Hoyt and others do use "Galleanisti", but often put the term in quotations, suggesting the word is borrowed from Italian. And some, such as hyperleap.com and Howtopronounce.com use both terms, but prefer the English "Galleanists" over the Italian "Galleanisti" If one performs Google searches for both "Galleanists" and "Galleanisti", more results are returned for "Galleanists" than "Galleanisti", although the Wikipedia article still appears at the top of both results. I think that the better English title for this article is "Galleanists", while "Galleanisti" is a better title in Italian. Relying on just sources that use "Galleanisti" to justify the title of the article, overlooks many sources that use "Galleanists" or the singular "Galleanist". The article needs to explain the different terms used in sources, for the readers, whichever term is used as an article title. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 02:43, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

We don't use WP:GHITS to determine the common name. Simon's book was just released so will look forward to reading it, but otherwise the major monographs (in the English language) on the topic use Galleanisti as the common name. I see no abrogation of policy. czar 04:40, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

@Czar: I am not using WP:GHITS to determine notability, or otherwise. Rather I am using a WP:GOOGLECHECK to find sources that use "Galleanists" or "Galleanisti", or both terms, to determine what language is being used. Both terms appear to be used in approximately equal measure. But, according to some sources, "Galleanists" is the natural English word, while "Galleanisti" is naturally an Italian word that has been borrowed into the English language sources that use that term. The available sources use both terms, so, for completeness, both terms need to be covered by the article. There are several criteria for naming articles and while using a commonly recognizable name is one using English is another. My point is that the English word "Galleanists" is more likely to be recognizable and natural to English Wikipedia readers, rather than that some recent sources prefer to use the Italian "Galleanisti", which may well be more culturally correct. In any event BOTH words need to be explained in the article, whatever the article title. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 11:54, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

That sounds fine—I've added a parenthetical in the lede. czar 00:29, 22 May 2022 (UTC)