Talk:William Rivers Pitt

See also links
Why are the pages listed under the See also included on this page? I don't really see a direct relationship between this page and those in the list. I would remove the entire list. ~ UDScott (talk) 20:17, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Om777om (talk) 02:46, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * They all go together & are related to Pitt & his work. Generally, pretty much anyone interested in what this man and other progressive/truth to power, pro-democracy/power to the people vs. the corporations authors are saying, would also be interested in those topics. Thanks for asking.
 * Alternative media
 * Fake news
 * Nineteen Eighty-Four
 * Oligarchy
 * Propaganda
 * Truth
 * Tyranny
 * Howard Zinn: The Coming Revolt of the Guards


 * You forgot The: he used the word the in many of his writings. ~ Ningauble (talk) 18:27, 17 February 2019 (UTC)


 * My point in asking was that I do not believe they should be listed here. You could say that about any number of pages here (that they have some tangential relationship with many other pages), but I fail to see the value in listing them here. Again, I feel that the entire list should be removed. ~ UDScott (talk) 19:31, 17 February 2019 (UTC)


 * @UDScott & Om777om: Sorry my response was unclear. To elaborate – Yes, they should not be listed here: these are not links to information about Pitt at Wikiquote. You could indeed say so about other pages here: as I did say so, to no avail, at Talk:Yellow vests movement about "mostly tangential or entirely unrelated" links. I too fail to see the value of lists like this (and elsewhere) that appear to index topics of the contributor's interest. ~ Ningauble (talk) 21:04, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

talk & UDScott :
 * So sorry. I was thinking "See also" was the place for inhouse links to relevant/related topics. Was basing that on the assumption that some seekers of knowledge might want to know more about this author's particular field: alternative media/alternative views, propaganda, tyranny & oligarchy. A few brief searches for an official policy on "See also" have so far met with negative results. If the topic has been addressed & either of you know where to find it, please share it here. Thanks   Om777om (talk) 22:53, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The problem is that while in some cases, a relationship between a person and another topic may be obvious (like between Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Green New Deal), this is not always the case - and sometimes the relationship is so general or vague as to be meaningless. In fact, by creating links to pages that are only tangentially related to the person, you are inherently expressing a POV. To avoid this, we only include pages that have a direct link to the person. Thanks. ~ UDScott (talk) 15:32, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * It's difficult to really nail down criteria for see also sections. It's always going to be somewhat subjective. In a very general sense, they should be broadly thematically relevant, both in terms of the type of article and the subject matter. I wouldn't expect to see 1984 here. It's an article on a book. I would however not be surprised to see it on Brave New World. They're both older fiction novels on a distopian future incorporating aspects of modern culture and the impacts of fantastic technology on society. They overlap in more than one way. I would expect to see Oligarchy on the page for Democracy and/or Monarchy. Again, broad overlaps thematically. I wouldn't really expect to see a book by Howard Zinn here, although it may be appropriate to include the main article for Howard Zinn, again, if there are broad thematic overlaps between the two, both biographies, similar profession, similar areas of expertise, etc.  G M G  talk  16:15, 20 February 2019 (UTC)