Talk:Itinerant

Comments

dunno whether to add all of these articles to Category:Homelessness, so im just going to add this one and let the primary stewards sort it out. —popefauvexxiii 22:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Since the gospels make no mention of most of his life, it's probably not appropriate to describe Jesus as itinerant - exept in the last year or three of his life. Hence the frequent reference to "itinerant preacher" in modern writings. Rklawton (talk) 16:25, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Should this be an article, a list, or a disambiguation? It has traits of all three. --UberScienceNerd _{Talk Contributions} 20:39, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Itinerants and Nomads

So, if there a difference between Itinerants and nomads? I'm not seeing one, other than the kinda implied modern vs ancient distinction. A merge is probably appropriate. The only thing the article could add to the one on nomads, tho, is the list of cultures. The list is individuals has little future and is completely uncited. Dondegroovily (talk) 13:28, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Merge Proposal

This article should be merged into Nomad, unless someone can convincingly argue that there's a difference. Dondegroovily (talk) 13:35, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

• Agree entirely. Let the 'convincing arguments' begin finally. RashersTierney (talk) 21:40, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Revert war

For those reverting my revision and calling it vandalism, note the following:

From Wikipedia:Vandalism:

"Blanking - Removing all or significant parts of a page's content without any reason, or replacing entire pages with nonsense. Sometimes referenced information or important verifiable references are deleted with no valid reason(s) given in the summary. However, significant content removals are usually not considered to be vandalism where the reason for the removal of the content is readily apparent by examination of the content itself, or where a non-frivolous explanation for the removal of apparently legitimate content is provided, linked to, or referenced in an edit summary." - emphasis mine

As you can see above, I have mentioned this on the talk page, and went ahead with the change due to lack of any input (aka, being bold). Everytime, I explained my edit on the page history - per above it is not vandalism, and it is not page-blanking.

From Wikipedia:Avoid the word "vandal":

"Non-vandalism disruption may also occur. Instead of calling a person committing such disruption a 'vandal', you are better off discussing his or her specific edits with him or her. Comment on the content and substance of his or her edits or arguments, not his or her person." - emphasis mine. No attempt to send me a message, nothing on the article talk page.

Both UP users who reverted me provided no message to me or nothing here on the talk page - just throwing out the loaded word vandal without justifying it.

If you disagree with my action, say something about it here or on my talk page, don't revert willy-nilly an call me a vandal. Dondegroovily (talk) 13:41, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Strikes me that this 'article' is entirely WP:OR, apart from the simple dab that it was intended to be. I am in favour of restoring it to that status unless a very good case is made here. Repeated reverting is not on. RashersTierney (talk) 18:38, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

How is any of this original research? It's just links to other pages on Wikipedia. If you want listed citations for those, then you might call all the disambig pages original research as well.

I suppose you support Dondegroovily who simply redirected it to another article, which makes no sense.

The original research is the arbitrary items linked, as examples 'Illegal alien' which is a redirect to Alien (law), 'Bums' which redirects to Slackers and is interpreted as 'refusers of work' which in turn links to another article. Then we have Romani people 'of Eurasia', for some unexplained reason, and so on down the list. RashersTierney (talk) 23:33, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Unsigned Personal attack removed. TFOWR 09:01, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

This is not original research. Illegal aliens are people who move from one country to another, so they can be seen as itinerants. Bum is defined as Slacker on the Bum disambiguation page. And Romani people originated from South Asia, and they are located across Europe, so they are 'of Eurasia'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.239.242.75 (talk) 15:30, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay and hello to anyone reading - Please correct me if I am wrong here: I was of the impression that Wikipedia was essentially by the public for the public, so long as factual information and verifiable and all that. So I finally dared to make an edit and it happened to be on the page for this term, Itinerant. Well, I didn't change much in the way of content but had attempted to add a couple sentences to make the article a bit more neutral - I felt it sounded very biased against anyone of the itinerant persuasion. While at it, I also changed a bit of the column structure to make the whole article read more smoothly. Okay, so within 2 days, someone came in and wiped out all I had done by reverting. All I would like to know is this: Did I break some unwritten convention by editing? Is there someone "in charge" of each article that one must ask permission of before editing? I won't be editing another thing on here unless I find out it is truly okay to do so and I do apologize for misinterpreting the methods of Wikipedia and possibly stepping on someone's toes. It would have been nice if you had posted why you chose to throw out my edits wholesale and I do wonder if you even looked at what I'd done and considered if it had any validity or not. Ah well, such has become the ways of the internet. Happy editing to all. Leetaz (talk) 18:27, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what it is about this article that every good edit seems to get reverted. My changes were clearly explained in my edit summaries, and I don't feel that the reason, "It was better before..." is a valid one to revert my copy-edits, because the person declined to state why it was better before. --Funandtrvl (talk) 17:38, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Adding Military Brats and Camp Followers (under new category: Military Dependents)

Military-Dependents, including camp followers and military brats (Not soldiers, but those who follow soldiers & armies from place to place) are a thousands-year old category of itinerants.

Modern-day military brats have no home towns, and grow up moving from military base to military base (they move many times while growing up, never having roots).

See this article to learn more Military brat (US subculture)

And this one Camp follower

98.245.148.9 (talk) 23:50, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Also Adding "Itinerant-Warrior" Category

See these articles:

Japanese Ronin, Paladins, European Knights (Real life subcultures) and also, in mythology, the Odyssey.

98.245.148.9 (talk) 23:54, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Changes needed to this page

This page has a few problems. First of all, it is a "dab" page in disguise in its current state, and was a dab pg as recently as September 2010 (see old revision. In its present form, it is just a list of supposedly related things. I have been trying to clean it up a little bit by: a) alphabetizing the categories; b) improving the layout, size, and wording of the picture captions; c) removing 'see also' links that are already in the article already; and d) removing the "TOC right"-- since the toc is not that long, there is no reason to add an extra template to make it float to the right. Either side the toc is on, there will be a blank space; and so on. I've attempted several times yesterday to implement these copy-edits, and I was reverted several times, so the article is now back to square one, in a very poor state. I would like to hear some input about whether this should be a "dab" page, or be transcribed to Wiktionary, and I would like to improve it in some way. --Funandtrvl (talk) 19:14, 15 November 2011 (UTC)