Talk:Luciano Canepari: Difference between revisions

Biography: Science and Academia Stub‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles Stub This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. This article is supported by the science and academia work group.

This article was nominated for deletion on 29 January 2008. The result of the discussion was Keep.

What is Luciano Canepari's E-mail address? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.158.19.141 (talk) 17:13, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The personal invective contained in this article is quite inappropriate for a Wikipedia entry and I intend to delete it. The persons concerned should go and fight their battles elsewhere. If anyone wants to disagree with me, please say so on this Talk page. RoachPeter (talk) 17:41, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What is the personal invective? --JorisvS (talk) 18:09, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The paragraph beginning "His work was criticised by Alex Rotatori..." contains references to two pieces of blog-style writing, one entitled 'English pronunciation for Italians' and the other, though it is cited in this article as being entitled 'Beware of the web!' is actually (to judge by its heading) entitled 'Beware of charlatans on the web'. Have you actually read these? Do you really think it is OK for rival academics to use WP as a place to go slagging each other off in this way? RoachPeter (talk) 16:17, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is reporting on it; it's not here where these two butted heads. The paragraph in question was first inserted by User:Epa101, so they've likely had nothing to do with their altercation being mentioned here either. However, I think that it's WP:UNDUE in Canepari's bio, and I support its removal. 213.7.227.83 (talk) 16:51, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a matter of 'how I'm reading those', but Wikipedia's text. When I read Wikipedia's text, I read someone criticizing Canepari and Canepari responding rather strongly to that. That in itself need not be a problem. I would prefer a different source than one titled 'Beware of the web!' or something similar, but this need not mean that the entire paragraph necessarily has to be deleted. We can discuss merits and problems with it and see if we can improve it. If the result is that it is best deleted, no problem, but I'd like that to be the result of a good, critical discussion. --JorisvS (talk) 17:19, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To my mind this invective is not only WP:UNDUE but also lacks an encyclopaedic (i.e., an independent and reliable secondary) source. Why should WP present information that nobody else reports? Do we create news?

For WP to become a medium for publishing the results of someone’s own private research means to lose its character as an encyclopaedia, for the readers can no longer tell existing and independently sourced information (which I believe WP is there for) from the editors’ private research and views (which the WWW is so full of).

In short: Could someone please provide an encyclopaedic source for this exchange of views between Professor Canepari and Lecturer Rotatori?

Finally: I don’t seem to find a satisfying answer to this question: Why should those few lines of exchange with Mr Rotatory constitute half of Professor Canepari’s Wikipedia bio when what he published and is known for were way over 10,000 pages on quite another topic and written in quite a different style? LiliCharlie (talk) 16:55, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. 213.7.227.83 (talk) 17:34, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

JorisvS ’s twice undoing to the same version that only he himself seems to support has a scent of edit warring. Shouldn’t this case be settled by the mediation of a en.WP official? LiliCharlie (talk) 16:20, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It was removed while a discussion was in progress. I only like to discuss it first. --JorisvS (talk) 17:07, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]