Talk:Maurizio Giuliano

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article was nominated for deletion on 30 December 2007. The result of the discussion was Delete. The deletion was then contested (1st) but endorsed, again contested (2nd), then the article was restored to user space and userfied, before being later accepted and moved back to the main space by administrator Jerry on 13 February 2008.

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
	This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.

Anyone would be welcome to improve the UN-related section.--CCorward (talk) 16:09, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

	Cuba Portal Maurizio Giuliano is within the scope of WikiProject Cuba. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the assessment scale.
Mid	This article is on a subject of medium priority within the scope of Wikiproject Cuba.
Cuba To-do: edit  WikiProject Cuba - To do list

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, an attempt to provide information in a consistent format for articles about international organizations, diplomats, international meetings, and relations between states. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Stub	This article has been rated as stub-Class on the quality scale.
Low	This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.
	This article is part of the United Nations WikiProject.	UN Portal

Contents 1 Notability guidelines rejecting UN officials 2 Your message on my talk page re. discussion on verifiability etc. 3 RE: original deletion of Maurizio Giuliano 3.1 Saving Maurizio Giuliano 4 Asked restrictions if restoring article of Maurizio Giuliano 5 Discussion after userfying, mainly intended to prove claims not verifiable online 6 Debate on inclusion of material which may or may not be appropriate relevant

[edit] Notability guidelines rejecting UN officials

(this short essay by Wikid77 was placed at top, as I think it contains not only compelling arguments for this case, but also some serious thoughts about Wikipedia).--CCorward (talk) 00:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

03-Feb-2008: I'm terribly sorry that you have had such unpleasant experiences trying to document UN officials in Wikipedia, only to have them deleted due to lacking Wikipedia's notion of "notability" in the current neophyte project. As you probably know now, the current infantile Wikipedia has undergone growing pains, trying to sort and cope with the mass of real-world information. The result through 2007 has been a peculiar collection of pet-project information, that has lacked an adult view of the world. At this point, Wikipedia is something of a juvenile delinquent, trying to evade the social norms of adult society; however, it is improving, so please be patient.

Yes, while many senior UN officials are not "notable", there are thousands of bio articles about 25-year-old sports players: there are bios for 676 Chicago Blackhawks and 417+ Edmondton Oilers hockey players. There are even bios for over 200 child stars, who have done nothing but repeat what they were told. However, when it comes to preventing wars or limiting world hunger, almost no one is notable for Wikipedia. The problem is rampant: in computer science, some of the most important subjects are not even mentioned, such as "string grammar" or "comb structure" of languages. For scientific work, Wikipedia had been totally ignorant of major concepts, such as "epistemic feedback" or "first principles" or "inherent bias" (which I had to write). However, some problems have been corrected: the 473 cartoon articles about the known Pokemon characters were combined into just 25 articles.

In short, the problems of Wikipedia aren't just limited to a naive, childish view of the United Nations, but of many other real-world subjects as well. Wikipedia policies on notability need to be improved to better prioritize subjects. Meanwhile, I'm sorry you have been caught in a waste of time writing about the UN; however, adding names to various lists of UN officials might be an easier path to follow, until Wikipedia policies are improved. -Wikid77 (talk) 15:56, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikid77, thanks a lot ! Actually as I write this, I just had information that Maurizio Giuliano who was now working in Chad until now, was evacuated from there a few days ago amidst the war, and is currently in Cameroon talking to the world media about the conflict in Chad. So in light of what you say above, I do think that his UN status might be notable (although I earlier stated that I was neutral on this), assuming for example in this case - as I presume - that we now see his declarations in the media. Cheers, --CCorward (talk) 12:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

And now, also his declarations in The Washington Post about a tragedy that affected thousands of refugees in Africa, hmmm... --CCorward (talk) 00:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your message on my talk page re. discussion on verifiability etc.

Thanks for your message on my talk page. I am of course always ready to talk, that's what talk pages are for. Which edit exactly do you consider "excessive"? Wikipedia has an important policy, Wikipedia:Verifiability, and I always try to implement this policy as strongly as I can. I even think I am not strong and bold enough on this. Please have a look at this WikiEN-l insist on sources by Jimmy Wales. Cheers. --Edcolins 16:33, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot Ed. I was referring to your edits to Maurizio Giuliano. I agreed with some, not with others. I hope you can look at the current version and see if it seems ok to you. Clearly there is no point in you and I undoing each other's work. So I hope that as long as you agree what is factual and referenced, you won't remove it. On my side, I did remove things that were not referenced and re-phrased some text, so I do agree with the policy. Also please note that the two books in question are on Amazon.com, but I did not insert a link to them since this would infringe the rules (i.e. as this would be advertising). However as this person has published two books, I think that there needs to be some info on that in the text, and I referenced it to reviews about the books too. Cheers. --CCorward 16:38, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Let's not add any link to Amazon then. The ISBN is sufficient (and better). For the image copyright question, see Wikipedia:Image use policy. --Edcolins 16:59, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RE: original deletion of Maurizio Giuliano

I found that there was consensus to delete. This AfD has already been contested at DELREV, and the deletion has been endorsed. See the discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 January 7. Thanks, JERRY ^talk _contribs 21:09, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your message on my talk page. I nominated the article for deletion because I think the person is not sufficiently notable to have an article on Wikipedia, as I explained in the Afd. I have carefully read Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Notability (people), and in my opinion the topic of the article falls short of these guidelines. I am afraid having the alleged record confirmed would not alter my opinion.

Besides, since you don't deny having close relations with Maurizio [Giuliano] [1], you may be in a conflict of interest situation (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest). You should be discouraged to push to have an article about somebody with whom you have close relations. Cheers. --Edcolins (talk) 19:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks for your last message on my talk page. (Some of your questions and comments are in italic below).

• "... you had previously been ok with the article and even helped - and I thanked you for that. Why the change of mind ?"

Although I have contributed to the article, I has never been completely satisfied with the notability of the topic of the article, up to now. Among other things, I was not very satisfied with the lack of reliable sources for the record claim. I tried hard to obtain a confirmation of that, see here and again here, but in vain.

• "And why make reference to his status as a UN official, not mentioned in the article ?"

It was mentioned in the article, you can see it now from User:CCorward/Maurizio Giuliano.

• "Sorry to ask, but by any chance you know him personally too ?"

I haven't this chance. If I knew him, I would not contribute to the article under WP:COI, I would just post comments on the talk page, if necessary. But it seems I have stumbled on Maurizio Giuliano's fan club down here.

• "..if you don't change mind, let's leave it to the community."

Indeed, but well I am still part of the community ;-) .. --Edcolins (talk) 19:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Saving Maurizio Giuliano

30-Jan-2008: Thank you for saving "Maurizio Giuliano" and yes, I have updated your copy to help find sources. A Guiness book would confirm 3 items: birthdate, nationality, and travel record. I honestly believe he is notable, with several critical Africa assignments, and I worried that he was overlooked because he was young, but Vincent van Gogh died in his 30s and even Heath Ledger was only 27. His books + world record would satisfy "notability" for Wikipedia. I think you have done a valuable thing, and I will help in expanding the article more when I get sources, perhaps from Italian websites. Thanks again. -Wikid77 (talk) 13:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Asked restrictions if restoring article of Maurizio Giuliano

12-Feb-2008: I have contacted the deletion admin User:Jerry to see if he has any other restrictions before restoring:

"Hello, Jerry. User:Wikid77 here. I see that you were assigned to delete the article "Maurizio Giuliano" (in January), and I think, along with User:CCorward, that we are ready re-create that article with added sources to verify notability. Do you sense any other restrictions, or can we just copy the updated version into the empty article "Maurizio Giuliano"? I will check back here after a while. Thanks."

(See User_talk:Jerry.)

You have stated a very good point about public UN officials, who are repeatedly mentioned in the media, as not being notable when so many TV child stars are. Rejecting articles about such UN officials seems to be a "double standard" because those UN officials are certainly identified in those media news reports. Beyond the case of Maurizio Giuliano, UN notability needs to be discussed outside this talk page. -Wikid77 (talk) 00:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion after userfying, mainly intended to prove claims not verifiable online

Here is the scanned image of the entry for MG in the Guinness. thumb|200px|Maurizio Giuliano in the Guinness Book - Click here to enlarge

I tried to upload them but something does not work, also not sure what license I should state since this is for usertalk. Can someone help ? --CCorward (talk) 13:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

You might find useful information here: Help:Images and other uploaded files. Cheers.--Edcolins (talk) 19:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Ed. I think it was not working as it was in PDF, now JPG works. Anyway I did not manage to put it in my userspace, it ends up in mainspace... So I hope you can examine it while it's there, as I am not sure on copyright, it might be removed. Cheers, --CCorward (talk) 11:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks CCorward. The evidence of notability you have provided (scanned image from UK Guinness Book) is fair enough. I might end up supporting the article! However,

• I do not think this reference "This Day in History - September 26, 2007" (events list), Dennis, Desert Storm Veteran, September 2007, webpage: AHistB-DIH-Sep26. It states: "Maurizio Giuliano (Italy / UK; b. 24 February 1975) had visited all 193 of the world's sovereign countries by 20 February 2004, when he was 28 years 361 days old" can be considered reliable. I think it should not be relied upon, and should be removed. Generally a blog is not considered to be reliable.
• This part "being originally notable as a writer and journalist" sounds strange. I recommend removing the opinion-like assertion "being originally notable" and to somehow reword it.

Cheers. --Edcolins (talk) 18:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot Ed. I do indeed agree to both of the above, and think they are improvements. Yes, the blog I guess is superseded by reference to the Guinness Book. Cheers and thanks again, --CCorward (talk) 02:50, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Debate on inclusion of material which may or may not be appropriate relevant

What do you mean by: "The book contained short commentaries (blurbs) about its importance, written inter alia by Mexican Secretary of Foreign Affairs Jorge Castañeda, scholar and former US diplomat Wayne Smith, Pulitzer-awarded journalist Andrés Oppenheimer, and Chilean novelist and former diplomat Jorge Edwards."? Which book did contain which commentaries about the importance of what?.. Sorry I find this a bit confusing. Who did say that? (see Wikipedia:Attribution). --Edcolins (talk) 21:06, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Ed, fair question, I guess my wording was not clear. What I meant is that the book contains that kind of short comments called blurbs like we see in many books (not sure if there is a more technical name for them), four of them on the back cover I think, and the rest in the first pages of the book, authored by several persons including the four mentioned. So, the source of this information is the book itself. This refers to the book El Caso CEA, about that book. However I am removing the bit "about its importance" as this may be either lopsided or redundant. Hope this clarifies, and thanks again for your perfectionism. --CCorward (talk) 21:57, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I understand now. These comments are on the back cover of the book and I have seen them on Amazon. My opinion: these so-called "blurbs" are advertisement-like, primary source material (probably inserted by the publisher), and should not be inserted in the article (please see Wikipedia:Verifiability). I have removed the sentence. --Edcolins (talk) 22:17, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't fully agree. I think my previous wording in the article may have been lopsided, yes. But now it is a factual statement about the book, e.g. "the book has a foreword by ...", or "the book has blurbs/commentaries by...", or for that matter "the books is published by ...". I did not even include info on the commentaries' contents, and indeed removed "about the importance of the book". I won't change it back, but please do let me know if you change your view.:-) I see that you are being objective and applying the policy (though different interpretations may exist), and this is very appreciated. Cheers, --CCorward (talk) 22:23, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

You may seek to have a third opinion... I am not the final instance down here! But, let me explain. Such blurbs are necessarily positive about the book and, to a certain extent, they are not independent from the subject because the publisher can (and of course will) decline to put on the back cover any negative opinion. The selection of the blurbs is not independent from the subject... The blurbs are there to sell the book, right? --Edcolins (talk) 22:37, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, on this you are quite correct: the contents of the blurbs can be biased, it is not independent of the subject, hence I removed the wording about the blurbs being "about the book's importance", which is indeed advertising from a self-published source. But I personally still think that the way it was last worded, i.e. authors of the blurbs, it is a factual statement, just like saying the book is X pages long or it printed X copies, etc. Are we able to find a wording that might satify us both ? Also you may note that in the spirit of wikipedia, mentioning those four people means extra links, which I think is good. --CCorward (talk) 22:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

The blurbs are verifiable facts, but IMHO do not contribute to the overall neutrality of the article (that is very important). Moreover, I think the blurbs are very specific material facts which are not directly relevant to the content of the article, as I explained here. Let's stay on topic. Having extra links is irrelevant. The "spirit of Wikipedia" does not require this; what matters is quality, not quantity of links or whatever quantity metrics. Quality, not quantity. --Edcolins (talk) 18:22, 17 February 2008 (UTC)