Talk:Giulietto Chiesa

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Criticism to Zero

I had noticed that this page wasn't NPOV because it described a documentary movie about 9/11 conspiracy theories giving undue weight to them so I added a debunking part. user:cs32en has removed my contribution questioning the reliability of my source. The source I provided is a blog, but it's not a blog with anonymous authors. The main editor is Paolo Attivissimo, a professional journalist, which works for the Swiss Italian-language television network, with great experience in the field of hoax and conspiracy theories. He has contributed at a published book about debunking 9/11 conspiracies and as been interviewed as expert on this topic in the program Matrix of Canale 5. Considering this I would consider this blog a reliable source according to the

WP:SPS
policy: "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications."

Before my edit the page reported virtually only the personal opinion of Chiesa about his movie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tcp-ip (talk • contribs) 15:58, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The statements about Zero are attributed to Chiesa. If you want to provide context, you need to add a
Self-published sources can't stand on their own in an article that is not about the person or institution that publishes them. For these reasons, I am removing your edits again.   Cs32en  16:57, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
I have already explained why the site I linked qualifies as a reliable source: I quoted a period from the same policy page section you have linked. If you want a non self-published source, you can take a look at Corriere Della Sera, one of the most important paper-based Italian newspapers. In that article about Giulietto Chiesa says: "Documentario descritto dai critici come esempio di complottismo insensato" (documentary which has been described by the critics as senseless conspiracy theory. I see that you already know the three reverts rule (I did, too). Tcp-ip (talk) 21:00, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Corriere della sera seems to qualify the website as "a critic", not as an "established expert". You should include the information from Corriere della sera, not promote a third-party website.   Cs32en  22:52, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] 

 Being an italian i can assure Attivissimo is a reliable source, when we say "critic" in italian we mean as an expert, and yes he made a profession about hoax debunking, long before "Mythbusters" and as Mythbusters is considered a reliable source, so should Attivissimo, this article has a very very low quality, to much conspiracy POV..  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.7.191.2 (talk) 13:54, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Third Opinion

First let me commend both editors on their intelligent use of Wiki policy and talk page discussion as both of your points of view have their validity. However, after carefully examining the talk page, article, reverted copy and proposed source I have the following thoughts and conclusions:

  • It would be good for the article to contain some criticism or alternative viewpoint, but it should, as always, be via a reliable source in accord with Wiki guidelines.
  • The source that has been presented [[1]] is in Italian. Wiki policy states that sources in foreign languages are permitted when no other source is available. However, common sense also tells us that this makes it difficult for English speaking editors on an English speaking Wiki page to verify the source content which is also a point to consider, especially on an issue that is contentious such as this one. So while foreign language does not discount a source, in this context it is a small consideration in my opinion.
  • The source that has been presented [[2]] is a personal blog of a published author.
  • Wiki WP:SPS policy states that “blogs, Internet forum postings, tweets etc., are largely not acceptable”. However it also states that "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications."

In my opinion the source is not valid because according to Wiki policy blogs are “largely unacceptable’ and are acceptable only “in some circumstances” and if the author is an expert published in “reliable third-party publications”. Therefore the burden of proof is on the side of the blog which wishes to be an exception to the rule. In my opinion the proposed blog/source fails to meet the requirements for an exception to the rule because:

  • Being the author of a book does not clearly make the blog author an "established expert".
  • A book is a second-party publication not third-party and the policy requires multiple third party publishings
  • The blog is in Italian which creates additional difficulty in the source being considered for a special exception.

I hope this is helpful. Best wishes.--Kbob (talk) 18:16, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Giulietto Chiesa. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check
}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:00, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Giulietto Chiesa. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check
}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:39, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Giulietto Chiesa. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check
}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:34, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Giulietto_Chiesa&oldid=1206655878"