Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:34, 17 October 2009

See also Talk:Barbaro family/Archive1

re "The noble Barbaro family continues to exist today"

A Web search of the contents of the Zorzi book cited comes up with three occurrences of the name Barbaro in it, none of which have anything to do with the family's present-day existence; and I can find no evidence for the other cited source at all. Unless sources through which this statement can be verified are cited in such a way that they can be checked, it should, I think, remain out of the article. Deor (talk) 00:02, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

• Indicating that noble Barbaros are still in existance is relevant to the history of the family and for futur research of its existing memebers. The information that I added is coming from the Zorzi book: On pages 261-292 there is a section labled: "Chronology, Doges, Patrician Families, Regiments, and Place Names. On p. 278 under THE VENETIAN PATRICIATE "existing families as of 1999, the fith one down is "BARBARO: An Illustrious family that produced, among others, the humanist and politician Marc'Antonio, and his brother Francesco, Patriarch of Aquileia, both of whom were patrons of Palladio and Veronese." Zorzi, the author of the book, also comes from a Venetian noble family too.Mctrain (talk) 00:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

In the the 2005 book "Filosofia e storiografia" by Francesca Rizzo and Girolamo Cotroneo, it states the following on pg.377:

<<quella serie luminosissima di eroi, che mentre stanno a decoro dell'Italica, dirò meglio, dell'umana famiglia, formano la gloria prima della patria e l'onorato orgoglio dei nepoti>>. In effeti dall'Enciclopedia storico-nobiliare italiana, I, Milano 1928, pp.502-503, risulta che nel 1818 due discendenti di Ermalao Barbaro, Giovanni Battista ed Alessandro Barbaro, divenuto consigliere aulico e presidente del Tribunale di Treviso, morì nel 1846.

Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 10:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

This page is filled with old talk

The talk on this page is out dated, and can be filed away. I have tried to archive it, but it is hard to do. If someone knows how to do that, please do, thanks.Mctrain (talk) 15:36, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Done. Bishonen | talk 18:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC).

Sockpuppetry and hoaxes

Hello, Per this sockpuppet report, and this checkuser request, several editor who have made significant edits to this page, have been confirmed as abusive sockpuppets/sockpuppeteers:

• User:Mctrain
• User:Tiki-two
• The IP range 65.141.156.0/23
  • Note: These IP's come from a large ISP pool, so I want to make it clear I'm not specifically accusing all IP edits starting with 65... of being this person. But it appears many of them are.

The Checkuser (see bottom of WP:RFCU link) indicates this person has a long history of adding hoax material to articles; unfortunately, they also seem to have a history of adding legitimate information as well, so their changes can't just be blindly-reverted. I do not have enough knowledge of this particular subject to be helpful, but I suggest those of you who do, and regularly maintain this page, go back and review these users' additions, remove anything they've added that can't be sourced and verified, and add citations for anything that can be sourced but is currently unreferenced, to remove any suspicion of the legitimacy of the article.

They appear to be somewhat prolific, so if a new account shows up lobbying for re-insertion of any material you folks end up deleting as unsourced, I'd suggest being a bit wary, and insisting even more strongly than perhaps we usually do on verifiable, reliable sources for everything they try to add. They tend to cite "rare" sources that they have in their possession, so I guess emphasis on "verifiable".

I'm not checking each article I tag with this information, so if you've already noticed this misbehavior and dealt with it, feel free to mark this section resolved or something. --barneca (talk) 16:01, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Improving the article

Right now, this article is rather poorly organized, and it would benefit from expansion and additional clarity. I also think that the title is rather vague- especially since Barbaro can also be a common family surname. This article should follow suit with other noble family articles by calling it "House of Barbaro", rather than "Barbaro family"Dr.Oak (talk) 14:06, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Considering the fate of other users who have shown an interest in both Fenwick High School and the Barbaro family, I think I'd steer well clear of this article if I were you. That's just my opinion, of course. Deor (talk) 15:51, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Organization

Just some general organization has taken place to improve flow, grammar and clarity. I can not add anything else than what I added. My sugestion is to change the title to House of Barbaro- but I clarified that in the text as it stands. Take careDr.Oak (talk) 17:01, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but no mention of Vitus Barbaro or other supposed living members of this family are getting into the article without impeccable sourcing that can be verified by other WP editors. As for your other changes, they are also unsourced and do not improve the article. Further efforts on your part to insert unsourced material relating to the Barbaro family will result in a report at WP:SSP. Clearly, you couldn't take the hint in my response in the preceding section of this page. Deor (talk) 18:32, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

This article, with Deor's version, is very poorly written

Right now, there are mistakes in the family's historical founding of their arms. Poor wording in "ancestral device", which is ambiguous to say the least, no clarification of family branches, no clarity to which branch owned which palace, no real indication of the family's substantial contribution towards art, letters, politics, and civic rights, and no information on the titles the family held. We also have no information about the House today as it exists. These are just some of the most glaring issues.

I also see that a previous version existed with exceptional sourcing and information, that event went far beyond anything that I could write, and that was reverted too. I did a google search on the main source used which showed up easily , the "golden book" which was the main source in an alumnus biography that I used also came up easily, in fact there is a page on Misplaced Pages for it, Libro d'Oro.

I don't see how anyone can reject sources that, to anyone, seem to be the best to use for a topic like this, So I don't understand, or perceive to be rational, a history of reverting to a poorly written and stingy article in terms of info offered. There is a substantial article on Villa Barbaro alone, and when it comes to the family, which should even be more important, there is barely nothing. This does not make sense. The sourcing is there for anyone to check further. I don't really think that an historical family could use any other sourcing that what I gave or previous editors used.

There is also grave need to develope articles about each acting head of the family, Vitus Barbaro (for S. Vio) and Anthony Cremona Barbaro (for S. Giorgio), both are listed in the Libro d'Oro- and the former is a substantial engineer, he has collaborated with Ferrari, Panos, Bentley, Bugatti, and Vision Industries- to just name a few that I know of. He would benefit from his own article within the automobile designer categorie.

I also highly resent the threat about "taking the hint", which I don't even really know what that is suppose to mean, and why this was said to me. Libro d'Oro is an "impeccable" source to use, that anyone can check. What better source than that could someone use?

Right now, this is an awful article to say the least, shut down for most editors, and constantly reverted from what I can see in the edit history. These are all barriers from allowing anyone to even improve on it.Dr.Oak (talk) 00:28, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

heh. Good one. Corvus cornix_talk 06:10, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Reverting mix-up?

I think there may have been some sort of reverting mix-up with this article. 13:56, 10 June 2008 appears quite excellent, well sourced, and very accurate from the sources I have seen, but I am afraid to rectify anything in fear of being labled a vandal or sock. if someone knows more please help- this article deserves better. thanksDr.Oak (talk) 02:21, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Mmhm. Corvus cornix_talk 06:10, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

This does not make sense?

I did some exploration of other notable Italian families, and I came across this, House of Borghese. A notable member is "Justin Ryan di Cosola" who is suppose to be a grandson, not even of the same name- and the article has absolutely no referencing. Then I see that there is a substantial article about the Barbaro family, well sourced that all checks out within a basic google search, and I am suppose to be afarid that I am going to be blocked if I actually use my brain to revert it? How can you have an article with a stub for expansion, yet anyone who addresses the topic is in fear of being labled a sock or vandal- and why wouldn't people from Fenwick be interested in this topic- the main acting head went there. This is dumb, sources are in article for people to check on their own, and in this case, I know what I am talking about. If you are just going to block everyone who addresses this topic, this article will never be up to any wiki standard- and right now, it is just garbage, and factually wrong. I am going to step up and be the leader in this case, and do something right, instead of playing what seems like a very childish game. I doun't like having been given an ultimatum with a threat of being blocked, that smells of tyranny Dr.Oak (talk) 03:27, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Txs - zapped some Borgheses. Johnbod (talk) 10:20, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism and Poor Editing

There is some editor by the name of Edward321 who keeps reverting everything new added to this article- which he seems to not know about what he is editing. He keeps removing the link Albergo from this article that is clearly related to this topic. I don't understand how a stub can grow if unknowing people keep reverting related links to this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.26.8.18 (talk) 07:53, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Anyone who checks the page history will see that the variable IPs accusationas are false and fail to assume good faith. Numerous people have edited this article and I have not reverted them, though the article has a long history of being a primary target for hoaxing, and I do expect sourcing because of this. Albergo is only peripherally related to the Barbaro family, the Albergo article mentions there were 28 of them at one point. Edward321 (talk) 15:05, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

• First off, a history of hoaxing on a certain related topic- does not constitute that what every other person has added there after is a hoax- we should also refrain from personal attacks. Also, I do not know how to add those sourcing notations for new infomation that I can source, but I never intended on doing any major work on this topic anyway, but clearly the link of Albergo is relevant and adds additional information. If you want to add the link within the body of the text and put a citaion for it from the Albergo page- that's cool- I do not know how to cite, so I added a see also section- which is just fine, I see it on other articles- but don't remove valid additional information- that behavior is dumb.

• Hey Edward321 your latest edit works too- stay cool, take care. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.26.63.193 (talk) 15:21, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Corrupt Misplaced Pages practices

Misplaced Pages administrators have been controlling this page and other Barbaro family members pages from having valid sources and information being added to it. They continually remove vaild sourcing and citations, and they make up false cases against any person trying to improve this page or the others related to it. They have an agenda from seeing it grow- and they makes up false cases against innocent contributors. Check the history of the page, you wll see countless contributors who have added valid sourcing and good-faith edits that have all been removed, and contributors have all been blocked, with false cases of sockpuppettry and or hoaxing. Just awful and unethical practices. Just administrator kids who don't know anything about the the topic they revert and who are on their little power trips, guided only by immaturity and ignorance of subject matter.4.143.237.116 (talk) 13:02, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Au contraire, the edits you cite are always accompanied with the promise of reliable sourcing that never quite seems to materialize. This hoax is well-known on Misplaced Pages and goes back quite a long way. I see that the group of hoaxers has mastered Wikilawyer-speak, too. (ESkog) 16:33, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protected

I hate to protect talk pages, even just semi-protection, but in this case I feel it is warranted. Normally we would just block IPs for evading blocks, but this hoaxer (or group of hoaxers) appears to have a large variety of IPs at his/their disposal. It's all the same text-dump nonsense though, and many of them tend to edit other comments, especially to remove the name "Vitus Barbaro" from other people's comments (primarily so that the next version of the hoax doesn't yield search results from the last one). (ESkog) 07:56, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Sourcing mix-up

I'm correcting a clerical mistake that I made to recently added information. I have notes written down in a ledger for a paper that I am writing on the topic, the sourcing that I added by mistake pertained to different points in my notes right above the points that I added to this article. The information is correct, but the notations were a clerical mistake. The proper notation is: Spretti, Vittorio; L'encyclopedie Storico-Nobiliare (Barbaro), Milano 1932 pgs 275-278. I will fix the notations properly- sorry for the mix up.Cavourman (talk) 03:58, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Recent edits

I've been using Gbooks to check the actual sources listed, as well as comparing the Italian version of the article. Sitwell does not support some of the claims, so I have removed them. Tafuri does not mention the rebuilding of the church facade, nor a family crypt. I'm doubtful of the Zenkert reference. It seems to be a German translation of a 12 page work by Tintoretto and it seems unlikely it would focus on charitable work instead of art, let alone mention the Barbaros. Edward321 (talk) 15:54, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

An Edward 321 keeps reverting

A person by the name of Edward 321 keeps reverting to an innacurrate statement. I checked google books- and Admirmal Barbaro did not fly a severed hand. The statement say with a severed hand, HE DREW A CIRCLE ONTO A TURBAN- which he then proceeded to fly the turban in the manner of a pennant from his mastehead. He didn't fly the hand, but the turban. Why don't you read the statement. Instead of mindlessly reverting.Jky52 (talk) 14:49, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I just checked page 165 and the source really says that he painted a circle, so I reverted it back and put a link to the specific page. Edward, please check the linked page carefully. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:29, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

In google books I can see a travelling guides that tell the same version of the history (I can only see fragments of the page, and I can't directly to the page) (page 126, published in 1891)(unknown page) (pag 189) (page 103) This last book was published in 1884, so it's an old story. The similar wording makes it look like recent books just copied the story from old books. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:43, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• • • This page really justifies much more work on it. Also, there is more to the Barbaro family coat of arms/history- but Edward 321 keeps reverting it- it appears that he has some agenda against this topic. For example, you can use google books to look at a book by Alvise Zorzi, called Venetian Palaces- and Zorzi even talks about an evolution of the arms meaning when Marco Barbaro was a general in Romania. That should be on this page. Edward 321, also went and removed a very important church in Venice, that was designed by the Barbaro family, and has several important members on the front of it as statues.

• • • So be on the look out for individuals who are removing validly sourced info. For example, in "The Stones of Venice, Volume 3, p137- there is a large discussion of the Church of Santa Maria Zobenigo- which it says, and I quote is 'entirely dedicated to the Barbaro family". It talks about the statues of Barbaro family members etc. Edward 321 removed that from the page- why? ] (talk) 18:51, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• • • Also, people keep damaging sourcing on Misplaced Pages- they keep re-editing what a source says, or they remove the vaid sourcing footnote- and then eveything ends up being different than what was originally there- it's really one big mess.Jky52 (talk) 19:19, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

As he said in the section immediately above this one, Edward321 removed the information about Santa Maria Zobenigo because it wasn't supported by the reference cited in the article. You're welcome to add to the article any relevant information for which you can provide reliable sources. However, there have been some problems with unverifiable and poorly sourced information in this article in the past, so any additions are going to attract close scrutiny to ensure that they are well supported. Deor (talk) 19:30, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• I had thought Jky was just removing sourced info with their 2nd edit,like they had with their first. Thanks to Eric for catching things. I hope he continues to keep an eye on this page. Edward321 (talk) 00:40, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

The Barbaro family page is a mess

I appreciate Edward 321's attempt at expanding this page- but the topic is all messed up. In Zorzi' book on Venice, he clearly states that at even up to 1999 the family is still in existence. There are several branches to the family. It is only the group at San Vidal, at Palazzo Barbaro, that becomes extinguished in the 19th century. There's a group at Palazzo Dario that continues on and a Maltese group that is still in existence too. To just pick senetences out of books, without knowing the context surrounding it does not create a good encyclopedia page- a person actually needs to know something about a topic they are editing. The last point about the family going extinct needs to go, unless you specify that you are talking about the one branch that was at San Vidal- that did go extinct in the 19th century.

Also, why is there such an emphasis of the 4 patriarches- there are members who are a marquis and with other elevated titles too- there was one member who actually was elected Doge, but he turned down the honor by his own choosing. Again, there seems to be just sentence placing within this page- because, not to be offensive or sound authoritarian, it is not being composed by someone who knows a great deal about this topic.

Also, the book you are using, for the last point, is not a historical book, it is a recent fictional novel that I have read- the author uses real pople and topics in fictional ways- including talking about Giovanni Agnelli, the late FIAT head. That book is not a valid source.Jky52 (talk) 19:34, 17 October 2009 (UTC)