Jump to content

Talk:Daniel Zappelli

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

NPOV issue

[edit]

Greetings everybody,

I hereby question the neutrality of the Daniel_Zappelli article.

I'll try to explain here below how a lack of encyclopedic rigor makes this article fail to respect the "Neutral point of view" policy WP:NPOV, one of the five Wikipedia pillars. WP:5P2 It's also about explaining how this article harms Wikipedia itself by its lack of encyclopedic quality.

Neutral point of view: a short reminder

[edit]

NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects. It is also one of Wikipedia's three core content policies (...)

This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus.

A general purpose encyclopedia is a collection of synthesized knowledge presented from a neutral point of view. To whatever extent possible, encyclopedic writing should steer clear of taking any particular stance other than the stance of the neutral point of view. (...) The neutral point of view attempts to present ideas and facts in such a fashion that both supporters and opponents can agree. Jimmy_Wales

Source: NPOV policy: [[1]]

Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful. A Wikipedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject. Verifiable and sourced statements should be treated with appropriate weight.

Source: "What wikipedia is not" policy, WP:NOT

I'm not much interested in "is it true or not" in this context. We could talk about that forever and get nowhere. I'm only interested in the much more tractable question "is it encyclopedic and NPOV or not"? Jimmy_Wales

Source: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2003-September/006715.html

Sake of transparency

[edit]

I am publishing this without having tried beforehand to better the article by contributing to it. I don't want to create content for this article in order to first avoid any potential conflict of interest WP:COI. Here is the reason why: I act on behalf of Mr Zappelli. I receive a compensation for this.

I want to respect la behavioral guideline about assuming good faith. Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith I am therefore accusing nobody. Indeed, the informations I currently own do not allow me to claim that there is any intention to harm. Nevertheless, in effect, in fact and according to "the subject of history" Mr Zappelli himself, the article is harmful.

Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment.

Given their potential impact on biography subjects' lives, biographies must be fair to their subjects at all times.

Source: "Biographies of living persons" policy, WP:ALIVE

Analysis of the article at its current state

[edit]

Based on the current version while writing this, which is the bot revision of 13 june 2016 at 18:17 http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Daniel_Zappelli&oldid=725121462

Structure of the Daniel_Zappelli article

[edit]

The contents

[edit]

Having a look at the "Contents" box:

  1. Biography
  2. Geneva Attorney General: 2002-2011
    1. Resignation
  3. Deputies re-join after Zappelli resigns
  4. New Attorney General
  5. References

What is the matter of each of the above points?

  1. General biographic informations
  2. Fact and period of notability
    1. Resignation
  3. Event following the resignation
  4. Event following the resignation
  5. --

3 items out of 5 deal with Mr. Zappelli's resignation or with events related to it. The "contents" clearly emphasizes the resignation.

The omission of any other notable facts that happened during the two Attorney General terms of Mr. Zappelli implicitly means to the reader that the resignation is the one and only notable fact.

I am asking:

  • Can this be called synthesized knowledge presented from a neutral point of view or summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject?
  • What about the above mentioned appropriate weight?
Source: "Neutral point of view" policy, "Due and undue weight": WP:WEIGHT

Content review of the Daniel_Zappelli article

[edit]

Here below are examples of how a content that is imbalanced by

  • omissions and
  • informations that are unrelevant in the context of an encyclopedia

negatively impacts the NPOV:

Section: introductory text

[edit]

This section, located above the "Contents" box, is totally in harmony with it. Therefore it raises the same questions. Here it is in its entirety:

Daniel Zappelli, is a former Attorney General of the State and Canton of Geneva, who served between 2002 and 2011.

In November 2011, Zappelli resigned his role as Attorney General for unknown reasons.

Zappelli is notable as the only Geneva Attorney General in the (nearly) 600 year-history of the post, which was created in 1534, who did not complete his elected tenure.

Already in this introduction, there is an emphasis on the resignation. An event that the incomplete content of the introduction implicitly highlights as the most notable fact of 10 years spent in the Attorney General post. Again I am asking: what about the collection of synthesized knowledge?

Moreover neither the related broken source nor its archive mention that Mr. Zappelli is the only resigning Attorney General in Geneva history:
http://www.ge.ch/tribunaux/doc/LE_PROCUREUR_GENERAL.PDF , http://archive.wikiwix.com/cache/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ge.ch%2Ftribunaux%2Fdoc%2FLE_PROCUREUR_GENERAL.PDF

What is the weight that should be allocated to this unsourced information? And what is its relevance compared to the other ones, that would contribute to the synthetic and encyclopedic knowledge of the subject?

Relative emphasis
According to the policy on due weight, emphasis given to material should reflect its relative importance to the subject, according to published reliable sources. This is true for both the lead and the body of the article.

Source: "Manual of style" guideline, MOS:INTRO

In other words, writing in a neutral tone is not enough to make an article neutral: an imbalanced page, by an abundance of anecdotes or quotes, violates the principle of neutrality.

Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements.

Source: "Reliable sources and undue weight" essay: WP:RSUW

Section: Biography

[edit]

Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject.

Source: "Biographies of living persons" policy, WP:ALIVE

Considering this, I question the relevancy of the following informations, I quote: A native of Noville, a city in the Swiss Canton of Vaud, hailing from a family of Italian descent, (...)

Mr. Zappelli became known because of his career as Geneva Attorney General. Have the quoted biographic facts had any incidence on this peculiar career? In other words, could it be assumed that, Mr. Zappelli would have led his Attorney General post differently if he were a native of Bern hailing from a family of French descent?

Many Wikipedia articles contain material on people who are not well known, even if they are notable enough for their own article. In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to the person's notability, focusing on high-quality secondary sources.

Source: "Biographies of living persons" policy, WP:ALIVE

Mentioning the names of former employers is then equally questionable.

Last but definitely not least, the whole section is not sourced at all.

Section: Geneva Attorney General: 2002-2011

[edit]

Information takes on a new significance when categorically set out. What when it is not the case? Is this an undue weight issue? WP:WEIGHT What about the Neutral Point Of View?

Nothing has been written about any notable event occurred during the second term. Regarding the first term, only one fact is mentioned: the closure of most of the Geneva "squats". It is written that Zappelli made a name for himself by evicting squatters under new laws which previously had allowed longtime 'squats' to flourish in Geneva.
Around 100 such squats were in existence at the time he entered into office.

Besides the issue of an undue weight, what about the way this fact is presented?

The next paragraph about an article in a Swiss newspaper is not sourced, the link is broken.

It mentions allegations written in the newspaper.
What about the statements of Mr.Zappelli's employer at the time of the facts (Mr. Monfrini) that clear him of suspiscion?

Mr. Zappelli was neither shareholder nor economic owner of these companies, and has not received any compensation for these mandates, apart from his salary as an employee.
The local representative in Panama, Mossack Fonseca had me assured that these companies had been delisted before the departure of Mr. Zappelli from my office and that the costs of these offshore had no longer been paid, which led to their automatic cancellation. This information was confirmed to me even just a few days ago, so that the source of the error is clearly attributable to Mossack Fonseca.

Why aren't these words mentioned? They are from the same - now dead - source.

Can this be potentially libelous content?

Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that:

  1. is unsourced or poorly sourced
  2. is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see No original research)
  3. (...)
Source: BLPs policy, WP:BLPREMOVE

Jimmy_Wales: « Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information. » on lists.wikimedia.org, WikiEN-l,‎ 16th May 2006:
(Misleading information) should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons.

Source: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2006-May/046440.html

Then comes what appears to be the prominent theme of the article: Mr. Zappelli's resignation: the following paragraph lists chronologically three events that are related to the resignation:

  1. Resignation of the deputies
  2. Resignation of Mr. Zappelli
  3. Return of the deputies

Besides the undue weight of the resignation in the article, this paragraph has at least the virtue of listing the facts in a concise manner. Besides an unsourced sentence: This mysterious movement was never explained and another evasive and not factual one: the pressure grew on Zappelli.

Then comes the

Sub-section: Resignation

[edit]

that just rewords the facts presented in the preevious paragraph. It emphasizes - again - the resignation. Does it make it more explicit even so? The information doesn't seem to have any logical structure:

  • First a quote of Mr. Zappelli about his resignation.
    I have decided to quit my post as Attorney General effective March 31, 2012.... out of respect for the citizens who elected me in 2002 and re-elected me in 2008, I will continue to exercise my role with devotion so as to assure [a smooth] transition to my successor.
    Is this quote relevant? Does it contributes to the development of a synthetic and encyclopaedic knowledge of the subject? Does it bring any relevant information that would allow the reader to increase his encyclopedic knowledge of the subject?
  • Again, like in the introductory text, the emphasis is on the fact Mr. Zappelli is historically the first Geneva Attorney General to resign. Again, this information is not sourced. Again: is it relevant to mention this anecdote twice, does it serve encyclopedic aims? Does it contribute to the synthetic understanding of the subject?
  • A short statement of Mr. Zappelli about his departure follows: I regret nothing. This leads again to question the encyclopedic relevance when it comes to this quote. By the way,, the translation is rough: Je n’ai aucune amertume actually means I feel no bitterness.
  • Then some personal and professional details about facts that occurred after the resignation: (...) in Dubai, to work as a financial director for an undisclosed company. Next are mentioned Mr. Zappelli's return to Geneva as well as the name of his employer at the time of the return.
    • First of all, this is not sourced: it is not mentioned anywhere in the related sources that Mr. Zappelli is a financial director.
    • But above all. this is totally out of scope. The encyclopedic scope is defined by the subject's notoriety:
      Many Wikipedia articles contain material on people who are not well known, even if they are notable enough for their own article. In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to the person's notability, focusing on high-quality secondary sources.
      Source: BLPs policy, WP:NPF
      Mentioning names, locations, dates and facts that are not related to the subject's notoriety is questionable. Mentioning here the name of a current employer is equally questionable as mentioning the names of former employers in the Biography section.

include only material relevant to the person's notability, focusing on high-quality secondary sources.

Source: "Biographies of living persons" policy, WP:ALIVE

Again: an imbalanced page, by an abundance of anecdotes or quotes, violates the principle of neutrality.

Section: Deputies re-join after Zappelli resigns

[edit]

A whole section to emphasize a previously mentioned mentioned fact following the resignation (Pursuant to the announcement of Zappelli's resignation, the team of four deputies then decided to return to their posts). Again: isn't this undue weight? Why is this fact so much emphasized? Why a whole section for this? Is the redundancy of this information relevant? Isn't it out of scope to give such a prominent place to an event that occurred after Mr. Zappelli's terms?

Then follows a statement from the deputies about the fact:
It is at the request of the Geneva Judicial Council (Conseil supérieur de la magistrature) that we decided to delay the date of our resignation to the end of April. A departure which concerned only our mandate of first Attorney General. We took this decision so as to allow the new Attorney General to organize an election of a new team. But as well, to assure the management of the Attorney General's office through the period of transition.'
Does it really contribute to the development of a synthetic and encyclopedic knowledge of the subject? Moreover, this quote is not sourced (broken link).

Section: New Attorney General

[edit]

Again, a whole section about a fact following and related to Mr. Zappelli's resignation. Again, undue weight. Again, there is no encyclopedic reason to such an emphasis on the resignation and the events following it.

Conclusion

[edit]

I am going to request the speedy deletion - as well as the protection against re-creation - of the Daniel_Zappelli article.

G10. Pages that disparage, threaten, intimidate, or harass their subject or some other entity, and serve no other purpose
Examples of "attack pages" may include (...) biographical material about a living person that is entirely negative in tone and unsourced. These pages should be speedily deleted when there is no neutral version in the page history to revert to. (...) Articles about living people deleted under this criterion should not be restored or recreated by any editor until the biographical article standards are met. (...)
Source: "Criteria for speedy deletion" policy, WP:G10 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Furfurel (talk • contribs) 21:15, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(...) contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion. This applies whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable, (...)

BLPs should be written responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate tone, avoiding both understatement and overstatement.

Source: "Biographies of living persons" policy: WP:BLP

Moreover, even if Wikipedia admins are watching and even if years went by, this remains a very sensitive subject since Mr. Zappelli is still being defamed, attacked and threatened. An example from 2015: daniel zapelli is a criminal and a murderer. (...) You are protecting a criminal, I'll be back.

(...) errors need to be avoided, especially when they have the potential to cause harm. One area where this applies is when writing about living people.

The Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees urges the global Wikimedia community to uphold and strengthen our commitment to high-quality, accurate information, by:

  1. Ensuring that projects in all languages that describe living people have policies in place calling for special attention to the principles of neutrality and verifiability in those articles;
  2. Taking human dignity and respect for personal privacy into account when adding or removing information (...);
  3. (...)
  4. Treating any person who has a complaint about how they are described in our projects with patience, kindness, and respect, and encouraging others to do the same.
Source: Wikimedia Resolution:Biographies of living people, https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Biographies_of_living_people

While waiting for the decision about the sppedy deletion request, I'll take the initiative to remove some content of the article on the basis of the following policy:

When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic.

Source: "Biographies of living persons" policy: WP:BLP

I thank you all for your time and commitment reading this. --Furfurel (talk) 20:34, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll grant that there are some potential problems here, but total deletion and protection against recreation are not the appropriate remedies. Content which is not properly compliant with WP:BLP, and not reliably sourced, can be removed from the article, and even deleted from the edit history so that nobody can see that it was ever in the article at all if it's explosive or inflammatory enough. However, he cannot be deemed permanently off-limits from us ever having an article about him at all — as a notable former officeholder at the cantonal level in an important country with good media coverage, he is a topic that we must be able to maintain some type of article about.
So no, the article is not going to simply get deleted outright, nor is it going to get protected so as to make recreation impossible. You may discuss the specific problems you have with the content of this article, so that they can be reviewed for BLP compliance and sourceability, and reworded for neutrality or removed or oversighted if necessary, but the article as a whole is never going to disappear entirely. Bearcat (talk) 23:05, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Daniel Zappelli. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than 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: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:16, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Daniel_Zappelli&oldid=1203670374"