Talk:Giovanni Fornasini

Comment

Non sono cattolico; ero anglicano; sono ateo. Ma, penso di poter vedere un brav'uomo quando ne vedo uno. RIP don Fornasini, martire e santo. Narky Blert (talk) 22:57, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

GA nomination

Comments by creator and nom:

1. I wouldn't usually try to claim any credit for a translated article, but this one is massively enlarged and much better referenced than the Italian original.
2. The sources are fragmentary, and are a mess. I am putting this up for WP:GA partly as a model of how to deal with sources like that in an encyclopedic manner: point out the problems, tell the readers where to go look. Narky Blert (talk) 01:10, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Giovanni Fornasini/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Display name 99 (talk · contribs) 15:37, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Starting review here.

Infobox

• If the caption exists solely to state the person's name, I don't see what the purpose is. People know the name of the individual in the photograph based on the name of the article itself.

Comment by nom. Before that photo was taken, he was only "Giovanni Fornasini" or even just "Fornasini". When it was taken, he was entitled to the honorific "Don" (as shown by the "D." in his signature), and would have have been known to his parishioners as "Don Giovanni". (His clerical collar ties the date down to 1942-1944.) IMO the subtle differences are important. Narky Blert (talk) 01:49, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Is there a way we could make that more clear? I didn't get the name change from the article. I could've missed it. Display name 99 (talk) 02:22, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Comment by nom. This is one of those European things which the MOS gets ignorantly wrong. To take a couple of British examples. (1) When my (made-up) Englishman John Smith is knighted, he is no longer Smith, but is Sir John (Smith); if he later gets ennobled, he becomes Lord (most likely, Baron) Smith, and might again be called Smith. Lord John Smith would be utterly wrong: Lord <given name> <surname> is a younger son of a duke. (2) In Scotland, if lawyer John Smith is appointed a judge in the Court of Session, he becomes Lord Smith (or perhaps Lord John Smith, to distinguish him from others with the same surname).

Before he was ordained as priest, Giovanni Fornasini was just Fornasini. When he was ordained as priest, he became Don Giovanni. Narky Blert (talk) 23:37, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

The problem is that I don't see where we say in the article that from a certain point he went by a different name. Display name 99 (talk) 01:23, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Lead

• The ideal length of a lead is four paragraphs. I understand that in article without a lot of information available, that might not be feasible. But I feel that more could be added to the lead to get a better overall summary of the article. Two solid paragraphs would work for me. Display name 99 (talk) 15:37, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Comment by nom. I respectfully disagree, but am willing to reconsider. IMO, the lead should contain no more than the essentials, as a thumbnail indication of notability, and to give you a reason as to why you should keep reading. Narky Blert (talk) 01:49, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

With all due respect, your opinion (and mine) is irrelevant. The lead must conform to the guidelines expressed in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section. If this is not done the article cannot pass. Display name 99 (talk) 02:22, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Per MOS:LEAD, "a lead section should contain no more than four well-composed paragraphs" (emphasis added). Narky Blert (talk) 23:37, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

You're clearly cherrypicking. Yes, the lead shouldn't have more than four paragraphs. But that's not the only thing that's important. Read the rest of the page and it's clear that this lead is inadequate. Most reviewers prefer four. For shorter articles like this one two or three is fine. But the one we have now is still far too brief. It does not adequately summarize all of the important events in the article, as that policy mandates it do. Display name 99 (talk) 01:23, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

• I don't think that it's necessary to provide a parenthetical definition of canonisation. Most people already know what that means. If they don't, they can look it up. Display name 99 (talk) 15:37, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Comment by nom. I disagree. The Catholic Church doesn't create saints, it recognises people who are saints. IMO the distinction is important and is little understood. (I'm an Anglican atheist - it was something I had to learn.) Narky Blert (talk) 01:49, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Biography

• The parenthetical introduction definitely looks like a violation of WP:NOR. Wikipedia editors are not allowed to publish their own individual interpretations about the subject matter. Everything has to be backed up by a reliable source. If one cannot be found then this has to be eliminated. Display name 99 (talk) 15:37, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Comment by nom. The parenthetical introduction is intended as a warning against WP:NOR. The sources are incomplete and are not wholly consistent. So, report what all the sources say without choosing between them. Narky Blert (talk) 01:49, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm afraid your comments so far show a lack of familiarity with Wikipedia guidelines. Editors are supposed to go by what the sources say. We aren't allowed to create our own interpretations of the sources. Per WP: NOR, "Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves." Both italicized paragraphs clearly violate that and any experienced GA reviewer will agree with me. Display name 99 (talk) 02:22, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Early years

• Where is the source for the last part of the footnote? Display name 99 (talk) 15:37, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
• "Giovanni studied at Collegio Albergati in Porretta Terme;[2][6] but did not graduate,[3] and is recorded as not having been a good student." This sentence displays an improper use of the semi-colon. The semi-colon should only be used if what comes both before and after it is a complete sentence. Also, who recorded him as not being a good student? A teacher? His parents? A biographer? Display name 99 (talk) 15:37, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Comment by nom. "Not a good student". "Non fu un eccellente studente", from the citation in the article which supports that statement. Narky Blert (talk) 01:49, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm not questioning the veracity of the claim. I just want to know who made it. I think that's worth putting in the article. Display name 99 (talk) 02:22, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

• Is there any record on how he discovered his vocation?

Comment by nom. Nothing that I have found. I've changed "discovered" to "seems to have discovered", which IMO is a reasonable (and better) interpretation of the known facts. Narky Blert (talk) 01:49, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

• Nothing in notes 2 or 3 is sourced, nor is there a source for the final sentence. That is unacceptable. Display name 99 (talk) 15:37, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Comment by nom. If there were sources, they would be in main text. Those two footnotes are there to show editorial uncertainty (these are possibilities, but perhaps no-one knows). Narky Blert (talk) 01:49, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

"If there were sources..." There have to be sources or else the information needs to be taken out. Any information in footnotes has to be sourced, or else it's not clear which citation the information came from. Again, if there isn't a source, it has to go. Display name 99 (talk) 02:22, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

• "a parish of about 400 souls" Replace souls with people. Display name 99 (talk) 15:37, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Comment by nom. Done. Narky Blert (talk) 01:49, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Parish priest

• "Don Giovanni Roda was elderly. (1) He died on 21 August 1942." I suggest combining these two sentences. I have no idea what the purpose of all these parenthetical numbers is. What I do know is that they don't belong. Display name 99 (talk) 15:37, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Comment by nom. This is the first example in the article of disagreements between the sources over a date. Different sources (cited) say that Don Giovanni Roda died on 20 July or on 21 August. I am unwilling to choose between them. Narky Blert (talk) 01:49, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

That still doesn't explain what the purpose of the parenthetical numbers is. I'm also now noticing for the first time that the article contains both these sentences: "He died on 21 August 1942" and "Don Giovanni Roda died on 20 July." If reliable sources conflict, identify which sources they are and explain the contradiction. Don't give us two blatantly contradictory sentences. How is the reader supposed to make sense of that? Display name 99 (talk) 02:22, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

I thought this was covered by the immediately-preceding warning, but I've added an inline comment anyway. Narky Blert (talk) 23:37, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

First of all, you still have to get rid of the "warning." Secondly, you clearly haven't read what I said carefully. DO NOT give us two blatantly contradictory sentences. It makes no sense and it is extremely difficult for the reader to determine what is meant. You should say, "The accounts of sources concerning his death are inconsistent. Source A says... Source B says..." If the claim of one or the other is not certain because it is contradicted by another reliable source, both can't be true, so why would you present them as true? It's simple. And once again, the purpose of the parenthetical numbers scattered throughout the article remains a mystery, but I'm fairly certain, based off of not being able to recall seeing them at any other article, that they shouldn't be there. Display name 99 (talk) 01:23, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

• Link World War II. Display name 99 (talk) 15:37, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Comment by nom. See MOS:OVERLINK. Narky Blert (talk) 01:49, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Is it linked already in the body of the article? I couldn't find it. Display name 99 (talk) 02:22, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

No, nor should it be. See MOS:OVERLINK. Narky Blert (talk) 23:37, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

The term "is particularly relevant to the context in the article" and therefore should be linked. Display name 99 (talk) 01:23, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

• Is his name "Giovanni Remo Fornasini" or "Don Giovanni Fornasi?" I'm not certain. Display name 99 (talk) 15:37, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Comment by nom. In Italy, the honorific "Don" usually goes with the given name only. There's the complication here that his immediate predecessor was also a Don Giovanni. Narky Blert (talk) 01:49, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

That's something that should be explained. Display name 99 (talk) 02:22, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

• "Don Giovanni caused his church bells to be rung in celebration." Replaced caused with ordered. We also always refer to people by their last names on Wikipedia. Display name 99 (talk) 15:37, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Comment by nom. "Caused" -> "ordered", done.

OK, but can we refer to him by his surname Fornasini? That would make the naming complications easier to make sense of. Display name 99 (talk) 02:22, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

"can we refer to him by his surname Fornasini?" That would be a solecism. See #Infobox. Narky Blert (talk) 23:37, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

• "he was to be seen everywhere" This is not neutral encyclopedic language. Display name 99 (talk) 15:37, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Comment by nom. "It has been said that his chief characteristic was, that he was everywhere" is a translation of "Sua caratteristica principale fu l'ubiquità" in the cited source. Narky Blert (talk) 01:49, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Can you provide the full quote in the article and explain where it came from? That would be better. Display name 99 (talk) 02:22, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Done. Narky Blert (talk) 23:37, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

• For Note 4, what journey? Display name 99 (talk) 15:37, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
• "He rebuked the brigade's leader, Mario Musolesi (it) (nicknamed Il Lupo, "The Wolf"), because men under his command had killed Italians – and, he was listened to." More detail is needed here. Display name 99 (talk) 15:37, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
• "On 8 September, the Nazis garrisoned (i.e. installed soldiers in) his rectory. The same day, he wrote his last will and testament.[3] (2) He wrote his last will and testament on 10 September." Did he write it on September 8 or September 10? Display name 99 (talk) 15:37, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Comment by nom. I don't know. The sources disagree. Narky Blert (talk) 01:49, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Once again, say that they disagree. Don't give us two blatant contradictions and present both of them as fact. Display name 99 (talk) 02:22, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

• "He intervened, offering his own person in exchange." How did the Germans react? Display name 99 (talk) 15:37, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Comment by nom. I don't know. The source says no more. Narky Blert (talk) 01:49, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

• "According to Don Angelo, Don Giovanni persuaded the German commander to rescind his order to lay waste to Marzabotto by the gift of money and a pig. However, the barbarians had come to rend the sheep; and, as the Gospels teach, the good shepherd lays down his life for his sheep." Display name 99 (talk) 15:37, 7 September 2018 (UTC) I don't know what this is supposed to mean. Display name 99 (talk) 02:22, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
• Why don't notes 5 and 6 have sources? Display name 99 (talk) 15:37, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
• "Don Giovanni faced him down." Replace with less colloquial language. Display name 99 (talk) 15:37, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

That's all for now. I trust you are familiar with the GA criteria. I will say that this article currently fails the second criterion. Large amounts of information are unreferenced. It is also not entirely neutral, for a number of words, phrases, and sentences seem inclined to glorify or give a romantic portrayal of the subject. Display name 99 (talk) 15:37, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

As an atheist raised in a different Christian tradition, I have no intention of glorifying or romanticising the subject. I write only what I have read in WP:RS sources. I've been a bit sniffy about a couple of published sources which I thought were making things up, and which were demonstrably inconsistent. Narky Blert (talk) 23:37, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Death and burial

• What is the (it) for? Display name 99 (talk) 15:17, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
• No source for much of Note 8. Display name 99 (talk) 15:17, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
• "While burying the dead at Casaglia di Caprara, which the Nazis had forbidden, he accused a Nazi officer of complicity in the Marzabotto massacre, and was at once shot down.[8] (4) He accused an officer in the 16th SS Panzergrenadier Division Reichsführer-SS of complicity in the Marzabotto massacre. He was shot at point-blank range and decapitated.[10] (5) He accused a German officer of being responsible for the massacre. The officer replied, that that was a lie, and invited Don Giovanni to inspect Marzabotto; where he shot him in the head, among all the other corpses there.[13]" I'm extremely confused. If he kept getting killed, how could he keep accusing people of stuff? Display name 99 (talk) 15:17, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
• Beginning of final paragraph: improper use of semi-colon. Display name 99 (talk) 15:17, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Posthumous recognition

When discussing various titles that he has received, I think it's best to use the English translations wherever possible. Display name 99 (talk) 15:17, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Comment by nom. I use an English-language title only if I can find a WP:RS source which uses it. My translation of a non-English-language title would be WP:OR. Narky Blert (talk) 01:49, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Translations by editors are acceptable per WP:RSUE. Display name 99 (talk) 02:22, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Sources

• Our policy is that while non-English sources are permitted, English ones are preferred. Have you really used all the reliable English sources you can get? Can we replace any of the Italian sources with ones that are in English? Display name 99 (talk) 15:17, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Comment by nom. Yes, and no. All the WP:RS-looking sources are in Italian. I have omitted no English-language source which I could find. Narky Blert (talk) 01:49, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Very well. Display name 99 (talk) 02:22, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

• If you are going to quibble about uses of semicolons which may be incorrect in your dialect of English but which are correct in British English according to authorities such as Fowler, I see no purpose in continuing this discussion. Narky Blert (talk) 22:26, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

I was not aware that there were dialects of English in which the use of semi-colons in this way was acceptable. You could have told me about this in a normal way rather than accuse me of quibbling and talk of ending the review. However, it seems like this might be a cover for more a more serious problem-that is, your apparent unwillingness to change the article in order to meet basic standards set by Wikipedia and universal common sense editorial insight. If that's really what this is about, then yes, I agree it's time to close the discussion and fail the article. But I'll give you one chance to confirm. Display name 99 (talk) 03:26, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

The editor has not responded to my question but has made numerous edits since the time it was posted, meaning they obviously had a chance to see it. I have no confidence that this user has any intention of making this article meet the standards set by Wikipedia or, in my opinion, just about any reader or writer anywhere. Therefore, I am failing the article. Display name 99 (talk) 20:12, 12 September 2018 (UTC)