Talk:Florentina Mosora

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

Untitled[edit]

There are some serious problems as to how the academic part of her life is documented in this article: all the bibliography entries listed are articles in scientific journals of which she is just one of the authors (we cannot even be 100% sure it is her, because all, except for the first one, say "Mosora F.", no full first and second name). Nowhere does it say that she was a member of the Belgian Academy of Sciences. What does it mean: "...she was Oceanography Chairwoman at the Liege University in Belgium"? And she seems not to have written any books; she has been the co-author of only one book, "Biomechanical Transport Processes" (actually it seems she was one of the five editors). Can one become a member of the Belgian Academy of Sciences so easily, I wonder.

I took out the first of the external links, because it said "Server not found."--Mycomp (talk) 11:51, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the website of the Belgian Academy. Her name is not on the list [1] of members or associated members from 1769-2008. So I deleted the info in the article about that.--Mycomp (talk) 02:37, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the reference with the full name in the same area proving that she was the author on all papers cited not some other, inexistent person.
  • http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/181/4098/445?ck=nck Marcel Lacroix 1, Florentina Mosora 1, Micheline Pontus 1, Pierre Lefebvre 2, Alfred Luyckx 2, and Gabriel Lopez-Habib 2. Glucose Naturally Labeled with Carbon-13: Use for Metabolic Studies in Man.Science 3 August 1973: Vol. 181. no. 4098, pp. 445--446. DOI:10.1126/science.181.4098.445.]Nu 04:56, 17 March 2009 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Bci2 (talk • contribs) 04:56, 17 March 2009
The reference you show above is not the one I took out. Please check the "History" log. I took out a piece of double information (the same article listed was higher up on the list). And now I see that you put in another inexistent reference: the link used as reference that she was the "Oceanography Chairwoman" (you probably mean "dean") at the University of Liege leads to the page which lists what programs are taught ("List of degree programmes offered"). Her name does not appear anywhere on the page (I used the browser's "Find" function). Is that proof that she even worked there? Let alone that she was the "Oceanography Chairwoman"? What is more, I see you put back in that she is "Acad. Dr." although I proved it that she has never been a member of the Belgian Academy. And you put back a term which is a subjective opinion ("mediocre") which I will remove again. I see you used as a reference to back up the claim that she had 25 doctoral students a link which was nothing but the title of an article of which she was the co-author- there was nothing in the article about her being a doctoral thesis adviser or anything like that. So I removed that "reference" too. And please remember: falsely accusing someone of "vandalism" is tantamount to a personal attack, which is not the way to work at Wikipedia. --Mycomp (talk) 11:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The facts are as stated in the entry, as the references clearly prove. Nu 12:55, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
I see that "somebody" has added again as a reference for the allegation that she had 25 doctoral students the title of the book of which she was one of the co-editors (how can the title of a book prove that she had doctoral students?). And the University of Liege's website page that shows what courses they offer has been used as a reference for the allegation that she worked at the University. I don't dare delete these things again because of the 3 R rule.--Mycomp (talk) 13:27, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"There are **two** Royal Academies for Science and the Arts in Belgium, corresponding to the two main languages of the country, Dutch (Flanders) and French (Wallonia). The Academies are located in the Palace of Academies in Brussels.
L'Académie Royale des Sciences, des Lettres et des Beaux-Arts de Belgique is the older, being first so named in 1845. The Flemish Koninklijke Vlaamse Academie van België voor Wetenschappen en Kunsten was founded in 1938 by Julius Hoste Jr. Both societies today fall under an umbrella organisation, The Royal Academies for Science and the Arts of Belgium (RASAB), which handles the international affairs of the two regional branches of the Academy.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Bci2 (talk • contribs) 15:00, 20 March 2009
Great, now all that is needed are reliable independent sources that show that she actually was a member of these academies. --Crusio (talk) 17:11, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
She was uccesful both as an actress in Romania--a real symbol of feminine beauty on the movie screen--just as beautiful and (more) attractive as, for instance, Marilyn Monroe, Brigitte Bardot, Sara Montiel, Gina Lolobrigida, etc. were--as well as being very successful as a scientist in Belgium...There is more here at stake than just the correct referencing, etc. required by the wikings...

Nu 22:35, 21 March 2009 (UTC)Bci2|talkNu 22:35, 29 March 2009 (UTC) {{WP-PHYSICS}} (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Bci2 (talk • contribs) 22:35, 29 March 2009

Crusio, please[edit]

Look, I mentioned the relevant birth and death places in the bio (you're simply wrong about the current being the standard, particularly with the whimsical "b." and "d." in the brackets, and you still don't seem to be aware of WP:OVERLINK). The links to the video rental sites and the Lorintiu site are in clear violation WP:RS and several other guidelines. Dahn (talk) 13:15, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Dahn, I am aware of WP:OVERLINK, but thanks for bringing to my attention that there are too many wikilinks. I have removed all double ones, keeping only those that appear first in the article. As for the Lorintiu and video rental sites, I don't see why this constitutes spam. If you want to, remove the video rental sites. But I think they show that the documentary is still available and can be used to document that. Use of the Lorintiu site (which is indeed phrased rather horribly) would constitute spam if we were using it to promote Lorintiu (and if that site tries to sell you something). That is not the case. At the moment, this is the only source we have about this documentary. Given that the documentary appears on several independent websites makes it rather certain that it exists. If you can find a better reference for it, then we can remove the Lorentiu reference if you really dislike it that much. As for the d. and b. dates and places, I think it is clearer to mention right away in the lead where someone was born/died. But I don't really find this an important issue too fight about so if it irritates you this much, go ahead and change it. As for the tags that you added, I obviously don't think that they are warranted. --Crusio (talk) 14:47, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are essential details missing in your argument, Crusio: Lorintiu is the one to have filmed that "documentary", and neither she nor any other "source" who picked up the info say that it was actually aired by the Romanian television (saying "I was employed by the Romanian television at some point" is not the same). There is no independence here: Lorintiu made it, the two sites are trying to sell it (which may have resulted from Lorintiu's direct offer to sell it, for all we know). That's saying that any 30 min. report whose producer had enough energy to peddle it becomes notable because it is peddled. As far as wikipedia is concerned, the documentary doesn't exist, per WP:NOT, the already mentioned WP:RS, the crucial WP:V ("verifiability, not truth") and several other policies. To make it even more obvious: if I have a personal webpage and 20 minutes to spare in order to fabricate a "documentary" about say, Larry King, does promoting it on my webpage and on, say, youtube warrant its mention on a Larry King-related page? Dahn (talk) 15:05, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and: way to place the burden of sourcing on my shoulders, but pass. If you want the mention to stay, you should find a reliable source discussing it, not me. Dahn (talk) 15:16, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nobody knows whether it aired, that's true and I don't assert that and it isn't stated in the article (and neither did you add that it wasn't aired, because we just don't know). But it exists and apparently (what you say are commercial) video rental sites offer it. That would be unlikely to happen with something you or I would fabricate in 20 min free time. What the motivation is of those sites, we can only speculate about. And I am not trying to place the burden of sourcing on you. I am happy with the current sources, you are not. Fine, then you should find a better one. --Crusio (talk) 15:18, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Crusio, we're not discussing the motivation of the sites, we're discussing their nature and how they fail WP:RS (which again leads me to invoke WP:V - to your "I am happy with the current sources", I say "Verifiability, not truth", meaning that if we have to sweep the gutter to find third-party info about the "documentary", then it shouldn't be mentioned on wikipedia). The about us at videofil clarifies that its goal is to group together film info for rental and purchase, which you order through them; if I read it right, it also says that the info is user-contributed. Cinemagia doesn't even have an "about us", afaict, and there is no indication about who contributes the database; it also seems to be oriented toward selling cinema tickets, dvds etc. Dahn (talk) 15:34, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are twisting my words, I do believe - I have used that to mean that she may as well, to emphasize that these sites are on that level of reliability. Whether or not she actually did is indifferent to me - had her self-promotion managed to get the film mention on a reliable source, I'd say "use it"; but it only makes the film a presence on that kind of inventory. And, again: I'm not disputing that the film exists, I'm saying that, as wikipedia rules go, it's as if it doesn't. Therefore, the site you link to, yet another one in the vein of videofil, adds nothing. Incidentally, noting the description of the film which resurfaces over and over on at least two of those sites, it's quite possible that they mirror or simply copy each other's content. And yes, they all say something (the same something vague) about TVR having produced it, but this relates to the principle I pointed out a couple of times - "Verifiability, not truth". That is to say: "Not mentioned by reliable sources? Then it's not mentioned at all." Dahn (talk) 16:22, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm a little bit unsure what to do about Videofil. If it is user contributed, then that does not sound very reliable to me, but what then is the difference with IMDB? --Crusio (talk) 15:59, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
IMDB is itself borderline to sources with no editorial policy, but has been judged to make the cut as the exception to the rule (an old discussion on the reliable sources noticeboard in which I played no part, and whose conclusions I don't necessarily share). Dahn (talk) 16:22, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again?[edit]

I see that User:Bci2 is at it again: f. ex. the reference for footnote nr. 9 is a user contributed site, and in addition it has all data about her marked as n/a. --Mycomp (talk) 13:15, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Facts in user contributed sites such as Wikipedia[edit]

Facts: Wikipedia is also a user contributed website, and there is pertinent data about Florentina Mosora and the movies in which she became a movie star, that is available at the website mentioned above. Bci2Nu 18:03, 3 July 2009 (UTC)Bci2Nu 17:59, 3 July 2009 (UTC)Bci2|talk
You obviously have not read WP:RS, WP:V and WP:NOT. This, together with your persistent additions of citations which do not verify the text, your misuse of copyrighted images and your various other more than problematic edits are ground enough for at least a temporary block, so I suggest you take some time to reflect about them, or my next move is WP:AN/I, where I am sure other editors will also like to comment about their interactions with your edits. And, btw, word to the wise: also consider reading and, if applicable, abiding by WP:COI. Dahn (talk) 18:08, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RS/N might be a better next step. If additional input from the editors there doesn't help convince Bci2 to avoid all of these unreliable sources, though, some level of administrative intervention might help (not from me, though, as by editing the article I've become an involved party). —David Eppstein (talk) 19:39, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Science publications[edit]

Professor Florentina Mosora's publications had, and have, a significant impact, especially her novel uses of nuclear medicine techniques for investigations of type II diabetes. Therefore, the categories listed here as unassessed, etc. are inappropriate Bci2 20:45, 22 March 2012 (UTC)Bci2[reply]

Religion[edit]

For what it is worth, here http://www.worldcat.org/title/florentina-ioana-mosora-stan/oclc/4779370905&referer=brief_results her religion is listed as Roman Catholic. Best wishes to all (Msrasnw (talk) 22:50, 22 March 2012 (UTC))[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Florentina Mosora. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:26, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Florentina_Mosora&oldid=1206146428"