Talk:Barbaro family

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 [ossia della città di Venezia] 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 Barbaros 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia practices

Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia and goes back quite a long way. I see that the group of hoaxers has mastered Wikilawyer-speak, too. (ESkog)^(Talk) 16:33, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

• • • What a crock. This page used to be sourced by Spretti which is an excellent and very valid source to use. The Francesco Barbaro page had a link to Bucher (Barbaro), which editors continually remove because they feel like to. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that source and all info was cited. You and your other buddies removed that. All of this behavior is against your own so-called Wikipdeia policies. What justification do you have to remove a valid link the Bucher- none what so ever. Also, your behavior is tyranical- what you do is, block many many innocent people, then you claim they are all hoaxers, you write bad things about all of these good faith editors, put them on your list- and then none of these editors even have a voice to defend themselves because you have blocked them and keep saying that there is a hoax- there is no hoax, not now, and not ever- you are delusional. You and all of your buddies keep saying there is a hoax- you just don't want to see this topic grow because you are prejudice, there were many good faith editors who cited from very reliable sourcing.4.143.239.87 (talk) 19:00, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

• • • I see Wikipedia administrators went and harrased user 63... on the Daniele Barbaro page too, the poor guy went to correct the wording on the placement of the images which are "above and below" not right and left, and it gets reverted and the administrator says "no sourcing for the change". What!!! Can you and your buddies' behavior be anymore corrupt. Please stop insulting all of us- the history is there for everyone to see, and to see that you and others like you have removed valid sourced material, harrassed countless people, and blocked innocent good faith editors, and went out of your way to silence the voice of every editor on this topic. Please save your nonsense for yourself.4.143.239.87 (talk) 19:16, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

• • • Your so-called "hoax" was made up by one of your administrators who had issues against the Barbaro-family, that is all. It was a jealous and predjudiced attempt to stop the topic from growing with made up excuses, unjust blocking, false accusations, and ignorance. You can block anyone you want, silence them and make up a bunch of lies, but anyone can check the history and see that you blocked and harrassed all good faith editors who took an interest in this topic. You removed valid and cited sourced material from quality publications. You and others like you make up whatever you want, say whatever you want, and treat people unfairly. if one of you people say "hoax", you all jump on the bandwagon and start a witch hunt. You are all childish, ignorant, and corrupt4.143.239.87 (talk) 19:39, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

• • • Beware of several problematic administrators whom block and falsely lable people as "hoaxers" including: Deor, Edward321, and Starblind to just name a few.63.26.42.122 (talk) 13:51, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Silencing the truth on this page

Here is another tactic used by these editors. They call legit criticism "attacks"- remove truthful comments to paint a rosey image of themselves when there is corruption at work again. Why don't they just do the right thing and leave legitimately sourced material alone-material that has citation, but NO, they have to push their prejudice agenda. The page says it is a stub, you can help it grow, but anyone who does is shut down. The truth will not be silenced, nor should anyone put up with this corruption. Whenever one editor does something wrong, they then get a diferent editor to come in and revert unjustly, another corrupt tactic- I have seen them all. One is also not suppose to remove talk on discussion pages, a Wikipedia policy that is ignored, whenever they don't like certain talk they block you or say it is an attack, but they say teh most unjust things about so many people, lable them hoaxers, block them and do whatever they want- they treat legit users unjustly, they treat good-faith editors unjustly, and that is the truth which they are trying to silence. I have seen every tactic from "attacks" to "hoaxer" to "non-relevant talk" to "editing around a block" and every other lable they use to silence editors and their own corrupt behavior:15:27, 26 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.26.45.85 (talk)

Numerous problems with the article

There is a source right now on this page, that I have seen with my own eyes, the "Rough Guide..." that on this page says that Barbaro cut off a hand of a moor and placed it on a mastehead", nowhere in that sources does it say that, I tried to correct that from an educated position, and they revert back. Some "joe' early on said "Oh some editor is a hoaxer" without even knowing the facts and then every ignorant editor jumps in reverting everything and removing everything that they don't undertstand. None of these administrators know anything about the topic they are reverting- so they just lable everything and everyone a hoaxer- they are lost. Instead of allowing knowledgable editors to do good-faith edits, they perpetuate a hoax that never existed, just some confused heresay early on that goes on, and on, and on based on a falsehood from the very beginning. the very premise of a hoax was wrong from the start, and you blocked countless good faith editors based on your false premise, period. 15:43, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Valid Sourcing

Do not keep removing valid sourcing with citation when it is there, and don't lable an article as a stub for knowledgeable editors to expand upon, and then have them harrassed, blocked, or whatever. If sourcing is valid and cited, leave it alone. Pure and simple. You administrators are making more problems than anything else.4.143.234.59 (talk) 18:56, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

More trickery

I have an ip with 4... there is another person who feels exactly like I do with an ip of 63. Now Edward321 is trying to find anything and everything to block anyone and everyone that actually has reason and sees these administrators games. Why don't you just do what is right Edward321 and treat contributors with respect. You can not block anyone justly for making a good faith edit. You can add anyone you want to that list of yours, but neither 4.... or 63... ever did anything wrong, so grow up and move on to someone who is actually doing something wrong.4.143.236.17 (talk) 00:56, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

He made up that list on a bogus premise, blocked people so they could not respond and staged it to look like all of these good-faith editors were hoaxers- it is all BS. I backtracked to McTrain to check, McTrain did not add one bad-faith edit to any thing Barbaro- the guy was an expert of the topic and sourced perfectly- he was using Ibid. notations, a sign of a classically schooled person- this guy knew his stuff. Edward321 is full of himself- he has a god complex.63.26.32.123 (talk) 05:26, 27 December 2008 (UTC)