Talk:Barbaro family

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]