Talk:C. Marcella Carollo

Why has this wikipedia article been locked? Why are you preventing Marcella Carollo's former students from posting a simple news story that mentions her and the closing of her institute.

Please reinstate this edit:

In October 2017, it was reported that the Institute for Astronomy at the ETH was dissolved and Carollo had to take a sabbatical in response to Carollo mobbing numerous doctoral students for over a decade.

What is wikipedia's policy of biographies with significant text written by the subject itself? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.118.65.134 (talk) 08:36, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Accusations of Bullying in the Neue Zurcher Zeitung and other Swiss Publications: Censorship by Wikipedia?

On Sunday 21st, October the respected Swiss Newspaper of Record, Die Neue Zurcher Zeitung am Sontag published this article: https://nzzas.nzz.ch/public/eklat-an-eth-professorin-mobbt-studenten-ld.1323367

It describes the murky circumstances in which the Professor Marcella Carollo's institute was shut down.

When attempts were made to update Carollo's wikipedia page to reflect this, the changes were taken down and the page has since been locked against editing.

Why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aquamari (talk • contribs)

@Aquamari: The source does not mention Marcella Carollo by name. Also see Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#C._Marcella_Carollo. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 15:15, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Here is a Science article that does name her. --92.208.202.180 (talk) 20:11, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

That looks sufficient to me. @Favonian and Eggishorn: Can one of you have a look? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:34, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Protection lifted. Edit responsibly! Favonian (talk) 20:38, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Not that it's necessary but I agree that the Science article provides what the previously-cited sources have lacked. I do hope, however, that the editors inserting this information refrain from continuing the strange calquing of harassment to "mobbing". Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:50, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Please note that mobbing is exactly what's being reported by the very original and first reporting source of the NZZ am Sonntag -- right ahead from the title already, despite the text itself. Hernani (talk) 01:04, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Please note that "mobbing" in English means something very different from what is being described here. That's why we have different words for different behaviors, after all. Claiming that it appears in the original German language article so it should be retained in English is a bizarre malapropism. "Verschwand" also appears, you don't expect us to say her institute was magic wanded away, do you? Unless she is accused of literally organizing gangs of either crows or postdocs to surround and physically assault and intimidate people, you aren't reporting about mobbing. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:28, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Then use bullying if you are sure she acted fully alone, even though two professors were sent collectively into holidays now and the institute doesn't seem to have been closed because of one of them alone, which alone is nothing that would have happened if it would be a very minor case as you try to frame it. What concerns your extrapolation to all other words, what about: no? Taking "verschwand", try "disappeared". No idea why there should be any motivation to bring up something like "wanded away". No translation system / translator would do that. Have you tried that? You've much better chances to achieve that with "Mobbing" (DE) and "mobbing" (EN). Like it or not. Hernani (talk) 02:01, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Not being able to discern that "verschwand"="wanded away" was specifically intended to be a ridiculous calque is better evidence than any I could offer that defending "mobbing" is silly. English may be rooted in the Germanic language family, but it's moved on significantly since then. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:14, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Mobbing

German "mobbing" does not translate to English "mobbing".

English "mobbing" is a lot of people (a mob) surrounding someone, possibly threatening them or hurting them, or they could just be fans. It's physical, in a situation that lasts minutes or maybe hours.

German "mobbing" is a group of people (nonphysically) bullying or harrassing someone, which might be in a workplace or school, and last days, months, or years.

Also, I don't see why it's a loan-translation (calque), which to me denotes a transport of meaning with change of word, rather than a transport of word with change of meaning.

Note that in the text of the article, the mobbers are the complainants and ETH, whereas in the references, the mobber is Carollo.

In the body of the article, the word "mobbing" is used to quote Westhues from an article in German. In the English Wikipedia page on Westhues's work, "academic bullying" is used. Probably Wikipedia should use "academic bullying" to translate his quotes.

In the NZZ articles cited in the references, it is just one person doing the mobbing, but this usage seems strange to me. It conflicts with how I have heard it in context prior to the Carollo case. But we can't change what the NZZ wrote.

2001:171C:2E60:D7E1:199D:6FEF:B25F:654 (talk) 22:53, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Section "Controversy"

This section seems to have severe NPOV issues, fully supporting Ms Carollos situation, and is badly referenced, both in the quality of the sources and in the technical aspect. E. g. the statement "These original complaints remain hidden from Carollo to this day." is phrased accusingly and unsourced here. However, the source currently under 18 ("Schlangengrube ETH" in the Weltwoche) would support the gist of this statement. Unfortunately what source 18 does not provide is verifiability of those statements it is connected to. I. e. the commission making a clear statement that Prof. Carollo should not be dismissed (according to the source you can only claim "there is no sufficient reason to dismiss" her, the recommendation may be in the report of the commission but is not mentioned here). Also, while Weltwoche generally is a very reliable source, this is just an opinion piece, not a reporting article.

There are many more instances of this. IMO the whole paragraph needs a more neutral, matter of fact approach (at least in style) with sources actually saying what was mentioned in the preceding sentences. However, I am not an expert on this issue and would have no other sources than those provided and/or found after a quick google search. The way it is now, it IMO also does Ms Carollo a disservice because instead of referencing her innocence it reads like somebody using Original Research to prove it himself. --131Platypi (talk) 15:02, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

biased

As it stands, the article is extremely biased in favour of Carollo. While there might be reasons for locking an article on a controversial subject to avoid edit wars, locking a version which is very one-sided, as appears to have happened, reflects very badly on Wikipedia. It is not locked now. The question is whether it can be restored to an objective form.