Talk:Dario Maestripieri

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Neuroscience 2012 Controversy[edit]

I think we can all agree that the deleted text (reproduced below) is inappropriate for Wikipedia, if funny, but should there not be reference to this controversy at all? - (talk) 15:31, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Dario's top caliber looks and fast paced lifestyle requires beautiful, top caliber supermodels around him at all times. This was heinously violated at the most recent Conference for Neuroscience in New Orleans, where he tweeted: "There are thousands of people at the conference and an unusually high concentration of unattractive women. The super model types are completely absent. What is going on? Are unattractive women particularly interested in Neuroscience? Are beautiful women uninterested in the brain?"

Conference administration has apologized and in the future will be displaying research from women that have passed stringent dress and body conformation codes.


Keep it. He's earned some infamy for his remark. Why else would I be looking for his Wikipedia page? He hasn't done anything else as notable. Are you Dario?
Ha, no. (I am the previous poster, though I am now at the airport.) Somebody else deleted it, and I was suggesting reinserting it, perhaps with a factual tone, rather than satirical. I apologize if that wasn't clear. Seems somebody did just that, anyway. - (talk) 20:41, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

The section without the Jezebel copy meets all BLP requirements and should remain in its current form. The entire controversy section was recently deleted by an IP with a single lifetime edit, geo-located out of Chicago, Dario's home city. I undid the change, I don't have rollback ability. - SpinozaQ (talk) 02:34, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Since when is an iPhone screen grab of a private facebook post considered well sourced? This could easily be fabricated. Further, we've all said some things on Facebook to our friends that in the absence of personality context could look pretty horrible. Was this sarcasm? Who knows, there's 20 odd follow up comments to the post that weren't leaked. Maybe there's more context in there? This is hearsay at best without a verifiable source, and libel at worst. - PseduDoxing (talk

The "sourcing" is due to multiple large internet sites producing news stories on the event, not the screen shot. The barrier to "proof" on Wikipedia is that those sites do the journalism, and they feel it is accurate enough to publish the story, thus opening themselves up to possible legal action if the information is fabricated. You are new around here. Regardless, I will not edit war with you. I have pushed the issue up to the BLP noticeboard. SpinozaQ (talk) 15:16, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I have removed this material. Maybe include it if it recieves significant coverage from RS. --Malerooster (talk) 18:50, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
It looks like an IP SPA added the material and said "major coverage " in the edit summary. A few blog postings does not equal "major coverage".Maybe if this is a big deal in 6 months, or some "action" is taken, maybe revisit then. --Malerooster (talk) 23:12, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Still doesn't seem like significant coverage, so removed again. --Malerooster (talk) 02:06, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Agreed, seems to already have lost momentum. a13ean (talk) 15:16, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure how some editors are concluding that the controversy has not received "significant coverage" when we have reliable sources that I cited in this edit saying exactly the opposite. While it is certainly true that wikipedia should not be mirroring every faux scandal hawked by gossip sites like Jezebel or personal blogs, when an issue concerning an academic is covered by sources such as Scientific American, The Scientist and Inside Higher Ed, which are as good as it gets in this area (and are already, and correctly, used as sources elsewhere in the article) it is hard to see why the wikipedia article on the subject should not reflect them. As this posting on the topic at the Science Careers website says:

Being a serious scientific publication, we resisted commenting when we saw heated discussion in the blogosphere (link not suitable for work) about the unfortunate observation that University of Chicago evolutionary biologist and neurobiologist Dario Maestripieri posted on Facebook. But now that Inside Higher Ed has reported on the resulting "furor," we figure it must be serious enough for Science Careers.

That is exactly the standard that wikipedia is supposed to be following per its policies, WP:RS, WP:DUE and WP:BLP. Can the editors opposing the inclusion clarify their thinking on the issue ? (talk) 23:05, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Good for Science Careers. We should aim higher however. Again, maybe if more comes of this, then maybe revisit. Can I ask why it is so important that this material be included?--Malerooster (talk) 00:46, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Science is a major magazine by pretty much any standard, though I'm not sure about the distribution of the related Science Careers. In any event, Chicago Tribune and Chronicle of Higher Education are both very large, respected publications. -effigies (talk) 15:56, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Still not notable and becoming less and less so. If anything changes, maybe revisit going forward. --Malerooster (talk) 01:06, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Google Trends seems to disagree with your opinion that it's "not notable". Searches for "Maestripieri" were more than ten times higher following the controversy than at any other point in history (including after the publication of his book). Furthermore, it appears that almost half of the websites that mention him also mention the scandal ("Dario Maestripieri": 35700, "Dario Maestripieri" Facebook: 13,300). He's gotten vastly more publicity from this event than any other. So if this event isn't notable, then neither is he, and this page should be deleted altogether. Reinstating, albeit in greatly abbreviated form. Ckerr (talk) 20:45, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
There's very specific criteria listed at WP:PROF which DM appears to meet. There's also different criteria for the inclusion of material in a biography of a living person WP:BLP, and this is a borderline case. It's mentioned in several places, but always in blogs or opinion columns, rather than in news articles or the like. Because of this, it doesn't appear to merit inclusion, unlike, for example, this guy's hijinks. a13ean (talk) 21:45, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Did the guy lose his job or go to jail or receive a fine or scolding or boycott or anything? Not that that would be the only test for inclusion, but it would seem to make a case. If he gets significant news type coverage, as mentioned above, then maybe revisit. --Malerooster (talk) 00:58, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
I agree it's a borderline case, but in my view the fact that it was picked up by the Chicago Tribune and Science Magazine merits its inclusion (the latter saying that they "resisted" commenting on it but felt in the end that it was too big of a deal not to). I tried to rewrite the section to follow the BLP guielines: "Criticism and praise should be included if ... the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone. Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints." To me, this entails mentioning the controversy, but as briefly as possible. It seems to me that a significant amount of traffic to his Wikipedia page will be from people who want to find out more about this (based on the Google Trends results), and if Wikipedia doesn't provide this information, those people will just have to look elsewhere (or wonder if they mistyped his name). That's why I think a reasonable compromise is to keep it as brief as possible, but provide some references so users can read about it in more detail if they so choose. Deal? Ckerr (talk) 19:32, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

─────────────────────────There doesn't seem to be consensus for inclusion but that can of course change. Maybe try an RFC or the BLP board again? --Malerooster (talk) 01:11, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

An RFC would probably settle this one way or another, although it does take a while. a13ean (talk) 02:53, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
I am in no rush. --Malerooster (talk) 03:16, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
I don't see a consensus for leaving it out, either. I'm also in no rush -- as long as in the mean time the page makes at least some mention of it. I thought the initial entry for it was excessive, and I think no mention of it would be a disservice to Wikipedia's readers for the reasons given above. I'm happy to discuss this more but I don't think it's particularly good faith to change it back to exactly the way you want -- no compromise to speak of -- and then say you're "in no rush"... Ckerr (talk) 03:51, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
There should be consensus for inclusion of material, especially for BLPs, not the other way around, ie no consensus for leaving it out means we include it. We should always err on the side of caution with BLPs. Consensus can and does change, and if that is the case here, then a mention can be added in the future. Again, if you want to start a RFC or maybe revisit the BLP board, go for it. It looks like there are only 3 or 4 folks who have commented on this?? I would love it if that number was more like 20 opinions.--Malerooster (talk) 04:02, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Also, the "compromise" version you added back in is NO where near any type of compromise or "breif" mention in any way shape or form. Maybe post something here first. --Malerooster (talk) 04:06, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

───────────────────────── How about;Facebook comments:In October 2012, while at the Society for Neuroscience's annual conference in New Orleans, Louisiana, he posted a comment on his personal Facebook page about the attractiveness of the female attendees which drew criticism.?--Malerooster (talk) 04:12, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Again, has "anything" material "resulted" from his FB post, like, repremend, or just people commenting on it? --Malerooster (talk) 04:15, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Sure, that sounds fine to me, as long as it has a few references. Ckerr (talk) 04:16, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
OK, I put in what you wrote above, plus three references (and a comma :)). If you're happy with that, then the matter is settled as far as I'm concerned, no need for mediation. Ckerr (talk) 04:29, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
I would NOT include this, but I was trying to work with you and will not delete this for NOW. Again, I would really like to get others involved and see what they think. --Malerooster (talk) 04:45, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Maybe switch "criticism" to "comment". --Malerooster (talk) 04:47, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
OK, I changed "criticism" to "comment". To me it's too timid now, but I guess if I were happy with it then it wouldn't be compromise :) If you want to go through the rigmarole of an RfC then that's fine with me; but if you're OK with it now then I personally feel we've spent enough time fussing over the page of someone who's not particularly notable in the first place. (Full disclosure: I'm a [male] neuroscientist, and I was at the conference in question, but I've never met Dario.) Ckerr (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:01, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

───────────────────────── DID the women look?? just kidding!! seriously, I would only include this "material" if this person was repremended or the such...I certainly don't want to do an RFC, too much paper work :)...--Malerooster (talk) 16:35, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Well ironically one of the reasons it generated so much press was because he wasn't reprimanded -- if he had been, it might've just blown over. Much of the hand-wringing in the articles focused on the fact that academics can often say things like that without formal repercussions -- it probably would've turned out very different if he'd made comments offensive to ethnic minorities, for example... Ckerr (talk) 19:37, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Or maybe he wasn't reprimanded because he shouldn't have been and it really was a tempest in a teapot. Also not sure if it would have mattered if the comments where directed at another group, unless there was a history, pattern, ect. --Malerooster (talk) 16:30, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Just spent some time figuring out how to get to the discussion on the talk page. I would definitely vote for added a section regarding the 2012 controversy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:47, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

3+ years later[edit]

Where does the time go? In the scope of this BLP, does the FB "controversy" still warrant inclusion? Just asking. Cheers. --Malerooster (talk) 16:22, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

External links section[edit]

I tagged this. I would remove ALL links except maybe his personal web page, ect. --Malerooster (talk) 16:23, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Done. Personal site doesn't link.--Malerooster (talk) 23:45, 23 October 2017 (UTC)