Talk:Lazare Ponticelli

Italian descent

If we say 'of Italian descent', that would include ANYONE who has Italian ancestors...→ R Young {^yakł_talk} 11:35, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Including "Roberto Young" I might add. Extremely sexy 19:42, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Since that's NOT my name, what a stupid comment, Bart. Thanks for lowering the level of discussion.→ R Young {^yakł_talk} 03:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I was just joking, man: please, chill, and stop calling names (from now on I have to agree with all the others accusing you of this). Extremely sexy 14:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Why did you add "of Italian descent"? He's definitely Italian since he has Italian nationality. Mitch1981 (talk) 21:27, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

No: he was definitely French in fact. Extremely sexy (talk) 16:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, lets just make this clear before this becomes another Ruby Muhummad. His parents were born in italy. he was born in Italy. He moved to France, where he died. Now end these idle arguements and actually look at the page (which I mostly wrote, in fact.) Editorofthewiki 23:19, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Whoever has Italian parents is Italian —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.37.141 (talk) 12:45, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

I have already made any changes that took me less time to make than it would have to explain. Here are some comments:

1. The caption for the image needs to put it in more context, mainly when it was taken or something else to establish approximately how old he was when the picture was taken.  Done
2. I'm a bit confused with the "Awards" section in the infobox - Médaille Interalliée (World War I Victory Medal (United States)) supposed to be one award? In any case, the link should be piped so that it reads World War I Victory Medal, but I didn't do this myself because I feel like there's a reason that this wasn't done that I'm missing.  Done
3. Direct quotes must be directly cited, even if the reference appears again at the end of the sentence or paragraph. In the first paragraph of "Later life", Ponticelli is quoted as saying "in the name of all those who died, men and women", which requires a direct citation.  Done
4. I wonder if the Benoît Hopquin quote is necessary. For one thing, Hopquin does not appear to be a notable figure (and, if he is, this should be explained before the quote). For another, it seems like a needless unbalancing of the POV of the article. Overall, I don't see how this quote is relevant in an encyclopedic context. It's a nice tribute, but that's not what an encyclopedic entry is for. I don't understand why this quote was picked - it seems very arbitrary and unnecessary to me.  Done Replaced by Sarkozy quote
5. The "Biography" under "External links" needs to be described better (ie. Biography at such and such a site or something along those lines)  Done
6. The lead needs to conform to WP:LEAD. Specifically, it must not introduce facts that are not present in the body of the article. The following information is not present in the body of the article: "At the time of his death, Ponticelli was both the oldest living man born in Italy and the oldest man living in France. In his later years, he was very critical of war in general and kept his war awards in a shoe box", aside from the mention that he was "very critical of war in general" (although, to be a pedant, I'd argue that the article only shows that he was "critical" as opposed to being "very critical", but that's just me)  Done

As a side comment, and not one that I'm going to hold against passing this as a Good Article, the article would probably benefit from more foreign-language sources. Obviously if you can't speak the language, then there's nothing that can be done but, if you're looking for ways to further improve the article, that might be something to think about. Anyhow, to allow for these concerns to be addressed, I am putting the article on hold for a period of up to seven days, after which it may be failed without further notice. Cheers, CP 01:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

• • I have addressed all the issues. I am wondering why you gave it a ? for NPOV, as you did not explain further. Personally, I am a mediocre French speaker and I will add more French sources. Editorofthewiki 02:15, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Excellent. The ? for NPOV was because of the earlier quote that I felt unbalanced the POV, but the new one is relevant and good. One last tiny thing, the following sentence from the lead needs to be incorporated and cited somewhere in the body of the article per WP:LEAD and WP:V: "At the time of his death, Ponticelli was both the oldest living man born in Italy and the oldest man living in France." After that, I should be ready to pass it. Cheers, CP 19:17, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I will now be passing the article as a Good Article. Congratulations, and thank you for your hard work! Cheers, CP 00:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Fernand Goux

Someone should add a wikilink-redirect to the current "Surviving Veterans of WWI" for Fernand Goux...Ryoung122 13:36, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that would be a good idea because A) It was not the result of the Articles for Deletion debate and B) It will become obsolete once he dies (although I suppose it could redirect to Veterans of WWI who died in 20XX, but I doubt people are going to try and find that page by searching for "Fernand Goux", so it is not really appropriate). Cheers, CP 16:03, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The inability to establish "notability" for a stand-alone article doesn't mean that a topic is not encyclopedic: clearly, if there is a question about Lazare Ponticelli's status as the last French veteran of WWI, then adding a link allows a user to quickly find "more information" without getting tangentially off-topic. Inclusion within an article, instead of as an article, only requires one reliable source. Of course, it remains to be seen if:

A. Will Fernand Goux outlive Pierre Picault (if there is a Pierre Picault...so far all we have is Laurent's word for it).

B. Will another French veteran be discovered?

C. Will Mr. Goux gain media attention?

I note the case of the Last Confederate Widow...

http://www.civilwarnews.com/archive/articles/maudie_hopkins.htm

(by the way, it appears there is no article...perhaps there needs to be one, as a cultural icon article...paging Lucy Marsden...)

after a woman who was the established pick for the last Confederate widow died, another claimant emerged, but little attention has been given to this woman. I agree Wikipedia is not the place to establish notoriety...that would be original research. However, if someone is going to bother to read the Lazare Ponticelli article I'm sure they would be interested in Fernand Goux, and right now more information is available, but there is no link for it. So, adding a link/redirect to "Surviving Veterans of WWI" would be appropriate. If/when he dies, it wouldn't be too much to change that link to "veterans who died in 2008" or "2009" or whatever year he dies in. Also, given the uniqueness of his existence, his existence won't ever be totally irrelevant unless it can be shown to be a hoax--because Mr. Ponticelli died in March, and Mr Goux is still living...

Sincerely, Robert Young

• We have reliable sources to back up that Ponticelli was the last French veteran. we don't for Goux. He might be just a faker, and we can not think more of it unless a reliable source disagrees. I worked hard bringing this to FA status; I don't want it to be compromised by some original research. --I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 10:32, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Greetings,

The amount of work you may have put into this article should have no effect on the decisions here. It's an emotionally charged response and doesn't deal with the real issue here. There is no source to support your contention that Fernand Goux is a faker. Calling this "original research" is just another straw-man argument. I knew about this case for quite some time but held it back as an "anonymous veteran." When the case finally went to the press, that is when it appeared on Wikipedia (and no, I didn't add him...Captain Celery doesn't even have a Wiki e-mail address, and you apparently don't either, so there was no way to contact him while I was on Wiki-vacation). In addition, there is a lot of understanding that what one means by "veteran" differs by different sources. In this case, the French rules for establishing someone as a "veteran" are quite strict (I think something like a 90-day minimum in combat) while the American standards are quite loose (one hour as a recruit counts).

I myself understand that Edna Parker is the "official" world's oldest person, but others claim to be extreme ages. Wikipedia supports a pluralistic approach and that means we have articles on both the official line and the competing claimants. That isn't really the issue here, though...The Fernand Goux case has been vetted by Frederic Mathieu, and has been cited in at least one fairly reliable source, and a number of sources, actually:

http://www.ladepeche.fr/article/2008/06/19/460271-Le-dernier-Poilu-de-14-18-n-est-pas-mort.html http://mctproduction.over-blog.com/article-20632722.html

Additionally, I 'have' been saying for over three years that the French "veteran-finders" were disappointed at the French government not giving them their due for finding veterans such as Rene Riffaud and Francois Jaffre, who were mentioned on the Wikipedia talk pages and other sources months, even years, before the French government "discovered" them--and thus planned to withhold all additional finds, in hopes of embarrassing the French government into recognizing the "wrong" veteran. All that has come to pass.

Le dernier Poilu de 14-18 n'est pas mort L'Histoire du jour LaDepeche.fr | 19 Juin 2008 | 09h27

DDMQuatre mois après le décès de Lazare Ponticelli, dernier Poilu décédé le 12 février à l'âge de 110 ans, un spécialiste de la Grande guerre a retrouvé un Français de 108 ans, qui était au front début novembre 1918 mais qui ne possède pas le statut d'ancien combattant.

Frédéric Mathieu, créateur et animateur du site spécialisé consacré aux derniers vétérans de la guerre de 14-18 (www.dersdesders.free.fr), publie dans le prochain numéro du Journal des Combattants, bi-mensuel crée en 1916, un article sur cet homme.

Fernand Goux, né le 31 décembre 1899 à Sceaux-en-Gatinais (Loiret), a été incorporé le 19 avril 1918 au 85e régiment d'infanterie, puis affecté à l'arrière des lignes (ravitaillement des troupes et enterrement des soldats tués).

Affecté au 82e RI le 3 novembre, il est envoyé au front où il ne reste que quelques jours en raison de l'armistice du 11 novembre 1918.

Mais cet ancien agriculteur, qui vit aujourd'hui en Ile-de-France, ne peut prétendre au statut officiel d'ancien combattant puisqu'il n'a pas, selon l'Office national des anciens combattants (ONAC), passé au moins 90 jours dans une unité combattante, ni été fait prisonnier, ni évacué pour blessure, ni subi une maladie contractée pendant le service. Alors qu'il est aujourd'hui le dernier représentant vivant de la Grande guerre, on peut espérer que la nation reconnaisse, enfin, à cet homme qui s'est engagé à 18 ans, le statut d'ancien combattant.

Let me ask a question: did Alexander Graham Bell invent the telephone, or did Elisha Gray? Did the Wright brothers invent the airplane, or was it Gustave Whitehead? Simply because a viewpoint is not the "establishment" pick does not make it "original research". As an historian, with multiple degrees in history, I understand the motivations and objectives behind the constructions of history. In this case, Lazarre Ponticelli fits the bill as the last "poilu" and since the rules state a minimum of 90 days of combat service, I won't dispute that. But the definition of "veteran" varies by nation and Mr. Goux would certainly qualify as a veteran if he served in the UK or the American armed forces at the same time. Adding a link to another article on Wikipedia hardly qualifies as "original research."

Sincerely, Robert Young

First of all, the second source is a blog, which is not considered reliable. Second, my response was no emotionally charged-I did not know about #1 after doing a quick google search. Until I came across #1, there were no other sources other than blogs and youtube videos to even suggest that Mr. Goux was the last veteran; thus, this would be original research. And Thirdly, I have enable e-mail in my preferences, and have used Special:Emailuser twice; others have complained that they cannot e-mail me, so that is very odd indeed. Anyway, I will be adding source #1 to the article. --I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 20:56, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Greetings, from what I understand Fernand Goux originally was a back-line soldier (retrieving dead bodies) until he was moved to the front lines on November 3, so he served only 8 days in combat. Thus he will not replace Lazarre Ponticelli but deserves a footnote mention. I note that you could still redirect the Fernand Goux link to the Surviving Veterans of WWI page.

Also, it is possible that Pierre Picault will replace Mr Ponticelli (my sources told me this is a possibility) eventually as the last "poilu" as I heard he was a combat veteran for more than 90 days, but until we have a news story, there's nothing to worry about.

If you would like to talk to me, you can use my talk page...I could not find your talk page, and your e-mail was not working.

Sincerely, Robert Young Ryoung122 01:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Date links

I want to build a concensus about date links on the article. My opinion is that we should link 1897 and 2008, to show the reader how different the world was when Ponticelli was born from when he died. This was how the article was working until the date linking deletionists came along. ~the editorofthewiki ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 23:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment I agree completely. Let's face it, Ponticelli was a hero but had he died in 1960, he would not have been famous. He became a symbol, a "living-history" link to the past. In that since, it is most appropriate to provide a date link to that past...not just for 1897 and 2008 but also his years of service (began 1914, ended 1918) and also a date of a major battle. Note that the date-deletionist coup began with user Tony1 insisting that they look "untidy" and that the dates were only linked due to "autoformatting" (when in fact date linking predated the autoformatting of dates). The problem, though, is that Wikipedia is beginning to replace human edits with auto-bots, which can't discriminate between a useful date link and a useless one. In other words, the two features that made Wikipedia so popular...the encyclopedia that "anyone can edit" and the use of links to related materials...are both at risk. It's sort of like the policies of "zero tolerance" in schools(a tweety-bird keychain is NOT a weapon!).Ryoung122 06:16, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Date links add nothing to articles. --John (talk) 14:08, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

What is this talk of "auto-bots" that remove date links from articles? I do not know of any such bots that are currently running. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:02, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Dear EOTW and Ryoung: the community has recently reconfirmed at two RfCs that, inter alia, dates should not be autoformatted. It was not a simple majority, but an overwhelming majority (> 90%, but I haven't done a precise count). The dispensing of DA is therefore here to stay. In a featured article, I'm afraid there's even less latitude to go against this consensus, since Criterion 2 demands compliance with the style guides. Please accept the community's wishes. If you wish to discuss it, I'm pleased to do so. You may have a strong argument for linking a particular date fragment, in which case the conventional wisdom is that highlighting it in your "See also" section is the way to go; there, it is more obvious and you can pipe it in a way that is more likely to attract the reader's click.

Concerning the use of semi- and fully automated processes: yes, there may be false positives, but they're comparatively rare. Provided the user is sensitive to feedback and polite (I haven't heard otherwise in the case of date auditing), the benefits appear to far outweight the odd glitch. I hope that you might be supportive of the move to spare editors the manual labour of the more clerical tasks involved in improving our articles. Tony (talk) 14:12, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Tony is arguing a position, irrelevant here, to which he is deeply committed. Many of us agree that linking all dates is wrong, and that autoformatting was a mistake; but neither is in question here. There is no consensus on any general rule whether special cases, such as these dates, should be linked; there is a current Request for Comment on the matter at this page. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:34, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad to be deeply committed to something beyond mere contrarian disruption. Tony (talk) 15:47, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

If the article is going to breach MOSNUM, CONTEXT, MoS, and MOSLINK on these points, it will be listed in the next day or two at FAR for eventual demotion. Sorry, but that's the deal. Tony (talk) 15:54, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

• This does not breach MOSNUM; but I can think of no more helpful example for the case that FA cannot evaluate articles in a rational manner than the proposal to demote this for a few, arguably helpful, links. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:58, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
• What MOSNUM says, after all, is Dates (years, months, day and month, full dates) should not be linked, unless there is a reason to do so. Editorofthewiki has supplied his reason above, and there is widely held opinion that it is sound. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:05, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

• For my part, I think this should be decided by those who wrote the article. If I were doing it, I would link in the text, rather than in the infobox; the blue links are less visible against the blue infobox. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:02, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Pmanderson, see WP:OWN. Yes, the primary contributor's opinion is necessary, but remember that Wikipedia is a collaborative effort. Consensus is more important. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:54, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Editorofthewiki writes: "we should link 1897 and 2008, to show the reader how different the world was when Ponticelli was born from when he died". If people need to click a link to find out what 2008 is like, they have been living in a cave for the past few years and most likely they do not have access to the Internet anyway. The formative event in Ponticelli's youth was WW I, for which there already is a Wikilink. So, no support from me on either count, sorry.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 18:12, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

• • This seems reasonable. Certainly as a guideline editors shouldn't be going around and removing links and doing nothing else of value. Such edits unnecessarily clutter an already hard to track watchlist for many of our best contributors and is really more disruptive than helpful. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:56, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Re Goodmorningworld: Yeah, we can remove 2008 (but perhaps in the future, when less people know what 2008 was like...) but we should definitely keep 1897 and perhaps 1917 or 1918. Tony, MOSNUM does not say that we should remove all date/year links, just the ones without a clear reason to keep. That is to say dates and irrelevant years, but in the cases of people noted for extreme age, birthyears should definitely be kept. Besides, if there were no year links, the year articles would become orphans. I don't participate in RFCs anyway as they tend to cause more drama than they solve. ~the editorofthewiki ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 22:06, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
      • If we held a discussion at WT:FAC right now, I think the consensus would be to not link that year, based on recently promoted Featured Articles and the votes of individual FAC regulars at the RfC. However, it is only one year link at the present, so I will not push too hard. My opinion: This is a Featured Article, we should not link the year; it would influence many editors to do the same for all biographical articles. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:52, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
• If a reader really wants to find out what happened in (say) 1897, they will quickly figure out that all they need do is enter the year and click the button for a standard WP search. Please think carefully about "opening the door a little bit"—you will have no end of edits back-and-forth as various editors consider certain years more-or-less worthy of linking.  HWV 258  23:30, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I really don't see what is so incredibly wrong with using date links. I'm sure 99% of casual readers couldn't care less about them, and the 1% that do might want to know what happened that year. Surely clicking on 1897 is faster than typing it in the web address? For example, many obituaries for really old people state who was the president etc. when they were born. We obviously cannot tell this here, but a link to the year certainly can. ~the editorofthewiki ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 00:01, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

It is incredibly wrong, as a trillion Wikipedians have said here. That discussion is over: the fat lady has sung. Now about this particular article. In addition to telling Ponticelli's story (and in my opinion the Article tells the story well and has deservedly been elevated to FA status), you also want to include supplementary information ("context") to show how much change occurred in the world between his birth year and the year of his death. Consider achieving that aim not by a link to a year article (1897 is as bad as all the year articles) but through writing. How about — I am making this up on the fly, actual facts and dates would have to be researched — Ponticelli was born 27 December 1897, a decade before the first telephone came to his native village, and died on dd mmmm 2008, just two weeks after the Space Shuttle Discovery delivered its XXth crew to the International Space Station.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 00:39, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

To say it is "wrong" is to suggest that morality has somehow reversed itself since the start of wikipedia (when linking of dates was considered incredibly right). That is not the case. What has actually happened is that the wikipedian community has exercised its right to change its mind - and it can do so again at any time. Deb (talk) 19:15, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Date linking was used for autoformatting of dates, when that was in effect. Almost nobody liked doing it but we did it because it was the consensus. Now that autoformatting is deprecated, there is no need to link to these useless collections of random trivia, aka date articles. I have yet to see one of the minority who want to retain date links credibly claim they have read a date article and think it worth linking to. --John (talk) 19:44, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Then the article would cease to be about him and rather things that happened during his lifetime. No. Are you proposing--and I'm not implying that you are--that we delete 1897 because the information could be told in other articles? ~the editorofthewiki ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 00:47, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Eh? In your opening post to this section, you wrote that you want to "show the reader how different the world was when Ponticelli was born from when he died". Fair enough, I was merely casting about for an alternative means of doing that instead of date linking, which has been deprecated.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 01:09, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

• You've identified one of the problems yourself. It's just not worth diluting the more valuable links for the 1% (and I'm sure that's closer to 0.001%) of times when a reader wants to find out what happened in a particular year. For the (very) tiny number of times someone wants to find out what happened in a particular year, they are not disadvantaged (enough) by having to perform a trivial search. Another issue (as I mentioned above) is that you risk having recurring problems when one editor thinks it's worth linking a year that another editor doesn't.  HWV 258  00:50, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

• I don't want to discuss date links as a whole (God I have better things to do with my time). I simply think we should remain at the status quo: one link for 1897. Sure it's not a huge issue, but that is the standard WikiProject WOP silent guideline (aka Ryoung and me). We wrote this, anyway. ~the editorofthewiki ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 01:08, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

"We wrote this, anyway".  HWV 258  01:44, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Editorofthewiki, we are not jackbooted thugs. (Even though you call us deletionists.) A WikiProject's guidelines are not to be heedlessly disregarded. However, I went to your Project page and clicked on the first article I saw there: Edna Parker. Her birth year (1893) is not linked at all in the article or in the infobox. And you know what, I don't think Edna Parker suffers from the lack of the link. There is [[Category:1893 births]] at the bottom, which people can click on to view her age cohort; it is a good way to link to context.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 01:31, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I never called you jackbooted thugs. You are deletionists, in that you seem hell-bent to remove all date links. Ryoung and I thought the same way about this, and since we are the only semi-active not blocked members of the wikiproject, I didn't think a guideline page was necessary (I can write one, however, if you deem it necessary). True, Edna Parker doesn't gain much (though people clicking on the cat will be looking for other people born in 1893, not events in the year) but what does it lose? Claims of clutter are invalid--it one link really cluttering the page? ~the editorofthewiki ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 00:01, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Are we talking past each other? My question was, if as you say there is a "standard WikiProject WOP silent guideline" to link years of birth and death in the lede, then how come Edna Parker (a prominent article in your project) does not -- last time I looked -- link these dates? --Goodmorningworld (talk) 15:14, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

The whole purpose of links in Wikipedia is to link people to relevant articles. While in most cases, it may be fairly irrelevant to link to a date or year, I think cases like this are exceptional. I firmly believe that dates (especially years) should be linked in some cases to give background to the article. Perhaps a good example of this is the World War I article, which now lacks links to years like 1914, which I think would be quite a relevant link. As has probably already been explained above, linking to 1897 in this page will put the article, and Ponticelli's notable longevity into context and give added significance. Even the new guideline says that "Chronological items ... should generally not be linked unless they are demonstrably likely to deepen readers' understanding of the topic". As I have already said, I think a link to 1897 would deepen the reader's understanding. SiameseTurtle (talk) 00:49, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

SiameseTurtle, a link to 1914 in a World War I article would be pointless, as most events in 1914 would link to World War I anyway. Those related events that aren't in the WWI article should be integrated into the article rather than be placed somewhere else. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:13, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

That "new guideline" about chronological items not being linked has been there for a couple months now, and has been changed quite a few times by different editors. The statement's ambiguity does not help in determining what is significant and what is not. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:16, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Birthdate

Slight issue: In the prose, his date of birth is said to be the 7th or the 24th, but above the picture it says 14th or 24th. SiameseTurtle (talk) 00:25, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. ~the editorofthewiki ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 00:27, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Ponticelli's date of birth, according to the civil registry, was 7 December 1897, although this is likely to be a mistake. It was probably recorded as 27 December 1897 in the registry and the "2" was eroded. Ponticelli's mother remembered giving birth on 24 December and that a snowstorm delayed any exit from the house for three days. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 19:19, 23 September 2010 (UTC) See [1] (in French). I also suspect his mother would not have forgotten giving birth on Christmas Eve!! Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 19:47, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Overciting and bizarre claims/prose

The density and repetition of citation numbers needs to be addressed, particularly given that the sources are all readily viewable on the Internet. In other words, there's more latitude in avoiding the continued pinpointing of sources for every single statement, often consecutively with the same number, and often multiple numbers. In "Early life", I see successively:

2, 3, 3, 4, 2/3/4, 2/5/6. That's beyond a joke; they threaten to irritate the reader and clutter the visual appearance of the text.

Here's the last bit:

At the age of six, Ponticelli started working several jobs, including making clogs.[4] In 1906, at age nine, he saved enough money to buy a train ticket to Paris, which he considered "paradise".[2][3][4] Although he spoke no French, he found work as a chimney sweep in Nogent-sur-Marne and later as a paper boy in Paris.[2][5][6]

Prose:

Here, the statement doesn't really flow from the previous text, and appears to need more context: "In one of his last interviews, Ponticelli stated he was amazed at his own survival."

And here, the sentence twists this way and that, and ends up on the mysterious "products" (his semen?): "During the Second World War Ponticelli, who became a French citizen in 1939, was too old for combat, although he supported the war effort by supplying soldiers with his products."

Is this worthy of the label "one of our very best articles"? Tony (talk) 02:30, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I prefer single footnotes at a point (each containing multiple sources) myself, and the editors may want to consider switching. But the suggestion that (within reason) this is disqualifying for FA is WP:POINT; compare Augustus, on the main page recently.

As for "products", they are clearly identified, in the same section, as "piping and metal work". I see from his user page that my learned and gallant colleague is very busy off Wikipedia; the strain may be coloring his fancy. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:58, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Learned? I'm not an attorney in court; nor am I well-read. Pointy it is not; when my attention is drawn to an appallingly bad FA, I'm likely to support action to improve it. FAR is the official route for this. Users should not be intimidated into not referring articles to it just because you say it's pointy. Tony (talk) 14:10, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

For reference, the article has not changed significantly since it was promoted. If this article has declined since then, it is those features which have degraded, not this lurid quotation-out-of-context. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:14, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I think the article is fine as a Featured Article. Perhaps I would change my mind if I went over it with a fine-toothed comb but I do not have the time for that. Would prefer to focus on the one thing that is contested here, namely the wikilinked birth date in the lede. Let's keep in mind that as ambassadors for date delinking, we want to win over editors to our cause by reasoned and collegial argument.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 15:29, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

"Lurid"—I like that word. Anderson, it may seem churlish of me to criticise the article WRT other FAC criteria, but we're always on the look-out for substandard articles that have slipped through the promotions process—typically in the days before the criteria and their application became more professional. This is not, by any means, even a Good Article. Tony (talk) 15:39, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

My (un)learned (since he insists) colleague inspires me. What is churlish is to criticize the article on grounds which are not FAC criteria, and for flaws it does not have, because one dislikes a single link; this article was promoted in April 2008. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:03, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this article is not "one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community". The FAC review left much to be desired (permitting convoluted sentences and even a logical mistake with dates). With the over-linking, overbearing citations, and average sentence construction, GA (at most).  HWV 258  21:41, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Re Tony: Wow, one ref I overlooked. Surely that severely degrades the quality of Wikipedia.

"In one of his last interviews, Ponticelli stated he was amazed at his own survival."

I don't see your point about this being out of context--the whole paragraph was about the end of WWII and his reflections on it. If you really don't think this is up to par, then why don't you copyedit it. The article passed in April 2008 (not April 2006), with a support from User:Karanacs, who has written 12 FAs. Serious, we are here to build the highest quality encyclopedia, not criticise other's work without any work on your part. ~the editorofthewiki ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 23:54, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Part of the ownership issue on display here is the griping expectation that one shouldn't criticise if one is not actively engaged in editing the article. Become an owner or shut up, it seems. I will do neither.

• I never said any of that. I said that if there is something wrong with the article, fix it. Why is this so hard to comprehend? ~the editorofthewiki ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 15:26, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Now, let's take a look at the footnote text for the opening date:

Ponticelli's date of birth is not known with certainty (uncertain?). Officially, it is (was?) December 7, 1897, although this is likely (to be) a mistake. Most probably, it was (probably) recorded as December 27, 1897 in the civil registry and the 2 (add quotemarks?) was erased. Ponticelli's mother remembered giving birth on December 24 and (that?) a snowstorm delayed any exit from the house for three days.

What has her memory of the snowstorm got to do with the price of fish?

• What does the price of fish have anything to do with the article? ~the editorofthewiki ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 15:33, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

What is "officially"?

• As in the date on the birth registry. Clarified. ~the editorofthewiki ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 15:36, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Where are the citations for all of these assertions? Is there some misunderstanding about the need for verification within footnote text?

• There is a citation at the end of the paragraph. ~the editorofthewiki ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 15:38, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

This is a serious breach of Criterion 1c, as well as 1a.

Let's take a look at this now very prominent link right at the opening, to 1897. After quite irrelevant information in the lead, we plunge into these facts:

• January 2 - The Alpha Omicron Pi Sorority is founded.
• January 4 - A British force is ambushed by Chief Ologbosere, son-in-law of the Oba of Benin. This leads to a punitive expedition against Benin.
• January 23 - Elva Zona Heaster is found dead in Greenbrier County, West Virginia. The resulting murder trial of her husband is perhaps the only case in United States history where the testimony of a ghost helped secure a conviction.
• February 2 - Harrisburg, the Pennsylvania state capitol, is destroyed by fire.
• February 10 - Freedom of religion is proclaimed in Madagascar.
• February 18 - Benin is put to the torch by the Punitive Expedition.
• February 26 - The Sigma Pi Fraternity is founded.
• March 4 - William McKinley succeeds Grover Cleveland as President of the United States.
• March 13 - San Diego State University is founded.

Which part of this sea of facts is relevant to the reader's understanding of the topic? Tony (talk) 11:57, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

• It shows what happened a long, long time ago, for the reader to get a snapshot of what life was like in 1897. Most obits mention these sorts of things for very old people. I thought I had already explained this. ~the editorofthewiki ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 15:42, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is not an obituary though. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:45, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Neither is it a collection of random information. --John (talk) 19:51, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
      • No, and I specifically added the link so it wouldn't degenerate into one. Readers may want to know what happened in 1897, since I'm assuming they don't know. ~the editorofthewiki ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 15:18, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
      • Tell me with a straight face that you have read the article 1897 and consider it vital to link to in the opening paragraph. I don't think this article is FA-quality though in any case, the writing is clunky throughout, quite apart from the date issue. --John (talk) 16:18, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
        • I have read the article 1897 and consider it vital to link to in the opening paragraph. Instead of blindly criticising the article, why don't you offer suggestions for improvement or, better yet, be bold and fix it yourself? ~the editorofthewiki ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 16:55, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
          • Ok, done. I still disagree on the date linking but I let it persist for now. --John (talk) 17:10, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

"Longest-surviving"—have I mangled the concept of "oldest"? Unsure. Tony (talk) 13:40, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

• Nope. ~the editorofthewiki ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 21:44, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

"He also was a disgusting old man." Er, what's that all about? Vandalism? AadaamS (talk) 09:44, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Over referencing

On an unrelated and irrelevant topic (since this seems to be the place for it), my initial concern with the Lazare Ponticelli article was (what I see as) over-referencing. I feel that the current fetish of placing a citation at the end of just about every sentence is just scary for the average reader—and doesn't seem appropriate for such non-academic-type articles. Of course, it's just a personal dislike, and unfortunately I don't think that particular concern made much of an impact on Tony. :-( Thank goodness that my other concerns were enough to motivate Tony to action.  HWV 258  01:44, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Excuse you, Tony is NOT the god of Wikipedia (JIMBO is). Who cares what Tony thinks? Over-sourcing? Sheesh! Last year it was UNDERsourcing. Which way do you want it?Ryoung122 05:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

It seems to be a personal style of the editor who brought the article to FA. While I don't really like it either, there doesn't seem to be a style-independent reason to change it. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:51, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Style be damned. An article can never be too reliably sourced, especially when some sources (websites and new sites in particular) sometimes disappear. I don't work with FA, but I'd hate to see an article not promoted for having too many sources... WP:V and WP:RS should supersede style concerns. —Locke Cole • t • c 01:57, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

My issue with citation/referencing stems from a much deeper fundamental divergence with just about everyone else on WP. I still believe the original concept of WP to be one of repeated edits converging on the facts, and I feel that citations/references shouldn't be necessary for that convergent process. I always thought the original point of WP to be "if it's wrong, someone will eventually fix it"—so why the necessity to "prove" something correct? I fear that seeing a citation at the end of a line may actually apply the brakes to the convergence as the citation appears to say "this is a fact, so don't touch". Many of the references could easily sit in a "see also" section whereby the two people who would ever have gone to a library to find them can still investigate. The citation/reference system seems to be a necessity for people who feel a need for WP to be "correct" right now; whereas I feel a need for WP to be "correct" at some stage in the future. With n edits (where n is a suitably large number), the references surely must become obsolete? Sigh—it's just a utopian hope/dream.

I might settle for a mechanism whereby the citations would be hidden (by default). That way the article would scan much better (for the average reader) and anyone interested could click a "show citations" link within an article's page.

Sorry for spending $0.02 in this over-indulgent manner (and plainly incorrect location).  HWV258  02:38, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I think the issue here is not the state of "too many citations", but that of repetitive citations. For example, the second paragraph of the "Ponticelli Frères" section cites reference 2 thrice. Some editors consider it neater that when a single citation is used to reference multiple facts in a paragraph, one can put the inline citation at the end. Again, not really a big issue. To HMV258, you are not alone, trust me. However, I must disagree with you here. WP:AGF does not apply here as strongly in terms of verification, especially in cases of BLP. Without specific references, it can be very easy to sneakily introduce wrong information without obstacle. Conversely, it is very hard to verify info without inline citations (page numbers and such), especially in the case of offline references. I am not of the view that every sentence must have an inline cite, though. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:44, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

"without obstacle"? I have great confidence that the multitude of tireless worker ants out there will quickly detect and revert edits which introduce "wrong information".  HWV258  03:06, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

HWV258, see my proposal to toggle display of in-line cites (off by default), which I floated in the Village Pump last November and which went down like a lead balloon. It is partly as a vehicle to allay my frustrations from that experience that I became a late confederate in the quest to delink nearly all day, month and year dates. We share the same overarching desire to cut down on the "sea of blue" in articles. By the way, I have seen Articles that were O.K. more than a year ago but a terrible mess more recently, not just in formatting and appearance but also in NPOV, Due Weight, Reliability of Sources, and Verifiability. Perhaps on average WP articles get better, but not a few get worse.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 03:21, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Some of the more obscure articles could get away with it. Anyway, this is neither the time nor place to discuss such an issue, so I think this particular discussion should end. I will not comment in this section anymore. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:23, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I've thought about the obscure articles: there would need to be a way of getting a list of articles not being watched by an "active" editor (active being someone who has made an edit in the previous x days). That way, kindly souls would always be able to take an interest in "forgotten" articles.  HWV258  03:44, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

[a] and [b] reference links don't work?

They don't work for me. -- Kendrick7^talk 19:22, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Interesting; they work fine for me. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 19:40, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

They work fine for me too, might be a problem with your browser. LonelyMarble (talk) 22:49, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Past tense for future event (for 2009-03-17)

The last paragraph of the Later Life section discusses events of 2009-03-17 in the past tense. Which is correct? The past tense or the 2009-03-17 date? 204.210.242.157 (talk) 16:10, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually it talks about 2008, so past-tense is right. SiameseTurtle (talk) 17:08, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Yup. You're right. I completely missed that all this happened a year ago. Thanks. 204.210.242.157 (talk) 20:01, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Sentence?

I decided to come back and have a quick look at this article, however I stopped reading after the second "sentence": Born in Italy, he travelled at the age of eight (8) on his own in 1906. Without a reference, it's hard to know to what this refers (let alone be able to fix it). I am surprised to see this in a FA. Is this just article rot, or has the FA process collapsed? (The problem was introduced with this edit.) P.S. appending the "(8)" is horrible.  HWV258.  21:19, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

• Sorry, I didn't add that, and it seems to be removed now. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 02:13, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

copy-edit tag

The whole article needs a sift through. For example: "Born in Italy, he travelled at the age of eight (8) on his own in 1906." is just weird.

"Ponticelli was the oldest living man of Italian birth and the oldest man living in France"—after what year?

There's chain linking (Sarkozy and French President?) and repeat linking (how many times WW1?).

MOS issues: for example, a quotation is rendered entirely in italics. Tony (talk) 00:33, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

• All the above issues have been fixed, and I did a slight copyedit. If you think there is more to be done, tell me or do it yourself. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 02:21, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lazare Ponticelli. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090316192734/http://www.metrofrance.com/fr/article/2007/11/11/08/3743-38/ to http://www.metrofrance.com/fr/article/2007/11/11/08/3743-38

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:07, 24 September 2017 (UTC)