Talk:Donna Marcella Borghese

Post Revlon (Again)

The section keeps getting edited to promote products/achievements, and has not yet added a reference. References for statements about productivity, sales and results need to be added.--99.231.196.195 (talk) 13:13, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Articles on Princess Borghese indicates she was born in Foligno which is in Umbria, not Sicily. The Borghese are not royalty but nobililty. The title Prince is used by the Papal nobility. Actually her title Duchess of Bomarzo outranked her title as Princess. She was asked once in San Antonio, Texas why she didn't use the title Duchess instead of Princess. She stated the title Princess was the older one. However, probably Charles Revson knew he would get more mileage marketing her products to Americans as they would not understand that in some places a Duchess outranks a Princess.

A prince according to Wikipedia can be a reigning monarch, head of a noble family or members of a royal or highly noble family sharing their title with others of the same rank.

The Borghese are directly descended from James II of England but that far back doesn't make you royalty. However, that nobility is viewed as more significant than some petty royalty. Their contribution has been far greater than a royal family whose only contribution is gamgling casinos. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Satomlin07 (talk • contribs) 09:08, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Rename to Princess Marcella Borghese

Please change Marcella's name back to the name she is most well-known by which is in accordance with Wikipedia standards. Her name she be her married name, Princess Marcella Borghese. This holds true with many other famous people in the Wikipedia database including Princess Diana. See link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Princess_dianaBoardroom09 (talk) 20:20, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Because she was known as that name in court and in her obituary it seems like that name is preferable to a birth name which she did not use. I moved it. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:44, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Post Revlon (Again) 2

Hi,

it seems that the user 24.215.248.86 and I are on an edit war in this page. This is a biography page, not a commercial page or a company page or a product line page. For this reason, only information related to the person's life should be included (in this case Princess Marcella Borghese). Please do not keep on adding information that is unrelated to her life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juliet55 (talk • contribs) 19:07, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

If this page is not to include company or commercial information regarding the Borghese cosmetics company, then please stop saying the line is owned by a Saudi family when that is not accurate. There have been numerous editing attempts with numerous references cited to show that the line is owned by Georgette Mosbacher. If this is to be a biography page, then remove all mention of the Borghese cosmetics company and its current management. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.215.249.6 (talk) 21:59, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Updates by 190.244.147.188

Hi! I wanted to clarify that the updates done by IP 190.244.147.188 were done by me. I wasn't aware that I was logged out. Since the page is now protected I clarify this here and not in the edit history of the page. Juliet55 (talk) 00:47, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

That works fine, Juliet, but I should point out that the current semi-protection doesn't prevent you from editing the article. When you're logged in, that is! Semi-protection prevents edits from IP addresses and edits from any account that is less than four days old and doesn't have at least ten edits to Wikipedia, not from anybody else. Bishonen | talk 01:01, 27 April 2013 (UTC).

"Storied ancestors"

The notion of acquiring grand ancestors through marriage is a little unusual. How can Paolo Borghese's ancestors deserve this much space in his wife's bio? Especially since we don't see any sign of them in Paolo's own page. I've moved the following text from Marcella's page to Paolo's:

Through her marriage to Prince Paolo Borghese, her storied ancestors include Napoleon’s sister, Paulina Bonaparte Borghese (whose famous statue by Canova is displayed in the Galleria Borghese, Pope Paul V (Camillo Borghese) and Cardinal Scipione Borghese, both of whom had an enormous influence on Italian art and beautifying Rome in the 1600s, and who helped finish St. Peter's Basilica. To honor Pope Paul V’s accomplishment, the Borghese family name (spelled in Latin, Bvrghesivs ) and coat of arms (eagle and a dragon) can be found on the façade of the famous basilica.

Borghese's family coat of arms

The Borghese family received their Papal Titles (Prince and Princess) from Pope Paul V in the early 1600’s. During that time, the Pope could raise armies and often had powers equal to a king, like a king, he had the power to bestow Royal titles, called “Papal” titles, on people. These titles were often tied to territories of land. Princess Marcella's branch of the family received five different titles, which include the Prince of San Paolo and Prince of Sant'Angelo and Duke of Bomarzo.

The Princess'ancestors were also one of the largest owners of property and art throughout Italy. While Pope Paul V was in power, he purchased entire towns and approximately 1/3 of the land south of Rome. As a family, the Borgheses became the largest landowners of the "Roman Campagna," the central region in Italy, which is an area of approximately 1,300 square miles.

The Borghese name is displayed throughout Italy, including Florence at the Palazzo Borghese, Siena, where the family began and Rome where the name is most prominent. Rome’s largest Park, Villa Borghese gardens, was owned by the family until 1902, and one of Rome’s largest museums, Galleria Borghese, holds the family’s art collection. One of Rome’s most famous streets is also named after the family, Via Borghese, and the family’s crest can be found in many piazzas throughout Italy. The family also has a private chapel in one of Rome’s most famous basilicas, Santa Maria Maggiore. Beneath this Basilica is a private crypt where many of the famous Borgheses are laid to rest, including Pope Paul V, Paulina Borghese and her husband, Camillo Borghese as well as the Princess herself and her beloved husband, Prince Paolo Borghese.

I'm worried about its place in Paolo Borghese too, really, since a book by Lorenzo Borghese hardly qualifies as a third-party source. Still, at least now the material (pared down a little to be more neutral) is in the right article.

Contrast the weight given to Paolo Borghese and his ancestors here with the fact that her first husband isn't even named. That's downright strange in a biography. Since relatives of Marcella are editing this article, perhaps somebody has that information, and can put it in. Bishonen | talk 15:17, 24 May 2013 (UTC).

Company ownership

(I've moved this section down from above, so people will notice that ExcuseMeNYC has recently added text to it. Bishonen | talk 19:05, 26 May 2013 (UTC).)

Georgette Mosbacher does, in fact, own the company. It has been stated many times in numerous television interviews, news articles and statements from Ms. Mosbacher. She owns a majority stake while investors own the remaining shares. The Saudi family you refer to is who purchased the line from Revlon. Georgette took control and ownership of the brand in 2000 after consulting for them for a year. (This text was originally posted by 24.215.249.6, 28 April 2013.)

This page is not for the Borghese cosmetics company, but for Princess Marcella Borghese the person. Who owns the company now is not relevant to this page and it has been incorrectly stated that the line is owned by a Saudi holding company. Please stop referencing this as its incorrect and this is not a company or product page. (This text was added by User:ExcuseMeNYC, 26 May 2013.)

Hi, ExcuseMeNYC! Thanks for posting on this page. I hope you don't mind my moving your post to a more conventional position. I think there needs to be something in the article about how the Princess's cosmetics company went from being part of Revlon in the fifties to being today "simply known as Borghese", because that's quite a jump. The sentence that you removed, "In 1992 the company was sold to Mawarid Trading, a cosmetic division of Mawarid Holdings", was a bit vague, and should be rewritten to state clearly that Revlon sold it (as opposed to "was sold"), and also to state who owns it now. I can't agree with you that it's uninteresting who owns it now; if Revlon's ownership before 1992 is to be mentioned, surely the present owner should be mentioned, too. The company is still called "Borghese", after the Princess, so it's relevant to her and to her life; you could say it's her legacy. At least, the present owner should be mentioned if it's one owner; I'm a little dubious about the "Georgette Mosbacher + investors" notion. (Just as I was very dubious about all those Saudi princes; I was the one who removed them.) Anyway, if you have references that show that Mosbacher owns the company, please post links to those references right here on this page, so we can all read them. And conversely you, Juliet55, if you have references showing that Mawarid owns it, post them right here. Reliable sources, that's what should decide this. (ExcuseMeNYC, if you wish to continue discussing, please respond below, and sign by typing four tildes, ~~~~. The tildes are wikipedia magic code: they add the writer's signature and a timestamp, so we can tell who's talking and when.) Bishonen | talk 20:15, 26 May 2013 (UTC).

Again, this is NOT a company page. It is for a person. The only reason Revson and Revlon are relevant is because it is how she created her line and it was when she was alive, therefore its relevant to her history. Who owns the company now does not need to be mentioned on her page as she is deceased and no longer involved with this separate entity. All that needs to be known is that she started a line and was involved with it until her death. If anything, you can even remove that the line is now known as simply Borghese and based in NYC and simply keep that she was involved with the line "named after her" until her death. I will not be adding the Georgette Mosbacher references as they are not relevant to Marcella's history and you people keep removing them EVEN with numerous references cited, which is rather childish and not consistent with this websites protocols. ExcuseMeNYC (talk) 22:53, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

? Who are "you people"? I'm a Wikipedia administrator. The reason I removed the text you added in April was that you kept reverting without discussion, as can be seen in the article history: no response to Juliet's nor my attempts to speak with you on your different IP usertalk pages, no edit summaries, nothing on this article talkpage. These things will happen with new users who aren't used to how the site works, and I'm glad my removal + semiprotection (a technical measure which prevents IPs from editing the page) eventually persuaded you to create an account, ExcuseMeNYC. And I'm very glad to have now received some responses from you. I've asked if you're anything to do with the IPs 24.215.248.86 and 24.215.182.121. Since you've chosen not to reply, I'm going with the obvious assumption that you're all one person. I've now located the three references you added before, supposedly showing that Georgette Mosbacher owns Borghese cosmetics, and I'm afraid they're not very good. I list them here:

1. This one is a promotional statement about Borghese's products, signed by Mosbacher as CEO. There's nothing about ownership.
2. This video interview with Mosbacher is about business plans etc. I don't hear anything about ownership here either.
3. This one states she bought La Prairie, and that she's "president, CEO, and chairwoman of Borghese". It seems to prevaricate about ownership, with vague phrasing. "President" isn't synonymous with owner, as far as I know.[1]

Altogether, I've spent some time googling Georgette Mosbacher + Borghese, and I'm struck by the non-committal phrasing all over the internet as regards ownership. It keeps saying in interviews and feature articles that M bought and owned (and eventually sold) La Prairie; but, by contrast, I don't see either "bought" or any form of "own" used about her relationship with Borghese. I do see statements that she "heads" or "runs" it, congruent with the function of President. Why this distinction in the wording? It's very consistent, and you see it in Wikipedia's article Georgette Mosbacher also: she "purchased" La Prairie; by contrast she "is the CEO of" Borghese. Why do you suppose there's this consistent difference in wording, if she actually bought Borghese, the same way she bought La Prairie?

Hoovers is what I call a reliable source. Hoovers states about Borghese Inc. that ""President and CEO Georgette Mosbacher (also a well-known New York City Republican) holds a substantial equity stake in the company while the rest is retained by the original group of Saudi investors who purchased it upon Revlon's divestiture of the firm in 1992." Not altogether supportive of claims that G Mosbacher "bought" and "took ownership of" Borghese.

I'll have to consider a little further what's reasonable to put in the article about current ownership. If you have anything helpful to suggest, please feel free. You too, Juliet55, or anybody else. Bishonen | talk 20:23, 27 May 2013 (UTC).

I do not care if you are an administrator nor do I appreciate your condescending tone. I never addressed your accusations of me being the same person who made the previous edits as it was not relevant to my reasoning for posting here. For the record, no. It was not me. I know who made the edits. I created an account because this information was inaccurate and I needed to clarify. You obviously did not pay close attention to the interview with Georgette from the Wall Street Journal (which is definitely a reliable source) where the interviewer OPENS the segment by saying "you're a little different from most entrepreneurs I speak to, you actually went in and BOUGHT companies that were already in existence" and Mosbacher goes on to talk about how she turned around both La Prairie and Borghese and how its different than a start up, since she bought the companies. That was the whole point of the interview. Also, when someone is the Chairwoman, President and CEO of a company, they usually own the majority of shares, as your own research showed with the article you cited. Its been mentioned in a reference on the Princess Marcelle Borghese page already that Georgette is the owner (lifeinitaly reference). Everyone in the NYC cosmetics industry knows Georgette owns the company. I worked as a consultant for Borghese a few years ago and Georgette is most definitely the owner. Like the previous editor stated, she owns a majority stake in the company and the rest is retained by several individual investors. When you own a majority stake in a company, you control the company and its considered your company. The Saudi trading company distributes the products in Asia where Borghese does one third of its business. Being a distributor is not the same thing as owning the company. As it stands now, the article is fully acceptable as is. There is no need to mention the Borghese cosmetics company of today past knowing its still in existence. THIS IS A BIOGRAPHY PAGE FOR A PERSON AND NOT A COMPANY. So at this point any mention of the current management and ownership is not even relevant. You yourself said I raised a valid point when I initially said that. I will continue to edit this page as long as incorrect information is posted. Thank you. ExcuseMeNYC (talk) 03:09, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

One more point. Borghese cosmetics is a privately held company. Since it has more than one principle investor (like most privately held companies) they often do not disclose who the sole owner is. However, in this case they have disclosed that Georgette owns the majority, just like your own research discovered. I happen to know this for a fact since I have worked for them. Georgette has stated several times in interviews that there is a silent partner whom she does not know, but they own a smaller percentage than she does. Since Borghese is not a publicly traded company they are not likely to disclose who these investors are. Therefore, ONCE AGAIN my point is valid that mentioning the current owner of the company is both not relevant and, at this point, not even possible since you cannot provide anything to counter my knowledge that she indeed owns the company. ExcuseMeNYC (talk) 03:20, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

You have "knowledge" from personal experience that she owns the company, but no references that show it (and I'm nonplussed that you should say my own research shows she owns the majority of it). I've been contacted by other people who have "knowledge" from their personal experience that she doesn't own it, but also no references that show it. Wikipedia can't go by those kinds of knowledge. If you want to be taken seriously, please engage with the links I gave above and my comments on them. Meanwhile, please don't edit the page to the way you would like it. I've reverted your latest edit, as the current name and whereabouts of the company which was named after the princess are certainly relevant here. On another point, you might be interested in our guideline on conflict of interest: "Do not edit Wikipedia to promote your own interests, or those of other individuals or of organizations, including employers. Do not write about these things unless you are certain that a neutral editor would agree that your edits improve Wikipedia.". I'm a neutral editor. If you're connected with the Borghese company or Georgette Mosbacher, please consider stating so on your own page. Bishonen | talk 09:44, 28 May 2013 (UTC).

Bishonen, its obvious to me based on your responses that YOU are the one who cannot be taken seriously. I have engaged with you regarding the references cited. Its also clearly obvious that you do not read my entire answer, but merely skim it as you ignore many valid points and references that I make in my answers to you. AGAIN, watch the interview with the Wall Street Journal (a reliable source). It is clearly stated in the beginning and during the interview that Georgette went in and BOUGHT both LaPrairie and Borghese and she then discusses how she turned them around and how its different than a start up. How can you miss this? Its in plain English and in a video no less. Also, I am not "editing the page the way I would like it", I am editing it to not include false information or irrelevant information for a biography of a person and not the history of a company. Lastly, I am neutral. I have not worked for Borghese cosmetics in years and have no current link to Georgette Mosbacher. I simply know the facts. And you are indeed the one who did your own research and turned up the Hoovers article that you yourself cited as a reliable source, which states that she owns a majority stake in the company. I explained, at length, how that can justify her ownership and that the other investors are not listed nor would they be since they are not majority shareholders. This will be my last argument with you and I will be sure to edit or remove information that is not correct. The article as it stands now is appropriate for a biography page. ExcuseMeNYC (talk) 22:27, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Well no. It is not clearly stated in the beginning and during the WSJ interview that Georgette went in and BOUGHT both LaPrairie and Borghese. At the beginning the interviewer merely says ‘you actually went in and bought companies that were already in existence’. She does not explicitly say that either Borghese or LaPrairie—the companies she asks Mosbacher to focus on—are companies in which she has a majority holding. As to the ‘during the interview’ phase I spotted no explicit reference to the ownership of the company. The Hoovers article certainly does not state that she owns a majority stake in the company. Did you read it? I realize that it will be frustrating for you, as a Wikipedia beginner, to find that the stuff that you are absolutely certain you know for certain has to be sourced to so-called reliable sources. But that is the way this place works. Would you be able and prepared to provide such sources? And would you be able to tell us, since I don’t doubt that you have information on the company, quite when she purchased it? Ian Spackman (talk) 01:20, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

HELLO? The whole point of the interview is that she is talking about the companies she BOUGHT and turned around! God, you people are dense. Bottom line, the ownership of the company is not even relevant anymore. This article is fine as is. Since everyone seems to agree this is about Princess Marcella Borghese and NOT a company page detailing the history of Borghese Cosmetics, its a moot point. Everywhere you go on the web, articles relating to Borghese cosmetics include only references to Georgette and nobody else and no parent company to Borghese cosmetics. So obviously, since its a private company, they are not disclosing the sole owner (even though it is Georgette). Since you people are ignoring the references cited and cannot come up with any others proving she DOES NOT own the company, then this is indeed a moot point as I already stated. End of story. ExcuseMeNYC (talk) 01:39, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

‘End of story’? Should I take that as a statement of resignation? In practice, of course, your lack of interest or ability to provide those reliable sources we so pedantically require—if that practice continues—means that you will find it difficult have any impact upon the contents of this article. (And my guess that you were knowledgeable about the topic seems rather to be disconfirmed by your inability to tell us when she purchased the company.) Not to worry: I am sure you will find more interesting things to do than editing Wikipedia. Ian Spackman (talk) 01:54, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Look smart ass, you keep missing my point. She bought the line in 2000 and I have not been engaging with you, but rather with Bishonen. The article now makes no mention of Georgette, her ownership of the company or any other information regarding the Borghese cosmetics of today other than its based in NYC and still exists. That is sufficient for a biography page. If you actually read my previous entries, I have been trying to explain how private companies will often not list a sole owner as is the case with Borghese. She owns more than 80% of the company, but that information is not something that can be made public in terms of posting documents since Borghese keeps that information confidential (which a private company can do). So your insistence that I provide proof at this point when I keep saying that this information is not relevant to this article is pointless. Can you provide reliable sources as to who the sole owner is or prove that Georgette does not own it? I know for a fact you cannot. ExcuseMeNYC (talk) 02:00, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

She bought the line in 2000? I am almost tempted to adopt your manner of speech and address you as ‘sucker’. But I won’t. I’m British. Etc. (Still, I have to admit that you did fall for it.) There is rather good evidence, I would say, that she did not own the company at the beginning of 2001. To quote from an interview with her in the New York Times of 14 January 2001:

She won't reveal the identity of the company's principal owner, who she said lives in London, and when asked if it was true that he was a member of the Saudi Arabian royal family, as industry analysts speculate, she said: "I don't think so. I could be wrong, but I've never met him. I've never spoken to him." She said she deals with his representatives.

—[2] (quote from second page.)

What is your recollection, your privileged knowledge? That she sold it in December 2000 and bought it back the following February? But seriously, you are very welcome to contribute to Wikipedia. However, to do that successfully you need to provide good evidence, citing what Wikipedia regards as reliable sources, when—strange as it may seem to you, just as it has often seemed strange to me—you are challenged as to the verifiability of your edits. Ian Spackman (talk) 02:53, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

ONCE AGAIN, you have ignored everything I have said and much like someone with Alzheimer's, you continue to simply ask the same questions and repeat yourself. The New York Times article states she would not disclose the information as to the owner. That article is not proof of anything other than she did not answer the question. She does not discuss the silent investors publicly as its part of the structuring agreement of the company. She currently owns over 80% of the company and in 2000 she owned over 50%. The deal was very layered and structured in such a way as to secure certain net profits to certain investors, with Georgette earning the largest percentage as well as a salary as CEO and President, including bonuses and payouts. Since other people are investors, she is choosing not to reveal their identities or discuss publicly how the company is run. That is her right as its a private company, as I have been saying repeatedly but to no avail since you cannot seem to retain that information. Obviously you don't know much about how businesses work. My point has been made that you cannot prove she in fact DOES NOT own the company nor can you supply reliable sources as to whom you think does. AGAIN AND FOR THE LAST TIME, this information is not relevant to a biography page and the article makes no mention of Georgette. I will not be responding to you again and will be sure to edit any false information from this article moving forward. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.215.249.246 (talk) 03:32, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

This entire discussion is not relevant to this biography. My associates and myself will be making sure this article does not contain false information regarding Borghese Cosmetics, as this page is not for that company. ExcuseMeNYC (talk) 03:48, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

It would be interesting to know who your associates are. Have you read WP:COI? I think it would be worth doing. Ian Spackman (talk) 04:04, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Ian and Bishzilla - thank you both for responding to ExcuseMeNYC. I'm curious to find out who her associates are as well. I know for a fact who owns the company and it's not Georgette Mosbacher. This will be public information very soon. And ExcuseMeNYC - i would love you to get Georgette to call me and state, on the record, that she owns the brand, not Mawarid Holdings based in Saudi Arabia - i even have an email from the owners which i'll gladly share with you. She has my number and email. Looking forward to the call! Lorenzo Borghese — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boardroom09 (talk • contribs) 15:51, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't really see how Lorenzo Borghese can be a "neutral" or "unbiased" source, since this article is about his own Grandmother. That is definitely a conflict of interest. And since he is currently embroiled in a lawsuit with Borghese Cosmetics, this also makes it impossible for him to be unbiased and neutral. So anything he says should be discounted. Also, nowhere online does it say who the principal owner of Borghese cosmetics is, as its a privately held company and they do not make this information public. Lorenzo saying, "This will be pubic information very soon" regarding Mawarid Holdings owning the company is a statement with no reliable sources and is merely a statement being made by Lorenzo. Its baseless and holds no merit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.215.249.192 (talk) 07:21, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Bishonen, you did not answer my question. And I deleted NO citations from the article! Now you are flat out lying. The only citations I deleted were the ones about Mawarid Holdings, because they did not support the sentence claiming they own the company and bought it in 1992. You are really out of line here and abusing your administrative powers. ExcuseMeNYC (talk) 07:52, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Georgette Mosbacher is the President and CEO of Borghese Inc. She has not, nor has she ever, been an owner of the company. Steve Pfeiffer, Director and Secretary of Borghese Inc. CS12345 (talk) 19:36, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Delete all unsourced content

Any content in this article which does not come from a published source meeting WP:RS can be deleted. Anyone may delete any unsourced content at any time per Wikipedia policy. Some people here are debating whether unsourced content should be in this article, when right now, this article is entirely without references.

I encourage any other user to delete every sentence in this article which is not backed by a citation. See Wikipedia's verification policy for more information. After content is deleted, Wikipedia policy says that contested content should not be re-added without providing citations to reliable sources. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:39, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Ironically, the sentence ExcuseMeNYC keeps deleting is very well cited: "In 1992 the company was sold to Mawarid Trading, a cosmetic division of Mawarid Holdings.[3][4]" This can be added, too. There is no reasonable disagreement about the correctness of this. ExcuseMe claims it's "not accurate" in the edit summary but s/he frankly seems to be referring to something other than that actual sentence (=to be referring to current ownership). Whether or not the company was later sold to somebody else, it's well attested that Revlon sold it to Mawarid in 1992. ExcuseMe also removes it for being "not relevant to Marcella's life." They're alone in this opinion — I won't use the word "consensus", since so few people are editing the article at all, but nobody agrees with them. See also Ian Spackman's edit summary when restoring the sentence.[5]

It's becoming inescapable that ExcuseMeNYC is editing to promote interests that are irrelevant to this biography and to the interests of Wikipedia. They have denied doing so, but then they also deny being connected to the IPs 24.215.249.118 and 24.215.248.86, that edited the article in April and earlier, so I'm all out of AGF. (More irony: those IPs introduced, and edit warred over, text about Georgette Mosbacher and the current activities of Borghese.Inc.[6] Apparently considerered to be "relevant to Marcella's life"?). That denial was never convincing, and now that they have edited from IP 24.215.249.246 here on 29 May,[7] (accidentally logged out, I presume), it's even more hollow. Legal conflicts IRL must not be brought on to Wikipedia, and ExcuseMe should not be editing this or related articles at all. Nor indeed should Lorenzo Borghese (User:Boardroom09), but then he hasn't done that since 5 April (when he reverted one of the IP additions of the Georgette Mosbacher-related text).

As far as the other, uncontroversial information in the article (children, grandchildren, the original Revlon connection, etc) is concerned, Blue Rasberry, I disagree that it should be deleted. Such draconian measures aren't usually taken with biographies. Add {citation needed}} templates as needed, and I urge the people who added the information to cite it to reliable sources. How hard can it be? Use some of the references in the House of Borghese article, for instance.

Blue Rasbery, I just now noticed that ExcuseMe, editing logged out, has taken advantage of your proposal and massacred the article in a way I hardly suppose you meant to encourage.[8] I've reverted to Ian Spackman and semiprotected the article against further abuse. I'm topic banning ExcuseMeNYC from this and related articles (going to write a message on their page now). Bishonen | talk 07:37, 30 May 2013 (UTC).

Bishonen, where in the references cited does it say that Mawarid Holdings owns the company or purchased it in 1992? One merely is a press release for an eye gel while the other is a website homepage which says they distribute cosmetics and fragrances and shows many brands. You cannot argue these facts. Stop trying to make this article full of inaccurate and unsourced information. Blue Rasberry way right, this article contained only one citation. It is not well researched or documented. ExcuseMeNYC (talk) 07:42, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, it contained only one citation after you'd removed the others. I'm not saying it was fully cited. (Few bios are, but I hope this one will get there.) On second thought, I'm going to block, not topic ban. Admins aren't supposed to topic ban unilaterally, and taking the more drastic measure of a block (which oddly enough admins do get to do on their own!) will only amount to the same thing anyway, as the user has no other interests on Wikipedia than this article. Bishonen | talk 07:45, 30 May 2013 (UTC).

Bishonen, I never deleted ANY citations from this article other than the ones claiming Mawarid Holdings purchased the line in 1992 and that they own Borghese cosmetics. You cannot deny the facts. The references cited say NOTHING about ownership. As I started earlier (which you ignored) one is merely a press release for an eye gel and the other is a homepage which says they distribute cosmetics and fragrances and it shows many brand banners. Distributorship in no way means ownership. These references do not support the claim that they own the brand or bought it in 1992. You are abusing your powers as an administrator by threatening to block me every time I say something you don't like. ExcuseMeNYC (talk) 07:57, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Threatening? You must have misunderstood me. I wasn't threatening to, I did block you. Please note that you can still write on your own talkpage and ask to be unblocked. If you use the unblock template as per my message there, an uninvolved admin will review your request. (Read the eye gel thing more carefully.) Bishonen | talk 08:56, 30 May 2013 (UTC).

Wikipedia guidelines say that all unsourced content is not to be kept. Delete any content you like. Any deleted content should not be re-added without a citation per Wikipedia guidelines. I just removed some content which had no citation. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:35, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

And you also removed some content which did have citations, Blue Rasberry. That was the only content that has been disputed. I don't know what guideline you mean (a link would have been useful), but if you think there's a guideline that suggests, or even countenances, a citation for every sentence, you must have misunderstood something. Such a froth of footnotes only happens on extremely controversial articles, where occasionally every sentence is contested. (And because of that distracting sudoku overlay of little figures, those texts are scarcely readable — but in those cases, it can't be helped.) If you really think somebody's been inventing the Revlon connection, the cosmetics line named after the Princess's favourite spa, etc etc, then for god's sake put a citation template on it. The article needs more references, as do thousands of other biographies, but it's basically an uncontroversial biography just like them. It's not a normal action to gut such a bio in the way you have done. Only a couple of (actually carefully cited) sentences have been a subject of dispute in this article, and that's for reasons which lie outside Wikipedia. My block message to the disruptive user whose massacred version of the article you have reinstated may shed a little light there.[9] You removed the well-cited disputed content (why?), and also removed the utterly undisputed early part of the history (why?). Why ever did you leave the time and place of birth, the children's and grandchildren's names, and the burial in the family crypt intact? No citations there. I don't see the logic. Revert yourself, please. (Er, why leave the section title "Business" intact over the now empty section?) Bishonen | talk 16:32, 30 May 2013 (UTC).

Propose the article for deletion if you think all the content is bad. The policy I cited is WP:V. Since you added content I encourage you to format it properly. I am requesting that any content which is removed in this article have citations before it is readded. I know nothing whatsoever about this topic and do not care to develop this article but acknowledging Wikipedia's verification policy is the first step to resolving this. I will not revert what I did without justification about why unverified contested content should be readded, but if you think I am in error for requesting sources I will join you in getting other opinions. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:07, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I was trying to make the point that there is no unverified contested content. And why do you say "if I think all the content is bad"? That wasn't in there. I don't think all the content is bad.

But we now have a perfect circle: perhaps in anger at realising she was about to get blocked, ExcuseMe took the opportunity to delete half the article as I was reaching for the block button. (Did you read my block rationale, that I linked to above?) She used your post "Delete all unsourced content" here as her rationale, and now you're using her removal as yours. This new user has no idea of policies and rules; it appears she mistook your purely unilateral post for policy, or perhaps revealed divine truth, and you mistook her removals for a "challenge" of the material. WP:V seems irrelevant here, what part of it do you mean? Not, I suppose, this: "Attribute all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." (Bolding in the original.) We're supposed to give citations for material challenged or likely to be challenged. This article, in the state it was in after what you call my "good faith edit" (thanks) whereby I reverted ExcuseMeNYC's disruptive deletion of half of it, only contained one sentence that had ever been challenged, by anybody. This one: "In 1992 the company was sold to Mawarid Trading, a cosmetic division of Mawarid Holdings."[10][11] (See the references there?) It's clear in the discussion above, in all her posts, that ExcuseMeNYC didn't dispute anything else. She just deleted the rest because you said to, or she thought you did (see her edit summaries). I'm done here, I'm not going to edit war with you, and I have nothing left to say. If you don't revert yourself, I suppose we will simply await other opinions, yes. Bishonen | talk 18:00, 30 May 2013 (UTC).

I did not read all of the material here. I am treating this as a contested content issue because some people want content inserted and some people want it deleted. I feel that a good place to begin discussion is to burden the person who wants the content added to provide citations. What you quote is what I wanted to emphasize - challenged content needs to be verified. I am considering everything that anyone deleted as challenged. I think a reasonable barrier for inclusion is requesting sources. After that happens then I would assist in moderating the dispute further, if necessary, but I also do not want deep involvement in this. I am not contesting any block or any other aspect of this dispute and just want to emphasize that all content added to Wikipedia is supposed to be backed by a published reliable source, and that any unsourced content can be removed for any reason by anyone at any time. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:51, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I can certainly see where you are coming from and to a degree I agree with you: certainly the article would greatly benefit from more and better sources. But if we were to delete every un-sourced statement from Wikipedia the market in second-hand servers would collapse—we’d have so many un-needed machines to dispose of. And that would not be a good thing, because most of the deleted material would have been broadly accurate and would have provided aid to people looking for information. You say you did not read all of the material here; I think that was probably a mistake because it might have given you a hint that something very odd is going on on this page: what (I asked myself, looking at my watchlist after a fair period away from Wikipedia), wtf is happening to that unsatisfactory but pretty stable, and pretty accurate page? It’s gone bonkers. Well, a quick Google gave me the answer: there is litigation going on between (massively simplifying, no doubt, IANAL) the current owners of the brand and various members of the Borghese family. And various companies and sub-companies, etc. etc. So the greatest part of all those recent edits, made for the most part by new accounts and IP’s, we can certainly put down to people who have a financial interest in the outcome and somehow believe that by changing this article—adding something, removing something, changing something—they can somehow affect the outcome of the legal case. I can’t imagine why they believe that—but there’s a kind of idea that Wikipedia has such power. So, taking advantage of our anybody can edit slogan, they seem to think: Well, it can’t do us any harm to edit it, and it might make or save us a lot of money. Incidentally the key account of the case at the current time seems to be this judgement (if that’s the right word) published on 14 Jan in New York, New York by United States District Judge J. Paul Oetken. In effect he rejects some claims and counter-claims and grants others. (By the way, I have absolutely no view as to which side is in the right either legally or morally: the whole thing seems to me a sometimes incomprehensible and sometimes hilarious nonsense. Obviously those involved in the case, and currently involved in emending this article will not share my indifference.) So, it seems to me that your jumping in and assuming that content challenged here is challenged in good faith and therefore, when un-sourced, it should be removed was a little over-trusting. It would have been really more appropriate to insert citation-needed templates against those statements that you were suspicious of, thus giving other Wikipedians the opportunity see whether sources could be found.

I am therefore going to restore the article to a recent state, accepting that some of the statements I am restoring may be ill-founded, but believing that most of them will be sound, and none of them defamatory.

One final point: if this were a biography of a living person (WP:BLP) a different approach might well be appropriate.

Oh, and a post-ultimate point to all editors reading this. It seems obvious that the current litigation issue is outside of the scope of this article. However I think there is quite a lot of uncontroversial established fact (when, for instance, the brand got going and what role Marcella Borghese played at that time) reported in Oetken’s document, which I would certainly count as a WP:RS Ian Spackman (talk) 21:40, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh another point. If you think that the article is fundamentally flawed, or that the subject is simply non-notable, then why not take it to AFD? Make a good enough case and I might well vote for you.

Ian Spackman (talk) 21:40, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for replying to me. I just posted this on the reliable sources noticeboard:

There are some contested content at Princess Marcella Borghese. Some editors insist that this contested content be allowed to remain without being verified by sources. Other editors would like the contested, non-sourced content to be removed.

I know nothing about this article, subject, or debate, but I feel that per WP:V when content is contested and unsourced then anyone can remove it and request that it be sourced before re-adding it. I am writing to request that someone from this board weigh in on this. I am unaware of any reason to treat this as anything other than the addition of contested content which has no sources. Thanks.

I appreciate the time you spent in replying to me, Ian, but I do not feel that your arguments are relevant when the content is contested and no sources are provided. I agree that all unsourced content should not be removed from Wikipedia, but I feel that when anyone contests any unsourced content for any or no reason then that content should be removed until someone provides sources. I also assert that Wikipedia community guidelines agree with me - see WP:V. I apologize for not replying to all of your concerns but when content is not verifiable I fail to understand why you defend it with other arguments. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:10, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Like Jetstreamer below—and as I hope I made clear above—I also find your position a perfectly reasonable one, and one with which I partly very nearly concur. But let me put forward two further points for your consideration.

Yesterday I made two changes to the article. Firstly I restored a lot of un-sourced stuff which, having googled around this topic, I thought was broadly correct. Then I changed a statement which was sourced (the name of the company to which Revlon sold the brand) because I was not happy that the source supplied really quite said what our editor [quite possibly me, indeed: one would have to check the page history which frankly doesn’t interest me] believed that it did. I found three sources, which seemed to be more reliable, suggesting something different and made the change. Not (this is the point) a change to something that lacked a source, but to something that did have a citation, but one which failed verification.

When you read any text, you read it in context. Take for instance the old, out of copyright Catholic Encyclopaedia, upon which a lot of our articles are based. As a reader—a twenty-first century atheist with Protestant leanings—I find it very biased. But that doesn’t worry me in the slightest. I find it a very good encyclopedia (not so hot on Fascism or quarks), while obviously I take account of its writers’ probable biases (more often to do with the secular politics of the Papal states and its neighbours than over overtly religious issues in my experience). Similar things can be said of the excellent Jewish Encyclopaedia of the same period, and some illuminating fun can be had from confronting their articles: on Pope Pius V for instance. What has that to do with Wikipedia and la jet-setting princepessa? Context is a key to reading texts and in the case of Wikipedia, which is an anybody-can-edit hypertext, a key can be quite fiddly to get into and rotate in the lock. (The old Jewish and Catholic encyclopaedias are a lock-picker’s paradise in comparison.) So while WP:AGFing is an important habit to get into, when there is firestorm over an article, and it is broadly clear what, outside of Wikipedia, is causing it, one might wish to avoid assuming that every deletion is a genuine and well-informed challenge to the veracity of the article.

I hope that made some sort of sense. Happy editing. Ian Spackman (talk)

Will the placement of a {{ref-improve}} tag at the top of the article settle the discussion for a while? Even when I'm partially with Bluerasberry statements, I'm not prone to promptly deleting unsourced contested content, but rather to trying to find sources for them. The contested content can be removed after the cleanup tags have been in the article for some time.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 13:37, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely. Certainly we want better sourcing, but it is not (I feel) an absolutely-has-to-be-done-yesterday-or-the-world-will-come-to-an-end-and-what’s-more that-will-be-a-bad-thing kind of issue. In fact I’ll do it now. ‘Per’ as our American cousins like to say, WP:BOLD. Ian Spackman (talk) 14:07, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

In this case, a new user requested that this content be removed and I think that this person was justified in asking for sources. That person's request for sources stands, as does that person's request that the content be removed until sources are added. I feel that the ref improve tags and citation needed tags are supposed to be used on content for which there is consensus to include, and not to be used on content which someone has requested to remove for whatever reason. I see no reason why it should be more difficult to remove contested content than it is to include it. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:26, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

OK, certainly it is always justified to ask for sources and placing a {{cn}} against the disputed statement is a very reasonable response, and one which both enables and encourages editors either to provide sources for what already exists or to discover sources which improve the article in a different direction. Now, let us concentrate on what the currently perceived problems may be with the article. (The problems I perceive with it exist but are non-urgent.) Which new user are you thinking of? What contents exactly did they challenge? What were their arguments as to why what was written here was incorrect? Ian Spackman (talk) 15:45, 31 May 2013 (UTC)Í

• I do not see how who owns the company now or how it was sold in the past is relevant to a biography page on Princess Marcella Borghese. The mention of Charles Revson and Revlon makes sense because its how she started her empire and is part of her personal history. Once you begin talking about the company itself and its ownership and investors, etc, it seems to me that it becomes a company history page and has nothing to do with her life story. The Princess did not OWN the company, she was merely the figurehead and the inspiration for its creation. Her involvement was more publicity driven based on the sources cited. Had she owned the company or founded it herself, then it would make sense to include the complete history of the Borghese Cosmetics company. A prime example of the point I am trying to make is the Estee Lauder Companies and Estee Lauder as a person. These are two entirely separate pages on Wikipedia. One is the biography of a person and one is for a company. The same should apply here. How is it relevant to Marcella's life that some Saudi investors bought the company in 1992? I don't see the point in including it in her history. The editors blocked the individual who was simply trying to make this point clear and who disputed the accuracy of current ownership of the brand. I think that is pretty terrible, to block someone simply because you didn't like their input. But that issue aside, I think this article should only discuss the Princess's life, not the business details of a company that she and her family no longer have any involvement in. Brathford6602 (talk) 05:36, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I would think twice before arguing with a lady who successfully prosecuted an Arbcom case to get Jimbo himself to formally apologize to her. But besides that, why is it such a problem? I mean, I can see the point that it's not directly a matter of her biography. On the other hand, it sort of is, as it is her legacy. You'll notice our article on Thomas Edison writes "There were still 1,600 DC customers in downtown New York City as of 2005, and service was finally discontinued only on November 14, 2007.[58] Most subway systems are still powered by direct current." Probably the most important question is - since there is an argument to be made on each side - why is this such a big deal? Enough to make it worth getting blocked over, and making a regular stream of sock puppets? (That last doesn't apply to Bish - her regular stream of humorous sock puppets were made long before this issue.) --GRuban (talk) 15:28, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

It's only a big deal because it pertains to a real-life legal conflict, GRuban. If it wasn't for that, I'd be very surprised to see anybody take such a devoted interest in these details — certainly not a brand new user, whose first edit to Wikipedia this is. Compare the ANI thread here. Thanks for the executive summary of my background (I'm very proud of the Jimbo thing), but it doesn't take User:Bishzilla to ask WP:SPI about any possible relation between the new user Brathford6602 and the indefblocked user ExcuseMeNYC (and her IP socks). In fact, I just went there, with the intention of asking for a WP:CheckUser of the two accounts, but when I read the page instructions, I felt foolish bothering them with such an obvious case; it was made clear that they don't like it. Instead, I've blocked Brathford6602 on my own responsibility, as an obvious sock/meatpuppet used for block evasion by ExcuseMeNYC. Bishonen | talk 18:35, 6 June 2013 (UTC).

I am finishing the discussion I started and leaving this page. Earlier ExcuseMeNYC said, "it has been incorrectly stated..." and deleted some content. I believe that in doing that, the user was contesting the content. I feel that Wikipedia's policy on contested content is to delete it until it is sourced. I do not feel that it should be easier to add unsourced controversial content than it is to remove it. User:Ian Spackman asked me, "What were their arguments as to why what was written here was incorrect?" I feel that this question is irrelevant because I do not feel that Wikipedia is a reasonable space in which to discuss the merits of content which does not meet inclusion criteria, and the inclusion criteria of controversial content is being sourced. It seems that content in this article is mostly sourced now, but I feel that the banned user ExcusemeNYC made a legitimate and reasonable request to have unsourced content removed on his/her assertion that it was incorrect. It seems that this request has been answered by having some content sourced. Any other content which this user wanted removed which remains unsourced should be removed until it is sourced on the basis of a claim of it being incorrect, and Wikipedia guidelines suggesting to err on the side of removing supposed incorrect information until a source is identified.

I further agree with ExcuseMeNYC and Brathford6602 that any information which is not a part of the biography of the subject of this article should be removed from this article. Biographies do typically contain information about actions done by others after one's death, and unless someone makes an asssertion that the information proposed for removal should be kept, then I think the default action should be to remove content which does not have an obvious relationship to the article's subject.

ExcuseMeNYC or anyone else may be involved in a court case or have a COI but that is irrelevant if that user makes a legitimate request. I think it would be poor treatment of our guests to use this Wikipedia talk space to discuss anything unrelated to the development of this article, whether that be topical discussion of the article's subject or questioning the motives of the person making editing requests, and I hope that everyone agrees with that. I feel that ExcuseMeNYC is entirely within the expectations of Wikipedia community guidelines by asking that content unrelated to the article's subject be removed and unsourced content either be sourced or presumed incorrect as he/she asserted and removed on that basis until sourced. Thanks all for looking into this. I am grateful for the time and attention everyone here has spent on this. I would like to reiterate that I know nothing about this article, any users editing here, or the subject of this article, and just wandered here without a stake in this. I want nothing more to do here, thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:16, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

If you still think the events of 1992 happened after the subject's death, you really don't know anything about the article. In any case there's no need to agree with both of them as, pursuant to Brathford6602's unblock request, CheckUser jpgordon has confirmed that they're the same.[12] Bishonen | talk 10:24, 7 June 2013 (UTC).

Bishonen, I know for a fact that Brathford6602 and ExcuseMeNYC are not the same person. They use the same computer which is located in an office and many people use this computer. So do not claim you know that these are the same person when you have no proof or reason to state that beyond knowing that its a communal IP address. MallyGirl (talk) 06:17, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

It makes no difference whether ExcuseMe, Brathford and you are actually the same physical person — obviously we have no technical way of proving that, and I'll keep my personal opinion about it to myself — but it makes no difference. People using the same computer and promoting the same interest are considered sockpuppets. Don't you ever get tired of creating accounts? Bishonen | talk 11:26, 12 June 2013 (UTC).