Talk:Paganino Paganini

Venetian v. Italian

@93.36.2.160: Regarding the repeated alterations to the "nationality" field in the infobox by an IP editor: in this man's lifetime there was no such thing as "Italy" beyond a geographical region; calling Paganini an Italian is like saying that Mariano Rajoy's nationality is "Iberian" or that Josip Broz Tito's nationality was "Balkan." Paganini was born and died in the Venetian Republic, and his "nationality" was, emphatically, Venetian. You say in your edit summary that you are talking about his "ethnicity"; if so, there's a separate "ethnicity" parameter in the infobox template you could use--- although, I find that problematic, as well, since I'm not aware that his ethnicity was an important aspect of his notability. Still, if you insist, please put "Italian" as his ethnicity and not as his nationality.-Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 21:06, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

No, sorry. We are making a confusion. First of all the Republic of Venice was a city-state (like Genoa, Pisa, Milan, Florence... ) and not a nation-state (like France, Italy, Spain, Germany... ), so that nationality does not exist. This separation should be clear. The first term almost always points out the ethnicity cause the citizenship can change. In English the term nationality and ethnicity are often interchangeable. So I am gonna specify the difference between ethnicity and citizenship.--93.36.2.216 (talk) 10:08, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

No, they're kinda not. Stop your nationalism. Graham87 14:47, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Please, do not offend. I am not a nationalist. It is a matter of history. There is difference between city-states and nation-states. Paganini was born in Brescia that has nothing to do with Venice and it was juts part of the city-state. So, we consider the citizenship as seen nationality didn't exist at that time and the Italian culture was already well developed.--93.36.8.196 (talk) 14:52, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

OK then, but you're a roving IP editor whose only recorded edits are changing nationalities. Pretty much the same thing. Graham87 15:37, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

May you stop offending me. I am giving an encyclopaedic explanation. Please, try to have a little of good common sense--93.36.8.196 (talk) 15:38, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

With no references, no reputation to back you up, no reason I should believe you. Who says the idea of being Italian as a concept was well-developed by then? Just drop it. Graham87 15:49, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

yes, if you do not remove the reliable source I added it would be better and clear. If you are not informed about history, I kindly ask you not to be arrogant with me and please less politics, cause we are talking about history not politics.--93.36.8.196 (talk) 16:02, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

as I said before, a Dictionary of Italians would naturally be all-encompassing ... it would contain all people who were born in the territory of Italy, either current or possibly historic (e.g. Nice). To me that source doesn't address the question, and I've read it both in its original (my Italian is passable for reading) and with the help of Google Translate. Graham87 05:49, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

I am trying to give historical/encyclopaedic explanations and you keep reverting my edits with what is clearly a non-neutral pov--93.36.7.232 (talk) 11:13, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

The only POV I have is against nationality-warring IP's/single-purpose accounts, who I see as worse than spammers. See #47 of User:Antandrus/observations on Wikipedia behavior, which doesn't quite apply to you as you despise nationalism, but is relevant. Wikipedia:Genre warriors are just as bad. Graham87 11:27, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

No, I am sorry. If you check, I am the one who is willing to talk and giving explanations and sources. Your motivations are composed only by accusations which don't correspond to the nature of my edits.--93.36.7.232 (talk) 12:35, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

I guess ... you're right. I'm going to disengage now. Sorry for the bother. Graham87 15:23, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Addition of citation from Madain Project

@Moughera: Madain Project is an excellent example of what Wikipedia calls a self-published source: it's a site created by enthusiasts, with no accountability or editorial oversight. From WP:SPS: "Self-published material is characterized by the lack of independent reviewers (those without a conflict of interest) validating the reliability of content." You defend the citation by pointing out that the page on Madain has sources of its own cited at the bottom, which is certainly a good thing, but if those are the sources of the content in the Madain page, then it's those sources (and not Madain, the self-published aggregator of their contents) that could be cited here on Wikipedia—and, indeed, more than one of them is already cited on this page. If there's something of substance in the sources at the bottom of the Madain page that you think should be added to this article, then please add it—and cite those sources, not Madain. Again, from WP:SPS: "If the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent reliable sources." -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 02:04, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

@Bryanrutherford0: You're actually somewhat right in using the term "content-aggregator", but not entirely. Content at Madain Project is produced through a very keen chain of development and editorial process, which obviously is an internal process so far. And since this is an internal process, I understand, it might not be acceptable on WP. But I've taken your point, will be re-writing the content with sources mentioned on MP over the next couple days and replacing current content. Thanks for your input. :) Moughera (talk) 10:03, 28 September 2019 (UTC)