Talk:Carlo M. Cipolla

Helpless & Bandits

They were mixed, I just set it right --> Bandits at the bottom right http://www.extremistvector.com/content/stupid.html could be good to have an English diagram!!!

Original research

The analysis and commentary on the laws of stupidity is WP:OR and needs to be edited to remove personal opinion and to introduce citations. This is the reason I have added the OR tag. Fiddle Faddle 10:54, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

It's not OR but a faithful summary, from what I can see. Have you read the book? --Nemo 18:31, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

It is, however, not summarising the plot of a novel, where some latitude is allowed. Rather, it is analysing a published work, with originality, as the WP:OR policy firmly restricts. (There is not a single reference to another's description of the work. It is all original perspectives of one or more WP editors.) The 2013 OR tempate message is being returned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:246:C700:558:355F:9C9:2099:2794 (talk) 06:18, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Someone has added a sub-tag saying that the information is of limited interest to readers which is completely wrong - why do you think people are coming to this wikipedia page in the first place? It is precisely to learn more about Cipolla's Laws of Stupidity. I first saw it in a Youtube video and wanted to find out more, hence coming to this page. Now I see overzealous wiki editors are again trying to cut out precisely the information that is of interest to readers! 125.209.138.38 (talk) 04:31, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

naive or helpless?

In the original essay, as retrieved from http://www.extremistvector.com/content/stupid.html, Cipolla calls the people in the left-top quadrant helpless, he doesn't use the word 'naive' and he has no (formal) name for the people who are in the origin of the axes. I have changed the article text (changed naive to helpless) and i'll update the graphic to reflect the original text. Vincedevries (talk) 23:44, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

See: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1dA-ZoY25k0PWtG2ffjHBBt3iWp0yJN1E1sa31Q-zcgo/edit?pli=1 Vincedevries (talk) 13:19, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Restructured non-encyclopedic content

The article could do worse than to refine its scope in keeping with this scholar's obituary; per the Berkeley version, one of several available, Cipolla was "a leading economic historian of his generation." One would never know this from the focus of the article, before today's edits. So the article was restructured to indicate that his notability is in fact not a consequence of his one popular, non-economic text, but instead, his large corpus of economic writings, in Italian, and in translation. Rework today's edits to allow them to fit better here, if you wish, but please do not return the earlier insulting treatment.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:246:C700:558:355F:9C9:2099:2794 (talk) 05:26, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Wrong Cipolla?

It seems likely that references to another Cipolla have been mixed into this article. Under Notable Alumni the following is written: 'historician Luigi Schiapparelli, with whom he exchanged 45 letters after 1901; and'

This is referenced under footnote 1 to a book about an exchange of letters between Schiapperelli and Cipolla that occurred between 1894 and 1916. This must be obviously referencing another person as Carlo M. Cipolla was born in 1922. If you look up Schiapperelli you will find a link to another Cipolla. (This works only in the Italian version of the wiki.) https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luigi_Schiaparelli https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlo_Cipolla I think the Cipolla in the book is Carlo Cipolla(Verona, 1854 – Tregnago, 23 novembre 1916) who was a Professor at the University of Torino.