Talk:EuroStack

Eurostack

The changes by Voort PrinceOfKennebunkport why has Voort removed the references to the Eurostack industry paper, which were clearly and adequately justified by quoting Bloomberg? And/or the other changes that were also all adequately justified? Maybe he/she has a a COI? (talk) 15:22, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Voorts is there any mechanism to avoid further escalation? Semi-protecting the page would not address all concerns as two users with more than 10 edits are reverting corrections. MITknight24 (talk) 16:12, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Indeed, agree. We should protect the version of the page that contains the duly justified corrections - in line with externally verified sources like Bloomberg, Politico, CEPR etcc. Unsure how that can be done… PrinceOfKennebunkport (talk) 17:13, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

However.. why were my corrections to disinformation removed? Wikipedia it’s not about who has the bigger following. It should be about presenting real information. Nowhere on the Internet I can find that Caffarra is a lobbyist? Can you please justify your assertion with a source? If not, it’s libel… PrinceOfKennebunkport (talk) 17:16, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Dear @MITknight24. The last undo that you made seems unjustified as indeed, the declaration of "two lobbyists" is incorrect. We need to stick to the facts or valid references. As far as I can tell, Sebastiano Toffaletti is a lobbyist in the EU sense of the word: he is Secretary-General (and co-founder) of the European DIGITAL SME Alliance, a Brussels-based trade association that represents digital SMEs and is registered in the EU Transparency Register (ID 082698126468-52). Trade associations registered there are classified as “interest representatives” (i.e., lobbyists). LobbyFacts (which mirrors the official register) also shows he held European Parliament lobbyist accreditation (11 May 2023 → 11 May 2024). However, Cristina Caffarra is not! She is best known as a competition economist (UCL honorary professor; CEPR/CEPA author). I can’t find a current EU Transparency Register entry in her personal name. On another note, you seem to be new to Wikipedia (August 27, 2025). Please make sure to declare your Conflict of Interest if applicable as I was advised by @G. Leenders. This will keep the page as factual as can be and avoid passion to be the main driver for this page. Thanks! Ylechelle (talk) 17:57, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

I think Ylechelle brought yet more evidence of the need of such correction. The page would be carrying DISINFO without such correction. PrinceOfKennebunkport (talk) 18:10, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Disinfo on Eurostack

For 2 times, I added important information on the first ever Eurostack paper published, in January. I linked the paper and also Bloomberg news, to back inequivocally my point with a third party, verifiable source. Similarly, for 2 times I corrected the titles of Toffaletti and Caffarra, by also quoting third parties (an academic institution and Politico). Both times my duly justified changes were reverted to twist reality in a way beneficial to parties who have a COI. This is not serious: neither for those deleting the changes without a justificstion, nor for Wikipedia - which will end up carrying info that can easily be verified as lacking or false by checking independently other sources like Bloomberg or Politico. What a Trumpian way of dealing with reality.. . PrinceOfKennebunkport (talk) 15:28, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Origin of the Term

The article in reference 3 explains how the term came about. It's quite unequivocal. Funnily enough, an American citizen (Glen Weyl) came up with the term apparently! The article in reference alludes to the fact that Caffarra brought the name to the group that initiated the first conference by the same name. Don't you read it the same way @G. Leenders? I'm also thinking that the name came out of a private conversation between Caffarra and Weyl, but I don't have anything to back this up. Ylechelle (talk) 13:19, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

I recommend to keep discussion focused on sources and content, not on users’ motives. See WP:CIVIL and WP:COI. Although frustration is possible, I would not recommend stating "Trumpian way of dealing with reality" or unsubstantiated COI claims. You might want to set up a user page for your account to list possible conflicts, as might @@PrinceOfKennebunkport do. I am not super experienced on Wikipedia, but this term seems to be disputed. I will add disputed template. G. Leenders (talk) 13:31, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

I am not necessarily frustrated. Just trying to be factual actually, with your help possibly. In fact, if I may, I do not relate to your recommendation above as I did not state "Trumpian way of dealing with reality" not did I make unsubstantiated COI claims. I will however follow your other recommendation and disclose my COI as I am somewhat involved in the project (after the fact as one of the 300+ signatories, not as a founder or anything -- just a stakeholder), so I know quite a bit about the project and I can substantiate my claims. In fact, I would argue that the last paragraph is completely wrong on the basis of the reference provided. For example: one of the first editor chose to write " Both consider themselves to be founders of the initiative and ownership right to the trademark" whereas the cited article says " Caffarra's claim in front of the EUIPO is that Toffaletti could not apply for the trademark as the EuroStack term is already "used in the course of trade".", i.e. she is not claiming ownership right, but instead claiming that Toffaletti cannot claim ownership. It's quite a major difference! So if you care about this article, let's work together to ensure it is thoroughly vetted and factual. Ylechelle (talk) 15:24, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out the incorrectness of COI. I saw the term "COI" occurring twice, once in each of the two subsctions, together with a pattern of repeating edits, but skipped the signature of the last one. Thanks for making your COI visible; this helps other assert the status. Additionally, consider use the edit template COI or add POV section. Please use sources that support the wording to ease checks and multiple when possible, since articles are of varying robustness. G. Leenders (talk) 16:11, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

I support G. Leenders. Please Ylechelle and PrinceOfKennebunkport made duplicative edits and added promotional links to the page. MITknight24 (talk) 18:47, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Please clarify "promotional". Looking at the sequence, the edits I made (I cannot speak for PrinceOfKennebunkport) are strictly backed up by factual and non ambiguous sources, like the initial event in 2024 where Bria, Caffarra and Whittaker exposed the topic as panelists and curators. If you remove Caffarra, you have to remove Bria and Whittaker. Ylechelle (talk) 18:58, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Same here: I linked Bloomberg News and the 1st Eurostack paper. So I’m unsure why other users are censoring factual and independent journalist info? Maybe they have a motive? Bad for Wikipedia… PrinceOfKennebunkport (talk) 07:41, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi everyone, I've popped in after a message on my talk page asking for advice on the dispute. I've had a look over the reverted edits and I do think that the content was certainly added in good faith, but also agree that the external links do appear promotional. I've gone through the reverted edits, confirmed information with third party sources, and re-added the content that I am certain is correct with independent, secondary sources.

As for if Toffaletti and Caffarra are lobbyists, the WP:BLP policy states that contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion. I believe that from conversations on this page, that claim is contentious and it is certainly unsourced, and I have therefore removed it. It shouldn't be re-added until a reference can be found confirming it.

With going through the content, I've looked at both sides and tried to balance it the best I could, I hope it works for all involved.

Kind regards, Encoded  Talk 💬 20:11, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your contribution @Encoded Ylechelle (talk) 21:16, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks so much for following up to my request on your Talk page and for putting some order. Helps us all better understand how to deal with these situations. Appreciated PrinceOfKennebunkport (talk) 05:10, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

We're at it again :( Ylechelle (talk) 06:19, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Could you please have a look at the last reversals? Really annoying and defamatory. Ylechelle (talk) 11:29, 15 November 2025 (UTC)