Talk:Pascal Olivier Count de Negroni

Pascal Olivier and Negroni Cocktail

Is there any source before even 5 years ago that links Pascal Olivier Count de Negroni to the Negroni cocktail? All online sources with Pascal Negroni are very recent (2008-09), and I believe may stem from spamming by Noel Negroni claiming that his ancestor originated the drink. The refs given here are only a couple months old. While the origins of the drink are definitely cloudy, a quick search shows mention of the Camillo Negroni story at least as far back as 1999 on the internet. http://groups.google.com/group/it.hobby.cucina/browse_thread/thread/44dbfdcdf2a23688/91b067cb7b3de999?hl=en&q=%22camillo+negroni%22#91b067cb7b3de999 I'm just concerned that through ubiquitous spamming of the internet, people are rewriting history.

Is there any reference to Pascal and the cocktail drink even older than 3 years? - Chromatikoma (talk) 17:20, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• You have made a good point and that is why in all fairness I have added the name of Count Camillo Negroni also to the article. Tony the Marine (talk) 20:53, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Reference Cleanup

I'm attempting to clean up some of the references here, and I have made a link to the relevant pages of the Annuaire officiel de l'armee francaise in the references section of the main article. These clearly point out his rank, what brigade he commanded, and that he was a recipient of the Officer medal of the Legion of Honor. His name appears hypenated like this: Pascal-Olivier de Negroni. No mention of any "count". Is there a reference for the count part?

There is a problem however with this reference which was given as "Title:'Bulletin des lois de l'Empire français, Volume 38'; Author France; Page 965; Publisher Imprimerie nationale, 1889; Original from Harvard University; Digitized 17 Jan 2008".

As far as I can tell, it was not called "l'Empire français" in 1889 because Napoleon III was captured in 1870, and France had entered the French Third Republic. So I believe I have found the likely target of this reference being titled the Bulletin des lois de la République française, which was published in 1889 as the 38th volume. Unfortunately, the hunt doesn't end there, because "Bulletin des lois" is a bulletin of the laws of France, and therefore would not likely show an award for a General. Here is a link to the image of page 965, which doesn't seem to have any mention of de Negroni.

http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k214125m.image.r=Bulletin+des+lois+de+l.f993.langFR

I would imagine it's buried somewhere in one of the annals of the army as the above reference, but I haven't located it yet. I'm removing the reference, as it appears incorrect, but I've left all the historical information there waiting to have a legitimate source provided. - Chromatikoma (talk) 20:50, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Found it! Searching for the correct name really makes things easier. It was a supplemental part of the 38th volume. Google books has misattributed it, but I corrected it for the reference cited. - Chromatikoma (talk) 23:22, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Self-published source

I would also like to point out that the reference that is given in the article as "'The Negroni family' - genealogical, demographic, and nobiliary study from its 11th century origins to its 20th century branches in Italy, France, and Puerto Rico; by Héctor Andrés Negroni; Published in 1998, H.A. Negroni (Madison, AL)" is self-published so its use should be restricted to the guidelines given here: Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Self-published sources (online and paper) so it is most likely not permissible for use in this article. I will leave it for others to decide for now. - Chromatikoma (talk) 21:11, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I believe we should get rid of this source and try to attribute any relevant information to third part sources. I don't think there's much controversy regarding this. --Damiens.rf 03:05, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Propose move to Pascal-Olivier de Negroni

I have just created a redirect for Pascal-Olivier de Negroni, but I would suggest that it should be the main name for the article. For the first time searching for Pascal-Olivier de Negroni actually turns up some results which with the added Count did not. I believe Pascal-Olivier de Negroni was his given name, so it should be the primary name for the article. - Chromatikoma (talk) 22:05, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

• Against such a move, you are soley based on your asumptions. Let me remind you that A published source is reliable reagrless of the ancestery relationship of the author if the author in question is a notable historian. Please do not attempte to carry out your "point-of-views" in this artilce and be happy with your Negroni, salud. Antonio "The Truth" Martin

Hi Antonio, I am actually looking at the book published by Hector and it says Pascal Olivier de Negroni, and it is documented that way in the two French documents that I added yesterday. Please review them... I made no assumptions, that's how his name is printed! This isn't about POV at all, I just changed it to how it was printed in the references I gave, as well as in Hector's book. Salud! - Chromatikoma (talk) 21:20, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

No problem at all. The good thing is that two civil minded people such as ourselves can carry out a civil conversion without creating a mess such as others have done in the past. I suggest that the term "Count" stays and thereby avoid that others who have nothing better to do, begin an endless revertion of the article. I think that you will agree that it is a small price to pay, since others will start an endless agruement that this and that site states this or that. You know how it goes. Saludo, my friend. Antonio "The Truth" Martin

We should make the move. The article should use the correct name. We shouldn't be afraid of fighting vandals and, anyway, I'm not sure I understand how keeping "Count" would keep any vandal out. --Damiens.rf 04:12, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

• Chromatikoma and I have discussed this is in the most civil of manners and I believe that this is the best way to go without starting an endless agruement over this issue. Antonio Martin (talk) 15:19, 8 January 2010 (UTC)