Talk:Vincenza Taffarel
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 31 December 2009 (UTC). The result of the discussion was speedy keep. |
| This article was nominated for deletion on 7 January 2010 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep. |
Date of death
editIt was mentioned in the AFD that she died in 1984 - is there a source for that? The article is in the "Living people" category at the moment. Cassandra 73 (talk) 23:29, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
- The death oif the popes article found here confirm it. [[1]] Hell In A Bucket (talk) 00:08, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Possible additional sources
editI question its "reliability" for facts that support its agenda, but http://www.tldm.org/News11/SePedir%C3%A1CuentaReview.htm may be reliable enough to use for mundane, non-controversial facts. I'm using it for the last name, Taffarel. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:20, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Merge
editThis should be merged to conspiracy articl.e Alio The Fool 19:39, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
- Not really. Read the WP:ONEEVENT, it has specific exceptions which she clearly falls under. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 19:44, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
- Ok so you can paste the discussion link. Explain why it should be merged. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 03:57, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
- Yes and a good portion of the people thought it should be merged. Alio The Fool 18:32, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
- Ok let's read the two paragraphs on Single Event Notability guidelines.
- "When the role played by an individual in the event is less significant, an independent article may not be needed, and a redirect is appropriate. For example, George Holliday, who videotaped the Rodney King beating, redirects to Rodney King. On the other hand, if an event is of sufficient importance, even relatively minor participants may require their own articles, for example Howard Brennan, a witness to the JFK assassination.
- Another issue arises when an individual plays a major role in a minor event. In this case, it is not generally appropriate to have an article on both the person and the event. Generally in this case, the name of the person should redirect to the article on the incident. For example, Steve Bartman redirects to Steve Bartman incident. In some cases, however, a person famous for only one event may be more widely known than the event itself, for example, the Tank Man. In such cases, the article about the event may be most appropriately named for the person involved."
- Perhaps you can explain what is minor about a popes death? What is minor about lying about her involvement. There are clear guidelines about event importance. There is coverage in the Vatican Women source and she has coverage internationally. What would make her less worthy then Howard Brennan based on this policy? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 04:06, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
- Just as an outside observer, I am inclined to see this as two events anyway. The two events I see are; 1) that she found him, the pope dead, and 2) that they lied (omitted) about her. Both of which though related, to me seems like more than one event. Even if we were to argue that it were one events, under the clauses, the event of her, and just her suspiciously finding the pope dead in the morning (and subsequently the event of them covering her discovery up as well), to me is of signifigcant importance to warrent her own article. That is just my opinion on this, and therefore i would be opposed to merging at this time. Ottawa4ever (talk) 19:28, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
- Also, There is nothing wrong with mentioning and wikifying a link to her in the conspiracy article either, and still keeping this article Ottawa4ever (talk)
- I’d also be inclined to keep, rather than merge. But it needs to agree with the conspiracy theory page, so as not to run the risk of being a POV fork. Moonraker12 (talk) 16:16, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
- Just as an outside observer, I am inclined to see this as two events anyway. The two events I see are; 1) that she found him, the pope dead, and 2) that they lied (omitted) about her. Both of which though related, to me seems like more than one event. Even if we were to argue that it were one events, under the clauses, the event of her, and just her suspiciously finding the pope dead in the morning (and subsequently the event of them covering her discovery up as well), to me is of signifigcant importance to warrent her own article. That is just my opinion on this, and therefore i would be opposed to merging at this time. Ottawa4ever (talk) 19:28, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Seemliness
editI don't think there is anything desperately unusual about people leading a religious life getting up at 3 in the morning to pray, or to be content in a celibate life; but I also know that societies that put a premium on personal comfort and instant gratification find that a bit suspect, and are more likely to see unseemliness in it.
I can also see it is more seemly being found dead in bed than in the bathroom (presumably on the toilet; which, ironically, is more consistent with a natural death ie by heart attack).
So if the Vatican did change her story, I'm disinclined to see anything more sinister than that in it. Moonraker12 (talk) 16:22, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
- The unseemliness is not my wording......It comes from The death of the popes. I had been trying to avoid using large portions of it's text but I can do so for the details requested as it covers all of them. If you haven't had a chance to check out the Death of the Popes you should. It's a fantastic book...Hell In A Bucket (talk) 17:42, 14 February 2010 (UTC)