Talk:Cecilia Salvai

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cecilia Salvai. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20130717160600/http://www.torinocalciofemminile.it/stagione/campionato/classifica/player/1/12.html to http://www.torinocalciofemminile.it/stagione/campionato/classifica/player/1/12.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:25, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

appearing to make a racist gesture
There is no appearing about it, it is blatantly a racist gesture, and the source that is cited also says it is a racist gesture (not appearing to be a racist gesture). The appearing should be removed. I notice that in the history, it used to say the correct thing that she made a racist gesture, but this was replaced with "appearing" with the explanation "Content must remain neutral and encyclopedic" and then the article protected because of disruptive edits.

Putting 'appearing' is not neutral, it is extremely biased in their favour and explicitly disagrees with the source that is cited, and pretty much every other reliable source on this. e.g.

Sky sports calling it racist (not appearing to be) https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11095/12374263/juventus-say-they-made-an-unforgivable-mistake-after-racist-tweet-appeared-on-their-womens-team-feed

CNN calling it racist (not appearing to be) https://www.cnn.com/2021/08/06/football/juventus-racist-post-asians-intl-scli-spt/index.html

Insider calling it racist (not appearing to be, also the source used in this article) https://www.insider.com/juventus-women-twitter-post-player-racist-gesture-2021-8

The Guardian calling it offensive and referring to a well known commentator that calls it blatantly racist (not appearing to be) https://www.theguardian.com/football/2021/aug/06/juventus-apologise-after-being-condemned-for-offensive-tweet

Indy100 calling it blatantly racist (not appearing to be) https://www.indy100.com/news/juventus-women-racist-tweet-asian-apology-b1898017

CTV calling it racist (not appearing to be) https://www.ctvnews.ca/sports/juventus-apologizes-for-racist-post-shared-on-women-s-team-s-twitter-feed-1.5537182

BBC calling it racist (not appearing to be) https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/58109308

NYPost calling it racist (not appearing to be) https://nypost.com/2021/08/05/juventus-soccer-team-delete-racist-picture/

ESPN calling it racist (not appearing to be) https://www.espn.com/soccer/juventus-itajuventus/story/4446605/juventus-apologise-for-offensive-picture-on-womens-twitter-account

The Telegraph calling it racist (not appearing to be) https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2021/08/05/juventus-women-forced-apologise-racist-tweet/

There are really no reliable sources that support the 'appearing' part. Including appearing is extremely non-neutral, non-encyclopedic and (wrong) original research.

2001:56A:F343:2700:B8BE:D321:4D5A:1209 (talk) 04:50, 7 August 2021 (UTC)


 * While I personally agree that the gesture was blatantly and overtly racist, it is also my understanding that it is best practice to avoid loaded language and was wary of WP:LIBEL. Particuarly when disputed by the subject in question. The key to the current verbage is it cannot be disputed. Hjk1106 (talk) 10:11, 7 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Calling it a racist gesture is not loaded language at all. It is a statement of fact that is supported by every reliable unbiased source on this. Calling it 'appearing to be' is loaded language, from the link you provide "avoiding both understatement and overstatement", calling it appearing to be is an incredible understatement and is not supported by any source, including the source that is cited. In addition from the link you provided "Articles should document in a non-partisan manner what reliable secondary sources have published about the subjects", again there are no reliable secondary sources publishing that this appears to be racist, they are all very clear that it is racist. And finally "unless a person is commonly described that way in reliable sources", as I have shown this is clearly commonly described this way in reliable sources (commonly to the point it is described as this by every reliable source).


 * Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia that should document what reliable sources have said, not make up it's own original research description that disagrees with every reliable source.


 * 2001:56A:F343:2700:C808:3EDB:D4DA:C68 (talk) 21:44, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Now even the mention that it appears to be racist has to be removed because of "huge POV". In fact, not only that it appears to be racist has been removed, but even that she performed a gesture has been removed, changing it to just the claim she wore a cone on her head. Is this a joke? What is the point of this section if it is just going to completely ignore and misrepresent the sources it cites? The description of what happened is completely devoid from reality and entirely misrepresents the sources it cites. 2001:56A:F343:2700:FC35:9E49:7241:4CF6 (talk) 02:57, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I do not want to go into details, but just for reference for not-Italian speakers: the cone she put on her head is called "cinesino" (=little chinese). The gesture here was perceived more as childish than as racist -- O mb ra   17:27, 10 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Racist or not, the more pressing issue is whether the event warrants permanent entry in an encyclopedia. Is Wikipedia an encyclopedia, or a running tally of every misdeed and bit of online drama? Will it be relevant a year from now? 10? Wikipedians and daily news reporters looking for an easy story to post sure love juicy gossip, but Wikipedia is not a newspaper. If Salvai loses her career over this it would be worth mentioning. Otherwise, it's debatable. WP:NOTEVERYTHING, WP:PROPORTION, WP:VNOTSUFF, and WP:RECENTISM should be closely studied. --Animalparty! (talk) 01:24, 11 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Whether or not it should be here at all is a reasonable question, but that if it is here (which it is) should the description on Wikipedia misrepresent every single reliable source including the one it cites? is not. 2001:56A:F343:2700:BCA4:7EA5:A827:5C60 (talk) 06:58, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I would remove per RECENT and see if this has staying power before restoring. It appears this was a one off insensitive thing done by a teen, not a series of hateful actions done to insult others.  Springee (talk) 18:17, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

BLPN discussion archived Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:00, 1 September 2021 (UTC)