Talk:Francesco Parisi (economist)/Archive 1

Criminal Allegations
Discussion about misconduct allegations should be tabled, consistent with Wikipedia editing guidelines, until better information emerges. At present, all reports are wildly contradictory, and subject of article has not had opportunity to rebut publicly. LogicSoup (talk) 04:49, 22 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I shall repeat, due to continued vandalization of this bio page. Wikipedia IS NOT a newspaper, it is an encyclopedia. The policy on living persons is very clear. See WP:BLPCRIME. I am going to request that this page be locked. LogicSoup (talk) 04:43, 1 March 2017 (UTC)


 * To repeat once again, this is a trivial case of WP:BLPCRIME. I am happy to admit that I was a former student of the subject of this article, and I am presently a law professor working in the same field. Now, although I have personal knowledge of some of the facts relating to the allegations, which have not been reported, I have not in any way attempted to present any "original research," nor have I relied on my private knowledge in my edits. In the unlikely event that there is a conviction, I would certainly think that this should be mentioned on the bio. However, consistent with WP:BLPCRIME, I do not believe there should be any reporting on this in an encyclopedia article, prior to conviction or acquittal. I do not think this to be an unreasonable position, and I reject the anonymous editor's claims that I have been "biased." In fact, I rather suspect that the anonymous editor is the very woman who is making these allegations and that this is part of a misguided campaign to smear Prof. Parisi's name, so the claims of "bias" strike me as hypocritical--as well as deeply disturbing. LogicSoup (talk) 05:05, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Dude, guy was arrested. It's all anyone can talk about at school. He shouldn't even have an article, he's not Painter or someone famous. Who is paying you, LogicSoup? You only edit two articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.79.144.10 (talk) 15:45, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Star Tribune, CBS, and now the most popular lawyer blog among us Big Law wigs, Above the Law (website)—are you going to erase all of these on behalf of your client, LogicSoup? His career is already as destroyed as what he did to that woman. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.79.144.10 (talk • contribs)


 * If you keep failing to sign your user name, you make it difficult to tell who wrote what. Again, our living people crime policy states: "For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed a crime, or is accused of having committed one, unless a conviction is secured."


 * Please keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a newspaper, rather, it is an encyclopedia. El_C 16:25, 1 March 2017 (UTC)


 * However, the veracity of the claim is beside the point. The fact is that you cannot include rumors and unsupported allegations in an encyclopedia article. And if you are a law student, as you seem to be implying, then you should understand the distinction between an allegation and a description of facts. Being arrested for X does not mean you did X. Most people who haven't gone to law school tend to understand that much...
 * Second, Above the Law is a blog, which is read by law students somewhat more than practicing attorneys (much less "Big Law wigs [sic.]"), and moreover is not a suitable source by Wikipedia standards.
 * As for notability, you can dispute it if you like. Prof. Parisi has an unusually large output, is among the most cited professors at UMN Law, and holds an endowed chair. He is immensely well known in the academic legal community, and is very likely the most notable scholar among the UMN faculty. For your information, speaking as a law professor at a Tier 1 school myself, I can attest that Prof. Parisi is extremely well known in the academic legal community, as a serious and prolific researcher. But that's just my opinion, which is neither here nor there. As a matter of Wikipedia policy, a professor who has authored several books, several hundred articles, and holds an endowed chair easily satisfies the criteria for notability.
 * Finally, you seem to be taking this a bit personally. It seems first that you think your personal opinion about the guilt of Prof. Parisi, his notability, and my interest in the matter should decide the issues. It does not. I am surprised if you are indeed a law student, but I suppose the quality of UMN Law students has been in a bit of a free fall over the past couple years, if LSAT medians are any guide, so perhaps this is the "new normal" at UMN, which frankly wasn't known for producing particularly bright students (or very many "Big Law wigs [sic.]") in the first place. Oh well.
 * Look, I'll make this simple for you "Big Law wig [sic.]": Wikipedia has rules. According to those rules, Prof. Parisi more than qualifies for notability, and the news items are not allowed on the page. Whatever bias you believe I have, it is totally irrelevant. You make unilateral edits, ignore the talk page until open editing is blocked, bloviate with self-righteous moral grandstanding and personal opinions, accuse anyone who disagrees of being paid to do so, and don't even know how to properly sign your posts. Why should anyone take you the least bit seriously? LogicSoup (talk) 22:15, 3 March 2017 (UTC)