Talk:Giulia Tofana

Ratings
I added today ratings for this article; the article provides some useful info so i deem it to be a Start Class; it is Low importance since this person is barely known in Italy and abroad -- Itemirus  Talk Page  08:54, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Courtier
The information in the introduction: "an Italian high class courtier and professional poisoner at the court of Philip IV of Spain", seem to contradict, or at least not be mentioned, in the rest of the article. --85.226.40.132 (talk) 16:43, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Biography
I've removed the line:

'Some of her customers purchased with intent and knowledge of the poison; others used it for its advertised purposes and only "accidentally" caused "unintended" deaths.'

It has no citations and sounds like speculation and/or opinion. Also, there's no previous mention of "advertised purposes" so we don't know what is meant by that. Somebody with knowledge of the subject could add more detail around this, but the sentence as was was uninformative. --Mazz0 (talk) 11:23, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Update: I just read the Aqua Tofana page and it appears the line was taken directly from there. There's more info on that page regarding "advertised purposes", so something around that could be added to this page, assuming it's verified, but there's no place in an encyclopaedia entry for the written equivalent of doing quotations with your fingers, as in this sentence. I will rephrase it on the Aqua Tofana to make it sound more professional, but it will still require citations. --Mazz0 (talk) 11:39, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Major WP:YESPOV problems.
Reverted this series of edits because they violate WP:YESPOV re: If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements. We can not go by a claim that something is a "new shcolarly reference". We can't just rewrite the article to mirror one author's book and any claims made by that author need to be cited as their opinion and not put in Wikipedia's voice. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 01:59, 8 February 2022 (UTC)


 * This is odd. This case attracted a lot of attention when it first occurred. It became infamous and was printed in sensationalist litterature. Because of this, it has became the subject of myths and legends over time. The article, prior to my edits, partially consisted of old myths and legends around the case, which contradicted each other. They were referenced by several different sources, some of them dead links from private bloggs. I replaced the old myths and legends with latest research information from a serious academic and sholarly referenced text book. That book also hapen to be the first serious text book written about the subject. You are welcome to read it and verify that. This has now been reverted. To make a major re-write of an article is acceptable in wikipedia rules. To replace bad sources with good sources is in accordance with the rules. I fully acknowledge, that the language of the article may not have been 100% perfect, since English is not my first language; I appologize for that, but the article is open for anyone to edit, and wording can be corrected. What is strange in my eyes, is that non-scholarly sources and dead links from private blogs, supporting a short article with contradicting old mythological statements about this case, is preferred over an article supported by the latest research from an academic textbook. No one owns an article in Wikipedia and everyone is free to edit them. I know this: I started this article once upon a time, and attempted to rectify it now, when I have better information and sources than I had then. I have difficulty understanding this revertion. I suffer from exhaustive depression, which means I do not have the energy which is required to discuss with you. Now, I have a very hard time thinking that I have done wrong in this. Because of my condition, I will not engage in any sort of conflict. I think it is wrong to prevent the development of this article subject. I think your revertion of it is wrong. But I am not capable of involving myself in any conflict with you. Because I have difficulty vieweing your revertion as correct, I have difficulty seeing a discussion resulting in anything good. Because of this, I will not involve or engage further. I will not contest a deletion: not because I think it is justified, but solely because I have difficulty believing that any interaction will result in anything good, since your activity in this issue has not given me a good impression. Thank you, and have a good day. --Aciram (talk) 23:10, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * What you added is not "wrong", it just needs a little work. Time permitting, you, or I, or other editors will look at the sources provided and format the content to match Wikipedia policy and guidelines. Its not too difficult, just takes some time on some editors part. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 23:21, 8 February 2022 (UTC)