Talk:Suicide of Antonio Calvo

1
The original writer claims the article meets Wikipedia's guidelines, but just as an example, the claim that Calvo was forcibly removed from his office has been denied. I have therefore deleted that section from the article. Additionally, the claim that President Shirley Tilghman refuses to comment entirely is false - she has commented and said that Princeton University is bound by a confidentiality policy and may not comment in more detail on the case. Leaving that bit out is misleading - adding it makes the article more accurate and should remain that way (I've edited the article to meet that standard of accuracy). Also, it's not clear that this article meets Wikipedia's standards for significance of the subject matter, but that is a separate issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Step1988 (talk • contribs)
 * Please have a closer look at WP:V. The notion that Calvo was forcibly removed from his office is verified, unequivocally, by the Huffington Post.  If the university has now denied it, then if there is a source meeting WP:RS verifying the denial then this can be added to the article -- but this does not constitute reason for removing information supported by a perfectly reliable source.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:18, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Huffington Post states all of that information "reportedly," and you know as well as I do (if you are actually following this story) that at the time Huffington Post published the article, it was only hearsay. I have to say, it's not clear that the purpose of writing this article on Wikipedia is an objective representation of the facts.  It may not have to be, according to WP:V, although that's debatable, because whether HuffPost 'verified' the information is not at all certain to any objective observer (they simply link to a Daily Princetonian article that also reports it based on hearsay).  For a Ph.D in sociology, your standards for verifiability are surprisingly low.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Step1988 (talk • contribs)
 * This is incorrect. The sentence in question is "Calvo was then forcibly removed from the premises, with his keys taken away, in addition to being barred access to his personal Princeton University email account" -- and it does not contain the word reportedly.  In any event, if you prefer we could take a more conservative approach and add the word "reportedly" to the sentence in the Wikipedia article here.  What is *not* acceptable is for editors to delete information supported by a reliable source (and there's no future in the notion that that the Huffington Post does not satisfy WP:RS).  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:23, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The following is the actual quote --
 * "At his office, he was reportedly met by a university-appointed public safety officer who informed him that his contract as longtime lecturer would not be renewed. Calvo was then forcibly removed from the premises, with his keys taken away, in addition to being barred access to his personal Princeton University email account."
 * The word 'reportedly' obviously refers to both sentences. Unless the public safety officer who 'reportedly' came to Calvo's office was not the same person as the one who 'forcibly removed' him (there is little doubt that statement refers to one person).  In addition to having low standards for verifiability, you also seem to have problems with close reading.  At this point, it is very clear why you are posting this article and that the reason has very little to do with an accurate representation of the events as they happened.  I'll no longer engage in what would end up being a process of corrections and amendments ad infinitum -- those who are looking for more accuracy can read this discussion page and judge your intentions for themselves.
 * The "reportedly" applies to both sentences. Journalists regularly write "reportedly" at the start of a paragraph to indicate that the whole paragraph is relating someone else's description rather than presenting a verified version of the incident. Moreover, the word "forcibly" is hyperlinked to the original source for the description, a Daily Princetonian article in which an acquaintance reports the incident. Lagrange613 (talk) 16:54, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * In light of the corrected source chain, the "forcibly" adverb is not justified. "Was removed" is sufficient to establish that Calvo didn't leave voluntarily; "forcible" suggests he needed to be dragged out, an assertion the original DP article (HuffPo's source) does not support. Lagrange613 (talk) 17:00, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * As I have indicated, it would be acceptable to include "reportedly" in the article here. Any other approach relies on excessive interpretation here (thus falls afoul of WP:OR), instead of sticking to what the sources say.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:02, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Quoting WP:ORS, on HuffPo: "The Wikipedia editor should be aware of quoting information directly from websites like this. In these cases, it is best to simply source to the newspaper article and not to the blog." The word "forcibly" appears only in the HuffPo summary and is not justified by the article it links, so it is inappropriate here. Lagrange613 (talk) 05:23, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * (1) The link you quote is an essay, not a policy; as I note above, I really doubt you'll get anywhere with the notion that the Huffington Post does not meet WP:RS; (2) it's not a matter of quoting, it's a matter of conveying what the sources say. Please also take a good look at WP:CON.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:51, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Edit wars are bad; edit wars over articles violating WP:N are a joke. I do find your invocation of WP:CON odd given that I am supporting the position of another editor and you're the only editor so far to speak up for your position. I repeat my observation, which you have yet to address, that HuffPo's source for the "forcibly" adverb does not support that interpretation of events, though it does not specifically rule it out, either. The best solution is probably to leave "forcibly" out of the body and place a footnote to the effect that HuffPo described the removal as forcible despite the lack of support in their link. I would be (pleasantly) surprised at this point to see you support any "consensus" that isn't just you getting your way. Lagrange613 (talk) 17:31, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Edit warring consists of repeating an edit that has already been rejected, without first gaining consensus. The fact remains that "forcibly" is verified by a reliable source.  Now, I have proposed a compromise ("reportedly"), and you have not replied to it.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:03, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * "Reportedly" is fine as long as it is clear within the article that HuffPo's account is not supported by the article it cites. A footnote by the word "reportedly" should do the trick. Lagrange613 (talk) 16:08, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Title
Even assuming this article satisfies WP:N, a point I'm not prepared to concede yet, it is titled incorrectly. The article's first two sentences deal with Calvo's death; the majority of the remainder deals with the termination of his employment. It should be retitled to reflect its content, say to "Firing of Antonio Calvo". Lagrange613 (talk) 16:21, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Getting sacked is not by itself a notable event. What makes this incident notable is the fact that he killed himself as a result of being sacked.  The title is therefore appropriate.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:08, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * What made the Battle of Gettysburg notable is the fact that the Union won, but the article title isn't "Union victory at Gettysburg" because the article is mainly focused on the battle itself. Likewise, this article discusses almost exclusively Calvo's firing, and the title should reflect that. Lagrange613 (talk) 05:30, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Who was conspiring?
Who was conspiring to get rid of Antonio Calvo? Has someone been charged?

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Death of Adolf Hitler which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 13:57, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Move to Antonio Calvo
Is there any objection to moving this article to Antonio Calvo and adding an infobox, some info about his early life/education, another section about his career achievements/publications, and then his death? That would look more encyclopedic to me. The lead would still say he committed suicide due to an allegedly unfair dismissal.Zigzig20s (talk) 02:31, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Are there good sources for material of that sort? If so, no objection.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:24, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Good point. Let's wait and see.Zigzig20s (talk) 09:51, 14 May 2018 (UTC)