Talk:Christian Settipani

message: Is this person really notable? They have been added to many Ancient Articles, and this article says that they work in IT? Markh 19:51, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: According to Dr. Nathaniel Taylor's review article, Mr. Settipani have actually done his "homeworks" well. Sundehul 20:15, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Who is Christian Settipani?

message: The way the article looks now, it reads like a tremendous eulogy to Mr. Settipani. While it may be that professional genealogists (and among them probably the more "adventurous" kind, i.e. those who prefer antiquity over certainty) rely heavily on his work, I doubt that he enjoys much support amongst historians. Trigaranus (talk) 11:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, there's certainly at least one editor who's a fan, and perhaps more, but yes, we don't do adulation. Cursory research suggests that Settipani's work on early medieval prosopography and anthroponymy is serious and taken seriously. His fascination with descent from antiquity is perhaps another matter. Angus McLellan  (Talk) 23:16, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say that if Keats-Rohan is willing to go partners with him in a decade-long (so far) publishing project, that would constitute a fair amount of "support amongst historians." Please see my other comments, below. --Michael K. Smith (talk) 17:12, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: Re Christian Settipani:
The sources I cited were far superior to Hallfond. I am going to add two more sources from established historians (though nobody, and certainly not Halfond are as preeminent in this particular area of Early Medieval History in Gaul/France as Werner, Heinzelman, Taylor, Bouchard and Mathisen. All of them relied on Settipani's "genealogical idenfications" and other advice, often asking him for the advice in the first place. And if you had been paying attention, even Hallfond recognized that Werner was preeminent in just this feild. He just did not bother to read far enough to understand Werner's regard for Settipani'S work. Actually check the citations please. And when it comes down to it, I (not you or some other editor) added Hallfond in the first place as a way of providing some "neutrality" to the article which someone or other had complained was inadequate. Your mistaken reliance upon Hallfond as being the best in this area suggests to me that you may be making value judgments in this area without actually knowing much about it. I have complied with every request by editors, legitimate and otherwise, to provide supporting information. These serial erasures are seriously becoming abusive. If you are not prepared to say why you do not think the endorsements of Settipani's work by Werner, Heinzelman, Taylor, Bouchard and Mathisen are appropriate, please be prepared to indicate why that is the case and additionally why you believe these authorities are somehow less pertinent than Hafond when, frankly, few people including I am rather certain, yourself, would ever have heard of him and his review had I rather not regrettably cited it in the first place. Please do not delete or materially this material again unless you are able to do that. You are unfairly depriving readers of pertinent and researched information that falls clearly within Wikipedia standards. Editors are obliged to make articles better if they get involved at all, not make them worse.
Respectfully
Grady Loy
Re Bobrayner's comment the last time he significantly modified the article:
"If disputed text is fact-tagged, there are two solutions; remove the text or bring a source. Reverting the tags away is not a solution."
I added five citations by the preeminent researchers in this field for the last 20 to 30 years specifically referring to Settipani's work in this field.  Bobrayner summarily deleted the entire text without, I would guess even reading it and certainly without checking the validity of the citations or the relevance of the scholars cited.  Though that may not be an uncommon practice for a certain kind of Wikipedia editor, I would in this case ask that he restrain himself - or provide more of an explanation than "still don't like it" as I have done exactly as he required the last time he did this.
GradyELoy (talk) 12:39, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent Delete of citations of scholarly discussion of or reference to Settipani reseearch 

message: I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:
::This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
::#There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
::#It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
::#In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.
Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:04, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  removing POV tag with no active discussion per [[Template:POV]]