Talk:Paola Cortellesi

Note

I've removed content from this article that seemed to be original synthesis and not in a neutral tone. It included quite a few labels like "propaganda", "out of touch", "inappropriate", etc. CC: @ThaddeusSholto. — MATRIX! (a good person!)_{[citation unneeded]} 15:42, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

I've been reverted by an IP editor. But the section still reads non-neutral to me in the following statements:

• "exploiting her position as an actress" (hyperbolic framing as exploitation)
• "teach in form of propaganda"
• "without any valid basis and qualification" (does she need a PhD in Snow White to give this lecture?)
• "demonization of male positive characters" (linking to misandry)
• "ignoring the fact that the antagonists of these stories were also females" (wording gives the impression of bias)

Again, I am not very familiar with this supposed controversy but I just read through this Hollywood Reporter and this appears to be run-of-the-mill culture war fodder. I also read the first cited source, from il Giornale, which is just an opinion piece by Marco Leardi bemoaning "woke culture". While I'm sure all of this will draw a multitude of opinions and has already done so, we should consider that "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion". I'm not sure the degree of relevance of obvious pearl clutching about basic feminist critiques of pop culture has to this biographical article. If Greta Gerwig gave the same lecture at MIT, would we want her Wiki article to cover a bunch of ephemeral conservative kvetching? Οἶδα (talk) 22:42, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Strongly agreed. One can also point out that the cited references are links to opinion pieces from sources (Libero, La Stampa, etc), that are categorized by wikipedia itself as conservative. The bias is apparent, but all the more this anecdote has very low relevancy as it currently weights on the page. 37.174.44.54 (talk) 12:43, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

There's nothing to discuss here, the deprecated user already admitted they're clearly biased in the last post-edit explanation, and it's clear in the language used, by openly saying we're "suppressing their ideological and political beliefs". This is a clear and admitted violation of Wikipedia's norms and rules and it's enough to invalidate their edit. Hollow Ween (talk) 20:40, 10 April 2024 (UTC)strike sock-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:17, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

First off, thank you for participating to this discussion from the opposite angle. I think we are not understanding this summary the same way, though!

The edit summary states that it "suppressed" ("removed" would be a better term, I will grant you that) political beliefs from the text, not that the editor's political beliefs were suppressed. 78.241.238.93 (talk) 21:04, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Now that you actually care enough to discuss this dispute on the talk page, and not further aggravate it by going as far as deleting my discussion (a violation of this website's guidelines), I will respond to the edit summary you made:

"No actor or entertainment celebrity should be given a literal teaching class with no actual qualification"

You may dislike Cortellesi and believe that she is not qualified enough to speak on the subject she spoke about or qualified to be a speaker at a university. But I'm not sure why you think she objectively must possess an advanced degree to give an opinion or else she is breaking some law or something. Or that you think a private university is not allowed to invite whoever the hell they want to speak about literally anything at all. And it is my understanding that she merely gave a short speech at an inauguration ceremony. Not a teaching class. Not that the distinction matters.

"and with personal feelings and political viewpoints as their central topic of your lecture"

Does Italy have a policy that dictates guest speakers at private universities not voice their personal or political viewpoints in their speeches? Lol. And if you have such a problem with this then why not direct your disapproval with LUISS? You are implying that Cortellesi blindsided everyone with a speech that was not approved by those who invited her. Do you have a source for that?

"at a university that is not even specialized in that"

Wait until you hear about who spoke at Harvard University in 2004. It will blow your mind.

"that's a clear abuse of your influencing position and status."

I really shouldn't even dignify you with a response, but it really is bizarre how you continue to assert your aggressively non-neutral viewpoint as being in any way appropriate for Wikipedia. It's rather obvious what you are doing. I urge you to read WP:NPOV from to top to bottom and internalise it. But I reckon you won't because holding firm to a standard of neutrality isn't as stimulating as broiling about culture war nonsense and framing everything you say within one its sides. Οἶδα (talk) 05:33, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

The paragraph was -again- reversed back by the same person. I am not familiar with wikipedia and I understand that we shouldn't engage in editing war. But how should we resolve this issue? I feel like the majority here agrees that his or her formulation is problematic. My last edit was trying to compromise, but this person keep reversing to their first proposition without any consideration for others' commentaries. 2A01:CB04:F29:100:BCEB:57A0:A7DD:7F76 (talk) 21:47, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

They will be blocked per the 3 Revert Rule if they make one more edit engaging in this edit war. Οἶδα (talk) 05:37, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Disagreement with controversy

In relation with the talk in "note", there is indeed a recurring disagreement in the "controversy" part of the article. It seems important to consider that:

- The accusations of misandry and propaganda are from conservatives sources. It is a fact that needs to be mentioned to understand the controversy, as those sources are opinions pieces in media categorized as conservative. It would be incomplete not to mention it.

- It would be partial to describe the conference given by Paola Cortellesi as misandrist, as such description is not a fact but only an opinion influenced by political views. I get that you disagree on an individual level on what Cortellesi said, and that's your right, but the only neutral formulation here would be to say that for some people (i.e. conservative media), it was misandrist. You cannot just write your own opinion as an objective fact.

- Sexist stereotypes in fairytales are not just Cortellesi's opinion, it is a topic studied in social and psychological sciences. It would be partial to mention only the media disagreeing with Cortellesi, and not the authors and articles that support her views. To remain neutral, both need to be presented; or none of them.

- I strongly feel that all the "controversy" section is quite useless here, and was presumably written by one individual that was annoyed with Cortellesi's conference. In fact, it does not even appear in others langages, even Italian (although the controversy is supposed to be Italian). Again, if you think Cortellesi is misandrist that's fine, that's your opinion, but you cannot just put it on Wikipedia which isn't anyone's private journal. 2A01:CB04:F29:100:51F8:1B77:121:1F0F (talk) 20:56, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Topics like this are frequently overrepresented in Wiki articles precisely due to their divisive and provocative nature. Editors often neglect to seriously question the enycyclopedic value of including certain news coverage. We must consider the enduring notability of persons and events, because while news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion (WP:NOTNEWS). I cannot find evidence of the enduring notability of this "controversy". Media coverage of it begins and ends in January 2024. And it's worth noting The Hollywood Reporter article I mentioned above and this Vanity Fair article both argue that the social media response and online headlines were specious and based upon hearsay (video of the speech was only published on 15 January, after these articles were written). Indeed, this "controversy" is so ephemeral that the corresponding article in Italian does not even cover it nor have any editors cared to even add this information (check the revision history. no edit warring over this supposedly contentious spectacle). As the Hollywood Reporter article points out: "The Italian press and the social media spent almost a week on this monologue". And that is what all of this amounts to: brief headline-driven ragebait of no enduring notability to warrant its inclusion in this article. Οἶδα (talk) 04:47, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

I think the best course of action as it stands would be to simply remove this "controversy" (quotation marks intended in every sense of the word) section. Its mere presence in an article otherwise so devoid of any similar accuracies about every tabloid issue with Paola Cortellesi (as I assume celebrities get a dozen in their carreer on average) is disproportionate and demonstrably biased. Kampooz (talk) 10:42, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree. This stuff isn't noteworthy.--Tespiano (talk) 13:35, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

I also agree. I find the presence of the "controversy" section disproportionate and unnecessary. Gives a very cherry picking vibe. 2A01:CB04:F29:100:51F8:1B77:121:1F0F (talk) 14:05, 11 April 2024 (UTC)