Talk:Piero Scaruffi

Literally Who?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Who the hell IS this guy anyway? I notice he has only a degree (presumably bachelor's) in mathematics and has published several books on consciouness?? I've never head a damned thing abotu him and I've been over here for five years. There are many, many more serious philosophers in Italy who recieve no attention at all. Is it necessary to more articles about cranks? This fellow is non-notable.--Francesco Franco 10:30, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

A Web of Science returns eighteen results for a Scaruffi, P., most of which are in the field of cancer research. That ain't the Scaruffi in question. Google Scholar give one work citing A Brief History Of Pop Music: Post-war USA. The authors of this paper are not of a high opinion of Scaruffi's work on the Beatles. A History of Rock Music is published by vanity press iuniverse. The only wikipedia page that links here is a list of music critcs and some external links to album reviews. I agree with Francesco Franco that this guy is non-notable. This paragraph strikes me as especially absurd:

In the 1980s, as a computer scientist working at a large computer maker, he pioneered Internet applications, Artificial Intelligence and object-orientated design. As an outgrowth of his computer job, he pioneered Internet-based journalism: in 1985 he created his first e-zine, distributed by e-mail over the Internet, that eventually evolved into his website www.scaruffi.com, originally devoted to rock music only (several years before such websites became ubiquitous).

Citations are needed.

I might add that this article rejects all the guidelines of wp:bio. Lowerarchy 05:06, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm very suspicious of these "scholarly" works that can be found in various search engines. Google Scholar gives zero results for many of the albums and artists that critics (not just Scaruffi) rave about. Most flash in the pan pop starlets receive hundreds of search results. Some of the search results are simply stores selling the CDs. Where are the scholars? Do students studying Rock Music 101 become an authority if they submit a paper into one of these archives? Festivalimport 00:20, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Anybody else noticed that this guy's reviews have started showing up in album articles? Jesus. It seems that it hasn't even been established he's notable enough for an article on himself, and yet we're including him as an authority on music?--John 04:52, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

If Robert Christgau can be included, then we can include Piero Scaruffi too. --Gika 12:40, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't know of anyone in the world with a broader knowledge of music than scaruffi. If such a person is out there, i want to know their name Festivalimport 12:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

also, an exhaustive article about him on the New York Times (link) should be enough for an article on wikipedia

No, that's not enough for Wikipedia. wp:bio suggests that several notable publications have to have written about him. So maybe if he'd also had USA Today and Washington Post articles, that suggestion would hold more merit.--John 00:17, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

The problem I have with this Scaruffi fellow is that while it's one thing to say you don't like a band like the Beatles, it's quite another to say that they're unoriginal, musically insignificant, essentially a 60s boy band, etc. These are objective statements that simply fail with any real knowledge of musicology (http://www.icce.rug.nl/~soundscapes/DATABASES/AWP/awp-notes_on.shtml). Basically, it comes down to this - if you want to make the claim that the Beatles were a musically insignificant band, you need to claim that you know more about music theory than Leonard Bernstein and Aaron Copland. These guys weren't pumping the Dave Clark Five. And that's a tall task given that Scaruffi seems to lack any serious training in music (as, it seems, in most areas he writes about..).--68.57.83.168 (talk) 10:16, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

The Beatles didn't innovate, idiot. They are completely derived of The Beach Boys and the '50s blooz guitarists. They even came to late to psychedelia to have any innovation there (late by about a year). Theyn also came about a year too late to "invent the concept album," as some people claim. Therefore, they aren't original. This is why I absolutely detest Beatles fans (eg about 90% of the western world). Please do your homework before you come to class. 92.0.238.33 (talk) 11:34, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow, 92.0.238.33 is SOOOO SMART!! You really don't have any idea what you're talking about, do you? Talk to Brian Wilson about your claim. I have. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.207.198.217 (talk) 14:51, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Really? they are completely derived from Surfing safari and pet sounds? Maybe this person should look up the definition of Innovate. If he said they claimed to be creators, he may have an argument, but as the definition of innovation, look at how much better peppers is than pet sounds, and pet sounds is a great album of course. And if you doubt this, maybe you should look into Brian Wilson's mental state after Peppers came out. you are the idiot. If there are no complaints, I may delete his message in a while, it's pure bs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.223.223.26 (talk) 16:48, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Scaruffi is just a guy with a lot of time on his hands running a website. The guy doesn't get published in any music magazines or papers so why should his reviews be considered professional? His writings are also clearly biased against popular music, regardless of how well researched they are. Music is not a science, you cannot approach it as one. The best critics approach their subjects from all angles, he only approaches it from one. All negative, no positive. 169.229.107.148 (talk) 07:14, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Piero Scaruffi: is this article relevant, necessary or useful?

I think that this is very badly written article, regardless of whether its subject is noteworthy. Here are some of many flaws:

• Several prizes - which, how many exactly and just how significant are they?

Apparently he received a new prize in 2007, from "Fog City Writers", which I added info on. To me it doesn't seem very significant, though; I'd never heard of it. 217.210.3.157 18:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

• Most notable poem - what is this based on?
• Reading extracts from the HTML text of his book, 'A History of Rock Music', shows that it may be thick, but not necessarily scholarly.
• A particularly bad passage; not written, I imagine, by someone entirely fluent in English:

"His rock history has become famous over the Internet partly because of its controversial ratings, which often disagree with most of the worldwide music critics. The most significant example is his page about the Beatles, who, in Scaruffi's opinion, are the most overrated band ever."

Is there some way of assessing just how important or controversial these 'ratings' are?

I don't think there is. That whole sentence should be deleted. Festivalimport 03:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

• Scientist section: I can't really comment on the scientific content here, but I can tell that it is badly phrased and completely unsourced and unproven. It seems to be arbitrary, watered-down summaries of his theories.
• Philosopher section: This section is just awful - again, arbitrary nonsense - does it actually represent genuine research and writings or is it the unsubstantiated assumptions of one of his fans?

Personally, the inclusion of this biography in Wikipedia is very tenuous even without the poor quality of this article. You cannot doubt quite how enormous a body of work Scaruffi has produced over the years. But does all of that - especially when seemingly none of it is peer-reviewed - merit inclusion in Wikipedia? Personally I don't believe the subject adheres to the guidelines of wp:bio.

I would also say in reply to the above point about Robert Christgau: Christgau has been published in Village Voice, etc., etc. for so many years. He is undeniably a respected music critic. Scaruffi's body of music criticism is unpublished, and the one article we have which discusses his reviews seems to be quite critical. Also, I really feel I should say that the phrase Jack of all trades comes to mind.

Christgau barely knows jack about one trade. Festivalimport 16:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

On the other side his website receives a huge number of hits and certainly has some relevance. His academic credentials seem, I suppose, respectable. --TRM-G 17:43, 24 December 2006 (GMT)

All good points and all are indeed major problems. I've tried to address some of them (the rewrite is below) and when you take out the fluff, there's not much article left. I've even taken the liberty of leaving in the philosophy stuff, just to be kind, but without published secondary sources what can you say about a self-published, non-peer reviewed author? Not much.

Piero Scaruffi (born in Trivero, Italy, in 1955, but based in California since 1983) is an Italian music critic.

== Historian ==

Scaruffi has published books on the history of rock music, on avantgarde music and a book on the USA.

==Scientist==

Piero Scaruffi researched in artificial intelligence from 1987 till 1996, both in the corporate and academic world (with stints as visiting scholar at the MIT and at Stanford University).

His basic tenet is that consciousness is due to a general property of matter. This line of research led him to revisit physics. His most important contribution is a theory of how quantum mechanics could be an emergent phenomenon due to the "ripples" caused by the observer traveling through spacetime.

He has been on the board of the art magazine Leonardo (MIT Press).

==Philosopher==

His metaphysics is based on his studies in Physics. Scaruffi reached the conclusion that Relativity Theory is about :the universe, about the dimensions of existence, whereas Quantum Theory is about the human world of objects, about :the world of "sizes". Relativistic spacetime is the equivalent of an ocean, and quantum values are the equivalent of :the ripples caused by an object moving through the ocean of spacetime: Relativity is the theory about the ocean, and :Quantum Theory is the theory about the ripples. Quantum Theory describes the ripples caused in spacetime by :energy-matter in motion.

==Publications==

• Scaruffi, Piero. (2006). The Nature of Consciousness. ISBN 0976553112
• Scaruffi, Piero. (2003). A History of Rock Music. iUniverse. ISBN 0595295657
• Scaruffi, Piero. (2003). Thinking About Thought: A primer on the new science of mind. iUniverse. ISBN 0595264204

==External links==

• Piero Scaruffi's knowledge base
• Piero Scaruffi's research on cognitive science
• New York Times article on Piero Scaruffi

I think the tack this article could take is to acknowledge Scaruffi's prolific web-based output because, as far as I can tell, that's what he's know for. That would necessitate an even greater rewrite than the above (which really was more of a freehanded deletion than an rewrite) and I haven't done it for a few reasons.

• I'm wary of paring a medium-sized article down to stub length - that's all the NYT article is going to yield.
• I don't want to do anything to an article that may get deleted.

The scientist/philosopher/poet Renaissance man stuff isn't worthy of inclusion until reliable sources can be found. I'm no authority on scientific content either, try as I might I can't see that "... Relativity is the theory about the ocean, and :Quantum Theory is the theory about the ripples. Quantum Theory describes the ripples caused in spacetime by :energy-matter in motion." actually means anything. Lowerarchy 21:24, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

How about we just translate the italian version of his profile? For starters, there's a dozen publications and nine magazines listed there that aren't listed here. And he's written books on more than just rock and avantgarde. The people who have written the italian profile obviously have more knowledge of the subject than someone like Lowerarchy. Festivalimport 16:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I've changed my mind. I do think that the article should be pruned back a little (similar to the above attempt, but with more publications listed). All the extra information is available from his personal site, so a link would be more useful than a badly written rewording. Festivalimport 03:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Festivalimport, if those sources on the Italian wikipedia aren't written by Scaruffi, that sounds like a good idea and will probably really improve the article. The main thing here is lack of reliable sources, but perhaps we're really just complaining about the lack of reliable English sources (again, not written by Scaruffi). Lowerarchy 21:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I figure it shouldn't be deleted, since it isn't causing any harm ZakTek 22:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

anyway, i think 38,000 results on google (outside scaruffi.com) are enough for notabilty... (ok, technically they don't matter, but they should be considered, i suppose) http://www.google.com/search?q=%22piero+scaruffi%22+-site%3Ascaruffi.com (and there aren't many piero scaruffis out there, it's a pretty uncommon name) --85.18.201.168 23:32, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Music critic

Piero Scaruffi is most known (and criticized) as a Music critic/journalist, especially on the Internet. His poet and philosopher career are not encyclopedic, in my opinion. --Manfroze 16:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Amateur "poet", "historian", you name it. Not a wiki worthy person at all. I'll let other users decide what to do with it. -G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.67.113.136 (talk) 00:15, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Given the ... doubtful nature of the value of including a biography of this person, would it then be reasonable to delete all of the links to his "music reviews" that have showed up in the Beach Boys articles? I think Rolling Stone or AllMusic might be slightly more relevent as documentation.

Roygbiv666 (talk) 13:45, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Not without consensus. He is regarded as a usable source by WP:ALBUMS, who might be rather miffed if you go around just deleting his reviews, as some other editors do, and are generally reverted. Regardless of the merits of this article, his reviews often cover albums which other reviewers do not, and in more detail (Christgau can be unbelievably curt, and on major albums). Further, neutrality policy means that we do not assess the meritworthiness of reviewers, rather we put information before our readers and allow them to make up their own minds. --Rodhullandemu 14:34, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Understood. In the case of, for example, Beach Boys album "reviews", for the set of "reviews" for albums from Surfin' USA to Pet Sounds, a link is provided to The Beach Boys section of his History of Rock Music. This page provides only numerical ratings for these albums and an overview of the group. This page is largely in Italian (I think) and would therefore violate Wikipedia:WikiProject_Albums#Non-English_reviews, which states that non-English reviews should not generally be included. The author in fact requests English translation assistance from his readership. As the copyright notice for the page is from almost a decade ago (1999) and the material has not yet been updated, can it really be taken as a relevent (well known) site? From the album Smile onwards, there are some English writings. These write-ups in English are merely general descriptions of the albums and the time period over which they were written, and does not provide a critical analysis or review of the materials. How does any of this constitute a "review" of any kind? Should I add this to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums talk page as fodder for discussion?

Roygbiv666 (talk) 23:45, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I think this article should be deleted he is not relevant in music criticism and he is lying in a lot of things http://www.listology.com/flfrleta/story/piero-scaruffi-beatles-and-elvis-presley

http://www.listology.com/jazz99/story/dismissing-piero-scaruffi-views-beatles  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.221.31.206 (talk) 18:51, 28 February 2010 (UTC) 

Scaruffi's Response

"It looks like my Wikipedia bio was vandalized by a combination of jealous "scholars" (who scientifically removed all references to my works and books) and... by Beatles fans! Hard to believe, but basically you can't have a Wikipedia bio if you don't like the Beatles, because Beatles fans will start vandalizing your bio until you request that your bio be deleted (which is what i just did). I am now realizing that a Wikipedia page (on any subject) is in the hands of the people who have more determination and more time, not in the hands of the most competent ones. I have neither the time nor the inclination, so i would always lose. Therefore i asked Wikipedia to delete my bio. Jakub Krawczynski sent me this comment: I find it quite amusing that almost all of the Beatles songs have their own entries on wikipedia (nothing wrong with that in itself, actually), even if they are not singles, and each of them is meticulously dissected as if there were transcendental suites exceeding human comprehension, yet bands like Faust or Red Krayola, etc. have biographies even shorter than just one article about any random Beatles song. Needless to say, none of their songs have any articles on them, yet I'm sure there would be a lot more to talk about. Moreover, if you had put any bad review of their album on the site with the intention to show the broader scope of opinions, you'd risk your "life" there, since such fanatics don't accept any single sign of trying to be objective (maybe wrong word). Beatles fans will always defend their beloved band as if their lives would depend on it, there are too many examples to even begin with, and you are seen as public enemy number 1 to them. It's like your article is one giant cognitive dissonance to them and vandalizing your bio was the only way to reduce this dissonance."

This was from Scaruffi's website: http://www.scaruffi.com/music/novus.html Also, I never claimed that I was Scaruffi. Stop directing comments toward me. WestArcherLives (talk) 02:06, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm assuming that you are Piero Scaruffi; I have no beef with you personally, nor with many of your opinions on popular music, which on many occasions are more cogently argued than those of, say Robert Christgau. However, the culture here is to rely upon reliable sources, and in this case, this tends to drift towards Allmusic and Rolling Stone, or whatever is regarded as the "expert" for a particular genre of music. Even when your reviews have been contrary to the "received wisdom" on a particular band, or song, I have argued for their inclusion on the basis that we should present our readers with multiple assessments, but ultimately leave it to them to make up their own minds. Your problem is that you are regarded as a self-published source in this regard, and therefore not susceptible to some sort of editorial control- personally, I think that a well-argued critique, from whatever source, is better than a mind-jerk rejection. I don't think references to religion are helpful; it's clear to me that having read many of your reviews cited here, over many months, they do not display a particular proselytism. However, the major criticisms of your work remain: that they are self-published original research, and as far as mainstream music criticism is, you are not necessarily accepted into that mainstream. Sorry, but I can do nothing about any of those issues. Rodhullandemu 00:16, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

this guy is piero scaruffi? the real one? .....he is very arrogant i think he is wrong there are a lot of reviews by piero scaruffi in wikipedia please look: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strictly_Personal http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trout_Mask_Replica http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lick_My_Decals_Off,_Baby http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faust_%28album%29 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Compaqfel (talk • contribs) 19:21, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

You are missing the point. Music criticism isn't exactly a personal opinion. A good critic may not enjoy hearing Sex Pistols for example, but he can't deny their importance and influence. If wikipedia were to place opinions in album articles, then we would include editor's own opnions on albums instead of professional reviews. Now this whole text about his opnion on his wikipedia article is completely useless and irrelevant, because he is not to decide if he should have his article on the site or not, users are entitled to that task. And saying that wikipedia editors are "Beatles fans who scientifically removed all references to my works and books" is just ridiculous. Now, I don't mind about him having a wikipedia article or not, but I think it's absurd include his reviews in wikipedia's albums articles because he is NOT a notable nor a professional reviewer. He isn't listened in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ALBUM/REVSIT, therefore I wonder why his reviews are still appearing in some albums. Also, nothing against him and his opnion, but this his article is in fact useless and poorly written and I think we should for once agree with "his request" and delete it. Illuminatuz (talk) 21:23, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

What exactly makes Scaruffi thinks that it's specifically Beatles fans that have it in for him? There is no pro-Beatles propaganda in the article. The article does not paint Scaruffi in a bad light at all. It's just shorter than it used to be. Epa101 (talk) 20:23, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

According to postings on Facebook, this conversation took place between Piero Scaruffi and Wikipedia in September. Your website, your responsibility J

09/12/2011 02:16 - piero .·´¯`·.¸.·´¯`·..·´¯`·. scaruffi wrote:

I am getting really annoyed by the silly comments on the Wikipedia page about me.
I have NOT created, modified, etct my bio on wikipedia.
Now they showed me that there is even a discussion page
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Piero_Scaruffi
in which i'm supposed to have participated.
I have not written or even thought of writing a single word of that silly
correspondence.
If you want to know what i do, all you have to do is google my name.
But please avoid writing it on wikipedia.
Can you please just remove the bio on Piero Scaruffi?
Thank you.
No, i don't have time to maintain YOUR bios.
Your website, your responsibility.
Best, piero scaruffi

================================================

On 9/28/2011 2:20 AM, Wikimedia Support Team (Quality items) wrote: Dear piero .·´¯`·.¸.·´¯`·..·´¯`·. scaruffi, Requests for deletion of an article are not processed by email, with the exception of articles which are grossly libellous or otherwise completely unsuitable. You have three primary options for this: 1. You can nominate the article for deletion yourself. This will require you to have a Wikipedia account (which you can sign up for by clicking the link "Sign in/create account" at the top right-hand corner of our site), and then following the instructions at<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AFDHOWTO>. 2. You can ask us to nominate the article for deletion on your behalf. This will make it public that you have made the request — your communication to date is confidential. 3. You can specify what sentences or sections of the article you feel are inappropriate by email response to us. We will then investigate them with a view to removal. Please be specific. Please note that in the case of options 1 and 2, there is no guarantee that the nomination will result in the article being deleted. Please let me know which of these options you would like to pursue. Yours sincerely, Jim Ramble

===================================================

10/11/2011 17:11 - piero .·´¯`·.¸.·´¯`·..·´¯`·. scaruffi wrote:

What you are saying is
1. We created something called Wikipedia and established some rules
2. We expect every person to learn and comply with these rules
3. Otherwise we take no responsibility for what happens to you

Scary, isn't it?
It's like me inventing a new game and forcing you to participate even though
you never asked to. And if you don't, we'll have your car vandalized and we'll
take no responsibility for your car being vandalized.

It's a bigger version of the spammers who automatically add you to their
mailing lists and then tell you "if you want to unsubscribe, go to this
website [hoping that it works] and click on 22 lines". I suspect you are
not too happy when this happens to you.

You would react very differently if Wikipedia were charged $1 for every time
that YOU post something that is not true
(please do not reply "we didn't post it - the people of the world posted it":
your website, your responsibility).

Maybe i should create an anti-Wikipedia guerrilla movement that will unleash
thousands of freedom fighters worldwide each vandalizing hundreds of Wikipedia
pages every day. That works, right? I think it complies with your own rules.

Incidentally, your response already sounds like one of those cold
computerized replies from corporate bureaucracies. Another bad omen for
humankind.

Edit request on 26 September 2012

I would like to add the following information to the article on Piero Scaruffi:

"This article is full of mistakes and defamatory. Whenever we try to correct it, Wikipedia restores the mistakes (so it is pointless to correct them) and our IP addresses get banned forever from Wikipedia. Help keep this sentence on this page but be aware that Wikipedia will almost certainly ban your IP address forever. Do not simply correct the mistakes because within 24 hours Wikipedia will restore the version with the mistakes. Piero has sued Wikipedia and asked them to simply erase the entire page, but Wikipedia has refused to do so".

Source: http://www.scaruffi.com/helpwiki.html

Lesbianfish (talk) 22:20, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Not done: Umm, I don't know how to say this impartially, but this seems biased. You might find this good reading if you are the subject himself. A boat that can float! (watch me float!) 14:45, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Neutrality

There's arguing currently about whether or not to put that he is a non-professional/unpublished author in music. We don't need to focus so much on "what he isn't". He's also not an astronaut, or a firefighter, but we don't put that in there either, right? Its right to remove any statements that say he is a professional, but you don't have to go out of your way to call him non-professional. If its not stated in the first place, there's no reason for the reader to assume it so. Sergecross73 msg me 17:24, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

A contributor to this article, User:Rehevkor, expressed concern about the "serious NPOV violations" within it ([1]). I hold a similar view, and have tried to trim this mess down to an impartial article. User:Woovee makes empty claims of striving for "neutrality", while engaged in a crusade against the subject ([2]). 5.69.238.72 (talk) 14:18, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Here's user Rehevkor's revision of Woovee's edits.Woovee (talk) 16:24, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

• Sergecross's last revision must be the basis of work.

The wp:neutrality policy implies that one keeps the nuances too. This article used to be a hagiography, it is not anymore. If one only selects all the garlands from the source while neatly not mentionning at the same time all the nuances also present in the same article, one makes a biaised article. The dithyrambic quote in the lead (that should not be mentionned to my point of view in the lead but transfers in the body of the article) has to be counter-balanced by the fact that his first music book had sold to 1.300 copies in 3 years (this is mentionned in the NYT).

Another point, the following instance should be kept too. the sentence "in this article, his work was described as "a one-man operation" (also sourced with the NYT) implies that he never works with an editor in chief, either in a music paper or a publishing company specialised in music.

Sergecross also wrote "We don't need to focus so much on "what he isn't". He's also not an astronaut, or a firefighter". This is not relevant to my point of view, because he has never been considered as a historian of astronomy. Yet, people often thought that he's a professional music writer where as he's not. He can't make a living with no advertisement on his website, and poor sales of books worldwide. So this sentence in the lead, "Scaruffi is a non-professional reviewer: his texts have never published in any music magazines", should be kept too to clearly announce to the readers exact facts. Woovee (talk) 16:23, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

• I agree with the part about being a one man operation. I was discussing that part on my talk page with the IP. Being a one man operation insnt necessarily a bad thing, it's just an observation, and if anything, could even be seen as a good thing, as in, not dependent on others. I believe that part should stay.
• I strongly disagree with all the listing of "what he's not or hasn't done". This isn't a FAQ about himor something, we have no responsibility of clearing up any misconceptions about him. Sure, we remove false info, but we don't answer questions that no one is asking. All that we need to say is that his music reviews are self published. That's plenty sufficient. Sergecross73 msg me 16:57, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Spare us, Woovee. You were so driven to discredit Scaruffi that you even went as far as trying to discredit Dan Morell, the writer of the NYT piece. Your claims of "neutrality" are utterly laughable. 5.69.238.72 (talk) 17:11, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

• Sergecross's point of view provided clear explanations. Per consensus, Sergecross, Rehevkor and Woovee agree to keep this sentence in the body of the article: "in this article, his work was described as "a one-man operation" Woovee (talk) 17:17, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Sure, it's in. That doesn't paper over the rest of your shameless rigging and agenda-pushing. I also expanded on the "one-man" quote to give a clear picture of what the writer was getting at. 5.69.238.72 (talk) 18:37, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Alright, can we agree that this version is a good compromise? Its got the information Woovee wanted in it, and has expand context by the IP to make sure everything is accurate. I see no issues with it right now, unless someone wants to point it out. Sergecross73 msg me 19:35, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I'd have no particular problems with that. I might also suggest we discuss from a clean slate from this point and continue forward with a pinch of WP:AGF.. If 5.69.238.72 feels there is actionable issues of POV violation this page isn't the venue. Яehevkor ✉ 11:54, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

There are a few things that have to be presented differently to my point of view. Here are my proposals (in green):

The following words "self-published" next to Omniware in the body of the article have disappeared. It has to be recalled and specified too, in this part of the article, that a book released on iUniverse is also self-published. So I propose this:

• 1) One of them, A History of Rock Music, self-published on iUniverse in 2003, spans 50 years of the genre [...]

The source/link [7] to "Scaruffi musica" after the word online, in the sentence, "His writings on music are hosted online[7] on his own website, scaruffi.com," is not necessary as the name of the domain Scaruffi.com is mentionned right after. I propose this:

• 2) His writings on music are hosted online on his own website, scaruffi.com [...]

There are too many dithyrambic quotes from the one and only source that talks about this music writer's website. The title "The Greatest Web Site of All Time" is not encyclopedic, especially as the notoriety of Dan Morrell, is low. Morrell, the writer of this NYT article, has never published any major article about music or a book about music. If Morrell was recognized as an important music writer by famous music writers, the situation would be different.

I propose this other version:

• 3) In his article, Morrell noted the "staggering" volume of his work, given that the site is "a one-man operation"

The quote in the lead is far too longer and sounds too much like a commercial especially from this writer. We also have to note that Morrell might be a relative of Scaruffi. [Dan Morrell apparently writes for the Harvard magazine] and one knows that Scaruffi went sometimes as a visiting scholar in Harvard. And BTW, as Morrell's notoriety is not proved in the domain of the rock world, one should only mentionned that this music writer and his website was the subject of an article in the NYT. I propose to replace the quote in the lead by this sentence which is more neutral.

4) Scaruffi's website was the subject of an article by Dan Morrell in the The New York Times

Concerning the "Bibliography" part, it has to be specified at least once per name of publishing company, that it is a self-publishing company. I propose these two changes:

• 5) 2003: A History of Rock Music 1951-2000, iUniverse (self-publishing), ISBN 0-595-29565-7
• 6) 2006: The Nature of Consciousness, Omniware (self-publishing), ISBN 0-9765531-1-2

12:18, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the quote doesn't belong in the WP:LEAD, since new ideas aren't supposed to be introduced there. I don't think the quote needs to be removed though, I think it should just be put somewhere else farther down in the article. Everything else is very nitpicky. For example, we already established iUniverse and Omniware as his own companies, so I don't see why we need to plaster "self-published" up and down the page. Woovee, can you help me understand why you feel the need to emphasize this so much? I know you don't approve of using his reviews as a source on Wikipedia, but I can't stress enough that what his article says won't have an effect on that, especially since we just established a strong consensus that he's not useable as a source on Wikipedia. Sergecross73 msg me 13:50, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I believe I have carried out these edits effectively. Please have a look. Thanks. EDIT: I made one further alteration, justified in edit summary. 5.69.238.72 (talk) 14:07, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Concur with Sergecross73. Putting emphasis on being self published in the bibliography is unnecessary since it's already established in the main text. That aside, in terms of reliability the Morrell source should be taken at face value. It's reliably published by NYT and we shouldn't make assumptions beyond that, although it could still be argued that with it being cited eight times there may be an issue of undue weight being given to it, but we lack reliable sources to balance it out. Яehevkor ✉ 14:38, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Spam blacklist

I've added scaruffi.com to the Wikipedia:Spam blacklist requests due to editor complaints that his site is still being used as a reference source on various articles. Please provide your comments there and remember COI. MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#scaruffi.com AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:28, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Piero Scaruffi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140202224850/http://www.tower.com/book-publisher/omniware to http://www.tower.com/book-publisher/omniware

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:16, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

About Piero Scaruffi's "Death"

The source for this claim leads to a completely unrelated obituary. Not only is this an act of vandalism, but it is in extremely poor taste towards Piero Scaruffi and the unrelated person in the obituary. I realize that a small edit war has been happening about this, but I just wanted to confirm that this claim is in fact completely without merit.

Do You Like Veggies (talk) 20:23, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

@Do You Like Veggies: Yep, and it's been removed from the article, and the article has been temporarily protected to prevent further vandalism. [stwalkerster|talk] 21:30, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Just some notes for someone else to introduce in the article

Omnipublishing does not exist, most of his books are NOT published by Omniware (in interviews he stated that Omniware was simply a way to print drafts of the books that have been later published elsewhere), not sure why it's important to quote him on how many copies a book sold in 2006 (???), he was the founding director of the A.I. Center at Olivetti (not just "worked on"), eg https://www.parc.com/blog/great-awakening-or-hype-the-year-2017-in-ai/

he is the founder of the Leonardo Art Science Evenings (LASERS), not just "run" a couple of them: eg https://news.ucsc.edu/2013/09/leonardo-art-science.html eg http://www.ucira.ucsb.edu/leonardo-art-science-evening-rendezvous/ eg https://direct.mit.edu/leon/article-abstract/53/4/474/96931/The-Network?redirectedFrom=PDF

and they now take place at many universities worldwide https://leonardo.info/laser-hosts (which seems more relevant than how many copies a book sold in 2006), and his website is definitely not just about "music, film, and art" (you may or may not like them but it has thousands of pages on tech, science, history, ... ). I have no way to verify this, but scaruffi.com was also listed here as one of the oldest websites: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/0/worlds-oldest-websites-still-around-today/piero-scaruffi/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.51.123.147 (talk) 08:01, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Deleting the page

Can someone with the necessary authorizations, delete this non encyclopedic article?

Wikipedia:Notability (people)

Thanks.

--SamInside (talk) 14:59, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Deletion request belong to WP:AFD. Follow the instructions listed there. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 19:46, 13 July 2022 (UTC)