Talk:Edoardo Agnelli

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Conversion to Islam?[edit]

who the hell writes this crap. everybody knows that Islam prohibit commiting suiscide. its impossible that he commited suiscide. most probably he was killed for a reason or another. his family clearly hates him and they do have connections with the mafia. this article lacks too much detail to be of any real use. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.36.32.29 (talk • contribs) 00:24, 7 August 2006

old page needs a re-write —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.142.27.37 (talk • contribs) 00:25, 7 August 2006

We don't know for certain that he did actually convert to Islam. Even if he did, he may not have remained a Muslim for the rest of his life. In any case, whilst Islam is interpreted by most to absolutely prohibit suicide, there are, nevertheless, known cases of Muslims who have committed suicide. Not every person who belongs to / follows a religion actually adheres to all of its rules, all of the time. Nietzsche 2 (talk) 02:24, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality[edit]

This article seems very sympathetic towards the Agnelli family (phrases such as "There are only so many disasters that can hit a dynasty, and the Agnellis have had most of them twice"). This does not sound very neutral to me.Frickeg 22:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion[edit]

I have removed the prod tags on this article because the subject clearly has plenty of significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability, and the conspiracy theories make him more notable, not less. I shall be expanding the article over the next few days using these sources:

Phil Bridger (talk) 09:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Manner of death[edit]

Though his death was ruled a suicide, what kind of injury etc was fatal? Did he drown, or die of some kind of physical impact? It is important to clarify the manner of death, especially when there is confusion / conflicting reports regarding the matter. What, specifically, were the results of the post-mortem and inquest? Nietzsche 2 (talk) 02:34, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conspiracy theory[edit]

IP editors have been changing "the death was considered by Italian investigators to have been suicide, but there is a theory in Iran that his death was orchestrated by Israeli agents" to "the death was considered by Italian investigators to have been suicide, but is thought to have been orchestrated by Israeli agents". This gives the impression that this is a generally accepted view rather than a fringe opinion, so shouldn't be presented in this way. Also I fail to see the relevance of his uncle and cousin dying of cancer, or of the ethnicity of his nephew. I'm reverting back to the prvious version. Please discuss here before trying to make such a change again. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:45, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is a view accepted by many. The deaths of his uncle and cousin are to point out that non-Jewish members of the family in line to take over Fiat died in very mysterious circumstances, with Elkann becoming heir to the empire. This is to elaborate on the theory that Agnelli was assassinated by Israel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.42.179.51 (talk) 16:15, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a view accepted by many then please provide reliable sources in support. Saying "it is thought that" without saying who thinks it is weasel wording, and implies general acceptance. Why do you keep removing the information about who thinks this? The source quoted states that this view originated in Iran - why shouldn't that be stated in the article? And information about the deaths of his uncle and cousin and the ethnicity of his nephew is only relevant to this article if reliable sources have made a connection with Edoardo Agnelli's death. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:58, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the link to iranmania.com as it has been blacklisted as a malware site (see: MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#iranmania.com). This makes the speculation unreferenced so it has been removed as well. If you wish to add the material, it will need some reliable sources per WP:OR. Phil153 (talk) 20:09, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of the conspiracy theory[edit]

I support removal. I've had a look at the sources, and the theory is complete nonsense, since John Elkann was already the stated heir of the company and had been for years. The company had been restructured by the father years ago to stop Edoardo from inheriting. Nothing related to inheritance could be gained from killing him. See the John Elkann article and the fortune magazine reference in this article.

There is no reliable source stating the acceptance of the theory, merely that some people believe it. It also creates internal contradictions in our article. I think that WP:WEIGHT and WP:FRINGE means that such non notable fringe theories should be excluded from this biography. This isn't an article about Edoardo Agnelli Conspiracy Theories, it's a biography. Phil153 (talk) 20:57, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"This isn't an article about Edoardo Agnelli Conspiracy Theories, it's a biography." That's not a very clever, let alone convincing, statement. As long as some people believe in this theory, and it is referenced, it stays. Qiswi (talk) 22:42, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since you're new to Wikipedia (your only two edits are to this article), I want to point that that's not the case. Per WP:Fringe, we don't give undue space to fringe theories, even in articles devoted to the specific topic. The fact that a group of people believes something is not enough to justify inclusion, especially not with the weight it's being given. It has to be a view prominent enough to justify inclusion, and so far there are no reliable sources to justify that.
In addition, this article is devoted to Agnelli, not conspiracy theories about his death. The current material is giving WP:UNDUE weight to this one theory. Phil153 (talk) 22:56, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to make a compromise, including the material but presenting it in a mainstream perspective per WP:FRINGE, but it has been reverted with the comment "sigh" by Qiswi. Other opinions would be appreciated. Phil153 (talk) 23:20, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the user Qiswi has clearly announced what he is in: "As long as some people believe in this theory, and it is referenced, it stays." No more discussion possible. I have asked for page protection. --Ben Ben (talk) 00:27, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which Edoardo Agnelli should be the primary article?[edit]

It seems to me that the more notable of the two people with this name is the one with the page name Edoardo Agnelli (industrialist). He played a major role in the development of both Fiat and Juventus, achievements that would seem to far outweigh those of the subject of Edoardo Agnelli. I would propose moving Edoardo Agnelli to another title (suggestions welcome) and moving Edoardo Agnelli (industrialist) to Edoardo Agnelli. Another alternative would be to make Edoardo Agnelli a disambiguation page with qualified titles for both subjects, as has been done in the Italian Wikipedia - see it:Edoardo Agnelli, it:Edoardo Agnelli (1892-1935) and it:Edoardo Agnelli (1954-2000). Phil Bridger (talk) 20:09, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edoardo Agnelli (industrialist) is surely more important, not so sure about notable. But I don't have a problem moving him to Edoardo Agnelli. I would offer Edoardo Agnelli (Fiat heir) as a title, but I understand it's a bit awkward since he wasn't really a heir. I'm not a fan of disambiguating by DOB-DOD, like the Italian WP format. I also don't like two-person dab pages when a hatnote on one can resolve the same problem. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:02, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article pics[edit]

How do we know the pics really represent who they purport to represent?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:09, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This image from a reliable source looks very much like the person in Image:Edoardo-Agnelli.jpg and in the background (top right) of Image:Edoardo Agnelli.jpg. The person in the foreground of Image:Edoardo Agnelli.jpg also looks like this picture of Khamenei. I don't quite know how we can verify the precise correctness of the caption of the latter image, but I don't see any reason to doubt it. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:39, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's the caption information outside of Khamenei that arouses my suspicions. The only reliable source we have that attaches Khamenei to Agnelli is the Belfast Telegraph which says "met Ayatollah Khamenei in Iran and reportedly converted to Islam". Is this sentence combined with the reliability of GreatJoe (talk · contribs) enough to establish that the barely perceptible pic really includes Agnelli? I don't think so. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:49, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've retitled it. He appears to be waiting in line to meet Khamenei, who is moving in from the left as various people, including Agnelli, are lined up for a "meet and greet" event. This is consistent with what the reliable sources say. There is no visual evidence that this has anything to do with 'offering Friday prayers'. It may or may not have, but the context suggests otherwise. The children are holding out pieces of paper (autograph hunting?). Paul B (talk) 17:31, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Official Wikipedia Vandalists?[edit]

It appears from this article and the way information is being censored out to keep it with the version that certain people want to see it, there is no use to edit it, if you do not belong to the said group. Beware that the censorship board for this article is quite strong and in the hierarchy of wikipedia very high placed. There is no use to add any thing non-western to the article. Any information from out of the west in cyber video or else is not welcomed and does not "exist" as per say or not "good enough".I tried to add a link to the video documentary produced by an Iranian TV and it was censord quite fast. I am sure even Kim Il would be ashamed to see such acts. Anyways the same kind of documentaries of western origins dealing with non-white people are always welcome to be used on wikipedia, as you can see for yourself going through pages of wikipedia. Its a fine example of where the red lines are now. The fascism is still out there, in retreat but very much with its red lines alive today. I dont have much of hope that these writings would stay either and might be censored too, but I must have written them to upheld freedom and truth.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.243.204.81 (talk)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Edoardo Agnelli. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 12:39, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality[edit]

I have put a "neutrality" tag on the "Death" section of this article. Far too much prominence is given to conspiracy theories, which seem to rely on Eduardo Agnelli being heir apparent to Fiat, which he certainly wasn't, rather than the more prosaic, mainstream, view that this death was suicide. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:52, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:32, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:13, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Edoardo_Agnelli&oldid=1196436108"