Talk:Marcel Danesi

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography: Science and Academia

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the science and academia work group.

Untitled[edit]

I removed the personal quotes section. It seemed like they were added by a friend or acquaintance. I'm not denying that Sr Danesi said these things, but they are unsourced and unencyclopedic, IMO. Isquitenice 04:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-Neutral Language[edit]

Is it just me, or is the 'Major Works' section full of unusually glowing words of praise? Seeing the subject described in vague but pleasant terms like 'a public intellectual' or 'pioneering figure' doesn't seem right for Wikipedia. It looks like the section was added and maintained by a single editor, who focuses a lot of their editing attention on Marcel Danesi and related articles... --Bunnyboi (talk) 09:14, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Citing tweets[edit]

In this edit summary, IP user 173.49.9.114 argues that two tweets cited in the Publications section are significant "because thousands responded and commented and liked and retweeted." The tweets in question are from Gretchen McCulloch and Dr. Miranda Weinberg, respectively. I submit that citing these tweets violates the verifiability policy set out in WP:TWITTER, namely that material published on Twitter may be used as sources of information only when published by and about subjects themselves. Neither McCulloch nor Weinberg is the subject of this BLP. Accordingly, I believe their tweets should not be cited herein. As for significance purportedly derived from thousands who responded on Twitter, no reliable source has combined the material in this way; it is therefore original research, violating WP:SYNTH. NedFausa (talk) 04:52, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Update. Until consensus is achieved, I have removed the two tweets as disputed sources. NedFausa (talk) 18:44, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]