Talk:Martin Cassini

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

Why I created this[edit]

I created this article at the request of User:Seeplain.

I am not an expert on the subject, but its subject appears to be referenced in peer-reviewed journals.

Its tone should be, of course, improved. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk)

DOI for the SSRN article[edit]

The article published in SSRN suggests a doi, but this doi appears to be invalid - http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=951309

Can anyone please fix this?

Thanks. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 11:28, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does not need a civil engineer[edit]

The article was tagged as needing the attention of an expert on Civil engineering. It really doesn't need that. The article does not present technical engineering information, it presents biographical and editorial information. This article is primarily a biography and needs to be able to pass the notability requirements of WP:BIO. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 23:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The focus of this guy's work is in engineering, so i think it might be useful. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 08:21, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He is not an engineer. He is a film/video producer. The article claims he writes frequently for Traffic Technology International. However, the TTI website calls him (here) a "transport campaigner". Articles in TTI where he gives an opinion (like here) call him a road user.
The majority of the article gives a non-neutral history of how and why he has an opinion about traffic signals. Any discussion of the idea to remove traffic signals does not belong here because this is a biogrpahy. My engineering input to this article would be to nominate it for deletion. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 03:11, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In response to the above
The TTI website referred to above is not the TTI site, it is Traffic Technology Talk, a media channel which looks for topical stories about traffic. TTI, which is published by UK International Press, does not have a website. It is a bi-monthly journal with a readership of about 18,000 mainly traffic professionals split between Europe and the US. As far as TTI is concerned, Cassini is not a campaigner, he is a columnist and journalist who is regularly commissioned by editor Nick Bradley. What prompted this Wiki entry was seeing Cassini's name listed in the Shared Space article as a UK proponent but unlike the other four proponents listed, without his own entry. It is thought that his articles have contributed to the changing mindset regarding traffic controls. At this very time at least one UK council is engaged in "decluttering" streets by removing railings and instructional signs, and is carrying out a risk assessment for the removal of traffic signal installations. So from a number of angles the entry seems merited. - 91.125.249.104 ([[UserSeeplain (talk)08:41, 10 September 2008 (UTC) talk:91.125.249.104|talk]]) 08:27, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PS
I am inclined to agree with PennySpender that the article doesn't need the input of an engineer, so perhaps the invitation to engineers to review the article could be removed?
Apart from mistaking a source, PennySpender seems to think that mere "road-users" are incapable of making valid contributions to a debate or influencing change. When Newton saw the apple fall, he could have been called a deckchair-user (no untoward comparison intended!). Over the years in the traffic arena, the "experts" have arguably been responsible for the deaths of more people than died in two world wars. Their control systems are now finally being discredited, thanks partly to observers who question and criticise their received ideas or dogma. It is notable that the traffic control system originated in conjecture. It developed piecemeal, and has never undergone rigorous testing (see among others Dr Ian Walker in the BBC Newsnight report, The Case Against Traffic Lights). The rulebook that guides traffic engineers' decision-making, The Traffic Signs Rules and General Directions, is known in the profession as the "bible" - the language of religion. Lay critics such as Cassini are playing a role in rescuing us from traffic "experts".
One theme that does come out of the discussion is the extent to which ideas should be included in this article. To my mind, the ideas are completely relevant, as is the history of how they were arrived at. But if including them is incompatible with Wiki policy, perhaps they could be distilled into a couple of lines, and could go at more length into a related link at FiT Roads. The reason for suggesting a link or entry separate from Shared Space is that while not incompatible with Shared Space ideas, they embody separate elements which cohere into a distinctive "philosophy". Moreover, Shared Space is not seen among open-minded traffic engineers and professionals as an entirely appropriate or universally-applicable title for what might be termed the traffic reform movement. - Seeplain (talk) 09:50, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Only start a new topic for new topics. Please indent to respond within a topic. It's simple; read this page Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. I moved your responses back up to the topic they were responding to. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 00:51, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing that the website I found may be different from the publication referenced in the article. Would you look at this site here to see if this is the one you are speaking about? - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 00:51, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is the journal in question. Thank you for unearthing its presence on the web. As you will have seen, it doesn't have a website in the normal sense, e.g. it can't be searched for past editions or articles, nor can articles be opened in current editions.Seeplain (talk) 07:11, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So the website I pointed you to shows that both the Traffic Technology International magazine and the Traffic Technology Today website are published by UK International Press. They just focus on different content. Since they have the same publisher, they are of equal reliability. So yes, he is a "transport campaigner" per the website and a "road user" per the magazine. Neither of these present him as an expert in traffic/civil engineering. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 02:14, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is not as an expert in traffic/civil engineering that he is being presented, or that an entry is merited. On the contrary. As explained, he was already listed as a proponent of shared space. First he is a road-user, as we all are, second, he is a thought-provoking observer of interaction on the road network, third he became a published critic of the system, fourth a traffic writer/journalist with major Comment pieces for the national press and the BBC, and regular columns for an international traffic journal, fifth a campaigning journalist. - [[User talk:Seeplain (talk) 07:44, 13 September 2008 (UTC)|talk]]) 07:42, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PS Another point in clarification: the TTi journal, through its editor, Nick Bradley, commissions Cassini as a traffic writer. In one article Cassini wrote for TTi, he referred to himself as a road-user, as a way of making a point. Incidentally it’s a point that echoes something the renowned economist, Jeffrey Sachs, once wrote: “You see something with your own eyes, and you know it's wrong, and you want to do something about it.” The TTi radio station which interviewed Cassini following one of his reports (Newsnight perhaps), introduced him as a campaigner. But that was independent of the journal, indeed in practice the journal and radio station are unrelated. By the way, is there something unworthy about being a campaigner? Seeplain (talk) 09:44, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing wrong with being a campaigner, but that does not make him WP:Notable per WP:BIO. In my (ever so humble) opinion, nothing written so far in the article has established notability. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 15:14, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Experts are often bad for us. As Ivan Illich pointed out, 15% of hospital beds are occupied by victims of iatrogenic (= doctor-inflicted) disease. Life is full of disasters caused by "experts", nowhere more so (it could be argued) than on the roads, where "expert" policy contributes to a daily death and injury toll. An expert continues a line of established thinking. A campaigning journalist, as in this case, questions dogma and develops a coherent critique with universally-applicable proposals for beneficial change. It’s quite possible that Cassini’s articles have contributed to the perception shift in the traffic control establishment and focussed debate to the point where change is starting to happen, e.g. a Midlands council which is dismantling traffic control apparatus (signs, railings) and carrying out a risk assessment for the removal of traffic lights themselves.Seeplain (talk) 17:51, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article tags as of July 2010[edit]

I restored the article issues tag for this article. My reasoning is as follows:

  • In-line citations should be provided and the citations in use should be updated to show authors and publishers. See WP:CITE.
  • Additional sources should be provided. When I check, I was not able to verify all of the material.
  • The tone of some paragraphs reads like a story. It should be more formal.
  • Only one article links here. It is an orphan.
  • The article has been substantially created and edited by the subject. It was tagged this way when created and the subject removed it.

Regards - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 23:43, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please give some reasoning here why tags should be removed and allow some time for responses and concensus before doing so. Thanks. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 17:12, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Seeplain, as said above, please provide some reasoning here before you remove tags placed atop the article. I just restored them.
For one, it is wholly inappropriate for you to remove the autobiography tag since you are writing about yourself.
I have removed the tone and story tags because the article has improved. It no longer reads like a story about the life of Martin Cassini and instead is made up of sourced facts.
The other tags remain relevant. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 00:53, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply 28 July 2010[edit]

The old tags were removed after I cut the article by removing narrative elements and sticking to the facts. Then new tags were added, and external links requested. Could someone add the following external links if appropriate, and remove any tags that are felt to be no longer relevant?

With thanks [[[User:Seeplain|Seeplain]] (talk) 21:24, 28 July 2010 (UTC)][reply]

External links have been added and the piece has been edited in a more dispassionate style, with narrative elements removed. I have sought advice from an editor but not heard back. I also replied to PennySpender 1983 who restored the old warning tags and added new ones, but there has been no reply. In the hope that the various demands have been met, I would like some or all of the tags to be removed. Seeplain (talk) 21:00, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adding external links will not address any of the issues I listed above. The External links section of the article is not meant to be someplace where you add references or establish notability for the subject. Please read Wikipedia:External links for information on this.
I suggest that you work on the first item, "improve the article by adding in-line citations." I already did one for the first sentence to give you an example of what to do. The tag itself gives you three links to read, Wikipedia:Citing sources, Wikipedia:Manual of Style (footnotes), Wikipedia:Inline citation. Read them and try to improve the article by doing what they say. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 02:31, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, PS1983. Five in-line citations added. Look forward to any feedback.Seeplain (talk) 19:48, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a good improvement. Continue converting the references to in-line citations. If you don't use them to support facts in the article, they can be removed.
For the Publications section, you may use the same templates, but you don't list your name.
The external links section does not meet guidelines. It is not meant to provide references. You might link yo your official site or blog. Other links should "contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail, etc. (See WP:ELYES.) Remember this is external links about you, not about shared spaced. Those external links go into that article.
Consider a "See also" section for internal links. (See WP:SEEALSO.) - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 03:26, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the valuable feedback! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seeplain (talk • contribs) 10:37, 10 August 2010 (UTC) Citations added where indicated, and relevant citation tags removed (trust that's OK). External links still require attentionSeeplain (talk) 15:57, 10 August 2010 (UTC) I have tried to follow guidance by editing External Links, Referances and Publications, which I hope are now in their more suitable places. Look forward to further feedbackSeeplain (talk) 16:14, 10 August 2010 (UTC) It's nearly a month since I followed PennySpender's guidance on citations and references, in which time there has been no feedback. I've tried without success to contact another editor. So I'm going to delete the tags which I think may no longer be relevant, and trust this is acceptable under Wikipedia custom and practice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seeplain (talk • contribs) 16:53, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The issues mentioned have been fixed. Can the warning tag be removed?[edit]

This article no longer reads like an autobiography but is simple and factual. What problems are there with external links? The complaints were raised in 2008 and, as far as I can see, are no longer applicable. Time to remove the header? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.189.86.157 (talk) 14:12, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Martin Cassini. 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:03, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Martin Cassini. 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, 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: 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) 01:02, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Martin Cassini. 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, 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: 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) 06:47, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Martin_Cassini&oldid=1200168876"