![]() | This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
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. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: |
||||||||||
|
![]() | The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.
|
I prefer to use NASA ADS than Google Scholar. Indeed, it is far more complete, reliable and detailed, offering a full suite of bibliometrics indexes. Moreover, NASA ADS is used in evaluation precesses by several academic institutions, research organizations, etc. 212.27.204.226 (talk) 15:27, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
NASA ADS is certainly not less complete than Google Scholar, and I agree that it is more trustable. Thus, I restored its metrics. Nonetheless, I left those by Google Scholar. Please, notice that the IP of the contributor who removed the metrics by NASA ADS is from the same Italian region (Lazio) where Ciufolini and most of his coworkers live and work. I invite this contributor not to vandalize/censor valuable pieces of information just because she/he does not like them. Thank you. Best regards. Danguard00 (talk) 14:25, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
NASA ADS should be used instead of Google Scholar. As per the Wikipedia article, Google Scholar has several drawbacks, and NASA ADS is far more complete and reliable. It returns also lot of useful bibliometric parameters. Thanks. Referee23 (talk) 10:26, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Do you think that it is necessary to put the bibliometric information under a specific section? In other biographies of living physicists this information is under the main section. I think it shall be preferable to uniform the article to the other biographies.Cricecio (talk) 15:22, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
I added a section on the ArXiv case. Its moderators, in removing a paper[1] by Ciufolini, explicitly wrote: “This submission has been removed because 'G.Forst' is a pseudonym of Ignazio Ciufolini, who repeatedly submits inappropriate articles under pseudonyms. This is in explicit violation of arXiv policies. Roughly similar content to this article, contrasting the relative merits of the LAGEOS and GP-B measurements of the frame-dragging effect, can be found in pp. 43--45 of:[2] ” GundarionX (talk) 22:26, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
Moreover, in the peer-review literature there are, actually, allegations of plagiarism by him. GundarionX (talk) 12:18, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Dear Montecristo10000, please, permit me to dissent with you. In no way there were any personal offences against Ciufolini. Nonetheless, it was a serious misconduct (we can plain and politely discuss as done with Cricecio about the nature and the extent of the misconduct, but, unfortunately, it was a misconduct. The reality cannot be changed by merely changing words), not a mere use of pseudonyms. I hope you will discuss here calmly. Have a nice time. GundarionX (talk) 15:16, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Now, I wish to add some more details on this issue. The comment by the ArXiv moderators, in its present form, was originally different. Until May 2011, at least, it was as follows: ‘This submission has been removed because ‘G.Forst’ is a pseudonym of a physicist based in Italy who is unwilling to submit articles under his own name. This is in explicit violation of arXiv policies.
Roughly similar content, contrasting the relative merits of the LAGEOS and GP-B measurements of the frame-dragging effect, can be found in pp. 43–45 of: [Ciufolini Nature 2007]’ Evidently, the moderators changed it as a consequences of further, steady actions by Ciufolini. It would be interesting to know the target(s) of such further papers which Ciufolini repeatedly tried to submit to ArXiv. GundarionX (talk) 15:25, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Dear Montecristo10000, I added a section to the alleged plagiarism by Ciufolini with references. As you may note, there are neither personal attacks nor offensive words at all. I included also a reference where Ciufolini rejects such accusations, and a reference where an independent evaluation is offered. In particular, the plagiarism issue is discussed in Section 6, pp. 508-509 of Ref. [3]. Among other things, Lorenzo Iorio writes: ‘In regard to the combination of Eq. (10), our papers on it are available on the Internet since April 2003. Moreover, we personally know the authors of Ciufolini and Pavlis (2005) having collaborated with them for some years and sent them various e-mails between April and September 2003 with our results attached; the interested reader can ask us for them. In one case (28 March 2003 and 30 March 2003), Ciufolini asked us to prepare a short table with our results in .doc format in view of a video-conference with NASA officials to be attended in the following days by Ciufolini. A few days before, 26 March 2003, we e-mailed the .pdf of Iorio and Morea (2004) to Ciufolini. Later, on 7 September 2003, we discussed the impact of the GGM01C Earth gravity model on the LAGEOS–LAGEOS II combination with Pavlis.’
I hope all is better now. Thank you in advance for your cooperation. Best wishes. GundarionX (talk) 19:09, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
For the benefit of readers, I translate a recent Iorio's post[4] on the online blog 20centesimi of a local newspaper of the Lecce area: ‘I permit to inform readers that Mr. Ciufolini formally sued me for defamation more than two years ago for some statements attributed to me in this blog. Instead, I did not sue for defamation Mr. Ciufolini, here hidden under the nickname Verità, although he offered me many occasions after some repeated statements by him whose content was blatantly false and defamatory such as I would have been dismissed by all institutions, no institutions would seek me, nobody would read my papers, as well as the disclosure of confidential and proprietary information obtained do not know how, about my relationships with some scientific journals. Indeed, I'm a physicist, not a lawyer and, given the situation of justice in Italy, I would deeply ashamed to let any magistrate waste time with things like that. Contrary to Mr. Ciufolini, evidently. The judgment of similar events is left to readers. ’ GundarionX (talk) 17:30, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm removing The section Allegation of Plagiarism since plagiarims is a serious accusation that does not stand on reliable sources. The only source is Lorenzo Iorio. The article by Giacomo Renzetti can not be considered a reliable source since I tried to check on Google Scholar and found only four papers by Renzetti, that are reporting the thesis by Lorenzo Iorio. I can not find any evidence that a physicist named Giacomo Renzetti even exist; I did not find any personal page or any page on any Univerity. The e-mail shown on Springer is not related to a University. Please, can you check if Renzetti does really exist or if it is a pseudonim, before restoring the section? If the accusation did stand on solid basis, other physicists than Renzetti should have recognized it, and it should have been found on other media;
I hope in your cooperation.Cricecio (talk) 12:02, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
((cite journal))
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(help)
((cite journal))
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(help)
This section was removed, as it referenced primary and/or non-reliable sources. If for whatever reason these allegations of plagiarism are covered in an independent, reliable source, then they can be included. Until then this quite frankly smells like a personal conflict being played out here, and Wikipedia is not a battleground for people's disputes. I also removed the citation index section, as that is relevant only if the bio happens to be discussed for deletion. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 01:30, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
I have added the following content since it is not gossip based on uncertain, poor or fabricated sources. It is not defamatory. Moreover, please note that the strange decision by ArXiv to remove their own comments is not motivated by possible errors by them in the identification of G. Forst with I. Ciufolini, but by an alleged-and quite suspect-change in their policies. Readers must know all of this story. After 5 years that ArXiv moderators kept their original comment implicitly addressing Ciufolini, and after 4 months that they kept the modified comment explicitly addressing him, now they suddenly declare that both their own comments does not reflect their current policies...
According to the moderators of the ArXiv database, maintained by the Cornell University, Ciufolini repeatedly submitted inappropriate articles under pseudonyms, in explicit violation of the ArXiv policies.[1][2] In particular, in December 2007 he used the pseudonym “G. Forst” to post on the ArXiv a paper[3] criticizing the GP-B mission, direct competitor of his frame-dragging LAGEOS-based tests. The ArXiv moderators retracted that paper in January 2008. As of December 2013, ArXiv moderators removed their comment addressing Ciufolini, posted in September 2013[4], because of a change in the ArXiv policy[4].
Rambilon (talk) 13:31, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
In a fair, non-promotional and balanced biography, also negative results must be included. I added the public outcome of academic evaluations. I also removed the statemnets on his supervisors because written in a clearly promotional tone and because they were supported solely by his own curriculum, not from independent sources. I also removed his partecipation in the old LISA etc stuff. since it is common to any researchers and insufficient to single out an individual with a biographical article. Please, do not censore the academic evaluations. Thank you. Rambilon (talk) 14:17, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
I restored the information about the cover page of Nature in the Awards and Honours section since I think it is an outstanding result for any researcher.Cricecio (talk) 18:11, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
I've found a peer-review article published in the Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, and other independent sources from Discover (magazine), a blog hosted by the national-level La Repubblica italian newspaper, known also abroad, and a blog in Serbian. Please, keep it and, if you want, discuss the matter here. Thank you. Rambilon (talk) 20:02, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
I added that section by adding also a link to Retraction Watch, which mentioned this story. Some considerations are in order. a) The individual who circulated this story, whatever conflict of interest may have with Ciufolini, did not have part in uncovering this story, which is entirely due to arXiv b) The sources I included are reliable and independent. It is not true that blogs are not reliable. Blogs, if trustable, are currently used as sources of independent, third-party information throughout Wikipedia c) A Letter to the Editor means that it has been peer-reviewed and approved by not less than one other academic, including the Editor in Chief of the Journal. Censoring this information would be a violation of Wikipedia policies about impartiality. 56OKLO34 (talk) 07:22, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
((BLP noticeboard)) Dear Sirs, I am Ignazio Ciufolini (the Wikipedia staff verified my identity) and I am writing here because this page about my biography is being used for libelous statements. For some reason the page provides an unbalanced point of view, giving undue attention to controversies and lawsuits, while information concerning my research accomplishments has been removed.
In particular:
About the lawsuits, the following statement does not represent the actual legal situation:
"He sued twice the italian physicist Lorenzo Iorio for defamation[17]. Iorio was acquitted of these charges in both trials [18][19]."
The above statement is misleading, suggesting that the accusation of defamation against Iorio were unfounded. Instead, the decrees of acquittal that are readable in the references (in Italian) state that some of the crimes were statute barred.
See:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignazio_Ciufolini#cite_note-endoftrial-18
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignazio_Ciufolini#cite_note-endofsecondtrial-19
So, Lorenzo Iorio was acquitted from some of the accusations only because the trials endured too long and the crimes were statute barred. Anyway, I do not see how this information is more relevant than academic achievements.
In my opinion the current biography is providing a strongly unbalanced point of view that aims at denigrating my carrier and accomplishments.
Therefore, I wish to ask you to remove the page about me on Wikipedia: it seems that the page is acting only as a magnet for editing wars that bring unwanted attention on the libelous attacks against me instead of on my academic works.
Prof. Ignazio Ciufolini
University of Salento and Centro Fermi (Rome, Italy)
Ignazio.Ciufolini (talk) 18:20, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
Dear Sirs, I am Lorenzo Iorio (the Wikipedia staff may want to verify my identity if they are so kind to explain me how to do so), and I am writing here because the claims by Mr. Ciufolini here about the outcome of his two lawsuits against me are blatantly false. Indeed, two distinct and independent courts, headed by two distinct judges, have acquitted me in both trials (please, go to Google translate: the italian word ″assolto″ means ″acquitted″, the italian word ″assoluzione″ means ″acquittal″) as per the paragraph 2 of the article 599 of the Italian Penal code, entitled ″Provocation″, which states that one cannot be punished if she/he acted in a state of anger due to an unjust fact. Thus, using the same article of the penal code, two independent courts have acknowledged that Mr. Ciufolini, in fact, acted as a provoker. Moreover, Mr. Ciufolini may not describe my actions as crimes because they were not recognized as such by the courts. Best regards. Iorio.Lorenzo (talk) 15:31, 11 February 2020 (UTC)