User talk:Gillo

(various replies copied from User talk:Matt Crypto to keep the conversation easier to follow!)

Hey, Matt. I saw that you reverted my entry on Prospero Alpini earlier today. I know it seems kind of outlandish, but that entry is based on interdisciplinary research we've been doing here at Brown University. For the past year, I've been supervising a number of undergraduates concentrating in History, Queer Theory, and Latin who are pouring over manuscripts from the Renaissance period. In particular, we've come across several codices (De Amatoria Virili and Remedia Incesti Amoris, as I mentioned in the entry) which are really significant if they're authentic (and they appear to be). It seems like this relatively obscure figure in botany may be one of the earliest sexual theorists!

Anyway, I know the Wikipedia gets hit with a lot of vandalism (most of it relating in some way to homosexuality), so I just thought I'd clear the air. We're asking several outside professors to come in and verify the authenticity of the documents, so, if it turns out that they're just really good fakes, I'll revert the entry myself.

Thanks! Gillo

Gillo — I reverted the addition to Prospero Alpini because there seemed to be a small spate of spurious homosexual-related changes (such as "Daykin, Nebraska" -> "Gaykin, Nebraska") from addresses in the IP block (128.148.*), so your contribution seemed a little suspect. Sorry if I knobbled a genuine contribution! I also Googled for the information you added and couldn't find it, but I don't know much about the subject; would you be able to cite a source? — Matt 08:53, 13 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your reply: that's entirely understandable. Everyone here at Brown has the 128.148.* prefix on their IP address. In fact, I'm fairly sure that the spurious revision that you mentioned ("Gaykin") was the work of a friend of mine who initially linked me to the Wikipedia. Sorry for the inconvenience.

I'm not sure if there's any existing research on the subject available online; frankly, there's barely any in print. Most of our work is based entirely on primary source material in the collection of the University. The manuscripts which I mentioned in the article were a small part of a donation from the Getty Trust that also consisted of a number of texts related to the sciences. Somehow the Classics department didn't get around to translating them until last year; apparently, they don't have any sense of urgency regarding texts that are only a mere 400 years old.

Anyway, the point of all this is that almost nothing has been published on Prospero Alpini's interests outside of botany, which is an oversight I intend to rectify when I've completed the corresponding chapter of my thesis. It will definitely be available online, and I'll make sure to post a link here if you're interested. We're also trying to put together a web site about the project, where we'll post the text and images of the manuscripts. I'll keep you posted. Gillo

Thanks for getting back to me about this, and for your interest in Wikipedia. It's great to have cutting-edge researchers contributing! There is one thing, though; in Wikipedia, facts that we include have to be (by "policy") verifiable (see Wikipedia:Verifiability) and not an original work (see Wikipedia:No original research). An extract from Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not:

Primary research. If you have done primary research on a topic, publish your results in normal peer-reviewed journals. Wikipedia will report about your work once it becomes part of accepted human knowledge.

Because of this, I've reluctantly, and temporarily, moved your addition to Prospero Alpini to the associated Talk:Prospero Alpini; I hope you won't be offended but will understand that, at the moment, there's no way for other editors to be able to confirm that your addition is factual. Having said that, as soon as you publish your findings please do come and restore the information, and in the meantime I hope that you'll be interested in further contributing to Wikipedia. — Matt 08:50, 18 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]