Talk:OVRA

[Untitled]
The article says that "Italy was eventually expelled from the Balkans by these resistance groups", however this is not accurate: when the armistice between Italy and the Allied was announced, on Sept., 8th 1943, the Italian Army was not retreating from its positions in the Balkans. After the Armistice, the then Kingdom of Italy was not at war anymore against the Allies, and many Italian soldiers in the Balkans, cut away from Italy as they were, joined the resistance and fought against the Germans. Others (most of them) were interned or massacred by Wehrmacht or SS troops. It's true that Tito thrusted toward Trieste in 1945, and that Italian troops from the Mussolini puppet-state created in northern Italy fought against them, containing their advance, rather than retreating. Tito was able to capture Trieste only after the war was actually over and as Northern Italy was being occupied by the Allies. So if Tito did expel the Italians, he did so in Italy proper (not the Balkans) and only after the war was actually over and no Italian was left still fighting.

Also, the article says: "In 1943, with the Allied invasion of Italy, the OVRA began to recruit double agents to infiltrate the British SOE, but these efforts failed to stop Mussolini's ouster". Again, fiction. If there were any double-agents, they were the ones recruited (also by the OSS) within the OVRA by the Allied secret services, not the opposite.

neds information
this page needs more information about the OVRA, and more sources —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.214.193.6 (talk) 22:54, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Needs a lot of work
I've started to clean up this article, as it's obviously been written with a heavy bias and a lot of misinformation (some of which was pointed out above in unsigned comments). I've given the sections neutral titles, and removed speculation regarding resistance groups in the balkans. There is still a lot of conjecture sounding like original research and bias, and some sections may require a full rewrite. --NEMT (talk) 04:55, 10 June 2009 (UTC) needs more work — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.117.2.239 (talk) 19:38, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Characterizing priest sexual activity
In the section Spying on the Vatican, it states: "He was known to lure young boys to his Rome apartment for sex, despite the Pope being aware of this, at least from 1926 on. Another homosexual cleric was Monsignor Ricardo Sanz de Samper, the Prefect of the Pope's Household and papal majordomo, whose fondness for sex with young boys became so open that even Pius was forced to dismiss him in 1928."

I'm not sure how the cited source characterizes these statements, but it might be a good idea to distinguish sexual activity among priests as "pedophilic" or "abusive" of "young boys" rather than as "homosexual." Later in the paragraph, it states another priest had encounters with "young men," which would be better characterized as "homosexual."

The conflation of these two things among priests who are engaging in banned sexual activity appears to be a reflection of the views at the time in the early to mid-20th Century. A more objective phrasing by current Wiki standards would be an improvement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kirby777 (talk • contribs) 21:35, 10 September 2020 (UTC)