Talk:Years of Lead (Italy)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 January 2019 and 20 March 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Maxwell Cody Sharp. Peer reviewers: Ssreepat.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 05:16, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Infobox Style
It's ruining the look of the page. It's way too big. It should be removed or reworked. 2601:241:8D82:5750:8926:F83E:4151:A684 (talk) 21:37, 4 August 2020 (UTC)BeaMyra

Untitled
Really poorly written and poorly organized. Some scholar fluent in English should work on this.

This page is superfluous. It should be merged with the "History of the Italian Republic".

It is also poorly written.Giordaano 22:09, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I completely disagree: History of the Italian Republic should be merged with this page. Dlabtot (talk) 08:31, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I note a lot of errors. For example : 4.000 arrested by the Bombing of Piazza Fontana, very number is 80 not 4.000- --Il Moderato (talk) 20:47, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

This page is superfluous. It should be merged with the "History of the Italian Republic". I think the same as Giordano --Il Moderato (talk) 18:39, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I note a lot of errors and omissions .--Il Moderato (talk) 18:39, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

it's a propaganda piece taken literally at this point 24.244.23.159 (talk) 05:27, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

"History of the Italian Republic" is about the History. "Years of lead (Italy) (1969-1989)" is about the terrorism. Some parts are doubled - I will try to merge here the part of "History of the Italian Republic" specific regarding terrorism.--Il Moderato (talk) 17:10, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

If the time period is significant enough to have a name, it makes sense for the general history page for the nation it took place in to have a quick summary of the reason for this significance, as well as some dates and the most important facts and/or statistics, and also to have a link to a page such as this one, more fully explaining the controversy. All other countries as historically significant to Europe and the West as Italy, and probably all countries in the world, have pages like this on Wikipedia. What makes a man turn neutral? (talk) 16:05, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Really some reference must be added, i try to add some.--Il Moderato (talk) 15:41, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I add some cases with reference. --Probatus (talk) 14:07, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

The article is not complete. It lack of a lot of important cases. I try to add some. --Il Moderato (talk) 18:33, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

It is good to take disambiguation page, between Francesco Coco judge and other Francesco Coco--Il Moderato (talk) 17:30, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Pizza Fontana Bombing - final paragraph regarding the internal investigation conducted by the Red Brigade is pointless without explaining the conclusions reached by the organization. As is, it implies two opposing conclusions: The Red Brigade didn't release it because it reflected negatively on left wing militants; the government didn't release it because it reflected negatively on right wing militants/P2/State Intelligence Services etc — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.132.159.2 (talk) 16:23, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Infobox
I don't like these infoboxes (for "military conflict") at all in this kind of article. "Military conflict" is already inappropriate in many ways; it is a political conflict in which the participants started using guns and bombs. The parties weren't military parties either. Really the only reason I'm not scrapping it is the list of participants, which is useful information that I don't know how else to organize. Drmies (talk) 03:56, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Drmies, good point. An easy fix, you can switch it to Template:Infobox civil conflict, which will keep all the information organized the same way without scrapping anything. Keiiri (talk) 04:14, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and made the change. Keiiri (talk) 04:23, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Drmies (talk)


 * I see your point, and agree with your view on organizing information. With all due respect however; there was much street fighting to accompany terrorist acts. Not only military conflicts and invasion have info boxes, for example The Randy Weaver incident and city disputes. Thus I would see this page as having an Infobox correctly.

Simon Levchenko (talk) 17:41, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Citations to other Wikipedia articles
The infobox contains several citations to other Wikipedia articles, both in the English and the Italian Wikipedia. However, per WP:WPNOTRS, this is inappropriate. If the cited articles have citations to reliable sources, those sources should be cited instead.  –&#65279;barakokula31  (talk)  18:25, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Sorry about that; will do so. Simon Levchenko (talk) 18:22, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Infobox "POW"
I disagree with the "POW" categorization. Legally, a prisoner of war is someone fighting in a declared war, usually between states. Morally, a prisoner of war carries no blame for his participation in the war (even if it is a war of aggression) provided his own conduct is proper.

In this case "Enprisoned" seems a better choice. 2A02:1811:9D30:FA00:AB6D:7CEE:CB0A:7E34 (talk) 11:54, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ - changed to imprisoned. Jim Michael (talk) 17:26, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Overrepresented/Underrepresented Viewpoints
I think one viewpoint that is being underrepresented within the page is the historic compromise between the Christian Democrats, PSI, and PCI. The assassination of Aldo Moro and the historic compromise are tied together and that seemed to be one of the bigger issues that could have been represented in a little bit more detail. -- Ssreepat (talk) 06:23, 10 February 2019 (UTC) Bergmanucsd (talk) 0:22, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Another viewpoint that is underrepresented is the birth of the Red Brigades and what caused its formation. The section on the Red Brigades focuses on the founders, but there should be more information about their motives so there is context for readers. -- Ssreepat (talk) 06:23, 10 February 2019 (UTC) Bergmanucsd (talk) 0:22, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Does each fact referenced has reliable references?
One fact that is referenced is that Aldo Moro was a left leaning Christian Democrat. Whether or not that it is true, there was no citation directly connected to the discussion of Aldo Moro. The fact, if it was a fact, has no reliable reference and it could maybe be biased if there is no reference to look upon. -- Ssreepat (talk) 06:23, 10 February 2019 (UTC) Bergmanucsd (talk) 0:22, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

CIA involvement
Why remove the CIA from the far-right belligerents group? It was removed a few times for improper citations. I can understand if a quip from The Guardian does not suffice as a source alone but La Repubblica unambiguously also makes the same statement. Here is a rough translation of: https://www.repubblica.it/online/fatti/fontana/fontana/fontana.html:

Also mentioned in other articles: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piazza_Fontana_bombing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_and_state-sponsored_terrorism#Piazza_Fontana_bombing

195.158.248.227 (talk) 22:16, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Unsourced
Ritchhie92, please be more precise in your edit summaries. You have replaced unsourced text with other unsourced text. What in particular would you like sourced? Konli17 (talk) 16:22, 6 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Well first of all, you have replaced unsourced text with unsourced text. Your edit was first, you can see this from the edit history. Second, your edit summary was imprecise and misleading. So you must provide a reliable source or a statement (and not just write "NPOV" in the edit summary) that justifies a radical change in two parts of the lead section of the article.
 * Finally, your edit is controversial for a couple of reasons. For example, is it correct (or necessary, or adequate) to mention "violence from the state" at the same level and even before political terrorism in the lead section of this article? What is "violence from the state"? Also, about the P2 lodge, was there a decline only in "violent conspiracies" or rather a more generalized decline in "secret circles" in Italy? How can you change one to another without giving an explanation? Cheers, Ritchie92 (talk) 16:36, 6 August 2020 (UTC)


 * The beginning of the state violence is sourced in the second paragraph of the lede. Your "secret circles" term is pretty vague, I reckon we can do better. Konli17 (talk) 17:02, 6 August 2020 (UTC)


 * If I were you I would refrain from making weird assumptions: Your "secret circles" term that is not my term, it's the term that was there before your edit. I haven't added that term personally and I don't know why you would say that without proof. Anyway, I am not seeing any improvement in your proposed edit about the violent conspiracies (and it's still unsourced). We can write "secret societies" or "secret organizations" if you wish, though. Regarding what you consider to be the proof of state violence, I guess you are referring to the Pinelli affair, where of course officially it is not known whether it was an episode of police violence (hence, I don't think you are reading the source correctly). --Ritchie92 (talk) 17:43, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Problem in the participants list
I think Operation Gladio should be in both the "Italian Government" and "Right-wing terrorism" coloumns, like the CIA is. 2.235.241.64 (talk) 10:38, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:23, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Logo of Third Position.svg

Piazza Fontana Bombing - Red Brigades investigation
I think the WP:CIRCULAR citations may be supported by these documents, cited in it:Inchieste di Robbiano di Mediglia: https://documenti.camera.it/_dati/leg13/lavori/stenografici/sed736/aurg05.htm https://documenti.camera.it/_dati/leg13/lavori/stenografici/sed736/s120.htm I am unsure which citation belongs where based on machine translation of the pages. Someone with knowledge of Italian could likely verify the relevance of the sources and add them. ZeeXM (talk) 13:09, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Years of Lead (Italy)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Years of Lead (Italy)'s orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Ganser": From Propaganda Due:  From Greek junta: Ganser Daniele (2005). NATO's Secret Armies: Operation GLADIO and Terrorism in Western Europe. pp. 220–223 ISBN 0-7146-5607-0, ISBN 978-0-7146-5607-6 

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:15, 18 March 2023 (UTC)