Talk:Italian Mitrokhin Commission

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Cites

Note that I deliberately took off some Wikipedia:Citation templates because when you use this, in particular for Reuters, but also for many others newspapers, you invariably face link rot some days, weeks or months later. Standard citation style gives the same appearance, but allows more permanence. Tazmaniacs 15:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Despite Tazmanics pasting identical information for a select handful of sources, most evidence to date points to the Soviets involvement in the assassination attempt as the report would suggest. Andropov ordered the hit because he was convinced of an Anglo-German conspiracy that elected JP2 in order to break Soviet hegemony on the largely catholic East Block. Although some still cling to the theory that the CIA did it as a “false flag” attack, the vast majority of reliable sources disagree with this. WP:WEIGHT would suggest that while there are still a few notable individuals who agree with the false flag version, they are so far in the minority of opinion that the false flag version gives their POV way too much ink. I would also add that most of this crew, Herman, Parenti, Goodman, have all been pretty quiet on this subject since the revelations of the past 5 years. I would also add that Agca’s contradictory statements on Bulgaria’s involvement are no longer relevant, considering the revelations from East Block intelligence archives. Also much of the information in the article is content forking, and unrelated to the subject at hand.

I would also add that I am uncomfortable with the use of non English sources for the more contentious sections of this article.

From WP:CITE

• Because this is the English Wikipedia, English-language sources should be given whenever possible, and should always be used in preference to other language sources of equal calibre. However, do give references in other languages where appropriate. If quoting from a different language source, an English translation should be given with the original-language quote beside it.

Material, especially when it contains highly charged allegations, should contain an English translation. I will provide time to correct this rather than remove it outright. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 21:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

3 points:

• Discuss massive deletions & change before doing them.
• 1981 assassination. You believe in what you wish, but don't claim that the majority believes what you think.
• This is an article about the Italian Mitrokhin Commission. Don't be surprised if Italian languages sources are used. If you can't read Italian, than that may explain why you can't understand why the Italian Mitrokhin Commission's claims about the 1981 assassination are completely ridiculous. Tazmaniacs 21:31, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• The deletions have been discussed, your attempt to turn this article into a fork on every unrelated topic under the sun is not appropriate.
• Its not what I believe or do not believe, it is what I can cite. And as of now, the vast majority of opinion on the subject is that the Soviets were behind the assassination attempt on JP2. Outside of a few fringe individuals, most of whom do not count as WP:RS, the contrary view is bunk, and it is being given disproportionate weight.
• I will simply recite the policy that since this is English Wikipedia, English source are preferred, or translations should be given. Trust me, you wont win this one on policy. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 21:42, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Great, when can we expect your translations, TDC? Help us improve Wikipedia. Abe Froman 21:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

TDC, you might read again what you quote: "Because this is the English Wikipedia, English-language sources should be given whenever possible, and should always be used in preference to other language sources of equal calibre. However, do give references in other languages where appropriate. If quoting from a different language source, an English translation should be given with the original-language quote beside it." I'll give you my own "interpretation" of what this means (although my English is lamentably not always as good as the one spoken by most US citizens): this means that when there is no English-language source, foreign language sources are acceptable. This also means that if you need to choose between two equivalent sources, one English and one, say, Italian, the English one should be chosen. I usually take the trouble to try to find some BBC, International Herald Tribune, New York Time, etc. source before quoting La Repubblica or the Corriere della Sera. Unfortunately, the NYT has not the same interest in Italian-related matters than the Corriere della Sera. Finally, it says that if a quote is given in a foreign language, it should also be translated. On this precise article, I don't think I've done any quote in Italian-language article (however, it is true that my imperfect mastery of the English language does not permit me to be sure 100% of the sense to give to what is, or not, a quote. I've assumed, so far, maybe wrongly, that quoting is when you use "...". I am correct? ) When I do think quoting is important, because some users have the very sane tendencies to be sceptical, which I fully share with them, I always provide first the English translation quote, leaving the original language quote in a footnote (as I assume, maybe wrongly, that not all users of Wikipedia know other languages than English). Now, if you disagree with my hermeneutic interpretation of this policy, please do not debate it with me, but on the relevant Wikipedia guideline. Furthermore, I will point out to you that I am totally ready to discuss and negotiate with the most far-rightist (wo)man in the world, in any way on Wikipedia, but that the same will must be demonstrated on the other side. Engaging in massive undiscussed changes is not really a sign of this willingness. Best regards, Tazmaniacs 22:15, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• TDM, the operative words here are "wherever possible" and "where appropriate" A lot of this material simply isn't covered too deeply in the English-speaking, and in particular, in the U.S.-based media – for a variety of reasons. We just won't find it corroboration for a lot of key assertions that are very helpful for providing factual and political context on these topics if we stick to a blanket "English-only" policy on citations. I understand that aren't justifying the policy, you are only citing it; but the fact that we are dealing the a primarily Italian political affair completely justifies the "appropriate"-ness of his citing Italian-languages sources, as per Wikipedia:Use common sense. That said, I agree that translations of key passages would be most helpful.Whiskey Pete 23:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed Tag

Placed without discussion, and completely uncalled for. Another example of TDC defacing articles he dislikes politically. Abe Froman 22:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Placed without discussion? Look above to see the current discussion. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 22:14, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

instead of deleting contents, why don't you simply include your so legitimate sources in some subsection. I'm sure the reader will be able to make his mind up. Regards, Tazmaniacs 22:15, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Limarev interview

TDC, you recently modified the Limarev interview claiming that the person who originally wrote that part misrepresented it. Since you say you finally succeeded in finding this old Reuters cable, would you be able to give us some quotes here about it? Tazmaniacs 16:24, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Note that this doesn't support at all your version, but rather the original one. Tazmaniacs 16:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

TDC's latest edits also included deletion of a source. Habit is to leave the source here for discussion, it is official source and reliable. I think the article should state that Mitrokhin did not meet members of the Italian Commission (as stated by the source you removed). That's for the source. Concerning the Limarev interview, if I believe this it certainly is not as simple as you put it:

Ma ho sempre sentito ripetermi che il loro obiettivo era cercare di documentare i legami di esponenti della sinistra italiana con il Kgb di ieri o l’Fsb di oggi. E senza dubbio il primo nome della lista era quello di Prodi, soprattutto nel periodo che ha preceduto le elezioni di primavera. Quasi un chiodo fisso per Scaramella, che mi diceva come dietro il suo lavoro ci fosse l’interesse di Paolo Guzzanti, e io non so dire se questo è vero o no. Quella per Prodi era comunque una vera ossessione nonostante sul vostro presidente del Consiglio non sia mai venuto fuori niente. E’ vero che tra le persone del suo entourage può darsi che qualcuno abbia avuto contatti, non so quanto consapevoli, con qualche tipo poi risultato del Kgb. Ma, per quanto ne so io, sono soltanto ipotesi perché non è stata raccolta a questo proposito nessuna prova attendibile

.

Limarev's own translation:

I repeatedly heard them tell me that their objective was to try to document the connections between the representatives of the Italian Left and the KGB of yesterday or the FSB of today. Without a doubt, the first name on the list was that of Prodi, especially during the period preceding the spring elections. It was almost an obsession for Scaramella, who told me that the interests of Paolo Guzzanti were behind his work. I don’t know whether this is true or not. Prodi was a real obsession, in spite of the fact that nothing ever came out on your Prime Minister. It is true that someone from his entourage could have had contacts, whether consciously or not, with someone who turned out to be from the KGB. For what I know, there are only hypotheses because no reliable proof was gathered in this regard.”

This tends to accredit the precedent formulation which you replaced (that is, that of a political aim of the Commission to discredit Prodi, "in particular in the period which precede the Spring elections." Prodi became an "obsession." At the end, "as long as I know, these were only hypothesis," of which none has been related to a proved fact. As usual, you assert that members of the Italian left had connections with KGB, despite this being highly unlikely (for Prodi & others). You take the Commission at face value despite the scandal it has caused. Tazmaniacs 16:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually thanks for attracting attention on Limarev. Unsurprisingly, things are much more complex than what they might appear, if you believe this: after having declared during this interview that he had been recruited by Scaramella for a "group of study" aimed at continuing the Mitrokhin's Commission's works at looking for links between left-wing and KGB, Guzzanti formally denied the constitution of any such informal (and illegal) group in an interview to the Corriere della Sera, and claimed never to have met Limarev. Finally, Oleg Gordievskij, former double agent for the British SIS who had infiltrated the KGB, called Scaramella a "psychiatric case" with absolutely no reliability at all La Repubblica) Note that Scaramella had told Guzzanti that Gordievskij would provide him with such "evidence" for Prodi's links, before telling him (Guzzanti) that they would have something else because Gordievskij did not provide any such "evidence" (see "Berlusconi mi ha promesso un alto incarico internazionale" Tazmaniacs 16:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Limarev repeated these allegations, first made to La Repubblica investigators (and published several months later), in Le Dauphine libere, article of which he has praised the quality:

"Mais très vite, il est pris de doutes, qui culminent en février 2005. Scaramella semble jouer perso. « II cherchait des éléments pour accuser les chefs de la gauche italienne de collaboration avec le KGB », note Limarev. Le président actuel du conseil, Romano Prodi, en tête. Limarev suspend alors sa collaboration pour près d'un an, « demande un contrat écrit ». Le Clusien recommence à travailler en consultant à partir de janvier 2006."Le Dauphine libere, 4 February 2007

"But, very quickly, he is again taken by doubts, which culminates in February 2005. Scaramella seems to play perso [his own game]. "He was looking for elements to accuse the heads of the Italian left of collaboration with the KGB", notes Limarev. With the current president of the Council, Romano Prodi, first on the list. Limarev then suspends his collaboration for nearly a year, "requests a written contract." The Clusien then start again to work as consultant beginning in January 2006 [my transl.]

Two interiews now which counters your version. Tazmaniacs 17:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Limarev again (third occurence) states that:

5. I again approached Bonini and D’Avanzo in February 2005 (along with several other Italian papers), after 1 year of miserable collaboration with Mario Scaramella. At that time I stopped relying on him & clearly understood that: - in the frames of his official mandate from “Mitrokhin commission” Scaramella was doing almost nothing (at least together with me) and he was constantly mixing private business / personal affaires and politics, + was pretending (without any evidence) to be well established in the US / Italian / NATO intelligence circles; - his real goal was to collect any kind of compromising materials against his / his partners’ opponents (mostly on the left wing in Italy) and any kind of sensitive intelligence-like information on “KGB related” topics; - his methods of collecting and treatment of sensitive information / evidences were absolutely non-professional and sooner or later it could end with disaster; - he was easily taking engagements and giving promises, but was rarely keeping them; - his partners / financing sources were not clear at all and were always kept in shadow, and evidently his/ collaborates / sources were to appear in trouble one day. 6. So I decided to tell the truth about Scaramella activities to independent journalists in order to create my alibi in case of problem to arrive from Mario. 7. I’ve presented my dossier on Scaramella to Bonini & D’Avanzo and offered them my confidential consulting services on the same basis as in 2001. (comments to La Repubblica interview, here

Three occurences at least in three different languages, including English, I think that's enough to justify my reversal of your edit. Tazmaniacs 17:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Attempting to “document the connections” is what Limarev said, “discredit opposition-party Italian politicians” is someone’s POV on the motivations. The source you provide for it is a blog, and as such, not a WP:RS. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 18:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, only the last source provided, on the two others, is from a blog (which is Limarev's blog, particularly relevant when talking about what Livarev claims and says - uses common sense please). The first too interviews were published in newspapers, and are relevant. The second interview of Le Dauphine reiterates that "He was looking for elements to accuse the heads of the Italian left of collaboration with the KGB," and that Limarev did not find this political use of his work acceptal. This is his official reason for his anger at Scaramella. You're fighting, again, a loosing battle, supporting a view which has been opposed by all the sources provided. Furthermore, you make the claim that the interview does not support this, and when I ask for a source, you can't even provide it (that's not a problem, since I found it). Tazmaniacs 18:57, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

"discredit" is a POV term, not used by any of the above sources. Plain and simple. If you want to use it, then by all means cite its use, no mind reading or more of your creative interpretation of sources. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 19:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC)