Talk:Emidio Recchioni

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(from France) Once more it seems proved that you can write what you want, when anarchism is involved : if ever there was the beginning of the truth, behind the statement that Scotland Yard would have ever closed the eyes upon an assassination attempt of Mussolini, it would be the mere negation of all what is known about Western diplomacy between the two wars! What here is true -and it is the only thing which here is true- is that AFTER Sbardellotto's arrest it appeared that the dates of the trips of Nemo a/k/a Recchioni (who was monitored, of course, by Scotland Yard) were consistent, with the Daily Telegraph's statements. But theses statements themselves were just drawn from confidences previously made by Scotland Yard's Colonel Carter to the fascist police. And in a democratic country : Scotland Yard is not supposed to make "extra hours" for the fascisti (nor was supposed the British Embassy in Rome to give a foreign government until the photography of Emidio Recchioni -an English citizen, by the way). On such bases it is not surprising that at the time of the trial the British authorities prefered the Colonel to do not appear in defense of the Daily Telegraph and to let this paper to be condemned, would it be for having made a statement which was true -once is not usual. Considering my english is imperfect I prefer to insist upon which is the most significant, from the historical point of view : IN THE FIRST STEP, ie in its time, the link had not been made, by Scotland Yard, between Recchioni and Sbardellotto's plan. To what is said in the article it has to be added, too, that the amount of the money given by the Court to Recchioni cannot be compared to what he lost in this affair, which was for him a ruin (considering that his shop in Soho was selling expensive goods to rich and usually pro-fascist customers). Luc Nemeth —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.50.138.14 (talk • contribs)

If you think the article is deficient, feel free to fix it, but be sure to add references to reliable sources when doing so. Please read also: WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV. Sandstein 15:32, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

(from France) This answer is quite a surprise, to me. As far as I know : the reliable source has to be given by... the author, of an information. And as far as I can understand English : no source is mentioned, in this article.194.254.169.6 14:33, 31 October 2007 (UTC) L. Nemeth

Wikipedia has its own definition of reliable sources; please read the page WP:RS. Currently, the article refers to http://www.iisg.nl/archives/nl/files/r/10767583full.php as a source, but I agree with you that it could use more sources. Sandstein 19:20, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

(from France) Of course, if "Wikipedia has its own definition of reliable sources", it clearly puts an end to any dialogue... But there is some bad taste to here mention iisg (International Institute of Social History) as a source. Whoever has worked there on Emidio Recchioni papers -as I did it, as well as I worked on Angelo Sbardellottos's files in the fascist archives- is able to confirm that there is nothing in them, which is consistent with this article, of which the author could mention as well Moby Dick or "The Bible", among the sources... Anyway this person is not an author but a crook, of which the name is known, and who is here once more trying what he already tried in a magazine. And it is not even necessary to have a specific knowledge of this case, to understand that this guy is a crook. The London researchers know that since Recchioni died in 1934 (and not in 1933, by the way) the Public Record Office file concerning him will be only available in 2035. In other words : the statement which is made in this article, that "The details of the whole affair were kept secret for over sixty years, and were only released by the British Home Office in the early 2000s.", is only a childish attempt to make the reader believe that the truth (... such as seen by this crook and by his guilty friends of "Wikipedia") is now known, and can be checked. Shame on you, Sandstein.

- copy to IISG (Amsterdam), and to Archivio centrale dello Stato (Roma) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.199.4.105 (talk) 14:13, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I can't really argue with you on the merits because I do not understand what you are trying to say - what exactly is wrong in the article? Again, if you think the article is deficient, you are free to edit it, and in particular to remove any content that is not supported by reliable sources. If you add content, though, you should provide reliable sources for it. I'll note also that the original author of much of what is now this article was User:Clio the Muse, one of our most respected editors on historical topics. If you would like to know what sources the article is based on, you might want to ask her on her talk page. Sandstein 14:41, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

(from France) I don't pay more attention to Clio the Muse than to Miss Piggy : there is what is true, and there is what is wrong -and that's it. For the rest, and to answer your question : ALL, from the start to the end, is wrong, in this article. And it seems to me, that though my English is imperfect : I have been perfectly clear on this point. 194.199.4.105 14:52, 3 November 2007 (UTC)L. Nemeth

(from France) 6/11. "Wikipedia" is here tolerating what would not be tolerated, against the last of the politicians : if the article is not withdrawn within eight days I will make public the name, of the responsible of this very bad taste provocation.

Luc Nemeth, Docteur en Histoire contemporaine —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.199.4.101 (talk) 15:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Mr Nemeth, Wikipedia looks dimly on threats. If you think this article is wrong, please just edit it so as to make it right. If you think the article is irremediably bad, there is a process you can follow to propose its deletion, and the community of Wikipedia editors will decide about it. Please read the instructions in WP:AFD. Sandstein 16:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

'threats'! All it seems to me is that Mr Nemeth is complaining about the quality of source for this article: hardly a novel position. Why not have the article be flagged 'disputed' and 'allegedly' inserted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.105.127.56 (talk) 11:18, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to do so. You can, for instance, insert the {{Refimprove}} tag at the top of the article. Sandstein 16:27, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

(from France) 12/11. Thanks to "Wikipedia" I will not even have to make public the name, of the responsible of this provocation, since now suddenly appeared, among the... sources of this no-article : "Bernabei, Alfio (April 1999). "The London Plot to Kill Mussolini". History Today 49:2". It has just to be said here that this former article was a mystification of Mr Bernabei (the London correspondant of an italian communist paper), which had been immediately mentioned as such to this magazine, and of which the present no-article is just a poor clone. Let it be added too that Emidio Recchioni, this... "Italian anarchist and businessman" (sic), was one of the best men of the italian and international anarchist movement, and that as such he appears for instance, besides Emma Goldman and Malatesta, among the ones who signed in march 1915 the "International Anarchist manifesto on the War" published in London's Freddom, in march 1915. 194.254.169.6 12:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC) L. Nemeth