Talk:Strategy of tension
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Strategy of tension is part of the Cold War WikiProject, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the Cold War on the Wikipedia. This includes but is not limited to the people, places, things, and events, and anything else associated with the Cold War. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. |
Contents |
[edit] dispute
As can be seen in the "Gladio" entry, even the network's existence is disputed and considered to be a conspiracy theory by some. Even more so its far-fetched alleged involvement in terrorist activities, mainly based on a set of debunked Soviet forgeries. Additionally, the entry does not even make an attempt to present the opposing view, so I am labelling it factually challenged, as it is. [1]
Also removing a dead link that claimed to be a USA Today article (but did not load ; the nefarious work of Gladio network and the masonic lodge, perhaps?) 212.251.124.11 00:02, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Please refer to Wikipedia:NPOV dispute: "Then, under this new section, clearly and exactly explain which part of the article does not seem to have a NPOV and why. Make some suggestions as to how one can improve the article. Be active and bold in improving the article." The US State disclaimer you have put totally admits on the existence of Gladio, it only denies two assassinations in Greece and a military manual. Now, I'm sure you will understand why the US State Dept is not exactly the most neutral source for this kind of stuff. I advise you to read or find someone to translate you this [2] Repubblica article which back-up claims in this article. It is a well known historical fact, proven by investigation by judge Felice Casson and others, that Gladio has engaged in false flag attacks in Italy. I don't know exactly what you mean by a "conspiracy theory", because I don't think that Italian victims of the Piazza Fontana bombing or the 1980 Bologna massacre think it's "just a theory". Tazmaniacs 23:47, 28 April 2006 (UTC) ps: the Repubblica link that is provided here and in the main-text of the article also give links to the Italian Commission on Terrorism report and the original juridical sentences. CQFD. Tazmaniacs 23:49, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
I think that "Nuclei Armati Rivoluzionari" is better than the half english half italian name "Armed Revolutionary Nuclei - ARN", also because is is quite common the use of the acronym "NAR" in both books and newspapers, as is common the use of "BR" for "Brigate Rosse"; "Revolutionary groups in arms" could be a more perceptible translation, and should follow italian name.
[edit] Talk:Italian general election, 1948
A section of this article will be deleted in a week from the main page, because it lacks sources.Travb (talk) 22:37, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] POV tag
I've added a POV tag. Relying on just one source to write an article is never good practice, but in this case it involves a marginal author. Although the term has been much used, it has also been abused too easily, especially to fume conspiracies where non exist. See the work of Richard Drake on Aldo Moro for another example of this. Intangible2.0 21:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- I think it needs more footnotes, but it doesn't appear to be single-sourced at all. Can you explain more clearly what's up with the POV tag? What would the article have to say/be to be acceptable to you? Katsam 10:25, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Ganser is not a mainstream author, neither is Philip Willan. Reports from political parties should not be construed as fact. The strategy of tension is just a theory, it does not have to have any bearing on actual historic events. Intangible2.0 21:10, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not sure about Ganser, but Willan writes for the Guardian, which isn't exactly fringe literature. And the article also references La Repubblica. How many different references does it need to be OK? I'm also not sure that being poorly referenced is the same thing as being POV-pushing. If that's the problem, there ought to be a different tag (like cleanup or maybe there's a needs-more-references tag?)
- Also, can you unpack "is just a theory...does not have to have any bearing on actual historic events" for me? It seems to me that it was a phrase invented to describe a phenomenon, in this case neofascist terrorists committing bombings in the names of Communist terrorists so as to push the country towards the center-Right. Do you dispute the idea that neofascist terrorists committed bombings in Italy in the 1970s and attributed them to the Red Brigades? Or...? Katsam 07:56, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
- No, it is the way opinions are presented as fact in this article, like those of Ganser. How was the 1980 Bologna attack a false flag operation, it was readily ascribed to neo-fascist terrorists? The are plenty of mentions of the "strategy of tension" in Google Scholar, like these articles from Foreign Affairs:[3], [4]. No need to start off with Ganser in the lead. Also, one has to be careful not to introduce original research into the article, like the examples given in the Other section, who is saying these attacks were also part of a strategy of tension? There is no reference. Intangible2.0 22:41, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry I didn't get back here sooner. I'm going to try to rework this article in relationship to your criticisms. Katsam 08:19, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
- No, it is the way opinions are presented as fact in this article, like those of Ganser. How was the 1980 Bologna attack a false flag operation, it was readily ascribed to neo-fascist terrorists? The are plenty of mentions of the "strategy of tension" in Google Scholar, like these articles from Foreign Affairs:[3], [4]. No need to start off with Ganser in the lead. Also, one has to be careful not to introduce original research into the article, like the examples given in the Other section, who is saying these attacks were also part of a strategy of tension? There is no reference. Intangible2.0 22:41, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
- Ganser is not a mainstream author, neither is Philip Willan. Reports from political parties should not be construed as fact. The strategy of tension is just a theory, it does not have to have any bearing on actual historic events. Intangible2.0 21:10, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] History of X?
I'm confused: why is this in the History of Spain category and WikiSpain project? I see no mention of Spain in the article. Similarly, with the History of Belgium, Contemporary French History, Contemporary German History, History of the Philippines, and History of the United Kingdom. If there is a connection to these categories, then the article should reflect it. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 00:05, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Giant conspiracy
"The history of Italy as a giant conspiracy" might be a better title for this article. No doubt the "strategy of tension" existed, but it simply cannot explain every event. This article confuses facts and fiction and needs proper references. Dalla Chiesa murdered as part of the "strategy of tension"? I very much doubt that - the Mafia had their own reasons, unless you think that they were part of the giant conspiracy as well. This article badly needs to be re-written by someone with a better understanding of the history of Italy. - Mafia Expert 19:18, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
