Talk:Years of Lead (Italy)
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|This article is or 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. Assigned student editor(s): Maxwell Cody Sharp. Assigned peer reviews: Ssreepat.|
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)
"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)
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 220.127.116.11 (talk) 16:23, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
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)
- 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.
Citations to other Wikipedia articlesEdit
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. –barakokula31 (talk) 18:25, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
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.
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?Edit
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)