Talk:Luigi Cadorna

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the military biography work group (assessed as Low-importance).

Military history: Biography / European / Italian / World War I

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military biography task force
	European military history task force
	Italian military history task force (c. 500–present)
	World War I task force

Cadorna Street, Box Hill South, Melbourne

Does anybody know if there's any connection between Luigi Cadorna and Cadorna Street in Box Hill South, Victoria? I posted this question at Talk:Box Hill South, Victoria in May, but have had no response so far. JackofOz 13:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Harsh remarks on Cadorna conduit and competence

An anonymous user, User:172.163.202.218, added some harsh remarks on the competence of Cadorna, his treatment of the troops and his responsibilities for the defeat at Caporetto. In general, these remarks correspond to what I know of Cadorna, but I'm not a scholar and I have just a basic knowledge of the World War I on the Italian front. I think that this article should be reviewed and that it is necessary to back it with the appropriate scientific sources. GhePeU 10:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Judging strategic competence is not a scientific pursuit, the harsh criticism of Cadorna are in line with the general consensus among war historians. --NEMT 02:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've rewritten the article with sources. Mackensen (talk) 19:01, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gorizia

The statement that "Cadorna would ultimately fight eleven battles on the Isonzo between 1915 and 1917 without attaining Gorizia" is false. Gorizia fell to the Italians on August 8, 1916, during the Sixth Battle of the Isonzo. L'omo del batocio 08:53, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cadorna`s reputation in Argentina

I am from Argentina, and in my country, the name of Cadorna is popularly used to describe disaster. For instance, if you crash your car, a conversation in Argentina could go as "How are you gonna pay for the repairs?""I will ask Cadorna for money". This sort of examples show the infamous reputation of the leader, as many, many italian inmigrants came to Argentina, they brought the infamy of this name with them. This day, many people in my country might not even know who Cadorna was, but still know this name as a representation of disaster and callamity.

I am unsure if such information would fit in this page of wikipedia, or how to put it, so I wanted just to mention this in case anyone considers it appropiate to mention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.175.33.4 (talk) 17:15, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

an interesting instance of how a bad reputation can survive long after and far away. However probably best left here on the talk page, unless there is a source reference that can be cited confirming that it was the WWI Italian general who was the origin of this linguistic custom and not another Cardorna.Buistr (talk) 19:46, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The personal reputation is half bias, half well cited text

Now, while I will contend that it is written in a way that might hide it, that half of the personal reputation is built to knock down claims the other half doesn't even establish, and is entirely built off one citation, to an Italian website, written in Italian... which is a problem if you only citation for all these mean military historians have him totally wrong is a source most people reading English Wikipedia cannot read, and nothing else for a whole paragraph, which makes a whole lot of claims, and backs them up off that single thread. And, for Britain and France to explicitly want him dismissed, but that *second* paragraph not even address it as though that were of no consequence at all, belies the point of that second paragraph.

I would attempt to rewrite it myself, however, it would be my first edit, and I do not have the proper experience nor citations on hand to believe I could do it sufficient due diligence. Yes, I am mildly annoyed at the guy who is just incompetent being praised for his "genius logistics" and "how rumors made his soldiers turn against him"... when he spent his later years blaming his failure on the communist saboteurs, which did not exist. 108.176.203.78 (talk) 05:12, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seconding this. I can't read Italian, but I feel that even aside from language barriers anything making the scope of claims that paragraph is making ought to rely on more robust sources than a single encyclopedia article from 1973. Thunderplunk (talk) 11:38, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]