Talk:Red Brigades/Archive 1

Archive 1

Bologna railway bomb

As far as I'm aware the bombing of the Bologna railway station in 1980 was never, even in the immediate following of it, accredited to any left wing terrorist groups including the Red Brigades. It was obviuos from the start that it had been carried out by fascist terrorists. (by anon User:62.252.0.6 )

• Per whom?--68.81.205.212 13:26, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Many do believe that it was work of right-wing terrorists. Here's a BBC On This Day article - Skysmith 09:15, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, look up the BBC documentary on Operation Gladio where they interview Vinciguerra and he discusses Ordine Nuovo's role in the Bologna train incident.

Change title, please

Can we change the title of the article somehow? It's "The Red Brigade," NOT "The Red Brigades."

• The most common English form is the plural. Idiosyncratic but true - Skysmith 11:57, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• I've seen it at times as "Red Brigade" in English, but the banner behind Aldo Moro (among others) does say "Brigate Rosse," which is plural. Is there a reason to suggest it should be singular? RG 17:17, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• "Brigate Rosse" is correctly translated into the 'Red Brigades' - plural. The BR was an umbrella organization with small groups in several Italian cities. I would surmise that the term "Brigades" was used to inflate their stature as a group larger than it really was. --Targetman96 (talk) 15:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Strenght

Was'nt there like several thousand members in the Red Brigades? And they conducted 14 000 acts of terror in Italy between 1968-83? Or was the red brigades just the most known of hundreds of armed revolutionary groups in Italy?

• First, where did you get those numbers? Second, claims of membership and real membership numbers are different things. Third, they were not the only terrorist group and right-wingers also caused their share of destruction - Skysmith 19:37, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm from Italy and remember very well that awful days, in mid-1970s a quet night in a large city here was one in which 3-4 cars of political militants was burned, 4-5 house doors of politicos receive molotov cocktails and one local party office was burned. This was the reality of 1970s Italy, 14.000 acts of terror is a rather underestimate figure.... and yes, there was hundreds of violent groups here, ranging from three to thousands of militants, and the border between legal and illegal activity was, to put mildly, very hazy. dott.Piergiorgio 22:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Red Brigades never had "several thousand members". There where no more than 300 "regular" (underground and ready for shooting) members also in their best period (1978). More or less 1000 people were judged as militant of BR (and 300 for groups born from later splits), and the same for the other great armed (not "terrorist") group, Prima Linea (Front Line), whose history was shorter. Other groups never had a strong that could be comparable to BR or PL. It's true that a lot of violent actions (also murders) where made by legal groups like Lotta Continua or Potere Operaio, whose founder was Toni Negri, but also by non-organized students and workers. But, about these 14,000 acts of terror, I don't think that burning cars could be defined an "act of terror" like killing or robbering... but I also think that Red Brigades couldn't be defined as "terrorist" because their main goal was not "terrorizing" but to inciting the militants of Communist Party to compel their leaders to not make agreements with Christian Democracy. Then, in Italy the 70s were not only bad years, and for example there was great progress for civil rights.-clemi 15:16, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

They were Maoists, NOT Marxist-Leninist —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.164.187.186 (talk) 23:50, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Obscure Circumstances

This phrasing seems really weird to me, surely there is a better way of describing the cirumstances surrounding the death of Aldo Moro than obscure? I can't really think of one since I am no expert, but obscure just strikes me as an odd word to use. Iburneditdown 01:45, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

To my dear friend Skysmith

Once again, I removed the unproven gossip about external financing by the Czechoslovak StB and the PLO. And I am really sorry, my dear Skysmith, but I have to dissapoint you: No, I do not have in the least any connections to "ex-Chechoslovak intelligence". Next time better mind your words before you label such ridiculous accusations ! Forever yours, --131.130.165.154 13:02, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

• I have nothing to do with the latest reverts - Skysmith 18:26, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Splits in Red Brigades

Red Brigades had some minor splits that could be not so important (1975: Formazioni comuniste combattenti; 1980: Walter Alasia column). But it's wrong to say that the first important split was in 1984. Already in 1981 some members, supported by most of former leaders by that time in prison, founded Br - Partito Guerriglia (Guerrilla Party), while the other members, leaded by Barbara Balzerani, choose the name Br - Pcc. Partito Guerriglia members were all captured, after some violent actions, before the end of 1982. This means that Br - Pcc existed before 1984 when actually there was the split of Ucc. When this happened former leaders like Curcio had already dissociated themselves from Red Brigades, or better from the groups born after the end of the original organization. When the little group that used the name Pcc killed D'Antona and Biagi, only few of the last members of old Pcc supported them (none of members of this last "version" of Pcc was member of old Br - Pcc, that must be considered as defeated in 1988). --clemi 16:53, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Incomplete/Inaccurate

I am afraid that this article is very incomplete, and also inaccurate.

Just to quote an example, it ignores the fact that, after his arrest, Curcio was freed from prison by an armed commando led by Mara Cagol whioch stormed his prison, that he was rearrested after the Carabinieri planted a double agent(Father Girotto) in the BR, it doesn't mention the Sossi kidnapping, or the Cascina Spiotta clash and the death of Mara Cagol etc etc

It's full, also, of minor inaccuracies. Just a small exmple : the commando which kidnapped Aldo Moro and killed his escort did not wear Italian Air Force uniforms, but Alitalia airline uniforms.

As to whether the Red Brigades should be called terrorists - why, most everyone called them terrorists. How do you call "militants" who wait for people when they go to work in the morning, and shoot them on their housedoor ?Giordaano 11:12, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Take out Toni Negri; irrelevant

The paragraph on "April 1979 arrests in the Autonomist movement" is not pertinent and should be removed (which I just did). Hundreds of political leaders, from various 'movements', were arrested as part of the attempt to disband the Red Brigades in those years. So why should we have a paragraph specifically on Mr. Toni Negri? I understand the urge, on the side of someone here, to rehabilitate Negri; however, none of this is relevant in the "Red Brigades" entry. (Unless we want to make it ridiculously long and detailed, such as in the Italian wikipedia version). Dpianelli 09:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

• Makes sense. However, do not add signatures to articles, please - Skysmith 09:48, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I see. I figured that was a mistake because of the signature.--Patrickneil 22:48, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

No it doesn't. Toni Negri & others leaders of the Autonomist movement were arrested on claims they belonged to the BR and Negri was accused of being the "mastermind" of the BR. This has got nothing to do with what you think, or do not think, about Negri, but only concerns the BR. Tazmaniacs 19:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Speculations and primary research

Like JFK's death or the twin towers assault, the Aldo Moro assassination is the source of endless speculations, many of which are plausible but often not based on solid ground. The sentence "Parliamentary reports and juridical investigations have lead to the suspicion of more important forces behind the BR, whom would have been opposed to the implementation of the historic compromise between the DC and the PCI." should be REMOVED until evidence can be collected, or at least a reliable quotation can be inserted. (There is always something 'behind' something else, sorry). Thanks.Dpianelli 07:39, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

In this case, these aren't only speculations, it's true that there are strong suspicions that western and sovietic intelligence services tried to use BR for their purpose. I think this sentence could be reammitted, since the president of italian parlament commission on terrorism Giovanni Pellegrino (obviously the most informed and super-partes person in Italy on this theme) made the same affermation in the book "La guerra civile"; Giovanni Fasanella, Giovanni Pellegrino; 2005, VIII-166 p.; BUR Biblioteca Univ. Rizzoli —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spritz82 (talk • contribs) 08:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Spritz82 08:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Questionable statistics

Clarence Martin (?) in a book not dedicated to the BR, but to terrorism in general, has made the following claim, which is presented as true, despite the fact that it is hardly thinkable such a small group as the BR could actually engage themselves in so much acts of violence:

In the first ten years of the group's existence, the Red Brigades were credited with 14,000 acts of violence,
 most of which against defenseless people on the street.<ref name = Martin>{{cite book | last = Martin | first = Clarence 
 Augustus | authorlink = | coauthors = Gus Martin | date = 2003 | url = | title = Understanding Terrorism | format = | work = |
 pages = | publisher = Sage Publications Inc| language = English | accessdate = | accessyear = }}</ref>

Tazmaniacs 19:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Martin is a noted expert on terrorism and the figure of 14000 is also used by Walter Laqueur. If the sources meets all the criteria for inclusion, which in this case it most certainly does, than it should not be removed. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 15:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Really? "Noted expert on terrorism" is not synonym with expert on Italian history, much less on expert on BR. Not to say that this completely contradict statistics given by the Italian Minister of Interior:

According to statistics by the Ministry of Interior, 67,5% of the violences ("brawls, guerrilla actions, destruction of goods") committed in Italy from 1969 to 1980 are imputable to the far right, 26,5% to the far left, and 5,95% to others. Furthermore, 150 persons were killed in terrorist actions carried out by the far right, and 94 by far left bombings [ref: See Mauro Galleni, Rapporto sul terrorismo, Rizzoli, Milan, 1981, quoted by Anne Schimel (Study and Research Center of the Institute of Political Studies), in "Justice "de plomb" en Italie ("Lead" justice in Italy), Le Monde diplomatique, March 1998]

If the BR really are accountable for 14 000 acts of "violence" (what is included in that?), than according to these statistics, approximatively 56 000 acts of violence (assuming, which is clearly wrong, that the BR were responsible for all of the "acts of violence" (which you do not specify the nature) committed by the far-left) were committed during these years. Furthermore, if your concerns is only that, please do not reverse all the rest. This has not been discussed. Tazmaniacs 18:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

An article in Lemonde by Antonio Negri which claims to cite a figure of 67.55% from the Italian Minstry of the Interior, hot damn! now I am convinced! Anyhoo …. I cited my sources, they are reliable, so if you want to challenge them, you will have to do better and cites something a little less partisan and a little more definitive. Also, Wikipedia, is not the appropriate place for such batshit idiocy, like the idea that the Mossad were secretly funding/assisting the BR. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 19:14, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Le Monde diplomatique is not Le Monde, and Ann Schimel is not Toni Negri. Tazmaniacs 14:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Potato Potato, but the article is Negri's, also the infromation on the Mossad is the batshit idiocy I was refering to. As for 14,000 it has not one, but two RS. You are in a hole here, stop digging. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 16:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

You are mistaken. The Interior Minister's statistics come from: Anne Schimel (Study and Research Center of the Institute of Political Studies), in "Justice "de plomb" en Italie ("Lead" justice in Italy), Le Monde diplomatique, March 1998]. Tazmaniacs 17:05, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

And where, exactly, does Schimel contradict the 14,000 figure? Oh, thats right, no where. And when it comes to what trumps what as a WP:RS there is Schimel that you have cited and there is Laqueur and Martin. Since Schimel’s alleged source is not available for review in the public domain (who is Mauro Galleni anyways?) its certainly is not grounds for exclusion of the 14000 figure. As for the Mossad info, the removal of that should be self explanatory. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 17:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I beg to disagree : apparently, most articles on Wikipedia dealing with "Lead years" "autonomists" "Red Brigades" "Cesare Battisti" "Antonio Negri" etc etc are full of such batshit idiocy. Now, let's see : what do these articles have in common ? Giordaano 19:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Excelent question!! Torturous Devastating Cudgel 19:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Tazmaniacs, please understand that Wikipeida is based on what sources say, and not on personal interpretations of facts. -- Vision Thing -- 20:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I've included both this suspect "14,000 acts of violence" which is a very vague figure and the other one by the Interior Minister, in a specific subsection. Tazmaniacs 13:19, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

The words "however" and "furthermore" are ill-placed in the statistics section. Regardless of the accuracy of the statistics, the should be presented in a more neutral fashion- on first reading it sounded defensive on behalf of the BR without making an explicit argument. --65.57.245.11 (talk) 20:54, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Massive changes

Please do not make massive changes without discussion. Apart of these questionable statistics, recent changes make a whole lot of others modifications. Tazmaniacs 12:37, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

All changes have been discussed. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 16:07, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

and obviously have not got full consensus. What about finding consensus? Tazmaniacs 03:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

It would appear that from the above discussion, your opinion was in the minority. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 20:12, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I find that TDC's changes are really fine Giordaano 14:30, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, folks, I have made some much-needed additions, some serious editing (watch the spelling of names, please) and have eliminated rambling repetitions and off-topic paragraphs.

I expect inconditional applause for my efforts.(Giordaano)

Three cheers for Giordaano, hip hip (hourah)! Torturous Devastating Cudgel 00:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry, but if we shall find some consensus, then we will have to proceed point-by-point, and not by massively changing the article. Please consider writing a draft here and discussing it together. Thank you. Tazmaniacs 17:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Taz, I have made many, detailed changes, in many separate posts. I have added important episodes, corrected misspelling of names, material errors, etc etc

There is absolutely no way you can simply revert, in one post, all my changes. Take your time and discuss my amendments.

Best regardsGiordaano 19:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Please do not mix spelling corrections with deletion of material. Tazmaniacs 19:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I have made 13 separate posts making amendments. You have to discuss them one by one.

It's not possible to have a serious article on the Red Brigades without mentioning the Cascina Spiotta, the Gancia and Sossi kidnappings, the Roberto Peci and the Guido Rossa murders, how Feltrinelli's death occurred... You should try to be serious. Giordaano 19:11, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I am. I would have no problem with your changes if you didn't mix them up with deletion of text which you do not like. You should discuss such deletions first, and not force me to re-introduce them one by one. Come on, you should know by the time the way Wikipedia works. I am totally open to negotiation in order to find consensus, but I can't do it alone. Cheers! Tazmaniacs 19:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

13 separate posts give one major edit. See Major edits. Thank you. Tazmaniacs 19:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Consensus does not mean we fill the article with garbage. Please refresh yourself with WP:FRINGE Torturous Devastating Cudgel 19:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

13 separate posts should be discussed and modified one by one, of course. This is perfectly possible. I agree to discussing them in detail.Giordaano 19:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

It is not. I've tried to do so! They are "conflicting edits" so you can't take out just one edit. As an aside, would you consider following Talk page format with indents? It would make for easier reading, thanks. Ciao Tazmaniacs 23:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Taz, some of my posts simply add text, some modify existing text, some delete certain phrases or paragraphs. You should check those you object to, and discuss them.

My main point is that the article, as it was, missed out on most of the BR's evolution in the second half of the 70s-first half of the 80s. It didn't explain their objectives, as well as the major episodes they were involved in (except the Moro murder). It did contain however long commentaries on people and episodes only marginally related (if at all) to the BR's career (e.g. the Abbé Pierre).

It took me quite some time and effort to make all those integrations, amendments, corrections. To simply delete them en masse is not acceptable.Giordaano 09:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

This article is biased

BIAS: This article appears biased against the left, and has multiple instances of partial unsubstantiated subjecture: "Members sabotaged factory equipment and broke into factory offices and trade union headquarters, admittedly a strange way of supporting labour unions".

I am not an experienced wikipedia editor and am not entirely sure on the correct etiquette, but I have flagged the article as needing its neutrality assessed. 212.74.96.200 S.D, Journalism and Politics Graduate

I still think we should use additional sources for articles and not rely exclusively on "Terrorist Group Profiles, Dudley Knox Library, Naval Postgraduate School." ---Daniel C. Boyer

Was the "large number of arrests in 1980" related to the August bombing in Bologna rwy stn, thought to be Red Brigade (but actually New Order)?

This is a nice article. --pippo2001 04:19, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The phrase : "Members sabotaged factory equipment and broke into factory offices and trade union headquarters, admittedly a strange way of supporting labour unions" is clearly a joke.

If you look in the preceding paragraph, it is said that the Red Brigades supported labour unions. Your intervention, S.D., reestablishes the contradiction: how can you support labour unions and at the same time operate break-ins in their headquarters ?

In any case, the Red Brigades did sabotage factory equipment, break into factory offices and trade union headquarters.Giordaano 11:20, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Is this page anti-left?

212.74.96.200 says that the page, as it is, has an anti-left bias. While, clearly, it's difficult to describe the Red Brigades in a positive light, I don't think that the general tone of the page is anti-left. In fact, more than half of it is written in a pro-extreme left style, with severe criticism being formulated against Italian justice, Italian police and the Italian political system, accused of being simply pawns in the game of occult forces and secret services (Gladio, P2 etc etc). The other half (modestly, my half) tries to be more objective. However, I may have exceeded here and there (e.g., I qualified the jargon of the BR as "pretentious but vacuous"). This could be changed, e.g. to "cryptic".

I am quite open to discussing some changes to the language used.(Giordaano)

No, honestly I agree with you on this point - one of the opening lines gives "thanks" about members of Brigate Rosse being captured after split and defection of members. This page has a tint of anti-leftist elements. (Volpeargenta)

Abbé Pierre, Vanni Mulinaris etc

I have deleted the Abbé Pierre/Vanni Mulinaris section, which, in my opinion, is completely marginal to the whole Red Brigades issue. To have a paragraph called "The Red Brigades in the '80s" and then to speak only about Abbé Pierre, Mulinaris, the Hyperion School of languages is completely absurd.Giordaano 20:02, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

This paragraph is sourced, and is not "completely marginal". The misleading title has now been corrected, no need to delete anything. Tazmaniacs 22:12, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

This raises the question : should we include anything in this article, provided it is sourced ? the long excursus about Abbé Pierre/ Mulinaris etc is totally marginal. We should concentrate on the actual Red Brigades activities - e.g. there is absolutely nothing in the article about Sossi, Croce, Coco etc and you worry about the "Superclan", Mulinaris, the Abbé Pierre...Giordaano 10:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Disagree. It is not totally marginal. If you want to add things about Sossi, Croce, Coco, etc., please do so, but I do not think that a hunger strike from the Abbé Pierre is a marginal event. Tazmaniacs 18:37, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

If we have to treat each episode somehow related to the Red Brigades in the kind of minute detail you are reserving to Abbe Pierre/Mulinaris, this article will end up being 200 pages long. Simioni, Mulinaris, Berio, the "Superclan", the "Collettivo Politico Metropolitano" -which, strangely, you never mention- are, in my view, the prehistory of the Red Brigades - widely irrelevant for the rest of the story. We shouldn't waste so much attention and space Giordaano 09:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

This is not an argument. You may add information to the article, but not delete this sort of thing just because you don't like it. Tazmaniacs 13:53, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

You are simply making the article unreadable. Oh, well, it's not worth much anyhow.Giordaano 15:26, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Recent edits

TDC, there is no reason not to attribute to Pacepa what he says. Furthermore, there is also no reason to include only Pacepa or your POV, and to exclude statistics from the Italian Minister of Interior. Tazmaniacs 21:12, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

First, there are other sources cited for the material, Pacepa is one of several. Secondly, I have yet to see anyone deny this. Lastly, the "statistics" from the Italian Minister of Interior have been rejected for inclusion because they have no relevance here and they cannot be verified, and considering the source of them, verification is a need. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 21:22, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Are you claiming that sources which comes from the Institut d'études politiques de Lyon are unreliable? Tazmaniacs 22:00, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

No I am stating that the material supposedly from the Institut d'études politiques de Lyon cannot be verified. They have only been used in a few garbage articles on the web, whose interpretation of them is suspect. Unless there is some access to an open source for the information from the Italian Minister of Interior we cannot rely on the second hand spin of them. Also, this article is about the Red Brigades, not about "rightwing violence in Italy" ... whatever that means. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 15:31, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Undue weight

From [[1]]

"Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements."

The article, as it is now, deals with every possible conspiration theory, with the life of Abbé Pierre and Vanni Mulinaris,etc etc and blows these aspects out of proportion. This is "undue weght".

It also makes the article unreadable.Giordaano 16:32, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

It is not undue, but historical facts which are appropriate here. Stating the actions of Abbé Pierre relatively to this affair is not "giving undue weight to a viewpoint", but stating a fact. It is not unnecessary detail — and, considering the reputation of the Abbé Pierre, deleting this involvement does in fact appears as trying to delete something which you don't like about that history. Tazmaniacs

As you may have noticed, I have left the Mulinaris/Abbé Pierre/Hyperion episode in the article. It is, of course, completely marginal to the Red Brigades' history, just like Corrado Simioni, the "Superclan" etc

Yes, it is "undue weight", but for what I care you can add their complete biographies in the article. Have fun.Giordaano 14:03, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

The Czeck hoax

It's unproved that Red Brigades received some aid by Czechoslovakian StB.--Olbia merda 15:13, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

There are three good sources for it. Torturous Devastating Cudgel (talk) 16:03, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Two sources, of course. Mitrokhin's Dossier is not :))) .--Olbia merda (talk) 18:09, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Concerning the statistics, we've already gone through this debate, and NPOV requests that both perspectives be given, not only the one that one user prefers. My formulation allow for both expressions. Tazmaniacs (talk) 18:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Funny, I just came to this page to raise a question about this. If there are two, or three, or any good sources, shouldn't they be footnoted at the place where the assertion is made? --Bill Chadwell (talk) 22:54, 5 November 2008 (UTC)