Talk:Alfredo Cospito

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Run IABot plz

Hey! IABot is not running properly on my end anymore for whatever reason, could someone else attempt to run on this page on their end to save myself manually adding archive links to all the citations. Thankyou! SP00KYtalk 19:43, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not be been working for me either and seems to be broken for everyone - https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T321740 Mujinga (talk) 21:11, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Aww that's a shame, thanks @Mujinga. Both for this and this article! :) SP00KYtalk 21:23, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's working again :) Hope you have a great 2023! Mujinga (talk) 13:27, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
\o/ Danke! SP00KYtalk 17:33, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hunger strike and other things

I didn't want to expand the section to much and so I thought I would add notable things here that have been reported by 'legitimate sources' which may be used. I figure it will save the kind of 'list buildup', for a lack of a real term, that ongoing situations tend to turn into. It is subject to be added to:

  • A bullet signed with an A was sent to the attorney General of Turnin. 1
  • Support of hunger strikes against 41-bis by differing groups and 'respectable' members of italian civil/religious/public society, including for example amoung others deputy mayor of Bologna Emily Clancy (just three sets of examples) 2 3 4 7
  • Anarchists charged for slogans shouted through one of the court hearings 5
  • The 'National Guarantor of the rights of persons deprived of their personal liberty' visited Cospito. 6
  • A PD delegation including and lead by Debora Serracchiani has visited Cospito. 8

(This was just an idea I had of a way of doing things, please do not be mad if it is incorrect way. ~ SP00KYtalk 21:22, 9 January 2023 (UTC) )[reply]

(I just want to point out that the main purpose of this list is to be able to easily see and build a narrative when all this is over, however it ends. do not assume all of the links are good citations (most of it, at least what i have added, is 'internet journalism' MSM 'clickbait' trash in their reporting, which is more often than not glorified state propagandizing) and if adding on to the article it is probably best to independently look for the best ones. ) ~ Sp00ky.

Article is POV in favor of the criminal. No neutral POV and many advertising is made in the article.

The article is completeley POV in favour of the anarchist. it was proposed for deletion as already happened in the Italian Wikipedia, to avoid advertising Alfredo Cospito as a "good guy" like some users are doing here. The article should be rewritten completely, keeping in mind: - is presented as an anarchist in the first phrase, while is commonly considered a criminal and a terrorist; - the 2006 bombing of a Carabinieri's school military base is mentioned underlining the fact that "no one was hurt", while in the sentence is written clearly that the 2 bombs were made to kill and only for luck did not kill anyone. - is presented by as a "poor guy" under the 41 bis regime and that prison regime is used only to stop mafia, while this is not real. It's used to stop member of organizations that are in prison to give orders to others member of organizations outside prison. Excatly the reason that Alfredo Cospito is under this regime. - there are links to the ""works"" that Alfredo Cospito wrote. This is purely advertising, no need for the article and a neutral POV. - the kneecapping of the CEO of Ansaldo Nucleare and 2006 bombing, main reason of why this guy is in prison, is worth just some paragraphs, while the "conditions" of mr. Cospito in prison and his "hunger strike" take part of a majority of the article. - there is no clear mention that the guy was sentenced for really important criminal charges, such as terrorism, subversion of the democratic order and attempted massacre. Still is appointed as "anarchist" while the Italian judiciary system, made of three degrees of judgement, definitively established that it was a criminal and a terrorist.

This article need to be rewritten completely, or even deleted, because I annot understand how this guy is encyclopedic. Maybe the events that lead to his arrest are, not his "life".--185.219.180.93 (talk) 10:34, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So yesterday, Allions prodded the article and W1tchkr4ft 00 declined the PROD as spurious, an action which I agree with. This is a well-sourced article based on significant coverage in reliable sources such as Guardian, la Repubblica, HuffPost and AP NEWS. Today 185.219.180.93 makes the criticisms above. First off 185.219.180.93 if you disagree with the declined PROD then you should take the article to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion that's the accepted procedure and we can have a full discussion there. Secondly you can't really criticise an article for being NPOV with such a clear bias yourself. If you want to improve this encyclopaedic entry feel free to do so but please do remember Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Thirdly the only thing I could really agree on in what you said is the objection to the presence of external links in the article, so I've removed them; otherwise I honestly think this article is in a pretty good state. Lastly, over on Italian wikipedia the article has not been deleted, it has been moved to draft on dubious reasoning; in any case what happens on Italian wikipedia does not have bearing here. Mujinga (talk) 11:19, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I cannot take seriously an editor who is mad that NPOV is allegedly not being stood by because they perceive that the person being written about is a 'terrorist and a criminal' and is being allegedly written about as a 'good and poor guy'. Please, please, please do not waste our time with this nonsense, as as you have said yourself, you do not understand how this is notable for the encyclopedia, proving you have not done the research and spent the time in this story. So please, don't waste our time with this stuff... Mahatma Gandhi was also a criminal, and Amadeo Bordiga and Nelson Mandela. Go bother their pages instead. SP00KYtalk 19:16, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rewriting the voice

I have rewritten the voice, hopefully some can help me and/or share opinions. Criteria:

  • WP:RECENT
    applies, there is absolutely no need to add every single news on the person, wikipedia is not a newspaper.
  • WP:N
    Cospito is notable because of kneecapping, bombing and sending explosive parcels. Literary production and the like are non notable and should not feature in the article.
  • English: the article should be in English, and not some weird mix of Italian and English.

Ffaffff (talk) 15:41, 25 January 2023 (UTC) I have removed the template per

WP:WTRMT. Feedback and edits welcome! Ffaffff (talk) 15:52, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Hiya thanks for the edits. You asked for feedback so:
* Your editing has gone way beyond what you claim to have done, for example you deleted his referenced date of birth, leaving the claim in the lead and infobox unreferenced, I'll fix that now and other errors that have crept in
* "During the trial, the Court of Cassation ruled that the crime had terrorist motives, upgrading Cospito's sentence to life without parole." - your edits left this sentence unreferenced
* "the pair apparently preparing" - this is not encyclopaedic
* "Processo ad Alfredo Cospito, chiesto l'ergastolo. Corteo degli anarchici: ferito un barista" - this reference is paywalled and should be marked as such. can you add as a quotation in the citation the sentences you are relying on to back this claims? otherwise i am unable to independently verify them.
* same as above for "“A Capaci fu una strage, a Fossano no”. Il caso dell’anarchico Cospito finisce alla Consulta "
*
WP:RECENT does apply yes, that's why news articles were being collected at Talk:Alfredo_Cospito#Hunger_strike_and_other_things
above and it would have been collegiate to put what you deleted there. Also, it is clear if you open a private browser window and search for Cospito that the hunger strike is relevant now and will be in 20 years time as well, even bodies such as Amnesty are commenting on it (that's actually what I came to the article to add). So it is absurd to delete it from the lead and delete the section. I see as a later edit you re-added the section, that's a step in the right direction.
* "Cospito is notable because of kneecapping, bombing and sending explosive parcels." and the hunger strike as well, clearly. "Literary production and the like are non notable and should not feature in the article." that's a misreading of
WP:N
, otherwise you could go around deleting almost all works by almost all authors from their wikipedia pages. Cospito's works are clearly not notable enough for their own page, so they fit here instead.
* re your later addition of terrorist to the lead, using a reference to what Cospito is supposed to have said doesn't cut it. All reliable sources seem to be referring to him as an anarchist so we should follow their lead.
* per
MOS:LEAD we don't usually have citations in the lead Mujinga (talk) 16:05, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Hello, I was the user that putted the deletion template. I see now that also other users pointed out the fact that the article was non NPOV and poorly written, in a way to "advertise" the literary production and to highlight the latest news on the guy. Also the fact that before it was just an "anarchist" and not a "terrorist" was a big non NPOV in my opinion. I read again the article and now seems almost fine. It could be added that the two bombs were planted with the main reason to kill the first responder after the first explosion. It was only a matter of luck that no one was killed. Also, during the trial, the experts that analyzed the explosions said that the second bomb had an "high potential".--Allions (talk) 17:26, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Competence is required to edit wikipedia. If you think an article with the same sources went from being "non NPOV and poorly written" to being "almost fine" and now does not need to be deleted, I would advise you not to suggest deleting articles until you are a bit more familiar with wikipedia processes. Mujinga (talk) 15:33, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No offence to you for trying to salvage it but the edits of Ffaffff are pure trash and quite frankly hard to see as anything but intentional vandalism. We should revoke them, but I don't really know how as the edits that have been made since. Do you have any suggestions? SP00KYtalk 19:23, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well I've corrected the article to a state I am more or less happy with, maybe you should take a look W1tchkr4ft 00, see what you think. It's there too late to rollback the edits of Ftaffff and I think it's a bit harsh to call them trash, I think they were trying to improve the article but perhaps let their bias and/or naivety showed through. I hope we all want to improve the article together. I would say it was a bad idea W1tchkr4ft 00 to directly link the selected works, although I wouldn't have an issue with an external links section if you want to put them there, but there shouldn't be hyperlinks in the article body. Mujinga (talk) 19:29, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I have issue with the fact that a lot has been removed for no other reason than to make the article worse, a quick example would be here that they have removed the part which explains why the name of 'Olga Nucleus', this is just one of many attempts at decontextualizing and remove information they have done here. I do not see why I should have to go over it again when it was just fine before this guy turned up and decided to break the article. If i do so what is to say he is not going to turn up and do it again? I also do not get the issue with the links to his written articles, they were already being referenced and to have direct links to them is adding an availability to the information being referenced I simply see no good reason to not have outside of a bias against the writing and not wanting them to be seen for whatever reason. It is hard to be 'chill' when one comes along with a concerted effort to sabotage this page after being made clear that they can't just come and insinuate the article must be deleted with false claims that the article is NPOV and etc., using lies about the article here, on it.wikipedia and what I myself have written. (I don't know how to do newlines without breaking the formatting on Talk Page. Sorry this is hard to parse.) SP00KYtalk 19:42, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"pure trash" Please read
WP:CIVIL. If you have any specific remark on my edits, open a new section and we can discuss (again, in a civil way, no personal attacks) Ffaffff (talk) 19:57, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
I have made my arguments very clear on why I think nothing here is good or even honest editing. Hyper fixating on the word I used to portray this and attempting to hide behind WP:CIVIL is not helpful, you have here not even attempted to defend any of the edits you made, such as the example I gave or as an another example how you removed the fact the bombing of the cop-shop did not harm anybody... With all due respect, if you want to take personally that I acurately articulated these edits as dishonest and bad that is not an me problem but a you problem. I wont be reframing anything and you're not being clever, all that is going to happen if you refuse to engage sincerely is that you will be ignored and this article will be restored back to at least an approximation of what it was before. SP00KYtalk 20:02, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"in a way to "advertise" the literary production and to highlight the latest news on the guy." I was the one that added links to his writings and some of the new Hunger Strike stuff, and I will do again. I didn't add them for any of the reasons you claim, you are merely a bare faced liar. <br> Please go away with this blatant lies and fake concern of NPOV, you're only wasting actual editors time.... How do you report people on this website? Is there an automated process? Damn... SP00KYtalk 19:27, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please stay chill! Our comments crossed over, I replied above about the external links. Cheers, Mujinga (talk) 19:30, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How Ffaffff modified the article is how an article on WP should be made. The article on WP is not a newspaper or a way to express a POV on a guy, should present things as they are and stick with the encyclopedic events, not underlining what users like most. I already know where this is going so I will not touch for some time the article. I do not want to start a fight with some "fans" of Mr. Cospito. But please, referring to the changes of another users as "trash" is a really bad way to handle things. --Allions (talk) 20:58, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody is doing what you are saying, You are quite obviously lying in order to create a narritive about how this is an NPOV article and that the writers are 'fans'. The level of dishonesty here quite frankly hurts my head. Please go away and bother another Wikipedia article. Faster you 'people' (these people very clearly at least know each other if they are not in fact the same person) are gone the faster I will restore this article back to it's previous state and the better it will be for everyone. SP00KYtalk 22:35, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please strike this comment: "I do not want to start a fight with some "fans" of Mr. Cospito" it is offensive and not civil. In future please comment on edits not editors. Mujinga (talk) 11:21, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Allions despite your promise to stay away you are back so I'll ask you again to strike the personal attack Mujinga (talk) 14:19, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Selected works and other material

In a constructive fashion, I will open this new section to try to iron out some differences we have about the article.

Let's start with "selected works". I would say this is a case of

WP:NOTSOAP. Can we say Cospito is notable for his own writings? I would say no. Can we say the writings have had any kind of highlights on newspapers, TV? I would say no (compare with Bobby Sands or Ted Kaczynski
).

Another point I would like to make is about current events (hunger strike). In my opinion and

WP:NTEMP
) before assessing this.

Same for adding each small development (petitions, intellectuals, etc.):

WP:NEWSPAPER
applies and such material should be moved to wikinews.

I am sure with goodwill and frank discussion we can reach consensus on these topics.

Ffaffff (talk) 21:58, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • You are not being constructive, you are being the opposite by opening a new section instead of replying my comments above. This means I will have to copy paste my answers here since you still haven't responded. Further, I am starting to find your edits disruptive since you are removing sourced information without leaving a coherent summary eg here I had to replace sourced information deleted without explanation
  • You appear to have read what I wrote above asking for verification but you didn't do it, you just made some edits with unhelpful summaries here, here and here. Please read
    WP:NONENG
    . As an example of what I was asking for, please see these edits. I didn't have to do that except for the direct quote but I thought it handy to do so you can see what I mean. By the way, here I had to fix what you wrote since it was n't supported by the source.
  • To repost what I said above:
    WP:NOTNEWS
    begins "Editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage" and some of these events will clearly be notable in 20 years time, for example the Greek carbombing
  • To repost what I said above about texts: "Literary production and the like are non notable and should not feature in the article." that's a misreading of
    WP:N
    , otherwise you could go around deleting almost all works by almost all authors from their wikipedia pages. Cospito's works are clearly not notable enough for their own page, so they fit here instead.     To add on that what I said below, these works are the reason for the imposition of 41-bis so they are very relevant in fact.
  • re this edit per
    MOS:LEAD
    which I asked you to look at already, the lead should summarise the body so it's absurd to remove references to the hunger strike. That should be obvious by now.
  • If you want to make largescale edits to the article or remove sourced information please discuss here at talk first otherwise I will be forced to escalate matters. Also please follow what the reliable sources say. I am still assuming good faith at the moment but my patience is getting worn down, as you can see it takes time to reply on all this. Mujinga (talk) 12:04, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your comments:
    • I read
      WP:NOENG
      and now almost every citation I have put in the article has a quote in both Italian and English. The technique of the bombing is now sourced with two different, high quality (Corriere, Repubblica) sources, each one with a specific quote, translated by me.
    • Cospito was convicted on terror charges, this should be prominent in the lead, I have added the relevant citation (keep in mind that
      WP:BLP
      . The citation is again specific and from a high quality source (ANSA), maybe the highest quality source in Italian journalism.
    • "Also, it is clear if you open a private browser window and search for Cospito that the hunger strike is relevant now and will be in 20 years time as well" is a textbook example of
      WP:CRYSTAL
      , but I will wait for more comments from editors before reverting your changes.
    • 41bis section is also slightly reworded with a high quality source (Valigia Blu), again with a quote in both Italian and translated to English. I would be wary to use El Salto (an "alternative newspaper") as a lone source, as they are politically involved in the matter and are Spanish, hence they might or might not know the technicalities of Italian law.
    • I am glad that the link to Cospito's work satisfied all the editors in the talk page, it means that with good faith, discussion and subsequent edits consensus can be reached.
    • I will try to see if there is a "please please please do not add every single update for this topic" template and, if there is one, put it in the hunger strike section.
    • I will also try (if I have time) to translate the residual Italenglish in the article to proper, idiomatic English and correct some punctuation.
    Ffaffff (talk) 22:59, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Ffaffff are you a native English speaker? Your edits do not suggest so. If you want to follow BRD, that's great but then we need to discuss. For example, you don't seem to like the sentence "On 2 December, a Greek anarchist group called Revenge Cell Carlo Giuliani bombed the empty car of Italian diplomat Susanna Schlein, the sister of Elly Schlein". Why not? Please discuss here not in edit summaries. You said in an edit summary "what the group is called is unencyclopedic, "the sister of Elly Schlein" is a) bad english (should be "Elly Schlein" sister) and moreover, unencyclopedic. She could be the sister of the Donald Duck, it is *not* relevant to this article" - "the sister of Elly Schlein" is perfectly good english and Elly Schlein is not well known in English-speaking circles so it contextualises why her sister was targeted. I'm not sure why naming a group would be unecyclopedic either. Errors like these make it hard to track yoru edits, whcih is why I am patiently suggesting to discuss first.
  • I have added the relevant citation (keep in mind that
    MOS:LEAD
    does not forbid citations in the lead)     - thanks for adding the citation, yes I know citations are not forbidden in the lead and actually I would have suggested that solution had you discussed it to establish consensus.
  • Please be more careful removing cited information, we end up with sentences that are not verifiable. Also please be more careful summarising sources not to bring in your own interpretation. Mujinga (talk) 17:03, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I have made minimal additions, I will do more of them and some in the next days.
    • Elly Schlein is not well known in English-speaking circles so it contextualises why her sister was targeted <-- [WP:OR], there has not been a single investigator, prosecutor, on record saying that Schlein, a high ranking Italian diplomat, was targeted because she is "sister of". Hence I propose we bin it, because not relevant to the subject.
    • I broke Fossano's bombing in three part: I feel it is correct because it closely follows the trial's path. First a conviction, then court of cassation upgrading the sentence, finally prison and 41-bis. Ah, I see @Allions: reverted this, let us see what their opion is.
    • Fossano's bombing technique (a "trap" with one small and one big explosive device, the latter loaded wish shrapnel to maim and kill whoever was lured by the first one) and intention (killing) are undisputed in number of high quality Italian source plus the sentence of the Supreme Court of Cassation itself (a case where
      WP:PRIMARY
      allows it). I added another one, but I can add many many more stating precisely these two facts.
    Ffaffff (talk) 20:37, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, I asked you a direction question namely if you are a native English speaker, you didn't answer but saying "I have made minimal additions, I will do more of them and some in the next days" makes it clear you are not, so please be careful making edits to fix English in future because you keep on introducing mistakes.
  • Thanks for the rationale on Schlein, happy to see what other people think. I wasn't suggesting she was targeted because she Schlein's sister, I was saying it contextualises the attack which is no doubt why AP News added the information as well.
  • If want to add more sources on the bomb, feel free but please don't add any bias or original research as you did in saying "the bomb could potentially harm a lot of people"
  • In terms of breaking up sections, I think I agree with what you suggest, and in any case it's best to follow
    MOS:PARA
    in most cases
  • Again, I have to ask please take care with your edits. Fortunately this one has been reverted already, but the sentence "he would be dead by April" is backed in the source by "According to Angelica Milia, the doctor who is following him, if Cospito continued not to eat he would die before April 20", I am not sure how you could have missed that. Mujinga (talk) 14:18, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
> "the sister of Elly Schlein" .... She could be the sister of the Donald Duck, it is *not* relevant to this article"
I agree with this. I had removed it from the previous version with similar rationale. Another point I would make is that the only reason this is notable is because the press really jumped on the familial connection, It doesn't really feel like it ads something to me, it feels gutter or 'clickbait-y' to me, at least. Two diplomat vehicles being attacked in Athens is not a big headline otherwise, is the rational I suppose. SP00KYtalk 08:46, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
ok cool I've removed the mention of names, nice that we can reach a consensus here Mujinga (talk) 11:05, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I believe Cospito's writing could be added as a single external link to the Anarchist Library (since they are all there). I will make an edit now, let me know if you find it useful. If not, revert it Ffaffff (talk) 09:56, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is not the way to establish consensus and I think you know it isn't. Nevertheless, I have left the external links because I was going to suggest here something similar. Either we have a selected works section which is unlinked or an external links section, this follows Wikipedia:External links which begins "Wikipedia articles may include external links, links to web pages outside Wikipedia. External links normally should not be placed in the body of an article." I hope that satisfies W1tchkr4ft 00 as well, consensus would be good to find. I personally would prefer an unlinked selected works section, since these are the works which have led to him being placed in 41-bis, so I do think it's relevant to the article. Many sources state this eg The reason for this regime change was motivated by the exchange of letters with other anarchists that Cospito has kept for 10 years and by writings sent by him for publication in area magazines in Editoriale Domani Mujinga (talk) 11:46, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was following
WP:BRD, I am glad that my edit was appreciated and not reverted! I will reply to your other questions later, I believe the article can be improved and made clearer Ffaffff (talk) 12:38, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
I am going to pretend you are being sincere for a second: The article was clear before you started to interfere. You even reverted some of your own changes as you realised this, such as the hunger strike stuff. It's fine that you do not know the subject well, we can not just know things off the bat, but I suggest you put some time and effort into understanding what is being written about before jumping in with any such edits you have attempted here. And no, reading one or two news-articles isn't what I am refering to. At least Myself and Mujinga (not to sound arrogant, sorry) have some experience editing such things in the context of Wikipedia:WikiProject Anarchism. I do not believe you can just jump into this subject without making serious mistakes and writing in your own unexamined, if innocent, biases. In Internet Parlance I think you would say that the best action here is to 'Lurk Moar'. SP00KYtalk 16:01, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ffaffff you said "I was following
WP:BRD" - so you were bold, it was reverted, then you did not discuss and establish consensus. In this case you didn't follow the BRD process. You have under 400 edits, and it's ok to make mistakes but I'll ask you again to not make largescale changes to this article against consensus Mujinga (talk) 16:08, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Any answer on this Ffaffff? Would be good to know you understand how BRD works. Mujinga (talk) 14:21, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I totally forgot about this thread (and I still don't get what SP00KYtalk's reply means).
Re:
WP:BRR
) and in the end we are here, on what I believe is current consensus.
If you or anyone else have different ideas on how to (and whether to) include Cospito's writings, please share (or edit, if you feel bold). In my opinion a link to the Anarchist Library is quite good withouth saddling the article. Ffaffff (talk) 15:04, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That reply is disingenuous, since the other option is to have a selected works section, as is normal for biographies. I've explained my reasoning above. Mujinga (talk) 11:16, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hey @W1tchkr4ft 00: I've re-added the writings since they are now referenced in the article, but I don't think we need to link to them, there's still the external link. Cheers! Mujinga (talk) 13:41, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. :) SP00KYtalk 22:52, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is censorship! Mujinga edits are just censorship! He deleted a lot of facts and even a lot of sources!

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alfredo_Cospito&diff=1136853308&oldid=1136729344 this edits are just censorship! Is this article or wikipedia owned by this user Mujinga? Why he constantly delete everything that he does not like or that do not underline how good is now this terrorist? All the data that was deleted was accompanied with major sources! They are facts! We are putting a lot of stuff about the "hunger strike" and we do not put the facts about the attacks made by him? This is just straight censorship 185.219.180.91 (talk) 14:13, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I dropped you a message on your talkpage, we can also discuss here. Feel free to explain the censorship. I was correcting spellings, removing unsourced claims and adding the sourced information that Cospito has been moved from Sardinia to Opera prison. Why would you have a problem with that? Mujinga (talk) 14:25, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Come on now this is just absurd and without even managing to be funny.. It was a mistake to ever entertain these 'people', I feel vindicated on this at least. SP00KYtalk 08:39, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yeah. That one is a COI editor: 185.219.180.91 is an IPv4 address owned by Armacarabinieri and located in Rome, Italy Mujinga (talk) 09:53, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And so was the one that was slapping tags on the article earlier: 185.219.180.93 is an IPv4 address owned by Armacarabinieri and located in Rome, Italy Mujinga (talk) 09:55, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
When these guys turned up I seen that all of one of their edits on IT Wikipedia are Carabinieri sucking articles. I am not at all surprised. Lol... Cops to stupid to use a basic proxy though, that's always a laugh.. :( SP00KYtalk 21:14, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
W1tchkr4ft 00, I can understand that you disagree with the comments or edits, and whatsoever, but not everyone on the internet knows how wikipedia works. The fact that you write "cops are too stupid to use a basic proxy, that's always a laugh" is shows exactly what kind of people you are. So cops are not entitiled to write on wikipedia just because you hate their job? Or you are pro-anarchism? That's not right guys. As I wrote before I did not participated to writing the article any more, because I cannot bother to start an infinite discussion and an edit war with you, but this kind of comments made me sick. This is not what Wikipedia is. I really regret that en.wiki is not moderated like other wikis. --Allions (talk) 17:18, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hunger Strike

This section of the article has become exactly a 'list article' of '[Date], thing happened. [Date], thing happened.', that I was seeking to avoid in the first place of careful editing of this fast moving section of the article and the reason I created the list above. Regardless and trying studiously to ignore of all this nonsense above I really do think this section of the article was in a higher quality a week ago and we would be better to return there. SP00KYtalk 21:19, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, Wikipedia is not a newspaper. If you think you can make an edit (possibly not a revert, since some of the new infos is genuinely encyclopedic), I would welcome it 21:32, 2 February 2023 (UTC) Ffaffff (talk) 21:32, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you both, but it's inevitable that as things change the article will receive updates. I've made some edits which hopefully will counter the '[Date], thing happened. [Date], thing happened' issue. I also would not revert back to a week ago since it's important to record for example the date of the appeal to the Supreme Court of Cassation. Overall I am very happy with the state of the article and I think it gives a decent biography of Alfredo Cospito for the people who are coming to wikipedia to find out who he is. Mujinga (talk) 11:04, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
eh, I am still VERY unhappy with this article but specifically this part.
But if no body else would like to do it, like I said before, I will leave it some time until these reactionary freaks leave and will hopefully attempt to at least re-create this part to something decent when all is calm here again.. SP00KYtalk 14:30, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

The lead should summarise the article, per

MOS:LEAD. Ffaffff you are trying to shoehorn the word terrorist in with different edits, why is that? Do you have a conflict of interest you need to declare? I am looking at the sources and I really don't see it. This time around, you have re-added the claim
with three citations: the West Point citation actually calls him an "anti-organization anarchist" and it's telling you had to search for two new citations, since already on the article we have a lot of sources calling him an anarchist, such as:

We also have (for example, the list goes on) these sources in English which we could add which call him simply an anarchist:

Even Breitbart, the most rightwing news source I could think of offhand and blacklisted here calls Cospito "An Italian anarchist" and "Far-left anarchist extremist" Mujinga (talk) 11:15, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO the word terrorist is right to be used here, maybe it could be used together with "anarchist" so both part can be happy. Is clearly not a normal "anarchist" but a convicted terrorist and that is verifiable by many sources (the verdict for example). --Allions (talk) 17:28, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your feedback Allions, the old version had “anarchist and terrorist”, an even older version had “convicted on terrorism charges. I believe either of them would work.
As I said I welcome your feedback Allions, I hope Mujinga will tell us their opinion. I was planning to ask for
WP:3O but since there are three of us now discussion, let us see if consensus can be reached. Ffaffff (talk) 21:26, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Nope - I am following MOS:TERRORIST here - "best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject". I reviewed the sources right above and it's clear it's not widely used. Mujinga (talk) 10:46, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I will not read "terrorist" or "convicted on terrorism charges" in, even though I believe it is the correct choice. I do this in an act of goodwill, to show you this is not my perfonal turf war against you. Please reply to Allions and let us see if we can reach consensus.
There were two more bold edits you made, one removing the "insurrectionary anarchist" label from the "early life" page, the second beefing up the hunger strike in the lead. I reverted both of them:
  • Cospito is an insurrectionary anarchist. He was investigated for insurrectionary anarchist, the sentence of his conviction talks about "insurrectionary anarchism", his allegiance (FAI) is an insurrectionary anarchist one, I can literally find 100 more citations on that. The fact that not every source calls him so is irrelevant. If I pick an article about Ronaldo he will be most likely described as "a football player", that 'does not mean he is not a winger. "But this article on 4-4-2 does not state it specifically" does not change the fact, Ronaldo is a winger, Cospito is an insurrectionary anarchist. Now, if you (being much more expert than me on anarchism) could find a source stating he is not an insurrectionary anarchist, I agree that we could add that this particular allegiange is disputed.
  • Lead.
    WP:DUE
    ) that the lead is fine as it was.
Again I do not aim to bain a pain in the proverbial ass. I do not have conflict of interests and I am sure you don't have them either. Ffaffff (talk) 22:06, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. We are not putting 'terrorist' in the lead. Every month I see this added in the lead of different articles and it is never not reverted. If this is a conversation you want to have go and do it somewhere else more broadly Manual of Style related, we're sticking with the norm of the site for this article, all your 'discussing' on this Talk page will not change this. SP00KYtalk 00:34, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Would "convicted on terrorism charges" be fine for you? If that is not acceptable either, would you be against including people from
Portal:Biographies and listening to their feedback? Ffaffff (talk) 06:27, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Suggestion to all

To everyone involved in editing this article (in particolar Ffaffff, Mujinga, SP00KYtalk aka W1tchkr4ft 00 - cause it seems that you guys are the most active contributors to this article).

May I suggest to disengage for a bit and leave the writing of this article to someone else? Before it become an edit war and personal attacks became bigger and louder... I can understand that you really "feel" this article but is this really worth? Everyone is entitled to have a different opinion, but wikipedia is not the place to convince others or to show it so strongly. As stated in the Wikipedia help page, "there are currently 6,613,409 articles on Wikipedia. Consider focusing your contributions on another article, where you can more easily make constructive edits.". Take this message as a "peace offering", and I include myself in the "list", even if my edits are nothing compared to yours. Shall we take a break and maybe come back in 1-2 months with our mind settled? Allions (talk) 17:37, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Words of wisdom! I do hope some other editor joins up, reaching consensus would be much much faster. If that happens, 100% I am out of here. Ffaffff (talk) 22:14, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lead2

After being reverted for summarising the article in the lead, per MOS:LEAD, I have made another attempt. Ffaffff you are using edit summaries to communicate, please use the talkpage instead. This will be the last time I reply to an edit summary, you said "Revert per MOS:LEADREL. "emphasis given to material should reflect its relative importance to the subject" 7 lines (on my browser) on hunger strike vs. 4 on trials is too much" in this edit, where you reduced the coverage of the hunger strike to 0.5 lines!? So Cospito is over 100 days without food, he is making media headlines worldwide and the Council of Ministers is calling an emergency meeting, and none of that is worth mentioning in the lead? Why do you think people are coming to read this article? Mujinga (talk) 23:54, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have made the most tactful lead edit, again as an act of goodwill: now the earlier part of his life is summarised in 42 words, the latter (hunger strike) in 26. I have separated it in two paragraphs. Is this acceptable to you?
"Why do you think people are coming to read this article?" This is exactly why we disagree on the edits: I believe this is material for wikinews, you don't. Maybe many people visit Berlusconi's article because of bunga bunga, but it is not mentioned in the lead.
Again, since we have already exhausted all kind of possible discussions, I think asking for a
WP:3O (specifically: lead, intro sentence) from people at Portal:Biography would be a good thing. Do you agree with me? Ffaffff (talk) 06:35, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
I've updated the article again and therefore the lead again too per
MOS:LEAD. I've said this already above, but we need to be presenting what the significant coverage in reliable sources says. I believe this is material for wikinews, you don't. Maybe many people visit Berlusconi's article because of bunga bunga, but it is not mentioned in the lead - this is the problem in a nutshell. Belief is irrelevant here, we need to follow the sources and if the coverage of bunga bunga is extensive enough, then yes it should be in Berlusconi's article lead, no matter what individual editors think. The eyes of more competent editors on this article would of course be welcome. Mujinga (talk) 13:34, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
I removed the part on Donzelli & C. A "Political scandal" that lasted a couple of days need not to be on Wikipedia but on Wikinews. Plus, "illegally" is libelous until there is a trial.
I still believe the main problem with this otherwise good article is
WP:RECENTISM. Ffaffff (talk) 19:34, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Woops the last unlogged edit in the page ('removed unencyclopedic material') was me. Ffaffff (talk) 07:53, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Short description: third opinion

Hello, I would like to ask for a

Short descritption
.

What to put as the introductory sentence:

  • "Alfredo Cospito (born 1967) is an Italian anarchist."; OR
  • "Alfredo Cospito (born 1967) is an Italian anarchist convicted on terrorism charges."

Reasoning for both options can be found above (Lead and Lead2 sections), but to summarise them:

  • for "Italian anarchist" a majority of the press refer to him as "an anarchist" rather than "a terrorist" or "anarchist terrorist". We should follow what reliable sources use to refer to him.
  • for "Italian anarchist convicted on terrorism charges": the fact that he has been convicted on terrorism charges is undisputed in reliable sources. The terror attacks and convictions are what made him first notable.

Ffaffff (talk) 19:25, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Mujinga: I have drafted this request for a third opinion. Do you find it reasonable and balanced enough? Ffaffff (talk) 19:29, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Mujinga: Are you still watching this space? Would you please review my 3O request? Ffaffff (talk) 20:40, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would recommend the shorter version. It serves to disambiguate, more than to summarise. They should be "
WP:SDFORMAT. It is OK if the short description does not indicate what he is notable for. That said, I am not expressing a strong opinion here, both are valid, 49 characters is above average, but not in the problematic range (100+). Getting a 4th opinion or 5th, would be reasonable, if anyone cares, I don't see this as an important editorial decision. CT55555(talk) 23:41, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Thanks for your feedback. It is ok, when (and if) new editors will engage, they can voice their opinion. Ffaffff (talk) 07:40, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's just a guy or two attepting their harest to make this article their narritive. There is no point in talking about length or formating or etc until these 'people' leave and we can get the article back to working order. To be very frank. SP00KYtalk 18:04, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I agree, it's pathetic. Drop the stick Ffaffff. Edits such as this unexplained deletion of "There have been demonstrations and attacks in support of Cospito" from the lead are clearly biased and go against MOS:LEAD, as already explained above. Mujinga (talk) 19:41, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think the word "terrorist" is the right word, but the lead sentence could read:
Alfredo Cospito (born 1967) is an Italian anarchist who is in prison for a gun attack on the CEO of Italian nuclear power company
Ansaldo Nucleare
in 2012, and the bomb attacks against a Carabinieri police school in Fossano in 2006.
That summarizes who the person is and they're notable. The editors here more familiar with this person can adjust the wording. I hope this helps. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 05:52, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank for your contribution, it would work for me Ffaffff (talk) 11:33, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cardiac arrest

From il Corriere: "And indeed medical sources tend to downplay what happened, speaking only of a moment of fatigue immediately overcome with the potassium supplement. After all, it has been months now that Cospito's health condition has alarmed doctors without, however, ever reaching a level of real life-threatening.".

It might or might have not happened, but his lawyer is not an "reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." I am reverting it. Ffaffff (talk) 13:56, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think there may be some confusion as to what constitutes an
undue weight to certain viewpoints, feel free to cite il Corriere's comments as a contrast, but I think removing information about the medical emergency entirely is the wrong move. -- Grnrchst (talk) 15:19, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
This is a disruptive editor who does not act in sincerity. Just as a heads up so you know. You can look through the page history or ask Mujinga, if this claim sounds dubious or personal. Keep up your amazing work on this website, Grnchst. <3 SP00KYtalk 16:24, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I agree, it's just another example of Ffaffff arguing from false premises. Mujinga (talk) 13:20, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So be it, I will add "il Corriere" comments. Ffaffff (talk) 16:34, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wow @Ffaffff: yet again I have to tell you that competence is required for editing wikipedia. Even whilst I'm correcting English language errors that you have repeatedly introduced to the text, you remove cardiac arrest from the lead despite this very discussion and what's worse leaving "Cospito has declared his willingness to die and in March 2023" - which in case you cannot see, is not grammatical. Please self-revert. You clearly do not understand that MOS:LEAD says a lead should summarise the article and I do think someone with less than 500 edits should listen to the chorus of voices telling you repeatedly that your interpretation of policy is wrong. Mujinga (talk) 15:00, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for engaging here instead of reverting. Can you tell me what's wrong with "The court found that only by chance the two explosions resulted in no casualties"? And what is the grammatical purpose of "because" in "The Supreme Court of Cassation changed the sentence to "political massacre", upgrading it from 20 years in prison to life without parole because, although no one was been killed in the attack."
I will correct the error I introduced in the lead. Ffaffff (talk) 15:03, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've already asked you before not to communicate by edit summary. You are way over 3RR now and you haven't self-reverted as I asked, so I have reported you for edit warring. Mujinga (talk) 15:34, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lead section /III

"In his twenties, Cospito refused to continue military service after being conscripted."

Is this lead section material?

WP:LEAD
: "The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies."

Is dodging draft what Cospito is notable for? Does it identify the topic? Is it an important point (say, more important than running a tattoo shop)? Ffaffff (talk) 11:30, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ffaffff is a problematic editor

Ok let's call a spade a spade. Ffaffff is a problematic editor and is wasting other editors' time now, as we can see from all the debatea above.

  • 1 Introducing copyright violations

This is really annoying, I have already warned them previously about this in February and been brushed off. We can't have close paraphrasing on wikipedia. Yet when I change it I get reverted back. It's quite clear," a minor one to lure cadets out" is too close to "to lure the soldiers out." and yet I was reverted.

  • 2 Battleground mentality

I had to report Ffaffff for editwarring after they changed the lead I was working on five times in 24 hours. Luckily for them this wasn't seen as a violation of 3RR, but then the very next day my changes to the lead were reverted by Ffafff after just 16 minutes!?

Reverting my edits because of "english" does not work when Ffaffff is a nonnative english speaker and repeatedly introduces errors due to a bad understanding of English grammar.

Changing the lead from "Cospito's lawyers reported" to "Cospito's lawyers alleged" is just POV pushing, despite the previous section Talk:Alfredo_Cospito#Cardiac_arrest

Editwarring over the phrase " the bomb could potentially have harmed people" is also strange, this is redundant because we already have the clause "In the opinion of the court, it was only by luck that nobody had died" just before it. And the massacre against the state charge does not rely on it, so it's again redundant.

  • 4 SPA

All of Ffaffff's recent edits are to this article. Makes it look like a SPA, especially when they only have under 500 edits total. Ffaffff I suggest you edit elsewhere, there are plenty of other pages if you want to improve the encyclopedia. Mujinga (talk) 10:07, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think fingerpointing is conductive to discussion, so please feel free to copy this to my talk page if you want to engage. Here I will just reply to matters related to the article:
  • copyviol: I find that "to lure the soldiers out" is in copyright violation of "a minor one to lure cadets out" puzzling. Your edit misses the mark on "why were the bomb made to explode in such and such way". This is prominent in the quoted article and in my opinion should be stated in the article. Since you care about copyright violation, I will make an edit to readd the information, but without infringing the intellectual property of "to lure the soldiers out". You also axed a perfectly valid source while removing the copyviol bits; I assume it was by mistake.
  • English: if you find my edits unidiomatic or there are grammar errors, please feel free to correct them! I am glad and the readers of the article will be glad too.
  • "the bomb could potentially have harmed people" bit. You say "And the massacre against the state charge does not rely on it, so it's again redundant." This is your
    WP:OR, but The Court of cassation
    specifically considers it in its judicial reasoning, so yeah it is important. I will add more sources and see if we can reach consensus on the matter.
  • POV pushing on cardiac arrest: the court does not agree with Cospito's lawyer, so imho "allegedly" works fine. I have modified the sentence to "In March 2023, Cospito's lawyers reported he had suffered a cardiac arrest (a claim deemed not credible by the court) and Cospito declared his willingness to die.", but in my opinion is not at all relevant in the lead section, so I would simply reword it to "In March 2023, Cospito's declared his willingness to die." or even better, remove the whole sentence.

I have finished making my edits, let me know what you think. Let us focus on the subject matter and not on the editors.

Ffaffff (talk) 11:11, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Some of what I wrote above does not apply anymore, consensus was reached through editing. I still believe some part of the page, especially about the hunger strike, do not belong to an encyclopedia (
WP:NOTEVERYTHING) but to Wikinews. Ffaffff (talk) 22:12, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
(Personal attack removed)

The current version is the consensus version I would say.

  • 1 Introducing copyright violations - Ffafff it seems you have not acknowledged yet the importance of not introducing copyright violation
  • 2 Battleground mentality - wikilawyering over a curly apostrophe is silly. Repeatedly adding info about what the Court of cassation says in a section about the Supreme Court judgement is plain wrong, hence me saying it's redundant.
  • 3 POV pushing - still going on -
    WP:SEALION
    - "When they are unable to refute discussion on the talk page against their point of view, they will say the discussion is original research"
  • 4 SPA - also still the case. Mujinga (talk) 14:14, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not in concensus with this version. Maybe I am mistaken but i am deeply concerned with the way the bombing section presents the crime as compared to how it is portrayed in for example the Rai3 reporting which has recently done the media rounds. SP00KYtalk 17:19, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Welcome back. Is the video available anywhere without a paywall? Ffaffff (talk) 19:17, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And again....

Detaching fixed!
I am still waiting for you to engage on how "In his twenties, he refused conscription to military service and was convicted of desertion, then pardoned after going on hunger strike for one month." goes along with "The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies." Ffaffff (talk) 09:36, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm honestly not sure if this is trolling at this point. Yes I do think it is relevant that someone notable for a 2022-3 hunger strike also made a hunger strike in the 1990s. I also think hunger strike should be linked in the lead. Do you disagree? Mujinga (talk) 13:44, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And again ...

Ffafff i see a strong pattern of you coming to this article one hour after someone else has edited it, then making a poor edit which is then reverted. Can I suggest you take this page off your watchlist and maybe edit elsewhere, maybe try to either review a good article nomination or bring an article to good article status? That's a decent way to learn how to follow wikipedia guidelines. Mujinga (talk) 13:51, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries

@W1tchkr4ft 00, you just reverted my edits, all of them, with an edit summary stating just "leave."

It was nine edits, can I ask you to state what you did not like about them, specifically? You were already asked not to bash other contributors, but to describe the edit in edit summaries.

Example: what is wrong about this edit which removes a typo? Why did you revert it? Ffaffff (talk) 05:35, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No answer, I will reinstate the edits. Ffaffff (talk) 05:55, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

41-bis and hunger strike // Solidarity actions.

Hey. I wanted to add a sub-section on Solidarity actions towards the hunger strike as they have been highly spectacularized and reported on by the media machine. We already have a lot in it so it would mostly just be formating, maybe adding a little extra. Just wanted to get the go ahead and opinions here first, i usually avoid contentious articles and do not want to waste my time on something that could just be reverted. Cheers. SP00KYtalk 18:05, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind splitting it first in one edit and then eventually add stuff in a second edit? I frankly don't believe we should add anything more (rather, remove), but a split could be helpful to navigate the article Ffaffff (talk) 20:00, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi W1tchkr4ft 00 yeah that sounds great at the moment we have a bit about international solidarity and very little about the protests in Italy, only really "More than 200 criminal lawyers and jurists signed a petition condemning the judicial treatment of Cospito.[9][29] In protest, anarchist groups held demonstrations in Bologna, Turin and Rome" - we sort of stopped adding information about that back in Feb, now would be a good time indeed to review the sources. By the way, I reverted your mention of "interrupting" the hunger strike since it wasn't in the sources. Cheers, Mujinga (talk) 08:06, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think that was necessary? Counter-productive edit. It is like i said what both thet MSM and the milieue media is saying. If you do not know then just add a CN or leave it until someone else does. It is better to have a CN than to have a statement that is false or inaccurate... I do not think this is a contentious opinion. SP00KYtalk 18:26, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Having checked with some native Italian speakers I think you are getting confused by machine translation into thinking "interrumpo" means interrupted, when he has stopped the strike. Mujinga (talk) 11:44, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Alfredo_Cospito&oldid=1195634282"