Talk:Propaganda Due/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

WP:Verifiability#Dubious sources

Wikipedia Verifiability: Dubious sources reads:

• Claims that are attested only by a source or sources which rely on guilt by association are not considered verifiable. Verifiability requires a source and direct evidence which specifically identifies a person or organization as having engaged in a negative behavior. This is especially true of claims which infer information from membership in an organization and from activities of others associated with that organization. An example, Smith and Jones are Knights of the Garter. Smith kills his wife. It is inappropriate when writing an article about Jones to include information like this, "Smith, also a member of the Knights of the Garter, killed his own wife" under the heading "Crimes of Jones." Most uses of guilt by association are more subtle than this example, but share the characteristic of using inference from known information to attempt to establish a fact about which there is no direct evidence.

This article reads:

• Also interviewed, Ibrahim Razin claimed that three days before Swedish prime minister's Olof Palme's assassination, in 1986, Philip Guarino, member of the Republican circle around George H.W. Bush, received a telegram signed by Licio Gelli and sent by one of his men, Ortolani, from "one of the southernmost regions of Brazil". The telegram said: "Tell our friend that the Swedish palm will be felled."

The source for the guilt by association smear tactic of the Republican Party and George H.W. Bush is here. It is authored by the Rt. Hon. Chip Berlet, and reads:

• "Guarino is linked in published accounts.... This has been reverted. nobs 21:32, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I Think it should be mentioned that P2 has nothing what so ever to do with the Freemasons. P2 is only using the masonic front as a cover.

Also Berlusconi is not P2 (to my knowledge) he is a member of Opus Dei which is a bit different.--Sneaking Viper 01:20, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Concerns about plagiarism and copyright violations.

While checking on the verasity of some of the material in this article, I have discovered that large chunks of it are identical to the P2 article found at Reference.com. [1]. Please note that the content of Reference.com is copywrited. Reference.com makes this clear:

• 3. Rights in Site Content and the Site
• 3.1 All content provided by Lexico on the Site is protected by copyright, trademark, and other applicable intellectual property and proprietary rights laws and is owned, controlled, and/or licensed by Lexico. The Site is protected by copyright, patent, trademark, and other applicable intellectual property and proprietary rights laws and is owned, controlled, and/or licensed by Lexico. REFERENCE.COM™, DOCTOR DICTIONARY® and Lexico® are trademarks and, where indicated, registered trademarks of Lexico or its subsidiaries. SPELLING.COM™ is a trademark of Alan Berkovitz. All other trademarks appearing on the Site are the property of their respective owners.

• 3.2 You will not modify, publish, transmit, participate in the transfer or sale, create derivative works, or in any way exploit, any of the content, in whole or in part, found on the Site. You will download copyrighted content solely for your personal use, but will make no other use of the content without the express written permission of Lexico and the copyright owner. You will not make any changes to any content that you are permitted to download under this Agreement, and in particular you will not delete or alter any proprietary rights or attribution notices in any content. You agree that you do not acquire any ownership rights in any downloaded content.

• (Copied from http://www.reference.com/help/terms.html)

Thus, this article must be substantially re-written. This is an interesting topic, and I would hate to see it deleted by the admins. --Blueboar 18:54, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

No copyright problems

Please ignore my comments above, folks. It has been pointed out to me that the similarities between the two articles are due to reference.com's using this Article as its source (and cited this article) and not the other way around. In other words, they copied from us. There is no copyright violation at all. I apologize for the confusion, and for intimating that the people who wrote this article cut and pasted instead of doing their research. Keep up the good work. --Blueboar 23:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Founding

What's the source of P2 beginning in 1877? *Mark Lombardi: Global Networks, which is my main source for P2 (Lombardi did a number of drawings of the various Vatican Bank scandals), says that it was "consecrated in 1895". --maru (talk) contribs 06:14, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Dirty War?

Article emphasises the dirty war in the opening but makes no further mentions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.130.133.221 (talk) 22:38, April 10, 2006 (UTC)

Masonic?

The Grand Orient of Italy is not a recognized Grand Lodge of Freemasonry. As such, P2 is what is known in Masonry as a profane lodge, also known as a clandestine lodge, though this latter term does not denote secrecy, rather it refers to the surreptitious nature of pretender organizations to Freemasonry.

A Grand Lodge must have a valid charter origniating ultimately from one of the four founding Grand Lodges of Freemasonry of the British Isles (e.g. the United Grand Lodge of England, etc.). Propaganda Due, as a Lodge under the clandestine and unrecognized Grand Orient of Italy, is not affiliated with Freemasonry.

The true and official Masonic Grand Lodge of Italy is the Regular Grand Lodge of Italy, mutually recognized by all other regular Grand Lodges. P2 is and was therefore not affiliated with 'real' Masonry in any way. The members of P2 did copy several of the forms, rituals, and procedures of true Masonry, thereby leading to confusion, but any association with Ancient Free and Accepted Masonry is wholly false.

P2 was not part of the regional/national freemasonic organization, and various events and details reference the SMOM and the Vatican (at odds with Freemasonry).

Indeed, the Vatican strictly forbids Catholics from joining any recognized body of Freemasonry. Therefore, one who intends to or is initiated a member of the Regular Grand Lodge of Italy is forbidden by the Catholic Church from joining, but one who seeks membership in the Grand Orient of Italy is not. Hence why the latter organization in general and P2 in particular included members who were Archbishops and other ranking Vatican officials. Vatican officials would have been and are barred by the Catholic Church from joining 'real' Freemasonry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.56.130.231 (talk) 07:01, May 5, 2006 (UTC)

Please explain these subtilities details which escape layman's attention in the "Foundation" subsection, with as much clarity as you can. Tazmaniacs 05:54, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Request quote

I have removed the {{request quote}} tag since interpretation of the source is correct:

Per il sindacato in particolare, deve essere prioritario l'obiettivo della scissione dell'unità sindacale per poi consentire la riunificazione con i sindacati autonomi di quelle componenti confederali sensibili all'attuazione del Piano.

Mushroom (Talk) 15:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Huh?

operated in Italy from 1877-1981, headed by Licio Gelli, Gelli headed it for 104 years? Corvus cornix 22:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

POV tag

I've added a POV tag. Ibrahim Razin is in fact Oswald LeWinter, a known hoaxer. Intangible2.0 02:36, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Why? Because you say so? What are your sources? You can't run around wikipedia adding pov tags as with the Gelli article because you say so, and you like to undermine the other people who've worked on this article. I for once have little knowledge of the affairs involved here, but we wikipedias find it particularly impolite for people to tag whatever they don't like pov just because they say so, as proper little dictators. Without even bothering to argument their case, let alone ask for a concensus or inform other members. As with the article on Gelli, I was reading some wikipedia article's on Italian foreign policy and ended up here, only to find a pov tag on both which at first cast doubts on my reading these articles, only to find out that someone had decided to pov them out of a whim. I find this unacceptable, as I am sure other users will, and I am removing the pov tag. 84.254.51.229 07:09, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Please WP:AGF. That Razin is in fact LeWinter is provided for in a 1990 affidavit by Richard Brenneke. Intangible2.0 22:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I've the removed the stuff on Brenneke. See the various articles on Brenneke by Frank Snepp in The Village Voice. Intangible2.0 02:19, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Overcategorization

This article is overcategorized in "History of Argentina" and "Politics of Argentina", but it clearly does not belong in there (at least, not in the general categories, perhaps at a subcategory).

It is said that the category should be there because some politicians were members. That may be true, but it's still a very weak reason to categorize. The organization has never been radicated in Argentina, nor it has had any direct or notorious influence in any event or chain or events here. Can it be demostrated that their belonging to the secret society had any real and tangible influence in their administrations? At least, the article does not show it. It can not be compared with, for example, the active intervention of the foreigner Spruille Braden in the politics of Argentina.

Categorization criteria is not transitive. That the National Reorganization Process is an important topic of History of Argentina, that Massera is an important topic of the National Reorganization Process and that this secret society is an important topic of Massera, does not mean that this secret society may be an important topic of History of Argentina. Even the relation of it with Massera could be challenged as a categorizational criteria, by WP:OC ("Non-defining or trivial characteristic" and "Opinion about a question or issue")

General categories like those ones should have only the most important and key elements. "History of Argentina" should be limited to historical periods, founding fathers, defining events or concepts such as independence or constitutions, etc. Filling it with hundreds of cuasi-related articles is discouraged at the 9º guideline of Wikipedia:Categorization#Some general guidelines Benito Sifaratti (talk) 16:43, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this is an inappropriate categorization. If P2 played a roll in the history and politics of Argentina, a more direct connection needs to be made in the article (properly cited to reliable sources of course). Otherwise take out the categorization. Blueboar (talk) 17:18, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

P2 Notability

It seems there are about 50 names under the P2 list which aren't even notable enough for their own Wikipedia page, but they are all bracketed to link to pages that don't exist. Why not simply remove them all? 68.229.185.47 (talk) 07:55, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I am not happy about having this list at all. The citation is incomplete, and I am not sure it would be reliable even if it were. I am also concerned that the list may have WP:BLP issues (by inclusion, the inference is that they were involved in the various scandals that P2 was involved with)... Is there any other evidence that these people were members? Are any of these people on record as denying their membership? Perhaps we should just talk about the list without naming names. Blueboar (talk) 21:10, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Good point. What I would like to see is a reference to every member on the list, which did exist - that is beyond doubt. But it is not clear that every person mentioned here was actually on the "official list". References pleases. Was the person mentioned in the Italian parliamentary inquiry or not. As its is now the source of the names mentioned is not clear. - Mafia Expert (talk) 00:54, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the long list, per WP:BLP... but left the section intro that talks about Gelli's list. That intro needs better sourcing itself, but at least we are not dealing with BLP issues. If we are to mention any specific names, we need the highest quality sources. Blueboar (talk) 12:38, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Gelli's list

We currently note that "The list is in book 1, tome 1, pp 803-874 and 885-942, and in book 1, tome 2, p. 213 and p. 1126 "... which is all well and good, but... book 1 of what? We need more info for this to be verifiable. Blueboar (talk) 21:09, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Well two sources were added in responce to my comment above... neither of which are acceptable. One was simply a link to the Italian version of Wikipedia (Not a reliable source by our rules). The other was to an Italian website site that seems to contain the Italian government's report on P2... but that site does not include any list or support the whole "book, tome, page" information.

Given the problems we have had with sourcing this section properly, I am going to remove the entire thing. I don't object to including discussing Gelli's list in the article, but, given the controvercial nature of the topic (and its tie to all sorts of conspiracy theories), I insist that any such discussion must be sourced to VERY reliable sources that explicitly support any statements made. Blueboar (talk) 18:32, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

This is ridiculous, the report quoted clearly supports the fact that a list has been found in possession of Gelli. Although the list is not in the electronic copies of the report on the internet, it is in the hard copies. Many names that are in the list are mentioned in the report, such as Berlusconi, Sindona, etc. I am sorry that does not fit in your apology of freemasonry, but the facts cannot be dismissed. - Mafia Expert (talk) 18:49, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I don't doubt that the list was found... and I may have over reacted in deleting the entire section... But this section has caused so many problems with verification that I think it would be better to whipe it and start fresh. What I am trying to get is a good solid source that actually says the list was found. Please tell me where in the link provided it does this, so I can check it and format the citations properly.

As for your assertion that the list is in the hard copy... It may be... but have you personally seen this hard copy list? If not, you can not assume that a given name is on it. We need a highly reliable source that verifies what names are on it (preferably the list itself). Blueboar (talk) 22:24, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

As a second issue... there is an assumption being made here that Gelli's rolodex (which is what the list is) is a list of members. As the article points out in the previous section, there is no basis for that assumption. Instead of saying that they are "Notable members", the best we can do is say that they are: "Notable people found on Gelli's rolodex and assumed to be members". Blueboar (talk) 16:09, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

If you buy me a ticket to Rome I will have no problem to make copies of the list and the report. For those interested the discussion continues on Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Propaganda Due list of members. - Mafia Expert (talk) 16:00, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

In other words, no... you have not seen the list and do not know what names are actually on it. Blueboar (talk) 16:10, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Can't you read? One source says the list is a COMBINATION of the list and Gelli's Rolodex. The list can be found here and here, as well as in the Italian Wikipedia. The names seem to be consistent. As for the notable members mentioned in this article, they all have a second reference as I already mentioned here. These references are not from the "tabloid press", as you implied, but news sources such as The Economist, The Independent, The Guardian, Pagina 12, as well as reliable books by a well known journalist and a respected academic Paul Ginsborg. I could also add a range of Italian newspapers such as La Repubblica, Corriere della Sera, as well as even more books, such as La Loggia P2 by Sergio Flamigni (a member of the P2 parliamentary inquiry commission), which carries a copy of the list. - Mafia Expert (talk) 16:49, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can tell (admittedly from my high school level fluency in Italian), neither the stragi site nor the archivo900 site give any hint as to how they compiled their list or what their editorial process is, so I can not accept them as reliable sources. And Italian version of Wikipedia is definitely not RS. As for the various newspapers ... some of them are indeed reliable in general terms... but I have to question whether they are reliable for this. They simply repeat the accusation that these men were members ... but once again, they do not say where they got their information.

Look, There are two issues here... 1) Verifying that a given person was actually on Gelli's list, and 2) Verifying that being on the list means that the person was actually a member of P2. Given that (as the previous section points out) many of those on Gelli's list have denied their involvement in P2, we need more than an accusation to state in our article that they actually were members.

I am not trying to be unresonable... I am more than open to exploring some other way to approach this. For example, I could certainly see listing those who have admitted to being members (citing an RS for that admission), or those convicted of being involved in the scandals (citing a reliable source for that conviction)... but as it currently stands I continue to have all sorts of problems. Simply listing people as "notable members" is not acceptable. I have no problem with discussing the fact Gelli had a list, or a rolodex, or what ever... nor with saying that prominent people were on it... but I do have concerns with saying that any specific person was on his list or that being on it means they were members of P2. Blueboar (talk) 17:31, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I think you are unreasonable. I have given enough evidence that the list is reliable and that the members listed in the article were on it, with additional references of reliable sources. I also included a warning in the article that the list should be considered with caution. I think that covers your worries. Look, there are numerous sources for the people mentioned, I can plaster the whole article with more and more references and sources, but I doubt if that ever will satisfy you. If you want to add something that the P2 issue is abused by all kind of silly conspiracy theories, go ahead (provided you add a reliable source of course). - Mafia Expert (talk) 17:49, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I disagree... and as long as it is just the two of us, I doubt we will reach a compromise. Which was why I asked the good folks at BLPN to drop by and take a look. Blueboar (talk) 17:58, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I guess you are right for once. However, since you are an admitted freemason I think you should seriously reconsider your involvement in this issue, ever heard of "conflict of interest" and WP:POV. - Mafia Expert (talk) 19:15, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Red Herring... I am indeed a Freemason, but there is no conflict of interest. For one thing, I belong to a completely different branch of Freemasonry (It is sort of like claiming that a Catholic has a conflict of interest editing an article about a sex scandal involving a Protestant minister, simply because the editor is Christian). For another, a Mason editing articles that relate to Masonry is like a Jew editing articles related to Judaism, a member of the US Marine Corp editing articles related to the Armed Forces, or a banker editing articles related to finance. It is a natural reason to be interested in the topic.

But, don't take my word for it... go complain at WT:COI if you really think I have a conflict. I don't think you will get very far. Several people have tried the "Masons have a COI in editing articles about Masonry" argument before... it has been shot down every time.

In fact, If you think I am editing from a biased POV here... please do report me. I try very hard to edit as a Wikipedian and not as a Mason. Blueboar (talk) 21:03, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Suggested compromise

I have been bold and moved the paragraph that contains the caveats about Gelli's list into the first paragraph of the section. I think doing this is best as it warns readers right off the bat that being on the list does not necessarily equate to membership. Then we can go on to say that the Italian government considered the list genuine, that it considers these people to be members, etc. Then we can discuss who was on it. I think this is an accurate and fair approach that is backed by the sources. In addition I have changed the section headers... removing the unverifiable definitive assertion that the people on the list were members, and instead saying that there was a list, and the following notable people were on it... which is (somewhat) verifiable. ME... can you live with this as a compromise?

I can live with this, seems a fair compromise. - Mafia Expert (talk) 15:57, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. See... I am not completely unreasonable! :>) Best, and good editing. Blueboar (talk) 16:05, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Neither am I, however what I don't quite understand your last change: A list, "presumably" of adherents. You claim that there are "subsequent denials". Which denials are you talking about, do you have any examples? Referenced examples? - Mafia Expert (talk) 19:35, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Given that later on in the article we say: "Many on the list were apparently never asked if they wanted to join P2, and it is not known to what extent the list includes members who were formally initiated into the lodge. Since 1981, some of those on the list demonstrated their distance from P2 to the satisfaction of the Italian legal system." I don't think we can say the list was definitively a list of "adherents"... it certainly was presumed to be a list of adherents (by lots of people, including the Italian goverment), but we can not say it was a list of adherents as long as there is some doubt (which we admit there is). I am more than open to alternative suggestion on how to word this. Blueboar (talk) 20:47, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll think about it. That section needs to be rewritten completely, because it contains mistakes (it was the investigation into Michele Sindona not Calvi that triggerd the discovery), overlaps with the later section about the list and is unreferenced. I don't have the time at the moment, however, to take care of it. - Mafia Expert (talk)

No problem... I will leave it in your court for now. Blueboar (talk) 23:56, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Your recent edit on this is perfect... thanks. Blueboar (talk) 15:42, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Masonic in what sense?

Could this rather be considered a group of prominent people, who belonged to a fraternal organisation, rather than an actual "masonic" organisation. It seems completely bizzare that a Continental Masonic organisation would have anti-communism as a strong focus. Especially when you consider the history of the Grand Orient of France and the Grand Orient of Spain, with the perpetuation of revolutions against society. - Yorkshirian (talk) 23:22, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Nope... It was Masonic... in the sense that Propaganda Due was an actual Masonic Lodge, under warrent from the Grand Orient of Italy. It remained so until the Grand Orient pulled its charter (After that, it became a "clandestine" Lodge, opperating without official licence). Yes, it was used for un-Masonic purposes, in un-Masonic ways, and taken well beyond what is acceptable in Freemasonry... but it was more than "just a group of prominent people who happened to belong to a fraternal organisation". Blueboar (talk) 02:03, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Article lead has libelous claim, if not sourced

While I suspect that finding a source should be easy enough, I am very uncomfortable with the article lead saying that the organization was "operating illegally", without documentation from a clear and reliable source. I'm going to put a "citation needed" template on it, and I hope someone can take care of it properly. Area of concern: "operating illegally (in contravention of Italian constitutional laws banning secret lodges, and membership of government officials in secret membership organizations) from 1976 to 1981". Thank you! - CRedit 1234 (talk) 04:58, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Before you add something read the full article. Thank you. - DonCalo (talk) 07:35, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Indeed... the fact that P2 was operating illegally (from both a masonic perspective and in terms of Italian law) is cited later in the article. We normally don't cite material in the lede of an article, because the lede is supposed to be a quick summary of what is stated (and cited) later in the article. Blueboar (talk) 14:56, 3 April 2010 (UTC)