|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
whoever purports to convince the world that cossiga believes 9/11 to have been a conspiracy is a fool, and doesn't know the first thing about the temperament of one of the finest italian statesmen of the 20th century. I am ashamed that wikipedia has allowed itself to sink to such low depths. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 01:20, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
- As a native Italian speaker and a person who is used to late president Cossiga's extremely dry sense of humour in the media, I definitely agree about his having intended to sound sarcastic. He was poking fun at the left.184.108.40.206 (talk) 15:02, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- I added the word ironic to let the reader understand the statement was ironic, the word know in it means think--Sumail (talk) 10:35, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- There is no indication in reliable sources that the statement would have been ironic. 13:33, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
I introduced this section because the news I moved there doesn't seem to me so important to be included in the page. Still, I didn't want to erase it without listening to other opinions. Let me know. Cviviani —Preceding undated comment added 11:35, March 23, 2006 (UTC).
- I don`t agree with you. Important news should be added.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 9:49, October 19, 2007 (UTC)
What exactly defines a "conspiracy notion" do you think you might want to restate that as "alternative theories" and repost. You have basically used a common misnomer to slander this person. The word conspiracy does not equate to an invalid notion, because people conspire to do things all the time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tamzarian (talk • contribs) 21:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Warning! Ironic statement.
- There is nothing even close to satire within, quite opposite, it is inline with Mr. Cossigas previous remarks, such as he made in 2001 when he stated:
- The mastermind of the attack must have been a “sophisticated mind, provided with ample means not only to recruit fanatic kamikazes, but also highly specialized personnel. I add one thing: it could not be accomplished without infiltrations in the radar and flight security personnel.”
- Please do not reinsert such warnings; we are not here to issue those, honestly. Tachyonbursts (talk) 03:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
- sure warnings should not be on wikipedia. however people who don't know Cossiga might think he really believes what he says in that interview, and for whoever is remotely aware of the role of Cossiga in Italian politics and of his thinking he was clearly being provocative. As very often he does. so I believe that, in some way, the reader should be warned - otherwise he could be misleaded.
'Statements to Corriere della Sera regarding 9/11' section
On reading the abovenamed section, it seems by using such a large blockquote, we are potentially in violation of copyright. Furthermore, the material appears to be on the extreme fringe of relevance as far as a biographical article of the subject is concerned. I feel it should be removed. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 06:49, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
- I'd suggest paring it down to a paragraph, but not removing it completely. More importantly, this article leaves out that he was -only teasing- when he made those statements. Basically what happened is that this story got picked up by some alternative media in the U.S., which translated his statements without irony, and then all that got seized on by the "Truther" movement. We should probably have just a paragraph of source X said A, source Y said B, so as to demystify the conspiracy theory. I think we can get the undue weight problems fixed with careful wording. Squidfryerchef (talk) 23:43, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
- I don't see any irony in the Italian wording of Cossiga's statement, as reported in Corriere della Sera. Maybe we should consult a native Italian speaker on this matter. 02:13, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
- The blockquote is stylistically awkward and should be replaced by a description of what Cossiga said, possibly with shorter inline quotes from the article. It is probably not easy to reach consensus on how to paraphrase what he said (this may well be the reason why there is just a verbatim quote at the moment). Therefore, I suggest to discuss proposals for an alternate text on this talk page here, before changing the article itself. Quotes in Italian may be added in the footnotes. I do not think there is a copyright problem with the current quote, however. 02:07, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
- Irony or no, I don't see any particular biographical relevance. He may indeed have said it, but either there is too little context to indicate its relevance, or there just isn't any relevance. It's a very awkward passage in its current guise, not just stylistically, although I agree on that point too. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 03:16, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
- There was no irony in Cossiga's words. The occasion was a video by Osama Bin Laden in which Al Qaeda included some threats regarding Silvio Berlusconi. Cossiga said that this video was a fake, produced by Mediaset (Berlusconi's TV company) and given to Al-Jazeera just to allow Berlusconi gain some local consensus as an alleged potential target of terrorist attacks. This was the main argument of the interview, indeed, and he talked about 9/11's alleged responsibilities just to enforce his opinion. Even if Cossiga was not new to extravagant "revelations", this one is a bit thicker than the other ones, given its content and considering that it came from a former head of state (and a faithful American ally, too); whatever one may conclude (true or false) about it, I believe that it's therefore not irrelevant at all, so IMHO it should be kept inside the article. --g (talk) 23:54, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
there was never any irony or sarcasm in his expression, he saw the 9/11 attacks as many other wise people definitely as an inside job. come on people, we have 2010, don't ignore science! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 05:29, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- Science DOES NOT support the notion of 9/11 as an inside job. Crackpot delusionalists, anti-Americans, anti-westererners, anti-Israelis and anti-Semites do. ----DanTD (talk) 03:41, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
I have corrected what was not exactly the best example of written English on Wikipedia. I am very ignorant regarding Italian politics and am of the opinion that some of the content here is rather dubious. I was left at odds with the use of abbreviations for the party names; I do not know the names of Italian political parties and thus could not clarify their abbreviations. --Île flottante (talk) 22:57, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
- Most of the article contains correct data, it was the person to be intimately controversial. I was trying to add more sources, but currently most search results lead to obituaries, which have more or less all the same content and don't go too much in depth. However, as said, the article is correct. For strange it might seem :-) --g (talk) 00:03, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
where are the proofs????????=
"In 1977, when Cossiga was minister of internal affairs, police squads organized by Cossiga shot against a demonstration in Rome, killing student Giorgiana Masi. Cossiga for many years stated that she was killed by her companions"
there aren't any real proofs that giorgiana masi was killed by a policeman! probably someone is confusing cossiga for pinochet, or italy for a fascist latin american dictatorship! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Axe84 (talk • contribs) 16:14, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Addition to 'Controversial Statements'?
Notable quote on the Agent Provocateur page : "Francesco Cossiga, former head of secret services and Head of state of Italy, advised the 2008 minister in charge of the police, on how to deal with the protests from teachers and students:
He should do what I did when I was Minister of the Interior. [...] infiltrate the movement with agents provocateurs inclined to do anything [...] And after that, with the strength of the gained population consent, [...] beat them for blood and beat for blood also those teachers that incite them. Especially the teachers. Not the elderly, of course, but the girl teachers yes."