Talk:Bologna massacre

"political climate in which the massacre occurred"

The introduction to the article includes this phrase: "political climate in which the massacre occurred". What exactly was the political climate being referred to? Does the "strategy of tension" refer to the right-wing administration's tactic of blaming Palestinian groups in order to create sympathy for Italian authoritarianism? macscam (talk) 20:59, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

cold war?

I don't think that this article can be related to cold war. Ok, the years of this terrorist attack are in cold war, but black terrorism isn't an cold war related content. P.s. the importance of this article is more than "Mid": there are celebrations and memories of this day.--87.14.248.117 (talk) 18:41, 6 May 2009 (UTC) (Marcopete87)

It is. "Years of lead" and the s.c. "Strategy of tension" are products of cold war in the Italian context, involving confrontation between the 2 blocks and often with connection to them (secret services, P2, Gladio, NATO, etc.)--84.220.98.178 (talk) 23:18, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

No mention of contemporary reactions and blame?

Not a word about who received the initial blame and who the media blamed at the time?Nunamiut (talk) 16:35, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

The crack in the wall is not left as is but created on purpose

"a deep crack in the main wall has been left as is". This is incorrect. The crack was purposely created, to commemorate the victims, when rebuilding the hall. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.210.94.136 (talk) 20:40, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Improvised explosive devices

This fad of calling things "improvised explosive devices" is just ridiculous. It's a bomb. They've been called bombs for centuries, why the sudden desire to make up this long-winded jargon when the previous word was completely satisfactory? I suggest removing this unnecessary term from the article; using terms such as this give the article a sense of being overwhelmed in beurocracy.Owen214 (talk) 14:08, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I wish to add my voice against the puffed-up jargonism of "improvised explosive device" as a phrase that means "bomb". The phrase "improvised explosive device" is Orwellian and sinister, a cloak over ignorance and incompetence. When "experts" have enough "high-level training and expertise" that all they know is the "officially correct" phrase to use instead of "bomb", does it mean that they know who the members of the organization that planted the bomb are? Does it mean that they know how to find those members? Does it mean that they know how to stop them and how to avoid the next BOMB going off? NO! They say "improvisded explosive device" in order to sound like they KNOW something when they don't know ANYTHING, in order to convince the public that some sophisticated high-level expert analysis is going on when all that's going on is the production of glossaries of high-tone terminology. People who say "Improvised Explosive Device" are simply trying to sound smarter than they really are. Such PURELY ideological and bad-intentioned choices of language have NO place in an encyclopedia that is supposed to be ideologically neutral. I am not sophisticated enough to do this but can't someone devise a "bot" that looks for "Improvised Explosive Device" on all Wikipedia pages and replaces it with plain old non-jargon "bomb"?69.86.239.244 (talk) 09:46, 2 October 2010 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson