Talk:Roberto Vannacci

He was not "dismissed from the military" as the previous version mentioned - in fact, on the 3rd of December 2023 was appointed Chief of Staff of the Land Operational Forces Command https://www.rainews.it/articoli/2023/12/vannacci-diventa-capo-di-stato-maggiore-delle-forze-terrestri-il-generale-ero-sicuro-134263e7-f667-45e1-a37e-3608b3c7c8f4.html 82.44.36.44 (talk) 07:23, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

This article is false. General Vannacci has never held anti-Semitic positions. In his books the Jews or Israel are never mentioned. It is also false that General VAnnacci expressed discriminatory views on legal immigrants, homosexuals and environmentalists. It is clear that the author of the article did not read Vannacci's books. He based his article on press articles against Vannacci — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.77.252.221 (talk) 12:32, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Remember: Wikipedia is far-left.— Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-13995-8 (talk)

Hello @~2026-24635-2! I realize what you were talking about now -- how would you feel about this change, instead of removing the paragraph altogether?

I removed the Facebook archive and reformatted the Repubblica reference. What do you think? tony 14:24, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Ok, remove the Facebook source.— Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-27484-6 (talk)

@TonySt: so?

Really? You trust secondary sources and not a primary source? So, for example, if a book about global warming written by an activist claims that it's a current problem, and nine reliable secondary sources say that the book doesn't claim that, when in fact it does, do you add to that activist's article the secondary sources claiming he didn't write what he wrote in the book? Are you kidding, or are these really the policies of the English Wikipedia? ~2026-40660-0 (talk) 12:05, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

If you can prove they are wrong, things can be changed. However, we can't simply take the words of someone who is editwarring. Do you have any evidence the source is untrustworthy? Please stop, read the rules and gather sources instead of making accusations.

Speederzzz (Talk) (Stalk) 14:01, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Why don't you understand? It's not a question of sources, but whether something is written in a book or not (as in the case of the Jews, never mentioned). According to WP:SOURCE, "The work itself (the article, book) and works like it ("An obituary can be a useful biographical source", "A recent source is better than an old one")", Vannacci's book should be used as a source and the other sources as criticisms; instead, you seem to want to (obviously unsuccessfully and failing miserably) modify the content of Vannacci's book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-41512-0 (talk) 19:02, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Bring proof, then we can talk. We have the word of a journalist against the word of a random user who couldn't be bothered to make an account. Who says you're not lying? I can't know unless you bring evidence. Casting aspersions onto editors who are doing good work is not helping your case, it's doing the opposite.

Speederzzz (Talk) (Stalk) 10:07, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

Buy the Vannacci's book and see for yourself that I'm right. By the way, I didn't throw aspersions at anyone; stop accusing me without concrete evidence. Not to mention that you changed the subject and diverted attention from the fact that you're not complying WP:SOURCE, "The work itself (the article, book) and works like it ("An obituary can be a useful biographical source", "A recent source is better than an old one")". Also, you implicitly said that without an account I have no right to comment; very bad attitude from you, really bad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-42837-3 (talk)

Unless you show proof that you're right, you're not getting your way.

"instead, you seem to want to (obviously unsuccessfully and failing miserably) modify the content of Vannacci's book."

is an aspersion on my intentions. If you truely want to get your edits through, please ask someone else to give their input into this situation. I do not believe we are going anywhere sadly.

Speederzzz (Talk) (Stalk) 14:28, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

I agree that the TA needs to stop making borderline PAs (and this entire conversation needs to cool off in general), but in defense of their point, it would be quite difficult to prove a negative in a scenario like this.

I don't think there would be much harm in adjusting the phrasing somehow to note that readers interpreted the book as making statements against Jews.(along with what else was noted) Phrasing it that way might hopefully sidestep whether or not any particular statements were made in the book and instead shift the perspective to how it was received. ^LaffyTaffer💬(they/she) 15:17, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

It would be hard, but we have no reason to doubt the source, on the contrary, ANSA is seen as one of the most respected Italian news agencies. In this interview the author himself defends what he wrote about Jews.

Il tema della tutela delle minoranze non le piace, lo ha scritto: se dico 'ebrei di m...' è quindi lo stesso che dire un generale 'professori di m...'?

Osservatorio antisemitismo also published some fragments from the interview. Even though he certainly doesn't show the same hate towards Jewish people as he does to LGBTQ people, it is clear there was some controversy about what he wrote.

We can't just discount a very reliable source for a claim of an editor. Sadly, and it is true that this is a weakness of Wikipedia, the correct course would probably be to contact the editorial staff of ANSA and say they made a mistake, have them correct it and then we can make the change.

Speederzzz (Talk) (Stalk) 17:35, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

It's possible to contact ANSA, who wants to do so?— Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-43634-6 (talk)

Whoever takes umbridge with how they've covered the book I suppose. (please sign your posts using 4 tildes like this: ~~~~ , thank you)^LaffyTaffer💬(they/she) 22:15, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

So who wants to contact ANSA? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-44769-7 (talk) 12:46, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

The editor that wants the content changed should do it.

Speederzzz (Talk) (Stalk) 12:49, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Per English grammar, add a comma after "Jews brought" ("and Jews, brought"). ~2026-57146-3 (talk) 21:33, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Does anyone care about English grammar? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-10565-92 (talk) 19:47, 16 February 2026 (UTC)