Talk:Canicattì massacre

message: * This needs to be researched deeper. This needs to be flagged somehow (I don't know how). It's too brief and seems much too "black and white."
John 22:46, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 1

message: This page needs a credible source. A search under Google does not return one indpendent page from a credible source. Philip Baird Shearer 10:38, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Two different accounts of the incident can be read on pages 378-9 of Prof. Hirshson's biography of Patton. (Google Books link) I added a reference for this book to the article, but someone may want to revise the text. Slicing 06:56, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "...careless yankee." Oh, CLEARLY YOU AREN'T BIAS, sheeesh.... What a ridiculous statement. John 01:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: cleanup

message: Here  you can find the text of the relevant pages of Bartolone's book.
--Lou Crazy 14:39, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Info on some sources 

message: Isn't it just a little bit possible that this officer was merely shooting at looters, and that claims made 50 years after the fact by a person who wasn't even there should be taken with a grain of salt?  This article is very weakly sourced.  It doesn't belong in an encyclopedia the way it is. Haber 18:42, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The quotation is from someone who was there. Paul B 19:23, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Who made that statement?  The notes point to an Italian source from 50 years after the event, and an Axis web forum.  The quote is attributed to a "witness".  This is very weak sourcing. Haber 20:44, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know the name of the person who made it. I will not be easy to find, but why an Italian source "from 50 years after the event" is weak, I don't know. Are Italians inherently unreliable? By definition the most recent literature will be long after the event. That's a very odd reason for trying to disqualify it. By that logic the latest book on a subject is the least reliable! The Axis forum is not the ideal source, but it is clearly not POV and is detailed. Shooting people - including children - for taking liquid soap from a bombed factory is unacceptable however you look at it. Paul B 06:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: During wartime, preventing looters from stealing food can be the difference between life and starvation.  I suspect the translation is screwed up, because the building sounds less like a "factory" and more like a warehouse or a market to me.  And if we can't attribute the quote to a person or a more reliable source then it needs to go. Haber 13:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is sheer special pleading. You know very well that it was mostly soap that was being taken. I notice that most of your other edits seems designed to minimise Allied war crimes. As far as I'm concerned suppression is definitely not the best policy. The "war crimes" attributed to the Western allies (I don't include the Soviets) are mostly a matter of individual incidents - almost inevitable in such a mass war. Of course Britain and the US had some rapists and thugs in their population just like all countries do. Such incidents don't compare in the slightest to the systematic criminality of the Axis. But attempting suppress evidence has the effect of making the pro-Nazi lobby seem justified. The word "factory" simply means a place of manufacture. I will try to find the documents, but I suspect you know very well that the incident is well attested. Paul B 14:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please provide some real evidence before you accuse me of suppressing it.  We have not even gotten that far yet.  I don't doubt that something happened in Canicatti.  I would simply like to see that the Wikipedia version of events is properly documented.  In the absence of reliable sources, we're better off saying nothing at all. Haber 15:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "I notice that most of your other edits seems designed to minimise Allied war crimes." - that is noticed in almost every version of Wikipedia I've seen up to now. As working on an offline compilation of war crimes (both axis /allies!), I've got access to the frightening number of several hundred filed complaints against american officers, from Jan 45 to Dec 47, mostly former police records from 1948 on. Absolutely frightening lecture. I've put a very few online at Wikipedia, and they were deleted almost instantly. So I decided to publish them as a book. --77.186.159.166 (talk) 13:38, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Verifiable 

message: This article – including its title and category tagging – appear to reflect a one-sided POV. Accusing someone of a war crime is a particularly serious business, even if they are no longer living, and should be better cited and attributed. Askari Mark (Talk) 23:58, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article refers to three sources. Unless you have others, you have no reason to assume there is any lack of balance. Hoewever, why not make a positive suggestion about the title or categories rather than slap on a tag? Paul B 00:01, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there any reason to keep the unbalanced tag? I totally agree with Paul B and, absent meaningful replies, reserve the right to remove it without further notice. Thanks. --Piero Montesacro 06:23, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unbalanced tag 

message: This article moved at 14:51 on 29 November 2007 by Servant Saber with the comment "moved Canicattì slaughter to Canicattì massacre: Consistency." We do not place articles under names consistent with others we place them under the name most commonly used to describe the event. A Google book search shows that both names are used, so I have noted that in the first line of the article. Also the name is usually "Canicatti" not "Canicattì" --PBS (talk) 13:52, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Article move 2007