Talk:Camorra/Archive 1

Archive 1

Piracy

Compared to its cousins mafia, sacra corona unita and ndrangheta it is more involved in piracy.

Piracy as in CDs or as in "Arr" and eye patches? -- Error 00:30, 8 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Probably as in "Arr"... Omg, btw, this is the future speaking, DVDs rock Cds.--84.217.144.214 01:42, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

The Black Hand

My Uncles, who are all deceased now, told me that the Camorra is also called "the black hand". My older Uncles are from Felitto (near Salerno). Is "the black hand" one-in-the same as the Camorra or something different? Thanks/grazzie! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.224.0.144 (talk • contribs) 06:51, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

sa murra

According to the Italian Wikipedia, it's the 'Ndrangheta that's more related to the spanish Garduna, not the Camorra. The latter doesn't probably derive directly from Spain, but from Cagliari, Sardinia, where groups of local mercenaries were used by non-sardinian rulers (namely the Italian town of Pisa, Tuscany) to control the local population. These groups would probably already control local gambling, like the "Morra" game..."the morra" is translated "sa murra" in sardinian language. This is a hypothesis about the origins of the name. Letters "S" and "G" were largely confused one another at the time (i.e. the italian names Savino and Gavino are believed to have a common root), so when these mercenary groups were took to continental Italy (Naples) by the spanish house of Aragona, the names would possibly turn from "Samurra" to "gamurra"...then, later, it became Camorra. Just speculation, but could be useful to know. On the other hand, a 'Ndragheta myth says that three spanish knights, Osso, Mastrosso e Carcagnosso (the names are clearly made up in order to rhyme with each other, 'cause they were used in songs...the first one actually means "bone") came to Calabria, Italy, and founded an underworld society. Comment posted by | Nebo on May 25th, 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.224.0.144 (talk • contribs) 06:51, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Removal of arrests section

I removed the section "Arrests", because this would be an endless list and the particular arrests mentioned were not really notable. Why start in 2008, and not in 1908? Moreover, the issue of specific arrests should be in 2008 in organized crime, not here. - Mafia Expert (talk) 14:13, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I understand your concerns, but I have a slightly different opinion on this. I believe that there should be a section on arrests, because this is a criminal organization, so arrests are relevant, especially those that specifically involve members of the Camorra. The page describing 2008 in organized crime is, in fact, an endless list that is much too general for anyone looking for information that relates specifically to the Camorra. But I would be glad to work with you to improve this section. Perhaps you know of other Camorra arrests with a higher degree of notoriety. If so, I encourage you to add them here to make sure that most noteworthy arrests are cited. Ned Blue (talk) 23:19, 5 January 2009 (UTC)Ned Blue (talk) 23:20, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I removed it again. It does not belong here and the arrests you inserted are not particularly important. Every day there are arrests and the list would be endless. If you insist on having such a list, I suggest to create a new article, just as for example List of most wanted fugitives in Italy. - Mafia Expert (talk) 12:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

The arrests that were cited are important. You have not been able to suggest any that are more important, so the section is going back as written. It provides a starting point so that others may add to it further. I agree that it might be useful to cull the list after several "more important" entries have been added.--Ned Blue (talk) 13:53, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

The arrest are not important, but just random incidents. We don't even know who are arrested, except one, who is not particularly notable. The context of the arrests is not clear either. This kind of events belong in 2008 in organized crime, not in a general article about the Camorra. It does not add anything significant to a good understanding of the phenomenon. I can mention hundreds of more important arrests, just check the individual articles on Category:Camorristi, Category:Camorra clans or List of most wanted fugitives in Italy. If you insist on such a list, you should create a separate article and might put a link to it on this page. - Mafia Expert (talk) 18:14, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

We should try to develop a consensus on whether it is appropriate to delete entire sections based on personal preference. When this is done, valuable information gets lost. Rather than just deleting an entire section, we should “endeavor to preserve information” as discussed in Wikipedia’s editing guidelines --- see WP:Preserve. Perhaps we could work together to rephrase some of the text, correct any inaccuracy that you might have observed, or add information to make the article more balanced. Moving the information is not very helpful because it would be very difficult for the reader to find information that is specific to the Camorra. I am sure we can develop a consensus against the practice of just deleting entire sections and discarding the information. Perhaps others can share an opinion on this harmful practice. --Ned Blue (talk) 22:50, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Adding information before a consensus is reached shows that you are not really willing to find a solution. My objection to this section is not based on "personal preference", but on the fact that this section does not belong on a page where people want to find general information on the Camorra and not an endless list of details. I moved it to a separate list List of important Camorra arrests - which is more appropriate - with a link in the article and listed it under Category:History of the Camorra in Italy. This way it is easy to find for people who might be interested. The information is now preserved as you requested. What is the fixation with arrests, anyway? The whole thing is ill conceived. Why not include important trials - such as the Spartacus Trial? Or kidnappings - such as the Cirillo kidnap? Or internal feuds - such as the Scampia feud? Those events might even have a bigger impact than the random arrests you listed so far. Maybe you should consider to expand it into "List of important Camorra related events". I wish you all the best compiling it. - Mafia Expert (talk) 00:56, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for giving some additional thought to this topic. I like your suggestion about including some important trials - such as the Spartacus Trial, and kidnappings - such as the Cirillo kidnap, and also internal feuds - such as the Scampia feud. I look forward to working with you on those sections. In the meantime, I hope you can also help to improve the Arrests section, which should remain within the article while we try to develop a consensus. Please do not persist in deleting this section now that we have asked others the weigh in and form a consensus. I’m sure it is not your intent to discourage others within the Wikipedia community from contributing their ideas and opinions. --Ned Blue (talk) 16:11, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

The section is now under List of important Camorra arrests, please refrain from deleting the link to the section and do not reinsert the section in the article. It is not my intent to discourage anyone to contribute to Wikipedia, as long as it is on the appropriate place. I see that you are quite new to Wikipedia, so please take some advice from someone who has been around quite some time. Do you really not understand what the scope of your proposal is, or are you just pretending? If you want to do this properly it only can be done in a seperate article with subsection in years etc. I tried to show you how when I moved the section, in the hope that you would come to your senses, but instead you are acting as if I am violating your integrity. - Mafia Expert (talk) 16:24, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I have asked for a Wikipedia:Third opinion, please refrain from any further changes. - Mafia Expert (talk) 16:32, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. It would be a good idea to get a Wikipedia:Third opinion. The main problem with this article is that it is unbalanced. It does a good job of detailing the Camorra’s exploits, but it ignores the intense effort that the local police are making to combat this criminal organization. The arrests are clear evidence that Italy isn’t allowing the Camorra to operate with complete immunity. This portion of the story isn’t quite as exciting, but it is just as important. By removing the Arrests section from this article, the picture is completely unbalanced. The reader is left with the strong impression that almost nothing is being done. Perhaps we should include a section entitled “Efforts to Combat the Camorra within Italy.” In that section, some important arrests could be cited as evidence that Italy has not given in to this criminal organization. --Ned Blue (talk) 15:26, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

You are right that the article is far from being perfect. It needs a lot of additional information, for instance more on the history, characteristics of the organisation and so on. I have tried to add useful sections, but haven't had the time to expand it. A section on the efforts to fight the Camorra (and how it has failed until now - I must admit I am not as positive as you apparently are) would be a wellcome addition. Whether we have to mention arrests is another question, but if it fits in the context I would have no problem. - Mafia Expert (talk) 16:59, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for that constructive input. This discussion is heading in a positive direction, so I’m sure that the article will benefit from our collaboration. Let me try to summarize what we seem to agree upon: (1) we agree that the article would benefit from a section that describes “Efforts to Fight the Camorra”; (2) we also agree that the details within this section should support the declared subject. Therefore, we are left to decide whether describing some of the key arrests would really be appropriate in explaining the efforts to fight the Camorra. I am suggesting that they would be appropriate, because they provide clear evidence that the police are engaging in activities to fight the Camorra. We could also include the strategies and plans that the police have developed, but these are not made public for a variety of reasons. First, they would tip off the Camorra to key details on police strategy. Second, it would put the planners themselves at personal risk. So, the plans carefully protected. We really only have access to the end product of these efforts: the arrests. However, if you can suggest additional sources of information for detailed plans on fighting the Camorra, we should include those as well. Either way, I think we will still need to discuss some of the key police actions, along with the resulting arrests. --Ned Blue (talk) 21:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The fight against the Camorra is a complicated and controversial issue. Not everyone is convinced that the State is fully behind that effort. How do you explain that Antonio Gava, suspected of links with the Camorra, became Minister of the Interior? I suggest you read the article on the Cirillo kidnap as an example that those "efforts" are not always that clear. Anyway, if such a section emerges, it could possibly include some important arrests. However, I certainly would not include the ones from September 2008 you originally wrote down. Those are not important as I mentioned before. Francesco Schiavone is another matter, but it does not need the details as they are already described in the article about him. The arrest of Carmine Alfieri in 1992 is probably more important. Yet, lets not get fixated on arrests, but keep in mind the whole picture. - Mafia Expert (talk) 23:16, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Those sound like good suggestions. I think we now agree that: (1) the article would benefit from a section that describes “Efforts to Fight the Camorra”; (2) we also agree that the details within this section should support the declared subject; (3) and (finally) that specific arrests would be appropriate to describe. So, we are no longer talking about deleting this section and moving it to a separate page. That’s a major step forward. As you suggested, keeping “the big picture” in mind is also appropriate. Therefore, I think we can proceed with an introductory section, and then highlight specific activities to fight the Camorra, but also describe the difficulties involved, and the reasons for limited progress. It sounds like you are also offering to add/modify the information on Francesco Schiavone and Carmine Alfieri, and I think that would be great. You seem to have some very good information to contribute, and I encourage you to do so, especially if that involves adding or modifying the details, or replacing a specific arrest with a better example (not just deleting the examples without providing better ones). If you disagree with any aspect of this plan for moving forward, now would be a good time for you to state those concerns in detail. Athaenara has kindly offered to provide a third opinion on any remaining issues that you might have. A third opinion would be greatly appreciated. -- Ned Blue (talk) 20:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Just to add, I think we now also agree that the section you initiated was flawed and the arrests you listed in 2008 were not important and not notable. Second, I rather determine myself on which issue I work, rather than you assigning tasks to me. And third, I do not have much time at the moment, but if you want to start a section “Efforts to Fight the Camorra” I will not object, provided of course that the content is up to standards, properly referenced and whatever other Wikipedia guidelines apply. I would advise you to have a good look at the information already available and the sources that are used. That might help to get a good overview about the issue at stake. Good luck, and if you need any advice don’t hesitate to contact me. - Mafia Expert (talk) 22:38, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

You certainly have a right to your opinion on that, but I happen to disagree. I think that the arrests section was a good starting point for a section that might eventually be titled, “Efforts to Fight the Camorra.” Apparently, you and I have slightly different styles for contributing to Wikipedia, and I’m OK with that. You seem to think that you can only add information if you are able to paint a complete and final picture before posting. But, the beauty of Wikipedia is that it is a continuous work in progress, and that an article almost always benefits from multiple contributors (often thousands) adding what they can, a little at a time. Sometimes facts are added. Sometimes thoughts are re-organized. Sometimes examples are replaced by others. But those things don’t all have to be done by just one person, and it’s OK for a section to start out simply as a related group of facts --- please see the editing policy guidelines entitled ”Perfection is not Required”. It is very interesting that you feel such a strong sense of personal ownership over the content of this particular article. Rather than letting the content evolve at its own pace, you see it as your personal mission to delete entire sections if they don’t meet your particular standard for perfection right from the beginning. You give lots of advice on what should be written, but you aren’t willing to follow that advice yourself. Instead of contributing to this section, you just hit the delete key. To me, this sounds like an attempt to exercise personal control over this article, and discourage others from modifying what you have already done. This runs counter to the whole concept of writing collaboratively. And the reasons you cite are completely unfounded. You seem to suggest that something I posted was not properly referenced or did not follow Wikipedia guidelines. If that’s true, you should be able to back up the claim with specifics. Our whole disagreement boils down to one question: Is it OK to start an article or a section with a preliminary group of facts, and then let it evolve into a cohesive narrative over time? On Wikipedia, the answer is “yes,” and this key principle is written down for you in black and white within the editing policy guidelines. Athaenara, can you please offer a third opinion on this final point? --Ned Blue (talk) 22:51, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't own this article. If I did it would completely different. I just prevented adding of useless trivia, which do not increase the quality of the article and an understanding of the Camorra. That is within the guidelines of Wikipedia. Since you are cherry picking from Wikipedia:Editing policy look at this: "some Wikipedians think you should not beat around the bush at all—simply change a page immediately if you see a problem, rather than waiting to discuss changes that you believe need to be made. Discussion is only needed if someone voices disagreement." And: "There is a place for all of these attitudes on Wikipedia". We had a good discussion on how to address the issue of efforts to combat the Camorra, and how to do this the proper way. Nobody is impeding you to start such a section and let it evolve over time. However, your first attempt was seriously flawed and I intervened to improve it. I have contributed to this article significantly and feel responsible that it turns into a good one. Your first attempt simply was not up to standards. I think you now have received sufficient feedback to try again. - Mafia Expert (talk) 09:51, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Again, it’s a style issue. You appear to be uncomfortable adding information in pieces and letting the article evolve through collaborative writing. You would like to see things posted in their final form right from the beginning, but that’s not the way Wikipedia works. We try to encourage everyone to contribute ideas as the article evolves, and that often leads to a much better product in the end. I’m OK with you taking your own personal approach to perfection. Just don’t try to impose your personal preferences on everyone else. I completely disagree with your statement that you “intervened to improve it.” On the contrary, you offered no clarification, modification, enhancement, or improvement whatsoever. You just deleted it and followed up by explaining that you don’t have the time to make a more meaningful contribution. But you certainly have the time to impede others from doing so. And by deleting the section, you left the article in much worse shape, because it is still very unbalanced. It leaves the impression that the Camorra is operating without any resistance whatsoever. So, the section is going back. The title that we agreed upon is OK for now. I added a couple of introductory paragraphs. I also added the examples of arrests, but I would welcome other examples that might be better suited to the context. --Ned Blue (talk) 16:51, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it is useless to continue this discussion. I trimmed your recent additions to what is relevant for this article. No need to expand on Schiavone, that is more appropriate in the article about him. Purse snatching is irrelevant to the Camorra, if the purse snatchers are members of the Camorra at all. - Mafia Expert (talk) 23:56, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary, I think that the discussion was extremely useful. I really like the additions and modifications that you just made. You obviously know a lot about the Mafia and the Camorra, and the article is benefitting greatly from your contributions. The article is now much more balanced. I only wish we could have gotten to this point sooner. Thanks for taking the time to work with me on this one. --Ned Blue (talk) 16:45, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Third opinion on arrests section

I am responding to a request for a third opinion. It's not clear to me whether or not the dispute has been resolved. For now, I've removed it from the project listings and will watch this page for further discussion, if any. (Please post here rather than on my user talk page. Thank you.) — Athaenara ✉ 10:42, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Film (popular culture)

I believe the file Gomorra is about the Camorra, so just putting it out there if anyone wants to verify and add the film to the popular culture section. --Coching (talk) 02:32, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

DonCalo

why did you delete my lines and source? --Karanko (talk) 22:01, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Pardon? Why did you delete sourced material in the first place? Your "source" was untraceable. - DonCalo (talk) 06:28, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Camorristi-1906.jpg Nominated for Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:Camorristi-1906.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Media without a source as of 20 June 2011 What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:19, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

NPOV template

The identification of Campania region as the territory of pertinence of Camorra is highly disputable, since the judicial chronicles in Italy clearly show its presence and ramifications in other Central and Northern Italian regions, like Lombardia, Piemonte, etc. Therefore the map is giving a false and distorted information and should have to be updated accordingly.--Ferdinando Scala (talk) 20:20, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Mafia-type

One user seems to have some problem with describing the Camorra as a Mafia-type organisation. The Italian penal code in Article 416-bis defines an association as being of Mafia-type nature "when those belonging to the association exploit the potential for intimidation which their membership gives them, and the compliance and omerta which membership entails and which lead to the committing of crimes, the direct or indirect assumption of management or control of financial activities, concessions, permissions, enterprises and public services for the purpose of deriving profit or wrongful advantages for themselves or others." See: Seindal, Mafia: money and politics in Sicily, p. 20 The term Mafia-type organisations is used to clearly distinguish the uniquely Sicilian Mafia from other criminal organisations – such as the Camorra, the 'Ndrangheta, the Sacra Corona Unita – that are structured like the Mafia, but are not the Mafia. On p. 14 the author writes about the Camorra, the 'Ndrangheta and the Sacra Corona Unita as Mafia-like organisation, but given the definition in the Italian penal code Mafia-type is the correct term. - DonCalo (talk) 17:26, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

In fact, it is pretty well explained in Mafia and Mafia-type organizations in Italy by Mafia-expert Umberto Santino. - DonCalo (talk) 17:52, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Coincidentially, the issue came up at the Mafia disambiguation page at Mafia-type organizations under Italian law. So to keep it consistent in all Wikipedia articles, it is best to stick to Mafia-type organisation or in Italian associazione di tipo mafioso. - DonCalo (talk) 18:33, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I strongly and vigorously disagree, and using one source or the Italian state to push this POV is improper. We're not here to push state propaganda or viewpoints and WP is not supposed to be a battleground for such propaganda - it's about facts. Your insistence on this is unusual. Laval (talk) 11:34, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

There is a difference between calling similar criminal organizations Mafia organizations or Mafia-type organizations. The latter is specifically to distinguish between these organizations and the Mafia proper, while recognizing certain common features, such as the organizational structures, cultural characteristics and their modus operandi. The most obvious one is the use of the code of silence known as omertà, which is a common feature of Italian based crime organizations such as Cosa Nostra, the Ndrangheta, the Camorra etc.; and even not alien to non-Italian organizations such as the Chinese Triads and the Japanese Yakuza. I see you started a a ANI procedure. I explained it there as well. - DonCalo (talk) 18:39, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Don Calo

Camorra comes from Gamurra, organization born in Cagliari, here other sources:

http://www.bibliocamorra.altervista.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=51&Itemid=34

http://www.treccani.it/enciclopedia/camorra_res-a7a8dee8-8bac-11dc-8e9d-0016357eee51_(Enciclopedia-Italiana)/

http://www.sardegnadigitallibrary.it/documenti/1_151_20080911152404.pdf

http://www.camera.it/_bicamerali/leg15/commbicantimafia/documentazionetematica/28/104/schedabase.asp

http://www.azionecattolicanola.it/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/10.03_morti-di-mafia.pdf

http://www.pbmstoria.it/dizionari/storia_mod/c/c037.htm

http://veprints.unica.it/159/1/pistuddi_anna.pdf

http://www.sardegnacultura.it/documenti/7_26_20060404155114.pdf

--Karanko (talk) 09:49, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 7 external links on Camorra. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140813005751/http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,727210,00.html to http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,727210,00.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090310042628/http://www.narcomafie.it:80/news_archivio/news_2001_14.htm to http://www.narcomafie.it/news_archivio/news_2001_14.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120222071935/http://www.tagesspiegel.de/politik/archiv/06.11.2006/2880261.asp to http://www.tagesspiegel.de/politik/archiv/06.11.2006/2880261.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140808052411/http://www.cafebabel.com/eng/article/22391/roberto-saviano-on-the-italian-camorra.html to http://www.cafebabel.com/eng/article/22391/roberto-saviano-on-the-italian-camorra.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071001090441/http://www.dn.se/DNet/jsp/polopoly.jsp?d=148&a=636822 to http://www.dn.se/DNet/jsp/polopoly.jsp?d=148&a=636822
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121209125949/http://www.museocriminologico.it/cuoccolo_uk.htm to http://www.museocriminologico.it/cuoccolo_uk.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121202050255/http://www.sundayherald.com/52046 to http://www.sundayherald.com/52046

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:18, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Camorra. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131029194315/http://www.centroimpastato.it/otherlang/mafia-in-italy.php3 to http://www.centroimpastato.it/otherlang/mafia-in-italy.php3

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:50, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Camorra. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110714101915/http://www.minutodigital.com/noticias2/3387.htm to http://www.minutodigital.com/noticias2/3387.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0%2C9171%2C727210%2C00.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:57, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Camorra in Uruguay?

There is no source that says that the Camorra is in Uruguay, where did that come from? Someone can cite sources say that the Camorra is present in Uruguay? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.57.48.246 (talk) 21:47, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Camorra. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101007213234/https://www.fbi.gov/hq/cid/orgcrime/lcnindex.htm to https://www.fbi.gov/hq/cid/orgcrime/lcnindex.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:12, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Name origin and edition

I had removed the paragraph where the origin of the name was (and still is) proposed as "almost a certainty" when it is far from the case, as indicated in my comment and edition of the preceding paragraph. User:Vaselineeeeeeee did a rollback I'd rather not undo (perhaps it was done in good faith mistaking my edition for vandalism), but if it wasn't accidental please check the guidelines in Wikipedia:Rollback#When_to_use_rollback and refrain from doing it like this in the future (at the very least the comments should be addressed when making the change, or even better use the talk page before making a decision!)

As for the justification for my change, as I explained there are many proposals for the origin of the name, most of which are summarized in the Italian article. At the moment the English article is not just incomplete but inaccurate for the sake of adding purportedly useful detail when it actually misinforms, so it should be either edited/expanded or deleted. I happen to speak Italian so I could write something myself if nobody else does (Hell, this comment is almost taking longer than if I had done it in the first place!), but I'd ask the user who undid my change to address it first.

31.10.167.211 (talk) 11:42, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for raising your concern here. Your removal contained the tag "references removed" which could very well be vandalism - although it was explained, it was not entirely clear. I've seen the list at the Italian article, and yes, here in English it is incomplete on all the hypotheses. If you can speak Italian like you say, perhaps instead of removing one of the hypothesis even given at the Italian page, you could add some of the sourced ones that are listed at the Italian page. This will help the etymology rather than removing the existing sourced hypothesis. I will try to help as well. Thanks. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 11:55, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Wikilink edits

I believe that Salvatore De Crescenzo link needs to be taken off because it takes people to a page that doesn't existCodyCanepa (talk) 05:07, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

I think that Carlo Fabbroni link should be taken out because it sends people to a page that doesn't exist CodyCanepa (talk) 05:09, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Redlinks are sometimes useful per WP:REDLINK, as they can help make Wikipedia grow. In this case, it is possible for these articles to be created one day, and the redlinks can perhaps prompt that. Regards, Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 05:14, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

that's true. You are right and thank you for the responseCodyCanepa (talk) 05:22, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Sources of Camorra in Spain

I realized that i dont know how to edit a wikipedia page because everything is deleted after my edits (probably because i copy the stuff from the website lol) so, if someone wants to edit the page of Camorra here telling about their strong presence in Spain i have some links here:

https://www.elimparcial.es/noticia/40227/opinion/camorra-espana-y-costa-nostra.html

http://revistafiatlux.com/la-camorra-en-espana/

https://www.elmundo.es/espana/2016/11/28/583b3d3ce2704e0c298b45fb.html

I tell about Spain because its probably the strongest presence of Camorra outside Italy :) I'll be very thankfull if someone can edit the page here telling about the presence of the Camorra in this country :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dereuna (talk • contribs) 14:08, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

@Dereuna: You can do so, just be sure not to copy and paste large chunks of info. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 15:15, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Camorra outside Italy, only UK and USA???????

Hi! i had edited the whole day about the Camorra outsided Italy yesterday, in example in Spain, Netherlands, France, Peru and Belgium and everything was deleted, so, its so wrong, because i put the sources from the websites i had found the articles i edited here... and, according to all media, police and everything Camorra is so much more present in European countries, specially Spain, like i edited here, than in US (they are no longer in US from almost a century ago)so, if you want to edit a right source, this article about CAMORRA is completely wrong, telling that its present only in UK and US... and also, deleted the places Camorra is present like Canada (??????), Honduras, Argentina , if you google about it you will found 0 sources telling Camorra is present in CANADA... well, as i said, this article about CAMORRA is completely wrong... and missing a lot of stuff, see for example the wikipedia in Italy about Camorra... Its very complete... Camorra is a italian criminal organization, with strong ramifications in other countries of EUROPE!! so, please fix it!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Espanasiempre2019 (talk • contribs) 15:52, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

@Espanasiempre2019: Yes, I understand your frustration, but there is a high chance of copyright violations if you just copy and paste text from sources. I did not take a deep look into your edits, but if, once the page protection expires, and you can discuss some of your additions here first, you can try and add some info back keeping in mind not to copy and paste directly from sources. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 16:17, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Copyright violation was very much the issue--the other, possibly related account has been blocked for this. 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 22:32, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

About the allies of Camorra

I edited the page yesterday about the allies of Camorra, like Albanian mafia and South american durg cartels, and i posted the source... so, today i realized that it was all deleted... and as i said before (about what i edited from camorra outside italy), if you google about it or read books about the Camorra, you can see that they had always strong contacts with the South american drug cartels... i dont know who delete things in this page, but this person should read a little bit more about the Camorra... because the article is in the most part nonsense with a lot of wrong stuffs...

Camorra is not present in Honduras

Hi, i still editing here and wanting to tell right things about the Camorra, so, how can i delete the section of Camorra territories that says that Camorra has a presence in Uruguay, Honduras and Argentina... theres no sources that Camorra is present in this countries, specially Honduras... theres 0 presence of the camorra in this place... the only reason that i believe its considered with a presence in this country is because in the tv series Gomorra the boss of the camorra clan of the series go to honduras, but in real life, Camorra has nothing to do with this country also because the countries that Camorra actually has a presence in America are all about drug trafficking connections to send drugs to Europe (that is the place where the organization is truly active), so... if someone can delete this countries (Argentina, Uruguay but specially Honduras) it would be awesome! :) Or if someone has a explanation telling the sources of what Camorra does in this countries it would be also too... Actually the only presence that Camorra has in south America (in my opinion, because i love to read about this) is in Peru, Colombia and Dominican Republic, but if someone has more information about other countries that they are present in America, i would appreciate to know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amandour098 (talk • contribs) 12:06, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

@Amandour098: What about Brazil, with Antonio Bardellino? If there is nothing in the article to support those countries in the infobox, they shouldn't be there. Finish adding the countries you find sources for, then we can talk about the others. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 14:28, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 January 2019 and 20 March 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: CodyCanepa.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 08:38, 18 January 2022 (UTC)