This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
There does not seem to be a town in italy named "Lovato". Being from Italy myself, I've been looking for it in several archives including the italian wikipedia. There is no reference to a town with that name. Care to look into this? 95.246.138.41 ( talk) 10:39, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Cited sources say that Rio was definitively involved in this crime. Contributors disagree, arguing the evidence is cirumstantial. This is mere opinion on the part of contributors; if sources can be cited to make this case, then those sources should be cited. If not, then that opinion on the part of contributors should be removed and the cited sources allowed to stand. - Tim1965 ( talk) 22:27, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
I would disagree. For the last 18 years I have read everything I can get my hands on about that incident, including virtually all of the scholarly, well-researched books that deal with it either specifically or in context of the rest of the book, and to the discerning reader, what is patently clear is that there are very few absolute and VERIFIABLE facts connected with the massacre - though there are many well though-out and convincing conclusions. No matter how well-thought out and convincing, however, none of them that I have seen are provable as facts. The web sites devoted to the Massacre are beyond a joke - from one to another, you would think you are reading about two different incidents. I am speaking solely of published and respected research (books such as "Mr. Capone" and all the others). Even those researchers do not uniformly agree on the number of shooters - most say four, a few say five. Bottom line - like so many things about the Massacre - the true answer simply is not known for a fact. Excellent, convincing circumstantial cases are made for almost a dozen individuals, including, but certainly not limited to, Fred Burke, Fred Goetz, Joseph Lolordo, Albert Anselmi, John Scalise, Jack McGurn and Frank Rio. I have yet to read any well-done research that suggests more than five shooters, and most seem convinced of only four, as I said (and admittedly, that is not known for a fact either).
I would love to know who the shooters were, beyond the shadow of a doubt. But I know of no research that can state - and back up with VERIFIABLE fact - who any of the shooters were for certain. one year to the 80th anniverary of the attatck.
As regards the Massacre, I think the article - as most - is fine as written. It is certainly more "Wiki". Facts are facts. But "convincing conclusions" are not verifiable facts.
I would love to see proof - truly verifiable proof - that Frank Rio was indeed, one of the shooters. I have not seen it yet. Considering it is now nearly the 80th anniversary of the event, I think it is unlikely any of us ever will
Melos Antropon ( talk) 04:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
"Hence than can be no doubt that . . ." "So the evidence demonstrates clearly that . . ." "The conclusion can be reached that . . ."
But none of them can say flatly: "So this PROVES that . . ."
or . . .
"It can be shown as a FACT that . . ."
because they can't. It is not known FOR A PROVABLE FACT who any of the (4, 5, 6???) shooters were. The following things can be shown to be provable fact:
Those are facts. Who pulled any of the triggers has never been proven as fact beyond the shadow of a reasonable doubt (the legal standard).
That is why I think the article - in it's current form - should stand as written. That is merely my view of the article, but a view rooted in what is most acceptably "Wiki". A previous version of the article said "Frank Rio was one of the gunmen in the St. Valentine's Day Massacre". That is a statement of fact. But it's never been proven to be a fact for Rio or anyone else.
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
There does not seem to be a town in italy named "Lovato". Being from Italy myself, I've been looking for it in several archives including the italian wikipedia. There is no reference to a town with that name. Care to look into this? 95.246.138.41 ( talk) 10:39, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Cited sources say that Rio was definitively involved in this crime. Contributors disagree, arguing the evidence is cirumstantial. This is mere opinion on the part of contributors; if sources can be cited to make this case, then those sources should be cited. If not, then that opinion on the part of contributors should be removed and the cited sources allowed to stand. - Tim1965 ( talk) 22:27, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
I would disagree. For the last 18 years I have read everything I can get my hands on about that incident, including virtually all of the scholarly, well-researched books that deal with it either specifically or in context of the rest of the book, and to the discerning reader, what is patently clear is that there are very few absolute and VERIFIABLE facts connected with the massacre - though there are many well though-out and convincing conclusions. No matter how well-thought out and convincing, however, none of them that I have seen are provable as facts. The web sites devoted to the Massacre are beyond a joke - from one to another, you would think you are reading about two different incidents. I am speaking solely of published and respected research (books such as "Mr. Capone" and all the others). Even those researchers do not uniformly agree on the number of shooters - most say four, a few say five. Bottom line - like so many things about the Massacre - the true answer simply is not known for a fact. Excellent, convincing circumstantial cases are made for almost a dozen individuals, including, but certainly not limited to, Fred Burke, Fred Goetz, Joseph Lolordo, Albert Anselmi, John Scalise, Jack McGurn and Frank Rio. I have yet to read any well-done research that suggests more than five shooters, and most seem convinced of only four, as I said (and admittedly, that is not known for a fact either).
I would love to know who the shooters were, beyond the shadow of a doubt. But I know of no research that can state - and back up with VERIFIABLE fact - who any of the shooters were for certain. one year to the 80th anniverary of the attatck.
As regards the Massacre, I think the article - as most - is fine as written. It is certainly more "Wiki". Facts are facts. But "convincing conclusions" are not verifiable facts.
I would love to see proof - truly verifiable proof - that Frank Rio was indeed, one of the shooters. I have not seen it yet. Considering it is now nearly the 80th anniversary of the event, I think it is unlikely any of us ever will
Melos Antropon ( talk) 04:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
"Hence than can be no doubt that . . ." "So the evidence demonstrates clearly that . . ." "The conclusion can be reached that . . ."
But none of them can say flatly: "So this PROVES that . . ."
or . . .
"It can be shown as a FACT that . . ."
because they can't. It is not known FOR A PROVABLE FACT who any of the (4, 5, 6???) shooters were. The following things can be shown to be provable fact:
Those are facts. Who pulled any of the triggers has never been proven as fact beyond the shadow of a reasonable doubt (the legal standard).
That is why I think the article - in it's current form - should stand as written. That is merely my view of the article, but a view rooted in what is most acceptably "Wiki". A previous version of the article said "Frank Rio was one of the gunmen in the St. Valentine's Day Massacre". That is a statement of fact. But it's never been proven to be a fact for Rio or anyone else.