Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, removes Alessandro Orsini’s page on his online work. the reason? “Entry text It was mainly a resume copied from a site (Hence, prompt for WP: the copyright was all there and it was a duty). Second reason: it was also written off their feet as it was a true “LinkedIn” style CV: in this case also deleted immediately. IPs that kept making entries they put the same stuff over and overNot to mention the titles with which they made sounds “
Google’s response to the removal of Alessandro Orsini’s page: “Warning! Dear User, If you are wondering why the page on Alessandro Orsini has been removed: The text in it was copyright infringing because it was copied from another site was posted, a fact that constitutes a crime and is not acceptable on Wikipedia or anywhere else on the Internet”.
Removed Pages:
Alessandro Orsini had already taken a stand against Wikipedia last May with a lengthy post on social media. From title: “Don’t Donate to Wikipedia”
Wow, how could the world survive without this kind of information?!? Obviously the cynics of Wikipedia fail to note that I graduated from Sapienza with 110 cum laude and “the dignity of the press”. I introduced myself to the discussion with an opening average of 30 and 110. My dissertation was published by an academic publisher. However, I want to reiterate the evidence that clearly demonstrates that my Wikipedia page is run by a group of adversaries working in the wake of a massive media assault to remove me from the public eye. Here’s proof. Wikipedia refuses to publish this documented information as it is against Wikipedia’s own rules. Profiles attempting to enter the following information have been blocked.
“Anatomy of the Red Brigades” (Rubatino 2009) has been translated into English by Cornell University (Ivy League) and into Arabic by Dar Alka of Baghdad.
“Foreign Affairs” ranked “Anatomy of the Red Brigades” among the most important books published in the United States in 2011. competition that year—the jury of which was composed of five full professors of modern and contemporary history.
I go on with the reviews.
All journals cited below are classified by the Ministry of Universities (Anvur Agency) as journals of high international scientific reputation. However, Wikipedia only lists hyper-ideological reviews that appear in unimportant journals written by scholars who, in some cases, are my personal enemies who wrote me derogatory letters (I keep them) after the publication of my divisive book. After: Angry outbursts of similar characters are on my Wikipedia page today as “reviews” instead of world-renowned scholars.
The reviewers shown below, censored by Wikipedia, are in fact all world-renowned academics. Wikipedia refuses to report these documented facts.
Alex P. Schmid, one of the leading scholars of terrorism, defined Anatomy of the Red Brigades as “excellent”, characterizing it as one of the most important books on terrorism published since the attack on the Twin Towers. In 2014, in the context of an evolving debate on “terrorism and political violence”, Mark Sageman argued that studies on terrorism had been in a phase of “stagnation” for years. Schmidt replied to Sagemann that Alessandro Orsini’s “excellent” Anatomy of the Red Brigades proved otherwise. These are Schmidt’s words: “There are many researchers, and many good researchers, who have been involved in the field of terrorism studies in the last ten years and the results are beginning to appear in classic works such as Alessandro Orsini’s Anatomy of the Red Brigades (2011) (Alex P. Schmidt, comment on Mark Sageman’s polemic “Stagnation in Terrorism Research”, in “Terrorism and Political Violence”, 4/2014, p. 587).
Lawrence Freedman, Emeritus Professor of War Studies at King’s College London, one of the world’s leading political scientists, wrote in “Foreign Affairs” that Anatomy of the Red Brigades was a “remarkable” book (Lawrence Freedman, Anatomy of the Red brigades) by Alessandro Orsini, in “Foreign Affairs”, September/October 2011, p. 177).
“Anatomya del Brigade Rosa” was favorably reviewed by Richard Drake in the Harvard magazine published by MIT “Journal of Cold War Studies” (Richard Drake, Terrorism and the Fall of Italian Communism, “Journal of Cold War Studies”, 2/2010, pp. 110–116).
“Anatomy of the Red Brigades” has been favorably reviewed by Jeffrey Herff, Professor Emeritus at the University of Maryland, as well as in the Harvard Journal “Journal of Cold War Studies” (Jeffrey Herff, Anatomy of the Red Brigades: The Religious Mind-Set) also Modern Terrorists by Alessandro Orsini, “Journal of Cold War Studies”, 1/2012, pp. 137–139).
Paul Smith, professor of security strategies at the US Naval War College in Newport, defined Anatomy of the Red Brigades as “an enormous academic contribution” (huge) in “Perspectives on Politics”, the journal of the American Political Science Association. In the words of Paul Smith: “The Anatomy of the Red Brigades is a powerful book that not only describes the Red Brigades, but also tries to explain the reasons behind this phenomenon. (…) . Alessandro Orsini has written a vast made an academic contribution. In this sense, the study of Orsini is not only an interpretation of the Red Brigades, their background, and their method of operation, but also an examination of the timeless nature of terrorism itself” (Paul J. Smith, Orsini’s Body Review of the composition Red Brigades, “Perspective on Politics”, 2/2012, pp. 464-465).
“Anatomy of the Red Brigades” was also favorably reviewed by “Mobilization” magazine: “Anatomy of the Red Brigades is a uniquely organized book, and I estimate that future scholars will compare it to Christopher Browning’s monograph on the Nazi Holocaust.” Will do” (Soma) Chowdhary, “Mobilisation” in Anatomy of the Red Brigades Review, June 2012, Vol 17, n. 2, p. 227.).
A favorable review also came from “Terrorism and Political Violence”: “The Anatomy of the Red Brigades successfully fills a gap in the scientific literature” (Ryan Shaffer, “Terrorism and Political Violence” in The Anatomy of the Red Brigades Review, Volume 25 , Issue 2, 2013).
Favorable reviews of the book came from several other authoritative international sources which I will not report for reasons of synthesis.
Every time someone has added this information to Wikipedia it has been removed by whoever controls my page.
I think that’s enough to pass judgment on the people who captured my biography on Wikipedia. I should add that the ideas Wikipedia has given me from time to time about the war in Ukraine are absolutely false.
Look at Sigfrido Ranucci’s article on Wikipedia and you will understand why I stopped donating. I thank all those who love me and have subscribed to my YouTube channel for showing me affection and closeness.”
The legal dispute continues.