Talk:The Entity (intelligence service)

Neutrality

This article is written like "The Entity" and the "Servizio di Intelligence Vaticano" are known and accepted facts concerning the Vatican / Holy See, whereas as I don't think these are universally accepted, and at minimum need to be reflected as such. Otherwise, this article starts to look like original research and not a neutral perspective. thanks. Aszx5000 (talk) 18:10, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

Sources include at least five mainstream books and academic articles, mentions by Simon Wiesenthal and Carl Bernstein and an official acknowledgement from the CIA. The Vatican is the only one claiming it doesn't exist and they are an unreliable source on the matter as an essential characteristic of covert action is plausible deniability. It's not OR, it's just a niche topic, its existence appears well accepted.
– Abovfold (talk) 00:15, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, but the way it is written sounds like it is an accepted fact and a normal part of the Vatican until you get to the part where the Vatican itself disputes that. It needs to be clearer (in summary and article) that this is still conjecture - well supported in places - but still conjecture. Otherwise, it starts looking like the Wikipedia article is being used to support / give substance to the conjecture, which is more problematic. Does that make sense? Aszx5000 (talk) 14:28, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Adding to this, the article has other serious issues. The name 'The Entity' is from a single source, Eric Frattini from his book The Entity: Five Centuries of Secret Vatican Espionage. There is some evidence for a information gather organisation within the Vatican state, but what it is called is unknown. Nor are there any sources (except Frattini) that suggest that the Vatican state engages in anything except passive information gathering in the modern age.

This source likely primarily fictitious. When you start looking at the details things fall apart. Especially the section about the 1973 Ostia missile plot has many known errors.

1. DIGOS involvement. This organisation was not formed until 1978 after kidnapping of Also Moro.

2. Director of Mossad Zvi Zamir directly rammed a missile truck. As a director he would have had an leadership role coordinating the response in Rome. Any ramming would have been done by lower ranking agents on the field. More credible sources it happened under a Kid on unit led by Michael Hariri (unsure if he was the individual who rammed).

3. A CIA trained priest spy, Carlo Jacobini was sitting in the vehicle with Zamir as they rammed the truck. There are no historical records this individual ever existing.

Eric Frattini never cited any sources and heavily relied on anonymous insider anecdotes. The narrative also plays out like a titillating spy thriller. It is generally not considered a valid source by historians.

This article is egregious and any information that relies on Frattini should be deleted. It would be better to delete the article than leave it in its current state. ~2026-24576-69 (talk) 10:04, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

The source, Colonna Vilasi, Antonella (2016). The Entity: The Vatican Intelligence Service also makes the same mistakes as Frattini and should be considered a tainted derivative of said work. She repeats the false claims that DIGOS was involved, that Zamora and Jacobi rammed a missile truck and generally repeats the narrative of Frattini. Likely another fictional work created to sell books. ~2026-24576-69 (talk) 10:20, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

Would you be able to provide links to criticisms by historians? Nautical Mongoose (talk) 18:23, 22 April 2026 (UTC)