Talk:Giuseppe Conte/Archive 1

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Comparison section

I propose we have a bold new section dedicated to comparing Giuseppe Conte to Mussolini. There are far too many apt comparisons, such as they are both fascists https://www.economist.com/europe/2018/05/28/italys-new-government-collapses-before-even-getting-started — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.150.26.95 (talk) 08:30, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Mr Conte

The prime minister of Italy is not divorced. He and his wife live in separate cities, but they are still married. RosalinaAngela (talk) 13:25, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

I didn’t know that, do you have some sources? :) -- Nick.mon (talk) 13:39, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Slightly worried about the beginning of the third paragraph.

According to many journalists and political commentators, Conte's cabinet is the first populist government in Western Europe.

Perhaps it should be more fitting to say,

"Conte's cabinet is formed by a right-wing coalition, but many jornalists and political commentators consider this the first populist government in Western Europe."

I would argue that Viktor Orbán is also a populist, but that's my opinion. This is what I believe the article is doing. It is a small change of text, but I believe it would be more neutral this way. I'd love to have some opinions before applying this. Cheers! User:Tetizeraz. Send me a ✉️ ! 09:40, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

I went ahead and changed the words of the first paragraph. User:Tetizeraz. Send me a ✉️ ! 14:22, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

@Tetizeraz:. Hungary is not "Western Europe" by most metrics. The "but" conjunction you brought there is certainly a problem, because it is not necessarily in the sources and because being "right-wing" and being "populist" is far from incompatible.--Asqueladd (talk) 21:02, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

@Asqueladd: I understand your first concern, I'm just generalizing because of this trend of new governments being formed by right-wing parties in Europe. Personally I think Italy's government is a populist government with a right-wing agenda. But what I believe would be more correct for the article is to address Giuseppe Conte as a right-wing politician, and claim that multiple journals claim he is a populist. I wonder if "Conte's cabinet is formed by a right-wing coalition, ~~but~~and many jornalists [...]" would be better? User:Tetizeraz. Send me a ✉️ ! 21:09, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

@Tetizeraz:: if being "right-wing" is non-problematic (I dunno, I haven't checked) then the following phrasing should be fine:

"Conte's cabinet, formed by a right-wing coalition, is considered by many journalists and political commentators as the first populist government in Western Europe."

--Asqueladd (talk) 21:27, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Just what I had in mind @Asqueladd:! Thank you! User:Tetizeraz. Send me a ✉️ ! 21:30, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Conte applying for ...

a prestigious law professorship at Sapienza University in Rome (there, he would be the successor of Guido Alpa (de:Guido Alpa, it:Guido Alpa).

Politico.com 6 Sept. 2018:

Giuseppe Conte ‘reconsiders’ job application amid protests

Italian prime minister bends rules with job application (same day, ≈ 10 hours later)

Should we mention it now - or should we wait ? reservations ? --Neun-x (talk) 19:31, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

repubbica.it: University competition, Conte did not give up: "He only postponed the English exam

nytimes.com 9 September 2018: Is Italy’s Prime Minister Looking for a Backup Job? --Neun-x (talk) 15:53, 10 September 2018 (UTC)== Fact check to source studies abroad == @Fish and karate (to request edit): Before noticing that the page is now semi-protected and that I'm no longer able to contribute directly as an IP editor (I retired from my user account some years ago, and am not willing to return :), I tried to phrase a clearer, updated sentence on his (publicly disputed) studies abroad, based on a recent, seemingly independent, fact check:

He spent brief study periods abroad: in 1992 he went to the United States to read at Yale Law School and Duquesne University; he went to the International Culture Institute in Vienna in 1993; later, he spent time at the Sorbonne University in 2000, Girton College, Cambridge in 2001 and (at least, according to his curriculum vitae) New York University in 2008.^[1]

Cheers, 109.145.7.183 (talk) 12:12, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, the CV provided by Conte is not reliable , but not much to incorporated to the content, writing Cambridge factchecked and confirming Conte only had access to the library instead of student? Matthew_hk t c 14:11, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, fwiw, I feel the current sourcing could usefully be updated. (stepping out :-), 109.145.7.183 (talk) 18:12, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

References

^ Un fact checking sul curriculum di Giuseppe Conte

Please correct: prime minister Conte is separated from wife, but NOT DIVORCED. Separation in Italy, that they are not living together, but not eve legally separated, as it is done in the US. In other words, Mr. Conte is married. RosalinaAngela (talk) 13:24, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Populist government

I removed twice the opinion or label "populist government" at the beginning of the page to replace it with factual information. M5s.international (talk) 21:39, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

It isn’t a factual information, it’s a verified information, with reliable sources. -- Nick.mon (talk) 21:44, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Maybe we can write “anti-establishment coalition”, but “government formed on the basis of a contract-based pact between [...]” is simply meaningless. -- Nick.mon (talk) 21:55, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

I find it amusing to read that you find facts "meaningless". Anti-establishment is still a label. M5s.international (talk) 22:02, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Anti-establishment and populism aren’t insults, maybe are even merits. By now, all the newspapers (from the mainstream media to the most hard-Eurosceptic website) describe this government as populist and anti-establishment, and I repeat, this isn’t an insult but a fact. -- Nick.mon (talk) 22:10, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

label is not equivalent of insult, I never said that. Label is a gross oversimplification that is potentially inducing to pre-judgement. From the definition, label is "a short word or phrase descriptive of a person, group, intellectual movement, etc." or "a word or phrase indicating that what follows belongs in a particular category or classification: The following definition has the label “Archit.”". You can repeat a label a thousand times or read it from a thousand sources, it remains an oversimplification. In addition, there is no coalition between M5S and Lega, but a contract-based agreement. The only coalition existing in the current political landscape is among Lega, Forza Italia and Fratelli d'Italia. On this base alone your edit is inaccurate. M5s.international (talk) 22:22, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

@Nick.mon: I have raised COI concerns on the talk page of the new account inappropriately named M5s.international, set up by someone clearly unfamiliar with Wikipedia guidelines on conflicts of interest (as well as with reliable sourcing, etc). 109.145.7.183 (talk) 22:19, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

great job. Receiving awards for editing pages on Renzi and editing pages of a counterpart instead is clearly not a conflict of interest. M5s.international (talk) 22:22, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

@M5s.international: Yes, it's true, I recieved a barnstar for editing the article about Renzi (as well as Gentiloni), but I would do the same with Conte. Moreover I'm almost the only user to have improved the articles of Luigi Di Maio, Matteo Salvini, Roberto Fico and so on. So if you tried to discredit me for that barnstar, you're on the wrong way. -- Nick.mon (talk) 07:23, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Moreover I think there's a clear case of sock puppetry. -- Nick.mon (talk) 07:28, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

@Nick.mon: Please feel free to request an investigation. Starglide.bcn (talk) 08:12, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

@Starglide.bcn: You looks like more than a voluntary speaker for the party and high risk of edit warring due to your point of view. the "populist " wording was everywhere in the secondary reliable source, it would rather a big no-no in wikipedia for interpreting primary source and/or WP:OR to say it is not. Matthew_hk t c 07:33, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

@Matthew hk: I thik there is a misunderstanding. I am not interpreting, I am reporting facts. The government is based on a written contract between two parties that are otherwise formally against each other. I am not giving judgement of value on such fact. I'm not saying it's a great or a lame contract. It's just what it is. On a different note, I am clearly a novice in wikipedia and I have no problem in admitting it. I will back up the edit about "written contract" with reliable sources, if that is what is needed. Thank you for the support. Starglide.bcn (talk) 08:12, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

@Matthew hk: :@Nick.mon: I just discovered the 3 revert limit and WP:DR, I will research on that. Thank you and apologies for the lack of etiquette. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starglide.bcn (talk • contribs) 2018-05-24T08:17:05 (UTC)

I also think that describing Conte's would-be government as "populist" is wrong, but that is what several media are talking about. Moreover, how could we classify it? Probably, the only better solution would be not to classify it. Finally, "populist" is such a generic and inoffensive description, despite its often mendacious use. However, I do think that this discussion might be better resolved at Talk:Conte Cabinet or Talk:Government of Change, the two not-fully interchangeable articles started (by User:Nick.mon, who is by the way a very good, knowledgeable, authoritative and balanced editor). --Checco (talk) 08:21, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

@Starglide.bcn, Nick.mon, M5s.international, Matthew hk, Checco, and 109.145.7.183:https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jun/06/italy-prime-minister-giuseppe-conte-migrants-austerity-maiden-speech the position on sanctions against Russia should be added--Bohdan Bondar (talk) 12:22, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

M5S or independent?

Hi, many users changed the original version, asserting that Conte is a member of the Five Star Movement, but sincerely I don't see any reliable source to prove it; moreover, here in Italy, everyone labeled him as a technocratic head of government. -- Nick.mon (talk) 15:21, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

(@User:PhDoctor): [1]Hum... after consulting news sources, such as those cited on the Italian page, my current understanding is that - technically at least - he would seem [2] to remain an independent, rather than an official party member (as appears to have been assumed in some of the English-language press, including The Guardian). 109.145.7.183 (talk) 16:12, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

@User:Nick.mon: Agree with providing clarification [3] to readers that he is "close to M5S". 109.145.7.183 (talk) 19:47, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Agree with blanking "Political party" field, because "independant" is eventually not a party. NAH 19:52, 23 May 2018 (UTC).

I added the words "(close to M5S)" in the infobox. -- Nick.mon (talk) 20:03, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

@Nomen ad hoc: You are right when you say that "Independent" isn't a party, but we use it for all the politicians, and per consistency we should do it also here. You could see this praxis in the articles about Mario Monti, Romano Prodi, or even Donald Trump! -- Nick.mon (talk) 20:09, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

OK, didn't know. NAH 20:11, 23 May 2018 (UTC).

"(close to M5S)" doesn't meet infobox standards. Just have M5S in "Other political affiliations". But his political party ought to be independent. Irishpolitical (talk) 05:52, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, he seems nominally "independent", but I fear anyone not really familiar with the topic (WP:AUDIENCE) could easily be misled by that descriptor on its own. 109.145.7.183 (talk) 08:22, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

I am not usually edit politician, but is it better to use independent in infobox, rather than Independent? I would think is there any party called Independent Party instead of independent/no affiliation, until i saw the piped link. Matthew_hk t c 06:25, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

In my view, Conte is more a M5S member than an independent politician. In fact, he is definitely closer to the M5S than the LN and he has endorsed the former party before the 2018 general election (he was even seen exulting with Di Maio during election night—I read about that on today's Corriere della Sera). I started a wider discussion at Talk:Conte Cabinet (as the government will be filled by M5S-proposed "independents"). Please let's continue there. --Checco (talk) 09:29, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Synth / OR

I have twice had to remove [4][5] synth/OR claiming that "the majority of the Italian ruling class" share the same alma mater. Of note, the claim was sourced to a list on a website ~~(http://archivio[dot]uniroma1[dot]it/node/23594)~~ that is blocked by my Norton DNS as being malicious. [6] 109.145.7.183 (talk) 16:45, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Doubts over academic credentials of proposed Italian PM

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/may/22/italy-giuseppe-conte-cv-new-york-university

John Cummings (talk) 13:02, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

http://www.repubblica.it/politica/2018/05/22/news/conte_kultur_institut-197088332/
It appears other postgrad law studies claimed in his CV (including at a German language school in Vienna) have been failing verification. 109.145.7.183 (talk) 22:09, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Involvement to the association supporting Stamina

His involvement to the association supporting Stamina, although reported by newspapers since 2013, has been denied by the association itself and his name does not appear in the bylaws of the association. So it is important to report the controversy with sources. This has been reported recently by Italian newspapers and by the Italian debunk website "Valigiablu". Sources (in italian): https://www.valigiablu.it/giuseppe-conte-curriculum-stamina/ http://m.ilgiornale.it/news/2018/05/22/conte-non-ha-mai-aderito-allassociazione-pro-stamina/1530621/

I propose the following changes in the "Controversies" section: "Since 2013 Conte has been a member... " becomes "It has been reported that since 2013 Conte has been a member...". At the end of the section to be added: "His involvement with "Voa Voa" foundation has been later denied by the foundation itself, which has originally whished it, and his name is not present on the legal foundation bylaw document of the association available online.^[1]^[2]. Plasticman83 (talk) 16:31, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

il Giornale is a reliable source but not sure about valigiablu. Matthew_hk t c 18:32, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Valigiablu is confirming what is Giornale is reporting. In addition it just provides the link to the bylaw of the association where Conte's name is not present: http://www.voavoa.org/cms/wp-content/uploads/Atto-costitutivo-Voa-Voa.pdf --Plasticman83 (talk) 00:30, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

We nominally not using primary source. As i am not a native speaker of Italian the content and proposed change:

"His involvement with "Voa Voa" foundation has been later denied by the foundation itself, which has originally whished it, and his name is not present on the legal foundation bylaw document of the association available online.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://m.ilgiornale.it/news/2018/05/22/conte-non-ha-mai-aderito-allassociazione-pro-stamina/1530621/|title="Conte non ha mai aderito all'associazione pro Stamina" - IlGiornale.it|website=m.ilgiornale.it|language=it|access-date=2018-05-25}}</ref>

may be added if other user can verified the content could be "backup" by the citation il Giornale. Matthew_hk t c 01:58, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Giuseppe Conte was just the lawyer of Caterina Ceccuti (member of the future Voa Voa association) during the trial where Ceccuti family asked to use the stamina method to treat their ill daughter Sofia. That does not necessarily mean that Conte is "in favor of the stamina method", but simply he did his job as a lawyer. So, for example, if a lawyer defends during trials a man accused to be member of the mafia, that lawyer is not member of mafia too.--Holapaco77 (talk) 07:16, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Then, the trial was in march-april 2013, while the association Voa Voa was founded in october 2013, six months after the trial. The father of Sofia said that Conte has never be member of the association (Il Messaggero).--Holapaco77 (talk) 07:45, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

References

^ ""Conte non ha mai aderito all'associazione pro Stamina" - IlGiornale.it". m.ilgiornale.it (in Italian). Retrieved 2018-05-25.
^ "Cosa c'è di vero nelle accuse al professor Conte" (in Italian). Retrieved 2018-05-25. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |publication= ignored (help)

“Sex symbol” Giuseppe Conte

Please refrain from using this page for unnecessary jokes in a very tragic moment for the Italian nation. Or provide a reference respecting the Wiki policy. Isananni (talk) 19:20, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

The Prime Minister has a massive fan-base https://www.instagram.com/lebimbedigiuseppeconte/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.34.231.235 (talk) 18:03, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Also Italian newspapers are talking about this: https://www.ilfattoquotidiano.it/2020/03/14/coronavirus-nascono-i-fan-club-dedicati-a-giuseppe-conte-sei-troppo-bello-buongiorno-amore-mio/5736780/, https://www.105.net/news/tutto-news/1258484/intanto-conte-diventa-un-sex-symbol-e-il-meme-con-momoa-e-virale.html, https://www.dire.it/16-03-2020/434341-coronavirus-le-bimbe-di-giuseppe-conte-meme/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.34.231.235 (talk) 18:10, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Instagram pages do not qualify as reference on Wikipedia, nor news on temporary frenzies about the Prime Minister's overexposure on social media in the wake of these very hard times for the Italian nation. You are having a laugh while people are dying by the thousands. Find yourself another hobby to while the time away during the national quarantine and treat the Wiki project and the tragedy the Italian nation is undergoing with respect. Isananni (talk) 18:20, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

https://www.tgcom24.mediaset.it/cronaca/coronavirus-da-croce-rossa-40-respiratori-a-regione-lombardia_16245928-202002a.shtml

Policies section

I am really pleased by the amount of detail in the "Policies" section of this article. However most of these policies are the production of the entire government cabinets, or a mediation done partly also by Conte, but also by other party leaders, regarding the policies themselves. It is not entirely correct to put them only under Conte's responsibility, as if the PM in Italy was the sole responsible of the government policies. So I would propose to move these section to the cabinets' articles Conte I Cabinet and Conte II Cabinet, and leave here only a summary (like it's done in the lead section) and a reference to those articles for more detail. -- Ritchie92 (talk) 14:46, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, you're right, this section is only partially referred directly to Conte, but as for Renzi or Gentiloni or many other former PMs, in that section we have policies promoted by their governments. It's clear that the PMs cannot be the main proponents of all these acts, but this laws were promoted under their premierships, so I think that they should be mention in the article. The amount of details in the "Policies" section is probably even too much, but if I look to other world leaders, like Boris Johnson or Emmanuel Macron, their articles are even more detailed :) Moreover, I'm often against splitting the articles, and as you know I prefer copyedits (probably, even too much...). However, we could try to find a good compromise between the readable of an article and a detailed information. -- Nick.mon (talk) 15:10, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

"Copy-editing" is not what you mean probably, since copy-editing is correcting the grammar and layout of a text. You mean "copy-pasting" the paragraphs around within Wikipedia. This might be a solution but I disfavor it since it creates problems when updating/adding/correcting these paragraphs somewhere: someone would then need to remember all the places around WP where that paragraph has been copied, and this is a mess. It's much more practical to give a summary and a "see also" or "main" link to the place where the subject is treated with more detail and where all the correction/updating efforts can be focused. --Ritchie92 (talk) 15:39, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Exactly, copy-pasting! :) Yes, I know that article with copy-pasting are quite hard to be kept update, (but if we decide for the copy-pasting I can keep update both the PM's and government's articles). I think it would be clearer to have all the informations in one article, so I'm always in favor of this format, but, of course, this is only my opinion. Maybe we should better organize the article, but as I said, articles about other leaders are as detailed as this one (or even more detailed), so I prefer keeping the informations here. -- Nick.mon (talk) 15:57, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Move section to Conte cabinet articles

Hi. I think that this article has a section "Policies" that is too large and detailed for the biography of a living person. Also that section mostly describes policies that were pursued and approved by the whole governments that Conte was leading, so they are not just policies that came out of the mind of Conte himself. They were probably the outcome of negotiations and consensus among the parties in each of the coalitions led by him. I propose moving this section to Conte I Cabinet and Conte II Cabinet (splitting the topics adequately) and then link to it in this article. --Ritchie92 (talk) 11:26, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

As I said in a previous discussion, I'm quite against this solution. Maybe we should include only topics and laws in which Conte was involved directly, but I think they should be included in "his" article, like for many other Prime Ministers, and not split in many different articles. -- Nick.mon (talk) 13:10, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

But these are the government's policies, not Conte's policies. He's not really a politician even, nor a political scientist: almost all of his policies were developed within the governing coalitions. --Ritchie92 (talk) 13:38, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

You're right, but if we look to other PMs or Presidents, there're often sections in which are listed their policies and main accomplishments as head of government/state. Maybe we should reduce the section, but I think we should keep it here. However, this is only my view. -- Nick.mon (talk) 14:55, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Honestly I don't really care about other PMs articles, I care to fix this problem. The fact that there is a mistake everywhere does not mean that we should keep making that mistake; on the contrary we should probably fix it everywhere else. --Ritchie92 (talk) 15:41, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's a mistake, these articles are about PMs and policies promoted by them, if we include biographic informations only, the articles will be quite short. Usually, if articles are too long, a split is needed, but this is not the case. -- Nick.mon (talk) 15:48, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

But it looks like all these policies are Conte's policies, while they really are the policies of the governments he was leading (and the corresponding parties forming them). I am not saying this is a bad mistake, but it's something we should probably make better by moving these sections to the governments' articles, and then giving a short summary in the PMs' articles. Or separating the policies that were really and recognizably individual of the PM, from the ones that were a product of the government positions on something. --Ritchie92 (talk) 10:59, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

As I said, I'm a bit against in moving all the sections in other articles, but maybe I could "cut" some of them, which have a little to do (directly) with Conte. -- Nick.mon (talk) 20:02, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree with the argument that the policies section is too large and reflects government policies, not necessarily the policies of Conte. I would support cutting down the section to be more manageable.Jurisdicta (talk) 04:48, 17 February 2021 (UTC)