Talk:Resignation of Silvio Berlusconi

NPOV
Berlusconi still had half the support of the parliament house - there is only criticism in the article - I was going to tag the article but perhaps someone can add a bit of balance which would be better than templating it. Off2riorob (talk) 16:24, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * If you do template it, you'll be expected to state on this page which statements in particular you consider POV and why. Why don't you add something yourself? In a neutral way, with references to reliable sources, naturally. If you can find any RS that reflect the kind of "balance" you request. Did you take a look at the coverage in the sources cited at present? Pretty good sources, am I right? The New York Times, the BBC, the Guardian.. all of them more critical, if anything, of Berlusconi than this article is. Bishonen | talk 20:15, 13 November 2011 (UTC).
 * Such are the reasons I did not template the article but only posted a comment here. I did a search but right now he is being vilified across the press. He only just by a whisker was forced to resign - its not like he didn't have 49 percent support. I also don't really want to add any content to the article as I don't support its existence - its bloated and opinionated already imo. Off2riorob (talk) 20:20, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Before anything else is done, this article should be merged into Silvio Berlusconi. Afterall, the guy resigned 'twice' before. GoodDay (talk) 20:32, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Twice before? I see the one in 1994, was there another one? The title needs moving to 2011...res...of.. Off2riorob (talk) 20:34, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Didn't he resign in 1995, 2006 & 2011? GoodDay (talk) 21:03, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No he didn't resign neither in 1995 (he lost a vote a confiance i.e. the Parliament dismissed him) nor in 2006 (he lost the elections). In 2011 he's lost the majority of Parliament over a very important bill but he did not get a vote of no confiance. Technically he was not obliged to resign but he did it because the very strong moral suasion of the market and his allies. For sake of completeness, Italy has a President of Council (the wording Prime Ministre is unappropriate) which is not directly elected as the president of France or Us but it is chosen by the President of the Republic and kept in charge by a Parliament which can in ANY moment obliges him to resign. I know our constitution may seem baroque but it has been thougth in order to prevent tha a single may get too much power — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.92.153.12 (talk) 10:05, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Prime Ministers 'resign', because they've no 'fixed term', unlike a President. When a PM looses an election, he has to resign, before his successor is appointed & sworn in -- Unless, in the case of Italy, the President fires the PM. GoodDay (talk) 16:19, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * the president of Republic cannot fire the President of Council. It is the Parliament which fires the President of Council voting against him a "non confidence vote". Got that vote, the President of Council has to resign. The President of Republic keeps him in charge until a new President of Council is found or new elecions are carried out. In any case, Silvio Berlusconi was not obliged, in compliance with Italian Constitution to resign, since he did not get a no confidence vote. SB simly jumped to the conclusion that he was unable to control the lower house of the Parliament and he  had not the power to gouvern.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.92.153.12 (talk) 10:55, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Not his first resignation
He also resigned in December 1994. Perhaps the title should reflect that. - 174.62.173.107 (talk) 17:56, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, the resignation took effect in 1995. GoodDay (talk) 21:03, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * also in 2005, when he started his third government. --130.251.101.201 (talk) 10:42, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Merge
This article should be merged into Silvio Berlusconi, promptly. GoodDay (talk) 20:09, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Concur. There is obviously no need for a seperate article on his resignation! --RJFF (talk) 01:53, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I second that! Reywas92 Talk 19:10, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Third that - have put it up for AfD to get it done Jw2036 (talk) 15:10, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree that the article should be merged into Berlusconi. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 23:33, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

That's not the way to get it done.♦ Dr. Blofeld  17:42, 16 November 2011 (UTC) Y Merger complete.  —  James  ( Talk •  Contribs ) • 6:36pm • 08:36, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge This would work much better as a section in the Berlusconi article. AIR corn (talk) 00:19, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge. The main article is not nearly long enough to warrant this split. Axem Titanium (talk) 06:33, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

The result of the AFD was speedy keep NOT merge. There was UNDUE weight on his resignation in his main article (there was five times the amount of content on that and a single paragraph on his political career) so unless it is evened out then this should not be merged. ♦ Dr. Blofeld  11:12, 17 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The speedy keep was closed only because of the fact that the article was linked on the main page and should not be used to assert anything at all imo the merge seems to have been a WP:BOLD  edit reflecting multiple talkpager comments that merge is the way to go. I suppose you could revert it if you object to it. Off2riorob (talk) 15:56, 17 November 2011 (UTC) Off2riorob (talk) 15:56, 17 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Not only did you criticise me, but you did not even bother to leave a courtesy note on my talk page, I'd think that for someone of your tenure, you'd be familiar with the courtesies of Wikipedia, it's generally standard practice to inform someone that you've reversed their action or acted otherwise, rather than doing so and not even bothering to leave a link to the talk page. I'm not going to start an argument on this, because doing so would be pointless, but I do hope that my future interactions with you will not be this sour. —  James ( Talk •  Contribs ) • 4:10pm • 06:10, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, Wikipedia is a consensus driven project, consensus was gained in this section TO MERGE the article. The AfD result was speedy keep, if that's the case then WHY did you merge the content with the Political career article? IF you truly did disagree with the merge, wholesale, you would have undone my edits and asked for an external opinion, as you, my friend, have a conflict of interest. Would you care to explain, why you criticised me for merging the article's contents with the main article before undoing that and merging it to its current location? —  James ( Talk •  Contribs ) • 4:16pm • 06:16, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * In my opinion your merge was following consensus here and 100% correct. Blofelds change has improved on that, but could have been handled and conveyed better. It has all worked out in the end and I see no nothing to be gained by adding any more to this discussion at this time. Realising that I have just added to it AIR corn (talk) 09:02, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

@James, did you even bother to leave a courtesy note on my talk page to let me know you had merged it?? No. And I was the person who wrote the article, not you. So don't be so dense with your bullshit about tenure if you'll pardon the pun. There does seem to be a consensus to a merge but your move was premature James and you dumped it in his biography in a way there was way too much undue weight upon the resignation. I had no objection to a merge with political career article which didn't even mention it so it seemed the best thing to do and condense a breif summary in the biography' I still think this is legitimate for a separate article but unless somebody is going to expand it further then a merge is fine.♦ Dr. Blofeld  13:28, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I was not obligated to because you don't, and nor does anyone else for that matter, own the article so your claim is, to borrow your words, "bullshit". However, your reversing MY ACTIONS necesitated a courtesy note. I don't disagree that it did apply undue weight, for that I apologise, however, a note nonetheless is not much to ask for considering I DID perform the merge. —  James  ( Talk •  Contribs ) • 8:52am • 22:52, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Number of trials
The article states that Berlusconi has been brought to trial 100 times; the article cited does not support this; a journalist (Marco Travaglio) has listed them all, with plenty of details, and the total number is around 30 (it changes with time, as more alleged illegal activites are brought to light) but it's still a far cry from one hundred. That figure comes from Berlusconi himself, his lawyers or his journalists, and no-one has ever named the "missing 70" trials or given any kind of information about them. 217.57.3.98 (talk) 09:57, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Listen to the video. Yes it does say it and BBC is a RS.♦ Dr. Blofeld  11:25, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry Dr. Blofeld, but no. The BBC reporter doesn't say "Berlusconi faced 100 trials"; the exact quote from the video is "he said he faced over a hundred trials", which is exactly my point: the BBC is relating Berlusconi's own tally, and he's far from unbiased in the matter. He likes to exaggerate, to pose as the victim of an unjust persecution. The only verifiable count of the trials (that I know of) stops at 25/30, nicely summarized in the Trials involving Silvio Berlusconi page. Rizzardi (talk) 22:18, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Read the damn article!!!! He was continually having to defend himself during trials and faced over 100 cases during his terms in office according to Berlusconi♦ Dr. Blofeld  12:15, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

No need to get excited over this. I noticed that the article had been corrected (adding the according to Berlusconi line) but I didn't notice that it was you who made the correction. My "Sorry Dr. Blofeld, but no." remark was related to your previous advice to "Listen to the video", not to the article itself. I see that you followed your own advice, corrected the article and now everything's fine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.57.3.98 (talk) 13:06, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I had actually corrected the article before Rizzardi commented, no worries.♦ Dr. Blofeld  13:20, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

BBC Quote
'[...] has been described by the BBC as "an acute debt crisis that threatens the eurozone"' While I do hold the BBC in high esteem as a news-reporting organisation, should such an emotive headline about current events like this be used as evidence? I'm not fully clued up on whether news articles can be quoted in wiki articles in this way so not sure whether there's technically anything wrong with it from a rules point of view, but I think either this emotive quote should be removed or replaced with a quote from an official source? 86.151.246.207 (talk) 14:03, 14 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, I think you worry about nothing. What should not be done is to use such a phrase in "the voice of Wikipedia", with merely a footnote referring to the source (=the BBC). But that's not what's going on here. The phrase is in quote marks and its provenance is given right in the text: "has been described by the BBC as 'an acute debt crisis that threatens the eurozone'". Provided the source is highly reputable, which I assume nobody will deny, that's just fine ASFAIC. You see the distinction? Uh, what exactly is "an official source"?


 * Also, the quote doesn't sound unduly emotive to me — more like consensus among respectable news media, actually. I've been hearing and reading similar phrasing all day long from the (fairly starchy) media in my own part of Europe. Bishonen | talk 15:10, 14 November 2011 (UTC).

Yes, it is sometimes better to say the in what the BBC describes as and what CNN claims etc if dealing with controversial material but if it is used by severla organizations to describe something not so much of an issue. ♦ Dr. Blofeld  15:23, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

merge
i don't see any reason to leave this article in current situation, it is should be better to merge with Silvio Berlusconi -- RalphR (talk) 21:16, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't see a reason for a separate page either; I agree with the above statement. 129.120.2.72 (talk) 00:49, 17 November 2011 (UTC)