Talk:Vittorio Emanuele, Prince of Naples/Archive 1

NPOV
Time to NPOV this. JTD 06:26 Dec 16, 2002 (UTC)

Naming
As the pretender to the throne of Italy is still living, I believe that his name should conform to how he is commonly known today, ie Juan Carlos of Spain, et al, rather than the Anglicization of his names that would be utilized after his death, per Wiki convention. Mowens35 02:01, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * There is no longer such thing as a "throne of Italy", as Italy is a republic. He's not a king and therefore his name may be left in original untranslated form. --Orzetto 13:46, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

The convention is to use the name by which he is commonly known. Whether he is dead makes no difference - We call Kaiser Wilhelm "Wilhelm," even though he is dead. I am uncertain by which name he is more commonly known. john k 02:31, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * actually, a friend of mine is one of Vittorio Emanuele's lawyers and declares the Prince of Naples is most commonly known as Vittorio Emanuele, not Victor Emmanuel. As per the Wiki naming coventions, my question remains: As most commonly known where? If you look closely at the Wiki naming conventions, dead kings and queens most often have their names translated into the nearest English equivalent however well known they were known by another name in their lifetime and their own country, ie Charles XIV John of Sweden, which is how Wiki prefers to list a man Swede's know as Carl XIV Johan. Curious and illogically, the present king is listed in Wiki as Carl XVI Gustaf, and Wiki covention, if you look at past kings and queens, is to translate their names to the nearly English equivalent upon their death or certainly most of the dead ones do. If you look at the entries for any dead Danish royal known as Fredrick in his own country, the name has been altered to the English form Frederick; however, the present crown prince of Denmark (Fredrick) retains the spelling of his name as it is used in Denmark. Also look at the entries for many of the historical Spanish kings, who have their names listed as Charles, et cetera, rather than Carlos, which is how they were popularly known in their own time and their own country, then and now; today's king, however, is Juan Carlos I, and if Wiki convention as to the majority of his predecessors is any indication, he eventually will become John Charles I with time. Wiki's reason for this Anglicization, according to contributors who have written back to me on this question, is that the English equivalent for dead kings is similar to the Encyclopaedia Britannica's naming convention. So you see why my question was posed and why it remains apt. It is illogical to list a king by an Anglicization he never used and was never known by in his lifetime yet not translate the names of other heads of state similarly, ie Nicolae Ceaucescu, Mikhail Gorbachev, et cetera. Do you see what I am getting at? The term is "commonly used" ... and again, as used where? Mowens35 14:00, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

We use the name by which they're most commonly known in English. I would add that it is standard to anglicize monarchs names, but not those of others, and that this is reasonably common practice. You will not find a book that talks about Michael Gorbachev. You will find many books about Charles II of Spain. The fact that it is inconsistent is because in the last several decades, anglicization has become much less common. Thus, recent monarchs have never had their name anglicized. In the nineteenth century and earlier, though, it was highly common to anglicize the names of contemporary monarchs, and this custom has survived for those monarchs. In the late 19th/early 20th centuries it's more complicated, as there seems to have been no particular standard. In American newspapers of 1914, for instance, one finds that the same newspaper will refer to the Emperor of Austria as "Francis Joseph," "Franz Joseph," and "Franz Josef," with no seeming rhyme or reason. The Kaiser is sometimes "William" and sometimes "Wilhelm." And so forth. So a) this has nothing to do with whether the person has died or not. It has do with standard practice in English language references to the person.  It is quite possible that many of our articles err one way or the other (it seems weird to me that Swedish Gustaf's going back to the 16th century are all at "Gustav" rather than "Gustavus," and also that we have Gustav VI Adolf and Frederick IX of Denmark, since the two were contemporaries, but this is a matter of application, not of policy).  But the policy itself is sound.  b) the question is how the person is referred to in English. Sometimes, anglicization is quite obviously the appropriate thing to do. The tsars starting with Peter the Great, for instance (with the exception of Ivan VI and Anna) are all known by the anglicized versions of their names. So are the Kings of the Hellenes. Other times it's weird - we discuss King Carol I and King Carol II of Romania (non-anglicized), but also King Michael I (anglicized). It is equally confusing in many other instances. So, the question is "How is the Prince of Naples referred to in English?" If he is known as "Vittorio Emanuele," by all means move the article. If the name is commonly anglicized, it should stay here. john k 15:20, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * agree I think we can rename it to Vittorio Emmanuele, i see no problem with that.. Antares911 14:06, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * agree - I admit, when I first saw the change to Vittorio I was a little put off, but as I have thought about it, johnk makes a good point. There really is no standard way of doing it, as much as we try, but the trend to anglicization is dying out. Prsgodd e ss187 00:47, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * disagree Leave the guy's name as "Vittorio Emanuele di Savoia" (English: Victor Emanual of Savoy). But what is his family name anyway? The first line indicates that he is styled as "Vittorio Emanuele ... ... de Savoie." What would the correct Italian of the name be -- "di Savoia" or "de Savoie?" [I see while I was editing this comment sombody deleted "Prince of Naples" from the first line of the article. Somebody must believe in Grace Hopper's adage: "It's better to ask for forgiveness than to beg for permission."]--TGC55 03:14, 9 March 2006 (UTC) edited --TGC55 19:35, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

''Moved as per request. There is clearly no consensus to leave it in a form that breaches the MCN rule on WP and more people voted to return it to follow MCN than to break it. FearÉIREANN'' \(caint)  20:55, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Just a factual issue; "Vittorio Emanuele claims to be The Prince of Naples, Duke of Savoy", does he claim to be this? I think he IS the Prince of Naples and he claims to be King. Secondly, the line "His claims are disputed by supporters of his cousin, Amedeo, 5th Duke of Aosta." is incorrect, in my opinion. The Duke of Aosta disputes VE's claim to be King and head of the Royal House, he does not, and never would, deny his cousin being the Prince of Naple's, a title which he was born with, and which couldn't be taken away as a result of him marrying without his father's permission. Please do contribute to what you think about this in a neutral and logical way please.--Couter-revolutionary 11:20, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, OK, on the basis of what has been discussed earlier and on what seems to be Wikipedia convention, I think it is correct to say he is Prince of Naples, but there appears to be a genuine dispute over whether he is head of the House of Savoy and Duke of Savoy (his cousin claims these titles). As for claiming to be king, as far as I can see he doesn't make any such claim, indeed he renounced such a claim in order to be allowed to return to Italy. I will make edits, if you disagree with them feel free to discuss or tweak. --SandyDancer 11:42, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Done. Is that OK? As this doesn't relate to the discussion on removal of the NPOV tag, I am going to move it to the relevant discussion section above, unless you object? --SandyDancer 11:44, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Oops
Concerning the comment for the edit: 11:26, 17 July 2005 202.0.40.69

The comment said that the Order of St Lazarus merged with the O. of S. Michel. This is wrong; the comment should have read that Lazarus merged with the O. of S. Maurice.

202.0.40.69 11:28, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

You know I really would like to know more about this murder charge, I love all royalty, I have no idea how this could have gone unnoticed by me! -(unsigned)

See Hamer v. France - Nunh-huh 03:00, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Hey, don't worry about it -- the shooting happened in 1978, likely before you were born, and wasn't finalized until 1991 with no jail time.--TGC55 03:24, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, let my say in brief the house of Savoy is often blamed to be Black Nobility. I know, this doesnt't explain much at first sight, but it may give you a hint where to investigate furthermore. You might try google:"Black Nobility" Foreigner 15:14, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

There's quite a nice picture of the trial gainst Vittorio
hmm .... what do you think about using it too? Foreigner 19:37, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

He was apparently arrested today
see AP news report, I would add it but I need to run out the door right now. Just for reference for the next person. --Bobak 00:36, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
 * It's been in the article for some time now. - Nunh-huh 00:45, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Arrest
It seems to me that the sections with comments of parents are so big instead of other "objective facts" and that Wikipedia is saying that all is a conspiracy made by Italian magistrates to receive fame! Strongly POV --Ilario 07:02, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


 * You know, not every disagreement has to result in tagging an article. The steps to disagreement would be [1] edit it so that you think it's NPOV, [2] discuss any disagreements on the talk page, and [3] if and only if you  cannot reach resolution, tag the article and go to mediation. Not everything has to rise to the level of a reader's advisory, and this certainly shouldn't. For what it's worth, nothing in the article suggests to me that Wikipedia is saying what you have read into it, and the protests of relatives that an accused party is innocent [1] are to be expected, and [2] look pretty pitiful, unconvincing and unappealing. - Nunh-huh 07:06, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I've read it. The informations about the arrest are wrong in some detail, also the charges, but the son's and wife's comments are careful. Also the links to an Italian newspaper are not fair because the newspaper could be POV, instead the links should be to (for example) that don't take an opinion on it because it's a press agency. --Ilario 07:21, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I assumed you read the article, because you were complaining about it. I'm not sure why you are saying "I read it". Any source can have a point of view, and we don't require that our sources don't have one. Press agencies like newspapers also have points of view. If you think you have a correction to the charges, make it. Don't just post a tag. And after you've edited it, you should take the tag off. - Nunh-huh 07:25, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I just wanted to say that ITALY is a REPUBBLIC, this family isn't welcome in our contry and the only reason they wanted to come back is to take commercial advantages on us. Please give a more complete information about him and link to at least ONE site against them, not just their fan sites. Thank you


 * It's up to you or other interested parties to find and cite information, sites or links which may be more investigative or critical of the individual and/or family. --TGC55 12:08, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Pretender?
Is it right to call him a pretender? He has recognised the Republican constitution as a provision to being allowed back into Italy again, so he does not claim the throne anymore.Gerard von Hebel 21:08, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


 * This is a tricky sort of situation: Note the case of Otto von Habsburg (HI&RH The Crown Prince of Austria, Hungary and Bohemia). He renounced his claim to the Austro-Hungarian thrones in order to either gain re-entry into Austria; no monarchist or member of the House of Habsburg-Lorraine or indeed most royals consider Otto to have forfeited the Austrian imperial heritage. The reason being, the renunciation was to a republican government which are almost always viewed as illegitimate successors among the royal houses they displace and their supporters. The only difference between Otto von Habsburg and Victor Emmanuel is one of character. Victor Emmanuel is arguably unsuitable for the role of king or even as the head of a royal house. However, he can't be discounted on opinion. People regard his character as reason to support the Duke of Aosta, as good as he may be. Charles 21:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Gave Up Rights...
Apparently, Vittorio Emanuele just renounced his rights in favor of his son, Emanuele Filiberto. See here: and here:  I can't read Italian, but I put it through the google translator and it rougly says:

''Rome - Vittorio Emanuele renounces to the throne in favour of the son Emanuele Filiberto. The news, published on the weekly magazine “People”, had to remain secret for some weeks: the time necessary to complete the practical ones previewed from the real protocol for the passage of deliveries from father to son. In many they will be able to think that this decision has been taken as a result of the notes judicial vicissitudes, but are not therefore. They give beyond two months are in course practical affinche' the Emanuele Filiberto can' inherit' the charges and the onorificenze of the father.''

So presumably this takes effect in two months time, or it took two months to become official or I don't know how to interpret that. So would EF now be the pretender? Morhange 07:55, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

"Prince of Naples" in the title
I am not sure it is appropriate to style Vittorio Emanuele as "Prince of Naples", as he is a commoner and his title is not recognized. The Constitution of Italy, in temporary provision XIV, states clearly that nobility titles shall not be recognized by the Italian state. Using his nobility title may be interpreted as a political statement in support of monarchy. In Italian media, he is usually referred to as "Vittorio Emanuele di Savoia", which may be a better article title. Alternatively, "Vittorio Emanuele of Savoy" or "Victor Emmanuel of Savoy". In the legal documents used in the investigation that resulted in his arrest, he was simply named "Vittorio Emanuele Savoia", i.e. "Savoia" was used as a normal surname. I was unaware that he claimed for himself the title of Prince of Naples until I saw this article, as he is never referred to like this. Googling around (yeah google is not the ultimate truth, but it may be helpful) for usage on cnn.com shows no occurrences of "prince of naples" at all, and some of Vittorio Emanuele (though some links refer to Victor Emmanuel II and III). A similar number for Victor Emmanuel.

I am not sure whether the name should be translated or not, but I definitely believe the "Prince of Naples" part should be removed.


 * His title is just that: His title. The consitition of the Republic of Italy can say whatever it wants on the matter but Victor Emmanuel's title is one of the Kingdom of Italy, a different sort of entity which doesn't exist as a tract of land. I have seen newspaper articles that call him Crown Prince of Italy, Duke of Savoy and also Prince of Naples. The Italian media has no say in English usage. It is just that, Italian. His legal surname in Italy is irrelevant with regard to what he is commonly called. Indeed, Otto von Habsburg is simply (and legally) Otto Habsburg in the Republic of Austria, but he is known elsewhere as Archduke Otto, Crown Prince Otto, etc. Newspapers (especially current ones) are not authoritative on matters of titling and style. Remember, most of it is regurgitated through various offices that go through material on thousands of different subjects. You can't expect them to be experts on royalty. VE is also treated as royalty (or, has been) by various other royal courts. If he weren't, his article here would probably be deleted. Charles 19:30, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, so what is the convention for recognizing a title? Neapolitans are likely unaware that VE is their prince, and Naples is definitely not a principality... Can you point to articles using his title? I did not find any (though I did not look much beyond the CNN website). Hits on Google for Prince of Naples are fairly low, many being this article and derivatives on answers.com, unrelated (e.g. other Italian royalties such as VE2) or pro-monarchy sites. I agree the main usage in English should be the one used, but "Prince of Naples" does not seem to be the one.


 * Me again. I found out that VE actually renounced to the title of "Prince of Naples" with a legally binding letter, signed by his son as well. As described in this article (Italian) from February 2002, he swore loyalty to the Constitution of Republican Italy, which (as I mentioned above) abolished all legal value of titles of nobility; he had therefore to renounce to his title.


 * Same situation as Otto von Habsburg. In the eyes of monarchists, the republic would be an illegitimate successor to the kingdom and therefor any renunciation is invalid since the titles were not titles of the Italian Republic. Charles 00:14, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


 * (Sorry, indented on your behalf) Ok, we can agree on that, but then isn't using his title by definition POV? Has Otto von Hapsburg renounced to all titles, including the "von"? In his article I read only that he renounced to the throne (not sure how the "von" works in Austria though), not to all titles. Again, the "Prince of Naples" thing (and his other titles for that sake) should be mentioned in the article, along why monarchists believe they should be kept. However, as he legally renounced, and especially because he is not customarily referred to as "prince of Naples", neither in Italian nor English nor other languages (see names of most translated articles), I think the title should be removed from the article name.


 * Something cannot be legally renounced if it hasn't been legally recognized. If, indeed, Prince of Naples is inappropriate (I am not convinced it is) then there are his better known titles such as Duke of Savoy and Crown Prince of Italy. All have been used regardless of any sort of renunciation. Charles 23:14, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Netquantum's edits
This user has twice in the last 24 hours blanked a significant proportion of this article. If the user takes issue with any of the information - which appears to be balanced and where appropriate sourced - I suggest s/he does so here and a consensus can be reached. So far, his behavious has appeared to be vandalistic. --SandyDancer 13:11, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I have moved the discussion below - which should be here so everyone can see it - from my talk page where it was started by User:Netquantum. --SandyDancer 13:43, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * the comments for Prince Victorrio Emanuelle are all difamatory language for events presently going on in Italy and sponsored by mafia and other revolutionaries.


 * most of the statements about his problems with the Potenza people and with the Cavalo stories and other points are false and based on pure propaganda and red mafia brigades. while those events are still going on it is pure speculation and pure difamation to attack on this basis. most of the statements are false. this is why we will not accept that you continue to vandalise the page with pathetic comments and false partisan claims. therefore we will revert the articles to neutral content as long as it takes and you will be blocked from wikipedia if you continue to attack the Italian Royal family on false basis. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Netquantum (talk • contribs) 9 October 2006.


 * Calm down.
 * Firstly, I did not add any of the information in question. Actually, if you look at the edit history of the page, you will see my edits before today have served to try and rebalance the article in the subject's favour, if anything (see edits here and here.
 * Secondly, I do not see what you are objecting to in the article's content - all of the info is sourced.
 * Thirdly, please discuss on the article's talk page and not mine - that is where I am moving this whole discussion so others can see it.
 * I am going to revert your edits - which presently constitute nothing but vandalism - one more time. If you then revert a third time, and again make these rash deletions without justifying them (other than your above justification which seems to be "I don't like people criticising this person, because I am an Italian monarchist"), you will be in breach of numerous Wikipedia guidelines and I will have no option but to report you. If there are specific parts of the article which you can demonstrate are untrue or unsourced, delete those sections ONLY. Do NOT delete everything you personally don't like. Thank you. --SandyDancer 13:43, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Crown Prince?
User:Couter-revolutionary has been attempting to insert the words "Crown Prince" at the beginning of the article, supposedly because there are some Wiki guidelines which say this is appropriate for a claimant to a non-existent throne. As far as I can see, the guidelines he is pointing to on his talk page do not say this is correct so I have reverted his edit a second time. --SandyDancer 13:11, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Victor Emanuele does not claim to be Prince of Naples, he claims to be King, contrary to your edit of his article. I have posted 2 examples on my Talk of Crown Prince's of abolished monarchies who are known as such because their father was king. It is a courtesy title.--Couter-revolutionary 18:45, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I have responded on your talk page. Thanks. --SandyDancer 18:59, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I may well be one of the leading contributors, but that's only because I know a lot more about him than anyone else does. Anway, I have been through the same debate with the other contributors and that is now settled on Crown Prince Leka's.  Wikipedia guidelines, if you take the time to read the one's I sent a link to, state that I am correct and I really couldn't be bothered pointing them out to you! Have a look tho'.--Couter-revolutionary 19:06, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I suspect you may have just worn out their patience. We do not live in a parallel universe where abolished monarchical systems still exisit. --SandyDancer 19:08, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I am not trying to claim they still exist, I am trying to explain to you that Wikipedia refers to the Heir apparent of deposed monarchs by their title, which, frequently is Crown Prince, in this case it is Prince of Naples, in others a different title exists. I could not succesfully make an argument on the basis of my own belief, if I did I would be calling him the KING OF ITALY, which I believe he is, as it happens I am not.  I am maintaining NPOV and arguining Wikipedia guidelines be enforced.--Couter-revolutionary 19:13, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Read this extract from the guidelines, it supports what I have said:
 * Do not apply an ordinal in an article title to a pretender, i.e., someone who has not reigned. For example, use Louis Alphonse, Duke of Anjou, not Louis XX when referring to the legitimist pretender to the French throne. A person may however be referred to if they have a title, for example, Victor Emmanuel, Prince of Naples for the last Italian Crown Prince. But he should not be referred to as Victor Emmanuel IV even though Italian royalists call him so. Where someone has a disputed title, for example, "Henry V" – whom French Legitimists believed became the real king of France in 1830 after Charles X and his son's abdications – could be referred to as such in the article. Alternatively a disambulation page could be created, redirecting enquiries about "Henry V" to the page where his biography exists, that is, Henri, comte de Chambord. --Couter-revolutionary 19:16, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * It doesn't support what you have said. At all. You are never, ever going to find a wikipedia rule which says that members of abolished royal families should be referred to by abolished titles, because to do so is counter to common sense and reality. No amount of wikilawyering is going to win this argument for you. There is no such thing as the "Crown Prince of Italy" or the "Prince of Naples" in the 21st Century. The titles simply do not exist. The fact some monarchists - like you - use them to refer to certain members of former royal families is a statement of your own views, and by defintion represents "POV". --SandyDancer 19:20, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure how you can say that it doesn't support what Couter-revolutionary is saying. This person is the example they use for situations just like this.  It says right there to use, Victor Emmanuel, Prince of Naples, not Victor Emmanuel IV.  I agree with most of the edits you've done today, but your refusal to accept this title confuses me.  If I'm missing something, you'll have to do more than just claim that it doesn't support him.--Onorem 19:41, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi and thanks for joining us. No, the argument isn't about use of the title "Prince of Naples", its about referring to VE as Crown Prince of Italy - that is what this is about. The guidelines do not states that we should be be calling him "Crown Prince" - which stands to reason, because you can't be Crown Prince in respect of a non-existent Crown. I concede the guidelines clearly state he can be referred to as "Victor Emmanuel, Prince of Naples". Hence the title of the article. --SandyDancer 19:46, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I've added Prince of Naples to the intro accordingly, though personally I don't think we should be calling him this, I think there is enough conflict here without me adding to it by questioning the guidelines on royal naming. For the record, I think those guidelines need work. --SandyDancer 19:55, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Sandydancer
is not neutral and Sandydancer is making an obsession about the prince of naples. the comments for Prince Victorio Emanuelle are all difamatory language for events presently going on in Italy and sponsored by mafia and other revolutionaries, according to many sources.

most of the statements about his problems with the Potenza people and with the Cavalo stories and other points are false and based on pure propaganda and red mafia brigades. while those events are still going on it is pure speculation and pure difamation to attack on this basis. most of the statements are false. this is why we will not accept that you continue to vandalise the page with pathetic comments and false partisan claims. therefore we will revert the articles to neutral content as long as it takes and you will be blocked from wikipedia if you continue to attack the Italian Royal family on false basis. --Netquantum 13:43, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Please see discussion above. I dispute the allegation that I am not neutral here - I am not Italian and I have no particular view either way about Vittorio Emanuele. I came to the article and made a couple of tweaks not long ago which were actually in the subject's FAVOUR. I had the article on my watchlist from that time and spotted that Netquantum had reverted someone else's attempt to stop him blanking most of this article. So that is how I am involved here. I am going to keep my cool in the face of the attacks above because frankly I think anyone reading this will see the I am not being biased here and am just trying to stop sourced and relevant sections being blanked by an ardent fan of the subject. --SandyDancer 13:49, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I quite agree with you. There is a link to guidelines on my talk page and here: Naming conventions (names and titles). These show my position to be correct.--Couter-revolutionary 13:46, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * No, those guidelines do NOT say that defunct titles should be attributed to persons as if they were current. The guidelines only deal with actual, currently existing monarchies and titles. So what you are saying is false. --SandyDancer 13:49, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Here is the relevant guideline, which coincidentally actually uses the subject of this article as an example:
 * Do not apply an ordinal in an article title to a pretender, i.e., someone who has not reigned. For example, use Louis Alphonse, Duke of Anjou, not Louis XX when referring to the legitimist pretender to the French throne. A person may however be referred to if they have a title, for example, Victor Emmanuel, Prince of Naples for the last Italian Crown Prince. But he should not be referred to as Victor Emmanuel IV even though Italian royalists call him so. Where someone has a disputed title, for example, "Henry V" – whom French Legitimists believed became the real king of France in 1830 after Charles X and his son's abdications – could be referred to as such in the article. Alternatively a disambulation page could be created, redirecting enquiries about "Henry V" to the page where his biography exists, that is, Henri, comte de Chambord.
 * So the correct form is "Vittorio Emanuele, Prince of Naples" - the title of the article. Crown Prince is not appropriate. --SandyDancer 13:55, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

the point is that this article was full of current partisan political events going on in Italy and wikipedia is not a court and therefore the article and content must stay neutral for the time being. No personal or ongoing claims are allowed --Netquantum 14:01, 9 October 2006 (UTC) NOW FOR THE TITLE ISSUE, PLEASE REMEMBER THAT THEIR ROYAL TITLES ARE PRESENTLY BANNED IN ITALY, BUT THE TITTLES ARE STILL RELEVENT TO MANY PEOPLE AROUND EUROPE AND ALSO TO THE MONARCHIST ORDERS AND RELIGIOUS ORDERS.--Netquantum 14:01, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I AM NOT ITALIAN EITHEIR I AM A PROFESSIONAL HITORIAN AND CONSTITUTIONAL SPECIALIST. --Netquantum 14:01, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Again, calm down - no need to shout.
 * As far as I can see, the information in question does not say anything that is untrue - it merely refers to controveries and allegations surrounding the subject in a balanced fashion that is properly sourced. What is the problem with that? Blanking information because you don't want anything potentially negative said about the subject is not something you should do. If the article said "Vittorio is guilty of corruption", for example, that would be wrong. But it doesn't. It just records the fact he was arrested and charged and released. I think there is some POV sections in there now that I read it, and I will delete one such example.
 * I remain unconvinced that the subject of the article should be referred to as Crown Prince - common sense and my reading of the relevant guidelines tells me that to do so would be incorrect and misleading. --SandyDancer 14:06, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I have made some edits to the article to deal with some of the issues I think you are trying to raise. --SandyDancer 14:13, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I was never trying to give him the title of a King! What on earth are you on about?--Couter-revolutionary 14:15, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't know? What are you on about? Where have I said you were trying to give him a title as king? You were however trying to give him a royal title - Crown Prince - which he doesn't hold. --SandyDancer 14:16, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * the article is full of false attack such as " killing of dick hammer" The prince was cleared 100% by a french court. So the article does not match with the truth.
 * most of the statements on the page are false and missleading information based on propagenda and Populist political and cheap press report " wikipedia is not a people's magazine where anyone can send attacks and opinion" probelms presently going on in Italia. Corruption scandals involving the government, etc.. historians recognise his family as beiing legitimate. the nutrality of the article must be protecte and no partisan and Populist press claims will be allowed.--Netquantum 14:18, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I was referring to the above extract, which only tells me that he should not be referred to as King. He should, however be referred to his highest reigning title before the Italian monarchy was abolished. This is Prince of Naples/Crown Prince. Why do you find this hard to see? I know, it's because you cannot look at this from NPOV--Couter-revolutionary 14:22, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Don't twist what I said. You pointed to some guidelines to assert you were right, and I read them and quoted from them to say you were wrong. If you think you can make an argument to support your assetion that the subject of this article should be described as a Crown Prince based on common sense and / or the Wikipedia Guidelines you keep pointing me to, but refuse to actually discuss, then please - go ahead. Can you? --SandyDancer 14:29, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Why do you think I don't have a neutral point of view? What evidence for that do you have? My edits perhaps? Hmmmmm - no, because apart from attempts to stop blanking of relevant sections, all of my edits to this article have been attempts to stop it being biased AGAINST the subject! --SandyDancer 14:29, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I have once again changed this back, could someone else please support me in this. I am correct according to wikipedia guidelines!--Couter-revolutionary 14:26, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Well done, you just broke the rule on 3RR. --SandyDancer 14:29, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * hello, i am a profesional historian and the legal real title is:

HIS ROYAL HIGHNESS PRINCIPE DI NAPOLI, DUCHI DI SAVOIA. --Netquantum 14:32, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

This has descended into farce and you both know it. How is that the "legal real title", when the Kingdom of Italy doesn't exist and the subject of this article is a private citizen of the Italian Republic, who has actually renounced these titles anyway (even if he hadn't, the titles you quote still would not apply). Are you disputing that the Kingdom of Italy no longer exists? Take a step back. --SandyDancer 14:37, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Listen, Italy is now a republic and the offical name accrding to the new Italian republic and law is : Victorio Emanuele Savoy, but you have to understand that history is not done yet, and the royal family is in fact above this legislation because they have been around going through those crises numerous times already, and mayn belive that this law is a simple political manipulation and so it is just a question of time, it might change again very soon in Italy. BASICALLY  lots of other juridictions and groups do accept and still recognise the title of : HIS ROYAL HIGHNESS PRINCIPE DI NAPOLI, DUCHI DI SAVOIA. even today in Spain, belgium, UK and many other places and juridictions--Netquantum 14:43, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * No - he is not recognised by that title under UK law, I know that for a fact. In sincerely doubt he is legally recognised by that title anywhere, although he may be styled as such as royal gathering which deposed monarchs and pretenders still get invited to.
 * I am not going to go shouting about what I do for a living to try and justify that. Your agenda is very clear from all of your posts, not least the one I am replying to now.
 * Whether or not you personally believe that the subject of the article SHOULD or in future WILL be recognised as having all those titles, that doesn't change the fact that currently he isn't. And this article should reflect current FACT - not wishful thinking. --SandyDancer 14:47, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

We are correct! You really should look at examples of other Crown Prince who did not ascend to the throne because it was abolished, then you shall see that we are. --Couter-revolutionary 14:52, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * You keep asserting you are correct, first by vaguely pointing to some guidelines that don't say what you say they do, and now by vaguely pointing to "examples of other Crown Prince who did not ascend to the throne because it was abolished", which you choose not to name. As far as I can tell you are unable to back up what you are saying. --SandyDancer 15:04, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I KNOW AS A HISTORICAL FACT THAT IN HIS BELGIAN PASSPORT IT SAYS

HIS ROYAL HIGHNESS PRINCIPE DI NAPOLI, DUCHI DI SAVOIA --Netquantum 14:55, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

You don't need to shout. --SandyDancer 14:58, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Your facts are non accurate. The point is that the article about Victorio Emanuele Di Savoia was full of false accusation portrayed in Populist and peolple's news style magazine. The article must stay accurate and neutral concerning ongoing political and judiciary issues. Wikipedia is not a people's magazine where one can speculate--Netquantum 15:12, 9 October 2006 (UTC).--Netquantum 15:06, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

What specific sections are you referring to? What specific sections relate to "false accusation portrayed in Populist and peolple's news style magazine" (sic)? As far as I can see the information you are deleting is wide-ranging and covers many different points of interest about the subject, all of which are sourced. Where they are not sourced, I put fact tags on or deleted in an attempt to appease you (and of course improve the article...). Come on, let us hear you justify your deletions SPECIFICALLY and not GENERALLY without resorting to threats, abuse and ranting! --SandyDancer 15:16, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Again, the article is full of populist assumptions and propaganda material unchecked and totally untrue. I give you two examples and then please stop waisting our time.

1/ In the article it says: Killing of Dick Hammer ? the prince was aquited 100% by a republican french court. 2/ It says also; Violance, Anti semitism, Freemasonic, his father also never called on Amedeo in Portugal, the king also never ordered the killing of Giacomo Matteotti., etc.

Please remember one more time that wikipedia is not a bulletin board where anyone can speculate about populist articles apearing in the news media.--Netquantum 15:27, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

To use the Dick Hammer example - the article never said he killed Dick Hammer - it said he was accused of such, and tried. Are you suggesting that the fact he was tried in France for killing someone isn't notable enough to go in his biography??? Fine, maybe the section heading should read "The Death of Dick Hammer", so it isn't suggested that VE killed him --SandyDancer 15:37, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

if you want to ad a paragraphe about the Dick Hammer issues please do so but with accurate facts and not with cheap populist news media type comments- keep in mind that the world will be a better place if one stops acusing falsly, just remember jesus christ was condemned falsly and then killed by the romans.--Netquantum 15:45, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * um... Vittorio Emanuele is no Jesus Christ. - Nunh-huh 16:11, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Proposal to improve this article
Moving on from the endless discussion above, which is proving fruitless:

This article is now missing several key facts about the subject's life. Principal among these are the following:


 * The Death of Dirk Hamer - apparently VE was accused of causing the death of this person by shooting. However, he was subsequently tried and acquitted by a French court on charges related to this. This is an important and well publicised episode in the subject's life and should be mentioned in the article.


 * Arrest on charges of corruption - this year (2006), VE was arrested in Italy on corruption charges, and subsequently released. This is an important and well publicised episode in the subject's life and should be mentioned in the article.


 * Relations with other members of the House of Savoy - apparently VE has been involved in various disputes with other members of the House of Savoy, including disputes over grant of honours, his marriage and renunication by him of titles. These are important episodes in the subject's life and should be mentioned in the article.


 * Allegations of anti-semitism and Iranian arms dealing - unsourced allegations along these lines previously appeared in the article. These allegations should be referenced in the article along with sources.

I would like to invite other contributors to add balanced and sourced sections covering some or all of these points in a "Controversies" or "Criticisms" section of the article. All were referenced previously, though not in a balanced way. User:Netquantum has deleted all reference to the above several times today in blatant contravention of Wikipedia rules. Nonetheless, I have come to the view that restoring the old content will not produce a good article - the relevant sections were in places unsourced and biased against the subject, and although I tried to balance things out perhaps it is best to start afresh.

I will take my leave of this article pending resolution of the informal mediation I have requested here Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-10-09 Vittorio Emanuele, Prince of Naples. --SandyDancer 15:57, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * This eventually goes in the good direction now, but please remember that most of those topics your now raising are pure populist news media speculation and wikipedia is not a bulletin board where anyone can ad personal feelings or copy people's magazine style issues...--Netquantum 16:02, 9 October 2006 (UTC)'''


 * Let me be clear. We have not come to terms here. Sorry if I have created that impression. I do not condone your blanking of sourced material and your attempt to remove anything that is negative about the subject, even if factual and properly sourced. I am beginning to doubt whether you are acting in good faith. For example:
 * See Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-10-09 Vittorio Emanuele, Prince of Naples, where you try and obscure the killing of Dirk Hamer issue even when the actual findings of the court are quoted at you by another user.
 * You continually make wild responses and repeat meaningless and irrelevant mantra about "populist magazines" so that anyone reading would think you were deleting unsourced and scurrilous gossip, rather than sections which are backed up by sources and deal with the likes of actual unlawful killing trials, criminal convictions and arrest on charges of corruption.
 * I think the article should be reverted to how it was before you started editing it and then you should make constructive edits. I tried to do this earlier today but my edits, made in good faith to try and balance the article, have been lost in your attempt to carry out a whitewash. This has not done the article any good, and if you continue as you are you will be banned and this article will continue to have significant POV issues to the detriment of the subject. --SandyDancer 18:13, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

proposed changes
Currently: "He has been criticised in Italy and abroad because of a series of blunders, remarks that some have seen as anti-semitic, and a murder charge, of which he was cleared." I propose that this should read "He has been criticised in Italy and abroad because of his alleged role in arms dealing, his involvement in a series of violent incidents, and remarks that some have seen as anti-semitic." There is no need for details in the introduction, and "a series of blunders" conveys little information. - Nunh-huh 18:18, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I propose "Victor Emanuele of Savoy", in the first line should read "Victor Emanuele, Prince of Naples". I really do think I have, by now, illustrated why this should be the case, see the other examples on my Talk page.--Couter-revolutionary 18:31, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * You have demonstrated no such thing. I see you have given up claiming that the wikipedia guidelines on royal naming conventions support your view, because they don't. Now you are quoting two examples of members of former royal families, which should be cleaned up too. It is simply ridiculous to suggest that Wikipedia should endorse the claims of deposed royal families to hold defunct titles. If these titles are used as courtesy titles only, that should be made clear. But we should not suggest such claims have any factual or legal basis in the modern world because they do not. If you are monarchist, fine. Don't impose your agenda on this encylopedia. That is my last word on the subject.
 * To anyone who is reading this, please see discussion above under "Crown Prince?" --SandyDancer 19:03, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I sow him personally on Italian television RAI 1 a few months ago, he confirmed that he was not antisemitic at all, he said that all this is fabricated and nor his family was never antisemit, and that his familly constrcuted the first synagoge of Italy.--Netquantum 19:32, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that, I think people will choose to make their own judgements based on the facts. Right, I have made a number of edits to the article in an attempt to clean it up, both in terms of content and style. If any of my edits don't suit of course they can be altered further, but another blanket reversion won't help anyone and wastes all of our time. For what its worth, i think the article is better now than it was 24 hours ago. --SandyDancer 20:15, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Killing of Dirk Hamer
User:Netquantum's latest attacks on the integrity of this article seems to be principally based around trying to edit the heading of the section to "Dirk Hamer Situation", and to put a nonsensial sentence at the beginning of it - "In 1991 the princed was cleared of all charges by a French repuplican court. "The story "" (sic). He has just reverted this for the third time in contravention of wikipedia's 3RR rule.

So that no-one is misled into thinking that somehow there is dispute that Vittorio Emanuele killed Dirk Hamer, I want to quote here from the official findings of the French court that tried VE for unlawful killing:


 * " In the night of 17 to 18 August 1978, on leaving a restaurant where he had spent the evening, Prince Victor-Emmanuel noticed that a rubber dinghy belonging to him was moored, for no reason that he knew of, to the stern of the Cocke. Having armed himself with a rifle classified as a military weapon and fitted with a cartridge clip containing thirty-one cartridges, he brought his boat alongside the Cocke to try to recover his property. Confronting a passenger who had been woken by the manoeuvre, Prince Victor-Emmanuel fired twice. The Cocke's passenger, avoiding the shots, threw himself on his assailant and both men fell into the water. However, one of the bullets very seriously wounded a nineteen-year-old German youth, Mr Dirk Hamer, who had been asleep on the deck of the Mapagia. Prince Victor-Emmanuel called for the emergency services and Mr Hamer was admitted to Porto-Vecchio Hospital at about 6 a.m., in a deep coma, with no measurable pulse or blood pressure, the accident having occurred about four hours before. On 19 August 1978 he was transferred to Marseilles Northern Hospital in a very alarming condition. On 30 August 1978, against the advice of the doctors at that hospital, Mr Hamer, whose parents were also doctors, was taken to Heidelberg University Hospital. Intensive care was of no avail, and Mr Hamer died on 7 December 1978 without ever being able to give evidence. An autopsy carried out on 11 December 1978 showed that the bullet wound had been the cause of death." 

To be clear, VE was cleared of negligently or deliberately killing Dirk Hamer. Nevertheless, the court ruled - and VE admitted - that he was reponsible for the death.

'''Now, Netquantum, if you want to edit this section again could you please answer the following question: If you don't dispute that sentence, then why are you deliberately adding untruths to this article? --SandyDancer 21:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Do you dispute that VE killed Dirk Hamer, despite (a) the fact he himself admits that he did so and (b) the fact that a French court and the ECHR ruled that he did so?'''


 * its such non sense what you are saying, again I a professional historian and constitutional specilist and never her that VE admited the killing of Hammer. VE was cleared 100% in court in 1991. He was charged for possing weapons without proper permit. thats it. Other specialist have noted that italian mafia arranged the killing and the story and then put everything on VE trac.


 * What are you talking about? His admissions of doing this, at the time of the killing and since, are well documented. VE himself has never disputed that he killed Dirk Hamer. The French courts cleared VE of deliberately or negligently killing Hamer, they did not say he didn't kill him - they just ruled that the killing was accidental. What difference does it make if you are "a professional historian and constitutional specilist" (sic)? You are deliberately trying to obscure the truth here and it is tiresome in the extreme. Just stop it. What is untrue in the article? Can you specifically choose a sentence which you consider untrue and discuss it? --SandyDancer 22:20, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

NPOV tag
...and so the latest attempt to compromise the article is to continually and, I believe, erroneously, place an NPOV tag at the top, simply because the user in question (Netquantum) has been prevented continually from blanking whole sections, deleting sourced information and deliberately introducing false statements into the article. It should be noted that before the NPOV tag approach was adopted, efforts were made by Netquantum to add a speedy deletion tag.

This article does not, in my view, contravene the NPOV policy of wikipedia, and I do not believe there is a genuine dispute. Although I am loathe to do so, I quote from Wikipedia guidelines below:


 * "Probably the only grounds on which there could be an NPOV dispute over an article that actually conformed to the NPOV is when one or both of the parties to the dispute did not understand either the NPOV policy, or enough about the subject matter to realize that nothing favoring one POV had actually been said. For example, ideologues, when presented with an article that has exemplary neutrality (as per our policy), will consider the article biased precisely because it does not reflect their own bias enough. Probably, such people simply do not understand the NPOV policy."  (Taken from NPOV_dispute).

What we have on this page is a serious attempt at POV pushing and this tactic must not be allowed to succeed.

I have worked hard over the last 24 hours to source statements added in the article by other users in the past. I have also made substantial edits and deleted certain statements where these contravene the NPOV policy. What we are left with here, I believe, is an article which simply reflects what the reputable sources tell us, containing no statements of opinion of manifestations of bias that I can detect. Of course, if anyone disagrees, including Netquantum, they are free to edit, though of course it helps to discuss changes here first, or at least use a proper edit summary to justify the change (rather than using deliberately misleading summaries as Netquantum has done on at least two occasions).

Tagging this article as contravening NPOV is a nonsense, and just the latest in a line of tactics - documented above and displayed in the edit history - to stop anything negative, even if unbiased and fully sourced, being said about the subject by an ardent fan. --SandyDancer 09:32, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Do not continually add a NPOV tag to the article. If you think there are instances of bias in the article, explain where. So far your attempts to do so have included claiming that "the mafia" shot Dirk Hamer, when in fact VE himself admitted doing so and a French Court and the ECHR both ruled that he did so. If you still think the article is biased, explain why.
 * Inclusion of relevant, sourced and unbiased sections does NOT in itself constitute a breach of NPOV.
 * If you think the question is one of balance, perhaps you could add a factual, sourced and unbiased section about something which is biographical, important and POSITIVE about VE. For all I know, he could for example be an active patron of an important and active charity - if he is, please write about it under an appropriate heading. Of course, if such information does not exist, then the article is not unbalanced in terms of content. There is no rule saying biographies on wikipedia have to paint the subject in a flattering light, if it is not possible to do so.
 * Do not vandalise factual, sourced and unbiased sections because you would prefer they were not true. --SandyDancer 11:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * (The above message was also posted on User talk:Netquantum


 * YOU ARE NOT REASONABLE AND SHOULD RESPECT OTHER PEOPLES THOUGH, MYSELF AND COUTER REVO AND MANY OTHER WE DONT AGREE WITH YOU. WE BELIEVET THAT YOU ARE NOT BEING NEUTRAL. SO THE TAG STAYS. YOUR STUFF IS LIKE SAYING PRINCESS DIANA WAS KILLED BY THE QUEEN OF ENGLAND! DO YOU UNDERSTND NOW, POPULIST PAPARAZZI STUFF LIKE YOURS IS NOT FOR WIKIPEDIA. SO MOVE ON BUT THE TAG WILL STAY TO AVER CONFUSION. AGAIN I HAVE NO TIME TO CONTINUE THIS BS SMALL TALK ALL THE DAY WE WILL AD THE TAG AS LONG AS THE ARTICLE WILL BASED ON THIS. I AM NOT A FAN OF THIS PERSON I AM WIKIPEDIA FAN AND WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A PEOPLES MAGAZINE SITE WHERE ONE CAN COPY BAD PRESS REPORTS.--Netquantum 11:07, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Please stop shouting on this talk page. It is rude.
 * Your central assertion and justification for the NPOV tag appears to be that the sourced material is "POPULIST PAPARAZZI STUFF". However the sources used to back up the information in the article include the following:
 * ''Official reports of the European Court of Human Rights
 * The Guardian newspaper
 * The Independent newspaper
 * La Repubblica newspaper
 * ''Il Corriere della Sera newspaper
 * '' Yahoo! news
 * All are respected news sources, and none fit the description of "POPULIST PAPARAZZI STUFF". All the statements in the article are backed up with sources like these, and therefore your assertion is completely false, and I suspect you know this to be the case.
 * On this basis, please desist from adding the NPOV tag without justification. --SandyDancer 11:15, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * (The above message was also posted on User talk:Netquantum


 * [The message below was posted on my talk page - --SandyDancer 11:23, 10 October 2006 (UTC)]


 * MILLIONS OF ARTICLES AROUND THE WORLD TO REVERT WHAT YOU ARE SAYING HERE, I GAVE YOU DETAILES YESTERDAY AND WILL NOT START AGAIN. WE DONT AGREE WITH YOU AND WILL AD THE TAG AS LONG AS THE ARTICLE STAYS LIKE THAT.--Netquantum 11:21, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I AM NOW STOPING THIS CONVERSATION AND WILL AD THE TAG AS LONG AS YOU KEEP THIS STUFF THAT IS NOT NEUTRAL. --Netquantum 11:21, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * No. Do not be disingenuous. You have not once advanced any sources which contradict those which have been added to the article. If you wish to do so, I am all ears. --SandyDancer 11:23, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * No opinion on the broader issues, but yahoo news is not a news source. Presumably the article was a wire article from the AP or Reuters or some such, but the link is currently dead.  We ought to find a different one. john k 11:35, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for pointing that out - I will take a look. --SandyDancer 11:40, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

SOURCES http://savoia.blastness.com/images/NOTA_STAMPA_DUCA_CON_LINK.pdf


 * This article you have linked to has no information which is relevant to any of the issues being discussed. It is is totally pointless to link to this. --SandyDancer 15:10, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Sito Ufficiale dell'Associazione Internazionale Regina Elena http://www.dinastiareale.it/AIRE.htm


 * Ditto. Irrelevant link. --SandyDancer 15:10, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Coordinamento Monarchico Italiano Caso duca d'Aosta Presentazione C.M.I. Sito Ufficiale dell'Istituto Nazionale per la Guardia d'Onore alle Reali Tombe del Pantheon http://www.guardiadonorealpantheon.it/


 * Yet again - irrelevant link. This one is to seemingly die-hard monarchist website. --SandyDancer 15:10, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Gruppo Savoia - Associazione Nazionale Via Filippo Taviani, 3 - 20133 Milano - Tel. 02 70127741


 * Eh? This is just the address of a monarchist organisation - it isn't a source --SandyDancer 15:10, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Sito Ufficiale del Movimento Monarchico Italiano www.monarchici.org


 * Just the homepage of an "Italian Monarchist Movement" - no relevant information on the page, and even if there were it would of course be biased. --SandyDancer 15:10, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Sito Ufficiale della American Delegation of Savoy Orders www.savoia.org


 * *Ditto. This is getting predictable, but lets see it through to the end... --SandyDancer 15:10, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Sito Ufficiale di Tricolore Associazione www.tricolore-italia.com


 * Again, just a monarchist website. This one plays music and an Italian flag dances across the screen. Nothing here to refute the findings of the ECHR and the reports of the mainstream press. Looks pretty right wing, actually. Ho-hum. --SandyDancer 15:10, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Sito Ufficiale dell'Associazione Valori e Futuro fondata da S.A.R. il Principe Emanuele Filiberto www.valoriefuturo.it


 * Seemingly just a fansite for Vittorio Emanuele's son. No relevant information. So all the "sources" listed by our friend are irrelevant, and even if they weren't irrelevant they would be biased. A total waste of time and yet another seemingly deliberate attempt to put up a smokescreen to allow this article to be destroyed by a die-hard fan of the subject. --SandyDancer 15:10, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

YOU ARE WAISTING OUR TIME AND YOU ARE NOT NEUTRAL, YOU ARE JUST COPIYING SMALL TALK POPULIST PRESS ACUSATIONS, SUCH AS LADY DIANA STUFF. AND THIS IS NOT BEING NEUTRAL. I GUESS YOU HAVE A PERSONAL PROBLEM WITH HIM OR YOUR ARE FROM A DIFFERENT BACKGROUND OR MAYBE YOU ARE JEWISH, WHATEVER YOU ARE NOT BEING NUTRAL HERE SO READ THE ENVIDENCE ABOVE AND YOU WILL REALISE THAT MOST OF YOUR STUFF IS PROPAGANDA AND NEWS MEDIA BS. WE WANT FACTS HERE NO BS PEOPLE'S MAG ACUSATION--Netquantum 11:41, 10 October 2006 (UTC)#

Wow. '''Your continual parroting of mantra such "people's mag" and "populist paparazzi" when faced with factual, unbiased information and reputable sources is, I can only assume a deliberate ploy to mislead the casual observer. What you are doing is wholly unconscionable.''' Please desist as it will get you nowhere. You have done nothing to establish anything in the article is untrue, all you have established is that you do not like it and have an agenda on this page. --SandyDancer 11:51, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * First thing - all those sources seem to be in Italian so I can't read them, but I do note they are all royalist websites, and not in any way unbiased news sources. So none of them have any validity when compared to broadsheet newspapers and an official report of the ECHR.
 * Secondly - I have no problem with VE personally, and I am not Jewish - although your suggestion that I am, and that would lead me to have issues with him, speaks volumes about your views and attitudes and does your standing here no good whatsoever.

Find a translation tool and you will find more links then you need to verify wwe told you already, to copy stuff from places like yahoo of just paparazzi artilcles is not for wikipedia. --Netquantum 11:57, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

When we have time we will propose a neutral well established article covering all the topics you mentionned. but for the time beeing you have to understand that you are not beeing nutral and the nutral tag must stay. --Netquantum 11:57, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Please answer the following question: Do you, Netquantum, believe that The Independent, The Guardian, La Repubblica, Il Corriere della Sera and an official report of the ECHR all constitute "paparazzi articles?"? Please make it clear if that is what you are saying - those are the sources that appear in the article. --SandyDancer 12:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

look at the links and sources we provided and please understand that most of the references you provide are based on populist claims, and the wikipedia article is transforming the news you claim comes from those articles, so its not neutral. remember that wikipedia is not a news paper where one can ad personal opinions based on paparazzi stuff found on yahoo--81.62.104.112 12:16, 10 October 2006 (UTC) --Netquantum 12:37, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Do not use sockpuppets. The Yahoo source has gone, as has the information is backed up - thanks to User:John Kenney for bringing that to my attention. Note I did not add that source - it had been on the page for some time.
 * Can you actually back up your assertion that the "wikipedia article is transforming the news you [I] claim comes from those articles"? I don't think you can but welcome you to try. --SandyDancer 12:28, 10 October 2006 (UTC) I DONT USE SOCKPUPPETS I WAS JUST LOGED OUT INADVERTLY --Netquantum 12:35, 10 October 2006 (UTC) Sorry, my mistake. I will assume good faith and withdraw my accusation. --SandyDancer 12:43, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Find a translation tool and you will find more links then you need to verify wwe told you already, to copy stuff from places like yahoo of just paparazzi artilcles is not for wikipedia. --Netquantum 11:57, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I do not intend to use a translation tool to try and understand articles on royalist fansites when the article is fully sourced from mainstream media articles and official court reports. --SandyDancer 12:28, 10 October 2006 (UTC) THOSE ARE NO FAN SITES THOSE ARE OFFICIAL LINKS AND EXPLANATIONS --Netquantum 12:35, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

'''When we have time we will propose a neutral well established article covering all the topics you mentionned. but for the time beeing you have to understand that you are not beeing nutral and the nutral tag must stay. --Netquantum 11:57, 10 October 2006 (UTC'''

''"wikipedia article is transforming the news .........ETC.... LATER ON I WILL SHOW YOU AS I SAID I AM BUSY AT WORK NOW. SO WAIT --Netquantum 12:37, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Fine. I appreciate you may be busy now, and later may have time to come back and adopt a constructive approach to the article, pointing out any areas where you do not believe it is balanced and discussing appropriate edits whilst in the interim placing an NPOV tag on the article. Currently however you have established no justification for the tag and it should be removed. Please note - if you really can verify your claims that the article is biased in any way, I will be more than happy to see the NPOV tag placed on it while we, and / or other users, work to fix it. Thanks and have a good day. --SandyDancer 12:41, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

When we have time we will propose a neutral well established article covering all the topics you mentionned. but for the time beeing you have to understand that you are not beeing nutral and the nutral tag must stay. --Netquantum 11:57, 10 October 2006 (UTC

Alright, I do have an opinion on this - Netquantum is completely out of line, and it's ridiculous to demand that we remove material backed up by the mainstream press. I'd suggest that Netquantum calm down, and try to add positive material about VE, rather than removing well sourced material critical of him. john k 13:17, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Removal of NPOV tag
Now that things have calmed down a little, I would like to make it clear that I do not believe this article should be blighted with an NPOV tag and am firmly of the opinion it should be removed.

All statements of opinion and all unsourced, speculative statements in the article have been removed (although if anyone spots any that remain, please do discuss these here). I think a good job has been done.

Despite best efforts at improving the article however one user - who has not contributed a single constructive edit despite being invited continually do so - insisted on the NPOV tag being placed only after the bias had been addressed, which is puzzling to say the least.

Unless anyone objects, I would like to remove the tag. This is shaping up to be good article. Thanks. --SandyDancer 11:14, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

For the moment I suggest that the tag should NOT be removed as long as we dont agree with the nutrality of the content, and as long as this is still an open issue. The article has improved some how, (killing accusations, etc) later on we will propose an entire version covering all those topics. and I invite any specialist of the VE case to come in and edit everything in a proper wikipedian fashion manner --Netquantum 12:02, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Netquantum, two points for you to consider and respond to:
 * When you say "we don't agree with the neutrality of the content", that is too vague. You seem unable to point to any content which breaches the NPOV guidelines. Unless you can do so, there is no real dispute and you should not oppose the removal of the NPOV tag.
 * When you say "later on we will propose an entire version covering all those topics", do you mean you are planning to blank the article and start again? Because if so I and many others will fundamentally disagree with this approach. Also, who is the "we"? You seem to be the only person with an issue here. You are in a minority of one.
 * --SandyDancer 12:20, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Can we now remove the NPOV tag? --SandyDancer 15:09, 15 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Removed. I can't see any statements which represents POV in this article. It is pretty much all meticuously sourced (though a couple of citations are called for). A lot of editing has gone into this article and it has moved away from being an unsourced "rap sheet". --SandyDancer 12:18, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Frustratingly User:Netquantum has resurfaced to put the "NPOV" tag back on this article, without any explanation here (or even an edit summary) and without making any constructive edits to the article.
 * There seems to be a misunderstanding here of what the NPOV tag is for, and what NPOV means in this context. An article which does not present a neutral point of view is one that is biased against the subject, either because of the way it is written or because the content is entirely imbalanced. In this article, neither seems to be the case. Previously, it might well have been, but now the article has been cleaned up - sources have been added, unverified material removed,
 * Netquantum clearly doesn't like the content of the article because he doesn't want the subject to be cast in a bad light by descriptions of cntroversies and scandals which have involved him.
 * That just represents Netquantum's lack of neutrality, not the article's. The article simply presents the facts.
 * It should be noted that Netquantum originally came to this article and tried to delete any reference to controversies involving Vittorio Emanuele - he tried to delete information about his 2006 arrest and imprisonment, his trial for unlawful killing and conviction for firearms offences, the statements he made which some saw as evidencing anti-semitism. Once it became apparent he wasn't going to be permitted to carry out this whitewash, he then resorted to putting the NPOV tag on the article but refusing to justify it sensibly, throwing accusations of bias at me and another user and making personal attacks, breaking the 3RR rule repeatedly. Basically, through the NPOV tag, Netquantum wants to mislead readers into thinking that what is in the article isn't true, even though it is verified, factual material written in an unbiased fashion. This isn't acceptable so I am removing the tag. If Netquantum wants to edit the article, he should do so. But putting the NPOV tag on it for no reason other than to mislead is totally out of order. --SandyDancer 12:35, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Iranian Issue
I also suggest that this particular passage about Iran should be modified, : The prince was never accused of arms dealing, he was an offical helicopter and plane sales man and merchant, and has eventually done a few deals with Iran and with his friend the Palava King Sha of Iran, but this doesnt seem to be arms dealing, working for Airbus or Augusta is not necessarily arms dealing.

Accusations of arms dealing for the Shah of Iran Vittorio Emanuele was accused of arms dealing on behalf of the Shah of Iran [citation needed]. Vittorio Emanuele held his wedding in Tehran, and his son Emanuele Filiberto also bears the name Reza, supposedly a reference to Reza Pahlavi.

change to:


 * Business Relashionship with Palavi King of Iran and Airbus Augusta Industries.
 * Vittorio Emanuele worked for Airbus and Augusta as an helicopter and plane sales man, he is eventually known to have organised in 1968 a legal and offical contract, where he sold more than 40 planes and 89 helicopters to the Iranians, then friends with the Americans and the French governments.

--Netquantum 12:16, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

OK - how about this:


 * "Relationship with Shah of Iran and Airbus and Augusta Industries


 * Vittorio Emanuele was employed by Airbus and Augusta Industries as a (military/civilian?) aircraft salesman, and is known to have organised in 1968 a contract whereby more than 40 planes and 89 helicopters were sold to the then government of Iran . "

All the "legal and official contract" and "friends with Americans" stuff is unneccessary, in my opinion. I take your point that this section previously suggested that VE was in some way involved in illegal arms dealing, which is not necessarily the case. However you need an English language source for the new section, so that it is verifiable. Perhaps in the meantime we should remove the current section on Iran completely from the article and place it below. Also, I think we need to make it clear whether or not the aircraft were for miliary or civilian purposes. --SandyDancer 12:27, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I prefer this:

Business Relashionship with Palavi King of Iran and Airbus Augusta Industries. Vittorio Emanuele worked for Airbus and Augusta as an helicopter and plane sales man, he is eventually known to have organised in 1968 a legal and offical contract, where he sold more than 40 planes and 89 helicopters to the Iranians, then friends with the Americans and the French governments.

--Netquantum 12:30, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Why do you need to say "legal and official contract"? There is no suggestion anymore that he was doing anything wrong. The wording sounds suspiciously like you are trying to make a case for something, to push a point of view. Neutral wording is more appropriate. However, if you can provide a source, please do add what you wish to get the ball rolling. --SandyDancer 12:32, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

take this if you insist:

Business Relashionship with Mohammad Reza Pahlavi King of Iran and Airbus Augusta Industries. Vittorio Emanuele worked for Airbus and Augusta as an helicopter and plane sales man, he is eventually known to have organised in 1968 a contract, where he sold more than 40 planes and 89 helicopters to the Iranians, then friends with the Americans and the French governments.

--Netquantum 12:38, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Can you arrange the editing to avoid this unnecessary space under section: Other honours

In the next fews days i will send you specifics and many other suggestions about several problems I see with the article.

--Netquantum 12:51, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I am sorry but until you do so it just isn't fair to insist the NPOV tag remains - surely if you think there is something which is biased you can tell us NOW what it is, and we can leave the NPOV tag on while you suggest edits over the coming days? Otherwise effectively all you are doing is delaying the inevitable.
 * I don't know how to fix the problem with the space below "honours" I'm afraid. I think it is just a wikipedia formatting error caused by the side bar.
 * --SandyDancer 12:55, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Nothing to be sorry the article is full of junck such as the Iranian arms dealing accusations stuff so i am busy now and in the next few days i will cover those topics one by one with you, anti semite, etc..... so for the moment the article is NOT nutral so the tag stays. when we are finished with this the tag will be removed. --Netquantum 13:00, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * OK fine. So you take issue with the anti-semitism section. We will leave the NPOV tag for a while to allow you to suggest edits to that section backed up by reputable sources. --SandyDancer 13:03, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * There needs to be some mention in the article of the fact he was, for a time, an arms dealer. --SandyDancer 21:14, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Interesting - it seems VE has been investigated in the past for arms trafficking - I will look for more details and put something in the article. Clearly that is what the original, unsourced paragraph we removed was attempting to cover"The prince has, in the past, been convicted of carrying weapons and investigated in connection with charges of arms trafficking.". Also referred to here . A reference to VE's involvement in arms dealing, legal or illegal, proven or just an allegation, needs to go in the article in some form. --SandyDancer 00:30, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Update - the only references I can find on the web to VE having been an arms dealer, or an aircraft salesman, are on mirrors of this page and as an unsourced assertion in (admittedly reliable) news pages dealing with other topics such as his recent arrest. As far as I can see therefore we cannot verify any of the assertions made in the article about this past career - and for sure nothing should appear in the "Controversies" section about this. I have left in a reference to him being an aircraft salesman, but have omitted to reference any connection with Iran or Airbus as neither can be properly verified with a useful and informative source. --SandyDancer 12:00, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't understand why you are trying to "verify" information published in "(admittedly reliable) news pages dealing with other topics..."? To do so would be to engage in impermissable original research. The fact that reputable newspapers refer to VE's arms dealing is sufficient, since it is their responsibility and expertise to research such allegations before publishing them. That, of course, does not make such references true: Netquantum (or anyone else) should feel free to post VE's published response to this allegation, and to any other allegations that are included in the article -- bona fide rebuttals taken from his or other monarchist websites are entirely appropriate as sources. In fact, the article would be improved by such quotes, provided they are relevant and specific to the issue under discussion. Please proceed to include the properly sourced information. Lethiere 22:53, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry, let me make myself clear. I am not proposing any original research. What I meant was that all we have to go on are statements in articles saying that he was an "arms dealer", and nothing else, no details or direct source on which to build a section. --SandyDancer 13:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Referendum controversial?
A sentence was inserted by an anon user about the results of referendum abolishing the monarchy being controversial. Initially I put a fact tag on this, but on second thought I am not sure it belongs in the introduction at all. The article Birth of the Italian Republic - which is linked to in this article - discusses claims by monarchists that the vote was corrupt but states "a monarchist minority advanced suspicions of fraud, but the referendum is generally considered fair". If so, do we need to mention the claims here, particularly in the introduction? Doesn't seem balanced. I note the article in question, however, is entirely unsourced (have tagged it accordingly). --SandyDancer 17:03, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Nwwaew( My talk page ) 12:07, 24 October 2006 (UTC)