Jump to content

Talk:Silvio Berlusconi/Archive 1: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Line 140: Line 140:
::A political party should be judged through its official statements, not through some of its members' beliefs. I don't think that Alleanza Nazionale (right wing party) is ''fascist'' if some of its supporters feels nostalgia for [[Mussolini]], or that Rifondazione Comunista (left wing party) is ''stalinist'' if some of his followers consider [[Stalin]] the most important leader of the past century. Lega Nord is responsible of its own actions only toward italian laws and toward its voters. Even if '''we''' (me too) don't agree with Lega Nord position about immigration, we can't forget that many Italians think different. In democracies these are obvious things. These discussions are '''twice''' off topic: here, in this article, and here on Wikipedia that is '''just''' an encyclopedia. And, above all, '''not''' interesting for Wikipedians. [[User:Marius|Marius]] [[User_talk:Marius|@]] <small>21:13, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)</small>
::A political party should be judged through its official statements, not through some of its members' beliefs. I don't think that Alleanza Nazionale (right wing party) is ''fascist'' if some of its supporters feels nostalgia for [[Mussolini]], or that Rifondazione Comunista (left wing party) is ''stalinist'' if some of his followers consider [[Stalin]] the most important leader of the past century. Lega Nord is responsible of its own actions only toward italian laws and toward its voters. Even if '''we''' (me too) don't agree with Lega Nord position about immigration, we can't forget that many Italians think different. In democracies these are obvious things. These discussions are '''twice''' off topic: here, in this article, and here on Wikipedia that is '''just''' an encyclopedia. And, above all, '''not''' interesting for Wikipedians. [[User:Marius|Marius]] [[User_talk:Marius|@]] <small>21:13, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)</small>


:::Please let's bear clear in our minds that Mussolini was an Italian who imposed his fascist regime onto Italians for over twenty years whereas Stalin imposed his upon Russians - the two ought to be kept separate for obsious reasons and for a sense of decency and respect towards the victims of these dictatorships. Italian stalinism is historically irrelevant, a non-issue; it has been made such by Mr Berlusconi's self-serving demagogy.
:::Please let's bear clear in our minds that Mussolini was an Italian who imposed his fascist regime onto Italians for over twenty years whereas Stalin, whilst guilty of being a blooldy tyrant, could harldly be blamed for imposing his regime onto Italians! - the two ought to be kept separate for obsious reasons and for a sense of decency and respect towards the victims of these dictatorships. Italian stalinism is historically irrelevant, a non-issue; it has been made such by Mr Berlusconi's self-serving demagogy.
[[User:Vschwager|Vschwager]] 13:07, 20 March 2006 (UTC) Vincent
[[User:Vschwager|Vschwager]] 13:07, 20 March 2006 (UTC) Vincent

Revision as of 14:32, 22 March 2006

Please don't edit this page (other than to archive more material), please rather restart discussio on Talk:Silvio Berlusconi

This page doesn't appair impartial

I'm not a partisan of Forza Italia and Mr. Silvio Berlusconi but, as an italian, I feel myself offended by the PARTISAN way the biography of the Italian prime minister is presented. The extensor of this page must remember that Mr. Berlusconi has been democratically elected by the majority of italians and furthermore that the allegations he's facing haven't been proved yet.

Regards, Mario_


If it contains any information that is incorrect, you can move it here to Talk. If it's unbalanced, you can add more material presenting his positive attributes. ( 08:26, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Removed the following recently added statement which is pure POV. ( 12:23, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)
"Berlusconi is still very much locked into the cold war ideology, and anybody who is against him is branded as a communist. Many consider this rather ironic given that his legislation whould not look out of place in Orwellian novels such as 1984 and Animal farm."
Even Hitler was democratically elected, did it mean that he was free to do whatever he damn pleased to do? Besides Berlusconi could not even run for office because, pursuant Italian law, he was ineligible (he owned and owns a state concession-his TV license!). Finally let's not forget that several indictments were dropped because of intervening statute of limitations, other more civilized countries wouldn't have such an embarassing character run their parliament, alas, Italians haven't learned from history. Berlusconi's fight against communism is absolutely bogus, it's pure demagogy and that's it. In a country pleagued by thelikes of the Mafia, Camorra, Ndrangheta and Sacra Corona Unita, Berlusconi only sees communist judges as being Italy's biggest threat! Many judges, even the ones with right wing leanings, have been branded as communist as soos as they dared investigate his sprawling businesses! Never, in his five years in office, I have heard him say the word Mafia, never! Who is behind Berlusconi? How far is Europe willing to tolerate such a character? What interests is he protecting? How far are can this thing go while Italy is on the brink of an Argetinian like financial disaster? Let's ask ourselves these questions, for our own good, for Europe and Italy's sake.

The comments on this page do not offend me as an Italian, Berlusconi offends me and embarasses me every day, I take this opportunity to apologize to Spd's Representative Martin Schulz for Berlusconi's joke at the Europarlament, to the Finnish President Miss Tarja Halonen for Berlusconi's vulgar comments on women. Just look for Berlusconi, gaffe in any search engine, the man is an endless source of embarassement. I am Italian, I have to live with this, this does not mean I have to like it necessarily.

Vschwager 13:07, 20 March 2006 (UTC)Vincent

This page doesn't appair impartial

The text is not impartial in how much filler in wide and complete way the critic made from the opposition party to the first minister. Not filler absoluty the government activity. In a document of wikipedia he is fundamental to balance the two aspects.

Regards, Adriano


The point is that this man, Silvio Berlusconi, has done a full brain-washing to the Italians with his multiple media guns. Nothing less nothing more. Should we still say that he was democratically elected or should we believe that, from George Orwell to Marshall McLuhan, democracy has nothing to do with this unsustainable mind-conditioning?

This page is getting more and more unbalanced

I suggest to remove this page completly as it's clear it is edited only by partisans anti-Berlusconi.

They are also very ignorant as they don't know that the laws in Italy are always approved by the Parliament and not imposed by the Government.

Mario__

Mario, we've got several people on here who agree with you, including myself. I don't know enough about Italian politics to write it though. So give it a fix. Start from scratch if you want. Good luck! Stargoat 13:22, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
the last two sections were done before extensive editing. I think they should be treated as completed unless they are renewed with more specific comments Azikala 16:49, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
If Berlusconi's supporters do not use Wikipedia (or read for that matter) it's not anybody's fault. The majority of Berlusconi's voters have little or no educational background, and Berlusconi knows this very well. Berlusconi's party, Forza Italia, heavily utilizes terminilogy stemming from football terminology: i.e. people affiliated to his party are called "azzurri" (like the Italian football team). If you like to read some pro-Berlusconi's comments please refer to www.forza-italia.it, there are plenty of them. Wikipedia, being and encyclopedia, would not have much following, I am afraid, among Berlusconi's supporters.

Vschwager 13:12, 20 March 2006 (UTC)Vincent

Looks factually based to me

I for one am in disagreement. All the circumstances quoted in the criticism section have factual basis (sometimes video evidence, viz. the Schulz incident). Concerned parties can insert equally factually based positives about Mr. Berlusconi's tenure (assuming they can find them).
I must also note that the the concept that the Italian Government "imposes" lagislation is nowhere to be found in the article text (which actually uses words such as "presented" and "pushed through").

Alien_Life_form July 7, 2004

Correct, but please look the Page History and check the content of the article before my post in this discussion page. For instance Revision as of 01.37, 4 Jun 2004 the phrase ' the Italian Parliament' was replaced by 'his government majority'. Consider also the tenor of the other statements that were introduced before the page was reverted as considered POV.
Again, one thing is a fair political debate in which everyone can tell his own opinion, something else is the acrimony against a political 'enemy'. I don't like Mr.Berlusconi very much but I respect the vote of my fellow citizens.

And I like democracy. I hope that the (anonymous) Berlusconi's criticizers like it as well.

Regards, Mario_

Marius 19:05, 7 Jul 2004

I am also in favour of democracy, I am not anonymous, but I have had comments deleted by anonymous persons:-) Berlusconi **is** a very contrversial person, and he puts a lot of effort into promoting his image, it is all part of his style. It would be evidently wrong to ignore this controversy, just as it would be wrong to say that any critisism of him is partisan. It would be POV to say that his economic policy has flopped without adding in the figures to back it up, but it is not POV to highlight eg. his long legal battles which started before his entry into politics, they are simple facts whose dates back themselves up.

At the end of the day Democracy depends on free speech, and much critiscism of Berlusconi revolves around the fact that he appears to have forgoton this. I think the editing of this page represents Berlusconis approach to the press and media in general, any critisicm is partisan and biased and therefore should be eliminated. In a democracy the plethora should be able to see all, and decide themselves what to believe. Only blatent lies and abuse should be tackled. Perhaps the same should be true of this page.

Deleting comments from discussion pages is wrong, of course. The article now deals in detail with either controversy and legal investigations, so they're are not ignored. If you have other facts to add, add them. Everyone is innocent until it's proved he's guilty. IMO as soon as a new legal sentence concerning B.will be issued then it'll be factual and should be added to the article, specifying if it is an acquittal or a conviction. In Italy the criticism against Berlusconi can be freely expressed as Italy is a democratic country. Saying that B. has full control of the italian media is pure disinformation (see the article). In Italy the political system grant to all minorities the right to express themselves (prove the contrary, if you are able). IMHO an encyclopedia is not the right place for either supporters or opponents to express their POV. %) Marius 21:55, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Mario, who are you? Have you ever heard of Enzo Biagi? The journalist Berlusconi had kicked out of Rai even though his program had 18 million people watching it every night? "Criticism against Berlusconi can be freely expressed as Italy is a democratic country"? Where are Santoro, Luttazzi and Guzzanti? Could they express their views? How come Beppe Grillo has never been allowed back in Rai in the past five years? Where have you lived in the past 5 years Mario? Vschwager 13:14, 20 March 2006 (UTC)Vincent

To be clarified

Berlusconi’s brother ad some managers of his television’s crimes of curruption where instead validated.

I read this sentence as I was making my first attempt at making the new "opposite view" secions more NPOV and could not correct it or erase it since I could not understand exactely what it was meant to say. Can anyone give me a hypothetical rewrite of this sentence? Also, don't you think that the title "Another point of view" is, in itself, contradictory since it is meant to give the article a NEUTRAL point of view, and not the views of the two partisan sides? Should we not merge the "Criticism" and "Another point of view" sections and make it a balanced look at the public opinion about the said character? Thanks for your input. --Liberlogos 03:33, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

His official tax returns declare far less

this appears to be a misunderstanding. His tax returns declare 9-12 million income depending on the year according to what I've found on the internet. This is not related to his fixed assets of $10 Billion. Unless I can find a thing to back this up or someone else can provide it I plan to delete this statement.

deleted

private TV network (Fininvest, now Mediaset)

According to internet sources, Finivest is his investment company and still exists. This statement may be wrong. I don't know exact details so I won't delete it yet.

fixed Azikala 16:49, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The Casa delle Libertà was routed in the 2003 local elections

Should probably read something like, alongside many other governments in Europe, Casa delle Libertà has done badly in the recent elections, first the local and then European elections. "Forza Italia", however has had such a very marked reduction in support to below 20% which has lead to it's loss of position in the coalition.

fixed Azikala 16:49, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

In the meantime a series of problems in the running of the state television channels

is completely non specific and should state what it means by "problems" (the orignal word was "hiccups")


deleted, since I couldn't find a good specific reference.Azikala 16:49, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Some speculate that this is a reason for attacks by journalists allegedly close to such parties.

who alledges that the journalists are close to the Communists? What "attacks" have they made

partly balanced out by reference also to right wing press. still needs specifics, but at least it isn't terribly POV.

Azikala 23:58, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

NPOV again

This article is now considerably changed from some time ago. Can someone point out any specific NPOV problems? I think it's now at the level where critics of the page have to be quite specific about what is wrong if they want to sustain the POV argument. I don't think it's completely brilliant yet, but at least what is missing (some policy aspects) is now clear. So guys what's wrong with it now?Azikala 16:49, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

My post dated 19 Jul is prior to the last edit. I agree that the article is now more balanced and more informative, even if, in my opinion, the emphasis given to the legal investigations is still excessive, particularly if compared with articles of other politicians. Marius 06:11, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for that.. It seems that work on this article was worthwhile. Some sections are still marked as stubs (his policy section, for example). If these are expanded then the Legal section will shrink relatively and you will be happier. I will remove the NPOV notice tonight some time after 1800 UTC today (barrning other comments) Azikala 06:57, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Little sample of POV

In one of latest edits in the "Policy" section the phrase:

... Northern League are strongly anti illegal immigration ....

was changed into:

... Northern League are strongly anti-immigration ....

(Northern League is one of the parties of the government coalition).
Whoever knows italian politics knows also that the official position of this party is not against immigration "in itself" (which responsible party in which part of the world can be so?) but against the way this issue was handled in the past. Of course maybe that some (I think ignorant and low-level) members of this party would like to build a wall all-around Italy, but the point is that to present this as the line of the whole party is pure misinformation, in my opinion, the try to cast a prejudicial negative shadow onto the actual government, whenever it's possible. A further evidence of this is that one of the extensor of the Bossi-Fini law (Umberto Bossi) is the leader of Northern League itself. The Bossi-Fini law doesn't want to abolish the immigration but to regulate it (maybe in a wrong and too strict way, and that's the reason why now the law will be probably modified).
By the way my personal opinion is that immigrants are a fundamental resource for Italy and that one of a civil country's main duty is to integrate them.

Marius 22:02, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Maybe a little OT for Silvio Berlusconi's page, but the Lega Nord is indeed anti-immigration (if we want to avoid saying "anti-arab" and "anti-nigger" straight out). Please don't bend the truth, there are no political parties more oriented towards racism than Lega Nord on the Italian political scene. Their very name reveals the inherent discrimination against southern Italians or "Terroni". They are the only party since the Fascist party to have a own militia, the green shirts. The Bossi-Fini law, BTW, was ruled unconstitutional because it violated fundamental rights of immigrants, since denied them a fair trial. If we define "anti-immigrant" as "having an attitude that unfairly penalizes immigrants compared to regular citizens", I'd say that Lega Nord qualifies by a wide, wide margin; and I still have not started quoting people like Gentilini or Borghezio.
--Orzetto 18:57, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
A political party should be judged through its official statements, not through some of its members' beliefs. I don't think that Alleanza Nazionale (right wing party) is fascist if some of its supporters feels nostalgia for Mussolini, or that Rifondazione Comunista (left wing party) is stalinist if some of his followers consider Stalin the most important leader of the past century. Lega Nord is responsible of its own actions only toward italian laws and toward its voters. Even if we (me too) don't agree with Lega Nord position about immigration, we can't forget that many Italians think different. In democracies these are obvious things. These discussions are twice off topic: here, in this article, and here on Wikipedia that is just an encyclopedia. And, above all, not interesting for Wikipedians. Marius @ 21:13, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Please let's bear clear in our minds that Mussolini was an Italian who imposed his fascist regime onto Italians for over twenty years whereas Stalin, whilst guilty of being a blooldy tyrant, could harldly be blamed for imposing his regime onto Italians! - the two ought to be kept separate for obsious reasons and for a sense of decency and respect towards the victims of these dictatorships. Italian stalinism is historically irrelevant, a non-issue; it has been made such by Mr Berlusconi's self-serving demagogy.
Vschwager 13:07, 20 March 2006 (UTC) Vincent