Talk:Mario Monti

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Biography / Politics and Government / Science and Academia (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the politics and government work group (marked as High-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the science and academia work group (marked as Low-importance).
 
WikiProject Italy (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Italy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles on Italy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Politics (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Prime Minister[edit]

Mario Monti has NEVER been voted by anybody in regular elections. This is A FACT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.45.225.13 (talk) 02:43, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

He is a fascist — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.94.46.181 (talk) 13:57, 13 February 2012 (UTC) As of now, Monti has not taken office as prime minister. While it appears likely he will, please do not list him as prime minister before it is official. Mrfeek (talk) 21:30, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Aint it official, now? GoodDay (talk) 22:01, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Nope--MistyMorn (talk) 22:40, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Intro: should't it say "asked by the President of the Republic"? I know it is mentioned in the article, but simply say that he was asked to become the PM seems a bit general to me... Luzz (talk) 23:02, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Done.--MistyMorn (talk) 23:58, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Egyptology as an interest[edit]

I would like to point out that Egyptology is not an interest, but an Academic Degree; it it thus incorrect to state that Monti is an Egyptologist. He is rather a person interested in Egyptology or in ancient Egypt. Daniele Salvoldi, Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Egyptologist — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.34.76.198 (talk) 14:08, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Graduate studies[edit]

Different graduate study programs fall under this headline (for example, M.A. or Ph.D.). It would be helpful to document which type of studies Mr. Monti pursued. The Italian page reports a similarly vague statement. I will cross-post this comment there, in case.

Fdm07 (talk) 14:44, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

This might be a wee bit tricky. In Italy, anyone who gains a full (5+ year) degree can use the title of 'dottore', and the Italian authorities consider such a degree to be the academic equivalent of an MA. Until quite recently (1998) there was no Italian equivalent of the PhD title.--MistyMorn (talk) 16:13, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
I agree with the ambiguity in the translation of English titles in Italian, and it may be an issue in the Italian page. However, the question of what is the English name of the program completed should still have a well-defined answer.

Fdm07 (talk) 16:48, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Ooops, sorry, I thought you were referring to studies in Italy.--MistyMorn (talk) 17:58, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
PhD - fixed with authoritative ref.--MistyMorn (talk) 18:19, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
OOps, another complete misreading - sorry, I'm having a bad head (aches) day.--MistyMorn (talk) 19:13, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

PM *designate*[edit]

Moved from User talk:Chzz#Mario Monti:  Chzz  ►  19:58, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

About Mario Monti. He is now the new PM of Italy . Source: La Stampa "19.49 - Napolitano conferisce l'incarico a Monti l termine di un incontro durato esattamente 45 minuti, Giorgio Napolitano ha conferito a Mario Monti l’incarico per formare il Governo. L’annuncio viene dato dal segretario generale della Presidenza della Repubblica, Donato Marra. Come di prassi Marra esce nel corridoio dalla Vetrata e legge il comunicato (sempre lo stesso, crisi dopo crisi, in cui cambiano solo i nomi) e spiega che il Presidente della Repubblica ha affidato l’incarico al Senatore a vita. Questi ha accettato con riserva. Fra poco rilascerà alcune dichiarazioni. Interverrà anche Napolitano, successivamente." http://www3.lastampa.it/politica/sezioni/articolo/lstp/429582/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elyasid (talkcontribs) 19:49, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Incorrect. It says, ha conferito a Mario Monti l’incarico per formare il Governo - he's been asked to form a government. He is not the current Prime Minister. He is PM-designate. See e.g. BBC.  Chzz  ►  19:54, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Indeed. And in Italian politics not everyone who is asked to form a new government actually succeeds in finding the necessary support from the political parties. It looks highly unlikely that Monti will fail to find majorities in both houses. But that's another question. At the moment, he is just "PM designate", not the official PM. Not yet...--MistyMorn (talk) 20:37, 13 November 2011 (UTC)


To clarify: If someone (eg Monti) who has been charged/designated (incaricato) by the President to form a government fails to do so, as sometimes happens, that person will not be considered as having served as PM. So the difference is real.--MistyMorn (talk) 22:18, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

The BBC are now (quite correctly) speaking of "Mr Monti's candidature".--MistyMorn (talk) 00:41, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I've just changed "PM Designate" to PM, based on a live report by the BBC News Channel supposedly showing Monti "being sworn in". However, Italian sources show the ceremony planned for 5 pm local time later on today. Seeing the presence other good faith edits following my own, I thought it better not to revert my mistake for the sake of just 3 hours technical innacuracy: Monti NOW is clearly the new PM.--MistyMorn (talk) 13:00, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

"Super Mario"[edit]

Greetings ... admittedly I don't normally edit this article, or very many about politicians for that matter. However, a user added a link to Mario Monti from the article for Super Mario Bros., apparently because Mr. Monti is commonly called "Super Mario" in the world press, as evidenced here, here and here. I have since revised that reference to add Mr. Monti's name to the list of individuals called "Super Mario" and was wondering if a reference to his nickname should be added here as well. I may go ahead and be bold and add the info, but I also wanted to open discussion on it in case regular editors have issues about this being added. --McDoobAU93 00:59, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I think a very brief mention of it would be appropriate, yes. Probably in "Political career".  Chzz  ►  06:30, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
I went ahead and added something, a single sentence with a single reference at the end of the first paragraph of the "Political career" subhead. --McDoobAU93 17:42, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Yes, Super Mario Monti (not to be confused with supermac Macmillan!) has taken over from il Cavaliere Berluscone. And, as noted above, the nickname's also seems to be catching on with the English-language press.--MistyMorn (talk) 16:58, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Father - from Varese to Argentina (and back)[edit]

I've tried to fill in a little more info about Monti's father, who was born in Varese, emigrated to Argentina during the war, but then returned to his family house in Varese. I've removed the Italian Argentine WL, given that Monti's father does not strictly fit the WP article definition of "a person born in Argentina of Italian ancestry".--MistyMorn (talk) 10:53, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Based on the above, I've removed the category 'Italian people of Argentine descent'. I realise that this decision may be debatable. Like his father, Mario Monti is clearly of Italian descent/ancestry. Whether or not he is, strictly speaking, "of Argentine descent" would I suppose depend on your definition of that phrase. If Monti's father does not even technically qualify as an 'Italian Argentine', then I feel labeling him among 'Italian people of Argentine descent' could be somewhat confusing. However, I suppose it could also be argued that if Mario Monti is the son of an Argentine national, then he is indeed "of Argentine descent".--MistyMorn (talk) 11:06, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Browsing the entries at Category:Italian people of Argentine descent would suggest suggest, by vague implication, that Monti does not fit in to this category. (Maybe because he isn't a footballer?)--MistyMorn (talk) 12:46, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

His father was born in Lujan, Argentina. http://www.lanacion.com.ar/1423104-mario-monti-el-sucesor-de-berlusconi-es-hijo-de-un-argentino — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.225.125.21 (talk) 23:54, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out my mistake. Now duly corrected, I hope. MistyMorn (talk) 08:55, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Subversion of the democratic process[edit]

The appointment of Monti didn't not follow any democratic process; it was a form of peaceful coup organised by the EU. Anyone got time to put together a few sources from the (admittely few) media outlets which have noticed this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.146.215.109 (talk) 18:11, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Please respect WP:NPOV. International conspiracy theories apart (Italian language video of Monti's rebuttal in Parliament), his appointment was completely constitutional. Claims that it did not not follow a democratic process implicitly suggest that the Italian constitution is not democratic. In the post-war Italian system, the Presidente della Repubblica (ie Napolitano) is duly elected by Parliament, which (apart from a handful of lifetime senators nominated by present/past President/s) is elected by the Italian people. According to the Constitution, it is the President who is responsible for the candidature of a PM, in this case, Monti. After consultations, the candidate PM then has to gain enough support for the governmental team and programme to win confidence votes in both elected houses. Thus, even if none of the ministers has been directly elected into Parliament, they still represent an expression of parliamentary democracy according to the Italian constitution.
Please also remember that the present page is a biography of a living person rather than an article dedicated to his government, which might be a more appropriate place to address such political claims.--MistyMorn (talk) 21:30, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
The former suggestion doesn't seem to be in violation of WP:NPOV. However, not to mention the controversy surrounding the appointment of this particular candidate is a suppression of the facts. Time Magazine has specifically suggested "Bankers' Coup." [1] Does this qualify as conspiracy theory too? sPAzzMatiC 09:19, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
My point is that it is necessary to respect both WP:NPOV and, on this particular page, WP:ALIVE. The concerns ("coup", "unelected government" etc) clearly are notable, given the press coverage and political declarations [2], but such issues need to be addressed appropriately, in an NPOV way. A premise such as it was a form of peaceful coup organised by the EU is highly POV. And stating that The appointment of Monti didn't not follow any democratic process is ill informed: I can't imagine anyone constructing a serious case that Monti's government is actually unconstitutional.--MistyMorn (talk) 11:10, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

He was elected by nobody. This is not a consipracy theory and use of that term is designed to close don't debate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.246.91.205 (talk) 16:25, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Adviser[edit]

The fact that he is an international adviser to Goldman Sachs and Coca Cola is mentioned twice in the article - it sounds redundant and overstressed - my suggestion is to remove it from the intro. --ItemirusMessage me! 07:43, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Of course, in theory everything in the lede is supposed to be mentioned twice in the article (though, admittedly, not necessarily verbatim), but I agree that having the advisorship(s) there is a bit overstressed. Fat&Happy (talk) 16:22, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Anyone know whether Monti really does have a connection with the Museo Egizio?[edit]

Fat&Happy has placed a tag pointing out that the ref provided doesn't mention Monti. This prompted me to have a google around: all the references I could find—irrespective of language—seem to to stem from Wikipedia... Oh Mummia Mia! I trust this wasn't just some vandal's idea of a joke.--MistyMorn (talk) 22:12, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I have run a search with a date range 1990-2010 and it returned no significant results; so it is likely that this Egypt thing is just a prank or a misunderstanding. Also the Italian and French articles do not mention it. Removed. --ItemirusMessage me! 22:48, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the confirmation. For the record, I also removed the sentence about him being a football fan and supporting AC Milan. Although it seems that his preferred team is indeed Milan, his support is said to be "tiepido" (lukewarm), and his own sport is clearly cycling. So depiction as a "football fan" seems exaggerated, the Milan scarf of dubious notability.--MistyMorn (talk) 09:29, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Lede issue[edit]

I have removed the date at the end of the first sentence of the lede on the grounds that it is redundant and, at least in British English, ungrammatical. The current version seems to me to be in keeping in keeping with MOS and broadly similar to the lede for David Cameron, an article which has achieved GA status. However, user Everyking believes that the date on which Monti became PM is an important component of the opening sentence. We have basically agreed to disagree: the discussion can be found on our respective Talk pages, here and here. Any other views, I wonder, on how to improve the lede?--MistyMorn (talk) 15:38, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I think having the date—not necessarily the specific date, but at least the year—is important to establish chronological context. "Current" is really not informative. Everyking (talk) 03:41, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
The first sentence serves as an introduction of who he is and why he is notable. The date he assumed office has no effect on his notability, and is included later in the paragraph – establishing chronological context with other major events of his life. It's fine there (though possibly the emphasis of that sentence could be switched to Prime Minister rather than Senator for Life). Fat&Happy (talk) 04:08, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
The date he took office is essential to his place in history, though: that he is heading the government at this particular moment in time, rather than, say, the 1980s or whenever, is a matter of crucial importance—it's necessary to say that right from the outset as part of who he is. It's not something you leave for the bottom of the paragraph. Everyking (talk) 22:10, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
How so? Are you saying the stable GA status here is undeserved?--MistyMorn (talk) 22:59, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I've rephrased the lede to shift the emphasis to his position as Italian Prime Minister. The style used follows that for other current major world leaders on wiki. Connolly15 (talk) 14:34, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

It all looks a big improvement, imo. MistyMorn (talk) 21:02, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Sources Tag[edit]

Consensus to remove sources tag on the article? Otherwise, please point to statements which require sources... I can't see anymore! Thanks! Connolly15 (talk) 13:18, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, support. You've done a fine job there. The only possible missing ciitation/s I could see were for the second and third sentences in the paragraph on the Council on the Future of Europe in the Think Tanks section. Not easy to fill perhaps? MistyMorn (talk) 14:55, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi. Thanks for pointing this out. I had a quick look and have deleted the paragraph all together as it is incorrect. He does not appear to be a member of the Council on the Future of Europe, and in any case could not have joined in Dec. 2009 as it was created in 2011. He was a member of a "Reflection Group" chaired by the former Spanish Prime Minister, but this was not a think tank. It was created by the European Council. I will work this back in to the article, but it fits better with his other advisory work to the European Union (e.g. Single Market Act) rather than as a think-tank. (Sources: (1) http://www.reflectiongroup.eu/ (2) http://euobserver.com/18/113537 (3) http://www.unibocconi.it/wps/wcm/connect/SitoPubblico_EN/Navigation+Tree/Home/About+Bocconi/Organization/International+Advisory+Council/Monti+IAC_Greenslade+2010+06+07+03+13. Thanks again for pointing this out. Connolly15 (talk) 15:26, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
I note he's listed as a founder member in the WP article, and this may need attention. Looks a bit suspicious to me (and I've just spotted your explanatory edit summary). MistyMorn (talk) 16:09, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

"Technocracy"[edit]

Can we please have a discussion on the use of the term technocracy in this article? The main problem is that if you read the technocracy article it obviously does not fit with the situation in Italy (also see the talk page). I appreciate the media has been referring to the government as a technocratic government essentially because they are "experts in their fields" rather than elected officials (this by definition is not a technocracy anyway). However, Lucas Papademos's government (also described as a technocrat in the media) is being described as a national unity government on wikipedia. I would argue this is more appropriate description of the situation in Italy as well - all the Italian political parties (except Lega Nord) are supporting the Monti cabinet through parliamentary votes of confidence and Monti's cabinet has been created to deal with a "national emergency". Monti also regularly meets with and consults the political party leadership on all sides before decisions are taken. Thoughts?Connolly15 (talk) 15:52, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Part of the problem is that the Italian expression (and perhaps concept too) of governo tecnico really doesn't translate politically. As I tried to explain above, this sort of governmental formation where most if not all the ministers are respected professionals who are not professional politicians is contemplated, indirectly at least, by the Italian constitution. As in the case of the present government. Though I seem to remember the word being used in the press in the 1980s (I may be wrong), Italian Wikipedia has the Dini government down as being the first true governo tecnico (again translated as "technocracy"), in that all the ministers were "experts and officials from outside Parliament". The Ciampi government is also commonly referred to as a governo tecnico: although the ministerial posts were filled by politicians, it was led by a former Governor of the Bank of Italy who had never been an elected member of parliament.
Regarding your question about national unity government, in Italy the expression Governo di unità nazionale is generally used to refer to the very broad coalitions that were set up in the aftermath of WWII (1944-1947 [3][4]) and during the Compromesso storico in the mid 1970s at the height of the years of lead. Looking at Google, I see that although the term governo di unità nazionale has been used in the context of the Monti government, the expression governo tecnico appears more common. Numbers aside, my own impression is that governo tecnico is the standard descriptor right now in Italy. Furthermore, the wording I tend to encounter on the BBC, for example, is "technocratic government".
All this begs the original question about the use of "technocracy". Maybe Wikipedia's exclusion of economists from the technocrat club is just arbitrary and needs attention (the ref supporting the assertion looks a bit odd).
Right now, my 2 cents would be to challenge the restrictive Wikipedia definition of 'Technocracy' (done), perhaps put "technocratic" in quotation marks on this page, and provide an accompanying footnote/explanation briefly outlining the constitutional option of a governo tecnico. A more challenging approach would be to translate/render the it.wp governo tecnico article into English. But that might have notability issues in the English language Wikipedia, I guess. MistyMorn (talk) 21:06, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I've started to introduce a couple of edits to help address some of the issues. I see the Politics of Italy article speaks of "technical government", while providing a wikilink to technocracy. IMO, there may be a reasonable case for using the expression 'technical government'. While it's true that some influential sources, such as the BBC, have rendered governo tecnico as "technocratic government", overall on Google "technical government" seems fairly common too (n=97,700 vs n=75,500). MistyMorn (talk) 15:49, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

RE the term "national unity government". It occurs to me that there may be good political reasons why the expression isn't being used by the current Italian government in the way it is in Greece. Surely the term would make an obvious target for the Lega Nord and their secessionist agenda? However, the analogous term, governo di larghe intese ('government of broad agreement') also seems to have been used mainly before rather than after the formation of the government. So I'm not so sure... Maybe it's just that the expression governo tecnico encapsulates the present formation so neatly that it's swept aside the terminological opposition. MistyMorn (talk) 16:03, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Mario Monti and the freemasonry[edit]

I don't know if he is still a mason... but i'm sure he was a mason.

this link say about it. Original Italian link

Information on a living person has to be rather well documented before it can be included in a Wikipedia article. Currently, that wouldn't seem to be the case here The link you provide, and others I've seen googling around, do not satisfy the criteria for identifying reliable sources for a biography of a living person. —MistyMorn (talk) 09:00, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Some useful links in italian about Monti and Wikipedia.it accused of censorship[edit]

http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discussione:Mario_Monti#Monti_su_altre_wikipedia

http://www.ilgiornale.it/news/interni/vietato-dire-verit-su-monti-e-nella-rete-scatta-censura-870035.html

http://www.ilbuio.org/?p=7711

--151.47.93.35 (talk) 15:35, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

please note the anonymous is almost certainly a well-known it.wiki troll, who probably wrote himself the blog article and introduced POV content on fr.wiki page, see it:Discussione:Mario_Monti#Monti_su_altre_wikipedia--Shivanarayana (talk) 16:41, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Pier Bersani Not PM Designate Yet[edit]

In the "infobox" for Mr. Monti, it says that Pier Bersani is PM designate and will follow Monti as PM of Italy. However, I have seen articles that say Italy is in governmental limbo Here, and Here. I have not seen any proof that Mr. Bersani is PM Designate. If anybody can find proof of Mr. Bersani's PM Designate status, great. If not, I suggest removing the error from the article. Mhoppmann (talk) 17:55, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Pierluigi (not simply Pier ;) ) Bersani's party got not enough senators (in upper chamber) to make a stable government. However his coalition (which took the 55% of seats in lower chamber) is the biggest group in Parliament so he'll try to make a government, at least a temporary one until new general elections (which cannot be done before a new President is elected by Parliament). --Vituzzu (talk) 20:25, 26 February 2013 (UTC)