Talk:Silvio Berlusconi

This article had considerable disputes about whether it achieved NPOV. It has now been updated to try to solve those debates. If you feel that the article is biased or inaccurate, please add a section with specific problems to the end of this page where it can be discussed and a better form can be found.

Broken references

The references in the 'Bettino Craxi' section are totally broken. For example, the article text 'including the Prime Minister, immunity from prosecution while in office2.' links to the reference section, and apparently is intended to point at the reference 'Technically, Berlusconi has been sworn in four times because after a cabinet reshuffle, as happened with Berlusconi in 2005, the new ministry is sworn in and subjected to a vote of confidence.'

Which is completely wrong, as it says nothing at all about immunity. This is not surprising, because when I look at the source for this section, I see wikimarkup which looks like "^{[[#References|2]]}". Needless to say, this is the stupidest and most broken reference style I have ever seen, and the other examples in that section are just as painful to look at. I couldn't bring myself to see whether the rest of the article is infected with this stuff. --Gwern (contribs) 15:18 23 July 2008 (GMT)

But WTF???? Are you trying to write a biography instead of a simple and concise biographical article??? That's longest than Nixon's one!!!

Not only Berlusconi... Robin Williams: Obama is a tan Kennedy

As Italian, I want to apologize for the US comedian Robian Williams, who said that: <<Obama is a TAN Kennedy.>>...
Don't you believe it? Watch it: http://it.youtube.com/watch?v=oEFR-eYaot0
Silvio Berlusconi: a nice wild bunch of people all in just ONE PERSON!!!!!!!!

Serious equity issues

This page seems markedly biased against Silvio Berlusconi and lacks the detached and impartial approach that a wikipedia page should have. We must remember that the content is public and we are talking about a country's Prime Minister, thefore, whathever our personal political ideas and our simpathies are, we have to act accordingly. Several controversies exist on Mr. Berlusconi professional, political and personal life, and this is an additional reason why the article should be even more impartial. I would like to invite the author to revise the article and, in particular, the attitude shown, that seems rather sectarian. If she or he wishes, I am available to collaborate. To conclude I would like to let the readers know, in case of any doubt, that I am not, I have never been nor I will probably ever be, a supporter or Mr. Berlusconi. However, I admit that as an Italian, I feel offendend by part of the content hereby published. --Nebu87 (talk) 22:50, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm italian too and what offends me most is Mr. Berlusconi's public behaviour, not this rather well written article. -- Femmina (talk) 08:34, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I may agree on that, but that is not at all the point of my objection. This is a wikipedia article, not a newspaper article: an impartial and detached approach is required and the article clearly lacks it. Whether the writer approves or not mr. Berlusconi's policies or public behavior is totally irrelevant. --Nebu87 (talk) 09:38, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Alleging unfair attitudes doesn't help anybody understand the point of your objection. Where the article "clearly lacks it"? -- Femmina (talk) 11:13, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually to address the point in its details, we would need an ad hoc page. Anyway, we can start talking about the way the article is structured (it is something you can see in the summary, so it should be 'clear'). 1. I have never seen an article that claims to be the biography of a statesman, a politician, a businessman, where the macroparagraphs 'legal problems' and 'controversies' occupy more than 2/3 of the article. 2. Even where the paragraph's heading is neutral (e.g. Fininvest), there is a clear evidence of the writer's aversion for mr. Berlusconi. For example, the first sentence about Fininvest presents a direct reference to P2. This reference is surely not necessary and can actually deceive the reader. 3. Much more space is devoted to list (LIST) trials than to describe the life of the man or its business career. 4. A disproportionate quantity of space is devoted as well to gestures and jokes. Most of the facts mentioned are trivial and unnecessary. 5. Quoted sentences, and even the main picture, have been selected to manipulate the image of the man.

In conclusion: I am not claiming that anything written in the article is false. I am stating that it is presented in an unfair manner, showing only what the author wants to show, hiding the rest. This is something that can absolutely be done in a newspaper article, but it cannot be done in a wikipedia page. Berlusconi has surely had a controversial life, but a wikipedia article CANNOT be based on controversies EXCLUSIVELY. I invite you (Femmina) to read the page devoted to mr. Tony Blair and to compare it with Berlusconi's, starting from comparing the summaries and the pictures. I hope that now the reasons of my objection are 'clear' to you. --Nebu87 (talk) 12:10, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Mr. Tony Blair doesn't act like a jackass on a regular basis. Mr. Berlusconi does. As a result, this article has a large section about his "Jokes, gestures and blunders". That doesn't seem unfair to me. And the same reasoning applies to the other controversies. -- Femmina (talk) 12:49, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I kindly invite you to moderate your language Femmina. If you want to read and write jokes, you are more than welcome to go on some blog. Please reply only if you have a serious and argumented response to the objection raised. Thank you. --Nebu87 (talk) 19:14, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

To a structured review, your answer is "The subject is a jackass, so the article is well written". Femmina: if's you don't have anything to say, stay silent.--Svello89 (talk) 19:39, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I didn't realize I was arguing with the owners of the internets. -- Femmina (talk) 01:42, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Stop blowing hot air, Femmina. Send halo fleet.

98.230.60.95 (talk) 19:59, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Femmina isn't blowing hot air. What she puts forward is spot on and correct. That Nebu87 is offended by the article which correctly emphasizes the misbehaviour of the subject is not to blame on the editors.Otto (talk) 19:01, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. BTW there's a lot of interesting material on Berlusconi in Italian, English and other languages here, although I'm sure Nebu87 is going to find "serious equity issues" here too: http://www.giannivattimo.it/menu/libro_berl.html - Rez. 8:44, 2 Aug 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.98.50.15 (talk)

Update about juridical proceedings

I should like it if this article is updated by knowledgeable Italians about the juridical proceedings.

• What is the current state of affair about the bribery of the Prodi senator?
• What happened after Berlusconi sued a number of newspapers who were continuing publishing about his extramarital sexual affairs? Otto (talk) 19:01, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Status is: ongoing. Trials are proceeding at snail pace because it's kinda hard to convict as a matter of law somebody who can change the laws midway. Lately it seems that the focus is shifting from Berlusconi itself to his henchmen. -- Femmina (talk) 18:39, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

• 1st question: status ongoing (but his codefendants had their piece of trial archived - see http://www.corriere.it/politica/09_maggio_16/archiviazione_coindagati_berlusconi_3bef7b4c-4231-11de-bfa5-00144f02aabc.shtml (IT))
• 2nd question: status ongoing (the scandal was in 2009 so it's likely that you'll have to wait 'till 2011)

--Juanm aka-jm- (talk) 19:13, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Dear Svello89,

Check this: [1] before trying to sneak in edits with deceiving subjects, like you just did here: [2]. Thank you. Was it your beloved Silvio who taught you to just sweep things under the rug? -- Femmina (talk) 22:59, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Usually i don't answer to trolls, but since you honoured me creating a discussion just to accuse me, I'll make an exception. The fact is that there was not an allegation for Berlusconi for traffic of drug. The italian article simply says that during a criminal investigation his phones were put under control and that after that the investigation was closed and archived. An allegation was never formalized and so no criminal allegation for traffic of drug. Good day to you.--Svello89 (talk) 23:39, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Can you provide a source for your statement that "An allegation was never formalized"? It's undisputed that they put a tap on his phone line, so it's reasonable to think that they alleged something. Also, could you stop calling people names and reverting stuff before discussing? -- Femmina (talk) 00:07, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Usually is required to provide a source when you make a edit that could put wikimedia in legal trouble (like saying that a living person was charged of traffic of drug), not the contrary. I'm sorry I've called you a troll, but you insinuated i made a sneak attempt to change the facts, suggesting "was it your beloved Silvio who taught you to just sweep things under the rug?", when i simply did what the subject says: finishing the rollback done by several users after 51 changes in a day, mostly vandalic. I saw these many vandalisms in a day and I thought that particolary one slipped the attention. But even if it was not from a vandal, you know that for that kind of edit is necessary a source or at least a subject for the change--Svello89 (talk) 00:41, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I seem to remember that a proper allegation was made, but it didn't lead to a trial. I don't feel like hunting for newspapers from that time and I don't own Travaglio's book that's given as source on it.wiki, so I won't re-add about the drug trafficking allegations for now. I left the subject of my last edit blank by accident. It was supposed to be "revert to last version by Fastily". -- Femmina (talk) 01:11, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Changes on False Accounting and Delying tactics

NOTE: English is not my native language and I never studied "legal" English, so I apologize for bad forms and misused words.

When the law on False Accounting changed in 2002 I found an italian article, written by attorneys on their professional blogs, that described the changes and how they fit with the rest of the civilized world. Unfortunately, I cannot find that article anymore. If you look for "falso in bilancio" you'll find lots of biased articles, in the sense that everyone tries to discards the new law as the "usual" asburd law written to legalize B.'s crimes. Most of them just repeat the same content, with little elaboration, so I don't have much material to bring here ATM.

Anyway, the article used to say the law fit the EU framework, in particular it was pretty similar to Spain's. The key points of the new laws are:

1) False accounting is penally persecuted only if someone is damaged by it and issues a complaint

2) If (1) doesn't hold, it is persecuted according to civil law if the miscounted amount accounts for more than a certain percentage over the total. The percentage should be less than 5% and the punishment amounts to a fee proportional to the miscounted amount.

Before 2002, the persecution was always penal, there were no exceptions. If you were found guilty of false accounting you ended up in jail. period. This is also reported on Corriere-Della-Sera article linked below, a newspaper known for being the neutral one by excellence.

Links (in italian):http://www.corriere.it/Primo_Piano/Cronache/2005/09_Settembre/26/alliberian.shtml http://www.rolliblog.net/archives/2004/01/03/breve_storia_delluso_improprio_del_reato_di_falso_in_bilancio.htmlhttp://oggi.ilcannocchiale.it/?id_blogdoc=927896

I don't claim these sources to be unbiased or exhaustive. IMO we should get a neutral reference where the new law is discussed without jumping on the unlikely conclusion that is crazy and written only to help B. or criminals.

Finally, the so-called delaying strategy. Sorry but this one is totally incomprehensible. For one, the law system in italy is known to be extremely slow (http://www.adnkronos.com/AKI/English/Business/?id=3.1.840834245) leading lots of trials to be cancelled due to statute of limitation, it's not a Berlusconi's thing. Secondly, in civil countries like Italy and USA the defence is expected to do anything legal to protect its client. If this leads to a longer trial, so be it. In particular, during some of Berlusconi's trials there were some irregularities on part of the prosecutors that cause the process to start from scratch. Is defence's fault to have addressed those irregularities, moving the trials' conclusion further in time?