Talk:Silvio Berlusconi

POV categories

I recommend that editors refrain from adding obvious POV categories like "italian fraudster" and "italian tax evaders". You will be reverted. T. trichiura Infect me 19:22, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

If the categories are "POV", then they should be deleted. As they exist, they are clearly appropriate to this article, as per the available sources. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:48, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

According to Italian penal theory, the accused retains the presumption of innocence until definitive conviction, meaning not just the appeal (which is different from Anglo-American appeals; it's really a second trial) but also the Court of Cassation. Of course sometimes they serve years in prison in the meantime (ask Amanda Knox, although three of her years wound up being for something else), but still, that's the theory. --Trovatore (talk) 20:04, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Trovatore has it exactly -- this is the reason I gave in my edit summary as well. T. trichiura Infect me 20:07, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I have read the relevant sources as people asked me to, and I do not see the substantial distinction between continental European and Anglo-American legal systems which justifies such a fundamental distinction between how we handle categories like this on Wikipedia. This isn't POV, it's reflecting the decision of the Italian court. We have added relevant categories to some people with convictions, which they are appealing against and the appeals have not quite been exhausted e.g. Tommy Sheridan. PatGallacher (talk) 20:19, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

If you read the sources, I am sure you must have read that my claims about the presumption of innocence are accurate, right? Are you saying that that does not make a difference? --Trovatore (talk) 19:27, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

See above for relevant discussion, T. trichiura Infect me 20:20, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I have already read what people wrote, would people please have the courtesy to read what I wrote. Can people please provide sources on the Italian legal system. PatGallacher (talk) 20:25, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I'll look for english source (although several of the sources in the article already indicate this, so it's not necessary), but you need to stop re-adding those tags while the discussion is ongoing here. Wait for consensus. T. trichiura Infect me 20:37, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I have had a look at Talk:Amanda Knox and Italian Code of Criminal Procedure, some of it is interesting, but could people point me at the appropriate issues. PatGallacher (talk) 20:31, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I too have had a look, and I see nothing there to support the strange contention that a conviction is not a conviction.

The categories should be restored. Please note that a category is not a "tag"; per WP:CAT it is a navigational device. Objections to categorising Berlusconi according to his conviction carry little weight if the objectors mistakenly think that they are tags. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:18, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

No, this kind of reading of the situation is completely wrong and your comments add nothing to the discussion. It doesn't matter if people here are calling it a "tag" or "a cat", but rather that it's totally inaccurate according to Italian legal theory. Please stop wikilawyering and leave the semantics behind--we want a good article for the encyclopedia. T. trichiura Infect me 21:32, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Trichuria, assertions such as "your comments add nothing to the discussion" are nothing but hot air.

What we need are references to support your claim. Without those refs, there is no resaon to remove the categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:04, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't support such cats, labeling cats at all, but opposes should understand that - readers never ever get to even get to the middle of an article never mind the cats at the bottom - with such a notable person as this - no readers come to the article via the cat list so adding the cats has no value at all - ......improve the article - its rambling and not very good - regards - Youreallycan 21:26, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I see we also have a category "Italian politicians convicted of crimes". PatGallacher (talk) 22:06, 26 October 2012 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Italian_politicians_convicted_of_crimes

Refs in supporting categorising Berlusconi as a convicted criminal

• The Guardian: In his ruling, judge Edoardo D'Avossa, wrote that Berlusconi possessed a "natural capacity to commit crime, as shown by his pursuit of the criminal plan."
• BBC: Mr Berlusconi is not the first Italian prime minister to be convicted of a crime
• New York Times: A court in Milan convicted former Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, of tax fraud on Friday and sentenced him to four years in prison. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:30, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
• Berlusconi is a convicted criminal, period. The cats apply, as does WikiProject Criminal Biography, the template of which I have just added to this talkpage. I got here, by the way, via the ITN feature on our Main page. Jusdafax 15:28, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, from an Associated Press story issued today: "The sentence isn't definitive until all appeals are exhausted, and Berlusconi's lawyers vowed to appeal. He remains free and is unlikely to serve jail time given his age and the possibility that the statute of limitations may expire before the two levels of appeals are completed." HammerFilmFan (talk) 21:14, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

BLPN

• - Wikipedia:BLPN#Silvio_Berlusconi#

This has now been raised at the BLP noticeboard, see WP:BLPN. PatGallacher (talk) 21:30, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Oppose - Totally unnecessary provocation. T. trichiura Infect me 21:43, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

What exactly is being provoked? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:04, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

The arrested scientists

Im not sure if this is appropriate so I decided to ask first. Considering the recent conviction of the scientists over the earthquake, would it be useful to add a comparison section, just to make note of the seeming imbalance of legal issues involving them? Because its a pretty hard to ignore issue (that is, scientists being sentenced to six years for not predicting an earthquake, vs. someone commiting an actual crime.) Of course, any section would be fully sourced.

If this isn't the right place for such a thing, that's fine too. I just don't want to bother looking for those sources until I know. 74.132.249.206 (talk) 09:54, 28 October 2012 (UTC)