Talk:Constitution of Italy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Campolongo (talk) 09:12, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Former good article nominee Constitution of Italy was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
January 31, 2008 Good article nominee Not listed

On the right to bear arms[edit]

As of March 10, 2016, the articles reads "Citizens have the right to freely assemble, both in private and public places, peacefully and unarmed (the right to keep and bear arms is not recognised)."

I think the text in parenthesis should be at least rephrased. As it stands, it seems like keeping and bearing arms is some kind of a universal right and not recognising it is a violation of this superior right. As a matter of fact, most countries in Europe deny the existence of such a right. Also, I haven't seen similar comments on, e.g., constitutions that do not recognise the right to health, not to mention a bunch of countries without freedom of expression/religion/sexual orientation.

I would suggest changing the text in parenthesis with "(see Gun politics in Italy)". Comments? --Japs 88 (talk) 10:23, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Good point. I initially mentioned in the text the right to keep and bear arms in order to clearly state (and easily find with a quick search) that this right is not recognized in Italy. In no way it was intended to imply the existence of an universal right to be armed... I personally do not recognize such "right". However your point is valid, so I will eliminate the reference and link the word "unarmed" with "Gun politics in Italy". Thank you for your comment. Best regards, ItaMatt (talk) 12:22, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Failed "good article" nomination[edit]

This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of January 31, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Fail
2. Factually accurate?: Pass
3. Broad in coverage?: Fail
4. Neutral point of view?: Pass
5. Article stability? Pass
6. Images?: Pass

This is a good start. I suggest:

  • Create a new section that systematically outlines the content of the constitution
  • If there is a wikipedia article on predecesors of the current Italian Constitution (however radically different in nature they may be - fascist for example), add a sentence or two near the start that identifies and provides links to these. Alternatively, provide a list, as in Constitution of France
  • The written English must be improved.
  • Can a section be written on the legal interpretation of the constitution?
  • Is there any discussion in the academic literature on the effects of the constitution, or on patterns in the amendment of it since 1948? (This last item would be good, but perhaps not necessary for GA)

Have a look at Constitution of Australia and Constitution of New Zealand (which are still only rated B class) for some guidance.

When these issues are addressed, the article can be renominated. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it have it reassessed. Thank you for your work so far.hamiltonstone (talk) 03:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

House of savoy[edit]

I read from the House of Savoy article, that male descendants of the House were forbidden from entering Italy until 2002, when the forbiddance was removed. I wish to know more about this. --euyyn 09:29, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Anonymous user from 87.0.34.188 gently added the info to my talk page. I think we should add it to the article. To the anonymous user I say thank you, and welcome to Wikipedia! And feel absolutely free to add content =)
<<Till 2002 the text said: "... former kings of Savoy, their wives and male descendant are forbidden to enter the italian territory..."
In 2002 the constitutional revision number 1, 23th october, erased the provision.>>
The provision (as I understood) was written to prevent fascism. Maybe the Savoy were linked with it? I'll have to read more on Fascism, History of Italy, Mussolini, etc. --euyyn 22:10, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
I think is not really correct to say that this provision was written 'to prevent the future come back of fascism'. it's more like the italian constitutional assembly wrote this provision as a kind of punishment for the royal house of savoy. The king didn't sign the act for the state of siege when Mussolini come to Rome, and abdicated before the 2 jun 1946 (he has said he would stay in charge till the referendum for choosing between monarchy and republic); and above all, the referendum of 2 jun 1946 said that italians wanted to switch from monarchy to republic. This is what i remember, i am really sorry for my poor english, i only know books in italian, if you can read italian i will post some titles here about these facts. (im the same user above, ive not a account here) --82.56.176.238 13:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
While sources in english are suggested by the guideline, any source at all helps a lot, so italian titles would be fine by me. - brenneman {L} 14:12, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Truly, I don't think the expulsion of the Kings was connected to the Fascist problem, which is seen on the previous Final Disposition. It is probably because the last article of the Consitution says that the Republican Form cannot be changed. The Disposition XIII was written in the fear of a monarchic restoration: the referendum of the 2 june has been won by the Republic just for a small amount of votes. --151.47.171.221 16:28, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Introduction to Italian Constitution[edit]

I took back the information i previusly written; someone deleted them, but i really think that they are useful and correct. I've added two books in bibliography. --82.56.176.238 17:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Organization[edit]

We should look to the organization of Constitution of the United States and other constitutions' articles to organize this a similar way: I think that would help expanding the article. --euyyn 23:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Some data[edit]

From Italian partisans:

The 1948 democratic Constitution of the Italian Republic declares itself to be "based on the Resistance". --euyyn 00:12, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Lead quote[edit]

An Italian anon editor started the following discussion on my talk page but I think it would be better to discuss the matter here. The edit being discussed is here but I imagine it was meant to look more like this (the quote is the same). — Blue-Haired Lawyer 00:43, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

enwiki is simply full of pages w/ quotes,

here an example: House_(TV_series)

Can you please give me some ref on why i can't add quotes? -Bragliere --93.37.146.249 (talk) 20:13, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

You can't compare a fictional TV show within article on a serious topic. Even in the House article they don't have any quotations in the lead. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 22:44, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
you said "no quotes on enwiki", now you are saying that we can add quotes but not in the lead. I didn't saw any distinction between serious and not serious topics in wikipedia rules. --93.37.122.135 (talk) 19:13, 10 January 2010 (UTC) Bragliere
What I meant was that we don't go into quotes on English Wikipedia in the same way as Italian Wikipedia. I'm not sure if we even have the same kind of template that Italian Wikipedia has. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 00:31, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
ok, is there any way to add that sentence in the article? i mean, by reading those five lines of text you can learn much more of italian constitution than by reading all the sources cited in the footnotes (i'm doing phd in law). What can you suggest? By the way i don't understand what you mean with "same kind of template": i used the "quote" button in the bar above...--151.48.21.6 (talk) 17:58, 11 January 2010 (UTC) Bragliere
I'll tell you what: add it if you like. At least we'll see what other editors think of it. But have a good look at what it looks like when you do. It may not appear on the page where you think it should. That's what I meant by the "same kind of template". — Blue-Haired Lawyer 22:14, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
I would like to find a way to get the quotation into the article: it’s a moving peroration to what, from a very quick scan, seems to be an interesting speech. It might be keyed to the second sentence of the Context section which points out that all three currents behind the constitution identified as anti-fascist. The translation could be made a little more idiomatic. I would suggest, as a start:
If you want to go on a pilgrimage to the place where our Constitution was created, go to the mountains where partisans fell, to the prisons where they were incarcerated, and to the fields where they were hanged. Wherever an Italian died to redeem freedom and dignity, go there young people and ponder: because that was where our Constitution was born.
Ian Spackman (talk) 00:42, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I would like to see the quote added; I prefer the above version though. Chrisieboy (talk) 11:54, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

i'm happy to see that someone appreciated the quote. It's taken from a speech of Pietro Calamandrei, a father of the italian constitution. I translated the quote by myself, but as you can read my english is quite poor... maybe the translation here is better. --93.37.147.199 (talk) 23:13, 14 January 2010 (UTC) Bragliere

Earlier Italian constitutions?[edit]

This article deals with the post-WWII constitution. But since a unified Italy had existed for nearly a hundred years by that time,I suppose there must have been earlier Italian constitutions. Could we have some indication of them, not necessarily in the body of this article, but by means of links to the articles that describe them? It would be very helpful. Thanks Campolongo (talk) 09:12, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

A link to the Statuto Albertino is given in the lead. Chrisieboy (talk) 12:45, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Too many photos? Or the wrong ones?[edit]

The photos on this page as of this date seem to have nothing to do with the Italian Constitution. I propose to remove all of the portraits except for the people specifically mentioned in the article. Sincerely, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 04:23, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Please comment here if you object. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 05:44, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
In my opinion, the portraits have everything to do with the Italian Constitution, since they all show members of the Constitutional Assembly that wrote it. The photos also indicate the titles, political affiliations, and link to the wikipage of each person. All of this shows to the reader the great diversity of the Assembly, which can help understand the resulting text and put it in its historical context. Best regards, ItaMatt (talk) 15:02, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
The recent removal of the text illustrating the main provisions of the Italian Constitution by the user BeenAroundAWhile, seems inappropriate and therefore I reinstated such text. The added link to Wikisource seems to suggest that the text was removed in order to connect the reader directly to the original text, implying that the wikipage text itself is useless. This is not a valid argument, since the structure of the text is similar to that used in the wikipages of other constitutions (e.g. the US constitution), meaning it is a summary of the main provisions of the text, with links to more general legal, political, social, and economic principles that inspired the text (e.g. Habeas corpus or Political offence exception). If this structure is acceptable in the wikipages of other constitutions, it should be acceptable in this one also. Also, again, the photos have been regarded as "not too many" by other users, and should be left in, since they give further background to the text. Best regards, ItaMatt (talk) 15:24, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

December 2016 : Referendum about Constitution[edit]

(I am searching for details) - has someone informations and can bring it into the article ?

(context: PM Matteo Renzi has bound his political fate to the result of the referendum. Five Star Movement (Beppe Grillo & Co) is against changes. A snap election (earlier than spring 2018) might be the result. --Neun-x (talk) 02:34, 26 September 2016 (UTC)