Talk:Silvio Berlusconi

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

POV categories[edit]

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
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)
According to those argumentation a person is a criminal.... BEACUSE NEWSPAPARS SAY IT, and not because it has been defined a such by the legal system into which the crinme is accomplished.
Thta's plainly wrong (in scientific sense) since the newspaper columnist CAN be wrong themselves.
The Italian constitution tells explicitly that the "presunction of inncocence" apply until the entire process has come to the end. And a "process" (always for the Italian legal system -that it is not a "theory": it is just what it is: a legal system independent from the US ot UK ones, who spokes about an "italian legal theory" was simply making wrong presumptions: they are just laws. Nothing no more than laws, valid under a a well defined territory) is made by various "trials". The fact that one of then ended cannot be used to qualify a person as "convicted criminal" until the "conviction" had become "judged" (and it happens where no appeal is required after a given number of days, otherwise it will not happen until all the trials ended)
Requiring "sources" is simply a non sense: the Italian constitution (as well as the entire penal and civil codes) can be downloaded from the institutional sites.If it is not in English language, that's your problem, not ours or Wikipedia problems, being Italy a sovrain state with its own language, and not an US or UK colony.
Claiming a person as "convicted criminal" without the conviction is claimed as "judged" is itself a criminal offense for that same system. that's way every attempt to call a person that way *before the right time* will be reverted. Is it that difficult to understand this very simple concept?

I think that page Silvio Berlusconi underage prostitution charges is unappropriate for an encyclopedia as wikipedia... it is not an storical fact. By the way the write "On June 24, 2013, Berlusconi was found guilty of paying an underage prostitute for sex, and of abusing his powers in an ensuing cover up. He was sentenced to seven years in jail, and banned from public office for life. He is certain to appeal, and the sentence will not be enforced until the result of the trial is confirmed at appeal.[15][16]" in the principal page of the voice Silvio Berlusconi should be delated because the italian law (civil law) is different by the common law and there are more than one steaps of judice determination. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthresearcher2013 (talkcontribs) 17:36, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

BLPN[edit]

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)

I wonder that. but with his track record, you would think this would just be something minor compared. so is it still BLP? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cara22 (talkcontribs) 05:29, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

The arrested scientists[edit]

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)

Unless there are published sources making that sort of comparison, the answer is no. To see why, have a look at WP:OR. Thanks for the suggestion, but I doubt this is going anywhere. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:39, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
The phrase "for not predicting an earthquake" here above, is inaccurate (and false in logical terms): they have been sentenced for "predicting that there was no earthquake" (in other word, the sentence states that they did a prediction (although negative), in a context where no predictions are possible). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.117.184.32 (talk) 21:58, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Also, the tile is misleading: No one had been arrested. It was just a 1st grade sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.117.184.32 (talk) 22:02, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Blunder: Earthquake victims should consider it "camping"[edit]

A German WDR radio journalist who said he was present during Berlusconi's speech to the earthquake victims remarked in a radio show that Berlusconi's "camping weekend" quote was taken out of contex by the media. When Berlusconis said that, he was expressly and specifically adressing the children among the victims in an attempt to cheer them up. Said journalist was rather critical of Berlusconi otherwise, but in this particular instance the said Berlusconi was treated unfairly. I think the article should include this clarification, but it's apparently protected at this time. 87.164.179.46 (talk) 14:55, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Italian Lire to euros[edit]

the following statement "paid 100,000 Italian liras (approximately equivalent to 300 euros today) as an entry fee" is incorrect since 1€ is 1936,27 Italian Lire, and therefore 100,000 Lire are 51.65€, and not 300€ as stated above

eugenio — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.83.109.21 (talk) 11:03, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Addendum: as there is no conversion between euros and Lire dating back to 1978 maybe it would make more sense to quote it in US Dollars. on 31 December 1978 for example 100,000 ITL-Italy were worth 120.3 USD-United States [US dollar / $] at a Rate of 1 ITL=0.001203 USD [1]

eugenio — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.190.236.2 (talk) 13:51, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi there "eugenio",
thanks for contributing to Wikipedia with your comments.
Please compare the Foreign currency denominated account article. According to it (I quote):
"(...) The origin of the Eurocurrency market can be traced back to the 1950s and early 1960s, when the former Soviet Union and Soviet-bloc countries sold gold and commodities to raise hard currency. Because of anti-Soviet sentiment, these Communist countries were afraid of depositing their U.S. Dollar in U.S. Bank for fear that the deposits could be frozen or taken. Instead they deposited their dollars in a French bank whose telex address was EURO-BANK. Since that time, dollar deposits outside the U.S. have been called Eurodollar and banks accepting Eurocurrency deposits have been called Eurobanks (...)".
Okay, okay... there is a [[citation needed]] template at the end... but this should make us wonder about your statement:
"(...) there is no conversion between euros and Lire dating back to 1978 maybe it would make more sense to quote it in US Dollars. (...)".
Huh?
  M aurice   Carbonaro 09:57, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
I think eugenio has a point here: There was no Euro in 1978, so there is not likely to be any sourceable conversion per se. You could take the 1978 exchange rate with the US dollar, apply a correction for inflation to 2013, and then convert that back to 2013 Euros, but errors are accumulating at every step. On the other hand, a figure in 1978 dollars is not going to be that intuitive to most readers, so there are arguments on both sides. --Trovatore (talk) 21:17, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Honours and awards[edit]

Among "Honours and awards" there is one from "House of Bourbon-Two Sicilies". But that house, and Two Sicilies Kingdom is no more a country since 1860! Instead it seems missing the "Distinguished Statesman award" conferred by the jewish US-based "Anti-Defamation League" in 2003. On the Memory Day, commemoring Shoah victims, in january 2013, Berlusconi was sympathetic with fascist regime: [1]. Mmm, well... --147.162.48.1 (talk) 11:40, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Good point 147.162.48.1 (talk) about the "Honours and awards" House of Bourbon-Two Sicilies: Knight Grand Cross of the Sacred Military Constantinian Order of Saint George[citation needed]. Well the adjective "borbonico" has still a double meaning in Italy for "out of date": who knows, maybe it's a title of honor that has "endochronic properties" just like "resublimated Thiotimoline". (please note the citation needed template).   M aurice   Carbonaro  18:55, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Image labelled "Berlusconi with the U.S. President George W. Bush at the White House" does not seem to be an image of Berlusconi(not sure who it is, but it is not him).JustTheOneTime (talk) 17:01, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

National Alliance[edit]

In the first part of the article, National Alliance is appealed as "neo-fascist" (while this word is linked to the "post-fascist" page). In the following part of the article, National Alliance is appealed as "post-fascist". I'm asking to correct the first word from "neo-fascist" to "post-fascist". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.167.204.14 (talk) 08:04, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Neither seem appropriate given that the Wikipedia article on the National Alliance (Italy) describes them as simply "conservative". There is one source in that article that describes them as "post-fascist". It seems rather a failure of neutral point of view for Wikipedia to refer to them as either "neo-fascist" or "post-fascist" given the extremely negative implication of both labels. I've removed both descriptors of the National Alliance. If people want to know about the ideology of the National Alliance, they can click through to the article and read it rather than us attempting to summarise it into a reductive or possibly incorrect label. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:15, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
The first I recall hearing this term post-fascista, it was used by Fini himself, to describe himself. However, as he used it, it was fairly meaningless — it didn't say really anything at all about his policy views at the current time. Rather, it was in the context of an assertion (at least as I interpreted it) that fascism was a creature of its time, and that it is not meaningful to talk about it in the context of today's debates.
So people who are tempted to describe AN as "post-fascist" should probably be aware that they may be inadvertently suggesting that there is no such thing as contemporary fascism, a proposition they may not agree with. On the other hand, calling it "neo-fascist" seems excessive, particularly given that some people are likely to hear it as "neo-Nazi", which I think any informed neutral observer would agree that AN is not.
On the third hand, there probably does need to be some acknowledgment of AN's (at least historical) connection to the side that thought there were some pretty good things about the PNF. I don't know what form that should take; both "neo-fascist" and "post-fascist" seem wrong, but "conservative" doesn't really convey that point. --Trovatore (talk) 08:59, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
De facto, AN was a conservative party in policies, not a neo-fascist one, and as correctly pointed above, "post-fascist" makes little sense. Here unfortunately I can only find snippets, but one clearly quotes a book saying "In Fiuggi has born a party conservative, even if syncretic, on the cultural level, and liberal, even if with a strong social vocation, on the economic level". However this was a metamorphosis that took some time: in 1994, Piero Ignazi still describes it as a mere electoral acronym, indistinguishable from the old MSI: [2]. --Cyclopiatalk 09:56, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Move proposal for connected article[edit]

See Talk:Silvio Berlusconi underage prostitution charges#RM. Please reply there. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:58, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

"and convicted criminal"?[edit]

Surely it's time to add "and convicted criminal" to the first para of the intro? His conviction has been upheld by the Court of Cassation and there's no further appeal. Malick78 (talk) 09:51, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Isn't there a more precise term? Fraudster maybe? Iluvatar85 (talk) 16:46, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Either "fraudster" or "convicted criminal" would do now. If the sentence for "exploitation of underage prostitution" will also be upheld, "fraudster" will not be enough --Purple74 (talk) 12:14, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Done. I went for a rather specific "tax evader", I hope it's not deemed too euphemistical. --Nemo 13:58, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Is he the first Italian Prime Minister to be arrested since Mussolini?

I assume you mean former PM: no he isn't, Arnaldo Forlani being the most relevant precedent recalled (implicitly) by Giorgio Napolitano (he served a couple years of social services in early 1990s). [3] --Nemo 15:52, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Reader feedback: This article needs some more...[edit]

93.56.98.201 posted this comment on 2 February 2013 (view all feedback).

This article needs some more truth. Even people who hate Berlusconi should have enough honesty to at least report facts correctly and not hide facts that are unpleasant for them. For instance, anti-mafia public prosecutor Grasso recently praised the last Berlusconi government for its anti-mafia laws. Too unpleasant to be reported?

Any thoughts?

Trinitresque (talk) 17:54, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

The fact that that praise was given does not itself justify its inclusion into this article. If we added every praise a subject receives to each article, we might end up with articles many times their current lengths. There should be a separate reason why something like this merits inclusion in my opinion. Trinitresque (talk) 17:54, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Giunta delle elezioni e delle immunità parlamentari[edit]

On [4], I'd ask the user to provide better sources for the claim. In this very moment the committee is discussing 3 "pregiudiziali" which would exclude any application of the "Severino law". I suspect the editor is confusing the Severino law decadence with the public offices ban, which is not yet active because its length needs to be recalculated by the court after it was canceled by the Court of Cassation. Nemo 16:39, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Yep, you are correct. Just checked the story. I relied on a normally well respected Danish source, who had mixed it up. Indeed the Senate Committee right now only focus on application of the "Severino law". So we have two paths potentially leading to a Senate expulsion: "Severino law" and "Court ruling". As I have understood the situation, the supreme court already decided to grant a public office ban for Berlusconi, but returned the duration question (if it should be either 3 or 5 years) for the lower court to judge. I suspect, that even if the Senate committee decides not to expel Berlusconi based on the Severino law, they will still have to expel him (one way or the other) based on the court ruling. I look forward to learn how it all unfolds. Danish Expert (talk) 05:53, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
On a sidenote: Cesare_Previti is an excellent precedent case to observe how a similar public office expulsion was conducted in 2007. The Italian supreme court had given him a lifetime ban from holding public office on 4 May 2006, but he did no withdraw as a deputy, and appealed the supreme courts decision to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). The house then voted to expel him on 31 July 2007 (by a similar voting process as Berlusconi now face). And finally ECHR ruled on 19 January 2010, that his appeal was declared inadmissible. The interesting point to note, is that it took ECHR 3.5 years to rule his appeal was inadmissible - and that the house did not wait to receive the ECHR decision before voting to expel him. With that in mind, I don't think Berlusconi will succeed by his current attempt, to sway the Senate committee to postpone taking any decision until after his appeal has been heard by ECHR. Danish Expert (talk) 07:34, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
I may be confused and I've not checked so don't trust me, but the public offices ban applies (automatically) only at the next election; at a minimum it needs to be "ratified" by the same Giunta (committee) to cause a decadence. At the same time there is also a third line of decadence in the same Giunta, i.e. that he didn't have the right to stand as a candidate in the first place because of a 1954 law on holders of public contracts (TV). So there will be a series or court rulings and votes by the committee and the full Senate before this is over. I'm not sure if you want to detail all this somewhere; I personally don't and I'd just leave some generic language till the events unfold. --Nemo 11:14, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
I agree we should not list full details about all the Senate committee votes in advance. It is better we instead await the outcome, before writing about it in full detail. Still, the framework of what is going on in the Senate committee and the political ramifications, is something that remain interesting shortly to report, so I just added a short paragraph for this purpose. When the final outcome of the Senate deliberations are known, I of course accept the paragraph can be cooked down and rewritten only to reflect the main conclusions. Danish Expert (talk) 14:12, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Aged picture of Silvio Berlusconi[edit]

Reunión de Sebastián Piñera y Silvio Berlusconi.jpg
EPP Summit March 2012 (49).jpg

The Berlusconi's front picture of the article is aged (2010). I propose to update it. 46.255.85.34 (talk) 09:10, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Sadly he no longer is in office so there are less official photos nowadays and we don't have many on Commons (additionally, Flickr is down now and Google finds nothing). I found only two suitable options (to be cropped), see right side. Suggestions? --Nemo 11:17, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Nick.mon reverted the update [5], so ask him. --Nemo 18:10, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Article too long?[edit]

RJFF has tagged the article as being too long with a need of subarticle spinoff or condensing. Nick.mon removed the tag, and I agree with him that the tag is not needed. The article might contain certain chapters with a need to be condensed, but then I think you should add "too long chapter" tags for each of those chapters, rather than tag the article as being too long in general. I also think, that a long article with many summary chapters (as we already have now), is actually something most readers will expect to be presented to in Berlusconi's case, when considering he has been a top politician for 25 years, implicated in almost 30 court cases, and inarguably is one of the most important business people in Italy. Danish Expert (talk) 04:24, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes I agree with you, all the article about political leaders all over the world are very long, and I don't know why, the one of Berlusconi must be divided into many little articles. And the current article is well divided into chapter and I think that it is very clear. -- Nick.mon (talk) 12:40, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Just removed the "too long article" template posted by RJFF for the second time. See my previous reply above for argumentation. To move the debate further ahead, I still invite RJFF to use the {{Very long|section|date=October 2013}} tag-template for each section he considers to be too long, rather than tagging the entire article as a whole. Danish Expert (talk) 16:11, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Money[edit]

I can guarantee that Berlusconi according to new surveys, has a capital of 11 billion €. Forbes does not say right.
I can not edit the page in English, I can only edit pages in Italian.--Giuseppe luci (talk) 18:22, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Please provide a source for your claim. We cannot say Forbes isn't right just on our opinions or faith assumption among users. (Italian): Per favore forniscici una fonte per la tua affermazione. Non possiamo dire che Forbes non è corretta solo sulle nostre opinioni o su assunzioni di fiducia fra noi utenti. [Rispondi in inglese se riesci]--Nickanc (talk) 15:15, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Example of Severino Law effects on politician[edit]

I think that this fact "The latest example of this in Italy, was when the leader of the Five Star Movement, Beppe Grillo, led his party's 2013 election campaign despite being banned from public office due to a conviction over a road accident." is non correct. The Severino Law (decreto legislativo n.235 of 31 december 2012) on article 1, paragraph c) state that manslaughter (omicidio colposo in italian) is not affected. Beppe Grillo on his blog wrote [6] that he was convicted for "omicidio colposo" for a road accident at 1 year and 3 months. A more compliant example of the application of this law is the case of regional councillor Michele Iorio, [7] that was banned for 18 month. — Mauri75 (talk) 19:20, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 29 September 2013[edit]

Please change "The latest example of this in Italy, was when the leader of the Five Star Movement, Beppe Grillo, led his party's 2013 election campaign despite being banned from public office due to a conviction over a road accident." beacause is non correct. The Severino Law (decreto legislativo n.235 of 31 december 2012) on article 1, paragraph c) state that manslaughter (omicidio colposo in italian) is not affected. Beppe Grillo on his blog wrote [8] that he was convicted for "omicidio colposo" for a road accident at 1 year and 3 months. A more compliant example of the application of this law is the case of regional councillor Michele Iorio, [9] that was banned for 18 month. I suggest to change to "The first example of this in Italy, was when the councellor Angelo_Michele_Iorio has be banned from public office due to a conviction [10] Mauri75 (talk) 19:47, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Partly done: you're right, the CNN article is not accurate enough: Grillo refused to run for elections because of a rule established within his party (and not as a consequence of the Severino law). However, IMO the comparison should be made with a leader who led his party despite being banned from public office, and I just know Grillo in this situation. I changed the sentence this way:
«A similar situation occurred in March 2013, when the leader of the Five Star Movement, Beppe Grillo, convicted over a road accident in 1988, led his party's 2013 election campaign despite he couldn't run for a public office because of a rule established within his movement.»
Hope it's OK for you, — TintoMeches, 02:43, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Any difference between the two public office bans sanctioned by the Court and Severino Law?[edit]

Just want to bump a note, that after reading several articles this month, it appear there is no actual difference between the two type of public office bans existing in Italy. This Foglio article has clarified, that the only difference is that they are imposed independently by two parallel authorities. The court imposed public office ban is an "additional penalty" related solely to the arbitrated case; while the Severino law imposed public office ban is a standard penalty being activated by the "Administrative Authoraty" for persons being finally convicted of aggravated crimes. The main conclusion is, that the longest of the two imposed public office bans by effect will supersede the shortest. So in the tax evasion case, the six-year ban from the Severino law will supersede the two-year court imposed ban. While if it ends with a court imposed lifetime public office ban in the Ruby case, then this lifetime ban will supersede the shorter Severino law public office ban. For activation of both types of public office bans against active parliamentarians, the ban will only take effect from the date when the parliamentarian's house has passed the ban. Danish Expert (talk) 11:37, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Berlusconi has been expelled from the Italian Parliament[edit]

See this article from ANSA: http://www.ansa.it/web/notizie/postit/decadenza_berlusconi/2013/11/26/Speciale-Decadenza-Berlusconi_9683972.html213.215.136.158

(talk) 17:00, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Sentence doesn't make sense[edit]

Does "US" belong in this sentence? None of the references clarify if "US" belongs in the sentence. "Later, at the summit's official dinner hosted by President Giorgio Napolitano, US and Libyan leaders upset protocol by sitting next to Italian Prime Minister and G8 host Berlusconi. (According to protocol, Gaddafi should have sat three places away from Berlusconi.)[117][118][119]" (Bold added.) Raquel Baranow (talk) 06:11, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Cavaliere (Knight)[edit]

Berlusconi didn't resign from the title of Cavaliere. Firstly he "self-suspended" himself (that's different!). Secondly, he self-suspended himself not from the Title (that should be done by the President of the Republic), but just from a private association of people qith that title. He is still Cavaliere, a kind of owner a House in a luxury neighborhood leaving the association of the owners: he still owns the house. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.34.9.71 (talk) 12:06, 7 April 2014 (UTC)