Talk:2006 Italian general election

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums articles

Italy Mid‑importance

	Italy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Italy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 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.ItalyWikipedia:WikiProject ItalyTemplate:WikiProject ItalyItaly articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Foreign reputation

This paragraph is quite tendentious.

Opinion polling

I would appreciate some link to existing opinion polling taken after 25 march outside Italy.

If you read the paragraph, you'll discover the Italian law forbids to publish opinion pollings after March 25, so it's impossible to have any of them. --Angelo 08:58, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the question was whether there were any opinion polls taken outside Italy for the overseas ballots. I would imagine that the ban on polls would be unenforceable outside Italy. Kelvinc 09:08, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Balance

As a voter of the center left myself, I found the article quite unbalanced (on the left). A strong bias vs Mr Berlusconi can be perceived all over the pages. You do not need to love the Leader of Center Right, but if one is just trying to get informed your article looks too much one sided. In my views, of course. Marco Calabrese

What is described in the article is just facts, not opinions. And facts aren't usually partisan. Tell us what you think looks unbalanced. --Angelo 12:33, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK: Constitutional reforms: the worst were made in 2001 by the Left (federalism) but you suggest the idea that Mr B is to blame for those as well. Jobs: is shamelessly trumpeting Prodi as an advocate of the youth (see CPE paragraph) whereas other side opinion was not mentioned at all... A third example: there is not a single word about separation of carrers of Judges and Prosecutors, neither about abolishing the power of prosecutors to appeal against the defendant found not guilty. These were 2 very important reforms made by the right: but they do not appear in the long article. Sheer chance? I can go ahead for hours. Bare facts do not exist: nevertheless your personal opinion is well written. Ciao, Best regards Marco Calabrese

I don't see the glue behind what you say. The 2001 constitutional reform (which passed a referendum a few years ago, btw) regarded just a few articles, whereas the centre-right reform actually changes the base of the constitution. The paragraph should talk just about the House of Freedoms' one and what it led to in the electoral campaign. Jobs: there's nothing more to say about the House of Freedoms, as it did not claim to change the current system realized in 2003. I just explained about the proposals of the Union on the job issue and the reasons behind. Judges and prosecutors: we could add it, as we could include also conflict of interests, "ad personam" laws, security, pensions, Iraq, USA and EU relations, and so on. Want to help us? --Angelo 18:20, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For instance, the external links are all to "Repubblica", a newspaper notoriously and ferociously opposed to Berlusconi. A bit more balance would had been given by providing links to articles on teh same subject from another newspaper like "Il Giornale". I share the opinion the articles is strongly unbalanced in favour of teh center-left coalition. G.--Guido Costantini 09:20, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Il Giornale" is far less balanced, as it is owned by Berlusconi's brother Paolo. And Wikipedia isn't place for par condicio, but NPOV instead. "Repubblica" is the second newspaper of Italy for copies sold. We could replace with the Corriere della Sera articles, if you prefer. Anyway, it's not a problem of external links, which should work just as sources. I don't feel it's unbalanced, just it can be expanded someway. --Angelo 09:26, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not a place for par condicio, but at least, so I thought, for unbiased information and when that's impossible, at least for giving the two sides of the story and let the reader be informed of those in order to get his own point of view. Apparently, I was wrong in thinking that. --Guido Costantini 09:54, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok people let's stop it here: in the end we are just asking the author not to be so careless about Italy's reputation especially when talking to foreign media. The reason why people like me (and possibly Guido) read the foreign press is the search of unbiased comments. Therefore, to find the fans of one (or other) Party also on an indipendent medium is particularly disappointing.

Marco

English

The English on this page is crap. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.201.75.84 (talk • contribs) 19:29, April 15, 2005

I've improved it as best I could without altering meaning. -- MrBland 19:38, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bush and Putin

Bush and Putin are apparently good friends of Berlusconi and this apparence was erased by the Callipari's controversy with the USA and the Gas cut from the Russian Federation that is higher than in other eurozone countries. So it is neutral to say that they are political friends or only personal friends? If they are personal friends the sentence should be moved on their personal pages.
According to the House of freedoms website, the tax cut was of 0.1% of the GDP, since the 2002, when the first tax cut was done. --Trek00 07:38, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ministry or Minister

Resolved

Should "Conservative party led by Ministry for Foreign Affairs and former vice-premier Gianfranco Fini" be instead "Conservative party led by Minister for Foreign Affairs and former vice-premier Gianfranco Fini"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter Robinett (talk • contribs) 23:33, March 31, 2006

Thank you, I have changed it. Mushroom (Talk) 23:48, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Definition of Rifondazione

"Reformed communist party led by Fausto Bertinotti. Their refusal to join the Union at the last election kept it from winning and allowed Berlusconi to stay in office." is the description you made of Rifondazione and I don't agree about the accuse of other center left parties to Bertinotti of having lost last national elections because of his choice. First of all Bertinotti had no candidate in Maggioritario or plurality voting (75% of seats) and radical left electors gave their vote to left candidates of Ulivo. Center left coalition could not win also in case of alliance in 2001 because in proportional too left votes were 2% less. On the contrary why didn't you write that DS and Margherita allowed Berlusconi to win because they didn't approve a law about Berlusconi interest conflict? Berlusconi could not even be candidate in a true democracy!!! He controls 90% of italian tv and 48% of publishing and is Prime Minister!!! Whose the fault? Who governed until 2001? Bertinotti? Why didn't you say Rutelli program wasn't so different from Berlusconi program? Why don't you talk about Violante's speach at the Deputates Chamber when he said they helped Berlusconi not making a law about tv and interest conflict regulamentetion? Elections were lost in 2001 from Ulivo because of their government failing experience, that's the truth. At that time DS and Marghrita thougth that they could win without Bertinotti and that was time to free from Rifondazione. They even provoqued a split in Rifondazione and allied with Mastella to continue to govern.

The election date

The section about the election date is not very clear (I cannot fix it as I do not speak Italian. First, it does not state when originally should have been election. Second it is not clear how early April election helped to solve the deadlock. It looks like an exact opposite. There is a new parliament but not a new government and president is leaving office in 20 days? (It is not clear when in May but it is ussually the first if not stated otherwise. ) It seems like a deadlock. --Jan Smolik 21:15, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Updating results

Results have been updated from the Interior Ministry web site. Can someone with a more robust knowledge of the Italian language go over anything I might've misunderstood?

From what I can tell:
National votes, Chamber
National votes by region, Chamber
Overseas votes, Chamber
National + overseas seats won, Chamber

National votes, Senate
National votes by region, Senate
Overseas votes, Senate
National + overseas seats won, Senate

Can I just add that it's supremely ironic that the election results are being updated by a Canadian of Chinese descent with almost no knowledge of the Italian language?
Kelvinc 01:47, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't you heard? You should be boiling babies to make fertilizer! 18.251.6.240 03:28, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The left won a majority in China [1] and 100% in North Korea [2]. Seriously, the article is hopeless, full of preliminary fluff but missing the reason why the left has a large majority in the lower house is that the new voting system guaranteed 340 seats to the winning coalition and they also got a seat in Valle d'Aosta.

The majority bonus is mentioned in the text on the new electoral system but not in the results themselves, so we should probably add that. Plus the tables look horrendous now with the ad-hoc addition of the overseas results. I'll see what I can do.

PS to 18.251.6.240: well, not according to these results. ;)

Kelvinc 20:21, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wee tables are nicely formatted and I put in coalition logos too. Kelvinc 21:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Constitutional reform, NPOV?

87.5.178.251 added quite a bit of text for that, but it almost reads like out of some speech and doesn't see very NPOV to me. Can somebody check it, just to make sure? CharonX 16:38, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and what is all this talk about soccer in the section for Constitutional Reform? And the sudden switch of perspective to "we..." --82.207.214.196 17:12, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback

I'v rollbacked the consideration toward Calderoli "At the second day of elections Calderoli, the main author of this electoral reform, completely changed opinion, saying it was a "good law". [3]" because, reading the ADN Kronos article, Calderoli hasn't completely changed opinion. It's say that the law isn't perfect but it could be good with same changes. IMHO he hasn't changed the opinion "porcata". In any case a lot of politics change opinion frequently when they take note of their overstatements, and for this reason it's more important the first statement. --Ilario 14:19, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear User 87.0.180.108 - NPOV

Dear user 87.0.180.108, while I appreciate your contributions to this Article, most of the added content violates the Neutral Point of View Policy of Wikipedia (NPOV). Please read the aforemention policy and try to avoid biased contributions, if possible. CharonX 15:40, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ANSWER: The episode of the European Parliament and Schulz ist true, as all the other information, which has historical or legal backgrounds. In the last case there is few to interpret. In addition I think the only violation of Neutrality is saying that all that Berlusconi did is bad. Moreover it was simply false referring to the successor of the Italian Fascist Party. Fascism is forbidden by the Italian Constitution. The politician referred to, the Foreign Minister, defined Fascism as the absolute evil (male assoluto)
(the unsinged commmend above was added by 82.58.159.191)

Thanks for your quick answer ('ll assume that you are 87.0.180.108 on an dynamic IP - feel free to create an account and join the community, and don't forget to sign your posts). I'll show you some of the addendums which seem non-NPOV to me (I have bolded the items which represent a possible bias):
"Since the opposition coalition is prejudicially against the new constitutional reform, defining it - without any reasonable ground - as dangerous, separatist, and somehow antidemocratic (!)"
"which had been badly reformed in 2001 under the left government with just 4 votes of majority." "badly" and "without any reasonable ground" implies that what what one side did was wrong. Of course, this is often the case, but on Wikipedia we try to keep a balanced view with consensus. For example use instead "as some experts claim, without reasonable ground" and add (improtant) citations for those experts. Of course other users might offer conflicting views from other experts, but after a while a consensus should be found. "it was reasonable to change the voting system just nine months before the natural end of the legislature, as the new system would be immediately tested at the general election 2006. The same had been done in 1993, when the electoral law was changed and in 1994 Italians voted the new Parliament." Those, amongst others sound biased to me if I read them, but I'd be happy to discuss this with you so we can reach a good consensus. CharonX 16:18, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I ANSWER I try to insert a new version without those equivocal adjectives (but 4 votes of majority, this is OBJECTIVE). And the episode of the Parliamnet is a fact. If you want, we can continue the discussion in German, it 'd be easier.

anonymous user 82.56.126.242 (probably he/she was 82.58.159.191 and 87.0.180.108) is continuously adding POV to this article. GhePeU 18:49, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM see http://www.governo.it/governoinforma/dossier/devolution/index.html

the problem is that this user are making a cut and paste with errors at end of the article that delete a big part of it... --Ilario 19:34, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Supporter and/or author

Please Calderoli was not an author but also a supporter of this law. After his resignation from the Berlusconi's cabinet, it's was free to say something about this law but he supported it also in the next period (for this is not only an author because in the next months he had no the powers as minister). --Ilario 17:03, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So called POV integrations

Please notice that NOTHING added by me is in any way different from reality. I'm sorry because of the strong adjectives added in my first version. 1. Constitutional Reform: The national interest is explicitely mentioned in the new art. 127 (it's not just "according to its proponents", it's the text of the law!) The previous reform cancelled it. This reform was made by the center left government with 4 votes of majority (without the consensus of the opposition) 2. Electoral law It makes Prodi win, even if he was against. The referendum of 1993 abrogated the former law, which had no thresholds. The elections followed in 1994. (so where is the scandal about the reform of 2005?) 3. Eu Parliament episode Berlusconi was adressed as Godfather (Pate, padrino) which is the equivalent for mafioso, not a compliment I mean. Thank you for your attention

About the third point I agree following the NPOV. I know that "Berlusconi was adressed as Godfather" (it's at least the vindication of Berlusconi's party), but surely it isn't "practically unavoidable". This is only a point of view. --Ilario 20:00, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

POV section

This is the part that really bugs me:

"The incident was considered especially inappropriate, since Schulz is a socialist, a group who themselves were persecuted and sent to concentration camps, while Berlusconi himself is leading a government including the successor of the Italian Fascist Party, and whose deputy once said that Benito Mussolini was a great Italian statesman."

The "successor of the Italian Fascist Party" leads a negligible party in the coalition.
This article is about the Italian general election, 2006 (gee, who would have guessed), not about Silvio Berlusconi. I fail to see how mentioning Schulz's ideology, in relation to actions that occurred over 50 years ago, is relevant in an article about a general election.
The language is POV.

There are other parts of the article that are somewhat POV, as well, but this section jumped out. – ugen64 22:53, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder how the Berlusconi-Schulz controversy is related to an article about the 2006 election. Very POV in my opinion. – unregistered user 2006-04-12T23:00+0000

The whole thing is chock full of hidden and blatant POVness. Heck, we've been spending this whole day doing reverts on unsigned IPs who insist on adding some really POV stuff. (If you think I'm talking to you, the answer is yes.) I'm more interested about posting the results than anything else, having little expertise in Italian politics, but there is certainly room for improvement.

Kelvinc 23:19, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hope we can get this semiprotected asap and create a good NPOV version under it. I don't even dare to attempt any reverts back to NPOV right now, as all is mucked up. I think this one needs a complete overhaul. CharonX 23:40, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Need section for post-vote controversy

I got started on a section documenting the dispute over uncounted ballots and such after the vote count ended, but it probably needs fleshing out. Kelvinc 21:35, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some wrongs in results tables

There some wrongs the sums are wrongs, some parties "votes" are wrongs There is confusion within all italy results (with some uninominal colleges) and proportional results.--Francomemoria 17:49, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Timing

Reports on many elections omit to say when the new government will take over. In the UK it is immediately but elsewhere there is a timetabled date.

Currently, nobody knows when the new Italian government will take office. It is supposed to be in May, but it will depend on which president will appoint the next prime minister (either the current one, Ciampi, or the future one, to be elected in May too). So, I think it is actually meaningless to deepen this topic. --Angelo 17:00, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Berlusconi conceding

Has Berlusconi still not conceded? Piet 14:25, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Italian press he said that he will never concede defeat and that he is the real and only political winner. GhePeU 18:06, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that sounds like him all right :-) Maybe this could go in the introduction, because now it gives the impression that he will concede one of these days. Piet 20:52, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

About Tax breaks & update needed

The articles draws some conclusions in the section "Tax breaks" or let the reader draw a conclusion, maybe it should be reformulated in a better way so to look more neutral. This is mainly because the article is outdated and for example use the conditional form of events that have later happened. This maybe should be modified or a confirmation of that particular event taking place must be added to keep the neutrality of the article.

While the general feeling reading most of the Italian regarding articles is that they where written by extreme left contributors, their quality is not bad, I hope they can be shifted to a more neutral view where the facts are told and not comments on the events. For example noting that the number of sections in the election was so great compared to the voting difference that to change the result of the voting much less than one error of attribution per section was needed, having the election much under the "precision of the instrument".

I wait for suggestion on how to improve the article with a neutral view, and i welcome anyone to precede me and make the modifications.

Best Regards

Gabriele Dini Ciacci 23:15, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Italian general election, 2006. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:18, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Italian general election, 2006. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:39, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]