Jump to content

Talk:2008 Italian government crisis

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Merge

[edit]

This article can be merged with Romano Prodi and Prodi II Cabinet. I don't see how this deserves its own article. What more is there to add? The "2008 Italian political crisis" does not (yet?) exist in the media. We could call it the Resignation of Romano Prodi but what is the precedent for these things?--Jiang (talk) 23:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's plenty of precedent. See 2007 Ukrainian political crisis, 2007 Malawian political crisis, 2007 Zimbabwean political crisis, 2005-2006 Thai political crisis, 2005–2006 Fijian political crisis, 2006–2008 Bangladeshi political crisis etc. The media is all over this, even though they (quite naturally) don't follow Wikipedia's naming conventions. All this template does at this point is to give an impression of chaos and lack of professionalism to one of the most prominent articles on Wikipedia. I'll remove it for now, then we can get back to this once it's off the main page. Lampman (talk) 23:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All of those articles were on events of an unprecedented, extraordinary, or scandalous nature. None were simple motions of no confidence following a disintegration of a parliamentary coalition. Events of similar nature have not warranted individual articles. see Silvio_Berlusconi#Fall_of_the_Berlusconi_I_administration, Paul_Martin#Fall_of_government, Malcolm_Fraser#Decline_and_fall--Jiang (talk) 00:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that a merge is appropriate, probably to Prodi II Cabinet, though a survey article like List of post-war Italian political crises could certainly be created since as Jiang says this is hardly the first time that something like this has happened. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:20, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I recommend waiting a bit to see where time takes us. If there is a smooth transition into the next government, I'd say this could certainly be relegated solely to one of the Prodi articles. If this sticks to the more traditional chaotic grabs for power: this may be appropriate. ...Another thought: a list of post-war Italian political crises might be excessively long :P --Bossi (talk • gallery • contrib) 02:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that an article on this is likely viable, as Italian politics tend to be very theatrical. I'm against the merge, unless the transition is very, very simple -- which I doubt it will be. —Nightstallion 09:19, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Being "theatrical" is not a reason to have a separate article. This is not unprecedented, extensive, or controversial. It is not something that would fill an entire page with notable text. The incidents of legislative violence are not all mentioned in Wikipedia, and about none have their own articles, and we would think those would be mentioned before simple votes of no confidence that happen all the time.--Jiang (talk) 02:33, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't this sort of thing happen all the time in Italian politics? I heard some statistic somewhere that since Italy united, they have not had a single prime minister serve out their complete term Comradeash (talk) 09:57, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this sort of thing happens every year or so in Italy (I'm Italian) and I thing we definitely do not need an article on every government crisis: we had some 60 different governments in 60 years of Italian Republic, and it would just be a waste of time to list them all in separate articles. Gathering them according to the Prime Minister is much more useful and meaningful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.8.202.31 (talk) 10:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in favor of a merge with Prodi II Cabinet. I don't think there's any need for a List of post-war Italian political crises article. As a first point, it was already noted by other users that in the last 60 years Italy has been through scores of political crises (only one government made it to completion of its natural term so far). I think a mere list of these crises would be of no use at all. Maybe an article about political instability in Italy would be more useful, but I'm not too sure that would be considered as encyclopedic (besides I sure as hell wouldn't like to be around when the usual "political flame wars" pop up in such an article...). Second, I think that even if we wait and see what happens with the present crisis nothing will happen that is going to make this article more relevant. Political crisis in Italy end either with new election or with the appointment of a caretaker government, so there's nothing special that's going to happen. And even if something very peculiar happens during this crisis it will be probably worth an article on its own. So, merge with Prodi II Cabinet. Berserker79 (talk) 17:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely against a merger! I have myself made a similar article on the Norwegian wikipedia. I cant see that there are any good arguments for a merger. --Oddeivind (talk) 20:27, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a reason. This is the English Wikipedia. Maybe the article you made should be merged too.--Jiang (talk) 02:33, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but only in the sense that this is the English language Wikipedia. So Italian or Norwegian events are not less notable than American or British ones. As to the article, in my opinion we would need to write analogous articles for previous similar events, not to delete or merge the new ones. Goochelaar (talk) 09:54, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Section break

[edit]

As I already suggested in the AFD page, this article should better be merged with Prodi II Cabinet. Political crisis are not infrequent in Italy, and, as we have a standalone article about the cabinet, this content should better be featured there. Please keep in mind WP:RECENTISM. --Angelo (talk) 17:29, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed (see above for reasons). Berserker79 (talk)
This should absolutely not be merged anywhere. It is a highly notable event and cannot be properly covered in any context aside from an independent article. That Italy has a lot of these kinds of things is completely irrelevant. By all means, let's have an article on every major political event in the recorded history of the Italian Peninsula, providing we have enough available information (which in this case is a no-brainer). Don't be afraid of content. Everyking (talk) 18:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed should be merged. John Smith's (talk) 19:08, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree the article should be merged - at this stage all the information currently in the article would be more appropriate as a section in other articles such Prodi II Cabinet or Romano Prodi. Wikipedia is not a news service and currently the independent notability of the event based on impact and cultural significance will be impossible to document. This should no more be an article on it's own than the Death of Heath Ledger - also currently prominent in the news. Guest9999 (talk) 00:23, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You say that "all the information currently in the article would be more appropriate as a section in other articles such Prodi II Cabinet or Romano Prodi", but you also make deletionist arguments based on the idea that Wikipedia should not cover subjects in the news and that notability can only be evaluated after the passage of time. Isn't that a contradiction? Do you want to reduce the scope of the content and move it somewhere else, or do you want to maintain the scope but only on a different page? And let me point out the merging this to Prodi's article would be absurd; we cannot discuss this in detail on a biographical article covering his whole life and career. Merging to Prodi II Cabinet would also be bad, although not as bad as merging to Prodi. This article deals with the full event—it should encompass things beyond the scope of what would be appropriate in an article on the government, such as the Senator who was spat on and abused during voting. Everyking (talk) 01:27, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"...you also make deletionist arguments based on the idea that Wikipedia should not cover subjects in the news and that notability can only be evaluated after the passage of time. Isn't that a contradiction?". No, it's just what WP:RECENTISM correctly says (I know it's a draft, but it's also a known fact, often cited in similar discussions). By the way, I doubt you'd start an article about the Berlusconi II cabinet crisis in 2005 with the same reasoning. Prodi II Cabinet is an article that aims to cover the government history, so it's definitely the best appropriate place for this kind of content. --Angelo (talk) 01:49, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't address my question. "Do you want to reduce the scope of the content and move it somewhere else, or do you want to maintain the scope but only on a different page?" Your argument seems to propose doing both, but that is impossible. And I'd start an article on any such event with the same reasoning if I was prepared to do the work of writing it and wasn't afraid that somebody would try to get it deleted. Everyking (talk) 02:26, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merging is quite different than deleting. Nobody here is questioning the clear notability of the content, however a number of users (including me) just think there's no need for a separate article when you have an article about the related cabinet which suits for good this kind of content. --Angelo (talk) 02:29, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since you won't answer the question, I will assume you favor reducing the scope of the content based on your views about covering subjects in the news and "recentism". Everyking (talk) 02:31, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Recentism is a concern, sure. But my major concern is about the current content: a short paragraph covering just the events which caused the government to fall down, and a couple citations to possible future scenarios which are actually crystal-balling. Not really a large content deserving its own article, IMHO. --Angelo (talk) 02:39, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree with merge. This page dodged deletion yesterday, and if that AfD consensus wanted a merge, the article would be merged already. Let's give some time to allow the page to gather its own momentum (or not). By the time we need to revisit this, we'll have better perspective with which to assess the situation. BusterD (talk) 01:59, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let me note you AfD is for deletions, and not for mergers (that's why it basically ended with a snowball keep). If you look at WP:MERGE, you can easily realize talkpages are the right place to discuss mergers (that is what we're doing here). --Angelo (talk) 02:03, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No one here is arguing for the deletion of content. Rather, we are examining whether a justification exists for one event to have its own standalone article. The reasons would be 1) a self-contained event of significance that warrants its own article or 2) massive amounts of material that would have to siphoned off from other articles according to summary style. This article qualifies for neither. This event is not "self contained" in that we had to create a term ("2008 Italian political crisis") not used by the media (neologism are not allowed here!) to house the text and would not be out of place in an article on Prodi or his cabinet (as signalling the end of a section of one, the full end of the other). It is not of significance that warrants its own article because similar motions of no confidence (neither controversial nor unprecedented in a country with party-list proportional representation like Italy) have not merited their own articles. And lastly, the text we can reasonably devote to this article while staying in "encyclopedia-speak" (as opposed to editorial speak, documentary speak, or timeline speak) is minimal. There's not much more to add unless riots and rallies somehow start breaking out in the streets of Rome.--Jiang (talk) 02:33, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I'm trying to say (as an Italian) in this talkpage. This is a fact (the final fact, actually) regarding the Prodi II Cabinet, so it should be placed there. Period. --Angelo (talk) 02:39, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, anything that receives this level of attention warrants a stand-alone article, and there is considerably more that could be written about it. That similar articles don't exist is a terrible argument; past failures don't justify future failures. I don't feel the scope of the content in this article is suitable for full inclusion in the Prodi article or the Cabinet article. I am also skeptical that the idea here is to merge the content in full; I think the idea is to merge only the most notable elements of this article and keep the content brief—that's why some people are insisting that these events are ordinary, unremarkable, and insignificant—they don't believe it needs to be covered. It's hard to believe that all the deletionist arguments about the nonnotability of the content can mesh with a proposal to merely merge the full content to another article, without opposition to future expansion. Everyking (talk) 02:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am just going to reiterate what I said before: give it time. This might be a smooth transition into a new government, in which case yes: merge it. If it turns into a massive political mess: I'd say keep it to keep all the details in one place. This may not be solely relegated to an article on Prodi: Berlusconi is likely to become a key player; as are some other politicians and parties. In the interim, I'd say this deserves its own article just to keep the most recent details in one place -- it can be sorted out in the future as to which of these details ultimately becomes something noteworthy in the long-term; and which details can be omitted as something that might of been noteworthy but just didn't pan out as such. --Bossi (talk • gallery • contrib) 03:21, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see the validity in your premise. Just because something is notable does not mean it stands alone. Take the Romano Prodi article for example. We could create separate articles on the Personal life of Romano Prodi, the Academic career of Romano Prodi, and the Political career of Romano Prodi but we have absolutely no need to as long as articles fit on one page (and for some more notable people like Pope John Paul II we have done similar things, but only because text could not fit on one page). In fact, given that Italian politics receives moderate press attention, we could create articles on the 2007 Italian political crisis, 2006 Italian political crisis, 2005 Italian political crisis, 2004 Italian political crisis, etc. What's a political crisis anyway? Where there is politics, there is crisis! This article even says so. In the very least, this needs to be renamed to Fall of the Prodi II Cabinet or something similar. The current title doesnt mean anything.
What more can be added?
What specifically would not fit in either of the proposed articles? I don't see how any of the content needs to be deleted.--Jiang (talk) 03:28, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just saying: give it time. Everything that will happen as a result of these events hasn't happened yet. Call it a hunch, but I suspect there's going to be more news to come. As for the naming of the article: let's keep that issue in the next section beneath this one... there's already enough confusion going on in this section alone. And if you read my comment in the next section: I'm on your side as far as calling it a "crisis". --Bossi (talk • gallery • contrib) 03:48, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I never understand why people will point out similar articles that could be created, as if it's an argument against having the article under discussion, when to me it just shows how very, very far we have to go. The reason I say that the notability of the topic requires dedicating an article to it is because so much has been said and done here that you have to have an independent article to comprehensively cover the topic and because the widespread attention it has gotten means that it warrants being written about in its own right, rather than as part of a broader topic. A merge to Prodi II Cabinet might be acceptable if all the content were retained without prejudice against further expansion; that in itself is just an organizational issue hardly distinct from the question of what to title the article, considering that the Prodi II article is a mere list of ministers at present. However, I think that, before anyone settles on that option, we should do as Bossi says and see how this develops, because there will be future events pertaining to this and the notability of it may increase further. Also, I have no objection to changing the title so that it doesn't use the word "crisis". Everyking (talk) 03:59, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, this really took off! I started the article, and while I think a merger would be ridiculous, I don't really care much one way or the other. I just sometimes wish certain people would spend only half the time they spend wikilawyering on improving content, then we might have a pretty good encyclopaedia here. They could, for instance, write about the president meeting with the speakers of the parliament, or about Berlusconi – who is ahead in the polls by double digits – demanding new elections, or about Prodi calling for electoral reforms.[1] This as an alternative to filling an endless talk page with assertions that "There's not much more to add". Lampman (talk) 10:37, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, I think some of the people in this discussion would feel that such details would be unremarkable and unworthy of inclusion. Everyking (talk) 05:22, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overly broad article name

[edit]

I think it's just a little early in the year for an article to be properly named "2008 Italian political crisis". Although for the sake of Italians that it is the only political crisis this year. -- SEWilco (talk) 20:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now this I do agree with... it's not a "crisis" yet. I'd say Italy is starting to get a knack for changing governments, seeing as it's a near-annual event. :) I haven't really looked into it: do we have any history of articles on transitions between Italian governments? We may wish to use them as a naming template -- might as well define a standard now so we don't have to figure out a name for the 2009 article! --Bossi (talk • gallery • contrib) 03:23, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think "crisis" is being used as a translation from the Italian crisi (di governo). Crisi in general is pretty well translated by the English word "crisis", but a crisi di governo is a more technical usage that describes the loss of a government's mandate (whether or not this constitutes a grave event -- lots of times it's not much of a crisis even for the politicians directly involved, but it's still called a crisi in Italian). --Trovatore (talk) 04:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest 2008 Italian cabinet crisis. If there should be one more cabinet crisis this year, it could be renamed January 2008 cabinet crisis. --Oddeivind (talk) 22:09, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse move to 2008 Italian cabinet crisis. BusterD (talk) 15:58, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If BBC and Reuters call it a crisis, then it's a crisis. It is not up to us to editorialise beyond what reliable, external news sources say, that would be POV. The rest of the title is simply established Wikipedia naming convention (see top of this page). If there's another crisis this year, we'll cross that bridge when we get to it. Lampman (talk) 11:17, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think its a crisis. I mean, this is Italy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.197.253.33 (talk) 15:56, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to agree with what the anon brought up: BBC and Reuters are certainly good validation for using "crisis". As that word was really my only concern, I'd now support the name change and I'd also be OK with what we have now. --Bossi (talk • gallery • contrib) 18:07, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, a more proper title would be "fiasco" Comradeash (talk) 08:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update

[edit]

All, the deletion I did, and that was reverted, was _not_ accidental - the current state of events is that the early election path has been truled against by President Napolitano, and an early election will be held only if the confidence vote for the caretaker government is lost. I reverted to the previous version keeping the edit and adding the references, since I think the last edit was not completely neutral. Dr.Falko 19:52 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Renewed merge debate: Italian general election, 2008

[edit]

Now that the article is approaching completion, I think it would be appropriate to merge this into Italian general election, 2008 as a Background section. This article is still a stub, so it'd effectively be like renaming the article. We can then continue to expand Italian general election, 2008 as new info comes in. Thoughts? --Bossi (talk • gallery • contrib) 12:30, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not experienced enough for discussing editorial changes of this size - however, I agree that this article is basically finished, and that there should not be many more changes. --Dr.falko (talk) 13:09, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd incline to keep the two articles separate. Firstly, they are about distinct events: not all political crises lead to general elections nor all general elections are a consequence of a crisis. Secondly, the article about 2008 general election is bound to be quite long, what with the new parties (like the newborn Democratic Party), the concurrent local elections and so forth. See Italian general election, 2006 for the sizable article about last elections. Goochelaar (talk) 13:27, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
IF it should be merged, your proposal is the best one so far. This just shows that it was right to wait before taking a decision. --Oddeivind (talk) 08:40, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm inclined to keep this article, but at any rate I'd wait at last until the elections, to see the final size of the Italian general election, 2008. If it's too big, the "Background" section, formerly "2008 Italian political crisis" it's likely to be split out anyway, so waiting a few weeks can't hurt. GhePeU (talk) 13:10, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. --Bossi (talk • gallery • contrib) 16:40, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 13:43, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on 2008 Italian political crisis. 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) 03:54, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2008_Italian_government_crisis&oldid=1196518555"