Talk:Mani pulite
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
 | The contents of the Tangentopoli page were merged into Mani pulite on 2014-02-24. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
Missing PCI Information
[edit]This page fails to mention how the Italian Communist Party, or at that time PCI, emerged with an intact reputation from this. One of the big criticisms that was leveled against Di Pietro was how the left seemed unscathed by the corruption charges according to critics like Berlusconi. On the italian version of the page it references Marzio Barbagli and Uberto Gatti's book Crime in Italy detailing how "the PCI-Pds emerged relatively unscathed from the scandals. The PCI had fewer opportunities to benefit from the bribe system, either because it was excluded from the central government, or because it could rely on other means of financing." Adding this would provide a better understanding of the Right's criticisms of the politicization of the Judiciary, and potentially beter explain feelings regarding corruption in Italy. User:Bgrus22
Comment
[edit]This page is not objective at all. Mani Pulite had even negative sides or anyways lots of reasons to be criricized. None of those is exposed in the article. I'll come on this in a fey days.
The final bit of article, is the worst part of it, such sentences as:
"After Berlusconi's victory in 2001, the gradual campaign against judges reached the point where it is not only openly acceptable to criticize judges for having carried out Mani pulite, but it has become increasingly difficult to broadcast opinions favorable to Milan's pool."
Do need arguments to be supported.
On overall this article is the most single-viewed, politicized piece of information, I've seen on Wikipedia. It's a shame.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.140.22.73 (talk) 08:27, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
- - i've deleted it since it's just not true
- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Domino89~enwiki (talk) 08:27, 30 August 2005 (UTC))
Actually, the text you quote describes just what's happened...and you demonstrate it. Nowadays, a large part of the Italian people consider the whole Mani Pulite as a "judges' attempt at a coup d'état". It is therefore true, that spreading opinions favorable to the pool is nowadays difficult, as you may easily be dubbed as "giustizialista" or accused to be biased. It also true that Berlusconi's influence on the media has had a significant role in the public opinion change of views about Mani Pulite, as the main critics have come from (but not only) Berlusconi's brother's newspaper Il Giornale (which gave great relevance to all the accusations hurled against Di Pietro in the '90s, see Marco travaglio's book "La Scomparsa Dei Fatti" for reference).
I agree that the article could be improved, it currently misses the exact critics expressed during these years against the judges, but I don't think it is as biased as you point out. As far as I know, it is true that all accusations against Di Pietro have been withdrawn, while on the other hand the article fails to include important information on how the single trials against Berlusconi have ended (most of the times in an ambiguous way).
Franco —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.253.174.2 (talk) 10:13, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Image copyright problem with Image:Craxi coins.jpg
[edit]The image Image:Craxi coins.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
- That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
- That this article is linked to from the image description page.
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --05:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Absolutely cretinous explanation
[edit]Where are the explanations of the details of the corrupt activities? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.101.25.88 (talk) 05:25, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
In 1994, Silvio Berlusconi entered politics by storm and won the elections. Many think that this move was to preserve his many industries from possible corruption charges. This suspicion was reinforced on February 11, when Silvio Berlusconi's brother, Paolo, admitted to corruption crimes. On July 13, 1994, the Berlusconi government made a new law to avoid jail time for most corruption crimes. The law was carefully timed as Italy had defeated Bulgaria in the 1994 Football World Cup's semifinals, and it is likely that the government expected to exploit an eventual victory to pass the law under silence in a football-crazy country. However, as Roberto Baggio shot high the last penalty against Brazil, and the news was showing images of hated, corrupt politicians getting out of jail, the public opinion became enraged; the images of Francesco De Lorenzo, former minister of Health, were especially striking, since the general public perceived stealing money from hospitals an especially hateful act.
I did not cancel this part because I want to let it as testification: is it really possible to believe that a government puts forward a law because a soccer match between Italy and Bulgaria is playing? Judge by yourselves
Giovanni Falcone
[edit]I can't see the link between the Clean Hands scandal and the death of the anti-Mafia judge Giovanni Falcone. Falcone's prime focus was the Mafia, not the political establishment (although he was of course aware of links between the two). It's not clear from the article what links there were between the corruption in politics and the Mafia that might explain why Giovanni is referenced in this article and I suggest that some more information is added (along with a general clean-up as suggested above). Furrypop (talk) 07:15, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Citation needed
[edit]All the page is without a single cite... and given it should be based on a trial, that looks very strange. I do not feel this is really objective at all given that in the current state most of the article could be made up. It states many people are corrupted without giving a direct citation of the source, isn't this very bad? Even if it is "public domain" that those people are corrupted, Wikipedia should report real facts and not "common thinking". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.32.52.42 (talk) 21:09, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Style
[edit]I'm going to try to put at least some of this into better English over the next few days; but I don't know enough about the subject to alter anything factual, so I'm really going to limit myself strictly to style and syntax. Hopefully that will be okay with people. 81.108.180.242 (talk) 17:14, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
not objective
[edit]The page is not objective at all, it describes conjectures and not actual facts. I'm not saying such conjectures aren't true but they are not presented in the right way as should be in an encyclopedia with references to facts (for example trials dates and imputations, quotes,...) and political opinions are also evident in sentences like "Many think that" "it is likely that" "Some blame" "Furthermore, the intricate nature of Italian laws allowed cunning lawyers to use many delaying tactics" which should at least need a quote or the reference from a newspaper article. The page also oversimplifies many aspects of at least twelve years of the Italian political history, the Italian laws and the Italian public opinion in at least twelve years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.16.22.33 (talk) 22:17, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
External links modified
[edit]Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on Mani pulite. 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:
- Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120205195441/http://www.romacivica.net/anpiroma/larepubblica/repubblica8.htm to http://www.romacivica.net/anpiroma/larepubblica/repubblica8.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
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 IITalk to my owner:Online 08:27, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Statutory Term Strategy
[edit]This whole section does not have one citation and it seems too opinionated. "Some blame Berlusconi's power in media as having played a role in this change or the inability of the opposite parties to gain the consent of the conservative electors." This sentence is a vague statement that also needs sources to prove its legitimacy. --Mhammel14 (talk) 19:37, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Mhammel14 (talk) 19:37, 30 August 2016 (UTC)