Talk:Romano Prodi/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

This needs to be discussed in more detail - why, how, result (i.e. how was D'Alema chosen?)

I do not think it is correct to discuss D'Alema on the Prodi page. Technically speaking Prodi's fall was caused by the PCI (partito communisti Italiani) led by Fausto Bertinotti who failed to support Prodi in a confidence vote in parliment. It would be misrepresentative however to potray the PCI as the single cause. Prodi's "Fall" started with a fall in popularity of the coalition. Prodi entered office on the eve of the introduction of the Euro. At the time he was elected it was expected that Italy would be left out of the Euro due to not meeting the economic requirements. Prodi went straight in Austere budgets that allowed Italy to enter the Euro, but which lost him a lot of popularity. By foccusing on economic issues Prodi was percieved, or potrayed, as not being left enougth and became a scapegoat (maybe justified, this is POV) for the coalitions loss of popularity. Having said that there was reluctance to "sack" him but the coalition jumped at the opportunity of making Prodi Italy's candidate for Europe. Prodi was an ideal candidate and it appeared to be a good all round solution.

His government could count only on a tiny majority, and "extreme left" parties such as the PRC were necessary for its continuation. Also, the largest party of that government was the Partito Democratico della Sinistra (Leftist Democrats' Party), the "new incarnation" of the former Communist Party.

In spite of this, Prodi had never been a truly leftist man: his affiliation had been with the now dissolved Christian Democratic party, and after its fall he never founded a large alternative party or became strongly affiliated with one. Because of that, he was a bit of an "outsider". His supporters saw him as the "wise old man" that was most suited for pulling together an extremely diverse coalition of parties, but the top brass of the PDS (Massimo d'Alema above all) viewed him as an obstacle for the long-awaited rise to power of the "true left", that had to remain in the opposition since 1948 (Once, Christian Democrat prime minister Moro tried to strike a deal with the Communist Party, but was killed before he could realize it). Thus, support for Prodi was withdrawn and a new government with higher PDS influence formed. This proved to be a largely misbegotten decision, however, as that executive didn't last long and suffered a huge defeat in the following elections against Silvio Berlusconi --81.208.36.87 13:51, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

What's the buzz about Prodi being a Bilderberger, do you have evidences for that or is just YACT (yet another conspiracy theory) ???

• He seemed to have at least participated on a meeting in the 1980s, when he was just a professor at the University of Bologna: [1] (it's written in Italian). --Angelo 17:06, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

The article states that he was an invited guest as a Professor of industrial economics. The pope was invited to speak at the Italian parliment, does that make him part of the Italian government? The article cited does not demonstrate or state that he was a Bilderberger so I cannot see that it is really valid as a reference to justify the statement.

Can someone clarify his party affiliation? It's not mentioned in the article and I don't know enough about Italian politics to fix it ... --Cam 16:53, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe Prodi is associated specifically with any one party within the center-left coalition.

17:23, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Prodi's aim has been to create a centre left party which encapsulates existing parties, rather than create a new party from scratch. He started this quest in the middle of the 1990's and it finally came to fruition with the merger of the PDS and Margheritta parties (plus others) to form the Democrats in 2007. He originally created the Ulivo alliance and the Unione alliance, where the Ulivo is a more tightly bound subset of the Unione. The Ulivo was composed primarily of the Margheritta and PDS, two parties that had allmost identical policies. The Unione alliance (which is currently governing Italy as of June 2007) is an Alliance between the Ulivio and other parties both to the left (PCI, PDCI, Verde) and to the right (IDV, UDER) as well as the radical SDI (I never know where to place them!). Prodi has now succeeded in turning the Ulivo into a political party, Il Partito Democratico (Democrats) and is the ad hoc leader of this party. I say ad hoc not because he has "assumed" leadership but because the new party has yet to vote on it's leadership, currently it is run by a steering comitte composed of representatives of the constituent parties. Ironically, allthougth Prodi may be considered to be the founder of the Democrat party (and perhaps this merits it's own paragraph in the main article), he is unlikelly to ever play an active role in the party as he is expected to retire from politics when his current mandate as PM expires (he is 71 years old).

Ditto. He is not Prime Minister yet. Kingsbury 18:55, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

agree. Prime minister is appointed by the chief of the state. Carlo Azeglio Ciampi is going to terminate its mandate, so probably the new parlament will have to vote first to elect the chief of the state (or President of the Republic), once this is done, Mr. Prodi can be appointed. --Paolopk2 14:52, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I think now we can say "he will be prime minister", since the supreme court of Italy confirmed his win.Souris2005 02:38, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Couldn't his party still fire him before a new government is formed? I think we should observe the forms here; a legislature was elected, not Prodi personally (except in his own constituency, of course). And there's this thing about WP not being a crystal ball. --Trovatore 02:41, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I am going to remove the "Prime Minister of Italy" references from this article. Let's wait first for the appointment by the President and the acceptance by the Parliament. --Angelo 02:08, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

The text claims Prodi was a "visiting professor ... at Stanford Research Institute". SRI International does not have "visiting professors"; it does no teaching. Could someone please clarify what was Prodi's association with SRI and when? If it was after 1970 then we should call it "SRI International" rather than "Stanford Research Institute". --Trovatore 17:43, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I've fixed this by making it vaguer and thus less likely to be wrong, but it would be nice if someone had more information. this link says it was in 1968, so I've made the link to

Stanford Research Institute (which of course is a redir to SRI International). --Trovatore

18:13, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Prodi a current event?

I think this article is a biography and not a current event! With the "living people" tag is enough! I'm going to erase it. If current events about HIS LIFE change just modify the article.--

Don Quijote's Sancho

22:05, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

it says: "the article documents a current event". not "this person is a current event". I hear the same complaint all over wikipedia.

Isn't his premiership a fact about his life? --Trovatore 23:20, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

How are other current Political leaders treated on Wikipedia? Bush, Blair, Kohl etc.

Sorry for my bad english. In the article is written:

In April 2006, a British MEP for London, Gerard Batten (UKIP), cited allegations by a London constituent and former FSB agent, Lieutenant-Colonel Alexander Litvinenko, that Prodi had been the KGB's "man in Italy", demanding an inquiry into the allegations. Batten told the European Parliament that Litvinenko had been told by FSB deputy chief, General Anatole Trofimov, that "Romano Prodi is our man (in Italy)". According to Brussels-based newspaper the EU Reporter on 3 April 2006, "another high-level source, a former KGB operative in London, has confirmed the story". Among Litvinenko's most serious claims is that Prodi assisted in the protection of KGB operatives allegedly involved in the assassination attempt on Pope John Paul II in 1981.

If I write that Prodi was driving the UFO that crashed in 1947 in New Mexico, and that was him who shot JFK, and that this information was given to me by the brother of the cousin of a former CIA agent is considered NPOV? :) The Prodi-KGB connection was an invention of the Italian right-wing party, release in every electoral campaign in the last 6 years by the Berlusconi's newspaper (Il Giornale, Il Foglio, ecc.. in the past they use also some fake proof) and repeated by other european media ad ally of the italian right party. The "Mitrokin commission", that must investigate Kgb activities in Italy, who chairman is Paolo Guzzanti (senator of the Berlusconi's Go Italy party and journalist of Berlusconi's newspaper Il Giornale), didn't found any real proofs involving Prodi (or other left party leader) with the KGB, but using some quibble (the right-party member didn't go to the final meeting, so the meeting is continuos postponed) they delay the final report so they can use the Prodi-Kgb connection also in this election.

Gerard Batten, is not a member of the italian right-wing party, nor Lieutenant-Colonel Alexander Litvinenko, General Anatole Trofimov and the EU Reporter. Instead, for example, the story about that seance, during wich the name "Gradoli" came out (Gradoli was the street where Aldo Moro was inprisoned) smells of KGB one mile away. Raffaele.castagno 15:16, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

in the story of Gradoli is also involved Mario Baldassarri http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mario_Baldassarri_%28politico%29 that is a very important member of the right party Alleanza Nazionale and a vice-minister of Berlusconi gov... maybe was him the KGB... here his audition http://www.parlamento.it/bicam/terror/stenografici/steno35.htm

Well, folks, all that stuff is definitely nonsense, as it was not proved by the parliamentary commission created for the issue (the "Mitrokhin commission"). There are plenty of books and articles dismantling and even criticizing all that, but as I can see somebody still tries to claim that bunch of falsehoods as "somewhat encyclopedical". The groundless theories and theorems about people of any kind ain't no notability, isn't it?!? Thanks, hoping of course to have that paragraph removed ASAP. --Angelo 00:33, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

This is 100 precent true.Prodi is,and always was Communist scumDzoni 07:52, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a blog. Please calm down, the electoral campaign is over. Okay? --Angelo 15:04, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I note for comparison's sake that

. If this allegation has made a significant amount of news, even if it's not credible, something should probably be said about it (together with analysis of the reliability of the sources). A large amount of text would probably be inappropriate, but a brief mention may be necessary.

On another note, the revert warriors, on both sides, mostly seem to be IP addresses. They should have the courage to log in and stand behind their actions, at least with a consistent pseudonym if not with their real-world identities. --Trovatore 15:37, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Sincerely, it doesn't seem to have had relevant space in the media, as the news was published specifically by "Il Giornale", right-wing newspaper owned by Berlusconi's brother, Paolo. I don't think it should be part of the article, since it's not correct to defame anyone in an encyclopedia using unproven, worthless allegations. This is an encyclopedia, maybe we lost the focus point: there's no mention of the IRI and the Minister of Industry times, and Prodi's period as head European commission hasn't been deepened at all. Let's include the documented facts rather than point out on claims, falsehoods and rubbish (it's a general point of view of mine, of course, to be considered valid for every articles, regardless the political side). Thanks. --Angelo 18:40, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

And did other newspapers not even report that Il Giornale was reporting this? I'm not so sure you can ignore a major paper just because it leans a little right of center (taking your word for that as I haven't really read Il Giornale—from time to time I read Corriere Canadese which is an offshoot of La Repubblica; I'd rather read Corriere della Sera but it's too expensive here). If it was an issue a significant fraction of the public knew about and thought about, then I'd say it deserves some sort of mention. --Trovatore 01:31, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Take a look at the Google News results [2] if you want one more confirmation: it's all "Il Giornale" and "La Padania" (official newspaper of the

Lega Nord party). --Angelo

09:56, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Il Giornale is very very respected newspaper in Italia and all over the Europe. Il Giornale is probably the best newspaper in the whole Italia at the moment and most trusted one toDzoni 23:37, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Respected by you, of course. Respected in italy, yes. Respected in Europe? Only becaus it has many readers. Best journal in Italy? There's no such. If you are italian, you must read "Libero" and "Il Corriere della Sera" and many others, and keep in mind who's the owner: the owners of "Libero" are close allies of Berlusconi, while the owners of "Il corriere della sera" are left-aligned. However, having read most of the Berlusconi's electoral declarations and booklets and noticed how many hidden lies are there, nowdays I trust that "Il corriere della sera" more. Ok, let's not start this discussion all over again. --DavidAlexandrov 21:35, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Corriere della Sera is historically centrist, it has often suggested to vote for the Christian Democracy, and a single endorsement doesn't make it leftist. There are so many leftwing newspapers here in Italy, but the Corriere is not amongst them. Anyway, Libero and Il Giornale aren't that respected even here in Italy. The two main newspapers are Corriere della Sera and La Repubblica. --Angelo 22:18, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Maybe also "La Stampa" can be included in the list of italian main newspaper. Anyway there is no evidency of Prodi's liens with KGB. Marco.

Both sides need to grow up and find a compromise. The argument that the allegations aren't notable because they were pushed mainly by Il Giornale can't be taken seriously; Il Giornale is a newspaper of wide circulation (you can find it in convenience stores right on my street, here in Toronto) that reports real news (so don't bother pointing out that a lot of people read Weekly World News as well). You can't say the topic doesn't deserve mention just because you don't like a paper's politics.

On the other hand, clearly the allegations have not been taken as credible by any wide section of the populace, and there doesn't appear to be much (or any) hard evidence. That needs to be mentioned as well, and the section needs to be kept short, to avoid reporting on it out of proportion to its importance.

Finally, those who want to contribute on this issue, LOG IN already. Contributing as an IP is OK for casual changes, but when you're involved in a controversy, people really ought to know how to get in touch with you. --Trovatore 20:42, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

semi-protection requested

Because of the intolerable behavior by IP addresses on this article, I have requested semi-protection at the Administrators' Noticeboard. --Trovatore 22:44, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

The Italian Senate had a commision to look into the KGB issues. The president of the commision, Guzzanti, is also a giornalist for Il Giornale. The accusations come from limited sources, verbal reports revolving around a few otherwise unknown persons. No collaborating evidence was ever found. Guzzanti's right hand man on the commission and the person who arranged Litvinenko's deposition (Scaramella) has an unclear background, it is not relly known who he works for and how he is financed. The commission fizzled out. Personally I think this page conatains to much debate on the issue, it has been debated at large in Italy but with no hard facts coming out, therfore it would appear wrong to include it in the main article. Also the discussion on this page appears to be going nowhere, if not in circles. Could we just delete all this KGB stuff and just note that the KGB issue will be looked into again if as and when something new comes to light? Presently there is little more than gossip.

Why doesn't the current version of the article make any mention of Il Giornale? If they're so central to the controversy, and the only major periodical covering it, then they should probably be the lead-in to the section. We can't know everything with perfect certainty, but we can at least accurately describe who is saying what. The people calling for an investigation, after all, are only calling for an investigation of Il Giornale's allegations; they aren't the source of those allegations. --Aquillion 08:44, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

For the record this is my third attempt at posting here. Il Giornale is not the source of the allegations. The allegations are from Lieutenant-Colonel Litvinenko, a London constituent of Gerard Batten, MEP. 195.92.67.75 14:12, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

So if the story is just, "low-ranking Soviet brass living in London manages to interest obscure pol in conspiracy theory", then I don't think that belongs in the article. However, if a major newspaper picked it up and ran with it and it became an issue in the campaign, then it is. So Il Giornale probably does need to be mentioned if the story is to stay at all.

By the way 195, you really ought to log in if you're going to continue editing the KGB stuff. The same goes for the IPs mostly starting in the 80s that keep taking it out. It's very frustrating to try to have a conversation with ghosts. --Trovatore 14:44, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

What people here fail to grasp is that the section refers to recorded speeches by an MEP in the European Parliament chamber. Mr. Batten has called for an inquiry, he is not making any allegations. The fact that an elected representative to this supranational Pan-European body is calling for an investigation into such serious allegations against Mr. Prodi, means that these calls carry considerable weight and that this issue should be covered fully in Mr. Prodi's Wikipedia entry. If the "populace" have overlooked this issue then that is the fault of the media, not of Gerard Batten, MEP. 195.92.67.75 15:03, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, come on. No one really notices what an otherwise-undistinguished MEP has to say. (No one pays much attention to what the whole European Parliament has to say.) If a lieutenant colonel making undocumented accusations, and an MEP willing to listen to him, are the best you've got, I'd say give it up. --Trovatore 15:12, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Batten is not some lonely "conspiracy theorist", he is an elected representative to an important international body, a man with responsibilities and a reputation to protect. Whether you or others "notice" him or not is irrelevant. 195.92.67.75 15:21, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

It's relevant to whether we include the information in Wikipedia. --Trovatore 15:25, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Such serious issues should be included. These allegations may be nonsense, then again they may not be. It is for an official investigation to make a conclusion, not us. 195.92.67.75 15:32, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

If an official investigation were actually begun under the auspices of the European Parliament, I suppose that would be notable, much as I think the EP is a bunch of waste motion generally. The fact that one lone member out of 700 has called for an investigation, I don't think so. I was in favor of some mention of the allegations back when I thought people were paying some attention to them in the campaign, but if your justification for including them is this nonsense, then I've changed my mind. --Trovatore 15:42, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Whether "the EP is a bunch of waste motion" or not is a matter for debate, and not relevant to this discussion. According to you, we should ignore the words of every "ordinary" democratically-elected politician, and just listen to those "good old boys" who tow the party-line. Should we really ignore comments such as: "Former, senior members of the KGB are willing to testify in such an investigation..."? 195.92.67.74 17:40, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

We don't know that senior chekists are willing to testify, just that one MEP says they are. On balance, I'd say yes, we should ignore that; it's too far removed from the facts (we don't know that these people are willing to testify, or even that they exist; if they did testify, we still wouldn't know they were telling the truth). Now, if these claims had gotten any real traction—say, if fifty MEPs were calling for an investigation, but it was refused by the Brussels hierarchy—I might feel differently. Or, again, if they had excited any significant interest among the public. (Neither of these eventualities would necessarily mean the allegations were any more likely to be true, but it would make them more notable.) --Trovatore 17:56, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Are you calling Batten a liar? 81.78.109.180 19:34, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Me? No. Never heard of the man before this. By the same token, I'm also not calling him an honest man; I just have no solid foundation on which to base a judgment either way. Under those circumstances I don't find the fact that he claims to know of these KGB agents willing to testify, to be a particularly reliable piece of information. This is nothing personal about Batten; it's just an observed fact that, when a person is in the public eye, there'll almost always be someone ready to make explosive-sounding allegations about him. --Trovatore 19:42, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Now who's making allegations. You are accusing Mr. Batten of being a fantasist. The man is elected EU politician who's words carry weight. Just because he says something that upsets your own cosy little existence, it somehow automatically means that his words are of little or no value. A twisted logic indeed. 81.78.102.153 19:58, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I haven't accused Batten of anything; reread what I said. --Trovatore 20:05, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

You are saying that his words have little or no value. You are implying that he is a fantastist. 81.78.102.153 20:11, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Not at all. I'm saying his words are not a reliable source for us, because he could be a liar, not because he is. If he's telling the truth, then it's a pity that he wasn't able to arrange a forum for these chekists to tell their story, but it's not the role of WP to rectify that injustice. The part of the story that's notable isn't verifiable, and the part that's verifiable (namely, that this is what Batten says) is not notable. --Trovatore 20:16, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Any politician could be a liar. You are talking nonsense. 81.78.102.153 20:24, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I am not interested in continuing this conversation with a ghost. From now on I will be reverting any attempted addition of the KGB allegations, unless someone comes up with better evidence for either their truth or their notability. Anyone who wants to discuss it with me, bloodly log in already. --Trovatore 20:30, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Trovatore said:

I'm saying his words are not a reliable source for us, because he could be a liar, not because he is.

That is the dumbest argument I have ever heard, and from a Doctor of Philosophy too. You might as well apply that rule to anyone. 217.134.236.119 22:15, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Deafening silence. Trovatore's blatant bias is clear. 195.92.67.75 15:55, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

And why should I log in, does that somehow make me more of a human being? 195.92.67.75 16:17, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Logging in doesn't make you more of a human being, but it gives your interlocutors a fixed point of reference with which to carry on a discussion. I don't feel that those who refuse to provide such a point of reference deserve as much consideration in debates, given that they are not willing to show this easy consideration for others.

However I admit this last is not policy, and while you personally do not appear to be arguing in good faith, there is one point that should be responded to. Yes, any politician "could be a liar" (more, most of them are). In fact anyone could be a liar. This is precisely why we ordinarily do not include unsubstantiated claims of one or a few people, unless those people have such a high profile that the mere claim is notable (clearly not the case for an MEP).

This is not an aspersion on Batten's character. I don't have any direct reason to believe that he's lying. I also don't have any direct reason to believe he's telling the truth. To include his claims (the claims being that the KGB agents exist and are willing to testify) as fact, I'd need a direct reason to believe he's telling the truth. To include a statement that he's merely made the unsupported claim, he would have to have a much higher profile. For example, if President Bush made the claim, we would include it, not because we'd think he were telling the truth, but because the mere fact that he'd claimed it would be notable in itself. --Trovatore 17:29, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

In reply to Dr. Mike Oliver's malicious jibe in his history edit summary:

If your mother says she loves you, check it out

FYI, Dr. Mike Oliver, my mother passed away more than a decade ago. And what is your point exactly? 195.92.67.75 14:02, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

It's a journalistic axiom that means "don't take anyone's uncorroborated word at face value". In this case, Batten's. Nothing to do with your mother, particularly. E ora passo e chiudo. --Trovatore 17:44, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

KGB ties are important news internationally and should be included in article. It should include his company Nomisma ties with KGB and his connection to Red Brigades. Sigitas 16:36, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Please work out your differences here instead of edit warring. · Katefan0 ^(scribble)/poll 20:11, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Isn't this his nickname? If so, should probably be mentioned...Stevage 15:33, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Done. --Angelo 15:53, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Goodie - I just wasn't sure. Stevage 13:03, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Who is the one who wrote .. that Prodi is a "Mortadella" ?

Is Wikipedia policy to include insults and derogatory nick-names in the articles ? I am more and more disillusioned with Wikipedia.

Wikipedia can include derogatory nicknames if they are well-known. It is made clear in the sentence that it's an insulting nickname. According to the BBC Profile, he's only called that because he's from Bologna, not because he resembles a mortadella in any way. ... discospinster _talk 14:14, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Traditionally Prodi's nickname was "Il Professore" (the professor). The Mortadella nickname cropped up in the Telecom Serbia scandal. During the parlimentry enquiry into presumed foul play during Prodi's first term in office, a reference was made to Prodi having the codename "Mortadella". It should be noted that the Telecom Serbia enquiry collapsed after it became apparent that it was a sham. Much of the "evidence" came via a dubious character with previous convictions for Mafia connections. The key witness who was originally touted as a high flying business consultant turned out to be an ex barrow boy from a fruit and veg market with no known connections with the business world. The barrow boy became the subject of a judicial enquiry but the issue was not pursued as he was clearly a pawn in the whole affair and the protagonists were never (officially) identified. It would appear likely that the Mortadella codename was deliberitly introduced by the people crafting the scandel as a way to add a derogatory nickname to Prodi's personality.

According to the

10:53, 20 November 2006 (UTC) As it stands we have a section based on two very brief speeches made to The European parliament, neither of which led to any action by that body. The first lasted one minute; when I read the second aloud (with suitable gravitas and meaningful pauses) it lasted 61 seconds. Two claims are made:

• that Batten was told by Litvinenko that Litvinenko was told by Trofimov (know deceased) that ‘Romano Prodi is our man [in Italy].’ (Batten’s first speech)

Haven't these allegations suddenly become more noteworthy in the light of Litvinenko's sudden posthumous celebrity? Especially as he was in discussions with an Italian when he drank the fatal soup. —The preceding

) 02:01, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

There is arguably something to that. Maybe some reasonable person who's willing to log in should take this under advisement, and not leave it to the extremely unpleasant anons. --Trovatore 02:29, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

This section needs to be cleaned. This does not represent neutral point of view. It gives too much weight to the statements of a member of a right-wing party in UK. It seems to muttle what Litvinenko said and what others have claimed he said. Until this story developes further, wikipedia should restrict its information to what actually came from Litvinko. If wiki thinks its reasonable to mention that someone made an allegation, that is fine, but it remans too much of a conspiracy theory.

Okay I've reworded it. How does it look now? If you don't like it we can just comment it out and hammer the section out on the talk page instead of the main article. --Wafulz 21:55, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I deleted the section that claimed Litvinenkio claimed Prodi had a part in the attempt agianst the Pope's life. The article cited does not say that. If whoever posted this, wants to find an article that does say that, they can post it. Currently, though, that Euro Reporter does not mention Prodi and the Pope.

I think the section looks decent right now. Id say too much specualtion, but, I think the facts are right now. —The preceding

) 72.197.76.128.

I changed the line about Litvinenko having "admitted" that he had no evidence to support "his claims". We do not know that he ever made any such claims, only that Batten says he did. The Repubblica article gave me the sense that Litvinenko didn't have much to say about Prodi, and the unstated subtext seemed to be that Litvinenko was in Naples under the auspices of Prodi's political rival, Berlusconi, and that it was his hosts who were trying to get him to talk about Prodi.

So on review I think it's worse than "too much speculation". The whole thing boils down to Batten said that Litvinenko said that Trofimov said. Three people I never heard of before the dispute about this article. And while Litvinenko is now known to have been, at the very least, someone with powerful enemies, we have nothing on the record about Prodi being one of them, and no verifiable source that Litvinenko connected Prodi to the KGB. In fact in the Repubblica interview he basically disclaims any knowledge of any such connection.

I think the section is severely misleading as it stands. Someone who reads it quickly will come away with the impression "this guy who was just murdered by people who have access to large amounts of polonium, said Prodi was a Cheka tool". On a close reading you can see that we don't know that Litvinenko said any such thing, but then you'd have to wonder why such a big deal is being made of it. --Trovatore 17:59, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I've commented out the section entirely. Seeing as I don't want to add

libelous content, I figure we should determine some sort of consensus here first. I'm at work for most of today though, so I won't be able to contribute yet. --Wafulz

18:41, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Consensus here is important. It must be commented that according to Mario Scaramella, both him and the leader of an Italian parlamentarian commission researching the Prodi-KGB links, named Paolo Guzzanti, has been put on a deathlist.

(I continue:) I beg to point out that there is not necessarily a CLEAR link between the death of Putin's political opponents and Scaramella, but it may well be that FSB is sawing seeds of fear here to cause an initial shock, meant to silence all informants/similar that wish to cause damage to Putin and his friends. It may just be that FSB is simply choosing to attack a wide variety of people, to show that this is not a reaction to one particular event, to one particular group of enemies, but rather to all 'enemies of Russia'. A finished biographical article about this man can not exist without these accusations, even if they are without evidence; accusations need no evidence to be called accusations, after all. Can someone dig up information about the aforementioned commission? 81.93.102.185 14:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

To call them accusations, we need evidence at least that the accusations have been made. There isn't much of that. The only thing we can verify is that Batten said that Litvinenko said that Trofimov said that Prodi was the KGB's man in Italy. The accusation, if any, was made by Trofimov, and just to get that, you have to trust both Litvinenko and Batten. --Trovatore 23:35, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

A BBC news documentary, Panorama, includes testimony of Alexander Litvinenko saying that Prodi was a KGB man. I think some of this material should be added, but also that Prodi denies these allegations. Intangible2.0 11:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I’ve requested expansion of this section because it is currently a tiny stub, fleshed out with a couple of things that happened in the EU during his period of office. —Ian Spackman 15:24, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Looks like I didn’t save my change, which also involved a modification to the section title. I’ll do it now. —Ian Spackman 11:33, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I deleted the section that claimed Litvinenkio claimed Prodi had a part in the attempt agianst the Pope's life. The article cited does not say that. If whoever posted this, wants to find an article that does say that, they can post it. Currently, though, that Euro Reporter does not mention Prodi and the Pope.

“ Later, other Italian members of the European Commission claimed that Prodi had invented this story to conceal the real source of the tip, which they believed to have originated in the Italian extraparliamentary left.” I think we have a muddle or two here. The Guardian articled referenced doesn’t seem to reference a specific claim that the tip originated in the Italian extraparliamentary left. (Notwithstanding that it would, on the face of, it seem to be a plausible claim to make.) More precisely it doesn’t mention “members of the European Commission” as a source: rather Italian senator Paolo Guzzanti, who seems to have been a member of an Italian parliamentary commission investigating the issue in 1999. —Ian Spackman 12:05, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Everyone,

please refrain from changing text or the infobox in advance of the official facts. We went through this back in April/May when Berlusconi's government fell. The practice, which I assume is being followed this time, is that the prime minister remains in office (even if in a caretaker capacity) until a new one takes office. --Trovatore 20:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

This is the case when a change of Government is the result of an election (ala the US Presidential System) before the new Government takes power. Prodi's resignation has been accepted by the President, in this case not due to an election, and therefore the position is now vaccant, presuming the resignation is with immediate effect, which is usually the case. This means that one or both of the Deputy Prime Ministers will assume office in a temporary capacity within the next few days. Until this point, the post is vaccant (for example the way the Presidency was vaccant in between the resignation of Nixon and the appointment of Ford.). 81.77.61.102 21:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

You're wrong. Prodi has caretaker capacities (ordinaria amministrazione, as we call it in Italy) till a new government is appointed. Anyway, this doesn't care because President Napolitano has yet to accept Prodi's resignations (he still didn't, and he won't take a decision before having made official talks with the political forces) --Angelo 21:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

In spite of the fear of many senators (including Franca Rame, wife of Nobel Prize winner Dario Fo)

I removed the mention of Franca Rame because I feel it, especially the bit about her being the wife of a Nobel Prize winner is irrelevant/unnecessary. It seems to me that it doesn't really add anything. If the nobel prize has been for peace, perhaps but it's for literature (I'm not trying to demean literature but in this context, it's irrelevant. If it has been a vote on something related to literature then it would obviously be different) Nil Einne 12:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Am I the only one who feels the article doesn't adequetly explain or direct the reader to an appropriate article to understand what the vote was about? There is some mention about Lebanon and Afghanistan and about how it's difficult to achieve a consensus but it's not clear to me what the vote was about. Was there a specific statement? Was it just a vote on whether they approve the current foreign policy? What? Nil Einne 12:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Much more about Afghanistan than Lebanon, and some references about the doubling of Caserma Ederle in Vicenza. Actually, the Senate voted in order to either approve or reject D'Alema's speech ([3], in Italian) on government foreign policy, and rejected it. This CBC News article explains it in a fairly comprehensive but synthetical way [4]. --Angelo 15:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I think the article may be good enough now. Since they were voting on the speech, it's difficult to summarise what they were voting on but the article is clear enough now that they were voting on the speech which is probably good enough (in the past it just said something like they were voting on his foreign policy) Nil Einne 15:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

The article is inaccurate about the resignation, because it was never accepted, and the government is still in charge. The cabinet that will seek a new confidence vote next week, will be the same, and not a new one. --

13:35, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

The article is inaccurate because the resignation has been accepted, and the confidence vote will be for another government, led by Prodi again.--Uyet Ustranimii 23:27, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

You're absolutely wrong. The confidence vote is for the cabinet currently in charge, not for another one. [5], [6] are good sources in English. If you understand Italian, you can find here what President Napolitano exactly announced [7]. --Angelo 23:59, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Writing in June, after the dust has settled, we can saftely say that Prodi tendered his resignation, Napolitano did not accept it and suggested that Prodi should first hold a vote of confidence in Parliment. Prodi presented a non-negotiable list of policies to the parties that made up the coalition and then sought and won the vote of confidence. Napolitano subsequenty refused Prodi's resignation. Prodi and his ministers remained in office before,during and after the event. In a nutshell this is all a perculiarity of the Italian political situation where there are two main factions formed from a patchwork of alliances. If this were in a country such as the US or UK were large parties with many internal alliances are the norm, then the incedent would have been entirely in party discussion.

I suggest to change the main photo. The one used in the italian page, at least, is more "normal".

The article says that "Prodi agreed to participate in an apposite primary election".

It would be more true to say that Prodi insisted on being elected by primary elections. Prodi has been the main protagonist of the introduction of the concept of primaries in the left wing coalition.

Perhaps the article should include a section on Prodi's achillies heel, his poor communication skills.

Prodi is percieved as a poor communicator. He speaks slowly and not very clearly, much like Winston Churchill in his later years. Comics impersonating Prodi do a low pitched incomprehensible mumble. He also appears to attach little importance to promoting the image of himself and his allies.

This must be seen in context, Prodi's main opposition (berlusconi's CdL alliance) are very much media savvy, and Berlusconi himself is a media magnate. Berlusconi has had plastic surgery, hair transplants, wears riser heels and rarely appears in public without make up. During the 2006 election campaign Prodi's new look was apparently limited to buying a new pair of spectacles.

Despite the fact that the CdL have a very keen and professional PR unit, Prodi seems to rely on traditional party mechanisms. For example, Berlusconi's official spokesman is a PR professional, Prodi's official spokesman has a party politics background.

Whenever an "issue" arrises, Prodi's opposition are very quick at getting out co-ordinated messages via press agencies and statements made by key persons. Prodi and his allies are generally left having to reply on the fly, frequently clearly unbriefed on what the oppostition is up to. They are frequently ambushed and caught up in media traps.

Prodi has never actively addressed this issue, he appears to take the attiutude that actions speak louder than words. However, the difference between his coalitions PR skills and those of the opposing coallition are so great that the actions are frequently unknown to the public at large, or issues that should be positive get spinned into negative.

In any democracy it is normal that the opposition engage in organised demonisation of the aspects of government policy they most dislike in an attempt to get legislation watered down towrds there own goals by a goverment fearful of losing consenssus. In Prodi's governments this effect is amplified by the fact that he risks losing a larger consesus due to his weak PR skills.

Prodi has never really been the leader of an opposition, when the CdL were in government Prodi was in his EU post and refrained from involving himself in Italian issues. However, the rest of his coalition (which is a de facto coallition concieved and led by Prodi) shares the same PR weakness, hence the CdL when in government had little to fear from the opposition (during Berlusconi's government from 2001 to 2006, most issues revolved around infighting within the coalition rather than external pressure from the oppostion).

So, while it could be argued that the real issue is that the whole of Prodi's coallition is weak at PR and the oppossing coallition is very good, Prodi is the creator and leader of his coallition, and presumably it is the lack of importance that Prodi gives to PR that has led to this imbalance.

I do not know how this weakness should be incorprated into and expressed in the main article, but something should be said as his weak PR skills have been a serious detraction to his political effectiveness, perhaps his only major weakness.

In the box under the main photo there is some confusion. What does "President" mean? The name of Giorgio Napolitano indicates that it means "President of the Republic", right? But the Italian Government is autonomous from the President of the Republic, who simply nominates the President of the Council of Ministers (i.e. Prodi) and, under his proposal, the Ministers. Instead, the two Vice-Presidents mentioned are "Vice-Presidents of the Council of Ministers", while it could seem that they are Vice-Presidents of the Republic (?).

So, I simply suggest to remove the writing "President", because it is not pertinent and may cause confusion, because also Romano Prodi is "President", according to the Italian Consitution. The two Vice-Presidents, instead, can remain, because they are part of the Government - while Napolitano and all the Italian Presidents of the Republic are not.

Agree. Indeed there is a confusion between the president of the Ministry council (prime minister) and the President of Italian Republic (Napolitano, and his predecessor Scalfaro), which is separated by the Constitution (<mode nNPOV on>so far and thanks God<mode nNPOV off>) from the Ministry Council. This is totally misleading and incorrect. Please change. --Biopresto 08:47, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, in English if you refer to "the president of Italy" you certainly mean the President of the Republic. The President of the Council is almost always called the "prime minister". So I don't think it's problematic to have Napolitano listed as "president". The "vice president" issue is admittedly a problem -- are they perhaps called "deputy prime ministers" in English?

(I note in passing that there's an amusingly similar situation in the US -- the vice president of the United States is president of the Senate. So when the president of the US addresses a joint session of Congress, he acknowledges the leaders of the two houses thus: "Mr. Speaker" (to the speaker of the House), "Mr. President" (to the vice president). But no one would ever see "President" in a template and think, oh, maybe that means the vice president, and I think that's also the case here.)

By the way, the President of the Republic does have some governmental powers that are not purely formal (such as the veto, when he thinks a law is unconstitutional), so I don't think it's incongruous to put him in the same template. --Trovatore 09:28, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

But why mention the President of the Republic (which is separate from the Government) in the Prime minister (as you like to call him) page? I don't understand... and, I insist, in this way many readers could not understand the difference between the "President" and the "Vice-Presidents".

We ought to use Deputy Prime Minister, I think, rather than Vice President.

john k

00:24, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that is certainly right... so one of the problems has been solved, although I still don't understand the decision of mention the President of the Republic in that box... Angela Merkel or Zapatero, for example, don't have this "treatment"... :-) --PoSiviaz 21:42, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Italian President of the Repubblic has got very little power, and has nothing to do with the Government in charge. I still do not understand what is doing in the box. --Biopresto 13:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the reason his name was put in the box is simply that there's a field for it in the general template, and someone decided to use it. It might be reasonable to take it out, but this should probably be discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Italy, as it would affect all the prime minister bios, not just Prodi's.

However I don't think it's really true that the president has very little power. Just think back to February. Would Prodi's government have survived that crisis, if not under a president who didn't want to risk elections that might have brought the center-right to power? (For that matter, would Prodi have risked provoking the crisis, if he had thought the president were sympathetic to the center-right?) And there's the matter of the veto, which isn't used much, but is a very important power at least potentially. --Trovatore 20:53, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

This doesn't show nothing. The President in Italy is merely representative, and has powers in the sense he has to guarantee the correct application of the Constitution. The rest is in the hands of the Governmen and the Parliament. Nothing to do with the french or american presidents. Again, the Presidend "has nothing to do with the Government in charge" so it is meaningless in this template. --Biopresto 11:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I know, in theory he's super partes. You can tell that story to your children, as long as they still believe in Babbo Natale. We're grownups here -- the president has genuine and important political power.

But that's a little off-topic. You're probably right about the template. But as I say, I think it should be discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Italy, because it should be done uniformly for all the PM articles. --Trovatore 20:28, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Why should changing this box affect every PM article? Every country has a different power organization. There are presidential governments, semi-presidential, parliamentary governments... in the case of the French prime minister, for example, it would be insane not to mention the President of the Republic, because it is the real head of the Government. In the Italian case, that is completely non-sense.

Discussing about the present events of the Italian politics is irrelevant.--PoSiviaz 22:48, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't completely explicit: It would affect every Italian PM article. --Trovatore 23:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Mr Trovatore, I am not arguing if the italian president is super partes or he's not (in any cas I confirm his power is important -obviously - but is very little if compared with other systems, and this is maybe what is taking you away from the point of this discussion). What I am saying is that the link between the president of Italy and the government in charge is null, and such a infobox is confusing the reader. Best regards --Biopresto 15:26, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Why doesn't someone change the infobox? I'm not able to do it... :P --PoSiviaz 13:01, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

There's currently a disturbance at the current Canadian prime minister's article, Stephen Harper, regarding the inclusion of the head of state in the article's infobox, and, following that, on all previous Canadian prime ministers' articles; currently the Canadian series is the only one, as far as I can tell, where the relevant head of state is not listed in the infobox.

As this article, and all those for previous Italian prime ministers, list the head of state in the infobox, I'm wondering how the decision to do so was reached, and if this practice should or should not be the same for all PMs' articles. It seems odd to me that one series of PM articles would be different to all the rest.

Opinions are welcome; needed actually. The discussion is taking place at Talk:Stephen Harper#Infobox -- include GG and monarch?. --G2bambino 15:49, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Being an Italian who lived in Canada, I know both system, and I believe Canada's political system cannot be compared with Italy's, at least about this point. Canada's official head of state is the Queen of England (which is not Canadian), who is represented by a Governor General (usually not a political figure), who is not elected but formally appointed by the Queen under suggestion by the PM. The President of the Italian Republic (non-partisan but very political office, usually filled by a politician - former politician) has a little more powers than a Canadian GG, is elected by the Parliament and is fully recognized by Italians as head of state and top representative of the country. --Angelo 16:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Romano Prodi/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following

, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Pictures, infoboxes, good info, all that good stuff this article has. Could be a GA nom. However, it needs slightly more expanding and some more links.

Last edited at 00:02, 7 September 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 15:42, 1 May 2016 (UTC)