Talk:Silvio Berlusconi prostitution trial/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Requested move

Rubygate → Silvio Berlusconi sex scandal — The term Rubygate is a colloquialism, and the case does not appear to be widely known by that name. Most mainstream sources in which I've read about this story do not mention the term "Rubygate" anywhere. For example: New York Times, BBC News, Reuters. I am open to other suggestions about the target name, but Rubygate doesn't seem quite right IMHO.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:31, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
  • Oppose wholey ambiguous. It's not the first sex scandal for the Italian stallion. 65.94.47.11 (talk) 06:18, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
    Then please provide an alternative title, or explain why "Rubygate" is an acceptable name.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:06, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
    I don't have to do anything of the sort. All I have to do is explain why your choice is bad. Its not my fault you didn't choose to use the unknown target option for the requested move. Whatever is wrong with the current title, your suggested title is bad. To move to a bad title just because the current title is bad, is a wrong-headed way of management. Why move from one wrong title to another? 65.94.47.11 (talk) 10:42, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
    Hi. Apologies if my tone seemed aggressive earlier, it was not supposed to be... I'm just trying to establish what the prevailing opinion is. As you say, you don't have to explain anything to me but it would be more helpful to move the process forward if you could provide a bit more information than just a simple "oppose". So if "Rubygate" is really your preferred title and you don't want the article moved at all, then you can say so. Alternatively if you think my suggestion is bad, but also are not too keen on "Rubygate" then you can tell us that and maybe also provide an alternative. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 12:23, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
    And also, which other sex scandals has he been involved in? Most of his other controversies have involved allegations of corruption etc. not specifically sex. If we could isolate the other articles (if any) which deal with sex scandals, then maybe we can find a good way to disambiguate.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:09, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
    There were on-going sex-related scandals beginning with B’s presence at Noemi Letizia’s 18th birthday party and his wife’s accusations that he was frequenting minors. Photographs from Sardinia, photographs (and recordings, I think) taken by tarts in his residence in Rome. Gradually interest faded until – bunga-bunga – along came Rubygate. I don’t mind the current name, by the way. It’s not perfect, but I cannot think of a better one; and it does have some significant currency in the English-language media, as well as the Italian. Ian Spackman (talk) 12:56, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
  • OpposeWeak oppose move. It doesn't matter if "rubygate" is a colloquialism. The only standard that needs to be applied here is WP:COMMONNAME. A cursory search engine test would seem to suggest that "rubygate" is fairly commonly used.
Query rubygate berlusconi - 1,754 hits
Query berlusconi "sex scandal" - 481 hits
NickCT (talk) 21:27, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
You really ought to read policies before citing them. From WP:POVTITLE - "the commonality of the name overrides our desire to avoid passing judgment", which would seem to apply here. I don't think WP:BLP applies to this article since the article is not a biography of a living person. Additionally WP:NPOV doesn't really address the specific issue of the title, while WP:POVTITLE does.
On another note, I understand your frustration. When I first came to WP, POV titles riled me a little too. But at the end of the day, I found that the "follow the sources" rule set out by WP:COMMONNAME is really the best way to go. NickCT (talk) 21:46, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Reviewing my search engine results I find that nearly all sources qualify "Rubygate" by surrounding it with quotations marks. I think this makes the WP:COMMONNAME argument a little less strong. I'm changing my vote from oppose to weak oppose. As a possible alternative, perhaps we could follow Lewinsky scandal and try Ruby Heartstealer scandal or Karima El Mahroug scandal or Ruby scandal? NickCT (talk) 22:01, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support move. I don't think 'Rubygate' is appropriate for an event concerning a non-English politician. Is this really the most widely-used name for it, even in the English media? It seems a bit informal and slang-y. I'd prefer something more precise and descriptive, like Silvio Berlusconi prostitution scandal, or alternatively Ruby Rubacuori scandal (although Berlusconi's name should really be in the title as well). I'm open to alternative suggestions, but there must be a better option than using the '-gate' formation here. Robofish (talk) 22:22, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
This seems to be an "I don't like it" argument, rather than a policy based argument. Please explain how WP:COMMONNAME doesn't apply here. NickCT (talk) 14:13, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
On further examination, it seems that 'Rubygate' really is the WP:COMMONNAME here. That supersedes my concerns above. I'm changing my view to Oppose. Robofish (talk) 16:21, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support move. As per comments above, I don't think this is common nor descriptive enough. A short descriptive title. The -gate prefix is usually a predominantly American affectation. I don't think it needs or deserves to be attached to every scandal that comes along. Just because some media outlets may choose to do so, doesn't mean it's proper for an encyclopedic-style entry. If there are multiple things this is being referred to, I think the most descriptive and simple version is probably the better to go with. If you're particularly attached to "rubygate" why not simply mention it in the article. Jbower47 (talk) 14:08, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
This seems to be an "I don't like it" argument, rather than a policy based argument. Please explain how WP:COMMONNAME doesn't apply here. NickCT (talk) 14:13, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose move. As others have pointed out, Silvio Berlusconi sex scandal would prompt the reader’s question: ‘Which of them is this article about?’. (See Silvio Berlusconi#Prostitution scandal and divorce for some of the other candidates.) It would be like an article called ‘Berlusconi financial scandal’, or ‘Berlusconi’s term as prime minister’, or ‘Belusconi’s media outlet’—like him or loath him, he tends not to do things by halves. It could really only be a disambiguation page: ‘Silvio Berlusconi sex scandal may refer to:…’. Ian Spackman (talk) 15:02, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support move. See Jimbo's comments. The proposed title seems more appropriate. PirateArgh!!1! 15:20, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
    Are you sure? Mr. Wales rightly points out that only one of those articles mentions ‘Rubygate’. But not even one of them mentions ‘Silvio Berlusconi sex scandal’, and he doesn’t seem particularly to support that option. And how would a reader seeing the singular title be expected to know which of the multiple affairs was being referred to?Ian Spackman (talk) 16:18, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support It's not ideal, but it's far better than the current one. We shouldn't be using a non-widely used American nickname for a purely foreign issue. If anything, it should be titled something like "Ruby Rubacuori sex scandal" in line with the Lewinsky scandal.--Yaksar (let's chat) 23:37, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose not only because i created the article as Rubygate in the first place; I understand the term is sparely used by the english media, but here in Italy everyone calls the scandal like that - the word is very direct and in Italy english words have recently become very fashonable...it also calls to memory the Watergate scandal which caused Nixon to resign, so the analogy is strong here because many feel this time Berlusconi can't get away with it, and will either be forced to resign by his allies or will be convicted in the fast track trial with mandatory resignation from public office. If and when this happens, it is my guess that the english speaking media will also adopt the term as more direct and evocative of his ultimate scandal, the final nail in the coffin. Last but not least, let's not forget that it is also likely that many Italians reading the english Wikipedia will be searching the word Rubygate first, while Underage prostitution allegations against Silvio Berlusconi...well you know what i mean.--ItemirusMessage me! 08:41, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support changes: hallo everyone, since the Watergate scandal in 1974 it has been customary for the italian media to add the suffix "-gate" to any kind of scandal. Even if the "gate" term hasn't got any meaning in the italian language. (Sorry ItemirusMessage me! but thanks for creating the article). I guess the majority of italian editors will search for the link to the english article after reading the italian one, anway. Thanks for your attention. Maurice Carbonaro (talk) 11:32, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Strong support: IMO, -gateing a scandal needlessly editorializes/sensationalizes the topic. See, for example, that even though the term Climategate is widely used in popular English-language media, the editors there have decided that avoiding that term is in the best interest of a neutral presentation and for the general tone of the article. See also Gatesgate -- same thing. If Silvio Berlusconi sex scandal seems too vague, try Ruby Rubacuori scandal or something like that. What Italian sources use is irrelevant on an English-language encyclopedia: note that we title the article Confucius and not Kongzi, for example, even though the latter is what we'd find in Chinese sources. What people search for is also irrelevant: that's what redirect is for. — DroEsperanto (talk) 22:55, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment - This requested move has run the typical 7 days without much consensus developing. I've started a straw poll (see Talk:Rubygate#Straw_Poll_-_What_should_the_title_of_this_article_be.3F) to try and see if we can approach this question from another direction. NickCT (talk) 19:54, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

I agree that this title is not a good one, the -gate suffix is badly overused and is becoming dated. However the new title has its problems as, given the amount of controversy which has surrounded Berlusconi's sex life, it could cover a much wider range of issues. PatGallacher (talk) 20:12, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

How about "The Ruby Affair"? As far as I can tell, it's the most used term in the Italian media ("Il caso Ruby"), and doesn't sound bad to me. Just my two euro cent.--Anonymous of Italy (talk • contribs) 21:37, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I named the article Rubygate after the Watergate scandal - In my opinion it is an appropriate title for a scandal with political consequences. Also the name has been already used in different media articles, especially in Italy.--ItemirusMessage me! 13:21, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
From what I read in the Italian press (not much), I think that Anonymous of Italy is right that the commonest term there is ‘[il] caso Ruby’. However, ‘[The] Ruby Affair’ doesn’t seem to have much currency in English. So I would say leave it for now, Ian Spackman (talk) 13:48, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
If you search Rubygate in Google you get a lot of results linking to italian news sites; also the term is sometimes used by english speaking media - a notable example here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/italy/8269475/Rubygate-sex-scandal-inspires-song-and-porn-film.html --ItemirusMessage me! 16:33, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
I would have said that in English Rubygate is widely used, and without scare-quotes, too. The latest from the Corriere della Sera is called ‘Caso Ruby, premier a processo il 6 aprile’. The English version of the story, however, is ‘Rubygate – PM to Face Trial on Sixth of April’. Clearly the translator felt that Rubygate was what would be understood by an English-speaking audience, rather than The Ruby Affair. Anyway, like you, I think that Rubygate is what we should stick with. At least for the time being. Ian Spackman (talk) 22:59, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

How about Silvio Berlusconi sex scandals (plural), with this latest iteration chronologically placed within?--LeyteWolfer (talk) 19:15, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it’s a perfectly good idea in principle, but I think that an article defined like that might just get too big, too out of hand, and too unfocussed. Bear in mind that the events leading up to his second marriage, even, could count as a sex scandal. Let alone what was called Noemigate. At the moment ‘Rubygate’ seems to me to define a sensibly focussed article with a title widely understood among English readers. Ian Spackman (talk) 15:11, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
  • - I don't support Rubygate, I have seen news reports about this but had not heard the expression before this at wikipedia - web results are reflective of the web results and yes, common web results are high for this rubygate but I don't find it very encyclopedic a title and as I said, I had not heard it prior to this discussion but I knew about the story. Sex in the title is also not a good idea - he and she I think both deny any sex. I think something like Berlusconi 2011 legal investigation is more correct for the project to host it under with of course a redirect from Rubygate and likely a mention of the Rubygate label in the body of the article. Another similar recent one was radiagate - Barkhagate titled under - Radia tapes controversy. Off2riorob (talk) 16:09, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
    • our ClimateGate article is the most prominent example, our current title violate WP:W2W's clause of WP:LABEL The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 16:32, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
      • I like Off2riorob's "I haven't heard of it before" argument. Ahhh... Off2, if we could only use titles you'd heard of before there would probably be very, very, very few titles we could use. Very few... NickCT (talk) 16:43, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
        • Cut out your comic attacks, for someone that was the main supporter of ground zero mosque as a decent title to host Park 51 under, you have nothing to poke fun at others for. Off2riorob (talk) 16:52, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
          • Quit whining. Ground zero mosque was the common name at the time. Though, that's probably changed now.... Regardless, different subject. NickCT (talk) 17:13, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
            • Don't tell me to stop whining you ass. Different issue same ass - you. Off2riorob (talk) 17:56, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
              • Another "on point" comment. NickCT (talk) 18:46, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
    Berlusconi 2011 legal investigation has the problem that the investigation was mostly carried out in 2010. The obvious alternative Berlusconi 2011 prosecution is problematic in that the trial has not yet started (who knows what might happen during March) and that it might well not be concluded in this year or even in this decade. Ian Spackman (talk) 17:46, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
    Well the reports are that he has been charged yesterday, if this statement is correct, then the investigatin was more or less in 2010 and the legal aspect of it related to the actual charges is only in 2011. As per Residents comments I agree, rubygate is not correct and nothing with sex in the title as that is disputed and denied. If wiki was a tabloid then yea, they sit there going - what gate can we call this and we have to mention sex in the title because that titillates and increases sales - are we an online titillating tabloid report? Off2riorob (talk) 18:12, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
    Yes, the indictment was made yesterday, after the judge had spent a week or so digesting the 800 or so pages of evidence submitted, many of which had previously been submitted to a parliamentary committee. Why do you imagine that the investigation started this year? Ian Spackman (talk) 18:24, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
    Sorry, yes I corrected that - 2010 - sits the basic investigation and the legal part of the investigation sits in 2011. Off2riorob (talk) 18:30, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Also check Jowellgate - Berlusconi is involved here as well... --ItemirusMessage me! 19:44, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
    We could always move it to Jowell page incident ;) [What is a ‘page incident’? I wonder. At a guess it must entail illicit sexual activities with an underage male employee. So perhaps that would be a bad move, after all.] Ian Spackman (talk) 20:10, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Hey all, I'm not sure the move proposal above is going to garner much consensus. Would anyone mind if I were to close the move discussion and open an RfC offering all the proposed names that have been mentioned above to see which one can gain the most support? NickCT (talk) 14:21, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
See here for the potential RfC. Unless I hear objections, I'm going to launch after 24hrs. NickCT (talk) 14:47, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
I mind, seems like excessive wiki process for a move - and would leave the artcle under this title for a another month, its just we need to move it from rubygate and we need another title, that doesn't need a month of discussion. Off2riorob (talk) 16:04, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Off2 - I'd agree a month is a long time to wait, but I'm not sure RfCs technically must last for that long. Can we not launch an RfC, wait a week, and see if any of the options can get a reasonable amount of support?
It seems as though the alternative is just a lot of people proposing new titles without any one title gaining clear consensus. NickCT (talk) 18:59, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Recently I have tried to close stale discussions under a RFC template and had that request rejected, they are supposed to last thirty days apparently. I think your description is more what we actually want, one of the comments will suggest something that users will start supporting, I agree presently there is no consensus support for either the current title or any proposed changes. Off2riorob (talk) 19:04, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Well if your issue is with the month long period that RfCs are supposed to take, shall we try a straw poll? NickCT (talk) 19:11, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
You can if you like but actually I looked at it and there is a degree of support to move to the title with sex in it. How many supports are there currently? How can a title be under a sex title when both the people involved deny that any sexual activity occurred is beyond me. Off2riorob (talk) 19:14, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok. See Talk:Rubygate#Straw_Poll_-_What_should_the_title_of_this_article_be.3F. Re "sex title" - Frankly, when one of the people involved is an alleged prostitute (note: following an extended debate had here for any masochists who want to read it, I'm adding the word "alleged" to my previous comments to try and avoid a possible WP:BLP violation), I think it will be hard to keep "sex" out of the title. NickCT (talk) 19:52, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Please take care not to accuse and assert such things as if fact like that, she is a nightclub dancer according to the lede of the article, better if you retract that really. Off2riorob (talk) 19:59, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Wow.... You take this WP:LABEL stuff seriously, huh? Well, for the record Ruby is not actually a convicted prostitute, merely someone who Silvio stands accused of paying for sex. Better? NickCT (talk) 20:04, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
I take all attack type comments on living subjects of our articles seriously. Have you got a RS that includes the prostitution conviction? She is quite well covered here by the Daily Mail and they are usually not afraid to label, and they only call her a belly dancer? Off2riorob (talk) 20:28, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Off2, did you misread? I said she "is not actually a convicted prostitute". NickCT (talk) 20:41, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
No she is not a convicted prostitute, neither is she a citable prostitute either. As you can't cite your comment I deleted it for you. Off2riorob (talk) 20:57, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Off2, I think it's sufficient that I clarified my comment in subsequent posts. I appreciate you feel you're on some kind of crusade here, but might I respectfully suggest that you're WP:wikilawyering a bit. NickCT (talk) 21:49, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
I am not on any crusade, keep your opinionated attacks to yourself. I have struck it, its a BLP violation - please don't replace it or unstrike it. Off2riorob (talk) 22:04, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Undone. Off2, please read my subsequent statements and cease hounding me. NickCT (talk) 22:23, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Oops

I moved the page when out of reaction to the -gate suffix out of concern for WP:BLP, I forgot to check if there was RM discussion! I make no protest to it being moved back sorry for the trouble. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 20:36, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

No problem! But I have moved it back pending further discussion on this page. Ian Spackman (talk) 21:02, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the proposed move

This article currently cites 7 sources. 6 of them do not use the term.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:41, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Good point, but of those The Guardian (twice), Newsweek and Time give it no particular defining title. (As newspapers they don’t have to: unlike us.) ANSA calls it the ‘Ruby case’ [literally translating il caso Ruby] and the BBC (sort of) calls it the ‘Ruby sex charge trial’ but neither seems to form a basis for the title of a Wikipedia article: the first because it has little currency in the English language, and the second because the major charge which Berlusconi faces in the trial is not to do with sexual activities but rather with abuse of power (concussione), which carries a sentence of up to twelve years. The Telegraph article does mention Rubygate, deeper in its article. What do you think the article should be called? Ian Spackman (talk) 16:07, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
re "What do you think the article should be called?" - Indeed Mr. Wales. What's your proposal?
re "6 of them do not use the term" - So? Does that mean we should cite more sources that use the term? The term appears to be relatively common if you consider search engine tests. Per WP:COMMONNAME & WP:POVTITLE, isn't that what matters? NickCT (talk) 16:35, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Google searches have limited usefulness I used the "-" sign to remove term "Rubygate" number of articles 4,962 for Berlusconi sex -rubygate. opposed to 2000 for simply rubygate Thus while there are sources that use the term its not like its equilvilent to "Tea pot dome scandal" or Boston MAssacre. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 16:45, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Also it worth noting that News orgs manipulate google search algorithms b Alot of sites will have keyword for search engines to register that actually are not used in the written article or in the title. So it there may be many false positive hits. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 16:49, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
4,962 for Berlusconi sex -rubygate will produce any article related to Berlusconi and sex. Consider "Berlusconi Karima -rubygate" - 2,321 hits and "Berlusconi Karima rubygate" - 408 hits, suggesting about 1/6 of articles related to the scandal use the term. As I'd said, somewhat common. But then again, I'm not overly opposed to a move if there's another suitable name. NickCT (talk) 17:10, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Berlusconi sex ruby -rubygate: 2251 hits walk victor falk talk 00:42, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

"-Gate" is a completely trite, unimaginative usage and I would say we could usually come up with a much better name for an article, especially when the use of "-gate" is far from universal. Jonathanwallace (talk) 05:03, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

We're not actually met to "come up" with names you know. We follow as closely as possible what we find in reliable sources. NickCT (talk) 13:23, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I was asked, up above, what I think it should be called. I would say we should follow our usual practice for naming trials when the media have not given a cute title. I would have to do a bit of poking around to see just what that is.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:32, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Some poking for your perusal Mr. Wales -
Lewinsky scandal
Mark Foley congressional page incident
John Edwards extramarital affair
Larry Craig scandal
Iris Robinson scandal
Eliot Spitzer prostitution scandal
Scanning over these, I'm not sure I can identify a "usual practice"..... If there is a "usual practice" it is probably just adding "scandal" to the name of the politician; in this case, however, as other have mentioned, Silvio Berlusconi Scandal would be terribly ambiguous. Perhaps User:Victor falk's suggestion, Ruby Scandal, is a good option, or perhaps Ruby Heartbreaker Scandal. NickCT (talk) 15:59, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Karima El Mahroug page incident could be a possibility? Ian Spackman (talk) 19:38, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Which local country for the article spelling?

Which spelling are we using here - I just reverted a correction of - jewellery - I am assuming as its a euro article that it is english english spelling? Off2riorob (talk) 16:51, 16 February 2011 (UTC) .

British (or Irish) English, I think, on the bases that (1) ‘jewellery’ got in there first, and (2) it’s an article about a EU country, and the two English-speaking members of the EU are Ireland and the UK. Ian Spackman (talk) 17:00, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Concur with Spack man. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 17:04, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Was Nicole Minetti mentioned in Veronica Lario's April 2009 open letter?

I'm having some trouble finding the old news about these events. Some requests...

  • Can anyone find the original text of Veronica Lario's April 2009 open letter to Silvio Berlescui, accusing him of appointing a slate of "starlets" to be People of Freedom party representatives?
  • Can someone at least figure out if Nicole Minetti was one of the ones she complained about?
  • Some broader context would be desirable. To my ignorant mind, in the parliamentary system MPs are just interchangeable mouthpieces, seat-fillers who don't have any special role except to cast a vote for the party. Does it matter that Berlesconi decided to fill the seats with some eye candy? Wnt (talk) 22:44, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi Wnt - here is the original letter sent by Lario to the newspaper La Repubblica link: [1] - I could not find an english translation , but this article contains many excerpts: [2]

You can read about Minetti here : [3] I don't think she was one of the ones Veronica Lario had complained about.

Minetti was elected on 30 march 2010 in a closed list, that means, if the candidate governor (they like being called like that here...) was elected (which happened) then she automatically was appointed counselor.

To answer your last question, I'd like to quote Ronald Reagan: Politics is supposed to be the second oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first. --ItemirusMessage me! 08:21, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

That is the letter sent to La Repubblica in 2007. The second letter (more exactly an e-mail) was sent to ANSA in April 2009, but I can't find the original text, only a few excerpts on some newspaper.--Anonymous of Italy (talk • contribs) 12:17, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Minetti is generally believed to have first met the president when he was having his teeth fixed following an attack at the end of that year. It would be very surprising if Veronica Lario had mentioned her in that letter of 6 or more months earlier. Ian Spackman (talk) 19:31, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

The reference [4] above looks very useful. It sets a timeline that Minetti qualified as a dental hygienist in November 2009, "treated the Italian premier for two broken teeth and facial injuries after he was smashed in the face during a political rally" in December 2009, was picked as a People of Freedom candidate in February 2010, and was seated in March 2010. Additionally, the description of those injuries is a lot more dramatic than the "cleaning his teeth" description I saw in the later references, and to me adds a feeling of sympathy for Berlesconi which I would not have expected. Wnt (talk) 04:18, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Age of consent

In Italy the age of consent is 14. How is it that she is considered a minor at 17?? Is there an error here on the Italian definition of "minor"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.10.57.75 (talk) 02:24, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Not sure if it's like this in Italy, but in Canada at least the age of consent if one of the parties is over 18 is 18, but if both parties are under 18 then it is 14. If he is 74 and she is 17, it's statutory rape. Also, they might have a different age for prostitution, if it is legal at all. Third thing, age of majority is generally considered voting age; she probably was not of age yet. 118.96.157.247 (talk) 03:09, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
The age of consent is 14, but anyone below 18 is considered underage. In Italy it is considered a crime if you pay to have sex with someone you know to be under the age of 18, regardless of her consent. --ItemirusMessage me! 08:24, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
If that is the case, then Prostitution in Italy needs that info added to it. Jim Michael (talk) 18:22, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Done :) --ItemirusMessage me! 19:17, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
And, specifically, Ruby is identified as a (potential) victim in this case, not as a perpetrator of any crime. Ian Spackman (talk) 19:23, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Ongoing event notice

Apropos of nothing really, but shouldn't this article display the notice that it refers to an ongoing event and as such it might be subject to changes as the event develops (I recall seeing similar banners on other artilces)? I have no idea how to do it myself and I hope I'm not out of line suggesting it. Thanks. --Morthasa (talk) 18:16, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it is a necessary or really a correct use of the template - its just an ongoing issue , unless something major happens the template is not of any benefit to the article. Off2riorob (talk) 19:00, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
(ec) You're probably looking for Template:Current_related. But as off2 mentioned, I'm not 100% it's necessary. NickCT (talk) 19:01, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
P.S. You might also be interested in "Category:Temporal_templates". NickCT (talk) 19:03, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
I was looking for the details as to this currents events templates usage on articles, has anyone got a link to that? Off2riorob (talk) 19:43, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Straw Poll - What should the title of this article be?

Regarding the title of the article currently named Rubygate

Introduction - There has some dissent regarding the use "Rubygate" as the title of this article. Following a move request which didn't seem to garner much consensus, I'm starting this straw poll to see if can get consensus behind an alternative title. Here are some of the options that have been proposed.

Please read some of the discussion in the sections above for arguments for and against each title.

If you have an additional proposal you'd like to suggest, please feel free to add it to the list above.

To get some sense on whether consensus is developing, if editors could phrase their responses in the following format

  • Support Current Lead, A, C, D - These are obviously the only choices that makes sense. Joe Blow, 11:61 EST Sept 20, 2015
  • Support B, E, F - These obviously the better choices. Joe Smoe, 11:61 EST Sept 20, 2015

Thanks in advance for everyone's input! NickCT (talk) 19:49, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

  • Support Current Lead, C, E, H, I - All other options seem too vague. I know a lot of people are against the current lead, but frankly, I think it's ok to use b/c there are a lot of RSs that use the same term (albeit with quotations surrounding it). NickCT (talk) 19:49, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support B, E, H, I What can I say, the guy's got quite a few scandals, it's probably better to identify it by Rubacuori. Ruby scandal just seems a bit too vague.--Yaksar (let's chat) 23:46, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support F - The date helps disambiguate it from other Berlusconi stories, and keeping it at Berlusconi seems the right thing: it's his scandal, not hers. Additionally I have some WP:BLP1E concerns about naming the article after her. (Though these are mitigated to some extent because Ruby Rubacouri is her stage name and if she wants to leave the public eye and live as a normal person in the future, she can go back to her birth name I suppose.)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:09, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I seriously doubt she'll ever be totally forgotten anytime soon, at least in Italy. A Wikipedia entry is the least of her worries even if she does want to drop off the map (I gotta think the paparazzi are just as relentless in the land where their name comes from.) But regardless, it's his scandal but she's equally if not more identified with it. It's a similar situation to, say, the Lewinsky scandal. More importantly though, having 2011 in the title feels wrong because the article is not only about the 2011 legal issue, but also about the actual events that caused the legal issues, and those occurred in 2010. But that's just my two cents.--Yaksar (let's chat) 19:48, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Yaksar. walk victor falk talk 21:29, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
I have to disagree strongly with Mr. Wales here. Option F seems terribly ambiguous, and seems to completely ignore the spirit and letter of WP:COMMONNAME. Two years from now nobody, but nobody is going to be thinking back on this event as the "Berlusconi 2011 Legal Investigation". NickCT (talk) 17:03, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support F - as per Jimmy's comment. Off2riorob (talk) 16:50, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support Current Lead (Rubygate) for the time being. (A better title may emerge: we should keep on reading the newspapers to see what common name emerges, but in the meantime Rubygate comes closest. Oppose F as the silliest: the investigations were mostly carried out in 2010, as some 800 pages of depositions can confirm. Ian Spackman (talk) 17:49, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Victor, could you clarify your comments? Are you supporting option G and option G alone? NickCT (talk) 16:58, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
A lead bird is a poor animal having much difficulty taking off the ground on account of its high density. walk victor falk talk 17:36, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Ummmmm.... Ok.... I'm just going to turn around slowly and walk away from that comment. NickCT (talk) 16:05, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support E as per Yaksar's comments. The owner of this whole thing actually goes to talk pages? Surprised. TheArchaeologist 22:04, 19 February 2011 (UTC) --- This is my sig, Sinebot, don't sign something else. ._.
  • Support current title - as I noted above, it actually seems to be the common name here. Alternatively, my preferred options are G, F, D and E in that order. 'Rubygate' has the advantage that it avoids the word 'scandal', which I'd rather see kept out of page titles where possible; 'investigation' or 'allegations', though a bit bland, are better terms to use. If we're not going to use 'Rubygate', I think it's more important to have Berlusconi's name in the title than hers. Robofish (talk) 17:47, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support "Silvio Berlusconi – Ruby Rubacuori sex scandal" or option D It would be strange not to have a person's name in the title, but not Berlusconi's when he is the central figure. Rubacuori's being an underage prostitute is not international news; Berlusconi's allegedly sleeping with an underage prostitute is. Two style notes:

The options that use his last name but her whole name are strange; use both full names or both last names. Second, the same two options are punctuated wrong. "Berlusconi-Ruby Rubacuori sex scandal" should have an en dash, not a hyphen, and because one of the elements contains a space "Ruby Rubacuori", there should be spaces on both sides of the dash. -Rrius (talk) 19:06, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

  • Support F -- sober, factual. --JN466 22:46, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Sober though it may be, it is no longer accurate because the situation has gone beyond an investigation. -Rrius (talk) 06:09, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Straw poll results so far -
Current title - 3 supports Rubygate
Proposal A - 0 supports Silvio Berlusconi sex scandal
Proposal B - 1 supports Karima El Mahroug scandal
Proposal C - 1 supports Ruby scandal
Proposal D - 2 supports Silvio Berlusconi prostitution scandal
Proposal E - 4 supports Ruby Rubacuori scandal
Proposal F - 4 supports Berlusconi 2011 legal investigation
Proposal G - 1 supports Underage prostitution allegations against Silvio Berlusconi
Proposal H - 3 supports Berlusconi-Ruby Rubacuori sex scandal
Proposal I - 2 suuports Berlusconi-Ruby Rubacuori scandal
Observation - Several editors supported F and F alone, including Off2riorob, Jimbo Wales, JN466. Proposal F also seemed to raise the most direct objections as well, specifically from Ian Spackman, walk victor falk talk, Rrius, and myself (NickCT).
Result - No clear consensus. No obvious majority support. Proposal F seems to win "most controversial" title award.
Proposed course of action - At this point I'd propose either 1) we give an additional week for more responses (perhaps posting to relevant project boards to try to get more input), or 2) move this into an RfC offering the four most supported titles. Anyone got any thoughts? NickCT (talk) 16:09, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

New options

I think we need to abandon this list and start over. Frankly, they aren't well thought out. As pointed out, A, D, and F aren't sufficiently specific or accuate. B is not what anyone would expect this to be called. C is too ambiguous since it isn't clear "Ruby" isn't "ruby". E doesn't refer to Berlusconi, which many people find objectionable, and G is worded clumsily. The last two are improperly formatted (they should have spaced dashes, not unspaced hyphens) and inexplicably leave out Berlusconi's first name, but include the prostitute's. Jimbo favoured a date, but a later editor noted the date was not accurate, so I've included a "2010–2011" option for each wording variant. Without further ado, I propose the following:

Proposal 1: Rubygate (current)
Proposal 2: Silvio Berlusconi underage prostitution scandal
Proposal 3: 2010–2011 Silvio Berlusconi underage prostitution scandal
Proposal 4: Silvio Berlusconi underage sex scandal
Proposal 5: 2010–2011 Silvio Berlusconi underage sex scandal
Proposal 6: Silvio Berlusconi – Ruby Rubacuori underage sex scandal
Proposal 7: 2010–2011 Silvio Berlusconi – Ruby Rubacuori underage sex scandal
Proposal 8: Silvio Berlusconi – Ruby Rubacuori sex scandal
Proposal 9: 2010–2011 Silvio Berlusconi – Ruby Rubacuori sex scandal
Proposal 10: Silvio Berlusconi – Ruby Rubacuori scandal
Proposal 11: 2010–2011 Silvio Berlusconi – Ruby Rubacuori scandal
Proposal 12: 2010–2011 Silvio Berlusconi legal investigation
Proposal 13: Ruby Rubacuori scandal
Proposal 14: Silvio Berlusconi underage prostitution charges

While some people seem to have no problem with leaving out Berlusconi's name from a Berlusconi scandal, it does seem to stand in the way of consensus. No one has put forward a reasonable explanation as to why such a name is better than one that includes his name, but the status quo remains as a proposal for people who affirmatively think that Berlusconi's name shouldn't be included in the title of a scandal of which he is the central figure. -Rrius (talk) 20:41, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

@Rrius - Appreciate the comments, but if we were going to start-over, we'd definately have to include Ruby Rubacuori scandal & Berlusconi 2011 legal investigation as those two gather the most consensus from the previous round. NickCT (talk) 21:11, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Three things: (1) Only one proposal can obtain consensus—those only received the specified number of votes; (2) Despite the support for it, the "Berlusconi 2011 legal investigation" proposal is fatally flawed. I've refactored it to be more accurate, but even as such it is still to vague. Even if that one somehow achieves consensus, it won't last. The proposed title is unstable. (3) I've added the "Ruby Rubacuori scandal" to the list of proposals, but it too is fatally flawed by the lack of a reference to the most important part of the case: Silvio Berlusconi. Even if that one somehow gets a large number of votes in the straw poll, it is my opinion that its proponents would still have to justify leaving out his name before we could really claim to have reasoned consensus. -Rrius (talk) 22:30, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Poll on new options

Proposal 14 – I think this addresses all the concerns expressed in the previous straw poll. Rob is rightly concerned that the title not have a sensational title and reflect the fact that nothing has been proven. This option is coldly neutral: Silvio Berlusconi has been charged in connection with underage prostitution, and that is all the title says. Nick points out below that someone could interpret this to mean that Berlusconi is the underage prostitute, but I don't think a reasonable person would interpret it that way. The people who voted for the "Ruby Rubacuori scandal" option pointed to the need to be specific as their concern because there had been various sex scandals involving Berlusconi. This proposal answers that concern as well. Berlusconi has only been charged with frequenting an underage prostitute in this one situation, so mentioning the prostitute's name does nothing to further specify which charges we are talking about. The requests for inclusion of dates served the same purposes, but again, this is the only situation in which Berlusconi has been charged in connection with frequenting an underage prostitute. Additionally, not using Rubacuori's name in the title answers Rob and Jimbo's concern about BLP1E. Finally, the contention that "Rubygate" (almost never hyphenated, but the way) is the common name doesn't strike me as being true, so I think we can put it to one side. Only about a quarter of the stories mentioning Berlusconi and the girl use the term, and many of them do so self-consciously with sneer quotes or refer to it as something someone else calls it. The term should probably be mentioned, but it does not seem correct to suggest that it is the common name. -Rrius (talk) 23:01, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Support option 14 - very nice work.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:43, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

support 14 Yes, solves all my issues and explains what its all about. - well, not all of them but its the best on offer. Off2riorob (talk) 15:55, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes on 14 certainly addresses the most glaring problems. Also, the LA Times evidently supports it.--Yaksar (let's chat) 06:09, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

  • That's awesome. -Rrius (talk) 07:45, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Support 14 - I'm good with 14 as well. Though frankly I'd prefer a something with "Ruby" in it. But what-the-heck, 14 certainly beats what we have currently. As most of the "interested-people" from previous polls have chimed in, I motion for an immediate move. Any objections? NickCT (talk) 13:44, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

As an after thought, it would probably be a good idea to revisit this article's title in a year or so, after the dust has settled, to see if a common name emerged. It may well be possible, that a year from now, everyone indeed references it as "Rubygate". Only time will tell..... NickCT (talk) 13:47, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
I support close and move as we seem to have a good deal of agreement here. I also agree that in perhaps even as little as three months from now a different common name may has risen to the top of the pool. Off2riorob (talk) 13:52, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Vote for Proposition 13 No to ruby taxes - she already stole my heart! ok, 14 second best, quite precise (though a bit inconcise). I mostly want to say in general that many editors mistake bland prose for encyclopedic style. One can express things quite sharply, without being a bit partial or ungracious. walk victor falk talk 16:31, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
I agree with your comments regarding "bland" and "inconcise". See my comment about waiting till the dust settles on the story, then considering a new title. NickCT (talk) 16:41, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Consensus

ISTM we now have a strong consensus supporting proposal 14: Move to Silvio Berlusconi underage prostitution charges, and that no other outcome is likely in the near future. Andrewa (talk) 15:27, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Be bold. Or I will... :) --Yaksar (let's chat) 15:29, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 Done I went ahead and did it. NickCT (talk) 15:38, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Good result. I was just double-checking that I really was uninvolved, I've almost chimed in a couple of times but don't think I did. Irrelevant now.
Not quite sure how to best close the discussion here without making the mess even messier, however. It may be best to let the interspersed discussions play out and then archive the lot to an archive page. Some of the strings are pretty tangled, refactoring will likely make it worse, and simply using the normal top and bottom templates will close some continuing discussions. Andrewa (talk) 15:57, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure you really need to "close the discussion". I'd just sit back, and let the talk-page be auto-archived in good time. NickCT (talk) 16:38, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Agree. Andrewa (talk) 19:48, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Silvio Berlusconi Controversy

I have moved it here, I believe it is a NPOV title for the article. Please don`t kill me :) Tentontunic (talk) 23:37, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Its a bold good faith move dude, so no worries, imo - its better but vague - Off2riorob (talk) 23:40, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm no fan of "Rubygate" as the title, but this is just way to vague. Given the length of this section, this title could apply to far too many things.--Yaksar (let's chat) 23:48, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Agree. Way too vague. Tentontunic, self revert might be in order. NickCT (talk) 23:58, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
I tried to self revert, it did not work? I shall not complain if another does it. It can be coutned is my revert. Tentontunic (talk) 00:03, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
I was going to revert it, but I thought I'd try out something in your line of thinking that is less applicable to other situations. But once again, feel free to change it anyone.--Yaksar (let's chat) 01:06, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure that pretty much every source mentions "sex", so I think it could go in title, Ruby Rubacuori sex scandal, a nice double alliteration. This has the great advantage of luring in more users, who might then become editors. Come for the naughtiness, stay for the sorting of categories. walk victor falk talk 01:49, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Well, both the subjects of the article stated and are citable that there was no sexual content, so it seems undue to insist on adding sex to the title. This issue is hilarious, ruby ruby ruby. Off2riorob (talk) 01:52, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
I kind of like Ruby Rubacuori sex scandal, but leaving out the sex isn't too terrible; in any case, I thought the "-gate" sounded wrong. I mean, it refers to Watergate and a horde of similarly named U.S. scandals, but I don't know what it would mean to Italians. I mean, is there a translation for it - -gato, -gati, -cancello, -porta ...? Wnt (talk) 03:15, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
It's even a double double alliteration, -r -b -r -b -s -k -s -k; also (checking) a iamb followed by two amphibrachs, which also account for the euphony. The suffix -gate should be generally reserved for scandals involving burglars disguised as plumbers in my opinion. "Gatto" means "cat", so you could make an allusion to sex out of that. walk victor falk talk 04:19, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
I don't think including sex in the title would be right. The scandal also encompasses his abuse of power in getting her out of jail, and this type of "extortion" wouldn't really fall under the sex title.--Yaksar (let's chat) 04:27, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
I also think not everyone outside the US would get the reference to Watergate, as well it is a freaking annoying cliche to give every scandal the suffix -gate. TheArchaeologist 21:35, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Ditto on the "-gate" thing. I'm an American who hates adding that ending to every flipping scandal, but was shocked that it was being applied to an Italian scandal. British, I could maybe see, but Italian? Anyway, how about Silvio Berlusconi – Ruby Rubacuori sex scandal? It seems a bit off to just name the scandal after her when she isn't the main reason it's a scandal. If the man were Mario Martucci, a simple shopkeeper in Parma, this Ruby Rubacuori scandal wouldn't be an international (or even national) story. Berlusconi is clearly a central figure, so his name should be in the title as well. -Rrius (talk) 18:57, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Sex is only an allegation as is prostitution as such that both subjects deny completely, you should look for a title without these two words, you should also attempt to keep the name of the one event girl out of the title, if you can do that you will be doing well. Off2riorob (talk) 20:45, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
More neutral suggestions
  • Berlusconi underage prostitution allegations
  • Berlusconi underage prostitution prosecution
  • Berlusconi underage prostitution case
  • Berlusconi Vs. The State of Italy (I am assuming they use the western model style of Court cases with this one.)
Thoughts? The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 21:01, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
"Berlusconi underage prostitution allegations" sorta sounds like Berlusconi was the underage prostitute..... NickCT (talk) 21:14, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
First, I think it should say "Silvio Berlusconi"; leaving off the first name both is overly familiar and makes it less specific than it could be. Also, I've started a new series of options above, and I think you might prefer, of those, "Silvio Berlusconi underage prostitution scandal". I'll also add a "charges" version, which has the neutrality you're looking for. I should point out that the words "scandal" and "charges" seem to be the norm in these situations (See, e.g., Elliott Spitzer prostitution scandal and Rod Blagojevich corruption charges). -Rrius (talk) 22:40, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Rrius - I like your proposal. I think at this point we should re-poll with your options included, or possibly start an RfC. Thoughts? NickCT (talk) 14:15, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
I suggest we re-poll, and if that doesn't work, we start at the bottom and discuss what the title should accomplish. I don't think the differences between editors are clear enough yet to justify an RfC or make one especially helpful. In other words, I think there is still hope of finding common ground without help. -Rrius (talk) 21:16, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Ok. Check this out. I don't think we should mention all of the 2010-2011 variations. If one of teh options gains consensus we can just add that in later. NickCT (talk) 21:41, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
I disagree with your impulse to exclude the year variants and to include the 2011 legal investigation version. Some editors wanted dates to help specify, so it is important that we include such options. We would never develop consensus as you suggest if we don't provide the options in the first instance. Also, as was stated in the discussion, "2011 legal investigation" is inaccurate and not specific enough. The investigation in this case almost entirely happened in 2010, not 2011. In addition, it ignores the fact that Berlusconi has been the subject of many investigations, any number of which were ongoing in 2010 and may have continued into 2011. It is frankly one of the worst options that was available, and the things that drew people to it in the last straw poll are present in other options (including dates and neutral wording). I really think we should proceed with a straw poll on the options above. -Rrius (talk) 22:40, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Wrong Phrase

The Phrase "she was under the age of consent" in the opening paragraph is wrong. Infact in Italy, the age of consent is 14 years old (see here for more information) and the age of majority is 18 years old. When the scandal has started she was 17. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.44.66.64 (talk) 14:38, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Correct - i fixed it --ItemirusMessage me! 10:49, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

name change and age claims

I boldly reverted what looked to me to be a weakly supported name change and a date of birth dispute addition, one support was this translated by google here - see the alterations here - especially the section Karima's age and giving her correct name as Karima Heyek, supported by a map of the area, and claiming a date of birth as Nov first 1991. Currently as the dob is disputed we don't even have one in the article, anyways have a look, its a bold addition and I ask interested parties to evaluate the reverted addition. - Off2riorob (talk) 16:42, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Move to "Ruby Sex Trial"

There was some protracted discussion a while ago about the appropriate title for this article. That discussion lead to the somewhat awkward "Silvio Berlusconi underage prostitution charges" that we have now. It was acknowledged by a number of participants in the discussion that the name may have to change in future. With that in mind, I think I'd now like to propose we change the title to "Ruby Sex Trial". This term has been used in a number of sources. Just to illustrate a few -

If there are no objections I'm going to move this page. NickCT (talk) 22:26, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

As a quick afterthought, I've noticed "Berlusconi Sex Trial" is pretty common too. I'd be happy with either title. NickCT (talk) 22:29, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Those are common names in newspapers. Wikipedia is not a newspaper; it's an encyclopedia. I'm going to move it back. Feel free to open a formal requested move. --Trovatore (talk) 08:44, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
"in newspapers"??? That a bit of a weird rationale. Newspapers are reliable sources, no? We title according to the most common name in reliable sources, no? "Watergate Scandal" was a "newspaper name", it is also a common name. Regardless, requested move opened. NickCT (talk) 13:10, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. DrKiernan (talk) 20:22, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Silvio Berlusconi underage prostitution charges → Ruby sex trial – Per the conversation directly above; the current title of this article was basically a negotiated fabrication from a year ago, when there was no obvious common name for this article. When we'd settled on the current title, a number of editors noted that the article's title should probably be reviewed in a year's time; hence, at this point I'd like to consider renaming to either "Ruby sex trial" or "Berlusconi sex trial" under the rationale that both those titles have emerged as significantly more common in RS than the current title. NickCT (talk) 13:10, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

  • It's not a proper noun or formal name, is it? Do you mean the proposed title to be Ruby sex trial? --BDD (talk) 18:01, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Indeed. Thanks for the note. Corrected. NickCT (talk) 18:25, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The proposed name might be "common" in the sense that it shows up in journalistic articles, but it's journalese, which is not appropriate for names for an encyclopedia article. It's as though our Casey Anthony article were to be called tot mom. Complicated confluences of events often don't have "common names", per se. That's not to say the current name is necessarily the best one, but I don't think we're going to find a decent encyclopedic one that has a significantly different "feel" from this one. --Trovatore (talk) 19:57, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Could you point to the policy that says titles need to be "decent" and "encyclopedic"? Then could you define what exactly makes an "encyclopedic" title? NickCT (talk) 21:52, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Opaque, misleading, and sensationalist. The trial is of Berlusconi, not of a prostitute. Be informative and accurate. NoeticaTea? 00:13, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
    • You'll notice that I was suggesting "Berlusconi sex trial" as an alternative. Would you support that? NickCT (talk) 00:56, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
That's better; but in fact the case concerns underage prostitution, not underage sex. Right? As I understand it, an adult's sexual activity with that woman would not be illegal but using her as a prostitute would be. It is not helpful to have more than one possible change discussed for an RM. Better to tease out all the issues first on the talkpage, then take the most acceptable option to RM. If you like that option, simply withdraw the RM early, yes? No harm done. NoeticaTea? 01:34, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
You're right that underage prostitution would probably be the more accurate title, but "sex trial" is by far the more common name. As far as I understand titling on WP, commonality trumps accuracy. It seems like most folks think "Berlusconi Sex Trial" would at least be OK. I'd be happy if the RM closed that way. NickCT (talk) 11:49, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
COMMONNAME only applies to things that have common names. I don't believe this collection of circumstances does have one. Certainly you can't deduce the existence of one just by compiling newspaper headlines. Newspapers use a shorthand that sometimes gets "naturalized" into the language at large, but usually doesn't, and in this case I see no evidence that it has.
The problem with anything called "trial" is that the article is not just about the trial. It's about the whole incident, which happens to include a trial. --Trovatore (talk) 17:19, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
@Trovatore - The case is commonly referred to as the "Berlusconi Sex Trial". Typically one establishes "common names" through search engine tests. If you do that you get thousands of hits coming back. I take your point about things getting "naturalized". Watergate is probably a good example. But "Berlusconi Sex Trial" is already fairly natural.
You seem to be missing the point that most of the hits are from newspapers, and in fact they're mostly headlines. So it doesn't count. We don't use headlinese. --Trovatore (talk) 18:07, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Oh.... Ok. So if some term happens to appear in a headline, it's automatically invalidated as a potential article title. That makes a lot of sense. (*cough*) NickCT (talk) 20:14, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
I realize the article give more context than just the trial itself, but it's mainly about the trial. Salem Witch Trials gives a lot of external context to the trials themselves. NickCT (talk) 17:45, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

2013 Silvio Berlusconi conviction

Could we rename this article something more neutral, as I suggest above? The whole "underage" and "prostitute" tone is inappropriate for an encyclopedia in my opinion. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:12, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Given that Berlusconi has faced multiple charges regarding different offences, the title you propose would be rather unhelpful. Furthermore, given that he has been tried and convicted (at least until appeal) of having sexual intercourse with a prostitute below the age where such action would be legal, I cannot really see what is wrong with the title. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:17, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Oh, does 2013 Silvio Berlusconi conviction exist? I don't see why you would advocate such an incredibly evocative title. The tone is entirely inappropriate. Would you see a heading like that in Britannica? I doubt it. Let's remember we an encyclopedia and not The Sun. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:33, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
If you wish to propose a move to another title you will need to explain what is wrong with the title, rather than merely stating that you consider it inappropriate. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:34, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Um, I said "the tone is entirely inappropriate" and I suggested an alternative. Your claim of "unhelpful" title is without any backing whatsoever. What left is there for you here? Maybe you'd prefer Ian Huntley murder of schoolgirls as opposed to Soham murders? It's encyclopedic tone. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:38, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
If you wish to propose the article be moved, do so. I have explained why I consider your proposal unhelpful, and if you are incapable of understanding this, that is your problem. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:38, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Heh. I'm "capable" of understanding that you'd prefer an non-encyclopedic tone for this article title, as if there's some kind of agenda, and like it's been forgotten this is an encyclopedia and not The Sun or the Daily Mail! You would prefer the Ian Huntley murder of schoolgirls style of title? Insightful. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:43, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
If you persist in using this talk page as a forum for your clueless and obnoxious ramblings, I may report the matter. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:52, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Please do. You clearly prefer POV titles for articles. (Please read up: [5]) The Rambling Man (talk) 20:27, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

"Paying for sex with a minor in Italy is punished within a range of six months to three years imprisonment"

Sorry, does this mean paying for sex with a six-year-old (for example) would attract only a maximum of three years in prison? Can this be clarified please? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:29, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

No, that would be considered rape. It's a totally different crime. The age of consent in Italy is set to 14 years. --Pietrodn · talk with me 19:09, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
So if someone paid for sex with a minor but was caught by police before committing rape, would they have committed no crime? Formerip (talk) 19:13, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Um, WP:NOTFORUM, anyone? AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:15, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

10-day auto-archiving period

That seems way too fast. Unfortunately, I do not know how to change it. —BarrelProof (talk) 23:33, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't know what you are thinking would be the right speed, but I have put it up to 20. All you need to do is change the number at the end of the {{archives}} template. Formerip (talk) 23:38, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. I would still suggest longer, but that's just me. What about the "{{User:MiszaBot/config ... |algo = old(10d)|...}}"? —BarrelProof (talk) 23:47, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Er, not sure. Maybe that's the essential part. Anyhow, I changed that too. Formerip (talk) 23:53, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
The number in the bot config is indeed the essential part. The number in the archives template just changes what's displayed in the arcive box AFAIK. Nil Einne (talk) 14:20, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

RM

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved. There is at least a nominal majority for the proposed new title, and the other suggestions are all over the map. As new developments occur, I suspect we'll be back here again. Note that there's an article called Trials and allegations involving Silvio Berlusconi. If the legal events multiply, that article may become the key to simplifying navigation for our readers. EdJohnston (talk) 18:29, 7 July 2013 (UTC)


Silvio Berlusconi underage prostitution charges → 2013 Silvio Berlusconi conviction – Berlusconi has been convicted of a number of crimes, including sex with a minor. This article covers all such convictions so is incorrectly titled. Also, the emotive title of "underage prostitution charges" is something we'd expect to see in tabloid papers, not an encyclopaedia, so we'd be better disposed to neutralise the title. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:51, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

  • Oppose. The subject matter of this article is the events surrounding the conviction (subject to appeal) of Silvio Berlusconi on charges of having paid for sex with a prostitute when she was below the age at which it was legal to do so, and of abuse of office during an attempt to cover up the offence. Though I am open to suggestions as to an alternative title which makes clear the subject matter of the article, I cannot agree to a title which entirely fails to mention the reasons for the conviction. In most cases, a title of such type would be questionable on NPOV grounds, but here it is doubly questionable in that Berlusconi is currently facing charges on unrelated matters, and the proposed title is thus inherently ambiguous. The suggestion that we should 'neutralise' a title by rendering it next to useless in identifying the article subject matter seems to me to be fundamentally misguided. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:05, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Of course, a normal reader would type in "Silvio Berlusconi underage prostitution charges" when looking for this article. Honestly? And by the way, these are no longer charges, he has been convicted. If we want articles on Wikipedia with erroneous and titivating titles, perhaps we should rename as "Tabloidapedia". The "reasons for conviction" don't need to be part of the title, that's patently absurd, if we did that for all conviction articles, we'd have the "Ian Huntley conviction for murdering two schoolgirls" issue. Why do we need that? But beyond all that, you've stated in your opening sentence of your "opposition" that this is about a "conviction". The title of the article is "charges". So on that basis alone, it's clearly incorrect. The rest, the common sense stuff about not needing to have a lurid "underage prostitution" heading is another matter. A curious approach to this kind of news article. Go figure. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:10, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
      • 'Ian Huntley' redirects to Soham murders'. The article title tells us what the subject matter of the article is. I am suggesting that this article should do the same. Can you cite policy that suggests that article titles should avoid informing readers as to the content of the said article? AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:19, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
        • This conviction wasn't just about underage sex. It's also a "conviction" not a "charge", so it's plainly incorrect right now. I don't believe there are any "policies" about article titles, I'm sure you're aware we have no such thing. We have "guidelines" to help us out, and MOS etc, but it's very odd that someone with your experience would ask for a policy here. Forgive me for being dense but I thought article titles should be accurate, and this clearly is not. He has been convicted of the crime. He has been convicted of other crimes as well. This is not just about some lurid sex case. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:24, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
  • How about Silvio Berlusconi underage prostitution case? I don't think it's particularly lurid to just call a thing what it is called. It's what he has been convicted of. Formerip (talk) 20:16, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Well, Andy's right, the article is about more than his recent conviction. But the "charges" title has become outdated. How about Silvio Berlusconi underage prostitution case or Silvio Berlusconi underage prostitution scandal? --BDD (talk) 23:20, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support, for all the reasons given by The Rambling Man. One source says, if I remember correctly, that the sex charges are the least serious charges against SB. The proposed title is more accurate than the existing one. --108.45.72.196 (talk) 01:47, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. A court has made a finding of fact; this man paid for sex with an underage girl. The abuse of public office charge stems from his browbeating the police into releasing her, so it is a consequence of the first fact. So there is no way Berlusconi can sue anybody for libel. Abductive (reasoning) 02:26, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. After reading the article it is clear that there were two crimes committed, prosecuted and resulting in a conviction. The article appears to send about the same amount of time on both crimes and does not focus on just one. In the Italian courts, one of these crimes appears to be the more significant. So the current title implies that there is only one crime involved and that the article is about the accusation of a single crime. The proposed rename cleanly addresses both of those issues without adding any POV issues and is precise unlike the current name. I will point out, that without reading the article, for many the current title is very misleading. In many places both prostitution and sex with a minor is illegal and a crime. You compound that by using an underage prostitute. Here only using an underage prostitute is the crime. Given all of the issues, the current title has to be changed. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:12, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. The current title could mean he was underage when he prostituted himself. Let's keep it simple & untabloidy. Rothorpe (talk) 22:49, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Excellent point. I wish I had thought of it. But I do support that as one more reason to rename. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:40, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Just to throw in another option: 2013 trial of Silvio Berlusconi? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:18, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
The problem with that, as with other proposed titles not actually indicating the nature of the case, is that Berlusconi is in various stages of going through the Italian courts on several other, unrelated charges. He may well end up in court again this year regarding these unrelated matters. This case didn't start this year, is far from settled, and will probably extend beyond this year. The date is about the least useful bit of information when it comes to actually identifying which particular legal issues our article is concerned with. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:21, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
That sounds like a reasonable argument. I personally like 'trial' more than 'case' (so something along the lines of underage prostitution trial of Silvio Berlusconi or Silvio Berlusconi underage prostitution trial, but that's really just bikeshedding. I support moving away from charges, to something unambiguous and correct. charges is problematic because at this point it are more than charges. Trial or case are both fine by me. I find conviction a little narrow. I wish we could have something less tabloidy than something with 'underage prostitution' in, but it seems that the number of cases against Berlusconi leaves us no other choice if we want to be clear, concise and correct. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 13:38, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

I think that page Silvio Berlusconi underage prostitution charges is unappropriate for an encyclopedia as wikipedia... it is not an storical fact. By the way the write "On June 24, 2013, Berlusconi was found guilty of paying an underage prostitute for sex, and of abusing his powers in an ensuing cover up. He was sentenced to seven years in jail, and banned from public office for life. He is certain to appeal, and the sentence will not be enforced until the result of the trial is confirmed at appeal.[15][16]" in the principal page of the voice Silvio Berlusconi should be delated because the italian law (civil law) is different by the common law and there are more than one steaps of judice determination. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthresearcher2013 (talk • contribs) 09:12, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Rating

Why is this article about the misdeeds and conviction of one person rated "Top Importance" in the Italy Project? Right up there with articles like "History of Italy", "Geography of Italy" etc. Unless this particular incident can be displayed to have serious impact on Italy's History, Social Welfare, Women's rights etc, then it is of Low Importance. Is this a Ground-breaking, Earth-shattering Case with implications for Humanity? Or is it just another sleaze who happens to be in a position of power?

Amandajm (talk) 02:21, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Move this page to something or other

Since the 1 August decision made by the Court of Cassation on an unrelated case, this has become a misleading title for the article. I would suggest Rubygate. Ian Spackman (talk) 20:34, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree, and pointed out the likelihood of this issue arising in the recent RM discussion (above). Sadly, other contributors failed to take any account of this, and seemed more concerned to obscure the actual topic of the article, for reasons best known to them. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:35, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Page for Ruby

Would anyone else support creating a page for Karima el-Mahroug? Tomh903 (talk) 21:21, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Silvio_Berlusconi_prostitution_trial/Archive_1&oldid=1136233381"