Talk:2016 Italian constitutional referendum

Italy Low‑importance

	Italy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Italy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Italy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ItalyWikipedia:WikiProject ItalyTemplate:WikiProject ItalyItaly articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Elections and Referendums

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

Can a native English speaker please find time to rewrite this article in correct English?

It reads like Italian written using English words. The main problem, as so often is the case, is the use of incorrect prepositions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.97.119.61 (talk) 07:32, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Main Political Parties

User Nick.mon has repeatedly reverted my edits correcting the invented translation "Forward Italy" for the political party Forza Italia. "Forward Italy" is not a widely accepted English translation of the name of the political party Forza Italia, and I have never seen that translation used in any English-language journalistic publication, ever. Most English-language news publications simply use the untranslated Italian name of the party, Forza Italia. Furthermore, user Checco was reprimanded for inventing this translation and incorporating it into the article for Forza Italia (2013).

Furthermore, "Forward Italy" isn't really an accurate translation of Forza Italia. "Forza Italia!" was a soccer chant that doesn't have a 1:1 translation into English but which roughly meant "Let's go Italy!" and was shouted at soccer matches before Silvio Berlusconi politicized the chant by naming his political party after it. So considering that "Forward Italy" is neither used by major English-language news publications nor an accurate translation of Forza Italia, I don't see why the article shouldn't simply use the untranslated Forza Italia when referring to the party like pretty much every other major English-language publication.

If you have an authoritative source, which is not some obscure source nobody has ever heard of, showing this translation, I'd love to see it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.60.84.2 (talk) 19:09, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's no official or obvious translation of "Forza Italia" in English, that is why in en.Wiki the party's name is not translated into English in the article's name. Of course, I did not invent any translation ("Forward Italy" is the most common translation in en.Wiki and it has been used in several books—see sources in FI's article) and I was not "reprimanded" by no-one but you, while I strongly supported that the article should be named "Forza Italia". --Checco (talk) 21:56, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, Checco, I must have misread the section on your talk page regarding the name of Forza Italia. In any case, it is clear that the user Nick.mon is inventing the name "Forward Italy" for Forza Italia, and I am getting annoyed that he keeps reverting my edits when I try to correct his translation. "Avanti", not "forza", means "forward", and the party is not called "Avanti Italia".

As for citations, I noted in the Forza Italia (2013) article that the untranslated name is most commonly used in English, with multiple citations of English-language news publications, but this appears to have been subsequently deleted by Nick.mon. In any case, this "translation" of "Forward Italy" seems inappropriate for this article, and I don't think it's vandalism to correct this "translation". If you could back me up on this Checco it would be much appreciated. --204.60.84.2 (talk)

I won't back you up. While I think that the article should be named "Forza Italia" (an exception to the general rule according to which the names of the parties should be translated), I also think that "Forward Italy" is definitely a better, more literal and more appropriate translation than "Let's Go Italy". There has been a general consensus on "Forza Italia" as primary name and "Forward Italy" as primary translation: I stick to that. --Checco (talk) 06:21, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How is "Forward Italy" more literal when "forza" doesn't literally mean "forward" or anything close to it? "Forward Italy" would only be literally correct if the name of the party was "Avanti Italia". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.60.84.2 (talk) 19:43, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion can continue at Talk:Forza Italia (2013)#Translation to English. --Checco (talk) 11:26, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ps: User:Nick.mon, as well as other, clearly prefers "Forward Italy" over "Let's Go Italy".

This discussion is about the page Italian constitutional referendum, 2016 and not about the page Forza Italia (2013). The conversation shall be carried on here, so that users can see the discussion without having to go to another page to see it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.60.84.2 (talk) 21:27, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Having two duplicate discussions is just non-sense. However, I have a compromise solution to offer you and User:Nick.mon: why don't we simply remove translations and have the list of parties as it is, for instance, at Next Italian general election? --Checco (talk) 06:31, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I agree with you Checco, let's remove translations. -- Nick.mon (talk) 06:39, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me.

Referendum date

Has the referendum date been announced? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.60.84.2 (talk) 13:18, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It will be probably on 2 October (1), but you are right it's not official. -- Nick.mon (talk) 14:53, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Campaign committees

@Nick.mon, CorradoMor, other users involved: I gave a superficial look to this article, Just a Yes and I Vote No (do they really need dedicated articles as most of the infos included are already present in this article and are in some cases wrong?). I have some reservations on the membership of the latter two committees. In fact, I don't think that the parties and the newspapers mentioned have joined the committes; in particular, as far as I know, some centre-right parties have formed the "Committee for No" (see http://www.comitatoperilno.it/). Generally speaking, we should not confuse the campaigns for "yes" and "no" with the Just a Yes and I Vote No, that are just two committes (more will be launched, I guess). One more thing: any reference to the Bundesrat is quite misguided as the new Senate will be totally different from the German upper chamber in its composition: regional councillors, mayors and senators appointed by the President v. regional governments. --Checco (talk) 14:36, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Checco, I created the two articles because I noticed that on it.Wiki there's a page Comitati per il sì e per il no al referendum; moreover I was inspired by the committees Vote Leave and Britain Stronger in Europe. Anyway if you and other users think that are not necessary we can delete them. -- Nick.mon (talk) 16:01, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also the it.Wiki article is deficient, in fact the centre-right's committee is not included. I don't think articles on the committees are needed, but I won't ask to delete them because I'm an inclusionist. However, I think that the two articles should be reduced (all the infos already included in this article should not be included) and, more important, there should be no mention of parties and newspapers which did not officially join the committees. --Checco (talk) 08:54, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See #Advocacy groups, below. I think they should be merged here, and possibly split off into a separate subarticle. I don't think deletion is appropriate, but, the groups, themselves, do not seem adequately notable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:01, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

EMG Acqua polls

According to the official polls source ([1]), the EMG-Acqua polls do not ask if people will vote YES on NO to the constitutional reform, but instead whether they intend to vote or not.

I copy here the text of the question as it appears on the source plus my own translation: "CAMBIAMO ORA ARGOMENTO E PARLIAMO DEL REFERENDUM COSTITUZIONALE. IL PROSSIMO OTTOBRE SI VOTERÀ PER IL REFERENDUM COSTITUZIONALE IN CUI GLI ELETTORI DECIDERANNO SE APPROVARE O RESPINGERE LE RIFORME DELLA COSTITUZIONE PROMOSSE DAL GOVERNO RENZI. LEI PENSA DI ANDARE A VOTARE?", which translates to: "Changing subject, let's speak now about the constitutional referendum. In October there will be a vote in the constitutional referendum where electors will decide whether to approve or reject the constitutional reforms proposed by Renzi's government. Do you think you will go to vote?"

I propose to remove all EMG-Acqua polls from the list, or at least to move them to another table where expected vote participation is listed. Jeckor (talk) 10:05, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Graph on opinion polling

alternative format, proposed by Checco (talk · contribs)

Hi everyone,

as Nick.mon proposed on my talk page I could create a graph for the opinion polling for this referendum. It would look similar as the graph which I did for the EU UK referendum (see example on the right). Before getting started I would like to discuss whether the graph should include a don't know/undecided line or not? So should I use the data set with this column or the one without? What do you think?

Warm regards, -- T.seppelt (talk) 12:30, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi everybody! Thank you T.seppelt for your help and for asking us about our opinions; in my personal view, the inclusion of "don't know/undecided" could create some confusion; so I think that we should use the data in the column "Only Yes/No Vote". Anyway this is only my personal view, let's wait for other users' opinions (Checco, CorradoMor and others). -- Nick.mon (talk) 12:48, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you need the sample size of the polls you can also find it here under the voice "Campione"; or maybe I will include them also in this article. -- Nick.mon (talk) 12:55, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think that would be great. As for the "don't know/undecided" option, I would include it if possible, but do as you deem appropriate. Perhaps, it might be the case to include the polls conducted after the final approval of the constitutional bill. CorradoMor (talk) 17:26, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Great idea to have a graph. However, I prefer this format over the one proposed by Nick.mon, while I agree with him that the data in the "Yes/No vote" column should be included. Differently from CorradoMor, I would also include the surveys conducted before the final approval. --Checco (talk) 06:31, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Checco: what do you exactly mean when preferring the other format? What I'm for example missing there are readable legends and axis labels. Everything is too small and sticking together. Especially when you only see a thumbnail. -- T.seppelt (talk) 10:56, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have no preferences between the two graphs that you have proposed, but I noticed that in most of referendums' graphs is used the format proposed by T.seppelt, so I think that we could use it. Anyway both graphs are far better than the one current in use. -- Nick.mon (talk) 08:04, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I like it better from each and every point of view, but especially the lines. --Checco (talk) 10:41, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

T.Seppelt, you can use the graph style that you prefer more; it will be absolutley better than the current one. -- Nick.mon (talk) 12:21, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Checco, T.seppelt and Impru20, how are you? Could any of you create a real graph concerning this referendum? -- Nick.mon (talk) 08:06, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Nick.mon: I'll do it, but I'm waiting for Impru20 to send me the script s/he used to create File:OpinionPollingItalyGeneralElection2018.png. -- T.seppelt (talk) 07:33, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much T.seppelt! -- Nick.mon (talk) 08:02, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Endorsements from international figures

The US Ambassador to Italy and the spokesperson of German Chancellor Angela Merkel have both made statements on the referendum (in favour of the proposed constitutional reforms). Should they be included in the 'Campaign positions' section? Daydreamers (talk) 15:39, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I think that we could insert them. Maybe creating a page only for the endorsments, as for other elections and referendums. -- Nick.mon (talk) 15:44, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism

The section on reaction lists various parties rejecting the bill or declaring it badly written, but the article is seriously lacking in specific criticism of the proposal, as in what precisely causes various parties to reject it. --91.67.92.35 (talk) 09:44, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to address this issue by expanding the "Reaction" section. The points I listed are taken straight from the "Appello dei costituzionalisti", they are not original research. Loudo89 (talk) 21:22, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Advocacy groups

I propose Just a Yes and I Vote No be merged here; the article is not overly large, and some of the material in the advocacy group Wikipedia pages point to the proponents rather than the referendum, itself. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:58, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support this. Number 5 7 17:04, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Second. — Futur3g4ry (talk) 19:23, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support. —Wiki Wikardo 06:10, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - If we think about the Scottish Referendum in 2014 or the Brexit Referendum, they had seperate pages for the advocacy groups. Britain Stronger in Europe, Vote Leave, Better Together & Yes Scotland etc. Why should this be any different? — Thunderstorm008 (talk) 20:03, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support. These are one-off groups that are unlikely to be relevant in the future. Also, are we sure of the English-language translations of their names? It does not seem consolidated to me. --Dans (talk) 21:34, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support. —Banchayehu (talk) 10:00, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Thunderstorm008. --Checco (talk) 11:14, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. --Seneca Quayle (talk) 07:19, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Closing, given no consensus and a stale (no discussion for 18 months). Klbrain (talk) 21:29, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

4.128.497 people with Italian ancestors are allowed to vote

That's 7 per cent of all eligible voters. (source: spiegel.de) Maybe they will 'tip the scales'

(btw Renzi has a website aiming at the 'abroad italians' : http://www.bastaunsi.it/ ) --Neun-x (talk) 20:24, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, are you suggesting any edit to the article? There has actually been a lot of talk in Italian media about the vote of Italians resident abroad, but that had mainly to do with the different way they vote (postal voting is not otherwise allowed in Italy).

Something that should be done is include the votes cast by Italians abroad. So far we have a map and a table with votes per Region, but none of them includes votes from abroad, which are probably going to weigh more than, say, the votes in the Aosta Valley. Loudo89 (talk) 09:21, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of political parties

A user called Braganza has recently been editing the article to add the positions of many political parties regarding the referendum. I think we need to discuss some criteria for inclusion.

We cannot list every single political party in Italy. There are hundreds of them and the vast majority of them are fringe parties that gather zero point percent of the votes and have little to no representation in Italian institutions. Including all political parties is against WP:Undue weight; submerges the position of the real main political parties among a myriad of minor ones; and makes that section of the article borderline unreadable.

I went ahead and limited the political parties listed here according to the criteria that were previously used in this article. This only a starting point, if someone wants to suggest different broader criteria they can do so, but we need some criteria. We can't simply list everything as if everything carried the same weight. There is a separate article that deals specifically with endorsement to this referendum, where we can go in more detail, without overloading the main article. Loudo89 (talk) 18:07, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I preferred the longer list. In Italy a lot of parties are smaller and it's important. This smaller list makes it seem like a Left vs Right issue, because many of the No parties on the left are smaller.Paolorausch (talk) 07:33, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What is the name of the site? Braganza (talk) 19:20, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but I don't understand your question. What site? If you mean the link I provided, it's just another wikipedia page. I'm not posting it as an authoritative reference, just as an example of objective criteria that were used in another article on wikipedia. Loudo89 (talk) 10:51, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Results - Live Updates

Could someone update the results live please? I prefer wikipedia compared to "traditional media" because mostly different people work together and bring in results with (usually) more credible links. And I speak no italian so I can not use the italian websites. I read that the last election area will close at 23:00 today so I hope that after that, this can be updated here. Thanks! 2A02:8388:1600:C80:C2CB:EF37:AE16:EB13 (talk) 18:33, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Live results in this link Sokuya (talk) 22:24, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest someone add the Overseas Italian vote! (Just as one region "Italians Abroad") http://www.repubblica.it/static/speciale/2016/referendum/costituzionale/estero.html Paolorausch (talk) 07:34, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Results tables – order of columns

Loudo89 and I have been having a discussion about the best way to display the regional result. Loudo is of the opinion that the electorate should be the first column after the list of regions as the number of registered voters is the most important set of figures in the table (Loudo, apologies if this is not what you meant, but it's what I have interpreted from the discussion on my talk page). I am of the opinion that the column order should reflect that of the main results table, i.e. starting with yes and no votes, with the electorate at the end. Any further input to help decide this matter would be appreciated. Cheers, Number 5 7 17:42, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, my argument is that when we display the votes by Regions, we are simply choosing an arbitrary division of Italy as long as this referendum is concerned. For example, we could have chosen to display data relative to macroregions, or even non-territorially defined categories (for example, voting by age).

Since all these categories are just arbitrary divisions of the vote, I think the most important thing we need to do in the table is first to define what those categories actually represent in term of share of the electorate/vote. The proportion of Yes/No votes in a particular Region has no bearing on the result of the referendum per se, so listing that as the first thing is awkward: we are not talking about first-past-the-post constituencies. In fact, it's even more awkward to have specifically the Yes vote as the first listed thing right next to each Region, since that gives it an unbalanced prominence in my humble opinion. If not the electorate, at the very least we should have total votes first, before we start taking account of the split.

Again, I repeat my observation that the method I suggest is what is used in other pages dealing with similar votes, such as the Brexit referendum.

I don't want to sound presumptuous, Number 57 so I hope you don't take this the wrong way, but you have yet to make an argument for your case. So far, your objections have been that your way of implementing the table is more consistent with the way the national result is presented (and I have already explained why I think this discrepancy is warranted) and more consistent with other pages dealing with the same kind of voting (and assuming that is relevant, you haven't really provided any example). Loudo89 (talk) 18:12, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My argument is simply that (in my opinion at least) the logical order of the table is votes for each choice, followed by the electorate. Yes, some other articles have the electorate first, but as you so eloquently state here, the fact that something is done somewhere else (in this case in the Brexit referendum article) apparently isn't a valid argument, otherwise improvement would be impossible :P

For those interested in a comparison, this is what the results look like with the electorate first, and this with yes/no votes first. Number 5 7 18:55, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Number 57, I absolutely agree that what was done in other articles is not a valid point. The only reason I mentioned it is because one of your arguments in your talk page was that this is how it's done in other articles.

I respect that you believe your method is the logical one, but you haven't exactly explained why, so it is very difficult for me to engage in a discussion with you. As you brilliantly stated in your user page, I would really hate if this (trivial) difference of opinions was resolved by "false consensus built up by a small groups of editors", instead of by real arguments.

Aside from everything I stated above (which is my main argument), electorate --> turnout --> vote split seems more logical to me, and I explained why: each element is a subgroup of the previous one. You have the registered voters, turnout which is a portion of those, and Yes/No votes which are a portion of that. A valid alternative, if you really dislike having electorate first, would be total votes --> turnout --> Yes/No votes. Loudo89 (talk) 19:36, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The logic for me comes from the main results table, in which we present votes for each choice first, and then the electorate and turnout at the end. It therefore makes sense to me to follow this order in the results by region, albeit that we read across rather than down. Let's wait and see what other editors think. Cheers, Number 5 7 19:41, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That again has to do with consistency, rather than logic. But again, I have already addressed that point: this is a referendum in which the outcome is determined by which one of two sides gets the majority of the votes. Turnout and electorate have no influence on the result, they are merely interesting as statistical/political data. It is therefore logical for the share of Yes/No votes to be the first point of interest about the referendum result.

But Regions are just arbitrary group of voters (in this particular context). The first thing we need to know about them is their "definition", what they represent. Loudo89 (talk) 20:47, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have made your point, but I'm afraid I still disagree. I don't have anything else to add beyond what I have already stated, so I will wait for other editors to give their thoughts. Number 5 7 20:53, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, to be fair, you haven't exactly waited... You have already implemented your changes, despite me having voiced my opposing view twice before you had edited the regional table. Anywho, let's wait... Loudo89 (talk) 23:49, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid votes abroad

The invalid votes abroad got a very big percentage (average 9.56%, while 13.56% in North America and some country more than 20%). That is actually about 17 times higher than the national invalid votes in Italy (only 0.58%). I think it's an interesting data: can we insert it somewhere? --Holapaco77 (talk) 11:28, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it should probably be added to the tables. Add a column for "Invalid votes" and then "Total votes" after the "No" votes column. Number 5 7 12:08, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done--Holapaco77 (talk) 17:20, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Holapaco77 Thank you for your contribution, would you have the time to add that data to the regional table as well? Loudo89 (talk) 17:36, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if could be interesting to add also the invalid votes in regional table too (since it's just a zero.something; while on abroad votes it's a big %). Btw I added also a map of abroad votes. Please, notice that Antarctica is missing on the map: there were some voters there and their ballot papers were collected together with New Zeland (I already asked the author to upgrade the map). --Holapaco77 (talk) 18:09, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. Could you maybe add a map description that says what exactly the colors represent, considering the legend is in German? I get the general idea, but it would be useful to have an exact description. Loudo89 (talk) 10:11, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Italian constitutional referendum, 2016. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161018222401/http://www.pes.eu/pes_declares_support_to_the_italian_referendum_campaign_basta_un_s to http://www.pes.eu/pes_declares_support_to_the_italian_referendum_campaign_basta_un_s

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:21, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New map

@Erinthecute: Hi Erin, when you have time could you also change the color palette and/or the legend for the map in the infobox here? Thanks! --Ritchie92 (talk) 14:54, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]