Talk:2024 European Parliament election in Italy
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Polls
[edit]@Sijei89: could you move some of the polls here Braganza (talk) 16:26, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Basque mapping: could you add some polls from Opinion polling for the next Italian general election here Braganza (talk) 11:35, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Braganza Yes, of course. Do you mean only the ones that clearly state that are for the European election? Basque mapping (talk) 15:19, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
- yes these Braganza (talk) 15:23, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Braganza Ok, the problem I see is that many of the polls in the current table do not indicate they are European (eg SWG, Ixé...) and the other question to resolve is if the European polls should be included in the general election article. Basque mapping (talk) 15:58, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
- I am not asking for a removal of the EP polls from "Opinion polling for the next Italian general election", i only want that the polls which explicitly for the EP election are copied and placed here, like it was done for previous European elections Braganza (talk) 16:04, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
- Agree with User:Braganza. --Checco (talk) 05:52, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- I am not asking for a removal of the EP polls from "Opinion polling for the next Italian general election", i only want that the polls which explicitly for the EP election are copied and placed here, like it was done for previous European elections Braganza (talk) 16:04, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Braganza Ok, the problem I see is that many of the polls in the current table do not indicate they are European (eg SWG, Ixé...) and the other question to resolve is if the European polls should be included in the general election article. Basque mapping (talk) 15:58, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
- yes these Braganza (talk) 15:23, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Braganza Yes, of course. Do you mean only the ones that clearly state that are for the European election? Basque mapping (talk) 15:19, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
Accuracy of Qatargate and Fidanza's topics
[edit]Dear @Checco, I saw you contested the section about Carlo Fidanza, and Qatargate as well (briefly mentioned in the notes of the outgoing MEPs), stating that they "are not relevant to this article".
Firstly, I'd like to see why you contested the accuracy of the section in the first place. I honestly think that there are enough references to prove the accuracy of the section (and I think that the section I wrote was bipartisan enough, but I may be wrong), but if there are out there more reliable sources I'd be glad to see them. We can all fail to cover the topic and miss something.
Secondly, I don't understand why the section should be not relevant to the European election. Fidanza was the head of the delegation of the Brothers of Italy for the European Parliament back in 2021, when all of those things happened.
As for Qatargate (which I didn't expand further with its own section as a lack of time), I think it should be mentioned in this page as well. They both involved an italian MEP, they both had been debated in Italy for the things they did. I'd have added a section for the Russiagate as well, but as I mentioned before, it takes a lot of time for me to write a section, I hope you can understand me. I'll be waiting for your remarks, hoping to improve the quality of the article. Best regards Broncoviz 🗩 🖉 08:29, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
- The investigations on Fidanza are totally unrelevant to this article and should be a matter only in the article on the politician. The infos are certainly sourced, but they are not relevant. Consistency and scope are important. Otherwise, anyone could add sourced infos on just about everything in each and every article. Surely, Qatargate is more relevant than the issues related to Fidanza, but still the scandal involved only one Italian MEP. However, I am totally against "controversies" sections, as well as adding infos on individual MEPs. Several MEPs have had issues and, if we were to add all of them, the article would be bloated at best. The "background" section especially should contain only general, historical and context infos on the parties and the run-up of the election. --Checco (talk) 06:04, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
- Hi! I follow Italian politics but not that closely/consistently and I'm not Italian, so I may not realize how this all materialized in the political life exactly and how big or small of an impact it had. But from what I see, I don't see why it shouldn't be included and why it's not relevant for the article. I'm talking generally about events like this. It informs about a scandal/inquiry and something that had influence on the political life at the time and it caused a lot of reactions. These politicians are subject to scrutiny and voters care about their MEPs not doing wrong, shady, illegal things. It influences the elections. This is the head of the delegation of the biggest party in the country, currently governing. A lot of other people were involved too. Another MEP, local councilors, Georgia Meloni, Public Prosecutors... This is what the Background section is for, you get to read about events that made an impact on the topic of the article, it gives background to what the stakeholders and people involved were up to (lately, before the election in this case) but does not fall into the campaign. The section is sourced and well written, it should stay. You're free to add info on other things if you think it's relevant, if it the article ends up being bloated, that can be fixed, shortening/summarizing. I don't see the problem. To question "Controversies" sections in general seems weird to me. You mentioned context - this is an example of reporting the important context that definitely should be provided (in a NPOV of course) and not just technicalities. CroatiaElects (talk) 14:16, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
- Respectfully, I disagree: to add unrelevant, selective and deceptive infos on individual candidates is not useful to the article and, if we were to do it for each and every candidate, the article would be endless. What is worse is the arbitrarity/selectiveness of those infos. Why Fidanz and not other candidates? Really, we could have an endless "background" section. Moreover, Fidanza was basically acquitted, the hypotetical scandal had to do with the 2021 Milan municipal election not the 2024 EP election, and the case is quite less relevant than Qatargate and other issues. And, before anyone proposes it, I am also against adding the investigations currently involving the Democratic Party in Apulia as Bari mayor Decaro is a candidate for the EP. --Checco (talk) 05:48, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
- Honestly I think at least Qatargate should be mentioned, because the event had international echo and involved more than just one italian MEP, and Russiagate as well. Both of those events had an impact on italian politics, and that's the reason I created the section about Fidanza in the first place. I think it would be useful if there were some guidelines to what should we add in the Background section and what not. And I think we can move the section about Fidanza in his page, it's reasonable to be there, perhaps. Broncoviz 🗩 🖉 17:23, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
- I could agree on having short references to Qatargate and Russiagate, while I oppose any reference to the issues regarding individual MEPs or candidates, as Fidanza and Decaro. --Checco (talk) 05:51, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- Alright for me. But maybe I failed to explain myself properly before by saying that the Fidanza's investigations should go in his personal page instead of this one Broncoviz 🗩 🖉 13:48, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- I could agree on having short references to Qatargate and Russiagate, while I oppose any reference to the issues regarding individual MEPs or candidates, as Fidanza and Decaro. --Checco (talk) 05:51, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- Honestly I think at least Qatargate should be mentioned, because the event had international echo and involved more than just one italian MEP, and Russiagate as well. Both of those events had an impact on italian politics, and that's the reason I created the section about Fidanza in the first place. I think it would be useful if there were some guidelines to what should we add in the Background section and what not. And I think we can move the section about Fidanza in his page, it's reasonable to be there, perhaps. Broncoviz 🗩 🖉 17:23, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
- Respectfully, I disagree: to add unrelevant, selective and deceptive infos on individual candidates is not useful to the article and, if we were to do it for each and every candidate, the article would be endless. What is worse is the arbitrarity/selectiveness of those infos. Why Fidanz and not other candidates? Really, we could have an endless "background" section. Moreover, Fidanza was basically acquitted, the hypotetical scandal had to do with the 2021 Milan municipal election not the 2024 EP election, and the case is quite less relevant than Qatargate and other issues. And, before anyone proposes it, I am also against adding the investigations currently involving the Democratic Party in Apulia as Bari mayor Decaro is a candidate for the EP. --Checco (talk) 05:48, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
- Hi! I follow Italian politics but not that closely/consistently and I'm not Italian, so I may not realize how this all materialized in the political life exactly and how big or small of an impact it had. But from what I see, I don't see why it shouldn't be included and why it's not relevant for the article. I'm talking generally about events like this. It informs about a scandal/inquiry and something that had influence on the political life at the time and it caused a lot of reactions. These politicians are subject to scrutiny and voters care about their MEPs not doing wrong, shady, illegal things. It influences the elections. This is the head of the delegation of the biggest party in the country, currently governing. A lot of other people were involved too. Another MEP, local councilors, Georgia Meloni, Public Prosecutors... This is what the Background section is for, you get to read about events that made an impact on the topic of the article, it gives background to what the stakeholders and people involved were up to (lately, before the election in this case) but does not fall into the campaign. The section is sourced and well written, it should stay. You're free to add info on other things if you think it's relevant, if it the article ends up being bloated, that can be fixed, shortening/summarizing. I don't see the problem. To question "Controversies" sections in general seems weird to me. You mentioned context - this is an example of reporting the important context that definitely should be provided (in a NPOV of course) and not just technicalities. CroatiaElects (talk) 14:16, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
Background
[edit]I guess it can be added something about Domenico Lucano#Locri trial and Draft:Ilaria Salis. Holapaco77 (talk) 07:42, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- Salis maybe, Lucano and Fidanza certainly not because their legal issues have nothing to do with background and campaign of this election. --Checco (talk) 06:18, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
Images
[edit]Why are we using the current images? They are old and ugly, the ones I inserted were better VosleCap (talk) 13:29, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- Personally I don't agree, I think that the images already present in the infobox are better than the ones you proposed. In any case, in the event of disputes, it is the previous version that must be maintained until a new agreement is reached.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 20:13, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- Instead, I think that an image that should be updated is the collage with the photos of Bonelli and Fratoianni, as the current ones are dated.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 20:16, 11 June 2024 (UTC)