Description of the label must be short and serve only to disambiguate. They do not need to contain every details of the items (for example on Q352 we don’t say in the description that he was also a Q4991371 or Q1028181, because they are not useful for disambiguate and he is not notable for his military service or his painting. The description of the person on en.wiki is a good guide because typically many more people contributed to it and there is a stronger consensus on what are the main profession to cite.
Topic on User talk:Ogoorcs
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
For a politician, being a criminal and having being condemned many times for serious crimes is not a detail, but an essential component of his description. En.wiki is not updated about the result of the procedings as it.wiki, so doen't explicitly states its criminal status in the first line, so it is not a good guide at all in this case, since it lacks of completeness, while it.wiki presentation is so full of bias that does not even mention its media tycoon status. I think my edit is actuallythe most complete and bias free until now. The need for shortness and disambiguation does not have to obstruct informativeness. Also, for a head of state being a criminal is an attribute that can't in any way be related to being a painter.
In the italian definition there is "imprenditore" instead of "media tycoon". Berlusconi was (or is) active also in edilizia owns (or owned) also construction enterprises and department stores, so the more generic "imprenditore" is more precise.
Your arguments are fallacious and they even contain wrong information.
Description of the label must be short and serve only to disambiguate.
Descriptions first of all describe, then do whatever they're supposed to do, otherwise we would call them identifiers and we already have lots of them; other than this simple consideration on the meaning of words, Wikidata help explicitly says: a description describes and disambiguates a label using information that is free of controversy and bias. Further, if one would use your point of view, Silvio Berlusconi (Q11860) would not even need a description, being the only item on Wikidata having said label.
They do not need to contain every details of the items
which implies you think that field of work (P101): criminal (Q2159907) is a detail, not a statement notable as his main occupations and in fact you dare to compare his being a criminal to having been a soldier or a painter, statement that are not even reported on his page. I make you notice how you didn't provide any reason for what you say to be true.
On the contrary, this is why what you sustain is wrong: serious crimes and irregularities match most of his activities. In particular he was condemned in his role of businessman (when condemned for tax fraud (Q3806932) and accounting fraud (Q4842931)), as a politician (when condemned for corruption (Q366)) and as an individual (embezzlement (Q157833)). This indeed proves that his criminal status can't be a detail because he was proved it committed crimes many times in the exercise of both the ones you consider his main occupations. A bias free description can't omit an attribute distinctive and common to many of the subject activities.
Another argument one could oppose to the actual description is that his being a politician or a businessman is utterly outshined by having been an head of state or worse an head of state proved to be a criminal. You can go see the descriptions of the other members of this class.
In the italian definition there is "imprenditore" instead of "media tycoon". Berlusconi was (or is) active also in edilizia owns (or owned) also construction enterprises and department stores, so the more generic "imprenditore" is more precise
Encompassing many statements with a single phrase is not being precise, or we would describe any entity with an unique label only as "human". It seems to me that you confuse Precision and recall (Q2359161) in what you consider important in a description.
If you don't have any other argument or again you won't reply to mine, I'll redo the edits and copy this conversation on element discussion page and eventually project board.
Regarding the example Aldof Hiltr is listed as politician, soldier, painter, politica writer, revolutionary, statesman, author and antisemite. As you said definition do not need to contain every details, so the content of the description must be decided by consensus. Your opinion on the importance of the criminal record of Silvio Berlusconi is your personal opinion, not confirmed in in the incipit of any other major wiki (If this is true that they are "incomplete" or "full of bias", should be simple to change them by consensus) and you were already reverted by at least two other people.
I did not say that definition do not need to contain every details of the items, I italicized the parts of your message I was replying to...
My argument was about to prove that being a criminal is not a detail in describing his career, providing a sound argument to it (the fact that he committed many serious crimes many times and during all his main occupations); I invite you to do the same and not simply to state that his criminal record is important because I say so. Also, your argument about consensus to be found on the wikis doesn't work, since "major wikis" don't even explictly say that he's a criminal even if it's proved true, the reason being their bias.
PS: Hitler is not even listed as a criminal. Using the fact that negative aspects of Hitler conduct are not formalized in Wikidata to say that the criminal record of a public figure is not important is very unwise and imprudent.
PPS: my edit has been considered vandalism and refused to be discussed until now. Anyway this is not the first time this kind of behaviour happened these days with people from *pedias, although thankfully has been resolved without many troubles.
Previous version of the same line: "Instead of trying to defend Berlusconi reputation using the fact that negative aspects of Hitler conduct are not present on Wikidata, go correct them, you fool."
IMHO the reason is simple that Berlusconi is considered notable for is activity as businessman and politician, not for his judicial history as it was convicted only one time. PS: I ask you to edit the "you fool" phrase above as is a personal attack.
Notability depends on the audience. Relevance depends on data. If something is not explicitly stated on Wikipedia could be because the present editors don't find notable. If something is listed on Wikidata, it is because it is true according to a reference.
It's tough to believe that we're still discussing about this when you don't even know the facts. Berlusconi has been convicted over seven times: for corruption (Q366), two times for accounting fraud (Q41799931), illegal party financing (Q41799824), perjury (Q3738755), tax fraud (Q3806932). Check the references.
And what difference there is between audience on it.wiki, en.wiki or other main wikis and wikidata? the senteces you cited are listed also on the wikis (there is also a article specifically for the judicial history of Berlusconi: Procedimenti giudiziari a carico di Silvio Berlusconi), and the editors there dont find sufficiently notable to give to Berlusconi the category of "criminale".
Regarding the senteces you are listing also sentences that where not passato in giudicato. Before citing a sentence check also that is a final judgment and is no longer subject to appeal or it can change
And what difference there is between audience on it.wiki, en.wiki or other main wikis and wikidata?
You're kidding me, right? You write on Wikipedia from 2005 and you want me to believe that you never noticed that what is notable on one Wikipedia could not be notable on another? Of course this is normal because the people that get to decide what is notable on Italian Wikipedia for example are usually not the same that decide what is it on English Wikipedia and viceversa (or you also believe that every wikipedian write on every Wikipedia and Wikidata?).
You want an example? Alejandro Betancourt López (Q15814164) is the chief executive officer (Q484876) of Derwick Associates (Q5263368), he did an operation worth 290 million of dollars in 2015 that made him director (Q1162163) of Pacific Exploration & Production (Q7122670); certainly he's not as much as notable as the owner of Panucci's Pizza;
he's got pages here on Wikidata, on en.wiki and es.wiki, but not on it.wiki, because well, maybe some users are more equal than others.
the senteces you cited are listed also on the wikis (there is also a article specifically for the judicial history of Berlusconi: Procedimenti giudiziari a carico di Silvio Berlusconi), and the editors there dont find sufficiently notable to give to Berlusconi the category of "criminale".
I know that these sentences are listed on a dedicated page on it.wiki, (it is in the references I attached to the convicted of (P1399) statements) but I did not find any recent discussion in which a large group of editors on it.wiki or en.wiki talk exhaustively on the matter of whether a person who was found guilty of all the crimes listed above is or not a criminal.
All the sentences I listed are definitive, meaning that they're from the Court of Cassation (Q1135541) or when not from it they are the last sentences emitted about Berlusconi in that particular trial, meaning that when the court said it was guilty, he did not appeal if there was no penalty. So it is true that those sentences are final. Please, read the references.
EDIT: If in a trial about the assassination of the King, it is proved by the court that I poisoned a well but after some time the real murderer is found, I don't receive any penalty and no trial starts about my poisoning, it remains true that I am a well poisoner.
EDIT2: Another good indicator of why it is of much relevance and very informative to say when a politician is also a criminal: 12% of criminals recorded on Wikidata are politicians.
You're kidding me, right? ...
No I'm not kidding. There is a quantitative and qualitative difference between the long and numerous discussion about the Silvio Berlusoni page on it.wiki and a single discussion between only two user. (About Alejandro Betancourt Lopez, whats the point of the example ? maybe no one is/was interested in writing a page about it)
I know that these sentences are listed on a dedicated page on it.wiki, (it is in the references I attached to the convicted of (P1399) statements) but I did not find any recent discussion in which a large group of editors on it.wiki or en.wiki talk exhaustively on the matter of whether a person who was found guilty of all the crimes listed above is or not a criminal.
Probably there are no new elements to open again the discussion about the incipit.
EDIT: If in a trial about the assassination of the King, it is proved by the court that I poisoned a well but after some time the real murderer is found, I don't receive any penalty and no trial starts about my poisoning, it remains true that I am a well poisoner.
This is true if you have source that say explicitly the name of the real murderer. If you are interpreting the source this is an original research (for example your source for corruption (Q366) is but it say that Berlusoni is aquitted
There is a quantitative and qualitative difference between the long and numerous discussion about the Silvio Berlusoni page on it.wiki and a single discussion between only two user
Wikipedia and Wikidata are different projects. Maybe Wikipedia doesn't state that Berlusconi is a criminal because through consensus has been decided that it is not relevant enough to say it explicitly, but Wikidata has to do it because the data about him say so. On Wikipedia consensus can impose that crimes are not relevant in describing a politician, on Wikidata available data shows that crime and politics are related in a way that becomes relevant to discriminate in descriptions. If it was not relevant, only 0.1% of criminals were politicians, not 12%.
About Alejandro Betancourt Lopez, whats the point of the example ? maybe no one is/was interested in writing a page about it
How can I discuss with someone that doesn't read the reference I provide? The page about Betancourt was already writtn. It was then been deleted by an authorized user without reaching consensus with the motivation that Betancourt was not notable.
Probably there are no new elements to open again the discussion about the incipit.
My edit is the new element to open the discussion (not on *pedias, god save me).
If you are interpreting the source this is an original research (for example your source for corruption (Q366) says that Berlusoni is aquitted
That's my mistake. The other references says "Il 25 febbraio 2010 la corte di cassazione ha dichiarato prescritto il reato di Mills ritenendo però "verificata la sussistenza degli estremi del reato di corruzione in atti giudiziari" e condannando Mills al pagamento del risarcimento di 250 000 euro per danno all'immagine dello Stato e 10 000 euro per le spese processuali." I thought that when referring to the proof of the existence of the crime, it referred to the first crime Mills was accused, the one which included Berlusconi.