Talk:Italy
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
|
This Countries related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information. |
| ||
|
| ||||
The recent BoN edit[edit]
I think it should be reverted, as it is in no way representative of "Italian justice". Objections? --I'm bored (talk) 20:29, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
- I have restored the section but changed the wording implying that these are typical occurrences in Italian courts.
ListenerXTalkerX 19:28, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
- I agree that getting rid of the section was the right thing to do. Maybe things about this should be worked into it, but that's just a slanderous botch job. You can't just claim Knox was innocent and that Italy courts were wrong, as though it's fact.
EXTERMINATE 19:31, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
- The current wording does not actually claim innocence, just notes some irregularities in the trial proceedings. ListenerXTalkerX 19:36, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I see the point of that section. It's neither on mission nor funny. --I'm bored (talk) 19:48, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
- It relates to the exploration of authoritarianism, particularly the second bullet point about the marriage annulment. Also, our articles are not required to be funny. ListenerXTalkerX 19:50, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
- Okay, it doesn't say she's innocent, but it does say (as though it's clear fact) that she was tried and prosecuted BECAUSE the prosecutor followed the conspiracy theory blog. My biggest problem is this: The English-speaking world only gets updated about the one or two weird and wacky trials that go wrong, make silly rulings or involve Americans. Let's be clear that for most of the users here, the 'thought police' and Amanda Knox trials are probably the ONLY two court rulings out of Italy we've heard about recently. If we judge their legal system solely based on two cases which the media followed, that's pretty blinkered and stupid. I bet that with a bit of research, we could find more than two equally ridiculous rulings from the UK and USA. While it isn't funny and may be off-mission, I'm distinctly not cool with having the nearly half of the article about Italy being made up of a scare-mongering, "Don't go to Italy!!11!!" section. EXTERMINATE 19:56, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
- Again, I removed everything that said these are typical examples of Italian justice. The second bullet point, at least, is worth keeping. ListenerXTalkerX 19:58, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
- I have rephrased the first bullet point to make clear that the Masonic conspiracy thing is not some original claim of ours. ListenerXTalkerX 20:06, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you. Sorry if I overreacted there, I just really dislike when we have articles about "X" which're actually, "Things which are shit about X rants." But yeah, sorry. EXTERMINATE 20:09, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
- I have rephrased the first bullet point to make clear that the Masonic conspiracy thing is not some original claim of ours.
- Again, I removed everything that said these are typical examples of Italian justice. The second bullet point, at least, is worth keeping.
- Okay, it doesn't say she's innocent, but it does say (as though it's clear fact) that she was tried and prosecuted BECAUSE the prosecutor followed the conspiracy theory blog. My biggest problem is this: The English-speaking world only gets updated about the one or two weird and wacky trials that go wrong, make silly rulings or involve Americans. Let's be clear that for most of the users here, the 'thought police' and Amanda Knox trials are probably the ONLY two court rulings out of Italy we've heard about recently. If we judge their legal system solely based on two cases which the media followed, that's pretty blinkered and stupid. I bet that with a bit of research, we could find more than two equally ridiculous rulings from the UK and USA. While it isn't funny and may be off-mission, I'm distinctly not cool with having the nearly half of the article about Italy being made up of a scare-mongering, "Don't go to Italy!!11!!" section.
- It relates to the exploration of authoritarianism, particularly the second bullet point about the marriage annulment. Also, our articles are not required to be funny.
- I'm not sure I see the point of that section. It's neither on mission nor funny. --I'm bored (talk) 19:48, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
- The current wording does not actually claim innocence, just notes some irregularities in the trial proceedings.
- I agree that getting rid of the section was the right thing to do. Maybe things about this should be worked into it, but that's just a slanderous botch job. You can't just claim Knox was innocent and that Italy courts were wrong, as though it's fact.
Funny edit[edit]
This edit contained quite a funny joke Kiko4564 (talk) 22:16, 8 August 2020 (UTC)