Talk:Camillo Benso, conte di Cavour

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article has been nominated for good article reassessment to determine whether or not it meets the good article criteria and so can be listed as a good article. Please add comments to the article reassessment page.
Good article Camillo Benso, conte di Cavour has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
April 14, 2007 Good article nominee Listed
Did You Know An entry from Camillo Benso, conte di Cavour appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 27 September 2006.
Wikipedia
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.
Camillo Benso, conte di Cavour is within the scope of WikiProject Italy, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Italy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.

who was camillo di cavour?

I'm Giulia from Italy. I take away the sentence the architect of Italian Constitution because Cavour played no role in the redaction and promulgation of Statuto Albertino (constitution of Piemonte which became the supreme law of the whole Italy after the unification).... nor of course in the redaction of the Constitution of Italian Republic, promulgated after the II world war!

I second this. Cavour was not the architect of Italian Constitution. Following the 1848 revolutions in the country, the statuto was the only form of a constitution that remained in place. Cavour did not orchestrate the statuto, but heavily exploited it for his own political aims. Cavour's efforts to extend Piedmontese influence made Unity possible. Barten calls him "the prime architect of Italian Unification".

How deeply Cavour is detested by Italian localists. --Wetman 20:16, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Article name

Normally, Wikipedia articles don't include titles (in this case, "Count ... di Cavour," or "conte di Cavour" in Italian); is there a particular reason why this article isn't simply at Camillo Benso? I haven't asked for a requested move because I could be ignorant of something. --LostLeviathan 00:41, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

because its funny :D sounds almost like a flander :DD --84.47.6.215 10:16, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Cavour is his widely used name in Italy. If you google his name, Cavour is about 2 000 000 hits and "Camillo Benso" is about 60 000 instead. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Evil otto (talk • contribs) .

Cavour is also the name by which he's universally known in English and removing it from the article title would obviously be ridiculous. There would be a case for removing "Count", though. Binabik80 14:17, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Or spelling it "Count Cavour". JCScaliger 20:07, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Why would someone who has never heard of Cavour have any opinion about how he should be listed, one way or the other? --Wetman 20:16, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Early Life

Could we get some information about Cavour's early life? His birthplace, etc. go to google.com


[edit] "Risorgimento": it it politically incorrect now?

The name appears only as the title of the newspaper. Why is the expression "the Risorgimento" so avoided at Wikipedia? Is this a populist political thing I'm unaware of?--Wetman 20:21, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't especially understand either, but I hadn't really found a part where I had to use the term yet while writing this article, (it's not complete yet, which is a bit embarassing when it's on the front page as a DYK), but perhaps because it's a fairly complicated term, and it doesn't have an article of its own to explain its meaning, and is instead a redirect to Italian unification. I don't think there's any offense to any group, unless Catholics still have a problem with its result in taking the Papacy away, which I highly doubt. -KingPenguin 20:37, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
You've got a good link to a brief vita there in the article, offering quite a balanced assessment. Cavour is often set up as antagonist to the deeply-loved but ppolitically naive Garibaldi and as antagonist to Pio Nono, pressed for sainthood by a certain segment. Punch-and-Judy history. With such foils, how could Cavour not be a monster? Besides he was an aristocrat with a French accent when speaking Italian, a man with a European cultural horizon. Very much to be resented indeed. His influence in forming the liberal Piedmontese constitution shouldn't remain suppressed. --Wetman 07:39, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cavour's intentions for Italy /Piedmont

Anyone agree with view that Cavour did not want unified Italy? Evidence that Cavour wrote to commander in Sicily after Garibaldi embarked to reliev the island from Naples, ordering the prevention by whatever means necessary of Garibaldi landing. Cavour seemingly feared united Italy, feared foreign reprisals is Piedmont took over est of Italy, for example if Piedmont took Rome, which they evetually were froced to, if Catholic powers such as France or Austria would intervene. Any discussion welcome. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gibbo7111 (talk • contribs) 14:03, 30 December 2006 (UTC).

Well yes, I think it's fairly clear that he was slow to accept Garibaldi's success, and originally was looking more for an independent Italian state than fully unified Italy, really focusing just on Austria, but certainly didn't despise the fact that Italy would be unified. It's probably best to say he wanted a united Italy, but was extremely cautious diplomatically, and was therefore did not believe that a united Italy was a realistic goal at the time, instead fighting for an independent north Italian state. -KingPenguin 16:15, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I see your point, yet usually diplomatic caution doesn't translate to open hostility, as so with Cavour. Yes he certainly was very cautious diplomatically, and was very careful to appease Napoleon III, yet at the same time he was very decisive and took chances. If he was cautious he would never had attempted to take the duchies when the war ended, not something discussed at Plombiers, something that might have led to French reprisals. Also, he only enbraced unification when he saw that Garibaldi was becoming too popular, he was undoubtedly jealous of Garibaldi and feared his influence on the people, hence why he played no major part in the war against Austria. The very fact that he marched the full Piedmontese army to meet, or prehaps more accurately stop Garibaldi, shows the fear that Cavour had that Garibaldi would simply keep his conquests for himself. If Cavour had always wanted unification he surely would have had no worries about Garibaldi's expedition, surely he would have embraced it as the completion of the 'job'. Garibaldi held the hearts and minds of the people, Cavour then realised the only way to safely defuse the situation was to make sure Garibaldi handed over his conquests to Victor Emmanuel, which was Garibaldi's probable objective, and unify the country. If he had not been forced to unify the country by the sucess of Garibaldi, it is very unlikely he would have considered that the south could ever come under his control. Also the considertion of the north-south divide in Italy, those in the northern nobility would have little to do with the south, and likewise in the Neapolitan controlled south. Response welcome. (Gibbo 7111)

[edit] lead

The lead needs to be expanded to comply with WP:LEAD. 70.104.16.217 16:19, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I've added a little bit, but am unsure about exactly how long it should be. If it deserves two or three paragraphs, then I'll attempt to rewrite it to mirror that. -KingPenguin 17:38, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
As you said, two or three paragraphs should be fine, considering the length of the article. 70.104.16.217 04:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA on hold

  • Do not link years by themselves such as 1827. However years with full dates such as April 4, 1860 should be linked -> April 4, 1860
  • After eventually being elected. Redundant "eventually"
  • Awkward wording - Case in point - He became so enamoured - Cavour never really favoured (his opinion? no need for "really")
  • without any more food than bread - > without any other food than bread
  • . [1] References come straight after punctuation -> .[1]
  • Camillo Benso di Cavour then spent his -> only refer to him as Cavour after the first sentence, which had been done to this point.
  • Could you perhaps add a reference for each paragraph? it will help improve verability and for possible FAC candincy
  • Please link stroke
  • Legacy is currently like a trivia section, list and unreferenced. Could this be merged with the above section, as it's quite short?

Other then that it's a pretty decent article, if you disagree with anything raised I'm open to discussion. M3tal H3ad 07:24, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I've fixed everything on your list except for the references for every paragraph, which will take me a little while longer but will get done. What is your opinion on where to put the legacy section sentences? I changed the sentences slightly and put them onto the end, and I'm not sure if I need a better closing sentence or not. -KingPenguin 15:06, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Ok, pass. M3tal H3ad 10:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)