Talk:The People of Freedom/Archive 1

Form of party

As asked by Nightstallion what it seems to be the form of the new party, according to what newspapers write today. As of today, the idea of Berlusconi is to form a network party, in which different parties, associations, movements, groups and individuals may join, a little bit like UMP (in which some small parties are member of it without losing some of their autonomy) and the United States parties (open parties, which are loose coalitions of different groups, more similar to parties than to factions, regulated by the primary system and in which single groups tend to be very autonomous from each other when elections are far away). --Checco (talk) 14:36, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Mh, it's different from the US, though -- in the US, the two parties may be very loose ideologically, but they're certainly not "network parties" in the sense that other parties can be subsets of the party. —Nightstallion 20:27, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I consider the US parties as network parties, but anyway if you don't agree, we can decide not to mention the fact. I only observe that even today Berluconi said that he is studying the organization of the US political parties and how their primary system works. No problem, anyway. --Checco (talk) 20:44, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not contesting that he will be basing PPL on US parties -- I'm just fairly certain that UMP and EPP have a very different kind of "network party" structure than the Democrats or Republicans do. The current version is fine, though. Thanks! —Nightstallion 22:41, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Any news about the party?

According to the article the party should be launched 2 December 2007. Today it is the 3 December. Any news? --Oddeivind 13:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

AFAIK, it was announced yesterday, but not founded -- I'm waiting for Checco to confirm that. —Nightstallion 19:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

This time I don't know to help you. Yesterday there was a vote on the party's name, but no official results are known and the vote may continue. My sense is that the party will be officially founded in a constituent assembly between January and March, but probably we can use one of these dates (18 November or 2 December) as fundation date. --Checco 19:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

1842?

Quoth the article:

On 2 December 1842, during a big demonstration of the centre-right in Rome against the government of Romano Prodi, Silvio Berlusconi proposed..."

1842 is the wrong year, obviously. I'm not sure what it's supposed to be -- my guess would be 2007 but someone who knows for sure should change it. --Jfruh (talk) 17:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

2007. --Checco (talk) 17:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

please, check your sources!!!

Part of the "information" in the article about Popolo della Libertà is biased. No-one knows how exactly Berlusconi "counted" those 7 million vote against Prodi. The suggestions about the name of the new party - two - came both from Berlusconi himself. The very impressive information about the possible future votes PDL would get is very much thin air. As an EU citizen living born in Italy in Scandiavian I don't know if I should laugh at the rubbish or cry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.140.6.100 (talk) 13:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, you should use only direct sources, not second hand ones (e.g. note 1)

You should also check your informations before writing.

PDL is not a party, it is a list: according to the Italian law, different parties can join together in a unique list for the elections, and this list has its own symbol, even if the list isn't actually a party. It sounds odd, I'll make an example: party A and party B are 2 different parties, they have 2 different presidents, secretaries, headquarters, etc. they join together for the elections in a list called X. X is a list of candidates (according to Italian laws citizens vote for lists or parties, not for candidates) X has its own symbol candidates elected in list X are part of the same "parlamentary group", i.e. in paliament - only in parliamet - they belong to the same group (in case of speech, discussion, etc.); nevertheless they are members of different parties (somebody of party A, with president 1 - somebody else of party B, with president 2). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.31.152.141 (talk) 00:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

If you think that the article needs some rewrite, why don't you do it by yourself? In any case, some of the things you say are not completely true and, remember, we are writing an en.Wiki article, thus we use European categories not Italian ones. --Checco (talk) 07:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Liberalism and liberal conservatism

Someone has repeatedly taken away "liberalism" from the ideologies of the party in the infobox. As liberal conservatism does not comprise liberalism (it is simply a variety of conservatism, see liberal conservatism and conservative liberalism) and the People of Freedom has important liberal factions (which are 100% liberal and not conservative), I repeatedly re-inserted "liberalism". I hope that my argument is clear to all and we can concentrate on more important issues. Thank you! --Checco (talk) 16:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Dear Checco, if a party is "Liberal conservative" it is neither pure "liberal" nor pure "conservative". It is quite easy to understand. Moreover, the People of Freedom has also important fascist factions (which are 100% fascist and not conservative nor liberal), represented e.g. by Ciarrapico and Mussolini. If you want, we can add 'Fascism' to 'Liberal', 'Conservative' and 'Liberal-conservative'. I hope that my argument is clear to all and we can concentrate on more important issues. Thank you!

I'd agree with including liberalism in some form, but including fascism is also valid. —Nightstallion 17:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Valid? In what sense? Are you joking? Both Mussolini and Ciarrapico are not fascists and they are a very minority in the party, which is composed by a 25% of liberals (both classical and social liberals), 50% of christian democrats and 25% of (liberal) conservatives. Non problem in taking away "liberal conservatism", but to take away "liberalism" would be a big mistake. I do not understand the argument of the anonimous as there are no fascist factions in the party. Maybe two MPs out of 420 are neo-fascists, but what about the remaining 418? Even the Democratic Party and Italy of Values have some un-reformed communists within, but I wouldn't propose "communism" as one of their ideologies... --Checco (talk) 17:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, but then we should include something like "mainly Christian democratic, minority factions of liberals and conservatives". —Nightstallion 19:02, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but I can also observe that many christian democrats in the party are also liberals. I think that the current solution (similar to the one adopted for many parties, see Civic Platform or Union for a Popular Movement) is ok. --Checco (talk) 19:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Obviously what is important for me is first of all not to include "fascism" which would be not correct, non-sense and very POV. --Checco (talk) 19:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Dear Checco, can you please give some verifiable source of your statements, e.g. :"[People of Freedom] is composed by a 25% of liberals (both classical and social liberals), 50% of christian democrats and 25% of (liberal) conservatives"? Thank you very much,

People of Freedom is composed by Forza Italia and other small liberal, christian-democratic and social-democratic parties by its 70% and by National Alliance by its 30% (see http://blog.panorama.it/italia/2008/02/28/pdl-accordo-sulle-liste-ogni-10-parlamentari-3-saranno-di-an/). Probably the elected people of the first group will be 75% and those coming from AN 25%. You can notice the composition of Forza Italia by reading List of Forza Italia leading members by political origin. As you can notice there is vast majority of former Christian democrats, to which can be added other people as Bondi and Dell'Utri (see Forza Italia#Factions, for a total of 60% of Christian Democrats, but also a 40% of former Socialists, Liberals, Republicans, Social Democrats and Radicals: all these people can be considered liberal by European standards, although some are classical liberals, some conservative liberals and some others still social-democrats. The most important minor parties which joined PdL were christian-democratic: Liberal Populars and DCA. AN itself was composed mainly by liberal conservatives, but also by some christian democrats and liberals. I will give you more precise figures when the new Parliament will be in session. --Checco (talk) 08:18, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

National Alliance is a national-conservative party with strong liberal-conservative and christian-democratic influences. It proposes everything that is explained as "christian democracy" in Christian democracy, wants to join EPP and also in it.Wiki is characheterized also as a christian-democratic party. A Christian Democrat is a person who supports christian-democratic policies, not a former member of DC, a historical Italian party which included both national-conservatives (think about Gustavo Selva) and social-democrats (Rosy Bindi). So, what's the problem with it? Moreover National Alliance is composed of a 15% of former memebrs of DC and the People of Freedom is overwhelmingly composed of former members of DC (60% of FI, PL, DCA...). What's the problem? --Checco (talk) 10:44, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

If you insist in inserting "national conservatism", a minority faction, I would be obliged to insert "social democracy", the other (larger) minority faction. Would be a good compromise for you? I personally prefer to leave things as they are in order to represente the party as a whole: "christian democracy", "liberal conservatism" and, at some extent, "liberalism" are ideologies in common to all party members. I said "at some extent" for "liberalism" because, although Berlusconi characterize the party only as liberal, I think that "liberalism" is not the ideology of all party members. --Checco (talk) 10:52, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

As a user continues to insert "national conservatism" which is a minority faction of PdL, I will insert also "social democracy" which is a minority faction in the party too. What is happening is simply absurd. --Checco (talk) 19:32, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Dear anonymous user, please stop making changes to this article without listening to others' voices. Why don't you show up here in talk page? Do you like "Christian democracy, liberalism, liberal conservatism, national conservatism (minority faction) and social democracy (minority faction)" as a compromise. I do prefer the original version (with too many ideologies the party seems a bazar), but I am interested in compromise. Are you? --Checco (talk) 19:47, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Dear Checco, you are interested in compromise, but I am interested in truth. The 'Others' voices" is simply and only your own voice. The absurdity is in your own statements. From National Alliance: "National Alliance (Alleanza Nazionale, AN) is a national-conservative Italian political party." You state that about 30% of the PdL MP's come from National Alliance. It seems to me quite easy to understand. I begin to be fairly sure that you are severely biased.213.156.52.124 (talk) 19:52, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Even I am interested in truth, and the truth is that People of Freedom will be a chistian-democratic, liberal and liberal-conservative party with both national-conservative and social-democratic minority factions. As a long-time editor of Wikipedia, I prefer to use defintions of the party as a whole, but I am open to compromise. As there are no sources about the party's ideology we discuss to find the most correct solution. The solution you now oppose has been accepted for months.

It's curious that you cite an article I wrote as evidence of my bias. If I were biased, all the articles about Italian parties would be biased as I was the principal editor of all of them. Please stop offending me: I have a long record as respected editor of Wikipedia. I have no problems about discussing with you, but please don't impose your views as truth. --Checco (talk) 20:20, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Also in it.Wiki it was decided to to put "national conservatism" as one of the ideologies of PdL. At it:Discussione:Il Popolo della Libertà, all around the page, you can read many arguments against inserting "national conservatism". --Checco (talk) 20:36, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Dear Checco, I am forced to repeat my previous statement because you did not answer to it. From National Alliance: "National Alliance (Alleanza Nazionale, AN) is a national-conservative Italian political party." You state that about 30% of the PdL MP's come from National Alliance. It seems to me quite easy to understand that national conservatorism is not a minority faction of the PdL, but indeed a major one. Why this statement is so terribly wrong?213.156.52.124 (talk) 20:43, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

You are quoting a sentence written by me, so, if everything I do is biased, why not that one? About a 25% of elected MPs come from National Alliance, but many of them, as we acknowledged in it.Wiki, are liberal-conservatives and national-conservatives. This makes "national conservatism" as small faction in the new party, exactly as "social democracy" is. PdL is primarily a christian-democratic, liberal and liberal-conservative party, with national-conservative and social-conservative factions. My argument is that we should define the party as a whole and not by its several factions. Do you understand this or do I need to repeat it again and again? --Checco (talk) 20:49, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

First of all, it is 30% and not 25%. Then, you are supposing that national-conservative factions in FI and in the other small parties amount to 0%: indeed, national conservatives are present in FI too, and their numbers have to be summed to the ones of National Alliance.

In the end, the difference between my position and yours is simple: you appear to say that the in PdL the social-democratic faction is as large as the national-conservative one!! I prefer to adhere to the truth and to say that the national conservative faction is considerably bigger.

We'd better wait the installation of the new Parliament. Anyway, I observe that in the previous one, there were 40-50 MPs of Forza Italia with social-democratic roots, while, among the 113 MPs of AN, there were many liberal-conservatives (Fini himself, Matteoli, Urso...) and many christian-democrats (Ronchi, Mantovano, Bongiorno...) and more or less 40-50 truly national-conservative MPs (and some of these left to form The Right). The question is: what is national-conservatism? If you think about national-conservative principles, you would easily observe that on many issues AN was more liberal and to the left of FI or UDC! --Checco (talk) 21:34, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

"40-50 MPs of Forza Italia with social-democratic roots" Who are you talking about? Please give reasonable numbers. Moreover, roots do not mean much in politics: if yes, National Alliance should be regarded as a fascist party. For instance, Sandro Bondi was a communist, but in his present political behaviour there is nothing left of his past adherence to PCI.

By the way: Mantovano christian-democrat? The one who fought against the political asylum for the Kurdish leader Ocalan? Your european christian democracy is more and more puzzling for me...

I don't follow you... your arguments are getting obscure to me. Tell me what Christian democrats in Europe fought for Ocalan? Where is written that a Christian-democrat should do that? --Checco (talk) 21:50, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I think they should have written the main ideology as social liberalism and populism, and then describe the different factions. Lususromulus

PdL is neither social liberal nor populist... --Checco (talk) 08:28, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, it's unfair to define Popolo della Libertà's ideology as "liberal conservative". Indeed, his leader - Mr Silvio Berlusconi - "controls most of Italian private television [and] now that he is back in government, he will indirectly control state-run television too, giving him influence over some 90% of Italian TV" ("Mamma mia. The return of Silvio Berlusconi", The Economist, April 17th 2008). The idelogy of Popolo della Libertà is actually conservative, lest you change the world wide accepted meaning of the word 'liberalism': I'm sorry to say that using it as an adjective is not sufficient to change its meaning. -- Albero blu (talk) 11:00, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

New cabinet

This is more of a question. Does anyone know when will Berlusconi will assume office, and does anyone have a list of who his cabinet members are??? Like Minister of family, or minister of the interior? Any info would help! Galati (talk) 21:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)Galati

Berlusconi will assume office somewhere between 1 and 15 May. Only at that point you will know who the cabinet members will be. If you want to see a list of ministers of the current government, take a look to Prodi II Cabinet. --Checco (talk) 08:48, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Primary elections

Dear Checco, Wikipedia is not Checcopedia: the problem of sources is a problem of everybody who contributes to wikipedia, i.e. mainly yours. Your statement is absurd: primary elections all over the world are kept to elect candidates, not names.. your statement can induce people to think that primary elections were held to elect candidates, and during these elections the name was chosen. For your dignity's sake please edit your statement: I am sure that you will get your pay from PdL all the same. As a matter of fact, you work hard 24-7 to keep the italian politics' articles free of any word which would shed a bad light on your beloved politicians.. I am sure that you employers will understand that your efforts are beyond any human possibility, and that this time you simply overdid for sake of goodwill. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.205.66.86 (talk) 17:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

In what sense speaking of "primary election" is praising a party? There is a source, so I really don't understand what is your problem about. I work on all the articles about Italian political parties: does this mean that I'm paid by all Italian parties? I you have a better idea about how explaining what happened on 1-2 December, it's ok, but if you start writing false ans ureferenced claims about an online poll, that's another sort of thing. Please, stop offending me and help me in writing these articles, instead of vandalizing them. --Checco (talk) 17:20, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Moreover, I did not insert that statement, but I simply did not find anything better to explain what happened. --Checco (talk) 17:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, the reference for the online poll is there. Since you cannot understand, even if you assert of being a student in political sciences, i will say to you that speaking of "primary election" is praising a party because it makes people think that candidates are chosen by the people, and not by the same party as it happened in Italy (without possibility of expressing preferences, thank to the Calderoli's electoral law). However, speaking of 'primary elections' to choose a party name is simply uncorrect, no matter if it praises or if it insults PdL.

Probably the words you used in your first edit are ok. The second edit is false and I rollbacked it. I don't know how to explain you that there was an online poll, but it was not counted because a vote to be counted had to be from a person who decided at the same time to join the party by signing a form taken from what you called "petition desks" or from the Internet. This is a very differnt thing from the online poll. Do you understand now? --Checco (talk) 17:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The reference you are continously inserting is badly written, but at the end it cites the disclaimer of the online poll: i risultati riflettono le opinioni di coloro che hanno scelto di partecipare; pertanto non possono essere assunti come rappresentativi delle opinioni di tutti i naviganti né dell’insieme degli iscritti o dei simpatizzanti di Forza Italia. Indeed the online vote was only an opinion poll, like those in many newspapers' websites, and indeed it was not counted. --Checco (talk) 17:38, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, please give a reference for the fact that the poll was a joke and was not counted, and I will stop editing this page. If not, I will go on until some other peolpe will judge if it is you or me that is wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.205.66.86 (talk) 17:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The problem is yours. Every source (we have one in the article and that is fine), when speaking of the results, never mentions the online poll and also your source does not support your thesis. What can I do about it? The online poll was so unrelevant that no newspapaper cited it on 2 December, when the results of the poll were released. What I don't understand of you is why you are so happy in writing false things. --Checco (talk) 17:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Checco's absolutely right. —Nightstallion 18:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Dear Nightstallion, if you click on the image of my source (which is a snapshot of the Forza Italia web site) you can read: " PDL: sul sito di FI un gazebo on line per scegliere il nome due opzioni, Partito della libertà o Popolo della libertà ". I would like to remember that Panorama is a magazine owned by Berlusconi himself: this makes the source quite reliable! It is impossible to deny the fact that an online poll has been launched with the aim of selecting the name of PdL. Actually, Checco only says that the online poll was not relevant because (according to his own words), no newspaper cites it, but this is not a 'positive' source.

My proposal is the following: if Checco does not provide a positive source for his statement that the online votes were not counted, the article should stay as it is now. If Checco provides a source where there is reported the fact that the online votes were not counted, we can modify the article saying that an online poll was lauched to select the name (which is not deniable), but in the end the online votes were not counted (citing the source provided by Checco). I think that the name issue is rather relevant: as far as I know, the PdL is the only example of a political party which delegates to the people the choice of his name among two possibilities. Moreover, In Italy lots of people think that the name of the party was indeed chosen via the online poll: to spend some word on the issue is for sure not unrelevant. Checco's alternative (i.e., to remove any reference whatsoever to the online poll) would mean to eliminate an important piece of information about the origins of PdL and its approach to the web. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.205.66.86 (talk) 12:14, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

The article from Panorama is not clear, but anyway it doesn't state that the online poll was counted and the cited discalimer is an evidence of that. No source says that the online poll was contented and this is a fact: it was not counted. I wouldn't find probably a source that states that the moon is not green, but this doesn't mean that the moon is green! It is you who need to find evidence of your personal idea not us. --Checco (talk) 12:41, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Please, Checco, do not waste my time repeating the same thing over and over again. I am not paid by anybody to edit Wiki articles: I have to work to earn a living and it is not possible that each time that I want to cite a piece of truth in Wikipedia I have to lose hours and hours with you that repeat the same wrong things over and over, without dialoguing in a proper way. Your method of arguing over everything that you do not like is simply a really effective way to keep 'your' articles as they are, rejecting any contribution that you do not like on the basis of your own preferences.

Anyway, the source clearly states that an online poll was launched to select the name of PdL. The disclaimer "i risultati riflettono le opinioni di coloro che hanno scelto di partecipare" is obvious: every poll express the opinion of voters, either online or at a petition desk. It is NOT written that the opinions will not be counted!! Moreover, it is written in the source that " il Cavaliere lo aveva detto: “Saranno i cittadini a decidere”. Detto, fatto: chiunque può andare sul sito di Forza Italia e con un semplice clic (sono più di 4,5 mila, per ora) dare la propria preferenza. Stavolta, però, per prevenire le critiche sull’assenza dei controlli - che avevano messo qualche dubbio sull’autenticità delle firme di rivotiamo.it - le opzioni sono solo due e si può votare una sola volta: se si prova a farlo due volte dallo stesso computer, infatti, appare un messaggio: “Hai già votato, il tuo voto non verrà preso in considerazione”.

I cannot believe that you still deny that this source is clear!! This source IS clear, and it literally states that an online poll was launched to choose the name of PdL. Please stop insulting human intelligence with questioning the source. Even if the poll (as YOU say) was not counted, it is a matter of fact that the online poll was launched.

You would like to eliminate whatsoever reference to the online poll, and to remove it fron the realm of recorded things.. well, please go to the Orwell '1984' world and do it there. In this world, you cannot remove facts that do not suit your likes and dislikes. The online poll was launched: if you deny it you are completely unreliable. In my opinion, as already stated, the online poll is absolutely worth mentioning in the article. I presented to you two alternatives: please re-read my previous comment and choose the one that you like, and stop denying that an online poll was launched.

PS: I will not be able to read your eventual answer until next Monday. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.205.66.86 (talk) 14:08, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I still deny what you say because it is false. The online poll was definitely launched, but it was not counted. Only those who decided to become member of the party could vote from the Internet, but not through the online poll but sending s form. --Checco (talk) 14:26, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Ps: Many websites of parties launch polls on just everything: I don't think this is relevant for a Wiki article. This is our case. --Checco (talk) 14:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Corriere della Sera announced the decision of the name of the party in this way. No mention to the online poll, but only to what you call "petition desks". Same thing for Oggi. --Checco (talk) 15:13, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with Checco. —Nightstallion 17:49, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Checco, I am really astonished by your reply. You say:"I still deny what you say because it is false. The online poll was definitely launched, but it was not counted." If you try to read my contribution, I said that the online poll was launched, I did not say that it was counted for sure: since for sure you are an intelligent person and you are able to read, when you say that my assertion is false you are consciously writing a lie. This is not very good for a Wikipedian...

In my source, there is a snapshot of the www.forzaitalia.it web site, which is the official site of Forza Italia. There, there is written: "New party: which name do you prefer?" and the button is named "Choose". This means (if words and facts mean anything to you) that the poll was intended to give the possibility to people to choose the name of PdL, in the very same way that was done at the petition desks. The default action taken by a party which launch a poll is to count the votes: it would be very strange to invite people to choose the name of the party and then discarding their opinion, as anybody with some intellectual honesty would think.

I do not see why you are opposing to report about the online poll. The fact that an online poll was launched is important, since thousands of people voted on the web site (see source): this fact cannot be deleted at your will.

You say: "Many websites of parties launch polls on just everything.."... well, with these ultra-generic arguments and other completely stupid phrases as the one on the colour of the Moon you can discard any piece of information you like! I would like to see a single example of a party which decided to launch an online poll to choose its name. It is quite different from 'everything'. Moreover, I would like to see a party which invites people to choose the name and then discards completely the collected opinion without saying it explicitely. It is quite an unfair behaviour for a party.. maybe it is for this reason that you do not like the online poll to appear in the Wiki article?

You said before that "No source says that the online poll was contented and this is a fact". For the 4th time, I state that the important thing to be quoted is the fact that the online poll was launched. This is confirmed also from another source: in 'La repubblica' [1] is explicitely written: "La scelta del nome era stata affidata ai cittadini tramite un referendum sia via internet che direttamente ai gazebo allestiti in tutta Italia."

Finally, to Nightstallion: as you probably know, your contributions to the discussion are utterly unuseful: you should try to express yourself in a more articulate way. Moreover, I find really unfair that you decided to edit back the article without waiting for my reply. Finally, in the current version are cited 'open primary elections'. Me and Checco already agreed that 'open primary elections' was not a correct term to indicate the choice of the name: If you read the discussion above, you will find" I will say to you that speaking of "primary election" is praising a party because it makes people think that candidates are chosen by the people, and not by the same party as it happened in Italy (without possibility of expressing preferences, thank to the Calderoli's electoral law). However, speaking of 'primary elections' to choose a party name is simply uncorrect, no matter if it praises or if it insults PdL.

(Checco)Probably the words you used in your first edit are ok. "

it is quite clear that you did not even read the discussion entirely. Please re-read the discussion and try to explain to me why citing the launching of the online poll (which is a proven fact) would be so bad for the article.

My proposal is to write: "An online poll was launched on the Forza Italia web site to choose the name of the party (reference to the source), but there was no official statement from PdL about the fate of the online votes."

To both Checco and Nightstallion Please give an articulate reply to this discussion, avoiding for at least one time misinterpretations of my words: I will not stop if your replies are not precise and verifiable, because Wikipedia is not yours: I myself contribute with money to Wikipedia, and to see that the political articles are treated in this impossible way forces me to fight to make things right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.205.66.86 (talk) 12:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I have no problems about adding An online poll was launched on the Forza Italia web site to choose the name of the party (reference to the source), but there was no official statement from PdL about the fate of the online votes, even if that sentence is nor so relevant to be deserved in the article. --Checco (talk) 12:40, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

IT IS NOT A PARTY

Some times ago I replaced the (uncorrect) word "party" with "list". You can discuss everything you want, but there are some certain things: PDL is not a party. A party is enrolled as "party" in the Ministry of Interiors A list is enrolled as list in the same ministry. It's the Italian law, it's a fact, it cannot be discussed from different "point of view". So I will remove the word "party" and I will replace it with "list", and everybody should agree, as it is a fact. Best regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.31.157.72 (talk) 22:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

In the Italian law there is no such provision: there is no enrollement or registration of parties at the Ministry of the Interior. --Checco (talk) 22:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

SIMPLE TOPIC: PDL IS NOT A PARTY

I wrote it several times, but somebody cannot understand. So I repeat PDL is NOT a party (NOT means NOT) so if you modify the article writing PARTY, you write incorrect information, that means NOT correct. Hope I will not need to explain it anymore. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.31.205.229 (talk) 23:36, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe PdL is not formally a party from an Italian perspective, but it is definitely a party from an European Part of view. Remember that a party can be simply a parliamentary group: this happened in England (Tories and Whigs), in Italy (Historical Right, Historical Left, Liberal Conservatives, Liberals...), in France (Ultras, Monarchists, Radicals...) and more recently in Estonia. Finally please consider that PdL id ok with the definition of "political party" present in Political party. --Checco (talk) 06:15, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

It isn't a political party and never describes itself as such. On its website there is a link for "pre-adesione" so people can sign up to the party before its officially formed. This link links to a website called "Verso il nuovo partito" (toward the new party). The PdL hasn't been founded yet and even they don't pretend otherwise. Blue-Haired Lawyer 15:04, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore I suggest you win this argument on Italian Wikipedia before bringing it over here. The Italian version of this page clearly says the PdL isn't a political party! Blue-Haired Lawyer 15:12, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

It.Wikipedia is not a good example of Wikipedia and includes a lot of mistakes. See political party: PdL fits perfectly the definition. I remember you that even parliamentary parties are parties. --Checco (talk) 14:46, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

It.Wikipedia is perfectly accurate as far as the People of Freedom go. In order to be a political party, you must at least call yourself one. Given you're an active contributor to Italian Wikipedia you should probably know more about the errors there than most. The term "political party" does not have any meaning in English that is doesn't have in Italian. Blue-Haired Lawyer 17:58, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I definitely know much about the errors of it.Wikipedia, that's why I prefer to contribute to en.Wikipedia which is more accurate and more professional. That is (or was) the case. PdL acts as a party and is a party according to any definition of political party. Please let alone Italian or journalistic standards: this is en.Wikipedia! --Checco (talk) 20:47, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, saying the People of Freedom is a political party is original research. A body must at least call itself a political party before they can be considered as being one. Legally speaking Forza Italia and National Alliance still exist as separate political parties. Parliamentary political parties are political parties, they're parliamentary political parties!! If we accepted your rather dubious definition lots of organisations would have to be considered political parties which currently aren't. Blue-Haired Lawyer 21:23, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, they are, exactly as PdL is. Moreover PdL leader explicitly speaks about PdL as a party and, as you might know, the foundation of Italian parties generally goes through three stages: launchment, founding congress or constituent assembly, first regular congress. It is exactly what happened to PS in 2007-2008 and exactly what is happening to PdL in 2007-2009. I don't see the problem... --Checco (talk) 22:06, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

To be honest I'm not sure what you're on about. A political party isn't a political party until its founded as such. The various groups in the European Parliament are described as either a political party or as a parliamentary group depending on how they describe themselves. Given the particular case of the PdL, you can describe as an alliance and an embryonic political party, if you like. Blue-Haired Lawyer 10:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

You have a too schematic and Italo-centric view of politics. I'm very sorry of that. Look at every single definition of "political party" and you will find that PdL fits the description as party. Moreover I ask you again to look at the example of the new Italian Socialist Party. --Checco (talk) 11:12, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Freedom People?

isn't Freedom People a better translation from italian? --SquallLeonhart_ITA (talk) 00:07, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

It could be and I proposed it at the beginning, but, as many English sources refer to the party as "People of Freedom", that is the best translation. --Checco (talk) 07:30, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

The People of Liberty

The economist calls it the "People of Liberty". IMHO this is a better translation as it uses a Latinate as opposed to a Germanic word. Blue-Haired Lawyer 15:07, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

"People of ..." is a better translation, and "liberty" is next to never used in English translations of party names, as far as I can see. —Nightstallion 22:51, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

When since in "liberty" never used in English translations of party names? The London Times also appears to call the PdL the "People of Lberty" [2]. Blue-Haired Lawyer 23:01, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

And many other sources use "freedom"; we went with "freedom" as the only Liberty Partys are from English-speaking countries and deliberately named so, while all foreign parties seem to translate to Freedom Party; compare also Sammarinese for Freedom and Freedom Party of Switzerland, both of which have "libertà" or "liberté" in their Latin-based language name. —Nightstallion 21:46, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps, but I'm not sure it follows that because we don't use "liberty" in English translations, that we shouldn't use it here. Blue-Haired Lawyer 08:51, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

And what are you proposing? As I don't see overwhelming evidence that "Liberty" is the primarily used translation here, we'll have to choose either Freedom or Liberty -- which we already did. —Nightstallion 00:22, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I was going to suggest "People of Liberty" (a Latinate as opposed to a Germanic root as I said), never mind... Blue-Haired Lawyer 08:21, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Nightstallion: "People of Freedom" is the best translation. --Checco (talk) 14:47, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Liberal and conservative are opposite concepts?

Yes in the United States, no in Europe where many parties are both liberal and conservative, where some liberals have conservative attitudes and conservatives have liberal attitudes. See liberal conservatism and conservative liberalism. --Checco (talk) 11:49, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Take a political scientist to make these things up. Given this definition pretty much every main-stream conservative party in the world - certainly the Republicans in the US and the Conservative party in Britain count as liberal conservatives - given that they are socially conservative and economically liberal.

Nonetheless, as it stands the article fails NPOV as it states their ascribed ideology as a fact. The better wording is to say that they describe themselves as ... This is also verifiable. Blue-Haired Lawyer 17:43, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

They describe themselves in a different way. It is the source which describes the party as liberal-conservative and christian-democratic, while for the social-democratic faction you can look at the sources in the articles about the parties and the factions composing the party. --Checco (talk) 17:49, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Ideology

"Centre-right" is not a political ideology, but a polititical position. It can be used for describing the party in the article, but not in the infobox. Morevoer "righ-left" concepts are very relative from country to country. Piccolo Modificatore Laborioso (PML) replaced "Liberal conservatism, Christian democracy" with "Centre-right" because the source provided was not a reliable source, in his mind. That can be true, but, even without a clear source (the party is young and there are few publications on it yet), the party, which will be a member of the European People's Party (EPP) and which explicitly refers to EPP's values in its "chart of values", as well as "liberal and Christian values", can be easily defined "liberal conservative" and "Christian-democratic". Moreover most of the members of the PdL come from liberal-conservative/Christian-democratic parties. There are definitely also social-democratic, liberal, libertarian and conservative factions in the new party, but "liberal conservatism" and "Christian democracy" are together a good synthesis of the PdL's ideology. That's why I will re-insert "Liberal conservatism, Christian democracy" with the few sources we have now. --Checco (talk) 07:42, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I already expressed my opinions on the first source (http://www.parties-and-elections.de/italy.html), but since it's still there I will repeat myself anyway. This probably is someone's personal website, and as such not a valid source for WIkipedia.

As a side note, here's that website's definition of Liberal-conservative: "Liberal conservatives combine classical conservative policies with more liberal stances on social or ethical issues."

Can you tell me that you honestly believe this to be the case for People of Freedom? No one in his right mind would agree. Rember that right-to-die case a few weeks ago, among millions others I can't recall?

For the second source, a printed one, a book (presumably) by Chiara Moroni. I'm 100% sure Checco knows who this person is, because he edited her article himself, so for the rest of you: Chiara Moroni is a People of Freedom MP, so whatever she has to say on the party is not objective or disinterested, and again, as long as Wikipedia is concerned, it's not a reference on the matter, as this violates WP:V, and the latter being a policy, takes precedence over anything else.

All the rest is just your personal interpretation, and unless you are a widely published scholar, I doubt that can make a difference.--Le Petit Modificateur Laborieux (talk) 12:32, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry to tell you that the author of that book is not that Chiara Moroni, who as a libertarian social democrat is anyway a good example of how the PdL is a catch-all party including both right-wingers and left-wingers. Author Chiara Moroni is a professor at the University of Perugia (http://www.unipg.it/scipol/docenti.html) and her book was the first publication on the PdL ever published, as far as I know, and that you can't remove sources, as the website of Nordsieck, an expert of comparative politics. If you don't like these sources, you can find others, but not remove them. We can insert also conservatism and liberalism, but it's obvious to me that "liberal conservatism" and "Christian democracy" are good for the PdL, which will be part of the EPP and is perfectly in line with other centre-right parties in Europe, although differently from them it has also some social democrats within its ranks. Both of us have millions of reasons not to like the PdL (I more than you, definitely), but when we write in WP we should be as neutral as possibile. --Checco (talk) 16:29, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Accusing me of "not liking the sources" and the party in question after all the time I spent trying to explain to you what's wrong with them is simply disheartening. You tell me I got the wrong person, just as well, but is she any better as a source? Can her work be described as a "reliable, third-party published source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy"? Is she "regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand"? And for Nordsieck, can you prove he's an expert or am I supposed to take your word for it? Statements supported only by an inappropriate source not only can be removed, but it should be removed: "Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed."--Le Petit Modificateur Laborieux (talk) 19:25, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Far Right

I cannot find any indication in the article about the presence, within the PdL, of FAR RIGHT extremist components. Social Action is mentioned, but nowhere it is said that it has far right opinions, and also "La Destra" ("The Right") from far-right opinion leader Daniela Santanchè has converged within the PdL, and is not mentioned at all. Also, considering the recent very strict policies that the italian government is carrying out against illegal migrants, I would say that the government (and indeed the main supporting party PdL) is moving to far-right, and cannot be described as "centre-right".

Overall, this seems to me a quite biased article that evades the issues related to extreme right positions that are indeed present in the party. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.200.225.99 (talk) 09:05, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

You are forgetting a few socialist ministries of PdL such as Renato Brunetta or Giulio Tremonti. Ho can you call them far right? Please refrain from modifying that again, and sign your comments. --Andylong (talk) 11:00, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

@Andylong: I don't have an account, and did not have time to create one, so I did not sign; please notice that I did not modify anything on the article, so I don't understand why asking me to "refrain" from something. I guess I don't have to explain to you that the spirit of WIKI is also accepting anonymous modifications, as long as they're justified. so far, I just made a comment on a talk page, and I think it was quite justified, for being just a comment. About your answer, I don't think that Brunetta or Tremonti can be identified as socialists: they were was "born" in the PSI, but in the Craxi age the PSI was not a socialist party in any way, if not only by name. And if you talk about ex-somethings, you might also say that Sandro Bondi in an ex-communist, but that does not make him any leftwing nowadays. Returing to the main objection I made, I think that in the PDL there is proof of far right positions: alessandra MUSSOLINI is not properly a centre-right person, and Daniela Santanchè, Ignazio La Russa, Teodoro Buontempo, cannot surely be considered centre-oriented. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.200.225.99 (talk) 11:36, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, indeed, you can edit and comment from an IP. I'm sorry, I mistook you for 87.4.135.87, who had just done the same edit you were suggesting, without prior discussion. Since I understand you must be italian, I will link a little interview to Brunetta to further clarify the point. And I don't think you can possibly call Tremonti a liberist economist: PdL is still representative of the social democracy, as is pointed out in this article. --Andylong (talk) 08:36, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

@Andylong: I appreciate your apology, and thank you for the kind tone of your reply. I still think you did not answer my primary objection: there ARE, no doubt about it, some factions within the PDL that are FAR right wing. The whole party (and indeed, not Brunetta nor Tremonti) cannot be called "far right" but some parts of it can, and have to be addressed as such. including that definition in the "Factions/National conservatives" section would be useful for better clarity and truthfullness. I underline that I did not change it myself (anonymously) just because I don't want to trigger a revision war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.200.225.99 (talk) 11:12, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

As Andylong correctly pointed out the PdL has plenty of former Socialists and currently self-proclaimed social-democrats, while very few far-right politicians. Moreover Santanché is not a far-right politician, as also her former party (The Right) is not, but more important she is not member of the PdL. Finally it may be interesting to remember that Alessandra Mussolini, leader and only MP from Social Action, is the leader of the "social" and pro-immigrant wing of the party! I hope this is enough. --Checco (talk) 13:11, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Checco, affirming that Daniela Santanchè is not a far-right politician, nor La Destra is a far-right party is just plain false (for reference, http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Destra ) Still, I see that Santanchè is not in La Destra anymore (she is in PdL, and La Destra is not YET a part of PdL). For waht concerns Alessandra Mussolini, she has been repeatedly the spokesperson for the extreme right party "Forza Nuova" ( http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forza_Nuova ). The surname, Mussolini, should tell you something about her cultural and personal background: I guess I don't need to remind you of the countless times that Mussolini (Alessandra) has been affirming herself as "fascist" (just for reference, http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alessandra_Mussolini#Carriera_politica ). About the government and PdL as a whole, mind that affirming "I don't want a multi-ethnical society for Italy" like Berlusconi did recently (sorry, no link for that but he said so during this very last campaign, you'll find it easily on google or youtube) is an extreme right position, from the PM and head of the PdL party. That's something that in any other part of the western world would have called racist and unacceptable (ok, if you exclude Nazis and KKK) I guess this means something.

What else? I also read your comments in other threads of this article, and must say it appears you are strongly biased in favour of PdL, and tend to ignore the evident data - this is a party that includes many different positions, from far right to center (and even a bit of left), and just affirming "there are social democrats in the PdL" does not clear it of the real extreme right persons present and opinions expressed. Expressing extreme right opinions also means gathering extreme right votes in the elections, and that's what PdL has been doing. I think you should stop considering yourself paladin of this article, and accept modifications/corrections on this topic. It's not your fault if PdL has a far right inside, you may not like it (I know I don't) but just ignoring it it's not fair, for the sake of truth! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.200.225.99 (talk) 12:31, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

If I'm biased, I'm biased against PdL 'cos I don't like Berlusconi's party, but it is not fair to describe it as far right and I'm sorry that most of the arguments you proposed are not reliable as they are based on false information, starting from the fact that Santanché is a member of the PdL, which she isn't and she is not far right too, and that Mussolini was a member of New Force, which is false too. Remember anyway that another Wiki can't be a source for an en.Wiki article. --Checco (talk) 07:50, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Isn't it more accurate, neutral and straightforward to simply refer to it as a "right wing" party rather than either "centre right" or "far right", as it quite clearly contains elements from both the centre right and the far right?BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:22, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

As it does not contain quite clearly any far right elements, while containing many social democrats, I don't see how could we describe it as "right-wing". Yes, we could but that would be less precise than "centre-right", that's why I would leave things as they are. --Checco (talk) 15:22, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I completely disagree. It clearly contains elements from the far right, notably the National Alliance, which has fascist roots, but also Social Action. Yes, it contains and is dominated by centre-right groups, but it is an alliance of centre-right groups and far right groups. Therefore, it is more accurate to define it as a right-wing party. Calling it a centre-right party is as inaccurate as calling it a far right party. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:25, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

The PdL was basically the union of a centrist party, Forza Italia, which included also a large social-democratic faction, with a much smaller right-wing party, National Alliance. Although its precursor is the post-fascist Italian Social Movement, National Alliance is a moderate-conservative party. Social Action was a one-woman-party led by Alessandra Mussolini, a MP out of 362, who is a social liberal who supports the rights of immigrants. As the party grew up from an alliance of right-wing, centrist and centre-left groups it is accurate to describe it as a centre-right party. --Checco (talk) 07:47, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Mussolini a pro-immigrant social liberal? Who was in the Identity, Tradition, Sovereignty EU grouping until 2007? (That is, until they broke up after she made rather un-social liberal xenophobic remarks about Romanian immigrants? Is that why Social Action was part of the Social Alternative electoral bloc with assorted far right/neo-fascist parties until 2006? We will also find out next week whether La Destra, who broke with the National Alliance because it wasn't right-wing enough, will join PdL. Or are they 2moderate-conservative" too? BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:15, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I've nothing more to add. Alessandra Mussolini has frequently take socially liberal positions on abortion, stem cell research, gays, immigration and so on, and anyway she is only one out of 420 MPs of the PdL. The Right has not joined the PdL and it is not far too the right as you think. Have you ever been to Italy? It doesn't seem so... --Checco (talk) 16:00, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes I've been to Italy, but I am in no way an expert on Italian politics (as you can see from my mistake about La Destra caused by a misreading of a very out of date wikipedia article!) so am not going to push this any further. My concern is as much about the devaluation of the term "centre-right". Maybe it means something radically different in Italy than it does in the rest of the world. Perhaps in Italy the term includes fascists. Giuseppe Ciarrapico of the PdL in 2009: "Fascism has given me suffering and joy but I never disowned it... I am a fascist, but in a cultural, not a political way."[3] Alessandra Mussolini in 2009, asked if she considered herself a fascist: "I am Alessandra Mussolini, proud of everything."[4] In 2007, when she made xenophobic remarks about Romanian immigrants, causing the collapse of the ITS bloc in the EU, The Guardian described ITS as "EU's ultra-rightwing MEP group" and "an extremist grouping", and her as "the Italian neo-fascist".[5] Bloomberg, writing in October 2008: "Berlusconi has refused to name an heir, creating a contest between the country's most popular and ambitious rightists. They also include Rome Mayor Gianni Alemanno, who on Sept. 7 said fascism as a philosophy was not an 'absolute evil,' and Defense Minister Ignazio La Russa, who a day later praised Italian soldiers who fought alongside Nazi Germany between 1943 and 1945. Both are in Fini's party."[6] Around the same time, when Jorg Haider died, Sky News noted reports that "leading European far-right politicians, including Alessandra Mussolini and Jean-Marie Le Pen, will attend [his funeral]".[7] In April this year, Mark Seddon writing for Al-Jazeera said: "In Italy, the far right now forms part of a coalition government with Silvio Berlusconi's administration, with the xenophobic Northern League and the post-fascist National Alliance being given senior positions in government. The National Alliance is led by Gianfranco Fini, and his party has advocated authorising coastguards to shoot human traffickers as well as arguing that the EU is run by paedophiles. Berlusconi defied international criticism by enlisting the support not only of Fini but also Alessandra Mussolini (the granddaughter of the former Italian dictator), a leading far-right figure in her own right. A year ago this month, Fascist salutes greeted the election of Gianni Alemanno as the far right Mayor of Rome, and anti-immigrant sentiment is running high across the country ahead of the European elections."[8] All of this, to me, seems like clear evidence that, although dominated by the centre-right, PdL contains significant far right elements and therefore should be considered a broad right-wing coalition rather than just a centre-right coalition.BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:11, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

The PdL is definitely a centre-right party and does not include fascists. No doubt. Moreover it is a quite centrist party, definitely on the left of the Spanish People's Party. In my view it is worthless to cite one or two people in order to characterize the party as extremist. Moreover these few people are perfect examples of how the party is a mainstream, centre-right and cathch-all party. Again, take Alessandra Mussolini: with her socially liberal positions over immigration, abortion, gays and stem cell research she is definitely on the left of the party! As I told you, what is strange about the PdL is not the fact there there are one or two nostaligics of fascism (the Spanish PP is full of nostalgics of Franchism, something that ended only 30 years ago) in party ranks, but that there are several former Socialists, some of whom continue to identify as social democrats, including key ministers as Giulio Tremonti, Franco Frattini and Renato Brunetta. The PdL is a combination of right-wing, centrist, liberal and social-democratic grops: a quintessentially centre-right party! --Checco (talk) 13:20, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

It is debatable whether fascism is "far-right" to begin with; that is what the NKVD supporters claimed, but classical fascists themselves were syncretic (national syndicalists). Even the people who would have described themselves as openly fascist previously and post-fascist today, do not consider themselves as "far-right" but third-way and "social" (especially in the Italian context). In practice this leads to a sort of mix of "social democracy" and opposition to degeneracy/pollution in society. "Far-right" itself, outside of ultra-monarchists and theocrats, is not a legitimate political self-definition but rather a form of communist propaganda. Bobfrombrockley openly states on his profile his position as a Marxist from a London-Jewish background, nuff said when in context of the debate. - 90.212.77.135 (talk) 01:46, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Far-right not but Right-wing yes

PDL is not a far right party but it is collocated at the right-wing of the political spectrum because some politics of the party are rightist such as the immigration, the economic politics, the reform of the justice and the populism of the leader. PDL always says that it is the party of the italian people so it is quite nationalist. In my country (Italy) says that PDL is a center-right party but I don't believe in it because there are a lot of neo-fascists such as A. Mussolini and conservative liberals and the christian democrats are in minority. besides PDL is allied with Lega Nord: Populist and rightist.

The ideologies that I propose are Conservatism, Liberal-conservatism, National conservatism and Neoliberalism with some Christian democrats and Social liberals minorities. --Baf09 (talk) 15:19, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I tend to dislike terms like "centre-right" and "centre-left", and I thus use only "right-wing" and "left-wing" when speaking with my colleagues and friends, but as far as those term exist, we should use them. As I repeated above, the PdL is the quintessence of a centre-right party, as it includes both conservatives as well as social democrats. In the PdL there are no neo-fascists. National Alliance itself was a post-fascist mainstream moderate-conservative party led by a liberal such as Gianfranco Fini and its members are a minority within party ranks. In the PdL, contrarily to what Baf09 says, Christian democrats (most of whom coming from the old DC party) are the majority. If you take a look to PdL ministers, most of them are Christian democrats (Alfano, Scajola, Gelmini, Rotondi, Fitto) or former Socialists (Frattini, Tremonti, Sacconi, Brunetta). --Checco (talk) 13:20, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

If you do not like the term "centre-right", why insist on it here? It is only a useful phrase if it means something, that is, to refer to Christian democratic and liberal conservative politics as distinguished from national conservatism and other more right-wing ideologies. Clearly, Berlosconi and other key PdL figures are centre-right. But the PdL is an alliance that stretches across the whole right. Of the "social democrats" you mention, only some of the least significant ones (Sacconi, Brunetta) could still be classed as at all left, while the more important ones (Frattini, Tremonti) can barely be called social democrats any more, as they are basically in favour of fiscal conservative and neo-liberal economic policies. I'll shut up and gracefully retire now, unless any other editors come along. Doing a quick scan, only 5 editors have contributed to this discussion, with 3 (albeit one anonymous) against the "centre-right" appellation and 2 in favour, so hardly a consensus. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:45, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Link number 3 is not working

The link #3, about "claiming the collection of more than 7 million signatures" is not working. Please correct the link or remove unreferenced info. Also links 4, 5, 7 are not connected to relevant info. Thanks, Antonio —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.200.225.99 (talk) 12:31, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the previous comment. I think that such section should be deeply revised, if not completely rewritten, in light of the wrong links. at least substitute the missing links with "citation needed" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ziopower (talk • contribs) 17:42, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Party strength

Why Italian parties in English wikipedia have not their institutional strength indicated in their templates? If I open the page about French UMP, I immediately know how many Senators, Deputies, MEPs and Regional Councillors the party has. This information should be added in Italian parties pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.236.155.53 (talk) 16:28, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

regional council seats

I removed the figure about regional council seats from the infobox because those seats are not proportional at all to Italian population. Think only about the fact that some small regions (such as Friuli-Venezia Giulia and Sardinia) have far more seats than larger regions (like Veneto, Tuscany or Emilia-Romagna) and that Molise (home to 0.3 million people) has 30 regional councillors and Lombardy (9.6 million) has 80! --Checco (talk) 12:06, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Major parties

The introductory paragraph says Pdl is one of the two major parties in the Italian party system together with Pd. However, all the latest polls, and the recent regional elections, indicate that in a national vote, Pdl would lose to the Movimento 5 Stelle as second political force in Italy. SO, it would probably be best to say that it is one of the major parties (but I'm not sure, because M5s is very clear about its not being a party, so it's still inaccurate to say that there are three major parties) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.118.236.67 (talk) 19:38, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

To Danish Expert

Dear Danish Expert, I duly appreciate your edits and I always do my best to incorportate them, but please note that most of the times they are not written in good English (your last edit summary is just an example: No, late is an incorrect term for defunct in English. The most technical correct term is defunct. If you insist, we can write "early" instead of "defunct". To write "late" is simply incorrect & Wikilink refer to "early FI".). I am not a mother tongue speaker and my English is far from perfect, but what we do here in Wikipedia is to try to improve, helping one another, and we always need to remember that we do not own the articles we write. I think that "late" is a much better term than "defunct" in this context (maybe your are confusing "late" with "later" or "latter", I don't know), but as they are both correct, let's leave "defunct" for your sake. Let's discuss here whenever we continue to disagree on something. Take care, --Checco (talk) 10:34, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Although I admit some of my latest edits resulted in a couple of long poorly constructed sentences, which you have cooked down, I find it completely unjust when you accuse me of using bad English and taking ownership of the article by insisting only to keep my formulation. The truth is that during the past week, I helped to clarify several confusing matters and provided some much needed context details to the article. In example, I have extended the lead with the fact that PdL during its first year of existence was a "federation of parties" and participated as such in the April 2008 general election, before one year later being transformed into a completely united PdL party. Such details and clarifications are important to include. Because otherwise readers without expert knowledge in Italian politics will very fast get confused or develop misunderstandings of the matter.

About our latest dispute, if its best to write Revival of the defunct FI or Revival of the late FI, I attempted to explain why defunct was better to use in my two edit summaries. To say it short, the reason why I prefer "defunct" over "late", is that "defunct" (or in the alternative: "extinct") is more accurate due to only representing 1 word definition. When writing "late" this can have multiple meanings. Normally if you have two versions of a party, it is common to entitle and differentiate between them by calling them "early FI" (the one which existed in 1994-2009) and "late FI" (the one which existed since December 2013). By this word definition, it would be incorrect to write "revival of late FI", in the sence that late here refers to a second version of the party. You are technically correct to claim that late can also be used as a synonym for defunct, but if you ask me its a very bad synonym due to its ambiguous unclear meaning, which leaves the reader to guess what word definition of "late" the author is referring to. My final argument for preferring to use "defunct", is that this by far is the most commonly used term at Wikipedia for defunct parties. To give you an example of this, please check the hatnote (written by another editor than me) at the Forza Italia (2013) article. These were the reasons why I insisted to use "defunct" rather than "late". It had nothing to do with a desire to take ownership, but was only driven by my genuine desire to ensure the article formulation was as accurate and concise as possible. Best regards, Danish Expert (talk) 08:50, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I believe in your good faith, I find enriching to work with you and, as said, I appreciate your edits. When I said that "we do not own the articles we write", I referred to both you and me. That is why I always engage with your edits and try to improve them, without rollbacking everything you do. As also your answer here suggests, your knowledge of English needs to be improved, but I affirm your (and mine) right to contribute to en.Wiki (as non-mother tongue speakers). I still think that your understanding of the term "late" is not correct, but I can live with "defunct" (which is definitely better than "early"). This said, I would like you to note that some of your "clarifications" were mainly personal interpretations. For instance, it is not entirely correct to say that the PdL was a federation. Anyway, no problem, we will work it out. I appeciate your contribution to en.Wiki and I invite you to work also on other articles about Italian parties: we much need knowledgeable editors like you to improve all the articles about Italian politics. --Checco (talk) 09:15, 29 October 2013 (UTC)