User talk:Checco/Archive 6 (January-December 2009)

Politics of Italian regions Hi Checco, I happened upon Elections in Basilicata by the random article link and noticed you created all of the similar articles. Nice work on that, I just have a few suggestions. One is I didn't even know where the region was until I looked it up, so each page should explain a bit on that. Also pages in Wikipedia are generally better if they avoid referring to themselves such as "This page gathers..." just start describing the topic. Also an article on Elections in Basilicata really should be about describing the elections, so if you really just want to list the elections, perhaps moving the articles to lists might work out better? I don't know much about the topic, maybe each region has enough unique information to allow describing their elections individually, but if not, a general article describing the regional elections might be better and that would work well with the lists. Anyway keep up the good work, just thought I'd offer some suggestions since I don't know enough about the topic to implement them myself. Also feel free to response here, I'll keep track of it. - Taxman Talk 18:22, 1 January 2009 (UTC) Thanks for your suggestions. The article is simply modelled on elections in Italy and that article, as other similar articles, begins with "this page gathers...". Italy is composed of 20 regions and I working on them. In Wikipedia we usually have articles about the politics and the elections of countries, regions, autonomous entities. There is a lot of work to do and that is why some articles about Italian regions are not yet complete. That's what I'm working on when I have time. --Checco (talk) 16:19, 3 January 2009 (UTC) Oh yeah, no problem, work on it when you can. I also think that page should have a lead sentence that describes elections in Italy rather than being self referential. But it's not an easy thing to do all the time. Anyway keep up the good work. - Taxman Talk 04:53, 5 January 2009 (UTC) Lega Nord Hi Checco, I noticed your work on the article about Italy of Values and you did a great job finding all the sources needed, honest. That notwithstanding, in Lega Nord you removed a good amount of citation tags without giving any sources in return. I know that finding sources for this kind of subject is hard, even harder to find them in English, but if appropriate sources cannot be found we would be probably doing a better job by just deleting those statements altogheter. Also, in the same article, in this phrase "to transform it into a federal state and have more State resources devoted to the Padania" and others similar you changed "State" with "Northern". Other than being POV this is confusing or even meaningless for anyone unaware of the extent of the term "northern" when applied to Italy, especially in a political context. I also see no reason to have the section about "humanitarian aid" merged in the "controversies" section, if not mere juxtaposition. --Piccolo Modificatore Laborioso (talk) 12:57, 11 January 2009 (UTC) Leaving Wikipedia Please look at [1]. I'd appreciate your comments, given now also how my best pals Gryffindor and PhJ are throwing stones. I'm so ashamed by such human behavior, I can not express it well enough. Icsunonove (talk) 20:48, 17 January 2009 (UTC) Thanks Checco for your comments. I'm planning to leave WIkipedia permanently, and somehow I hope maybe I can keep in touch with a few of the good people such as you that I met. I'm sure you read at the beginning of that "report" noclador made accusing me of trying to get rid of south tyrol like mussolini, because he points to edits I made fixing the wikilinks of South Tyrol to Province of Bolzano-Bozen. It is a shame that Admins don't come in right away and eject people like that permanently who go around and try to instigate things. take care, Icsunonove (talk) 22:56, 18 January 2009 (UTC) You may have been quoted by the BBC Hi, Checco! Bit busy in real life, so can't contribute lots at the moment, but just thought I'd log back in for a few moments to a) nag JLo into returning to contributing, and b) congratulate you on possibly being quoted by the BBC. The BBC news website has done a overview of the EP here and it uses the phrase "...the UEN includes the moderate Irish Fianna Fail party and Italy's post-fascist National Alliance...". Now I don't know (haven't checked the diffs) but when I saw it I nearly jumped out of my chair and wen't "Hey, that's Checco's phraseology!" - the characterisation "post-fascist" is unknown in the UK, so I guess this was a BBC reporter lifting straight from the 'pedia. So if you were the person who characterized Alleanza Nazionale as post-fascist, congrats: your copy has been lifted by the BBC. Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 01:41, 18 January 2009 (UTC) My reply here, Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 01:51, 19 January 2009 (UTC) Congrats Checco, indeed quoted by BBC? :-) Icsunonove (talk) 09:53, 19 January 2009 (UTC) Congrats for BBC's copyvio :-) --Pan Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 15:34, 22 January 2009 (UTC) French regional politics I think you guessed my long-term to-do list! You'll understand that it takes quite a long time: 577 constituencies, a lot of departments and regions (I also want to work on general councils) and I'm the only one doing all of it! Congratulations on your great complete work on Italian regions- it's definitely a great template to be followed for any country! Great job, and very useful! One unrelated question. There are Sardinian regional elections coming up in a few days (next week). Do you know the candidates? Polls? What are the likely outcomes? Another PDL gain from the left after Abruzzo last year? --Petrovic-Njegos (talk) 00:45, 7 February 2009 (UTC) hey Read your message. You can witness what Noclador and Gun Power Ma are up to, and now Gryffindor has put himself back in. They are going back to the 100% Germanization route. You can even see that Gun Power Ma purposely starts listing only "South Tyrol" everywhere, and leaving out Alto Adige, or any other Italic reference. Of course this has to do with his ignorance on the subject, even stating at one point that Alto Adige is simply a fascist invention. I honestly don't think it is worth arguing with them. I've asked Lar how we can get neutral Admin support to mediate and monitor the situation. It shouldn't fall back into the same petty stuff as before. Icsunonove (talk) 05:00, 11 February 2009 (UTC) I replied at my talk page. On a side note, I assume when you say "anti-Italian", you mean an "anti" to the centralized political government, correct? As I've asked Noclador and Martin Se a few times (and they never answered): who exactly are "the Italians"? To me it is simply the shared culture/history of the peninsula. And as you may be a Venetian, and my family originating from Trentino, I certainly consider you an Italian cousin. :) That said, I think Italy could do well with a US-style Federalism. But, that is another discussion for another time. :] Icsunonove (talk) 08:20, 11 February 2009 (UTC) replied again. :) I'm about to sleep, but at least I can trust you're open to a discussion with me to unravel who and where the "italians" are. :) it is actually a very interesting concept, because i'm aware of the culture in italy, and how the people are very proud of their local cultures -- and as they should be. Icsunonove (talk) 08:36, 11 February 2009 (UTC) Verdi–Grüne–Vërc "all parties have titles in English" I checked the other parties and you are right: they are all in English. I found some you have overlooked. To keep in line with the naming convention you mentioned please move them too: Lega Nord to North Leauge Lega Nord Valle d'Aosta to North League Aosta Valley (and also all the other various Northern League regional parties) Liga Veneta to Venetian League Lega Lombarda to Lombard League Lega Nord Sud Tirolo to North Leauge South Tyrol Forza Italia to Forward Italy thanks, --noclador (talk) 13:07, 11 February 2009 (UTC) I will not take the issue to Nightstallion - you moved the page, therefore with you I discuss. The name of the party is Verdi Grüne Vërc. There is nowhere in the name Alto Adige or South Tyrol used. A correct translation of the name would be Greens Greens Greens which doesn't make any sense at all. To get a kind of "second opinion" I looked now at the Italian and German wiki, where the articles name are: Grüne (Südtirol) and Verdi (Alto Adige) - seeing that I now think your solution to name the party by practically combing the titles used in the German and Italian wiki is actually a good one. So: Greens (Alto Adige/Südtirol) is fine with me. --noclador (talk) 13:36, 11 February 2009 (UTC) Yeah - definitely better than the previous one! and also the best of the whole lot that have been used over the years. --noclador (talk) 13:52, 11 February 2009 (UTC) hey hey checco, did you see that noclador is even removing all the old latin and ladin names from the BZ pages? those were sourced from italian wikipedia where they have a nice reference. cultural cleansing at its best. :) this guy has no shame. Icsunonove (talk) 10:19, 21 February 2009 (UTC) and gryffindor/phj are back in full force germanizing.. and trying to cleanse out other cultures. oh my :) Icsunonove (talk) 10:29, 21 February 2009 (UTC) Please bring valid sources for these so called archaic names. Our investigations showed us that most of these data were pure rubbish. And please, Icsunonove, don't insert information that you got from other Wikipedias. --Mai-Sachme (talk) 14:27, 21 February 2009 (UTC) Pd's new leader Hi, I was just curious to your opinion on Partito Democratico electing Franceschini as the new party leader. Is likely to be more effective than Veltroni as opposition leader? Will he position the party rightwards, being formerly of DC and PPI? Will this affect whom Pd allies itself with, nationally and across Europe? --Autospark (talk) 20:00, 21 February 2009 (UTC) Italian electoral geography I'm personally fascinated by electoral geography and stuff, and particularly Europe. I have a few questions about Italian voting patters. Why is Tuscany (and the rest of the Red Quadrilateral) so left-wing/communist? I've always seen it as a rich region, or is my image completely wrong? Are Italian voting patterns mostly based on class (like the UK), clerical/anticlerical divide (France), historical division between rebels and government (Spain)? Why was the PCI not stronger in the poorer southern regions of Italy (though wasn't the PSI strong in southern Italy)? Similar to that, how has the PD/Italian modern left built up large areas of strength in regions like Basilicata, Molise, parts of Campania and Calabria? Left-wing DC voters? Could you enlighten me on political patterns in and around Rome? Also, are there any significant mining areas in Italy like in Germany, the UK, and France? Thanks a million ;) --Petrovic-Njegos (talk) 21:46, 23 February 2009 (UTC) Well, grazie! You answered most of my present questions! Italian politics are indeed quite fascinating (but then, I find a lot of countries fascinating!) and you have enlightened me about them. If you have any questions about French electoral geography and voting patterns, I'd be similarly happy to answer them! --Petrovic-Njegos (talk) 01:16, 24 February 2009 (UTC) French electoral geography I do have questions about French electoral geography. I'm particularily interested how the clerical/anticlerical divide has divided some regions from others. What were the strongholds the Republicans (ARD, CNIP, RI, PR), the Christian Democrats (MRP, CD, CDS), the Radicals (Rad., RGR), the Socialists (SFIO, PS) and the Communists (PCF) and why? What was the basic difference beteen Republicans and Radicals as they were both secular-minded? How did the Gaullists position themselves in that five-party system? To what strongholds of the Republicans, the Christian Democratas and the Radicals do the UMP and the MoDem correspond? Thanks. --Checco (talk) 08:22, 24 February 2009 (UTC) The clerical/anticlerical used to be very important in French politics, and although it has subsided with the decline in Catholic practice, in some regions, tradition remains strong. For example, in Lozère. Have a look at the map of the 2007 results there. The ultra-red parts, the Cévennes, are strongly anticlerical (and before that, Protestant, Ostrogoth, Republican [as opposed to legitimist] and so forth. Medieval divide). The Cévennes in Ardèche and the Gard are similar. However, that divide has subsided even in Lozère: Sarkozy did quite poorly in 2007 there and UDF voters there can transfer their votes to the left, which has also built up strength in Mende, the departmental capital. Bretagne, my home region, however, is an example of the decline of that divide, more or less. A strongly Catholic region, it used to be massively right-wing, but it has become a left-wing region. Why? Firstly, the experience of Mitterrand and the left in power actually helped the left as Catholic voters saw that the left in power weren't Soviet-loving baby eating monsters, which was their original conception of the French left. But also thanks to continued left-wing strenght in the Côtes-d'Armor (anticlerical) and the growth of urban centres such as Rennes, Brest, Quimper, or Lorient. Breton clerical rural areas (there aren't many of those left) are still more clerical and more right-wing. Look at the area around Vitré. However, rural areas around Guingamp and in northwestern Morbihan, anti-clerical regions, are strongly left-wing and are part of the Breton Red Belt (where the Communists still do well). The Republicans, as you refer to them (also known as the Orleanists by political historians) were the party of generally secular but wealthy industrial leaders and businessmen. The RI and PR had little base, since their little strength came from electoral deals with the UDR or other-right wing parties to win seats, kind of like the NC today. The Christiandems, and today the UDF/MoDem, were strong in the Catholic regions such as Bretagne, Pays de la Loire, Alsace, Vendée, Lozère/Cantal/Haute-Loire. In those areas, their strength came from generally rural areas. The left was stronger in cities and industrial areas. Also note that in the days of the RPR/UDF, the RPR was the party of choice for wealthy coastal people (Sables-d'Olonne, La Baule, so forth). The Radicals were strong in the "Radical Southwest", a largely secular and staunchly anti-clerical region. They're also strong in Corse, where the PS is quasi-nonexistent, but Corsican politics defy reality! In addition, the Radicals were/are (hard to evaluate where they stand today, since PRG candidates in legislative elections run quasi-exclusively in those constituencies with no PS opposition. So the best way to measure their strength today is Taubira's showing in 2002 and maybe Tapie's showing in 1994) strong in urban areas, more secular and hippie. The current PS map is in a way based on SFIO tradition and a urban pattern of support. Firstly, the PS' stronghold is in southwestern France, running in a line from the Landes to the Aude. They poll very well in rural areas there, and not so well in urban areas. The SFIO was a rural party in the Southwest and served as a protest machine against Parisian interests. That's why southwestern cities such as Carcasonne, in the middle of strongly leftie Aude is a UMP city. Similar case in Toulouse, but the PS has built up urban strength there recently. Outside of the SW, PS support is found in urban centres (and in poorer suburbs with high immigrant population) and industrial areas (old mining regions etc.). Also, on a side note, it remains the Protestant party (not that there are many in France...) The PCF established itself as the party for industrial workers in the 1930s/1950s, as opposed to a more rural SFIO. It's remaining pockets of strengths are two-fold: old industrial/mining areas (and Red Belts around cities like Paris, Lyon, Grenoble), anti-clerical rural areas (Allier, Breton Red Belt, Red Limousin). Lastly, the FN strength is originally in the Pieds-Noirs belt of France in the Garonne River valley. With Mitterrand in power, it picked up the traditionally strongly PCF/PS manual workers demographic, disillusioned by Mitterrand's less and less pure socialist economics. It also more recently picked up rural conservatives in eastern France, which was the demographic which swung the heaviest back to the moderate right (UMP) in 2007, see Le Pen in Alsace 2002 vs. 2007. The ARD differed from the Radicals as the ARD represented more business interests and I think they had less of a staunchly secular platform than the RadSocs did. The Radicals also favoured workers' rights, and the beginnings of a welfare state. The Gaullists had trouble establishing themselves in the Fourth Republic due partly to a special electoral law devised by the Third Force to keep the PCF and RPF weak. Most of the support the RPF did get was due to de Gaulle himself. In 1958, the Gaullists came back en-force due to massive rejection of the establishment and the political crisis. On a side note, I find de Gaulle's personal electoral geography fascinating: his map is a map of occupied France in 1940! He had a special strength in the industrial/mining Nord. Bayrou's MoDem base still corresponds to the old MRP/UDF stronghold geographically. However, the UMP is a bit different. Sarkozy polled very well in eastern conservative France, taking a lot of votes from the FN and also in wealthy areas (West Paris and suburbia, PACA). He also polled very well for a right-wing candidate with blue collar workers, doing much better than Chirac. He didn't win, but he did very well in the Pas-de-Calais coalfields, the mining areas of northern Lorraine (Longwy etc), the industrial suburbs of Marseille (he even narrowly won Fos-sur-Mer). He didn't do as well in the rural Catholic/clerical areas of Aveyron, Cantal, Bayrou's Pyrenées-Atlantiques, and in Chirac's home turf (Corrèze, traditionally Communist country!). Well, that came out a tad long. I hope I answered your questions, but don't hesitate to ask if you have any others ;) I also take the opportunity to link to my website, which might interest you. France 2.0 Thank you so much for your detailed answer and for the link to your website: it will definitely help me to find answers also to other questions. I found particularily interesting that in France SFIO was the rural party if compared to the PCF, while in Italy it was the PCI to have a strong rural base. I would like to ask you however something more: what were the areas of major support for the ARD and, later, the CNIP? why was southwestern France the Radical's stronghold? how can Bayrou do so well in Catholic areas, including Vandeé when he is so socially liberal? I hope that you will upload in your website the maps of the 1950s legislative elections for the CNIP and and the Radicals and that of the 1989 European Parliament election, when the PR formed a separate list from CDS/UDF led by Simone Veil. That would be verty interesting and helpful to answer to my questions. --Checco (talk) 11:40, 25 February 2009 (UTC) Ps: I noticed that most French regionalist parties have articles with French titles. Why that exception to the general pattern? What do you think about it? Can you move those articles? In case you can ask help to Nightstallion, who (I'm sure) he is in favour of English titles when possibile. --Checco (talk) 11:40, 25 February 2009 (UTC) Thanks for your comments. I don't know as much as I should about the ARD and CNIP (moderate version, now they're crazy)'s electoral bases, mainly due to the lack of data for those parties. If I remember correctly, their bases were in secular but conservative (rural) areas such as Champagne, rural Gironde, parts of Poitou, Ain, and some Alpine regions. I think. Southwestern France is strongly secular and very much anti-clerical (while the other secular regions I mentioned above were not as rabidly anti-clerical). It is also quite rural. Bayrou did well in traditional Catholic country mainly because of tradition. He remains a devout Catholic, he has a large family and goes to church every Sunday. On top of that, 1994 Bayrou (then incompetent Education Minister) was a quasi-Opus Dei conservative Catholic. 2007 Bayrou (raving egomaniac) is a centre-left liberal (almost secular!) opposition MP. In the 2007 campaign, he was in the transition between the two versions. For that reason, the 2009 EU MoDem map will be VERY interesting! On a side note, Vendeé also includes some RadSocs area (Georges Clemenceau was born there) around Fontenay-le-Comte. Roche-sur-Yon is also very left-wing. I have a hard time finding data from the 1950s, since French electoral data is not stored online in governmental archives like in Italy. Slight correction on the second. Veil's list was the CDS list, while the UDF-RPR Giscard list was the Republican one. I'll take a lot at the regionalist pages and change them accordingly. Thanks for the heads-up. Again, my pleasure answering and don't hesitate if you have more. --Petrovic-Njegos (talk) 22:57, 25 February 2009 (UTC) La provincia You will find most of that discussion at Talk:Communes of the Province of Bolzano-Bozen; I thought then, and think now, that trying to include both names was an error, and will lead to innumerable point-scoring move requests, like the present one. At least we have avoided the petty Province of Bozen-Bolzano proposal, so far. We should bite the bullet, and find out what English works of general reference call the place. (Searching WT and article talk name-spaces on Bolzano and Markussep will probably get you most of the history. He was instrumental in drawing up the present compromise.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:46, 25 February 2009 (UTC) See also Talk:Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol and its archives. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:50, 25 February 2009 (UTC) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of populist parties Hello, you might want to have a say here. --Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 13:03, 26 February 2009 (UTC) Province of Bolzano/Bozen Hi, Checco! I wouldn't be the one to start such a discussion, but I'd gladly participate if one were to be started—the very least I could do is to share WP:RUSSIA's experience, as the problems we faced (and solved) were very much like the one with the Province of Bolzano. If you start it, feel free to drop me a note; I'll be there. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:30, February 26, 2009 (UTC) Thanks for the explanation; I was not aware of previous discussions when I submitted my opinion (which is not surprising considering I stumbled upon this one purely by chance). At any rate, the consensus reached violates the basic naming practices used throughout Wikipedia, which is exactly why I don't believe it's any good (although I very well understand why people would be willing to settle on it after having a long and exasperating debate). Regarding my opposition to the use of the slash character, it is pretty much for the same reasons Supparluca used. There is nothing wrong with using a slash in titles such as Live/Dead (it's a part of the album name) or Biel/Bienne (that's the official name), but "Province of Bolzano/Bozen" is just an artificial construct, a product of "consensus". That's another indication that this consensus is no good—a consensus, whatever it is, should not ignore the existing guidelines just for the sake of consensus.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:52, February 26, 2009 (UTC) Slash may be more correct than hyphen when one needs to cram two names into one title, but my opposition was based strictly on MOS ("special characters—such as the slash... are avoided"). In other words, when a consensus settles on something that does not conform with the MOS, the consensus needs to be revised. Is hyphen usage in this situation bad? You betcha. Should it be changed to slash? Absolutely not. Hence my vote.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:57, February 27, 2009 (UTC) As previously discussed, the slash character "Biel/Bienne" is the part of the official name (so it's OK there), and the slash character in "Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol" is a bad precedent on par with what "Bolzano/Bozen" will be if it is moved. If a slash is not a part of the name, it should not be used, it's as simple as that. That the hyphen is a bad choice is without question, but so is the choice of the slash. The source of these bad choices is the bad decision to use double names in the title. What this means is that the consensus reached is unacceptable because it is contrary to the established naming guidelines. That is my position; I don't know how to explain it any better. Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:02, February 27, 2009 (UTC) Well, if the naming conventions for Italian provinces called for using the official names, then I would not have had a problem with the title being "Provincia autonoma di Bolzano/Autonome Provinz Bozen". But since this is obviously not the case, the title is not the official name, but something else. When that "something else" is agreed upon, one must make sure that the existing naming guidelines (i.e., "no slashes in titles") are honored. I don't see that happening with "Province of Bolzano/Bozen" or with "Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol". If the title is to be in English, then folks might as well decide which variant is, so to speak, "more English". I hope this clarifies my point.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:19, February 27, 2009 (UTC) Greens (Alto Adige/Südtirol) The Original Barnstar For all the detailed work you do on each and every Italian political party noclador (talk) 12:12, 20 March 2009 (UTC) I think everyone is impressed by your! work - so you rightfully deserved this one! :-) --noclador (talk) 12:24, 20 March 2009 (UTC) Hi Checco, write something about the ideology of parties in South Tyrol... oh dear,... I was election manger for one of them last year and to make it short: next time I rather do PR for Al-Qaida; much nicer people and (I assume) much more honest! if I find the nerves to sit down and write a bit about the parties I will do it - but I do not promise it, as every time I look at a newspaper in South Tyrol I think about exile (as the author Josef Gatterer said: Bel paese, cattiva gente... now it is more like cattivissima gente). beh, I will see what I can do. --noclador (talk) 13:18, 20 March 2009 (UTC) Questions of ideology... Checco, I already answered you on the PdL discussion page, but since I consider you, if not a friend (I don't really believe in OL friendships) at least an acquaintance, I feel I should not let this discussion undermine our bond. I never wrote anything about myself here on Wikipedia because I believe that expressing controversial opinions (and nothing is more controversial than politics) would make it more difficult to relate with people with opposing views, which happens all the time on this project. But in truth if I'm taking this so much personally (even if I never let this compromise my neutrality) it's because, as a right-of-centre person (my political heroes are Reagan and Thatcher, especially the latter) I was dismayed to find my very own political beliefs associated with the party that embodies them the least. Still, I don't believe this ever prejudiced my position as an impartial editor. I hope this will give you some explanations. Paix, Le Petit Modificateur Laborieux (talk) 19:49, 1 April 2009 (UTC) Well, wow, that wasn't the impression you gave me. For the rest, I'm still convinced we should be very prudent to define PdL as a liberal-conservative party. To me, it's more of a social conservative party, which economically is quite the opposite, as they did nothing to liberalise the economy, or curb on the power of Rome or even of the state as a whole. They didn't take serious steps to decrease the size of the civil service (still the largest employer in many southern regions), public expenditures, or red tape. Of course, this is all just a personal consideration, but it's also to explain why I think that the "liberal conservative" label is absolutely inappropriate and misleading for this party.--Le Petit Modificateur Laborieux (talk) 02:05, 2 April 2009 (UTC) AfD nomination of Venetism An article that you have been involved in editing, Venetism, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Two Sicilies independence movement. Thank you. Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Le Petit Modificateur Laborieux (talk) 20:13, 2 April 2009 (UTC) If you think venetism should stay, try to find enough adequate sources to support its existence (significant coverage in reliable publications, thus excluding personal websites, self-published or partial sources) and a meaningful title, all this preferably in English. I couldn't for either article, that's why they got nom'd.--Le Petit Modificateur Laborieux (talk) 21:00, 2 April 2009 (UTC) Checco, the title is just a red herring, no matter what you call it if its importance can't be proved it simply doesn't belong on Wikipedia.--Le Petit Modificateur Laborieux (talk) 21:10, 2 April 2009 (UTC) To change the subject a bit, is there any reason why Lega Nord is not at Northern League (Italy)? I'm asking you because you usually take care of this kind of things.--Le Petit Modificateur Laborieux (talk) 21:26, 2 April 2009 (UTC) Now that's a curious opinion. How else would you translate "Northern league" if not "Lega nord"? On top of that, Lega Nord is the only major party not to have its name translated, though I agree that for Forza Italia it would have been tricky…--Le Petit Modificateur Laborieux (talk) 19:00, 3 April 2009 (UTC) EFA I'm not sure of those changes and that they're relevant at all. Why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.186.108.168 (talk) 07:48, 15 April 2009 (UTC) It seemed to me that the source you used (whose reliability I'm not sure of)was not updated as you removed at least one party that is actually an EFA member. Moreover I don't think it is useful to tell the year of admission into the EFA sometimes telling both the year of observer status and the formal accession and in other cases only one year. --Checco (talk) 07:53, 15 April 2009 (UTC) Referendum Could you briefly summarise the debate over the election date for the Italian electoral law referendum, 2009 in the article? —Nightstallion 08:33, 15 April 2009 (UTC) Re: Decide! Alright, thank you for telling me. Cheers, –Juliancolton | Talk 13:27, 15 April 2009 (UTC) Southern Italy autonomist movements I give up. I started this article in a lighthearted, confident mood, put in sketches of the current movements, put in an outline of history up to unification, then made a start at filling in the gap between 1861 and today. The further I go the more I realize how difficult it is to give a one-dimensional view of the autonomy movements without giving political and economic background, how hard it is to do that without getting into a full history, and how poorly qualified I am to even make a reasonable start. "Southern peasants revolt against Italian colonialists" makes an appealingly simple story, but is a total distortion. The people of Naples were fully aware of the events of 1848. Garibaldi was seen as a liberator in the south. etc. etc. I am just not qualified to work on this article. Hope I have not left too much mess behind. Aymatth2 (talk) 02:33, 17 April 2009 (UTC) I think the article is taking shape, although it needs a lot more work: more detail on the unrest after unification, more on the Mafia (origins and the effect of WWII in rejuvenating it), more clarity on the different trends of thought about Meridionalism (not a movement, my current view), and more content to fill in the gap from 1950 to the present. I am not sure the title is right given the way the article has evolved, but it can stay. There are obvious spin-off articles such as Meridionalism. You asked about help on the Veneto article: I do not know anything about the subject apart from Casanova's autobiography, which is wonderful. I am afraid to get into it because I am building a backlog of articles I want to finish. Man Shield and Mega Rice Project (Kalimantan) are at the top. And first I have to take a break and do some real-world stuff. But this subject is fascinating. Aymatth2 (talk) 02:37, 19 April 2009 (UTC) Original? Well, maybe a bit. But the theme is coherent and references are good, so I am not going to worry about it... Aymatth2 (talk) 15:01, 20 April 2009 (UTC) Green Front Checco, as far as I can tell I didn't nominate it for deletion. I remember commenting on the AfD, but I don't think it was me who put the tag there. Looking at the page history, it seems that it was added here by Invitamia. You can also see his nomination here. Hope this helps! Greg Tyler (t • c) 10:37, 20 April 2009 (UTC) Yes, it's me. I didn't see no instruction about this. Anyway. Decide! is proposed for a deletion too: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Decide! --Invitamia (talk) 01:45, 25 April 2009 (UTC) EU elections Hey Checco, Would you mind explaining how the EU elections work in Italy? I've seen stuff about a 4% threshold, but parties that won 1% got seats in 2004. Do the EP constituencies work like in France with individual lists in each constituency? Thanks for anything you might clear up :) On a side note- I have some maps of French legislative elections from 1958 till 1981 that I didn't manage to put on my website but I'd be more than happy to send them to you, if you're interested! --Petrovic-Njegos (talk) 02:15, 2 May 2009 (UTC) Warnings Regarding your comments on Talk:Venetian nationalism: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. ColdmachineTalk 13:39, 18 May 2009 (UTC) Alliance of Democrats You added the phrase "...the former members of Likud of Kadima" citing no source. 1. What does that phrase even mean in the context of the sentence? 2. Where is the source? 3. What makes you think (if I assume what you are trying to infer) that Likud has ever been a member of the International Democrat Union? It is not member and has never been. --Shamir1 (talk) 05:21, 20 May 2009 (UTC) Neutralità; Mario Borghezio Checco mi rivolgo a te come studioso di politologia per ricordarti l'importanza di un approccio neutrale nella compilazione di voci anche "controverse" come quella di Mario Borghezio (versione inglese). Comparando le versioni in lingua italiana e quella in lingua inglese emerge subito la poca imparzialità della versione inglese. Certa che porrai rimedio in fretta a questa lacuna, ti saluto. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Uaua (talk • contribs) 10:32, 31 May 2009 (UTC) Vandalism and nonsense I read in your profile that you're an a political pundit from Italy and I see you're quite the white knight when it comes to Lega Nord, as you made more than 300 edits to the page over three years and half, and the second most active user made like 30-35. I also saw you reverted an edit similar to my own, which you dismissed as "vandalism and nonsense", without even bothering to inform that user. Let's leave aside that thing called AGF for a moment, and let's focus on my edit. I have reason to believe you will want to revert it as well as "nonsense" or whatever you will decide. Don't do that. Unlike the edit I just mentioned, mine is referenced, using a source you yourself obviously deem reliable (evidence, evidence, even more), so if you feel uneasy with that "populism" label, drop me a note on the article's talk, don't just revert everything as you did before.--93.45.117.204 (talk) 16:29, 7 June 2009 (UTC) I'm a white knight when it comes to each and every article about Italian parties. If I have done more edits on that article than on others, it is simply because that article is frequently vandalized. I won't remove your edit as it is sourced, but let me tell you that, even if I consider that website as reliable, I don't agree on all the parties' classifications. However it was a "vandalism and non-sense" to insert "populism", now that there is a source, no matter how good or bad, it is different. --Checco (talk) 07:40, 10 June 2009 (UTC) That's what you said two weeks ago, and yesterday you already tried to slip in a "dubious" tag along with tens of other changes, without reporting it in the edit summary, or even opening a discussion on the talk page. How unbiased are you now?--93.45.138.40 (talk) 10:47, 24 June 2009 (UTC) I don't want to open an infinite discussion, but what I did is not biased or incoherent. I don't think that right-wing populism is correct in describing Lega Nord, that's why I put the "dubious" tag. I did it yesterday because only yesterday I had the time to update the article after some time. I will repeat those things in talk page. It is not correct to take unilaterally away a tag that was put just some hours before. --Checco (talk) 10:53, 24 June 2009 (UTC) So a source reliable for a page is not reliable for another? How's that being neutral? The most important newspapers worldwide often write about the populist if not outright xenophobic elements of LN when dealing with Italian politics, so how does it come as a surprise to you? Perhaps you don't consider their political teams to be informed enough about the current state of the party?--93.45.115.104 (talk) 20:45, 25 June 2009 (UTC) Veneto You're up early this morning. Me too. Anyway I see we have different views. See discussion - I'll be here. My idea is, like things go together. Religion under culture. Modern material together. You say there is a pattern. What pattern? Thenb there is the issue of the tags - looking forward to hearing from you.Dave (talk) 08:50, 10 June 2009 (UTC) I proposed Venetian National Party for deletion - bye --Invitamia (talk) 15:22, 30 June 2009 (UTC) Now, new AfDeletion, bye --Invitamia (talk) 21:44, 30 June 2009 (UTC) I wish to draw your attention to this I have opened a discussion here to which I wish to draw your attention. This is a friendly notice under the auspices of WP:CANVASS. Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 03:14, 28 June 2009 (UTC) Young Italy (current) Checco, is this faction still active? Its website doesn’t seem to have had any activity for a long time. The last press release was in December last year [2]. The last advertised event was in May 2007 [3]. ‘In primo piano’ goes back to March 2008.[4] Under recommended sites, the link to http://www.forzaitalia.it/ has not been updated.[5] And the section ‘Circloli’ has only one, whose content is simply ‘Contenuto da inserire’.[6] The reason I ask is that I was surprised to find Young Italy as a dab page. I suspect it would be better to have it redirect to the Mazzinian movement—which is certainly what most readers will be expecting to find—and have a hat note {{redirect}} pointing to Young Italy (current). Indeed, it probably be a good idea to move that page to Young Italy (2004). Cheers, Ian Spackman (talk) 09:19, 4 July 2009 (UTC) I couldn’t move Young Italy (historical) to Young Italy, so—to save the tedium of a requested move process—I have left the Mazzinian article where it is but made the following pages redirect to it: Giovane Italia Young Italy Giovine Italia La Giovine Italia A hatnote allows people to find Young Italy (current), and I have checked that all the icoming links are correct. Cheers, Ian Spackman (talk) 19:23, 6 July 2009 (UTC) Does Alliance for Europe of the Nations still exist? Discuss it here. Incidentally, you updated Alliance for Europe of the Nations when AN left by merging. Given your expertise on Italian politics, can you give it a look-see and see if Sicilian Alliance also left? Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 01:36, 5 July 2009 (UTC) Related question. —Nightstallion 11:44, 14 July 2009 (UTC) Move request for Meran There is a request that Meran be moved to Merano, at Talk:Meran#Requested move to Merano (5 July 2009) Ian Spackman (talk) 14:36, 5 July 2009 (UTC) People of Freedom in the centre-right Ciao Checco, ti scrivo in italiano per essere più chiaro. Senti ho visto che ti sei interessato al partito People of Freedom nella versione inglese. Bene, all'interno della pagina centre-right, che elenca i pariti di centro-destra in Europa e nel Mondo, nella pagina di discussione vi è un utente che vuole assolutamente screditare il PdL italiano, descrivendolo come un partito fascista quasi di estrema destra. Il suddetto vuole quindi estromettere The People of Freedom dai partiti di centro-destra. Mi chiedevo, puoi cercare di riabilitare il People of Freedom in quella pagina? Ciao, grazie.--82.57.166.65 (talk) 14:44, 17 July 2009 (UTC) New parties What do you think will come out of the Party of the South and Left and Freedom parties? —Nightstallion 10:19, 18 July 2009 (UTC) Left and Freedom is a surprise as almost every political analist thought that it was nothing more than an electoral alliance. Instead they are organizing themselves as a party. That does not mean that the five member parties will cease to exist. SL will be a reliable ally of the PD in the next regional elections, but someday it will need to merge into the PD in order to survive. SL has anyway several problems, first of all its heterogeneity (that may cause splits at least from the Socialists and the Greens) and, second, its electoral weakness (the 3.1% it gained in the European election was due almost only to the popularity of Vendola in the South: will it last? will it prove enduring?). On the "Party of the South"... I really don't know. I started the article mainly because I thought you would have found it very interesenting. Lombardo will definitely try to enlarge his MpA party, but it is not clear if the would-be splinters from the PdL really want to break with Berlusconi or if they would be happy with a ministry for the South and more money for Southern regions. I find undoubtely intriguing and unavoidable the "balcanization" of Italian party politics on regional lines, but I still think that until Berlusconi is in power nothing big will happen. I will follow the debate over the "Party of the South" in the next few days, but I will ask you to vigilate over the process and the articles about Italian parties and factions later on because I will be far away from my computer for almost the whole month of August. --Checco (talk) 12:55, 18 July 2009 (UTC) Likud Hello. I've noticed you have made some edits to conservative liberalism. An unregister user in 2006 described the Israeli Likud party as liberal conservative. I am wondering if that is the case or if it better described as conservative liberal or both in the party infobox. Here are the "general purposes" of Likud in simple terms: Constitution. You may also check out "The Issues" if you think it necessary. Please let me know what you think. Thank you. :) --Shamir1 (talk) 05:57, 20 August 2009 (UTC) Thanks for getting back to me. Likud is officially described as a "National-Liberal Party" in the link above, which I believe is some form of conservative liberalism. They are usually regarded as a conservative party, but they did not lead Israel to independence nor did they have any influence on Israeli politics or economics until they finally defeated the Labor Party in the late 70s, so in that sense they are not preserving much of Israel's original character. They have their roots in Israel's Revisionist Party, which was fervently anti-communist, advocated free market capitalism and privatization, and was more nationalist in respect to the mainstream Labor-dominated society of the time. Like Labor, however, they were non-religious in ideology. I am not in favor of one (conservative liberalism vs. liberal conservatism) over the other, I just want to be as accurate as possible and appreciate your judgment. Let me know if you have further thoughts. Thank you. :) --Shamir1 (talk) 00:55, 2 September 2009 (UTC) Lega Glad to see you back, Checco. To get straight to the point, there's no way you can remove 2,000 bytes of content from an article in a single edit, save each change you make and explain it in the edit summary, so that we can discuss them, should the need arise.--93.45.47.23 (talk) 15:40, 2 September 2009 (UTC) "I reproduce my main changes without taking anything out from the article" 82,228 bytes -> 81,738 bytes That's bull, and we both know it. If you're trying to just sort things differently, do just that for now, and save the rest for when you'll have enough time to explain what's wrong (if anything) with the parts you're deleting.--93.45.64.6 (talk) 17:31, 5 September 2009 (UTC) Some advice from a real "Tuscanian" Also, you seem to be fond of the term "Tuscanian", but the proper address for people from Tuscany, and the adjective for things related to Tuscany in general, is just "Tuscan". Could you change Tuscanian regional election, 1970 and the other ones?--93.45.17.114 (talk) 18:00, 2 September 2009 (UTC) FYI [7] Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 23:07, 19 September 2009 (UTC) Left and Freedom Hello Checco, just wondering if there has been any news about the foundation of Left and Freedom as an actual political party?--Autospark (talk) 21:30, 20 September 2009 (UTC) Aye, there'll be a foundation congress after the next regional elections, and the name will likely be changed to "Sinistra Libertà ed Ecologia". —Nightstallion 07:41, 23 September 2009 (UTC) Grillo He's founded a party, right? The Movimento di Liberazione Nazionale; will you be writing an article on that? —Nightstallion 15:21, 2 October 2009 (UTC) I started the article (see Movement of National Liberation (Italy)), but there is not a lot to write about it yet... --Checco (talk) 20:52, 5 October 2009 (UTC) Political parties move I do think on reflection, if there is any uncertainty to whether the modern-day Italian Socialist Party can retain that name, that your suggested solution is the best possible one. In any case, for encyclopaedic purposes, the historical PSI lasted over a century and was at times a significant player in Italian politics, whilst the modern PSI is a minor organisation, so in terms of the prominence of the subject of the article, retaining the article at Italian Socialist Party is arguably a better use of article naming.--Autospark (talk) 22:55, 12 October 2009 (UTC) My conclusion is that I will cancel your bot request, move PSI (historical) back to PSI, and move Socialist Party (Italy) to Italian Socialist Party (2009). Any objections?--Autospark (talk) 23:27, 12 October 2009 (UTC) It is more accurate to place the article at Italian Socialist Party (2007) if it is a merely a rename of the party and not a reformation of any kind, so I will adjust things accordingly.--Autospark (talk) 01:03, 14 October 2009 (UTC) National liberalism I notice that you recreated the National liberalism article which has been merged with liberalism. I placed a merger tag and merged the article when there were no comments.[8] The article has no sources for "National liberalism" just a discussion that various parties have been called "National Liberal". Do you have any sources that any such ideology exists? The Four Deuces (talk) 21:06, 25 October 2009 (UTC) Conservative Liberalism Hi, you have reinstated what another user has deleted in Conservative Liberalism. The fact of the matter is that none of this information is cited and it is not the responsibility of other users to cite information, it is the responsibility of the person who uploads the information. This is a violation of encyclopedic integrity and is misleading to people who read the article who do not notice that it is not sourced. If and when you upload this information back, I expect you to cite your sources. Otherwise, yoru information is biased, opinionated, and not meant to be in an encyclopedia. 68.230.134.130 (talk) 21:52, 26 November 2009 (UTC) Merry Christmas Merry Christmas and Happy New Year from Baf09 (talk) 09:53, 23 December 2009 (UTC) A.C.A. Hi. I created the article Craftsman-Farmer Alliance, linked from the article you recently created. [9] seems to provide some info on the political profile of the party. Could you have a look at it? If not, just drop me a note and I'll try to dechiffer it through google translate (which works, but often misses precise details). --Soman (talk) 21:25, 26 December 2009 (UTC) Movimento 5 Stelle Hi, I noticed that you created a page for Beppe Grillo's new political movement, Movement_of_National_Liberation_(Italy). In fact, the correct name for the movement is "5 Star Movement" (Movimento 5 Stelle). I would like to create an entry under the correct name for this movement, but I thought about checking with you before - on it.wiki there is a flame going on on whether this movement is notable or not, and I would not like to waste time in a new entry if it is going to be deleted later. Do you think that the movement is notable, and also is there any template that I should use? My contributions to en.wiki have been limited up to date (mostly a deep revision of Vajont Dam a year ago) so I'm not sure about the practices here. Thanks. Vbertola (talk) 16:05, 30 December 2009 (UTC) It's not a flame, it's a discussion (it's going on here). And Vbertola is Vb, deeply involved in the discussion. You should have said this in your message.--Svello89 (talk) 12:50, 31 December 2009 (UTC) As far as I know the correct name of the party is "Movement of National Liberation", anyway you can change it and edit the article if you want. The party is not so notable, but in en.Wiki we use to have articles about all the parties, including the smallest ones, and thus the entry won't be deleted. --Checco (talk) 09:46, 4 January 2010 (UTC)