Talk:Padania

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Italy (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Italy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles on Italy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Northern Italy synonymous????[edit]

Don't know who wrote this article but I'm Italian and actually from north Italy and no one use Padania to mean north Italy. Padania is a political term use from Lega Nord Party but is not use from population. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.192.192.196 (talk) 16:24, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Flag[edit]

I think that flag does not have any reason to appear on the article. Padania is NOT a officially recognized region of Italy, so that flag represent just nothing. Actually it is just a propaganda symbol used by the Lega Nord. Ciao. --Angelo.romano 15:06, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hi Angelo, including the "flag" does not imply any official status. Instead, it is correctly labeled as a creation of the Lega Nord. As long as no one puts in a country template, there really is no reason to be worried. --Thorsten1 16:19, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Not only that, but the opening sentence "Padania is an alternative name for Northern Italy" is incorrect. Padania is a made-up word invented by the Northern League and used almost exclusively by its supporters (in fact, when it is used by non-supporters, it's often said with an ironic slant).--Exidor (talk) 13:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

The map displayed on the page indicates neither the Po Valley nor the Northern League's definition of Padania. It should be deleted, or replaced by a map showing either definition, but I don't know how to do it. --User:Wu Brerus 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Although the above is signed as if by a registered user, it was made anonymously and the account in question has no edits to its credit as of 31 October 2005

Article Layout[edit]

Article should have country like layout, with all possible data like population, GDP, GDP per capita and everything else that is possible to find and is usually included the table that country articles have. Or alternatively article should be split to one that just mentions the term Padania and another one that is about proposed new state and has state article layout. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4rdi (talkcontribs) 00:09, 29 October 2007 (UTC)




In spite any claim of the contrary, Padania isn't an official state (eg Montenegro), nor a de facto state (eg Taiwan, Kosovo) nor a well-defined historically / culturally recognized ethnicity that aspires to sovereignty (eg, Palestine, Kurdistan, Scotland); it is not a micro-state (eg, Sealand); it is not an endangered minority protected by humanitarian laws (eg Boshimans, Amerindians, Andamanians); it is not even recognized as autonomous or vindicated/claimed by any relevant foreign entity, no matter how isolated such a voice is (eg, Falkland, Ulster, Kashmir).

No one of weight says anything about PAdania abroad, aside some vague reference from some political exponent of Italian speaking Switzerland - minority in a minority. It is not a region with a, albeit minimal, past of independence in the shape and boundary which currently owns (eg Texas in 1860) inside the current country of belonging.

In other words, it is less of a state than Fantasyland and less of a recognized entity (eg, acknowledged as entity via dispute) than the Ber Sheva farms in Syria/Israel.

I thus propose that Disneyland gets GDP, boundaries, and state description with a higher priority and stronger ground than Padania. Mickey Mouse would also be a better president than the one Padania would have if independent.

Radical rewrite[edit]

These recent anonymous edits include some useful material worth keeping, but there are (1) major removals that I think should be reversed (especially, there is a decrease in emphasis that this term is closely associated with the politics of the Northern League and (2) the addition of a "precise" definition of the boundaries of Padania that gives no citation, and that I doubt has a solid basis, since from what I can tell, Umberto Bossi has repeatedly used the term in different senses. I'll give at least 48 hours for others to weigh in before I do anything to the article. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:52, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

FWIW, I haven't gotten back to this, but still plan to do so. - Jmabel | Talk 01:36, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

See also vs. category[edit]

Pampas Republic and Volkstaat were recently added as "see alsos", I'm guessing because they are also would-be separatist states backed by right-wingers. This seems to ask for a category, not for see-alsos; I'm not sure what exactly that category would be, since the difference from, say, the independence movement in Chechnya is a bit hard to put one's finger on. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:35, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

It was I who added those related articles links, with the common denominator being that they all constitute movements with a (more or less serious) secessionist agenda that are based in economically advantaged regions. I don't think that a special category is necessary for that, it is merely meant as otherwise unrelated examples of a quite similar scenario. Yes indeedeeyo. //Big Adamsky 01:45, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
The thing is, adding them as "see also" links without comment is more or less an Easter egg for anyone who doesn't already know what is the relationship. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:04, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Section Moved from Article[edit]

I am sure there is interesting material here which could be incorporated into this article and/or the article on the Po. Once, that is, it has been turned into English.

Origin and previous existence of the name[edit]

The term derives from the name of its more important river. In the antiquity the Po was indicated with three names: two - Bodincus and Padus - of aboriginal origin and one of foreign attribution, Eridanus. Bodincus (or Bòdenkos) is from Liguria name of origin characterized from the idronimic radical retoligure bod that it would be for "ditch" which the identical celtic term is connected also bod meaning "alveo/profondità" (R. Chevallier, Geography, Archaeology and History of the Gallia Cisalpina, 1988). Bodincus would be therefore to mean "deep water course", "river lacking in bottom" (G.B. Pilgrims, Italian Toponomastica, 1990).Il radical bod would be a apofonica shape of the celtico pad of analogous meant that it is to the origin of the Padus term. That would mean a substantial identity between the two denominations (tried also from the Greek badus, "deep") that they would have had an overlapping employment and - second some students - also they would have been used in order to indicate two parts of the course of the great river: Bodincus that advanced and Padus that inferior Per the term Padus (or Paudus) has been also assumed an other origin: according to Metrodoro of Scepsi the name derives from the fact that the source of the river was encircled from pines of a type that the Celts called Padi, from the Gaulish term of pades that it meant "resin" (P. Boselli, Toponimi Lombardic, 1977). The Padania term is by now of normal running use and has replaced the ancient Gallia most recent Cisalpina and Lombardy and Italy Superiore or Settentrionale.Ne makes text also uses teatrali like the Giuann Padàn of the prize Nobel Dario Fo, the systematic employment on authoritative historical banns like Middle Ages, or of geopolitics like Limes (that it has quite published a monographic number named "Italy between Europe and Padania") or of art, like Po, sottotitolata "Notebooks of Po" and published culture from Frank Maria Curly. For some years (1991-94) review of "Society has been published from the Italian branch (office) of the prestigious publishing group Hyde Park Group one, atmosphere, economy, traditions", titolata Padania. The term today is systematically employed from all the daily paper (also foreign), finds in the title it of numerous books of various editrici houses (Sugarco, Larus etc) and has entered in the running language. In 1992 the Foundation Agnelli has published a most famous named study: "the Padania, an Italian region in Europe", than, to part the adjective (end) too much possessiv, renders the idea well

Ian Spackman 21:47, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


Dead link[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

  • http://vec.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paxèna_prinzsipałe
    • In Padania on Mon Jul 17 15:02:49 2006, Non-ASCII Characters in URL: 'ascii' codec can't encode character u'\xe8' in position 14: ordinal not in range(128)
    • In Padania on Thu Jul 27 00:39:49 2006, Non-ASCII Characters in URL: 'ascii' codec can't encode character u'\xe8' in position 14: ordinal not in range(128)

maru (talk) contribs 04:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Looks fine to me (similarly). - Jmabel | Talk 20:49, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Tirol[edit]

Why does this classify German as a 'minor' language it Italy? South Tirol is almost entirely German speaking. Ameise -- chat 02:33, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Umm… because South Tirol is a small and relatively sparsely populated part of Italy? - Jmabel | Talk 00:20, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
So it is undeserving of proper statement? Ameise -- chat 01:29, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Everything deserves a proper statement. But what would that statement be? —Ian Spackman 12:55, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Is it a political unit of Italy? Check. Does the majority of the population in that political unit speak German? Check. Hence, it is a major language. Ameise -- chat 13:01, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, I am sure I didn’t need to follow up any of your checks. (As a hitch-hiker I was given a lift there in 1972 by a German-speaking—and back then I could speak a little German—driver who was very amused at my puzzlement that he was addressing me in German, and continued to explain the situation with some vigour but without a hint of bigotry.) But I still cannot quite (or at all) see how German could be described as a major language of Italy. A significant language, obviously. But major in Italy as a whole? I repeat: what would the statement be exactly? —Ian Spackman 13:40, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
This article does not cover Italy as a whole, it covers 'Padania' or northern Italy, of which South Tirol is a much larger part than Italy as a whole (I would estimate 50% more important). Instead of stating "major and minor" languages, you should state what languages are official languages in certain areas, and then minor languages that are not. Ameise -- chat 05:35, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
50% more important? Yes, from an utterly tiny piece to merely a tiny piece. And I say this even as someone with a friend from Camporosso, Udine. - Jmabel | Talk 03:10, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
But tis' a piece never-the-less. Ameise -- chat 06:29, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Sure. So it is mentioned. As minor. - Jmabel | Talk 02:44, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

South Tyrol doesn't exist, it's just an invention. It's properly and politically correct say Alto Adige. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.15.217.107 (talk) 14:17, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Please stop vandalism coming from 151.15.217.107!!! --Sp4rr0W (talk) 22:55, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I think an emphasis should be put in the article to the connection between the northern Italian quest for autonomy and a potential association with Austria on a ethnographic basis. --68.1.119.40 (talk) 04:02, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Arguments?[edit]

The article doesn't mention any argument used for (or against) secession, as if being Nothern(/Southern/Eastern/Western/Central) Italy is sufficient and implicitly understood reason for independence. The article should be changed to stub. Transpadane Republic could be also mentioned. Pavel Vozenilek 04:05, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


ste- hi i deleted "secession" because Northern League collapsed after Bossi talked about secession (it got 4% at last political elections). Northern League is a racist and xenofobic party and so it isnt representative of the will of us Nortern Italians. We dont burn our flag and we dont hate our country just like Bossi and his supporters do. They make jokes about Holocaust and black people and we cant tolerate it in a civilizate country. MSI (neofascist) had 8% during 80s: does it mean there was a popular support to fascism? No of course. You dont know my country: here isnt Euskadi or Northern Ireland: none gives a fuck about "secession" and "indipendence". We are 100% Italians and proud of it. There are many african workers in Northern Italy and most people like them because they work hard and contribute to our society: we have nothing to do with racism of Northern League. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.138.64.178 (talkcontribs) 24 November 2006.


As far as i know "racism" means "the believing of a race as superior to others". There is nothing of such in LN ideology. Just the request or recognisement of the cultural difference that exist on the italian territory and that are consequence of the different influences that different places had in their history. It's not a problem of someone better than other. Only a problem of respect of each one's origin in their proper places. LN tooks about 10% national bases on last EU & regional elections. There are regions (Veneto, Lombardy, Piedmont) where it goes over 20%. Racsism is saying 20% of these people are racist and hence inferior and try to treat them as inferior for example by banning whatever use of their dialects in any public media, imposing other dialects even out of their scope (Pope Johan XXIII represented by the national TV in a official movie with a Roman accent with a mother with Napoli speaking was an insult for all Lombards, not a "representation"). Racism is pretending systematically financial support for the so called "Mezziogiorno", without producing any advancement across such elargitions, and hence treating northern people as slaves for southern mafia "benefits" (Honest southern have no chance to get any of those benefits, and in fact migrate to north and vote for LN, otherwise 20% in Veneto would be impossible). Racism is pretending to be 100% italian with a "reset" of eveery previous identity and culture, like being Italian is a "superior" thing. Don't insult the oldest party of the Italian republic just because you don't recognize yourself in it or in its ideology. By saying we're all 100% italians (without allowing any other possible distinction) you're are potentially killing a dozen of possible different regional cultures that are present across the entire italian territory (including even yours, whatever you're from). Who says LN is "racist, fascist, Extreme right..." is only very superficial and basically very ignorant about the entire cultural substrate and ideology is behind a 20 year old party that first in Italy used the world "federalism" that any party is now pretending to advocate to his use for his own scopes. LN just want Italy to institutionally works as countries like Switzerland or Germany. Is this racism? Seriously... don't insult people only just because has different thoughts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.81.220.54 (talk) 13:38, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


All those things would be good if they were all true. Everybody in Italy remember instead LN's representatives washing seats in public train where black (paying) passengers were sitting. Everybody remember one of LN's leadears, Mario Borghezio, saying that "The bastard and lousy clandestines should be kicked in the ass", literally.(Il Messaggero.it) Everybody remember Bossi's claims about using rifles against Rome. And everybody knows that Bossi's son recently developed a videogame named "Sunk the clandestines" where the object is to sunk ships full of refugees before they arrive on the shore of the sacred 'Padania', a name of fantasy like the Middle Earth or the Hyborian Kingdoms, hiding however all the racism and violence of those people that still got the courage to talk about ignorance of all who dissent, but are not ashamed to show their huge ignorance about italian history, 28 centuries old. So, LN is not only "federalism" (is also federalism and it's ok saying that LN was the first party in Italy to suggest a State's federal reform, even if originally preparatory to secession) but is also something else related to "racism", as words and actions (thankfully filmed and documented) of its leaders show everyday to world's audience. So, don't make propaganda please, this is Wikipedia, not a political programming, cause truth always come out. Pickett

The Pickett arguments looks like trolls: he first says "All those things would be good if they were all true" then he adds other "true things". Unfortunately none of those "true things" is in antithesis with the supposed "untrue things" is writing against. By a pure logical standpoints everything can be true without any logic paradox to arise. Can you, Pickett just provide a clean definition of the words "racism" and "clandestine"? My impression is that you both are accusing each other by giving to same words a different meaning! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.116.155.210 (talk) 18:50, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Putnam reference[edit]

Another definition of Padania's boundaries is based on Harvard University political scientist Robert Putnam's Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy, in which Italy's "civic North" is defined according to the inhabitants' civic traditions and attitudes, related to the historical emergence of the free Medieval communes since the 10th century[1]. This definition includes Tuscany, Marche, Umbria, and parts of Lazio, although these regions are linguistically a part of Central Italy.

  1. ^ L. Guiso, P. Sapienza, L. Zingales (2007). "Long Term Persistence" (PDF). mimeo, University of Chicago. Retrieved 2008-05-17. 

This paragraph is actually unsourced. Putnam never used the term "Padania" in his work, and his perception of civicness is different from the one of the Northern League. LN relies on medieval free communes traditions (especially in Lombardy), while Putnam cites the degree of associative networks, which are found to be the densiest in the "red belt" of Tuscany, Umbria and Emilia-Romagna.

Such paragraph is currently being reported in it:wiki and lmo:wiki, but it contains an error. In my opinion, Putnam has nothing to do with Padania, so the paragraph may be removed.--Dans (talk) 21:02, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Putnam never mentioned "Padania" in his works, but his definition of "civic North" is clearly relevant to this article as it covers the socio-economic area which Lega Nord uses to call Padania. Why removing it?--Checco (talk) 14:55, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi Checco, I have removed the paragraph for the following reasons:
  1. (as above) Putnam never speaks about Padania in his works
  2. (as above) his civic north area is wider than the original Northern League Padania, as it is mostly centred on Emilia-Romagna, Tuscany, Umbria and Marche, i.e. the red belt, which do not coincide with LN claims or political support.
  3. The League, to my knowledge, never quoted Putnam in his works (maybe you have other sources?)
  4. Many other things cover the so-called Padania, while not being relevant for this page. There's no direct link between Putnam and Padania, and I cannot see a clear relevance for it as you see it. Therefore, I'd like to hear some more opinions on the topic. Ciao, --Dans (talk) 13:44, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Dear Dans, I thank you for your answer and I want to tell you that I appreciate your rewording of the paragraph: Lega Nord's definition of Padania's boundaries is incidentally similar to Robert D. Putnam's "civic North" is perfect. In fact Lega Emiliano-Romagnola and Alleanza Toscana were founding members of Lega Nord in 1989, while Marche and Emilia were included in the declaration of independence of Padania by Lega Nord. --Checco (talk) 21:50, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

languages[edit]

Is the languages map correct? I found some inconsistence:

  • Some province boundaries are obsolete, and there are some missing province (that's not important here, but some reference lines can be helpful)
  • Some dialect are wrongly assigned to regions/province, instead to proper historical influence.

For example, the "Piedmontese" is not so "The language of Piedmont" and not so extended: Novara dialect is Western Lombard (and has almost nothing to deal with Turin: It's essentially like Milanese, apart some use of wovels) Silimarly Verbanina and Ossola have dialects similar to high Lombardy (Como) and Switzerland (Tessin) with some enclaves of Germman/Walser. Piemontese starts from Vercelli towards Turin.

Similarly, Tuscan is not for the whole Tuscany: it start from Massa going to south. Carrara and northern are still Ligurian.

Emilian is not spoken in Piacenza (They are like Lodigian, similar to Milanese: essentially Western Lombard) Verona is more Esat-Lombard than Veneto (That strongly start in Vicenza).

Again, Calabrian Greek dos not go down to Reggio (that's similar to Messina - although no-one in Reggio will admit :-) ) and Sicilian should be distinguished in Eastern and Western.

Can this be corrected ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.68.115.230 (talk) 10:37, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Po Valley = Lombardy?[edit]

Where does this statement come from? Quote
alternative name for Po Valley, historically also known as Lombardy
Unquote

The Po valley is not equivalent tto Lombardy, Lombardy is a big region lying between the Alps and the Po valley, however the Po valley is in the teritory of: Piedmont, Lombardy, Veneto, Emilia-Romagna, Trentino, and even a bit of Marche.--Biopresto (talk) 08:09, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


In the Middle Ages the term 'Lombardy' did cover the whole of the Po Valley! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.22.242.136 (talk) 12:49, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

yes, Lombardy in the sense of "a political entity belonging to the Italian state" (i.e. "Regione Lombardia") only dates back to the early 1970's. For many centuries before that the name Lombardia/Longobardia" referred to the geaographical (and in some cases politico-geographical) area now known as the Po Valley, and after which the italian region was named. It may be wise to clarify this earlier on, or perhaps separate "Lombardy" from "Regione Lombardia"? --Dakrismeno (talk) 12:33, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Before Italian unification, Reggio Emilia was named "Reggio di Lombardia".--Grifter72 (talk) 14:21, 31 March 2010 (UTC)


Misrepresented as academically recognized[edit]

Wikipedians, pls don't let yourself be fooled around by the quoted "authorities" like Gianni Brera or such as basis to uphold the concept of "Padania" as historically and intellectually founded. We can find a few academically recognized intellectuals (not just journalists as the one above) who will subscribe the past/present existence of Atlantis and Utopia. This doesn't make such places historically founded (and yet they have surely more valid literary and cultural ground to be discussed and studied than Padania).


There has never been a Kingdom of Padania, a Confederacy of Padania, or a Padanian identity that anyone with some authority, inside or outside, recognized as unitary and homogeneously distinct from the rest (eg in the way we distinguish Switzerland and Austria from France or Germany). Padania is a superficial 1980s gdp based construct that ignores its own immensely different regions. Let alone the Tirol / Trentino, which is related to Lombardia exactly like Lombardia is to Euskadi or to Bohemia... even considering the other regions We never had any linguistical or cultural unity in the zone.

We had the Serenissima Repubblica, the Regno di Savoia, the Repubblica di Genova and the Ducato di Milano roughly in the place of the current Veneto, Piemonte Liguria and Lombardia, yes indeed; but as anyone who isn't ignorant of his own history will tell you, they were as much different between themselves as they were with the Stato della Chiesa or with the Regno di Napoli or with the Signoria di Firenze, and never, since the Gothic Wars, under any circumstance (until after the Napoleon occupation) - they were part of the same entity, forming a single kingodom and separated from the rest of the Peninsula in any unitary and independent "padanic" form.

On the contrary, Milan and Venice have been extremely bitter enemies when independent countries, and Milan (OMG) was part of the Spanish Empire alongside Naples and Sicily. Same is about the alleged economic unity of the region (eg Padania related to Switzerland or to Germany rather than to Rome or Naples because of strongly related economies).... USA, China and Saudi Arabia due to oil, exports, imports and investment have massive economic relationships, but this doesnt make them a single sovereign country nor their interdependence makes sensible and reasonable any attempt to see them as a single nation.

So we don't have 1 Padania - neither in history nor in culture. We've 20 regions with 20 histories and one common national interest in EU context. Any claim of "Padania" historically, ethnically and sovereignly differentiated from the rest of the country is fiction (even the inconsistent and extremely temporary episode of the COmuni - so much quoted as if the other 800 years following them didn't matter more- doesn't involve the whole territory vindicated by Padania and it was characterized by a random alliance to preserve municipal privileges, rather than by a conscious desire of "unity").

Padania is an artifical myth, although I am sure there is a public in the area willing to buy and vote the fable. The facts on the ground are that the term is a populist political invention of the last 20 years, with limited currency out of Lega Nord and a quite imaginary history (eg they fundamentally claim to be descendants and related to the CELTS). Pseudo history that needs to make a wikipedia page about itself to prove it exists. If citations are needed I am sure we can provide plenty.... Right today even some of the political allies of the proponents stated that Padania doesn't exist... http://www.adnkronos.com/IGN/News/Politica/La-Padania-Fini-ce-solo-lItalia-Bossi-10-milioni-pronti-a-battersi_579069713.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.134.26.253 (talk) 20:04, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Did you read the article? I'm not sure about the subject of your claim. Does the article say that Padania is a state, or does it say that Padania is the name proposed by Lega Nord for an independent Northern Italy?--Grasso83 (talk) 17:45, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Tuscany Part of 'Padania'? Flag?[edit]

In your map it seems as though Tuscany is considered part of Padania—it does not make any sense.

1. From a geographical point of view, Tuscany is south of the Apennines, hence it is not—nor can it be—part of the Po river valley.

2. From a political point of view, Tuscany as a whole is strongly opposed to the existence of a country named Padania, and thus it should not be considered part of it.

I am a Tuscan, and I feel outraged of such a representation.

I also think the flag should be removed, as it suggests the idea of a country. It had better be included in an article about Lega Nord. Padania as a sovereign state does not—nor will it ever—exist.

68.236.35.214 (talk) 21:56, 30 November 2010 (UTC)Niccolò Aliano

Calm down a while, and listen: if you are outraged because of some other people thinkings, think a while how other people can be outraged by yours. And you will discover that if you are outraged by that, it is YOUR problem. The article clearly explains the why of the inclusion.
Also, be less POV and much, much, much more technically coherent and think how your point 2 is weak:
"Tuscany as a whole opposes ...". Do you understand that is just enough a single (yes, just ONE) Tuscan citizen that doesn't agree with you to make your assertion technically false? Do you know personally EVERY SINGLE Tuscan citizen so intimately that you can swear none of them will ever support that idea?
By now, LN has some members in the Tuscan Council. Someone from Tuscany have to be voted them! So "tuscany as a whole" ... is just an hyperbole.
Keith 64 (talk) 20:30, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
It's nonsense to answer with 6 months delay. Moreover, do not bite newcomers. --Dans (talk) 20:42, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Fiscal imbalance[edit]

The most important thing ,here in a Padania's article, would be show numbers about fiscal imbalance between the Italian state and Padania.

I agree with you: that would matter a lot. Can you write something about it? --Checco (talk) 20:43, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
I disagree. This page is about a political/geographical term, and not about a country. For economic imbalance between the Italian regions, use Economy of Italy.--Enok (talk) 00:02, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
I have no doubt at all that at least 7% of Padania's GDP is taken by Italian State without any devolution. That is forbidden in Germany by federal law: Karlsruhe Court allowed only 4% of each land's GDP for inter-regional solidarity —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.38.4.120 (talk) 10:09, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Write this in the article Padanian nationalism or Lega Nord#Ideology. :-) --Enok (talk) 11:07, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
I am not talking about ideologies, but about facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.38.4.120 (talk) 11:34, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
You're right. I didn't say that.--Enok (talk) 11:49, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
The IP user (83.38.4.120) is perfectly right and what he says can be said about the next talk. This article is not about Padanian nationalism, a limited ideology, but about facts. Padania is a much broader concept that what Enok thinks and I am strongly worried about what he has done to this article. I respect everyone's opinion and I preferred not to tell it before, but it must be recalled that Enok is a well known edit-warrior and that he often lacks a neutral point of view: this is why he has already been permanently banned from it.Wiki. I ask the IP user both to take a look to the edit I made yesterday, which was promptly rollbacked by Enok today, without any respect for other people's work, and to edit the article by adding economic data. Padania is definitely not a country, but it is both a proposed country (which will never exist, in my view) as it is a broad political, cultural, economic, etc. concept. The article should reflect this, Padanian nationalism is a different kind of thing. --Checco (talk) 12:40, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
On Wikipedia I was banned permanently on my request, you can read the whole story here. Do not try to shame me to be right.--Enok (talk) 13:24, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
That's not the whole story and you know it, but it is better for everyone if we stop here. I didn't want to attack you, but you will understand that a total rollback is not a good idea to start with. I assume your good faith and I respect you and your views. Let's talk only about the article. Let's continue in the talk below. --Checco (talk) 13:52, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
That's not the whole story and you know it. If you want to explain me this sentence, my talk page is at your disposal. Otherwise, avoid talking about things that you do not know.--Enok (talk) 14:08, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Enok's edits[edit]

I understand that Enok has a narrow view of the concept of Padania, but that's not the view of many editors who crafted the article during the years, including me. I noticed that Enok has made huge edits to the article, removing a lot of stuff and adding some infos as well. During the last 15 days I prepared an article's version comprising everything Enok removed and what he added. I will post it in a few minutes. --Checco (talk) 21:18, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I reverted your edit. This page is not about a country or an autonomous area. For issues related to Padanian nationalism, use the appropriate page. --Enok (talk) 11:01, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
As I wrote above, Enok's rollback was quite disputable because total rollbacks should be used in Wikipedia only in case of vandalism. This was not the case. The article's version I posted yesterday (which can be improved, but not cancelled altogether) was very "ecumenical" because it included both the original content of the article and what you added in the previous weeks. I am sorry that Enok did not appreciate that. I don't want to start an edit war now, but it is clear that his doings are not OK with me: this article does not deserve to be distorted as Enok would like. I hope other users will agree with me and that we can all together improve the article. --Checco (talk) 12:40, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Why are you talking about my method and my person, instead of arguing about your proposal? This article is not about a country (Padania is an alternative name for the Po Valley in Italy...), and should not be set with the country-related layout (template:infobox country + Geography/Politics/Languages sections).--Enok (talk) 13:05, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
I don't agree with your methods, that's true: I would like you to avoid total rollbacks, but I would have no problem in collaborating with you. An evidence of that is that I appreciated your work and I included your "positive" edits in the joint article's version I posted yesterday. People can change (and so you) and, thus, despite your record, I have no prejudices against you, but please seek consensus. Padania is definitely not a country, but it is a geographic area and a political concept with many aspects: geography, politics, economics, languages, etc. are among them and I don't see any reason not to cite those aspects. --Checco (talk) 13:22, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
I must support Checco in his views. The article about Padania is a geography article, and should then include all the possible info about this area. Which is not an independent state, but anyway a macro-region named after Po Valley (Padana Plain), defined in many articles and works about economics, demographics, history (e.g. medieval comuni, the Lombard League) etc. since at least the '70ies, well before Northern League (born in 1990). Moreover, this article has a long history and is itself long and delicate: Enok should first discuss his point of view, then see if the other editors agree with him, and only after that edit the article. Otherwise, looking just to disrupt it and to impose his point of view, and posting inflammatory messages in the discussion (a behaviour which is very far from discussing in a civilised way his own thesis), would be the behaviour of a troll and not a good Wikipedia user's one. Filippo83 (talk) 13:27, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Strange that your user pages coincide almost perfectly. Please, request here a third opinion, not in your circle of friends.--Enok (talk) 13:46, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
This statement confirm us that you have no point, out of disrupting the page. Checco is a well-known Wikipedia editor for Italian affairs, and his opinion is anyway stronger than yours, with or without my support: but I would like to read a discussion on real facts, not about your opinion; an opinion that I do see pointless. Filippo83 (talk) 17:33, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Checco and Filippo83 and I am not agree with disruptive Enok's ways. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.36.207.13 (talk) 15:46, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Reentring the indentation, I agree with Checco about Enok's edits: He added some points, but He's arguments ("padania is not a country") is weak. Padanian nationalism ("let's make it a country") is not the same as economy and balances about what goes on in the region ("how the volumes are and move"). The fact that the second can be an argument in support to the first is a political issue (and -hence- should be treated in the appropriate "political" voices) but does not make the first disappear.

About the article in general, I noted many "imprecisions" upon certain definition resulting sometimes in misleading and adversed concepts. All that can be accommodated by considering the different definition on their own with thei own specific values. The term "Padania" may refer to:

  • A geographyc location: The Po river basin. Should include also part of the Tessin (Switzerland) and exclude Liguria. In more extensive view can go down the Adriatic sea to the Gargano (the sea above Gargano is -in fact- the continental Po basin filled by water after the post-glacial era)
  • A cultural region: The area of influence of Logobards. It includes all northern Italy down to the "Massa Senigallia line" (not "La Spezia Rimini" as inddicated in the article. It just a wrong approximation, used to talk about it to foreign tourists), thus including a part of the actual Tuscany and Marche. It is where the local languages change the affinity group.
  • A political project: The name that Lega Nord gives to a supposed independent country or region made up by affine administrative and political entities that recognize themselves into that project, whose objective is the independents of the above cultural area.

The last statement, as any political project, changes and adapt depending on the convenience and is sustained using argumentations (some historical issues, some political and administrative results, some cultural affinities ...) that eradicate in different historical moments and refer to different "measurement units", hence some confusions about the boundaries. It is important to note that -speaking about culture and affinity- the actual Italian regions have almost no value. They exist as administrative entities from the Italian Republic institution (1948) and have been defined only for administrative purpose. (There are part of Piedmont and Veneto speaking "Lombard", and some part of Marche speaking Romagnol). Cultural community have different history and affinities. But when comparing administrative results, that are the only data today we have. Since we cannot precise what is the political results of "part of Tuscany and Marche", politics use to include or exclude them all, depending on how that can influence the result. LN includes Marche and Tuscany since when it obtain enough votes to be present in their regional councils. The same with Umbria. It does not include other part of territory that is not contiguous. Note that - being the project the independence from the Italian nation- Padainia can technically ideally extend to include anything but Quirinale, Palazzo Madama, Montecitorio and Palazzo Chigi (The places in Rome, where the Italian institution reside) if there is support from whatever other region. But being Padania itself a "federation of historical nations", what is outside the Po basin (if such a project will ever succeed) will probably self assign a different name or names (The Miglio's "Padania Etruria and Ausonia" - corrected as "Sud", since Ausonia cuts out part of the actual Southern Italy - can be a good reference). Note also that P,E&A reflects into the dominant colors of the local flags into green, white and red ... but this is an affinity even Miglio didn't note! Keith 64 (talk) 13:44, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

You do have a very good knowledge of Padania and Italy, Keith! Actually Italian regions are partly founded on "artificial" borders drawned between 1814 and 1954, so they often separate very close communities, or unify different ones. And I do agree that the voice about "Padania" might be better, in the way of being more precise, accurate and methodical. Just two little notes:
  • there are very few municipalities in Veneto where Lombard is spoken, if no one; the area between Verona and Mantua is a transition zone between Venetian and Lombard languages, but I think that there more Venetian speakers in the Province of Mantua than Lombard speakers in the Province of Verona; maybe you refer to the municipalities along the river Po where an Emilian dialect is spoken; but, to tell the truth, Lombard, Emilian, Piedmontese, Romagnol and Ligurian dialects are all from the Gallo-Italic language family, with the Venetian language being distinct; anyway there are much more Venetian speakers in the regione of Friuli-Venezia Giulia, in the provinces of Pordenone, Gorizia and Trieste;
  • Miglio project was intended to reorganise Italy in a federal state, but without involving in the reorganisation the 5 special-statute regions: so that Valle d'Aosta, Trentino-Alto Adige and Friuli-Venezia Giulia would have been excluded from the northern federated republic of Padania; Lega Nord abandoned this views years ago, with a double effect: the eventual independent Padanian state would include those 3 regions, whether it is not clear which southern border it would have (including the northern part of Etruria, or cutting Italy at the Massa-Senigallia/La Spezia-Rimini line?); and the proposed federal reform of Italy no more suggests the creation of those three federated republics, but founds the project on the 20 regions we already have - in contrast even with the suggested 12 regions of the Agnelli Foundation federal proposal of 1993.

Filippo83 (talk) 17:33, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Thaks, Filippo for your comment. Let me complement your last point: Every "project" has a vision and a pragmatic implemetation, that looks at the vision as an objective to reach with a number of phases. Starting from the actual Italian institution and wanting to replace them with a different state organization, at a first stage it doesn't matter lot "how many regions". The first point is making them administratively independent, then make them independent on internal statute and government systems. At that point, if there are affinities, will be the regions (with actual boundaries) themselves to merge or modify the boundaries as they will retain appropriate.
About the southern boudary, in your description you fall in the same trap of the article incipit:
"including the northern part of Etruria, or cutting Italy at the Massa-Senigallia/La Spezia-Rimini line?"
As far I was describing, Etruria is not Tuscany. It starts under the Massa Senigallia line. The northern part of Tuscany (above Massa) is not Etruria, hence "the northern part of Etruria" looks a nonsense.
The common misunderstanding is enforced by the unfortunate approximation of La Spezia-Rimini, that -in turn- matches the Liguria/Tuscany and Romagna/Marche boundary.
But thats a raw approximation: If you hear the speach of people in Carrara(for example) you don't hear any "tuscan" inflexion. The mixied mode starts in Massa, to begin clean tuscan at Forte dei Marmi. On the other sea, just think to Valentino Rossi: he's marchigian, but has a clean romagnol speech!.
Keith 64 (talk) 20:10, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Actually I never thought to North Etruria as that tiny portion of North Tuscany: I meants the whole Northern Tuscany, as well as northern parts of Umbria and Marche; let's say north of the Livorno-Ancona line, if not north of Maremma-Tronto one (excluding then Northern Lazio). Indeed Massa and Carrara were more "southern lombard" (=emilian) since they were for centuries part of the Duchy of Modena.
About Italy's reorganisation, I think that the two things should proceed together. Otherwise, as happening now, it is unclear whether IT will become a real federal state (like Germany); or it will just power "christian-democrat" regionalism (as proposed before and after WWII), e.g. mantaining "special statute" regions as well as smallest ones (out of Trentino-Südtirol and Sardinia for their particular history, society, geography etc.) I do think that Lega Nord should at least tell us what its main, final goal is inside an Italian federation: keeping the 20 regions (maybe growing up to 21-22); reducing them to a more appropriate 10-15 regions range; or keeping the Miglio-like project of 3 big federated republics. Moreover, it should clearly define the future powers of both regions and state, as done in the USA and in Germany. By this way, it makes more sense to proceed gradually, if we have a point where to arrive.
Filippo83 (talk) 11:46, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I really appreciated what Filippo83 (whom, believe it or not, dear Enok, I've never met in Wikipedia before), Keith 64 and the IP user, and especially that there are some good ideas on how to improve the article. It is also clear to me that Enok's edits are not supported by consensus. I will thus rollback his total rollback, while making some changes that I'm sure Enok will appreciate. Filippo83, Keith 64, etc.: feel free to edit the article as you please! --Checco (talk) 00:57, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Again, use Padanian nationalism or Lega Nord for issues related to indipendence of Padania or political support for this (like polls). I don't support even the inclusion of "Languages" section, unless it is not related with the term Padania.--Enok (talk) 09:48, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
I've worked both on this article and on the it:wiki one some time ago, and I have to say that I do not agree with Enok's edit in both substancial and procedural terms, although I still see room for improvement of the quality of the article. --Dans (talk) 12:00, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Given all the opinions above, except that of Enok, I will rollback the last total rollback by Enok. In this discussion none other than Enok expressed any opposition to the languages' section being part of the article, but as a showing of further expression of will to dialogue I will remove it for now. The article must include by all means the view of Padania by Lega Nord and opinion polls on Padania which are about the people of Padania, not Lega Nord or Padanian nationalists. Moreover it is to remember that Lega Nord is not equal to Padanian nationalism and viceversa.

  • @Filippo83, Keith 64, Dans, etc.: please edit and expand the article and give an opinion on the languages' section.
  • @Enok: please do specific changes to the article and stop with total rollbacks.

--Checco (talk) 02:15, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Please, Enok, discuss your views and look for consensus before making changes to the article - and anyway explain what and why you did. Filippo83 (talk) 23:58, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Languages[edit]

I create a Languages section to be an easier and faster way to discuss&modify the page. Filippo83 (talk) 16:46, 8 March 2011 (UTC)


Languages

The dominant language in Northern Italy is standard Italian. French, Franco-Provençal, Occitan, German, Ladin and Slovene languages are spoken in border areas and are officially recognized by Italy as minority languages.

Several local Northern Italian languages are very commonly used. Veneto is generally considered to be the region where the local language continues to be used most as about 75% of the Venetian population speaks Venetian.[1][2] These so-called dialetti are classified as minority languages by the Red Book of Endangered Languages of UNESCO, the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages of the Council of Europe and Ethnologue: Languages of the World by SIL International. The several local Northern languages include Venetian, Friulian, Lombard, Ligurian, Emiliano-Romagnolo and Piedmontese.

This was the languages' section I removed in the last edit. I think it should be part of the article, but we should emphasize the aspects related to Padania, such as Hull's categorization of Padanian languages. --Checco (talk) 02:24, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I do not agree on this last suggestion. Hull's theories are fringe (published 30 years ago and never diffused since) and not particularly relevant. We already discussed the issue here and on it:wiki time ago.
Thinking twice about it, it may be more appropriate to add this section to the entry on Northern Italy in general (as the first section suggests), as there's nothing particularly Padanian in it.
I am ok with the rest of the section, although I'd add that local languages, including Veneto, are usually spoken in parallel with Italian (if not, one may understand that only 1 Venetian out of 4 speaks Italian - the % is anyway unsourced). Here below my proposition.--Dans (talk) 09:04, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Languages

The dominant language in Northern Italy is standard Italian. Several local Northern Italian languages are very commonly used. French, Franco-Provençal, Occitan, German, Ladin and Slovene languages are spoken in border areas and are officially recognized by Italy as minority languages. Veneto is generally considered[citation needed] to be the region where the local language continues to be used the most as about 75%[citation needed] of the Venetian population speaks Venetian along with Italian.[3][4] These so-called dialetti are classified as minority languages by the Red Book of Endangered Languages of UNESCO, the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages of the Council of Europe (still to be ratified by Italy) and Ethnologue: Languages of the World by SIL International. The several local Northern languages include Venetian, Friulian, Lombard, Ligurian, Emiliano-Romagnolo and Piedmontese.

  1. ^ http://www.istat.it/salastampa/comunicati/non_calendario/20070420_00/testointegrale.pdf
  2. ^ http://www.raixevenete.net/documenti/doc370.asp
  3. ^ http://www.istat.it/salastampa/comunicati/non_calendario/20070420_00/testointegrale.pdf
  4. ^ http://www.raixevenete.net/documenti/doc370.asp
I mostly agree with you. We should insert the section either on Padania or Northern Italy when everything is sourced. Maybe Filippo83 or Keith 64 should help us to do that. What about the article in the current version? Are you fine with that? --Checco (talk) 12:20, 4 March 2011 (UTC)


I agree to include languages inside Padania page: as previously stated, I consider it a geographical and not political page, and so I do think that it should include all the possible infos about.

There is the problem whether Padania and North Italy are the same thing, or different ones - a matter which is important to define how the page should be. We can find at least 4 definitions of Padania:

  • 1- Miglio's Padania, including the regions of Lombardy, Veneto, Piedmont, Emilia-Romagna and Liguria;
  • 2- Padania as North Italy, so that Padania is a synonynmous of North Italy;
  • 3- Lega's Padania, a proposed new state including the whole North Italy as well as Tuscany, Marche and Umbria regions;
  • 4- Padania as Lombardy-Venetia, where Padania is considered to be just the core of the Lega Nord electoral basin, coincident with the old Kingdom of Lombardy-Venetia.

On the other side, some author also excludes Emilia-Romagna region from North Italy, so that such definitions are not always clearly defined.

It is also a problem when we go to the page about Northern Italian languages: actually this page deals about just Gallo-Italian languages, and not about all the languages spoken in North Italy. I proposed some change to the page, but no one have still answered me (perhaps I will proceed alone). Taking e.g. definition 2 for Padania, we could then define local languages. In my opinion, the correct classification of Northern Italian languages (dialects) is:

  • Gallo-Italian:
  • Lombard
  • Emilian-Romagnolo
  • Piedmontese
  • Ligurian
  • etc.
  • Venetian:
  • Lagoon (Sea) Venetian
  • Central Venetian
  • etc. (from Verona and Trento to Trieste and Istria)
  • Rhaeto-Romance:
  • Friulan
  • Ladin
  • Istriot

Take note that the difference between Venetian and Ladin dialects can be very thin: Ladin dialects of the Dolomites can be intelligible to a Venetian speaker, and viceversa (while a Venetian speaker would hardly understand many Gallo-Italian dialects), and there is even a Ladin-Venetian variety. Istriot is not to be confused with the Venetian-Istrian dialect, which is part of Venetian language, even if Istriot is strongly influenced by Venetian. We should then include also German/Bavarian, Provençal/Franco-Provençal and Slovene/Venetian Slovene dialects (people inside Venetian Slovenia speak a different dialect of Slovene language and are very jealous of their own identity, refusing to mix with the nearby Slovene minority in Gorizia and Trieste neither supporting the Slovene minority party). Anyway consider that the most part of these languages (Venetian etc.) has its own Wikipedia page, so we can find all the references inside Wikipedia.

Note that Istria (where Istriot language and Venetian-Istrian dialect are still currently spoken) was historically part of Venetia/North Italy/Padania until 1947, and can still be considered part of it: another problem of borders definition.

In the end, I would not say that there is a Padanian language, common to all this area with its dialects: but for sure there is some local language which is typical of Padania and still currently spoken: e.g. ISTAT 2006 data give a 70% figure for Venetian speakers in Veneto only, that is to say about 3.5million people only in this region; together with Italian or even in place of Italian: for Veneto the two figures are about the same, but almost all Venetian speakers also know Italian very well, due to the Italian school system.

Filippo83 (talk) 17:09, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Filippo83 virtually on everything he wrote and I was delighted to read his posts. It is very good that we have a user like you in en.Wiki and I'm sorry of not having meet you before! I continue to think that we should include a "languages" section in this article (and, more important, a section on what the IP user talked above), including basic information about the languages spoken in Northern Italy, with a particular attention to the La Spezia-Rimini line and Hull's classification.
I think also that the article's introduction may include Filippo83's classification of Padanias. There are at least 3 definitions of Padania (1- Brera's definition: Padania as Northern Italy; 2- Miglio's Padania: comprising Piedmont, Liguria, Lombardy, Veneto and Emilia-Romagna; 3- Lega Nord's Padania: comprising all Northern Italy, plus Tuscany, Marche and Umbria), while I'm not sure anyone ever classified the sole Lombardy-Venetia as Padania (Filippo83: do you have any source for that?). In this respect, it must be told that a crescent number of columnists, journalists and intellectuals are using Brera's definition of Padania without sticking to Lega Nord's Padanist views, that is to say including also Tuscany, Marche and Umbria: Angelo Panebianco is just one example. --Checco (talk) 03:03, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Enok has to stop his edits[edit]

I would ask the intervention of a moderator, because Enok is continuing to edit the page without giving any explanation and in defiance of the opinion of the other users. He is starting an edits war that we would never like to happen, he is refusing to accept to discuss here edits looking for a consensus to them, and he seems to think that the pages Padania and Padanian nationalism are his own properties. He is ultimately behaving like a troll and nothing else. Filippo83 (talk) 18:11, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Please, use Padanian nationalism for issues related to indipendence of Padania. Wikipedia should not be used for political purposes and propaganda.--Enok (talk) 19:59, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Please, Enok, stop to troll. You already told us your opinion, and we already told you ours. There is no consensus on your opinion, so please, let's give up and move on.
We (including yourself) cannot stay in this loop forever. If you have other proposal you're welcome, but don't insist over and over with the same arguments that already have attention. You've been a minority. Full stop.
Keith 64 (talk) 21:35, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Once again I have to notice (and I am sorry about that) that Enok continues to act without any respect of other users' opinions and, ultimately, in defiance of all the basic rules of Wikipedia. We already accepted many of Enok's advices and I personally integrated all the new infos he added into the article. At last we even took the "languages" section out from the article, even if at least three users wanted to have it in. Despite all this, Enok continues to behave as he does not know what the "consensus" principle is about. That is no more acceptable. We always discussed and tried to find a common ground, but I am wondering if Enok is interested in that or not. Total rollbacks won't be tolerated anymore and I urge all users to keep an eye on the article. Contructive edits by Enok and any other users are obviously welcomed and, to quote Dans, there is still much "room for improvement of the quality of the article". --Checco (talk) 02:25, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

You need large consensus to add polls in this page. They are already included in the article Padanian nationalism, why add them here too? Again: don't use Wikipedia for political purposes. --Enok (talk) 03:06, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Incorrect. Polling editors on a talk page is an accepted method of gaining consensus. You appear to be saying that consensus must first be reached to ask if there is consensus, which is logically impossible. I think you should step back and carefully rethink your position. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 17:55, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

What political purposes? The opinion polls have long been part of this article and can stay here too, even if you added them to Padanian nationalism. What large consensus? Here we have a very uncontroversial issue (how can numbers be controversial?) and four users and one IP who espressed their opinions against your opinion. As the opinion polls have long been in this article, they are relevant to it and you are the only one opposed to them, they should stay where they have been for years. Please stop deleting parts of the article without consensus (what about the Padanian flag proposed by Lega Nord? why do you deleted it?). --Checco (talk) 04:22, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Where is consensus to adding polls in this article about Padania (and not about political support for its independence)?--(Enok) 87.19.209.187 (talk) 04:27, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

You can look at all the posts above. You're the only one in favor of the removal of parts from the article. Moreover, why are you continuing to remove also Padania's flag proposed by Lega Nord? How can it be not relevant to this article? We can't go on like this forever and ever. As proposed by Filippo83, I notified the situation to the administrator's noticeboard. --Checco (talk) 14:16, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

As Enok removed some parts of the article, notably the "opinion polling" section, without consensus (in fact, four editors and a couple of IPs opposed his actions), I can't see how he can appeal with consensus as he was the one who made changes to the article without the support from other users. I will thus re-insert the "opinion polling" section, hoping that Enok will seek consensus before deleting again material from the article. I will have no problem if there will be a consensus on removing the "opinion polling" section or other parts from the article in the future, but it is clear at this point there is no such consensus. --Checco (talk) 20:34, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd suggest everyone stop and look at WP:CONSENSUS and WP:CYCLE before things get too far out of hand. The Cliffs Notes version: an uncontested edit is considered to have consensus, whether it adds or removes material. If the edit is contested or reverted, that should spur the involved editors into discussion on the article's Talk page in order to arrive at consensus. Once that consensus has been reached, the discussed changes are made to the article. The next edit begins the pattern again. And if consensus can't be reached on the Talk page, the dispute resolution process begins. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 22:36, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
But we already have consensus or at least, for sure, there is no consensus on the removal of material imposed by Enok... We discussed and discussed, but since the beginning a clear consensus emerged, so what do we need now? Probably we were wrong to appease Enok and to accept most of his requests, hoping to find a compromise: what have we achieved? I don't think that the opinion of one user, who imposes his views without any attempt of finding a common ground, can overrule the opinion of many other users. Don't you? --Checco (talk) 22:54, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
That's where the dispute resolution process comes into play. I'd suggest starting with getting a third opinion from another editor, one who hasn't been involved up to this point. If you can find one familiar with the topic, so much the better. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 23:02, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't understand why four users against one is not enough. In fact, we have a third, a fourth and a fifth opinion! --Checco (talk) 23:14, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
In fact, the first rule of the third opinion process is that the dispute should involve only two editors. That's not our case. At the editor's noticeboard, they tell you not to post issues that are posted on another noticeboard. So what? --Checco (talk) 23:22, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Alan, please, have a look to this same discussion page starting to the "Enok's edits" topic, two sections above. All what you're saying already happened! I understand your "ambassador" role, but we cannot start at zero, as all previous facts didn't happened! You ask for a "third one" in a page where we are just at least "five". How does your statement apply to this situation?
Keith 64 (talk) 20:45, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I think that opinion polls, as anything else helping to characterize Padania and ita inhabitants, should be included as well in this article, as stated by Checco. The only thing I can tell to Enok - who is making a political and personal use of this page, not the contrary - is that Padanian Nationalism page could be useful to go deeper inside that question, and we could contribute as well, but it should not be used to delete from this page about Padania certain paragraphs. Filippo83 (talk) 09:40, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

As the last comments show, there is a clear consensus on having the opinion polls in the article. After two months and more than 40K of discussion (as Keith 64 correctly pointed out), I think we should stop discussing and turn back to improve/expand the article (languages, economy, etc.). I will soon re-insert the "opinion polling" section removed by Enok without consensus. --Checco (talk) 14:42, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
I concur with Checco, Filippo83 and Keith 64 in keeping the poll section. Padania has a clear political meaning as a potential independent country and the polls measure the popular consensus on that issue, providing justification for the political section of the article. -- Nozdreff (talk) 23:53, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Reverts[edit]

What can we do when the editors don't discuss, but that obstruct and delete the reference?[1]--GiovBag (talk) 12:05, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

As you know there is this discussion that I've linked a lot of times. And, as you know, your edits don't have, for now, necessary consensus --Tia solzago (talk) 12:41, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Beyond any disruptive behavior that I could have. The truth is, that except for the few partisans of the Lega which do nothing to "defend" the party, deleting valid references and obstructing wikipedia, the rest of the users accept as valid the reference to say this is a right-wing populist party.--GiovBag (talk) 08:37, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Who are the rest of the users? I do not see them here. -- Filippo83 (talk) 14:20, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Filippo, look at this: [2], [3], [4], [5]. If there is no many other users, is becasue only italians working (or even concerned) with this article. Regards.--GiovBag (talk) 14:51, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
First of all, this is Padania and not Lega Nord article. Then, you should be aware that there is a discussion about it, in which I clearly made my statement too; and that decisions are made by a polite discussion, seeking consensus and data, and not by modifying at will the article. I really see no point in your intervention here, no reason for it. -- Filippo83 (talk) 10:35, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
GiovBag, saying "the rest of the users accept as valid the reference to say this is a right-wing populist party" is not scientific.
A fact exist by itself, not because someone can "think to it".
What a party is, is defined by the statute of the party itself. And this is the only "reliable source". Everything else are opinions about it.
The fact that there is a number of people who think LN is a right-wing-populist party doesn't change what the party is and wants to be in the same way the fact that there is a number of people who think the Sun turns around the Earth doesn't change the way these two bodies move one respect to the other.
It is not a problem of "support" but of "authority recognition".
I don't recognize in LN any authorities about defining (commenting is another thing) other parties positioning, as I don't recognize any other but LN members to define what LN is.
What I can think about it is all another story that has no encyclopedic clue.
Keith 64 (talk) 06:49, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
I won't feed the boring disputation about LN's positioning, but I have to remark that this article's incipit is not refering to the current LN's politics, but to the situation as it appeared in early 1990s. There is no source saying that the 1990s Lega Nord was a right-wing populist party.--Grasso83 (talk) 17:46, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

ForEverRome has modified the page at his will, in defiance of our long discussions and without even writing a single word here in the Talk (and he behaved in the same way for the Lega Nord page). We cannot accept such a behaviour, we have all to discuss changes to this kind of pages and to seek consensus about. Filippo83 (talk) 09:30, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Short geography of Padania, for ForEverRome[edit]

ForEverRome, if we define Padania as simply the Po Valley, entire Triveneto (South Tyrol, but also Trentino, Friuli and even Veneto) would not be part of it. Nor almost all Liguria or Romagna would be. All these territories are outside river Po basin, not to talk about Tuscany and so on. It is evident that Padania defines something similar to entire North Italy, and not just the lands which rivers are tributaries of the Po - I have also to remember you that many people in South Tyrol neither feel part of Italy. Filippo83 (talk) 22:47, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

P.S. South Tyrol is anyway part of the Adige river basin (out of a very tiny part, where Drava river rises) and so its waters arrive in the Adriatic Sea as well. -- Filippo83 (talk) 23:01, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes you're right Tuscany (Le Marche and Umbria) is absolutely not Padania, and neither the cost of Liguria. For political reasons some people want to include other rich territories of north central Italy, but this is just propaganda. I know the campaigne Südtirol ist nicht Italien, so what?. The point is geographically Südtirol is part of Tyrol, not of the Po Valley (or Padania). --ForEverRome (talk) 16:38, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
I don't understand the large attention this article (an all LN an PDL parties) is giving to lot of people with clear anti-LN political ideas only from very few weeks.
But I have a suspect: Administrative elections are quite close, and they are starting their propaganda with their own favorite techniques: their opinion are assumed as THE TRUTH and whoever will try to add even a simple LOGIC that's not in their ideological flow is accused of making propaganda.
If ForEverRome just read the discussion above and CAREFULLY READ ALL the article will note that the term Padania is used with different meaning.
In geographical sense, what he say is right. In political sense, let LN to define what Padania is.
Politics and geography not necessarily match. There are piece if Italy not Italian and non-italian lands that are (geographically) Italy. The same is for Padania.
His contribute adds no information to what already discussed.
Keith 64 (talk) 20:45, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Filippo83. Moreover, Alto Adige/Südtirol has more to do with Po Valley than Friuli or Liguria!
@Filippo83 and Keith 64: why don't we resume that idea of clearly explaining all the different meanings of "Padania"? I remember that both of you proposed such a thing and I think that it would be extremely appropriate. Of course, we need sources. --Checco (talk) 16:00, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Did you answer a year ago, or a few days ago? Anyway, I agree, of course, with your proposal. Shortly, we could define Padania in at least four different ways: geographical Padania a.k.a. Po Valley; a synonymus of whole North Italy; Miglio's Padania, including Piedmont, Liguria, Lombardy, Veneto and Emilia-Romagna, but not Aosta Valley, Trentino-Suedtirol and Friuli-Venezia Giulia; Lega's Padania, including the whole Centre-North of Italy (controversial, since Lega was never precise on its separatist claims). Filippo83 (talk) 15:53, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
A long time ago... on 26 April 2011! Would you like to write a new section on the four different meanings of "Padania"? --Checco (talk) 01:18, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
I think that it would be repetitive, since the different possible meanings of Padania are already shown in the single sections of the article. We could instead point out that each section (geography, politics, Lega Nord) shows a slightly different idea of Padania. Filippo83 (talk) 14:37, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Infobox[edit]

The "country infobox" added by an ip editor [6] to this page regarding an alternative name for the Po valley which has been adopted by a political party as the title of a hypothetical state covering a much wider territory [7] is grossly misleading and, imo, wholly inappropriate. Will revert. —MistyMorn (talk) 18:18, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Padania and Padanian nationalism[edit]

This morning User:Enok came back to this page and made huge edits, without consulting anyone and against previous consensus. He also moved Padanian nationalism to Padanian independentism. I would like to express my disagreement with the content and the method of the afromentioned edits (see 1 and 2).

Let's start with the article's move. I agree with Enok that there is no "Padanian nation", but, as an independent editor of this encyclopedia, I have to say that it is a fact that there are people who believe there is a Padanian nation and who campaign for it. We might disagree with them, but they exist. "Nationalism" is the term which is universally used in en.Wiki in reference to movements who proclaim the existance of a nation. Secondly, "indipendentism" is macaroni English. I will also remove the section named "In popular culture" because that has nothing to do with the movement and it is instead related with the term "Padania" itself.

Regarding the edit done by Enok to this page, I have to say that it is not consistent with the consensus of this talk page and can be described as unmotivated removal of encyclopedic material. As said, we may not agree with Padanian nationalists on the concept of Padania (as said, that's my case), on its very existance as a nation or on its independence, but we can't ignore that "Padania" has been mentioned in popular culture and that there have been opinion polls on Padania's independence. Finally, I think it is proper and appropriate to explain in this article what Lega Nord means (or has meant) when it talks about Padania. The title of the section Enok removed, "Lega Nord's Padania", is quintessentially NPOV. I will thus revert Enok's edit to this page and invite him, once again, to discuss.

I'm very open and interested in improving this article, whose consensus version is not Holy Grail to me. I thus reccomend Enok to leave aside unilateral edits and to discuss in this talk page his proposed edits. I'm sure we both dislike edit wars and that, despite our disagreements, we can do our best to profitably work together.

--Checco (talk) 09:50, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I suggest you to use the Padanian nationalism's article to push your POV.--Enok (talk) 16:39, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Information about the independence movement can easily fit on this article, and it's clearly relevant. The article only has 17kB of prose after all, hardly too much. CMD (talk) 18:48, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Not even Scotland, Catalonia or Bavaria have opinion polls about secession in their articles (and they are real nations). --Enok (talk) 05:37, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. You'll note also that even with the secession polls, this article is far smaller than any of those. CMD (talk) 12:09, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
I agree with CMD. Enok shouldn't dismiss arguments like mine with simplistic and unconditional comments as "I suggest you to use the Padanian nationalism's article to push your POV". Also, total rollbacks are not reccomended. There is a clear consensus on the inclusion of the infos Enok wants to delete. Finally I would like to point out again that it's unrelevant what we personally think about an issue (in this case both Enok and I agree that Padania is not a nation): we need to be neutral as much as we can, and the infos Enok wants to delete are clearly relevant to the article. --Checco (talk) 14:51, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
I don't want to delete nothing. I want to move informations about Padanian nationalism in Padanian nationalism's article. --Enok (talk) 19:19, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
That information can still be retained here. Article's overlap. CMD (talk) 22:15, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
Moreover, what Enok says is not true. A lot of stuff he repeatedly removed (-9,456 bytes) from this article was not included (only +1,550 bytes) in Padanian nationalism. And all the stuff he deleted is inherent with Padania not the nationalist movement. --Checco (talk) 09:15, 28 January 2013 (UTC)