Template talk:Historical Italian political parties

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Pole of Freedoms[edit]

Why this, Checco? —Nightstallion (?) 15:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

The Pole for Freedoms didn't exist at all (you might have confused it with the Pole of Freedoms), while "Paese Nuovo" and "Per l'Abolizione dello Scorporo" were neither coalitions nor parties, but only "liste civetta". I don't know if you understand the meaning of it... in a few words, they were false lists invented to deduct votes in order to not have problems with "scorporo". These are electoral techincalities and I can't explain myself in English... --Checco 16:07, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
According to the Italian Wikipedia, the it:Polo per le Libertà was different from the it:Polo delle Libertà, and while I know that both of those lists were liste civetta, they were still in some sense coalitions of the left/right... —Nightstallion (?) 18:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
I think that this is another mistake of it.Wiki... About "liste civetta", I don't agree with you, indeed they were lists exactly as FI, AN, DS or LN, they had their candidates. I would prefer to ignore them, but if you want to put them in the template you need to consider them as parties not coaltions. This is only my opinion, obviously. --Checco 18:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Oh, okay then. Regarding the civetta... We could simply make a new line for them, which I will do now. —Nightstallion (?) 18:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Nav Box[edit]

I prefer the Navbox version for two reasons

  1. It is consistent with other version of parties template
  2. It looks better than the earlier version, instead of bolding the group-names they are beneath each other in nice boxes.

Furthermore I don't see how this is consistent with other italian parties templates, which appears Nightstallion's only argument. C mon 18:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

It takes up about twice the space, too. shrugs Fair enough, if you insist. —Nightstallion 19:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
It was definitely better before, I agree with Nightstallion. --Checco 23:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Socialist and social democratic parties[edit]

If you agree with me,I suggest to separate the socialist parties by the social democratic ones.I tried some days ago,but I think I made confusion.Since the second Post War,there is the difference between democratic socialism and social democracy.So I think in Italy,there was this difference.What do you think of? Itanesco (talk) 20:33, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it is confusing to classify a party called "Italian Socialist Party" as social-democratic. C mon (talk) 21:09, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

As you've seen in the table,there are some parties which were social-democratic (Italian Democratic Socialist Party,Democrats of the Left) Itanesco (talk) 21:13, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand what is the problem: in fact PSI was "socialist" only by name and was the most centrist social-democratic party in Europe (see data in Piero Ignazi's book about European political parties, I'll check the exact title). --Checco (talk) 15:49, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
You would need to formulate a criterion or find external sources for this classification. We can't just classify parties on a hunch. Moreover, as long as the PSI called itself "socialist", you would need pretty good sources to classify it differently. C mon (talk) 16:25, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
We should not confuse the names of the parties with their ideology... think about the Liberal Party of Australia which is a conservative party, the Social Democratic Party of Portugal which is a liberal-conservative party, etc. According to Ignazi, who presents a reseach classifying alla European parties from right to left, PSI was the most "conservative" social-democratic party in Europe. I will tell you more when I can. --Checco (talk) 07:23, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Checco:we should not confuse the names of the parties with their ideologies.I repeat:we have to separate the socialist parties by the social democratic ones.Italian social democratic parties adhered to PES and to Socialist International,like Italian Democratic Socialist Party,Unified Socialist Party (alliance of Italian Socialist Party and Italian Democratic Socialist Party),Democratic Party of the Left,Italian Socialists and Democrats of the Left.Maybe we can add Italian Socialist Party,Italian Socialist Workers'Party and Unified Socialist Party (as if in the beginning they were socialist,then they became social-democratic by adhering to PES and to Socialist International). Itanesco (talk) 11:45, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Great you have now formulated a reliable criterion, I can live with this. C mon (talk) 12:16, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
OK!I'm going to edit the table of parties. Itanesco (talk) 13:57, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
If it is OK for C mon, it is OK also for me!
@C mon: In S. Hix - C. Lord, Political Paerties in the European Union, Macmillan, Houndmills 1997, p. 146 and L. Bardi - P. Ignazi, Il Parlamento europeo, Il Mulino, Bologna 1999, p. 115, you will find the table I was talking about. According to Hix and Lord, PSI was the most "conservative" party of PES (5.0 in a 1-10 scale), while PDS was the most leftist (3.5). Also according to these data, PSI was thus to the right of D66 (4.8) and slightly to the left of Belgian CVP (5.71). I don't believe too much in these classifications, but this is simply to remember how PSI was a centrist social-democratic party, even if it included more leftist factions (as that led by Fabrizio Cicchitto, who is now one of the leaders of Forza Italia - strange Italy!). --Checco (talk) 07:38, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Conservative liberal section[edit]

I had already thought of changing the section "Liberal" in "Conservative liberal" for some reasons:1)Italian Liberal Party was a conservative-liberal party.It did not participate into the centre-left governments,because it didn't like subjects like nationalization of light,taxes for Southern Italy,and because it thought that DC was conditioned by PSI (in particular),PSDI and PRI.2)Union of the Centre was the direct heir of the Italian Liberal Party,that's why it is conservative-liberal.3)The same thing is worth for Liberal Party,whose members will adhere to Forza Italia.What do you think of? Itanesco (talk) 10:37, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure. It is true that at the beginning PLI was a very conservative liberal party, but also that it included also leftists. Even after the exit of Pannella's Radicals, PLI had "left-wing" leaders such as Valerio Zanone, who supported a lib-lab alliance with PSI and who is indeed a member of the PD now. UdC was definitely centrist. Actually I would leave things as they are. --Checco (talk) 10:49, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Moreover we could move the Radical Party and PRI to the "liberal" category... --Checco (talk) 10:50, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Checco!I don't think so!PRI is clearly a social-liberal party,even if today it is member of PDL.The former Radical Party was different than Italian Radicals.Radical Party was social-liberal,while Italian Radicals are liberal. Itanesco (talk) 10:54, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes and no. I agree on the Radical Party before-1989, but not on PRI. The current ideology of PRI is simply liberalism. Since its foundation the party has shifted from a nerarly-socialist platform to market liberalism. However, although I am very unconfortable with having the Radical Party and PRI in the same category with The Net, I think that the current solution is the best one. --Checco (talk) 11:01, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Let's find a compromise:we put PRI into the Liberal section,but we let Radical Party in the Social liberal one.Ok? Itanesco (talk) 11:07, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
That's great for me if it OK also for you. --Checco (talk) 11:43, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

collapsed/plain[edit]

Piccolo Modificatore Laborioso (PML) made this edit, making the template collapsed. I understand this edit, but as I think that collapsed templates are not that useful to readers, as they collapse every time you come back to the page where the template is, I would like to come back to the previous version. No problem if other users agree with PML, but we need other's opinions as currently we are 1 against 1. It's not a big deal, obviously, but there's currently no consensus on PML's edit. --Checco (talk) 07:25, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

The template, you will agree, is very long, and the pages it links are usually short, sometimes so short that the template itself is longer than the rest of the article. Also, while collapsed navboxes can be expanded with a click, those set on plain cannot be collapsed. Checco, shouldn't this get the due attention, and should you still desire a return to the previous version, you might want to request a third opinion. Let me know if this happens.--Le Petit Modificateur Laborieux (talk) 11:56, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
That the template is very long is not a problem, while I still think that having plain templates is better for users, to which the encyclopedia is aimed at. It's not a big deal, but I still desire a return to the previous versions and I actually don't understand how your opinion should be more important than mine. While waiting for other users's opinions, I think we should come back to the plain version. --Checco (talk) 19:51, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Again, let's just ask for a third opinion. If we wait for someone else to come across this page to give an opinion, it could be months before we get it.--Le Petit Modificateur Laborieux (talk) 01:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC)