Talk:Silvio Berlusconi

This article had considerable disputes about whether it achieved NPOV. It has now been updated to try to solve those debates. If you feel that the article is biased or inaccurate, please add a section with specific problems to the end of this page where it can be discussed and a better form can be found.

Wrong sentence

One of the first sentences is wrong: "Berlusconi has twice held office as prime minister of Italy, most recently from 2001 to 2006". He was president for three times because in 2005 the governament fell but after that he led another one (the third one) from 2005 to 2006. Paolotacchi (talk) 17:47, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

The following sentence was deleted without any valuable reason: "He is unanimously recognized as the best politician of the world of every time". User:PravoSlav.

WTF?! --M4gnum0n (talk) 14:24, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

So it should, its a POV sentence Ijanderson977 (talk) 15:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The only truth is, that Berlusconi called himself so, he reconized only Napoleone to have done more than him, and these are his words not mine.. truly, in 2001 he was claimed to be the best, the most intelligent, the more hard-working man of the world, and his supporters often thinked really he was so. This was mainly before the 2001 elections. But even so, the sentence could be the stuff thinked by his supporters, surely not the 'absolute truth'.— Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Stefanomencarelli (talk)

References

I tried to diminuish them and I succeeded, but something has gone wrong. the numbers starting beneath no. 18 belong to no. 33. Can somebody please correct? I can't fix that 11347TCroa (talk) 16:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Austerlitz -- 88.72.20.61 (talk) 23:34, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

done --dvdb 20:13, 10 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dodo von den Bergen (talk • contribs)

Travaglio

The parenthetic remark, '(who is a columnist of the left official newspaper l'Unita)' is POV because Travaglio is a classical right-leaning liberal who does indeed contribute to Unità, but also to La Repubblica and to Corriere della Sera. While true therefore, it gives the impression he is writing from a leftwing ideological perspective Nishidani (talk) 07:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

You are right, so go and correct it.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 07:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Already had corrected it before noting down my edit here. Unfortunately there is much to correct, and I don't know if clearing every edit here beforehand would prove functional. If I find anything really controversial, I hope to register the problem here beforehand though.Nishidani (talk) 21:36, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Matter from orig.lead to be trimmed down and reintroduced or relocated

I have excerpted the following from the lead, which was far too long, like the article itself. I suggest the key points lacking in lead be written briefly from this. The rest of the material can be integrated into the relevant section of the page.Nishidani (talk) 08:41, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

In economics, Berlusconi has endorsed conservative policies, such as lowering taxes and generally placing fewer constraints on enterprise, in an effort to encourage growth. In foreign policy, his views have been strongly pro-American, even at the expense of causing some damage to relations with other European countries. In particular he supported George W. Bush in the U.S.-led 2003 invasion of Iraq, and though constitutionally impeded from taking part in the war, sent a contingent of Italian troops to join the "Coalition of the willing" , in a peacekeeping role. In several key social policy areas, the Berlusconi government has implemented a conservative, rather than a liberal, program by passing stricter laws concerning immigration, artificial insemination, and drug use.

Considerable controversy surrounds both the constitutional legality of his television network, and its role in his political success. According to Berlusconi's adversaries, the Mediaset (Fininvest's media division) TV channels have played a crucial role in his political success by airing propaganda during news or other information-oriented programming. His supporters assert that the networks have always maintained a neutral political stance. After Berlusconi's election as Prime Minister, the left accused him of also abusing his position as premier to control the publicly owned RAI TV channels. In practice, they maintain, this permits him to control almost all TV sources of information, while the right insists that the RAI channels are, if anything, biased in favor of the centre-left. According to independent observers, two of the State channels (Rai 1 and Rai 2) had been indeed controlled by Berlusconi's government, while Rai 3 managed to retain independence and a critical stance. Such control, in a famous example, was displayed when Berlusconi called Member of European Parliament Martin Schultz a "Nazi kapo", and the Rai 1 news program showed the incident with no audio and offering a misleading account. Political debate in Italy has become rather alienating, as the contenders often seem to completely lack a shared information source regarded as neutral and reliable. Although Berlusconi officially resigned from all functions in his commercial group in 1994 upon entering political office, he is the largest shareholder and is believed to retain at least some control.

Assistance in disentangling this for a thumbnail précis would be appreciated Nishidani (talk) 08:41, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Here it would be appropriate to cite the phone call between Berlusconi and the RAI administrator Saccà:

http://espresso.repubblica.it/dettaglio/Pronto-Silvio-sono-Sacca/1917587

--Pokipsy76 (talk) 10:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

That should go in (there is also an audio link, I believe) but in an appropriate section on his Conflict of Interest in the Media (which would include the Bulgarian Edict etc., the power to hire, intimidate asnd fire journalists who do not toe the line, also in Public Media). My problem with the article is not so much the general content, but its organization, which is episodic rather than thematic. For example, we have 'The Economist' but in May 2001, a whole series of Western mags and newspapers, El Mundo, El Pais, Der Spiegel, Le Monde etc., made similar comments. Hence we need a section along the lines of 'Foreign Newspaper Criticism', as we need one on 'Diplomatic Incidents'. This is going to take some work and patience. Regards Nishidani (talk) 11:09, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Silvio Berlusconi's Stance on the EU

Does anyone know what his views on the European Union are? I think this should be part of the article, especially with the upcoming vote on the Treaty of Lisbon. I would appreciate if someone added this to the article. Thank you. Artur Buchhorn (talk) 21:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I can only tell you that the general consensus is that SB doesn't have any views on most things beyond his business calculations, but is ready to accommodate every view, depending on necessity, political lobbies etc. His major ally, the Northern League, was historically opposed to the E.U., since it wants regional devolution along the lines of Catalan. Under the influence of Giulio Tremonti, the economist, who was against the E.U. in the 90s but has now changed tack, the E.U. will be supported for (1) its potential as a legislative and economic block to put pressure on fair trade, perhaps tariffs on esp.Chihnese goods, and (2) for stricter immigration laws and collective border policing of the Mediterranean. Whether they join America ('I agree with American policy even before it has been formulated' SB) in using the Eastern E.U. newby block to create havoc, is unknown. They will, however, press for a E.U. repositioning of traditional geostrategic diffidence with GWB's aggressively 'pro-active' interference in the oil-producing Arab world, and will eliminate the slightly pro-Arab, pro-Palestinian traditions of Italy diplomacy, in line with Merkel, Sarkozy, and others. I will try to find something on this when it emerges, to include it.Nishidani (talk) 09:38, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I am afraid to say, but it's true. Our government apparently has no clue how to do a 'serious' and responsable guideline'. The stuff is so unbeleavable, but true. It seems Berlusconi (or Cai admins, or both) now is on the way to marry (sell?) Alitalia/Cai to Air France, the same company called as inadeguate (to defend 'italianity') last spring. And in the same time, it seems he wants to do the same thing to Lufthansa, that has shown no interest. This could be umbeleavable, but it results by a lot of sources, and to be more accurate, it's almost sure Cai will be merged in Air France-KLM. It's only one of the many things that are happening now, in these days. In Italy the things are getting worse and worse quickly, economy is a mess, the glorious Nord-Est (the Italy 'economic engine') is falling apart. In the same time, we have the Villari issue, the war between Salerno and Catanzaro judges (with the highest policians involved to this time, a really dirty thing), the Gelmini's school reform (strongly adversed) ecc,ecc. A lot of 'hot stuff' and apparently the government has no idea how to face it. And just three months ago, Tremonti was saying 'look, Italy is not seriously endagered by economical crisis'. Last days, insthead, Sacconi leaved a word: default. He told about italian economy, do you have the clue? So we are swiftly fallen in the troubles, and nobody have done something to avoid this catastrophe. I am very afraid to say it, believe me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.104.203.102 (talk) 21:10, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Is he PM now?

Has Berlusconi taken over as PM yet? It`s been a while since the election. --Oddeivind (talk) 08:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

No. Or at least if he has, it's rather stunning that Corriere della Sera has not seen fit to make it a big headline (I've been scanning the headlines recently, not so much reading the stories in depth -- check it out at http://www.corriere.it, if you can read a little Italian). --Trovatore (talk) 08:26, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

The correct term for the next week or so is 'Italy's Premier-elect Silvio Berlusconi'. Shortly, the text may resume the wording used rather prematurely before it was, with pedantic rectitude, contested as inappropriate to this interim.Nishidani (talk) 08:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

There is no such thing as a "premier-elect". --Trovatore (talk) 16:49, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I Italy the population votes for the Parliament, not for the President of the Council, which is elected by the President of the Republic (not by the citizens). See the Italian Constitution. Paolotacchi (talk) 13:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, of course, I know. I just thought it was strange that it takes som much time before he takes over. --Oddeivind (talk) 15:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

So what should we do? It's very easy to check here on the institutional webpage [1]. All the English Wikipedia is wrong about italian cabinets. Paolotacchi (talk) 13:25, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Very few English speakers are likely to count the outcome of a cabinet reshuffle as a new term in office, even if you can argue that it legally is. We should say that he's been PM twice before, but with a note about the cabinet reshuffle. That's what I've done. --Trovatore (talk) 18:28, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Is it really anyone that count a cabinet reshuffle as a new time as prime minister?? As long as he remains in office without a break, that is clearly one single term in office. Thus, he will now be a PM the third time. --Oddeivind (talk) 14:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't know about the "without a break" formulation -- I think if there's a new parliament, even without a different PM, I would probably count that as a separate term. --Trovatore (talk) 17:08, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing to invent in the count. This is the official count Governi Italiani. We can't have "opinions" about it. The next one will be the 4' Berlusconi cabinet. Paolotacchi (talk) 20:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

It will be the fourth cabinet, but that is not necessarily the same thing as Berlusconi's fourth time in office. --Trovatore 20:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

What would be the difference? And moreover: the article on the history of Italian cabinets is completely mistaken. Paolotacchi (talk) 13:40, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

What article is that? As far as I know, there is no article called history of Italian cabinets or history of Italian governments or list of Italian cabinets or list of Italian governments. Nope, they all came up red. What we do have is a list of prime ministers of Italy. Prime ministers, not governments. This will be, by the way most people are going to be counting, the third time Berlusconi has been prime minister, even if it's technically his fourth government. --Trovatore (talk) 15:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

By that logic, Gordon Brown is in his second term with his shuffle. A new cabinet is not a new term. Therequiembellishere (talk) 22:19, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I was referring to the article list of prime ministers of Italy (the title too is uncorrect, because in the Italian Constitution there isn't the idea of "Prime" minister). Moreover the count is uncorrect (you can verify it at the link to Governi Italiani) and it doesn't matter if abroad the most of people don't know how we count the Presidents and their cabinets. The most of Italian Wikipedians write "perchè" instead of "perché", but not for this reason "perchè" becomes correct. Paolotacchi (talk) 07:42, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Dear Therequiembellishere, there is a big difference between Italy and the United Kingdom. Every time that a PM forms a new government there are a new oath of office and a vote of confidence in Parliament, so that only at that point the new term starts. Italian PM is a very weak figure: he cannot fire his ministers and thus reshuffle the cabinet. --Checco (talk) 11:23, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

This is because Italian PM does not exist. It's not a Premier, but only a President of the Council of Ministers. Paolotacchi (talk) 16:41, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Exact date?

I just heard on the news (BBC) that Berlusconi has taken over as prime minister, but according to the information here on Wikipedia he toook over on the 8. of May. What is the correct date? --Oddeivind (talk) 06:33, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

8 of May, when he did the oath in front of the President of the Republic who named/elect him. Paolotacchi (talk) 21:53, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

The 1989 Ammnesty and Berlusconi's Perjury Conviction

Berlosconi's perjury conviction was commuted by a 1989 amnesty he passed for that purpose. I can find no specific information on that law. The economist says that the law commuted his perjury conviction. This would mean that the convictions stands. I think that his status as a convicted perjurer is of equal importance to his ownership of newspaper companies, under npov —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.96.148.42 (talk) 05:21, 7 July 2008 (UTC) The conviction has been changed to extinguished with no explanation. As the economist uses commuted, which has a different meaning I shall change it back.93.96.148.42 (talk) 01:50, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

In Italy, when an amnesty is passed, the wrongdoing is considered EXTINGUISHED even if a conviction has already been sentenced.

The 1989 amnesty was voted by more than 2/3 of the MPs... It was strongly wanted by the Italian Communist Party to avoid investigations over the money coming from the Soviet Union to their italian cousins. The Economist knows it very well, but it avoided deliberatedly to make it clear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.80.197.101 (talk) 14:56, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Could you please provide more details of this ammnesty, and how criminals qualified for it, perhaps add a link, as I have been unable to find anything about it.

As I understand it, an Italian Amnesty does not extinguish an Italian Conviction in the USA, and other juristictions, and wikipedia is an International encyclopedia.

93.96.148.42 (talk) 00:06, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Reply: what you have written is absolutely a nonsense... In Europe even if a scottish court rules "something" it is not automatically "guaranteed" that the english counterpart would accept the "order" from the scottish one -and Scotland and England are parts of the United Kingdom- and you argue that "an Italian Amnesty does not extinguish an Italian Conviction in the USA"? Italy is not an american colony, these two legal systems are COMPLETELY different!!! The italian legal system was heavily influenced from fascism, therefore in Italy is almost as you are guily until innocent, not innocent until guilty... The only link you can find is in the italian wikipedia definition of amnesty:

Amnistia

...

L'amnistia [dal greco <αμνηστία> (<amnīstía>), "dimenticanza"] è una causa di estinzione del reato e della pena, e consiste nella rinuncia, da parte dello Stato, a perseguire determinati reati. Si tratta di un provvedimento generale di clemenza, ispirato, almeno originariamente, a ragioni di opportunità politica e pacificazione sociale, ma a volte degenerato nella prassi in strumento di periodico sfoltimento delle cause pendenti e anche delle carceri.

Mentre l'amnistia estingue il reato, l'indulto estingue solo la pena: quest'ultimo perciò non comporta una sentenza di assoluzione.

SHORT TRANSLATION: the amnesty extinguishes wrongdoing (It. reato) and sentence (It. pena) -and sometimes it obliterates both-; the pardon (It. indulto) "commutes" a sentence instead, but does not "extinguish" the wrongdoing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.225.39.135 (talk) 14:00, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

You misunderstand my point. Berloscuni was found guilty by an Italian Appeal court of Perjury. In someway he qualified for an amnesty. how did he qualify for the ammnesty, and how does it relate to his perjury? Did Rapists qualify as well? I can find no details of the particular amnesty that he qualified for. As I understand it, there is no argument that he did not commit perjury. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.140.0.29 (talk) 21:10, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Removed bad edit

I removed an irrelevant sentance added by an unregistered user with IP: User:122.108.71.31 which also resulted in a broken link. IÅI 09:31, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Broken references

The references in the 'Bettino Craxi' section are totally broken. For example, the article text 'including the Prime Minister, immunity from prosecution while in office2.' links to the reference section, and apparently is intended to point at the reference 'Technically, Berlusconi has been sworn in four times because after a cabinet reshuffle, as happened with Berlusconi in 2005, the new ministry is sworn in and subjected to a vote of confidence.'

Which is completely wrong, as it says nothing at all about immunity. This is not surprising, because when I look at the source for this section, I see wikimarkup which looks like "^{[[#References|2]]}". Needless to say, this is the stupidest and most broken reference style I have ever seen, and the other examples in that section are just as painful to look at. I couldn't bring myself to see whether the rest of the article is infected with this stuff. --Gwern (contribs) 15:18 23 July 2008 (GMT)

But WTF???? Are you trying to write a biography instead of a simple and concise biographical article??? That's longest than Nixon's one!!!

Catholic?

I don't think he is catholic. I'd delete that information as italian wiki had done.--93.149.140.61 (talk) 15:32, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Apologies from an Italian user

Hi! I'm an Italian user. I want to apologize for the behaviour of our prime minister about Obama's election. I hope you don't think that every Italian person is like him, because I swear they are not. I also hope you'll forgive me if I don't sign. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.59.0.27 (talk) 17:14, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Answer for another Italian user

I think all of this "apologizements" are ridiculous. You hear SB talk and also hear the people laughing in the room. It was clear to ANYONE it was a joke. You can dislike the joke, you can think it was not good, but you don’t have any right to take it seriously as an “expressed opinion” with all the shitty theory of “racism” and whatever else. That phrase only means no “race” exist, just an ephemeral colorization not to take seriously care of. If you cannot understand it, that’s your problem. Not SB or Obahma problem. Many people ask SB to excuse for that. But not Obahma himself. So why do he should? Are newspaper opinionists superior to Obahma itself? As an Italian user I have to excuse the world for as many Italian ingnorants and Italian communist having “one way only understandment” of everything. Connect your brain and shut up!

1) Wikipedia is not a Forum

2) No personal attack are allowed

--Pokipsy76 (talk) 17:06, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Uhmmm... why not say the same also to the preceding post ? I find them two be equally offensive. Hence: none or both ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.225.149.12 (talk) 18:12, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Not only Berlusconi... Robin Williams: Obama is a tan Kennedy

As Italian, I want to apologize for the US comedian Robian Williams, who said that: <<Obama is a TAN Kennedy.>>...
Don't you believe it? Watch it: http://it.youtube.com/watch?v=oEFR-eYaot0
Silvio Berlusconi: a nice wild bunch of people all in just ONE PERSON!!!!!!!!

Dubious phrase

Does anyone know who the phrase:

Some of his former prosecutors are members of the parliamentary opposition

refers to?--Pokipsy76 (talk) 13:42, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Answer

Yeah: Gerardo D'ambrosio at first... Plus Antonio Di Pietro.
But they are not the only ones... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.201.64.7 (talk) 13:46, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Deleted informations

Some information have been deleted by an IP with the motivation

Redundant. If you are MP it is obvious that you work as legislator. IMHO it is better not to start a list that could comprise more than 50 MPs

But this motivations are pointless:

1. There is no redundancy: it's not obvious at all that if you are both a lawyer and a legislator then you work to change the same very specific laws involved in your trials, that's rather strange
2. There is no list to be started, it was cited the most prominent individual which had been prosecutor and political rival of Berlusconi.

On this ground I claim that the informations should be reinserted.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 21:16, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Information deleted (2)

It is already clearly written that there are some of Berlusconi's lawyers who are MPs and MPs ARE legislators, so it is redundant.
About citing Antonio Di Pietro: I know that Berlusconi and Di Pietro are "two faces of the same coin", like Batman and The Joker because weren't Di Pietro Berlusconi never had the opportunity to enter politics, but if you cite Di Pietro you should cite some of Berlusconi's attorney too... More: Di Pietro was only a washer in a bigger clockwork, IMHO Di Pietro is NOT the most prominent political rival of Berlusconi who was a prosecutor too. Maybe Gerardo D'Ambrosio -with Francesco Saverio Borrelli and Luciano Violante- is a more prominent political rival of Berlusconi than Di Pietro and he is a former prosecutor too.

1. It cannot be redundant to add informations which are not obvous and not implicit in what is already "clearly written".
2. There is no one of the Berlusconi's lawyers and of Berlusconi's former prosecutor which has a political role which is remotely comparable with Di Pietro which is the leader of a politcal party and is one of the most popular people in italy (D'Ambrosio , Borrelli and Violante aren't leader of anything, never appear on the mainstream media and very few italian people know what is their activity or even know them)

I am Italian and I am surely aware of who is or is not prominent here.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 08:56, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

About D'Ambrosio and Violante

I am sure that Antonio Di Pietro is one of the most notorious former prosecutors in Italy, but I am sure that D'Ambrosio and Violante are two of the masterminds of strategies who devised the Mani Pulite plan and the fact that they appear rarely on the media means only that they can plot very well. Di Pietro has never played a strategic role, he is only the leader of the parliamentary opposition towards Veltroni's Parliamentary Opposition: he is the opposition of the opposition and has always sympatized for the Movimento Sociale Italiano, the heir of the Partito Nazionale Fascista, therefore he could not have a strategic role in a plot formed by Magistratura Democratica with the help of former communists and prosecutors like Luciano Violante and Gerardo D'Ambrosio.
Even Violalante and D'Ambrosio wrote pieces of legislation, so what??? All the MPs are legislators, thererefore it is a very redundant information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.203.11.220 (talk) 12:54, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

1) Luciano Violante has nothing to do with Mani Pulite

2) Your theory about the D'Ambrosio is irrelevant here: it makes sense to cite just Di Pietro because he is actually the most famous and prominent former prosecutor and political rival of Berlusconi, far more than Violante and D'Ambrosio

3) It is not true that "all the MPs are legislators": not all the MPs write laws

4) I don't know if D'Ambrosio and Violante did write any law but we can be sure that they didn't write any law while being working as prosecutors (because in Italy you cannot be both prosecutor and MP)

5) The non-redundant information whch you deleted is not "the Berlusconi's lawyesrs wrote pieces of legislation" but

have been working as both lawyers on his trials and members of the parliament rewriting the laws involved in those trials.

which is a rather strange thing because there is a clear conflict of interests.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 14:03, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Very incorrect on your side to revert my edit after having left this discussion about them and without having provided any objection to my arguments.--pokipsy76 (talk) 13:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Just For Kicks

Cavaliere Caccola, uno stronzo con sprezzatura. --tickle me 09:45, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Hey man he is not Silvio Berlusconi, he is Maurizio Antonini, one of the most well-known sosia / doppelgangers of Berlusconi!!!
Anyway... Very funny!!!

People of Freedom

A sentence said "Before the 2008 Italian general elections he announced his intention to establish a new political party, The People of Freedom (Il Popolo della Libertà), to be formed by the merging of Forza Italia with the National Alliance party (Alleanza Nazionale) and other right wing parties on 27 March 2009." I think using right wing is more accurate than anti-communist, and more neutral. Besides of that, anti-communism is a topic widely used in mr. Berlusconi's speeches, more than a real political view, since the cold war is finished. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.35.31.58 (talk) 19:19, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Anti-communism

There is a wide wide range of political parties forming The People of Freedom. For example The New Italian Socialist Party is an anti-communist socialist party which decided to get in The People of Freedom, therefore the definition of "right wing" party is wrong, instead "anti-communist" is more specific AND appropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.201.98.168 (talk) 20:48, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I disagree, since the POF is definitely a right wing party, even if there are some minor parties like New Socialist Party that aren't. However, anti-communism is definitely not the main characteristic of the party, 'cause like I said Cold War is over and communism is not a threat as big as before; parties mainly based on anti-communism don't exist anymore. Furthermore, this is a matter widely used in Berlusconi's propaganda, I think it should be avoided since Wikipedia should have a neutral point of view. I suggest to use "other parties" avoiding further cathegorizations. 79.35.31.58 (talk) 22:54, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Right wing is NOT neutral.
Anti-communist IS the right definition for The People of Freedom. In The People of Freedom there are about 20 parties, some from the left, some from the center, some from the right, and SOME (not all, just some) from the right-wing of the political spectrum. The only two things that these 20 parties have in common are the acceptance of Berlusconi as supremo and sole leader and the FACT that all these 20 parties have ANTI-COMMUNIST roots.
Denying this historical premise impedes to understand the fundamentals from which the political action of Silvio Berlusconi originate, i.e. the anti-communism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.201.135.204 (talk) 07:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Right wing is the faction the party belongs, therefore is definitely more neutral than simply saying "anti-communist". There could be a long discussion about the fundamentals from which the political action of Berlusconi originate, but this is not the place to do it. The main thing is that claiming a collection of parties to be "anti-communist" is mainly propaganda (in fact, anti-communism is one of mr. Berlusconi's favourite topics, but not a real political action since there's no communism to fight against like there was until 1990s), and therefore not allowed on Wikipedia. Of course they are, but saying anti-communism is PoF main characteristic is odd, it seems that its main concern is to fight an already defeated enemy... Even here anti-communism isn't among the ideologies, strange for a party whose "right definition is anti-communist".

Finally, this is not the PoF's page, describing the parties forming it isn't necessary, that's why I suggested to simply use "other parties". 79.18.16.7 (talk) 10:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Right wing is NOT the faction the party belongs: The People of Freedom is the Italian section of the European People's Party. EPP is a centre-right liberal conservative party, not a right-wing party. The People of Freedom is a centre-right liberal conservative party.
In this context the term anti-communist is not referred to The People of Freedom (or to Silvio Berlusconi), it is referred to Forza Italia, National Alliance and the other parties forming The People of Freedom. Therefore the term "anti-communist" is not used here for propagandistic or demagogic purposes, it is only and solely used in order to give a general definition concerning the common root which all these parties stem from.
This is not propaganda, this is an historical fact. It is a qualifying "point".

I think that even if "right wing" may be not completely appropriate for all the political subjects it is a fact that PDL is actually a rigt wing party. And the tem "anti-communist" is far more inapproprate because it is POV and because some of the minor political subjects which are now part of PDL (like "socialists" or "radicals") have been in the same coalition with the "communist" parties in the recent past.--pokipsy76 (talk) 13:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Socialist in The People of Freedom have NEVER been allied with the communists, more: they were considered the most hard-cored anti-communists of all. The Italian Communist Party generated from a quarrel that splitted the Italian Socialist Party into two antithetic political movements. A never reconciled division, which in the end pushed the anti-communist socialists into the arms of Berlusconi. Apart from personal exceptions (like Sandro Bondi, who whose a former communist) almost the 99% of the main pesonalities participating in The People of Freedom have anti-communist roots, so this definition is POV in this specific case.

Be serious: is there someone here that refuses the definition of "anti-communist" for the parties forming The People of Freedom, for The People of Freedom AND for Silvio Berlusconi?
This is the beginning of the first official political speech of Berlusconi:

<<Italy is the country I love. Here I have my roots, my hopes, my horizons. Here I have learned, from my father and from life, how to be an entrepreneur. Here I have also acquired the passion for liberty. I have chosen to enter the field and become a public servant because I do not want to live in an illiberal country, ruled by immature forces and by people who are well and truly bound to a past that proved both a political and economic failure>>.

There's more anti-communist rhetoric in this speech than water in the sea!!!

Socialists and radical have merged and splitted their parties several times and some of the parts of these splits and merges have been in the center-left coalition together with the communist parties. "Communism Vs Anti-communist" is nowadays a completely irrelevant issue in the italian political panorama.--pokipsy76 (talk) 11:43, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Communism vs anti-communism is nowadays a RELEVANT issue: Berlusconi has clearly stated his will to amend the Italian constitution as soon as possible because it is a constitution written under strong communist influences. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.201.129.98 (talk) 05:51, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Anti-Communism is not a relevant fact in italian politics. It is a propagandistic tool used by Berlusconi and some of his followers: if you don't agree in defining the PDL as a "right wing party" (Even if 1)the second major force in it are the direct descendent of the Fascist Party in it and 2)the third major force in the centre-right coalition and the more centristic, the UDC, didn't enter the party), at least you have to agree that centre-right is far more appropriate that anti-communist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spree85 (talk • contribs) 00:53, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Altough I think that "anti-communist" is appropriate, I have to concede that "centre-right" is way way better than "right wing". My opposition came from the use of the term "right wing", which is not correct for a political movement belonging to the European People's Party.