Talk:Us with Salvini

Article's name

@Nick.mon and Autospark: "Us with Salvini" or "We with Salvini"? Which is the most correct translation? Thinking about Pink Floyd's Us and Them, "Us with Salvini" looks better, but what about other articles like We South Tyroleans, We South and I South? --Checco (talk) 17:09, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I think that the most correct translation is Us with Salvini and I support this name, but, you know, your English is more fluent than mine and so, you are more expert than me in the choice of correct names. -- Nick.mon (talk) 18:36 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Nick.mon is correct, 'Us with Salvini' is definitely the more correct of the two. (Salvini with Us would also be correct.) We South and I South should really be We the South and I the South respectively.--Autospark (talk) 19:05, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough, Autospark. I also think that the name chosen by talk is the best (it sounds better), while I think that "Salvini with Us" would not be correct because Noi is the subject and Noi con Salvini is a sort of a shortening of Noi siamo con Salvini. Also, why wouldn't "Us South Tyroleans", "Us South" (or "Us the South") and "Me South" (or "Me the South") be correct? Thanks in advance for your explanation! --Checco (talk) 19:21, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

If that's the rationale behind the name I'm happy to stick with Us with Salvini, that was my first choice too. I'm not actually sure of the technical terms to how to describe this, even in my own language(!), but all the various alternatives you suggest are ungrammatical. I guess as a native speaker I'm going by 'gut instinct' - this is a reminder that I really need to relearn the basic 'nuts and bolts' technical terms for grammar.--Autospark (talk) 22:09, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

My much less authoritative "gut instinct" goes with yours, but why wouldn't "We with Salvini" be correct? Please note that we would say "We are with Salvini", not "Us are with Salvini", right? Finally, "gut instinct" aside, I don't understand why we should treat differently Noi con Salvini, Noi Sud, etc. Sorry if I insist, but I would really like to understand... --Checco (talk) 08:32, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I can't explain exactly how with the appropriate 'technical' terms, and I'm sorry about my own limitations (which I'm quickly realising exist), but Us with Salvini is correct, so would be We are with Salvini, but We with Salvini and Us are with Salvini are ungrammatical. The general rule is that we is the plural of I, as should be used as such, and us is the plural of me, or thereabouts.--Autospark (talk) 13:01, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

"Us with Salvini" is used by the English-language ANSA portal: [1]. "We South" has been used by The Telegraph ([2]; I can't think of a much better source when it comes to correct English translation of a minor Italian party that has not attracted much international interest + the author has an English sounding name) and the article was published at a time when our article still read "We the South" ([3]), so we can be sure that it was not influenced by Wikipedia. --RJFF (talk) 22:35, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

But I think it should be "South Autonomy" rather than Autonomy South as "autonomy" is the head and "south" the modifier; English has a reversed word order in compounds: modifier–head, not head–modifier. We also write "North League" as the translation of Lega Nord, not "League North". Of course my preference would be not to use an unsourced, self-made translation at all; but that's my minority opinion. --RJFF (talk) 22:47, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

RJFF, I agree with your logic in terms of (re)naming Autonomy South. However, in terms of We [the] South and I [the] South, it isn't grammatically correct in English without the definitive article before the region name. Also please note that the Political Handbook of the World 2013 uses 'I the South'.--Autospark (talk) 14:15, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry to go nail tp this, but I've changed by mind about the name – I think that We Are With Salvini would be a more grammatically correct title. However, I can only find one example of that title being used, and looking at Google searches, it does seem that Us with Salvini has become the more accepted English language name.--Autospark (talk) 14:11, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

The problem is that Noi con Salvini does not mean "We are with Salvini", otherwise it would be Noi siamo/stiamo con Salvini. I would keep the current name or, just in case, move the article to "We with Salvini". --Checco (talk) 14:20, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

I would say at this stage it's probably the best option to leave the name as is.--Autospark (talk) 15:37, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Populism

A few days ago User:Nick.mon posted the following message on my talk page:

Hi Checco, how are you? In my view the party NcS can be considered populist, as its northern counterpart, but as we discussed for many times not right-wing populist. Anyway I don't understand why we could not cite populism in the ideology. Thank you for your opinion! -- Nick.mon (talk) 21:09, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I do agree that NcS can be described as populist, but we need third-party sources stating it. --Checco (talk) 14:43, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

The main problem is that NcS is a new born party and there are few sources. I know that we cannot cited the ones of Lega Nord, but maybe the ones about Salvini could be good, in fact NcS is mostly a personality-driven party. - Nick.mon (talk) 17:29, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

We cannot cite sources on LN, otherwise we should add also "federalism" or even "separatism". Let's wait for sources on NcS, but, in the meantime, we can definitely keep "populism" in the infobox and "populist" in the intro. --Checco (talk) 17:26, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Ps: Do you understand the meaning of "quite"? See here.

Sorry, you known that my English is not perfect :) Ok let's wait for new sources but there are users that reverted the edits with "populism" every time... -- Nick.mon (talk) 18:08, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Please, Bianbum, tell us why did you revert every time the voice "Populism", which is a characteristic of Lega Nord and Salvini's policy. Moreover, please, before reverting everything you think it is wrong, without any sources, discussed about it on the talk page. Thank you! -- Nick.mon (talk) 21:36, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

We agreed that "populist" is a suitable classification for NcS. Can Bianbum explain his/her opinion here? --Checco (talk) 23:32, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Bianbum, as we said in Italy "patient has a limit", so stop immediately this edit warring, you are risking of being blocked. -- Nick.mon (talk) 13:43, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Checco, Autospark, as you perfectly know User:Bianbum doesn't want to collaborate on this page, reverting every edits that we done without any reason and accusing others of vandalism. Bianbum must understand that on Wiki there is still democracy and if there is a majority (three against one) he must accept the edits. I inserted many times a reliable sources from Huffington Post, but he always revert it. Moreover I pleased him to discuss about that here on the talk page but he doesn't want to understand. Bianbum, now I'm talking to you, if you don't want to discuss, we will never know your reasons, that maybe can be good! If you will continue to revert all the edits, you will be for ever in wrong. We are ready to discuss, what about you? -- Nick.mon (talk) 12:02, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Serious issues of balance

From Template:POV:

A balanced article presents mainstream views as being mainstream, and minority views as being minority views. The personal views of Wikipedia editors or the public are irrelevant.

In the previous section, two editors claimed this political party to be "populist", while according to the POV template page their opinions are irrelevant. In fact, no unbiased source classifies the party as "populist", and for each journalist that uses the word "populist" it is possible to find other journalists/newspapers who don't consider it as populist.

Furthermore, the same editors claim the party to be "anti immigration" (see the Infobox) which is not true because it is against illegal immigration — a very different concept.

Last but not least, some paragraphs are out of date and should be updated. --Bianbum (talk) 07:23, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

The burden of proof is on you to provide third-party references to show that it isn't a populist party. Populist and Right-wing populist parties, and often a lot of the far-right, are the first parties to deny being populist and/or of the right. Articles like this should be based upon use of third-party sources, not following how a political party wishes to categorise/market itself.--Autospark (talk) 16:24, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

I think that this party can be easily characterised as a populist party (although not a right-wing populist one), but it true that it does not oppose immigration, but just illegal immigration. We need more and better sources on ideology. --Checco (talk) 20:32, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Is NcS still active?

After the creation of "Lega" list, is Us with Salvini still an active party or only a branch of Lega? -- Nick.mon (talk) 11:12, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Technically, all the elects from Lazio, the South and the Isles are members of NcS. There are only minor exceptions to that: Salvini himself (who was elected in Calabria), one of the PLI (the other was elected in the North), one elect of the MNS and one elect of the PSd'Az. --Checco (talk) 08:35, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Ok, so how many MPs should we insert in the infobox? Or should we remove the section regarding the party's seats? -- Nick.mon (talk) 09:39, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

We should count.

However, to make it easier in this legislature, I have two proposals on associate parties (that is to say those parties whose MPs will sit in the group of a larger party—NcS, PLI, MNS and PSd'Az with the LN, PSI with PD, UdC with FI, etc.):

• count them both as members of the minor party and the larger one;
• insert notes saying "Sitting with..." or "Including..."

In fact, a MP who sits in a parliamentary group can be authomatically considered an independent member of that party.

You can count the elects of NcS, while on other parties we will know only when groups are formed. --Checco (talk) 10:38, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

I analyzed the individual members' pages in the websites of the Chamber and the Senate and that is what I found out:

• Chamber: 109 LN, 15 NcS, 1 PLI;
• Senate: 48 LN, 7 NcS, 1 PLI, 1 MNS, 1 PSd'Az.

Please note that I counted as LN and NcS also "northern" and "southern" independents, respectively. For instance, I counted Tonelli and Pillon as LN members, Bagnai and Bongiorno as NcS members. Here, the North is defined according to LN's "national" sections, which include Tuscany, Marche and Umbria.
@User:Nick.mon: If you trust my counts and think that those data are notable, we can update this article accordingly. As I wrote above, I would leave the total numbers in the LN article's infobox and, in case, we can add a note. At the same time, I would insert a note in this article's infobox, as well as in those of the articles on the PLI, the MNS and the PSd'Az, indicating that their MPs are also MPs of the LN. --Checco (talk) 11:01, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Perfet, great job! I agree, we should keep the actual number of MPs in Lega's article and update the other ones with the correct number of deputies and senators. -- Nick.mon (talk) 11:53, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! That looks great to me! Outback the koala (talk) 12:09, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Honestly, the number of deputies and senators seems to me quite an original research, also Matteo Salvini (obviously) and Raffaele Volpi are members of NCS. NCS is just a list that was presented by the Northern League in southern Italy, now it's the same Northern League to present itself throughout Italy as "Lega". For this reason I kept only the League in the template of italian parties and I deleted NCS, the League is not a unitary list of LN and NcS.--Wololoo (talk) 20:06, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

On the contrary, the 2018 Lega's list was a joint list formed by several parties, mainly the LN and NcS. The two parties might be merged at some point, but as of today they are formally two distinct parties. --Checco (talk) 11:32, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

The "Lega" is not a joint list, we do not start to invent information again: "Lega" is only the "Lega Nord", or better its new officious name (indeed: [4]), the other several parties you mention are simply hosted on the League lists, they have nothing to do with this topic. Noi con Salvini is a party formally distinct from the League, but substantially subjected to it. "Lega (Lega Nord  • Us with Salvini)" means that Lega is a joint list between LN and NCS, but it isn't so, at most NCS was hosted in the League lists.
(Also the number of deputies and senator in the NCS's infobox is doubtful, Salvini and Volpi are counted?)--Wololoo (talk) 20:23, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately, in Italy there are no registered parties and the source features electoral lists, which sometimes coincide with parties, sometimes not. It is likely that NcS (an associate party of the LN, as you correctly pointed out) will be merged into the new Lega, but, as long as the current LN's statute is in place, the LN's southern-most regional ("national") section is Umbria. --Checco (talk) 07:21, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Ps: Salvini and Volpi are members both of the LN and NcS, but their primary affiliation is with the LN, thus they were counted LN members. @User:Nick.mon, @User:Outback the koala: please have a say.

NcS is a "personal" party created by Salvini, furthermore he has been elected in Calabria; both Salvini and Volpi are executives of NcS, if you want to insert the number of deputies and senators you can not exclude them (and however the number would remain an original research). And "Lega (Lega Nord  • Us with Salvini)" in the template of italian parties is totally wrong, Lega is only the new name of Lega Nord, not a federation! I also invite other users (User:Nick.mon, User:Outback the koala and anyone interested) to comment on this topic.--Wololoo (talk) 20:16, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Checco is correct on the current situation. Outback the koala (talk) 03:03, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

@Outback the koala, I did not understand exactly with which statement of Checco you agree, because however "Lega" is not a federation but the new name of "Lega Nord", this is a fact. "Noi con Salvini" is not officially a section of "Lega Nord", but its associated party (indeed the website is the same as Lega Nord [5]). Without developments in this discussion, I will correct the template of the Italian parties because "Lega (Lega Nord  • Us with Salvini)" is definitely misleading. --Wololoo (talk) 21:35, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

NcS is definitely an associate party or sister party of the LN. However, NcS members are not authomatically members of the LN, but they are definitely affiliated with the "Lega". Please note that, formally, also the "Lega per Salvini Premier" exists and it is a separate entity from the LN. Please consider that taxpayers could give their "2x1000" either to the LN or the Lega (see here]). That was a technical decision more than a political one, but here it is. I think it would be quite misleading to "correct" the template as Wololoo would like and this is not the place for discussing on that. --Checco (talk) 08:39, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

@Checco: "Lega per Salvini Premier" is another thing, also its logo is different, the real reasons for creating this political subject are not yet clear. The League in the latest election was the rebranded Lega Nord, putting LN and its submitted party to the same level is formally and substantially wrong. --Wololoo (talk) 10:06, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

There is no "Lega". "Lega" = "Lega per Salvini Premier". --Checco (talk) 06:52, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Absolutely not, it seems to me that the situation is unclear to you! the reasons for the creation of the "Lega per Salvini Premier" are not very clear (it has been supposed to bypass the debts of the League and to avoid the seizure of donations), but for now it's just an association. Lega (with the slogan "Salvini Premier") is only the rebranded Lega Nord. As usual yours are assumptions, but the party that participated in the last election was the Northern league with a new logo [6] and not "Lega per Salvini Premier". Following your reasoning there should be a further page for this "federation" (?), but on the same page of Lega Nord it is written that "Lega" is the new name used by the Northern league. Without other interventions I will correct the template, "Lega per Salvini Premier" did not participate in the last election and it isn't a federation between LN and NcS.--Wololoo (talk) 21:26, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

I know that "seizure" stuff, but that does not chage anything. If [7] is concerned the LN should still be named "Lega Nord" as the source says (it is interestingly enough how "Lega Nord per l'indipendenza della Padania" is not mentioned: this is an evidence of the fact that even the website of the Ministry of the Interior cannot be taken for granted: it is not that precise!), if [8] is concerned the name should be "Lega", if [9] and [10] are concerned the name should be "Lega–Salvini Premier". "Lega" = "Lega–Salvini Premier". As of today, NcS are not members of the LN, but are definitely members of "Lega"/"Lega–Salvini Premier". As of today, the LN is not present south of Umbria. As of today, NcS is still alive. For practical reasons, "Lega"/"Lega–Salvini Premier" can be easily considered a joint list comprising the LN and NcS. NcS has MPs and cannot be excluded from the template on parties. I hope you won't start another edit war, as I have still to revert your other non-consensual edits elsewhere. If you want a broader discussions, start it at its proper place, invite other users, etc. --Checco (talk) 07:02, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

The data are provided to the Ministry by the parties themselves, "Lega Nord" is the official name of the party, "Lega Nord per l'Indipendenza della Padania" is the official complete one. Then, "Lega" or "Lega-Salvini Premier" is the same as "Forza Italia" / "Forza Italia - Berlusconi Presidente" and "Fratelli d'Italia" / "Fratelli d'Italia con Giorgia Meloni", one thing is the name, another thing is the leader's name/slogan in the logo. But you said that "Lega" (or "Lega-Salvini Premier") and "Lega per Salvini Premier" are the same political subject!! And the sources are clear "Lega"/"Lega-Salvini Premier" is simply the Lega Nord and not "a joint list that comprising the LN and NcS", NcS is comprised into LN, it's clear to everyone. I have already invited some users, if they are not interested in the topic I can not disturb them. I only can report the discussion on other talk pages, but without other opinions, I will correct the template because the current version is wrong, Lega is not a joint list, NcS can also be included in other ways in the template. Ah, "as I have still to revert your other non-consensual edits elsewhere": it's an interesting statement, I am quite amused on your likely belief in being the ownerof part of Wikipedia, but I do not think you have to correct any of my edits!--Wololoo (talk) 19:35, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

You are completely correct in how the arrangement functions effectively. But in actuality the set-up, or in other words the arrangement of the parties is as Checco and his sources state. Frankly it’s a bit annoying, but that’s how it is today, it may change in the future but we cannot predict that. Outback the koala (talk) 21:27, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Practically speaking, "Lega"/"Lega–Salvini Premier" was a joint list of the LN, NcS and minor parties. Also "Forza Italia–Berlusconi Presidente" and "Fratelli d'Italia con Giorgia Meloni" were practically joint lists or, better, elecoral lists. Most parties enlarge their bases for general elections. The main difference between Wololoo and me is that he/she sometimes imposes his/her views even without consensus, while I always respect consensus, even when I disagree with it. And yes, there are several examples of Wololoo's edits made in opposition to consensus. I hate edit wars, but non consensual edits shall always be reverted. --Checco (talk) 06:42, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

I concur with your position. Outback the koala (talk) 15:27, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

@Outback the koala & Checco: despite your beliefs, the current version of the template about this subject is incorrect. "Lega" is simply the new logo of Lega Nord, not a joint list; furthermore the southern militants are registered with the Lega per Salvini Premier, the northern militants with the "Lega Nord" under the logo of "Lega" (or "Lega-Salvini Premier") [11]. Many things that have been said above are definitely wrong...--Wololoo (talk) 20:50, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Maybe you are an insider of the Lega and/or you know things that regular people like Outback the koala and me do not know, but there has been no official act of dissolution of the NcS to date. Indeed, the NcS still has a Facebook page and news about it. Unless something official happens, the LN and NcS are both still active and the Lega is nothing else than a joint list or, if you prefer, a political committee or prospective party. Hopefully soon, a federal congress of the LN and/or a founding congress of the new party will clarify all this. Until then, we should stick with sources and reality. Sometime these processes take time and are not crystal-clear as we would like. We do not have a crystal ball in our hands, but a likely outcome is the end of the LN and the foundation of a brand-new party, named "Lega–Salvini", "Lega" or something else. I would not oppose the creation of an article on "Lega per Salvini Premier" right now, but we should seek consensus at Talk:Lega Nord first. Let's discuss on these issues there, if you want, so that more users will have a say. --Checco (talk) 06:54, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

"We" vs. "Us" revisited...

So there was a discussion above, from a few years back, which seemed to reach a consensus on using "us," but I'm not exactly clear as to why...

In Italian, "noi" is both the subject pronoun and the object pronoun for the plural first person - serving for both the English subject pronoun "we," as in "we are," and the English object pronoun "us," as in "with us" or "for us."

In the name of this party though, the Noi seems to be functioning as a subject pronoun - i.e. "we" - and NOT as an object pronoun ("us").

And in the old discussion, the user Checco wrote that "Noi is the subject," but Checco nonetheless seemed to support the use of "us," even though "us" is the object pronoun.

It seems that perhaps Checco and some of the others in the old discussion were Italians who may have not been so well versed in English grammar.

Anyway, it's not the biggest deal in the world, but to my ears "Us with Salvini" *sounds* wrong, and doesn't seem to make sense with the grammar either. So curious to see what others here think, and if there's actually a good reason for using "us" instead of "we." (Aside from the fact that it's apparently been the status-quo here for several years now.) -2003:CA:8728:FE00:ED06:37D6:2536:757D (talk) 20:26, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

You are right: I am not an English native speaker, but an Italian one (though I am not Italian). User:Autospark, an English native speaker, wrote that "'Us with Salvini' is definitely the more correct of the two. (Salvini with Us would also be correct.)". I stick to that. --Checco (talk) 11:18, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

@Checco - To clarify then, in the original Italian name "Noi con Salvini," is "Noi" being used (in your opinion) as the subject or as the object? In your previous comments you had said that it was being used as the subject... -2003:CA:870B:5100:3125:5A66:B835:9B4F (talk) 15:22, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

It can be both, I guess. What User:Autospark wrote is enough for me. --Checco (talk) 17:15, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

I went back and read the old discussion again,and it seemed that Autospark was actually rather ambivalent about it. In English one would say "with us," but not "us with," since "us" is the object pronoun, and placement before the "with" implies a subject. So it seems pretty clear that "We with Salvini" is in fact the proper word-for-word translation. Autospark was correct that, at least if we're making a complete sentence, it wouldn't be proper to simply say "we with." "We are with" would be more correct. But "us with" certainly isn't more correct!...And actually, as a phrase or name, "we with," while uncommon, isn't technically incorrect. Just as one could say "peanut butter with jam," one could say "we with Salvini" or "Salvini with us."

The word "with" automatically makes everything after it become a grammatical object. In some other languages this is referred to as the dative case. (English object pronouns like "us" serve the role of both the dative and accusative cases in other languages which have those.) Anyway, having the "us" before the with isn't proper grammar.

I suppose though that if this wording has become well established as the party's English name then we might just be stuck with it! -2003:CA:8710:200:1CFC:7D3C:EE8F:458B (talk) 22:14, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Relation with Lega per Salvini Premier

I think it's time to create the page Lega per Salvini Premier or a similar translation for the title. It now even appears in the list of member parties in the ID official website. However there is some confusion around the participation of NcS within LpSP and/or its participation in the European-level ID party. See latest edits which are contrasted by some users (including me, at the moment). Pinging @Ec1801011:, @Checco:, @Nick.mon:. --Ritchie92 (talk) 10:35, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

I have no problem with starting a new article on the LpSP. However, it seems to me that what is mentioned in the ID Party webside is neither the LN nor the LpSP, but "Lega Salvini Premier", that is to say the electoral list, comprising both LN and LpSP members. --Checco (talk) 13:09, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Actually no, the ID website lists Lega Per Salvini Premier. --Ritchie92 (talk) 13:26, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

"Lega" is mentioned and, as we know, that usually refers to the electoral list, comprising LN and LpSP. --Checco (talk) 13:31, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Just visit the website! It says "Lega per Salvini Premier", it's evident in the map. --Ritchie92 (talk) 13:33, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Sorry about that! Very nice, indeed! The map shows both LN/Lega ("Founded on December 4th 1989 from the merger of several regional autonomist movements in northern Italy, with the main political aim to make Italy a federal State. In this respect, in 2006 it was able to make a constitutional reform approved by the Parliament, unfortunately rejected in the subsequent referendum in all Regions but Lombardy and Veneto") and LpSP ("Lega per Salvini Premier is a confederal political movement constituted in the form of an unrecognized association whose purpose is the peaceful transformation of the Italian state into a modern federal state through democratic and electoral methods. Lega per Salvini Premier promotes and supports the freedom and sovereignty of peoples at European level")! We have official descriptions: wonderful! --Checco (talk) 13:40, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Don't be too glad: self-descriptions have to be taken with caution. The Salvini-puzzle of the two parties is a unicum in Europe, and it's still not clear what is what and who is where. This is annoying, but that's what we have. --Ritchie92 (talk) 13:44, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

For sure! But we can easily write what the party is, according to it. --Checco (talk) 13:49, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

It appears that Lega per Salvini Premier is simply just a rebranding of Us with Italy. Us with Italy's social media has been producing Lega per Salvini Premier promotional material whilst the website has been removed and replaced with https://www.legapersalvinipremier.it/

Furthermore since 2018 members of Us with Salvini have had to register under Lega per Salvini Premier. From what we have available it appears it is a rebranding of Us with Italy that falls in line with the rebranding of Lega Nord. Ec1801011 (talk) 14:42, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Also the name "League for Premier Salvini" is very similar to "Us with Salvini" Ec1801011 (talk) 14:44, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

"Lega per Salvini Premier" is not technically the rebranding of Us with Salvini, which still has its own Twitter accunt (active) and other social media active profiles. "Salvini Premier" is an electoral list, not a party. --Ritchie92 (talk) 14:52, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Well then if it's an electoral list that includes Us with Salvini then surely said party should be listed as a member of ID Party as ID Party lists Salvini Premier as a member. Ec1801011 (talk) 16:58, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Salvini Premier, and Lega Per Salvini Premier are two different things. --Ritchie92 (talk) 17:05, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

My apologies for the confusion, my original comments were only regarding Lega per Salvini Premier. Ec1801011 (talk) 17:25, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

I am basically against creating an autonomous page for "Lega per Salvini Premier", because, as has already been specified, it is substantially a "puppet party". I would rather create a specific section on the Lega Nord page. However, the most important fact is the confirmation from the ID party that the "Lega" is simply the new (unofficial) name of Lega Nord, and not a federation between LN and Lega per Salvini Premier (as had been hypothesized). So, the "Lega for Salvini Premier" is only a party affiliated to the "Lega/Lega Salvini Premier/Lega Nord" (which is the only list / party that runs in the elections). Anyway, Identity and Democracy Party should be removed from the infobox of NcS, since it is now de facto inactive. --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 08:19, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

This is a lot of WP:OR to deal with. First of all, the fact that one website of one party (ID party) says something does not constitute reliable source, and must not be taken as "the truth". After all this is not a third-party source, and the content of that page was probably given out by the League administration directly. Also, the ID website does not state explicitly that "Lega" is the new name of "Lega Nord": that is your own personal conclusion. Also, nobody ever said that Lega is a "federation between LN and LpSP": Lega was the name under which the parties ran at elections, i.e. an electoral list. LpSP is a party, the fact that it is a "puppet party" is an irrelevant political judgement, that does not count in WP standards. I would support the creation of its own page, since it is a registered party, with leader, members, and documents, as much as many other parties which are far less relevant in politics. Obviously in the article one should mention (with sources) that indeed it is considered a puppet party. --Ritchie92 (talk) 09:08, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

In the old version of the Template:Italian political parties it was written "Lega (Lega Nord * Us with Salvini)", changed after this thread. I think that in these cases the primary sources are the most reliable ones (after all, these decisions are taken by the party itself). Instead, the creation of the Lega per Salvini Premier page with the observation that it is a "puppet party" would be an original research, since I haven't found any sources about it. But the most important question is: what would this page serve? Should we include it in the Template:Italian political parties? How would it relate to the Lega Nord page? It all seems to me quite complicated, for me it would be more logical to create a section within the Lega Nord page, with the respective redirect.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 10:30, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

This is a complicate issue, as we know. My sense is that Salvini has not decided yet what to do with his party/ies. I agree that in cases like this primary sources are the most reliable ones. That is why it would be OK to start an article on the LsSP and have "Lega (Lega Nord + Lega per Salvini Premier)" in the template. This said, Lega is an electoral list, not a federation. At the end of the day, I would keep the status quo. --Checco (talk) 11:38, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

@Checco: the sources (and the primary source of the ID party website) say exactly the opposite. As already reiterated, Lega is not a federation between LN and LSP, but it is the rebranded LN (also answering to Ritchie92, who claimed "nobody ever said that Lega is a federation between LN and LpSP"...).--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 12:05, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Here is your primary source: Parliament website, and not some website of some party. Officially, LpSP is a registered party and I don't see any reason why it does not have its own article, since it is such an important party with many supporters in the Centre and South of Italy. --Ritchie92 (talk) 12:18, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

As we can see from this article: https://www.tpi.it/2018/07/08/doppie-tessere-lega-salvini/ it really does appear the LpSP is a fully functional party that serves as a replacement for the now inactive Us with Salvini. I see no reason for why a page for LpSP should not be created. Ec1801011 (talk) 12:41, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes but there is no mention of Us with Salvini in that article. --Ritchie92 (talk) 12:43, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Everyone knows that the LSP's statute exists, but you didn't answer the questions... at the moment it seems only the southern rib of the League, existing only on the cards of the southern militants and in the list of parties admitted to the 2x1000 of the Italian Revenue Agency. Practically, a body within the League without any structure and not an autonomous party. I do not see what a real purpose an autonomous page of this "party" can have...--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 12:44, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Everyone knows what a dog is, but WP has a page for dog nonetheless. And by the way, obviously not everyone knows this thing about the two-party Lega, how can you affirm that? at the moment it seems only the southern rib of the League, existing only on the cards of the southern militants and in the list of parties admitted to the 2x1000 of the Italian Revenue Agency So what? Why wouldn't it have its own article? I do not see what a real purpose an autonomous page of this "party" can have Articles do not need a "purpose", we should limit to publish what is relevant. If the article is created, feel free to start a WP:AfD request and let's see what the rest of the community thinks. --Ritchie92 (talk) 12:50, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

The comparison with the dog is out of place and has absolutely nothing to do with this matter, you have shown the existence of the statute as proof of the encyclopaedicity of the party, but from my point of view it does not prove anything (and I repeat that you have not yet answered the questions: usually a page is created to be used and not to be left orphaned). However if the page is created, I will most likely ask for its deletion or the merge with Lega Nord. --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 13:07, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

LpSP is it's own organisation with its own membership, party statue, electoral history, party registration and from it's branding is a distinctly separate organisation from Lega. Us with Salvini has operated as a puppet party to Lega and yet has its own page and so a page should be created for LpSP. Ec1801011 (talk) 13:14, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

@Scia Della Cometa: It won't be orphaned, it would have many links pointing to it from pages like this one, the Lega Nord page, Identity and Democracy Party, Matteo Salvini, election pages, etc. I agree with Ec1801011, if Us with Salvini has its own page, why not LpSP? --Ritchie92 (talk) 13:29, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

@Ritchie92: Noi con Salvini, even if it was evidently a party subjected to the Northern League, ran in some local election and it had a minimal structure (a President, a Vice President and a Secretary). Instead, Lega per Salvini Premier, it has no national structure, and it seems to have been created as an organic subject of the League, with the only aim of overcoming the limitations of the old statute and obtaining adhesions also in southern Italy (as well as for purely economic reasons). These few informations seem to me more useful on the page of the Lega Nord than on a new page. All information concerning the LSP directly concerns the Northern League/League. --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 14:04, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

it seems to have been created as an organic subject of the League, with the only aim of overcoming the limitations of the old statute and obtaining adhesions also in southern Italy (as well as for purely economic reasons) This is a personal idea, or anyway it is an a posteriori analysis of the merits or demerits of LpSP, it's not a reason not to list it as one of the Italian parties that are officially active. By the way it has a national structure: Salvini is secretary, and it has its own officialized statute. --Ritchie92 (talk) 14:08, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

So what we've concluded is that LpSP has it's own party structure with a secretary and statute. Since 2018 has had registered members and is as a political party by the following sources: https://www.ilsole24ore.com/art/nord-contro-sud-lega-nazionale-salvini-si-scontra-sull-autonomia-ACwk1Qa https://www.huffingtonpost.it/2018/08/31/il-nuovo-partito-gia-ce-lega-per-salvini-premier_a_23513818/ and https://milano.corriere.it/notizie/politica/18_ottobre_26/salvini-vara-nuova-lega-via-simbolo-alberto-giussano-sara-sovranista-statuto-5ba7f9c2-d89b-11e8-8a41-5d7293f8c00a.shtml

I feel that this alone is enough to justify it's own page. Ec1801011 (talk) 14:30, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Excuse me, but where is it written that Salvini is the secretary of "Lega per Salvini Premier"?--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 16:58, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

I believe Ritchie92 is mistaken in stating that Salvini is Secretary, their 2018 financial statement lists Giulio Centemero as President and Roberto Calderoli as secretary. Despite his mistake he is still correct that LpSP has it's own party structure. Here's the financial statement in case you wish to read it: https://www.legapersalvinipremier.it/files/rendiconto_2018/Bilancio_2018_Lega_per_Salvini_Premier.pdf Ec1801011 (talk) 17:49, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Just pinging @Ec1801011:, @Checco:, @Scia Della Cometa: and @Ritchie92: to let you know a page for Lega per Salvini Premier has been created by me.Ec1801011 (talk) 20:26, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

The page is well written, but at the moment I continue to believe that having 2 pages is dispersive. Anyway, what is the correct translation of the Italian name? The only "Salvini premier" would be translated into "Salvini for premier/prime minister", however I don't understand if this formula is correct also in the complete name (Lega per Salvini Premier)...--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 08:36, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

I like English names, but, in this case, consistently with "Lega Nord", we should have "Lega per Salvini Premier".

Probably, the correct translation would be "League for Salvini for Premier", quite awkward indeed. --Checco (talk) 12:05, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

@Nick.mon: I saw that you have moved the page "Lega per Salvini Premier", but as I said above, are we sure that "League for Salvini Premier" is a correct translation"? Honestly I don't know if in this case the preposition "for" is necessary and so if "League for Salvini Premier" is correct...--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 20:38, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

In the meantime, let's go back to the original, Italian name. --Checco (talk) 06:16, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

"League Salvini Premier" without the "for" is the electoral list (and name of the Parliamentary groups). So the "for" is crucial here. I am also unsure about the translation, I would refer to what is written in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (political parties). --Ritchie92 (talk) 08:33, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Actually this goes into Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English)#No established usage in English-language sources, I think. By the way, why don't we discuss this on that article talk page? This is so confusing. --Ritchie92 (talk) 08:37, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

@Ritchie92: Maybe you didn't understand me, I'm asking if the English name is "League for Salvini Premier" or "League for Salvini FOR premier". However this is not actually the most correct page for this topic. --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 20:42, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

It would be "League for Salvini for Premier", I guess. Are there any native English speakers here? --Checco (talk) 06:18, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

I think the second "for" is not needed. It is needed when in the slogan one has to say "XXX for President", but saying for example "I am for XXX for President" doesn't sound right. I wouldn't think of inventing a translation here, if reliable English sources do not exist, per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English)#No established usage in English-language sources. --Ritchie92 (talk) 08:09, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

I have a different reading of that policy. However, I would keep LpSP in Italian for consistency with Lega Nord, Lega Lombarda, Liga Veneta, Liga Veneta Repubblica, Lega Autonomia Veneta, Lega Alleanza Lombarda, etc. --Checco (talk) 18:46, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

It isn't a matter of consistency (Why can't the word "Lega" be translated? Following the policies also the Lega Nord page should be titled "League" or "Northern League", and in any case nothing prevents from translating the word "Lega" on other occasions) but of ease of translation opportunity: the translation of "Lega per Salvini Premier" is quite doubtful. However, even if the page title remains Italian, it would be correct to report the right translation on the page.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 20:02, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

This party does not exist anymore

It has been superseded by the new Lega. The past tense should be used instead of the present. --37.161.92.203 (talk) 07:22, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Source confirming that this party is disbanded? --Ritchie92 (talk) 08:33, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

It won't be easy to find one. However, it is clear that NcS is no longer active. --Checco (talk) 13:52, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

"No longer active" (for which still a source needs to be found) is different from "not existing". --Ritchie92 (talk) 14:57, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

That is what I said, indeed. However, I do not see much difference. --Checco (talk) 15:24, 16 February 2020 (UTC)