Talk:Lega Nord

RfC: where to place criticism

The previous version included everything considered critical (and, weirdly enough, the section on humanitarian aid) under a "controversy" section. I believe this presents a partial view of the party, as it marginalises any unfavourable opinion as biased, or it downplays it by placing it in the middle of nowhere. --93.45.53.164 (talk) 17:43, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I put all the criticisms on the party in the "controversies" section and I strongly think that this was the right thing to do. The article should be neutral and putting unfavourable views by journalists in the intro is not OK with me in this article like in every single article about a party (I edited almost all the articles about Italian parties). "Controversies" sections should be problematic, telling what the criticisms are and counter-balancing them with other infos, that could make the issue more interesting. That's why I put the piece about humanitarian aid into this section. It is anyway a subject that could be controversial too (or it is controversial for me at least!) and I believe it does not need a section apart: it is not something that needs so much attention. I hope to see that section expanded and improved: some episodes listed are very marginal, while there are probably more important issues missing. --Checco (talk) 07:01, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Contested sources and requests for more references

Thank you for your suggestions: they were a boost for finding out more sources. However some sentences (such as Bossi describing Lega Nord as socialist and libertarian) were already sourced and others were obvious (who likes to be described racist?), but I added more sources anyway. The "alliances" and "popular support" sections are now sourced, as I signalled what books and sources were used in compiling them.

I put all the criticisms on the party in the "controversies" section and I strongly think that this was the right thing to do. The article should be neutral and putting unfavourable views by journalists in the intro is not OK with me in this article like in every single article about a party (I edited almost all the articles about Italian parties). "Controversies" sections should be problematic, telling what the critics are and what are the responses of the party. That's why I put the piece about humanitarian aid into this section. It is anyway a subject that could be controversial too and I believe it does not need a section apart: it is not something that needs so much attention. I hope to see that section expanded and improved: some episodes listed are very marginal, while there are probably more important issues missing. Thank you and good work! --Checco (talk) 08:43, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

The problems with that section are well highlighted by the banner within it. When you moved that phrase, you also changed it to read "The party has often been described as a "xenophobic" and "anti-immigrant" party by British and American journalists." of course they're British and American, this is the English-language Wikipedia… also, references that are self-published or internal to the party are a clear violation of WP:SELF and WP:COI, respectively, and they'll be removed pending further comments.--93.45.53.164 (talk) 09:24, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you removed sources and that you re-inserted some "fact" tags where there was a source (as I told you before this is the case of Bossi describing the party as socialist and libertarian - obviously the party is not socialist, but it is interesting to learn how its leader describes it). When we write "the party supports..." internal sources are perfectly OK with Wikipedia guidelines. I won't remove tags (when they are appropriate) as it is your right to insert them, but please don't remove sources! --Checco (talk) 11:02, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I know, that's why I left them in when they were about the party's platform. What are we gonna do about the rest? Especially that "British and American" thing. It looks quite disturbing.--93.45.53.164 (talk) 11:09, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

It is quite obvious to me that the opinion of journalists is not the same as that of political scientists, anyway as there is no doubt that Lega Nord is described as xenophobic by many outside (and also inside) Italy, you can remove that part. The rest is OK to me, even if I won't obviously remove the tags you inserted: most of the articles about political parties from non-English countries have non-English sources and I hope you are not proposing to cut the content of the article only because its sources are not in English, that would be absurd and counter-productive. I also think that it is interesting for readers to know more in-depth issues about the party. The tags you inserted in the "alliances" and "popular support" were not appropriate as the sections were properly sources (or do you want to see the same sources repeated for every single sentences, as you did for the "socialist-libertarian issue"? also this would be absurd). Finally the "leadership" section: every article about political parties include this, why would it be unencyclopedic? --Checco (talk) 11:18, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

What I want is what is reported in the templates I placed. I thought that would be obvious.--93.45.53.164 (talk) 11:21, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

In the meantime you agree to remove that Brit-American part?--93.45.53.164 (talk) 11:23, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but leave "journalists" and do you agree to remove the "fact" tags where there is one source covering a set of sentences (the "socialist-libertarian" case).

I did only one total rollback, while you're continuing to do so, so:

Your recent editing history at Lega Nord shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

Moreover you don't answer to my questions and responses.

1. Why do you exclude proper sources relative to the text?
2. Why do you insert "fact" tags when the sentences you're tagging are properly sourced? I don't think it is OK to repeat sources many and many times when they can be listed only once (this is the case of the "socialist-libertarian" issue, and of the "alliances" and "popular support" sections, where everything is based on the sources listed).
3. Why do you consider the "leadership" section to be unencyclopedic? It is simply nonsense!

Total rollbacks are not a good answer. I always judged your edits one by one, and I hope you to do so as well. Please respect Wikipedia guidelines and rules and respond to my questions. In the meantime I will ask the mediation of an administrator. --Checco (talk) 12:37, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

In the meantime you answer to my questions, we are waiting for other comments and for the mediation of an admin, I will partially rollback your last total rollback. Keep attention that:

• I'll leave all section tags (including those that seem absurd to me)
• I'll re-insert the re-insert sources you deleted as there was no reason to delete them
• I'll removed "fact" tags where there is a source (the "socialist-libertarian issue" has a source)
• I'll change refs in at least two cases
• I'll fix the text in some parts (i.e.: about Boso and the "Brit-American part")

Please continue in this way: it is better to avoid total rollbacks (I did only once, after that you had rollback a set of detailed changes of mine) and to judge changes one at time. As I found some of your changes OK or at least appropriate, I hope you to do so with mine. --Checco (talk) 13:29, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I did the changes I explained you above, plus some others. Please consider one change at time and don't remove sources. Easter greetings and see you later on! --Checco (talk) 13:43, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

---

Reverting a page with minor alteration is still considered reverting. I'm not a rollbacker, so stop saying that I rollback, because I just can't.

1. They're not proper sources under WP:V and WP:COI, I already told you that.
2. Two footnotes cannot source five paragraphs.
3. It is not nonsense. Do you have any argument other than that?

If you really want a productive discussion, then making tens of changes in a single edit, and then complaining if I revert it, is far from wise. I wasn't noticed of any formal request fo mediation, and I didn't see one in your contribs. You say it does have a source, but then why don't you make me happy and just include them at the end of the phrase? You still present as facts the opinions of party officials. I also don't really think you are actually paying as much attention to my edits as you say you are, but I will assume good faith and remove only obviously inappropriate sources such as blogs, while awaiting for third-party comments. Oh and happy Easter to you too, just watch out for Gentilini, he likes to dress up people like hares and bang-bang-bang…--93.45.53.164 (talk) 14:05, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

1. When talking about a party, I don't see any problem in telling what party officials tell of it, so I don't think that this was the case of WP:V and WP:COI. It is a fact that the party supports something. Most of the sources in Liberal Democrats (UK) (I took this as an example of a good article about a political party) are internal ones, when talking about the party platform and ideology.
2. But if those paragraphs were written using those two sources? Anyway I will take this opportunity to find more sources and to rewrite those sections. When I have time.
3. Every single article about a political party (especially the articles about Italian parties, but see also Liberal Democrats (UK)) include "leadership" sections. I think they are useful and very encyclopedic because they are a summary for users of the timeline of the party. In this case the leaders of the "national" (read "regional") sections of the party are useful too as the party was formed as a federation of pre-existing parties and as the post of "national secretary" is much more important in Lega Nord than in other parties.
4. What are you referring to when you say "You say it does have a source, but then why don't you make me happy and just include them at the end of the phrase?"?

--Checco (talk) 07:01, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

1. The article about the Lib Dems is no longer a good article, it was demoted more than two years ago.
2. Fine with me.
3. See WP:OTHERSTUFF. And, the section in Lib Dems in far shorter than the one in Lega Nord.
4. That was about #2.--93.45.129.131 (talk) 14:41, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Controversies

Several IPs (behind whom there is probably a single user) are continuously trying to put bias to this article or, at least, include marginal information about the party in order to put it in bad light. That is why I’m constantly dePOVizing the article, by putting more information that can explain the issues in a more neutral way. Obviously this means putting more un-relevant infos in order to balance the section. It is me now who thinks that the article is unbalanced and that is full of infos whose relevance is very questionable, and thus disputed.

I generally think that “controversies” sections are not a good idea and that we’d better put all relevant infos in the other sections of the articles. Moreover, as the editor of most articles about political parties in Italy, I observe how such criticisms are present only in this article, while, for instance, concerning the referendum, one could point out that another party, Italy of Values (IdV), that collected signatures for the referendum and supported a joint-date for all the elections and the referendum, is now turning against the referendum, as many Democrats are doing. Simply it seems that almost all the parties, but the PdL, overtly supported the 21 June solution! This is Italian politics anyway and obviously it not what the article is about, so sorry for the digression.

Unfortunately for the IPs, I’m not a Lega Nord supporter nor of any other Italian political party, and while they (he) like(s) to put bias on to this article, I like to write about all the parties in the most neutral way. I would never put bias on any article and I’m interested only in putting those information I consider encyclopedic or interesting. In fact, on it.Wiki, I even opposed the “criticism” section in the UDC article and I’m currently opposing a similar section on the IdV, as I would do for any other party.

I would like all the people to think a little bit about the need of such a section and especially of some of its content. I always like to work alongside other users, and I appreciated some edits by the IPs in question, but we should think about what is relevant and what is not. Some infos could probably remain in the “controversies” section, others could be deleted as not relevant at all (the priest issue, for example, or the statement of a marginal party figure), others should be shortened and moved in the “history” section (the referendum issue). Regarding the priest issue I understand that it my be interesting, but we should also point out that Lega Nord is a party whose anti-Semitism and pro-Israel stance are not into question. It may also be interesting for readers to know that Lega Nord has also been a vehement critic of Fascism, for obvious reasons, and that its members have a long tradition of celebrating the Italian liberation from Fascism. --Checco (talk) 12:36, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Checco, please understand that Wikipedia is not a Lega-Nord-campaign-website. You cannot simply categorize and delete all informations as "irrelevant" that might put Your party "in a bad light". If You feel that some informations (quotations of racist speeches, racists campaign posters and racist legal proposals) are wrong or need to be put into context, then write down Your arguments and add sources to make Your point, but please stop deleting other people contributions. I could delete Your comment as You deleted mine, but I consider deleting-of-arguments as childish and unappropriate.

So I´ll leave it by pointing out, that this method of deleting dissent (even within the discussion section) in order to let a white-washed article about a party that outside Italy is widely considerated racist appear to be perfectly uncontroversial, has allready been used by Checco and others within the Italian language Wikipedia. (Anyone who understands some Italian can see it in the history-section). --Alrik Sturmfels (talk) 15:37, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Dear Alrik, I never deleted any of your comments here (you can check the history) or in it.Wiki, where I actually defended your right to freedom of speech, so please don't write false things about me. Just to be precise, as I wrote just above Lega Nord is not my party too. Again pleas stop writing false things about other users. --Checco (talk) 09:48, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

In italian wikipedia remove citations and comments who do not follow the ideas of the administrators and block articles and discussions is a usual way to solve discussions...RSW —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.225.235.136 (talk) 20:57, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Right-wing populism

Yesterday I put a "dubious" tag on "right-wing populism", but the tag was taken away some 20 hours later by an IP who said: "no argument was provided for the "dubious" tag, also there's no need to alter the order of the ideologies". I forgot to write anything in talk page and I'm sorry about that. I'm happy to have the chance to explain the argument. The argument is simple: Lega Nord can be considered "extremist" by some, but I don't see how it can be considered "right-wing populist". Yes, it opposes illegal immigration, but it also the first party to elect a black as Mayor in Italy. Definitely some of its members are extremist, but as a whole Lega Nord is a mainstream government party in Italy, differently from all the other parties that are classified as right-wing populist. Moreover, Lega Nord is not right-wing: it holds a centrist position of just everything from economy to health-care.

Let me be honest as well as neutral, as a conservative and a liberal I would appreciate if Lega Nord were more liberal on many issues, but it's not: it is a catch-all party inclung both conservatives and leftists, but on the key-issues it is a quite centrist "labour people's party". I don't pretent to convince anyone, but I simply pretend that when I put a tag on an article, it stays there at list for a while. Moreover I did not question the source, but "right-wing populism", and I don't think we should put ideologies that don't reflect the complexity of a party. I could find many sources telling that Lega Nord is this or that, but I don't think it would be a good idea. --Checco (talk) 11:23, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

If you actually meant to open a discussion, you could have put it off until you actually had time to do it, and even then, a little mention on the edit summary wouldn't have taken you long.

I don't see how it can be considered "right-wing populist".

Yet you used exactly the same source to define Forza Italia liberal conservative, and you included it in the infobox [1]. That's the definition of double standard. You either accept the source or you don't, period. Also, as I wrote you in your talk page, the majority of the newspapers I checked call LN either "anti-immigration" or "xenophobic". The Globe and Mail didn't hesitate to call it "fascist". So, again, I didn't think this would surprise anyone, surely not you.--93.45.115.104 (talk) 21:08, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I've no problems with writing that some sources say something, but this doesn't mean that those sources are correct or reliable. Calling Lega Nord "fascist" is simply absurd as the party has always been loudly anti-fascist in its rethoric. About right-wing populism I did not say that I don't accept the source, but simply that I consider very dubious to classify the party as such. --Checco (talk) 11:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Checco...you know very well that Lega Nord made a propagnada against immigration without discrimination between honest and non honest foreigners, you know they do not speak about many honest working foreigners, you know very well that they speak just about crimes made by foreigners but no about crimes made by italians (and by Lega Nord palrliamentars who did many crimes), you know very well they say that foreigners steal the work to the italians (even if they usually do works that italians do not want to do), you know they force doctors to be spy against foreigners, you know they take fingerprints of Roma children (but no italians), you know how it is easy to create a false enemy (the foreigners) to hide italian problems...if this is not right-xenophobic-racist-populism... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.80.248.138 (talk) 11:12, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

The view from abroad: the BBC

I have long been concerned that this article tends to give an impression of the Lega as much more moderate than it is elsewhere represented. The BBC has, I think, no axe to grind: it is no more concerned that I am whether self-government in northern Italy is established, or indeed whether there is a secession. Google’s first hit [2] for the search

http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=site%3ABbC.co.uk+%22lega+nord%22+OR+%22Northern+League%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&client=firefox-a

begins like this:

Italy's centre-right leader Silvio Berlusconi won a return to power this week with a majority that - by Italian standards - looks very comfortable.

But he did so with the help of a formerly troublesome and often controversial right-wing ally, the Northern League.

The populist party almost doubled its vote, winning more than 8% nationally, and is expected to have several ministers in the new government.

This did not surprise me at all: right-wing and populist seem to be the usual way that the organisation sums up the party, when an article needs a definition in a nutshell.

The second hit [3] points to the third pillar of the party, as seen from abroad, its willingness to play the race card:

The Northern League has been holding anti-immigration rallies throughout northern Italy during the election campaign. Speakers at these rallies often read aloud lists of crimes committed by immigrants to cheers from the crowd. The town of Novi Ligure knows only too well how easily the Northern League can create hysteria. When a mother and son were violently hacked to death in his town, the surviving daughter blamed an Albanian immigrant. The Northern League immediately organised a huge anti-immigrant rally. But it had to be suddenly cancelled with the shocking news that the murderer was not an immigrant but the 16-year-old daughter herself.

The next hit includes ‘A leading Roman Catholic has accused Mr Maroni of behaving like a fascist. He has rejected that charge.’[4] Next ‘Mr Bossi, the volatile, firebrand leader of the anti-immigrant Northern League, has been given the reforms portfolio.’[5] Then ‘Tensions were heightened by the death of a boy, killed by a car as he crossed the road outside the [Muslim] school [in Milan] this week. The Northern League - a regionally-based party that is vitriolic in its criticism of immigrants, especially Muslims - has scuppered a planned prayer meeting for the boy.’[6]. And ‘"We want to be able to look people in the eyes... Those kind of coverings like burkas are not right here," says Angelo de Biasio from the far-right Northern League Party.’[7].

I would guess that the BBC is in general as neutral a source as one could cite and that is how, in general, the Lega is described there. For myself (not a reliable source!) as a visitor to Northern Italy I was always surprized by the sheer vulgarity of the party’s propaganda: that I would see as its fourth pillar. Obviously this statement, which also came up in the search, must be referring to a different league: ‘The Northern League is right to be concerned at the unacceptable level of offensive language.’[8]

So the neutral summary, I think would be ‘right-wing, populist and anti-immigrant’. That is not to say, of course, that all of its members are all or any of those things.Ian Spackman (talk) 12:35, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

In fact Lega Nord is very different from how it is described outside Italy and in general I'm sorry that British media tend to be a little bit superficial on Italian issues. Populist parties rarely join national governments and when they do it they usually loose votes soon after. Lega Nord is not that kind of party as it is generaly effective in government (whether you like it or not, obviously) both at local and national level, and consequently it gets more votes after it has governd. In fact Lega Nord, other than being a mainstream political party in Italy (the oldest sitting in Parliament!), is a stable political force especially in Lombardy and Veneto, where it has plenty of mayors, including the first and only black mayor in Italy. History will judge and I'm sure that one day no-one will ever confuse Lega Nord with right-wing populist parties, first of all because it is not right-wing. --Checco (talk) 15:19, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

But you need to supply reliable neutral sources, rather than your own view. (Especially as you are a Venetist, which of course you have every right to be—and if I lived in Scotland I might well vote for independence.) The BBC results are very similar to the ones you get from the Daily Telegraph to the right and the Guardian to the left. These are all serious news organisations which maintain permanent correspondents in Italy, a large part of whose job is to interpret Italian politics to their British readership. (The Guardian carried extremely well informed reports from Ed Vulliamy during the Mani Pulite excitements, for instance.) It seems to me that the consensus is that this is an extremist party, and that our readers should not be led into the mistake of imagining that it is anything like an analogue of the Scots or Welsh nationalists. Much closer to the late and little-lamented Jörg Haider and people of his ilk in fact. It is not enough to say that Italy is misunderstood abroad. Ian Spackman (talk) 15:52, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

"Venetist" has not neccessarily to do anything with Lega Nord, but that's another issue. As I said, Lega Nord is hardly an extremist party and it's not regarded as such in Italy, but anyway as avery opinion is notable, also that of BBC, I have no problems with saying in the article that the party is regarded as extremist outside Italy and in fact the article tells it. Anyway, the main difference between Lega Nord and SNP and PC on the other side is that Lega Nord, albeit being a regionalist party, does not ask special privileges or rights for the regions where it is strong, but an overall federal reform of the Italian state – and that's a very big difference. Lega Nord is more "universalistic" and far more open to diversity than you think. As I told you before, history will judge, and, dear Ian, it's always good to speak with you! --Checco (talk) 16:36, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Checco, you know very well that Lega Nord does its propaganda blaming foreigners citizens without discriminations beetween honest and non honest foreigners (they never speak about honest working foreigner citizens), they force doctors to take finger prints of Roma childrens (but no italians), they speak just about crimes made by foreigner but no about the many crimes made by italians (in Italy and abroad), they force doctors to be spy against foreigners, they say that foreigners steal work to the italians (without saying that italian do not do many works), you know how it is easy to hide italian problems creating the stereotype of foreigner criminals...if this is not right-xenophobic-racist populism... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.80.248.138 (talk) 10:58, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not Checco, but I cannot stand reading anonymous bullshit like "they force doctors to take finger prints of Roma children" simply because that's not true. These facts never happened. There was simply the requirement to take finger-prints to surely identify whoever was not able to provide a certain identity. Bear in mind that:

• in Italy it is mandatory to have a valid ID when being in public places
• Fingerprints of italian citizens are already taken whenever they are charged for whatever issue with police, and -in an case- when they are taken for military services. That deals with all the male population until 1998.
• All italian citizen have certain identity because of above, and because identity is tracked by municipalities.

Now, if "Roma children" have proper IDs and proper passports they will never be asked for fingerprints. And doctors are not involved in this. It's just a matter of Police. And it is a matter of fact that many "Roma Children" ad used "Roma Adults" you'll never know if parents or not to operate stealing and various kind of robberies. Of course they never declare the same identity. Im'm italian, and I'm tired to be subject of illegal migration racism just because the most of us is Christian. These acts ar considered NORMAL in all Europe. But when it is an italian party to ask for them in Italy, all european media (beginning with BBC) starts to cry. And it's obvious why: an weak control in Italy is less pressure to their own countris. How should we call this? Conflict of interests?

Is this site a reliable source?

The web site http://www.parties-and-elections.de/italy.html is cited as a source for the "right-wing populism" entry. I wonder if this web site can be considered as an independent and reliable source, since we don't know where its editors collect (and how they process) the information shown.--Grasso83 (talk) 10:45, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

It is a good website and its editor is a sensible political scientist, but this does not mean that it is always right or reliable. I'm sure he made a mistake when he classified Lega Nord as a right-wing populist party, but that's what it is. I think that we should go on through consensus. As Grasso83, I'm against having "right-wing populism" in the infobox and I don't see many people in favour of it. I have no problems with mentioning "right-wing populism" and the source in the "ideology" section (that would be definitely appropriate and unquestionable), while I think that the infobox should be a sort of summary of the article, not viceversa. --Checco (talk) 13:16, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

There aren't many people in its support because there just aren't many people working (or even concerned) with this article. You don't get to choose whether a source is reliable based on how convenient that is for you. "Right wing" is an ideology, and so is "populism", so they're staying in the infobox unless someone successfully challenges the reliability of the cited website.--Loggong (talk) 02:01, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Italian Wikipedia-article obviously cencored by Lega-Nord-activists

I´d like to mention that in the Italian Wikipedia-edition the Lega-Nord-article is blocked, the discussion is blocked and users who critized the article got blocked and their comments in the discussion got deleted.

The controversial point again and again is the xenophobia of the Lega Nord, which some user strictly want to keep out of the dabete. On this issue the very long Italian article only vaguely mentions: "The Lega Nord has often been accused [!]of racism and demagogy and some foreign [!] observers have considered the Lega as a an extreme right wring party", plus two English language links, that´s all. Any attempt or proposal to add further information on WHY the Lega is accused of racism (speeches quoted from the Italian press, legislative proposals like fingerprinting only the roma-minority, ect.) are either ignored as "unqualified" or deleted from the discussion (!) as "vadalism".

To me this seems like an organized take-over of a wikipedia-edition, infact one of those who are deleting comments from the discussion, Grasso83, even admits to be a party-member on his profil-site! Is there nothing one can do about a wikipedia-edition being used for political party activities? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.80.248.138 (talk) 09:35, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm RSW, I was an italian wikipedia user, I was blocked just because I've spoken about relationships between cortisol and diabetes, not for political reasons or insults. I'm not alrik user, alrik is/was not my sockpuppet, I'm not the author of the previous comment. As already mentioned several users (not sockpuppet!) complained about POV Wikipedian Lega Nord page, usually they and their discussions were blocked, and their comments were removed (with citations too). I also would like to ask if it is possible for english wikipedia to contrast this italian wikipedia concerns. RSW —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.80.248.138 (talk) 10:27, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Moreover note that italian wikipedia lega nord page does not contain critics against racism and xenophoby of this political party... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.225.235.136 (talk) 21:12, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

By my side I can confirm all, the italian version of the Lega Nord page has been blocked and strictly managed by some Lega Nord party supporters. They blocked me some months ago me while trying to add some link and contributions regarding xenophobia and racism of the Lega Nord party to the page. I was blocked claiming I was a vandal and giving no other explanations. I formally ask wikipedia to investigate on this problem arised with Wikipedia in Italy..... right now I have been blocked for italian pages, got no clear explanation for this. --Salvaturuzzu (talk) 16:25, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

The discussion of italian version of the Lega Nord page is blocked too! Just a case? Just vandalism?--Italian rsw (talk) 19:30, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I think no. I read the archives and I think now I know why. And the explanation are inside the discussion themselves.

May be you don't like it, but that's irrelevant. The number of attempt to fulfill articles with your own ideologies even if not related to the subjects are facts.

I know why you cancell articles, discussions and comments, because you are a Lega Nord activist. There are no explanations about information deficience in italian version of the Lega Nord page (i.e. racism or xenophobia), that's a fact! I've never done non related insertions on the Lega Nord page. What about cancellation of the comments or insertions of other people (i.e. Salvaturuzzu or Alrik)? Just vandalism? The italian version of the Lega Nord page is POV, and the administrator are vandals who defend Lega Nord cancelling non vandalic insertions, discussions and comments. That's a fact!--Italian rsw (talk) 23:22, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Rimotion of comments (even if they are perfectly correct) who do not follow the ideas of administrator of italian Wikipedia is a fact!--Italian rsw (talk) 23:25, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

italian RSW, please ... I'm not a it-wiki admin (and I'm even not a registred user, and I'm not even a LN activist ...) so - before starting a flame abut actions I even cannot do - calm down a while, and accept that there are people that have opinion different as yours or of your preferred sources.

Now tell me: if a France police man arrests a German guy in France because he's taking a behavior that, even if compliant to the German law, does not conform to the France one, does this makes France "racist against Germans"?

Out of metaphor: the fact that there are political commenter and opinionists that think LN as am extremist-right-racist-xenophobic-all-the-wost-things-anyone-can-imagine party does not automatically make that party as such. It only means that they think it is.

To properly define a party we must refer to its official acts: statute, manifest, emitted laws by mayors regional presidents etc.

Till now I never see (and the LN wikipedia voices don't report) any of this act.

What LN opposition qualify a "racist emendations" are never by law directed against "ethnicity", but against "behaviors". Like every law emitted by whatever party is.

There is no law (op proposal) that says "Senegal people cannot do this". They say, for example, "it is forbidden to immigrate illegally". And that's valid for Senegal as well for Switzerland and even for Italian too (just try yourself to re-enter Italy without a valid passport passport from Switzerland ... Italian police will arrest you and qualify as "clandestine" until you prove your citizenship! Hence, no "race" or "ethnicity" is considered, so no "racism" exist here).

They simply say "if you like to live in a place you must conform to the behaviors expected by who already lives in that place". And this is valid for whatever people in whatever place. (In that sense, there could be even more universalism in LN ideology than in many self-defined "democrats" that don't admit ideologies different than the one they profess)

Different issues are the personal opinion expressed by certain representatives. But until they don't have a translation into effective promulgated acts, they cannot be attributed to the party as "party facts". They're just opinions as the ones expressed by journalists and commenter. They can be registered, but cannot be themselves the "truth". Only history will judge where the "truth" is (if there is one). But it will be our grand-grand-children to evaluate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.225.146.112 (talk • contribs) 16:15, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

(just try yourself to re-enter Italy without a valid passport passport from Switzerland ... Italian police will arrest you and qualify as "clandestine" until you prove your citizenship! Hence, no "race" or "ethnicity" is considered, so no "racism" exist here).

That I can disconfirm. Last time I went to Switzerland I found that I had left my passport in Milan. There was no check on the Postbus entering Switzerland, and none crossing back into Italy the next day in the back of a car. It might, of course, make a difference that I am white. But I don’t know that. Ian Spackman (talk) 07:31, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Ian, that's not a "disconfirm". It is a police discretion to decide to stop a car or not. The fact that no-one did it makes you lucky, not correct! Being in Switzerland without a passport is a violation for the swiss laws as well ... and swiss laws are far more restrictive about illegal immigration. They are federalist from more than 400 years... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.68.115.230 (talk) 09:57, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Please anonymous user...I understand real safety issues (my father was policeman). You know very well that the clandestinity crime helps criminals (they just do not care about it) and scares just honest working people, Clandestinity crime facilitate black work, because black workers must to obey to the owner in order to avoid prison. However...take Roma fingerprints is not a behaviour but it is ethnicity, speak just about crimes made by foreigner is just ethnicity (from a safety point of view there are no differences between crimes made by italians and made by foreigners), create the myth of "foreigners (better if from Romania)=criminals" is ethnicity.

Racism and xenophobia of LN is not as you say an "ideology", but it is a fact proved by Vatican and UN too.

Removal of comments or insertions (even if absolutely correct) who do not follow ideas of it-wiki admins is very common, I formally ask wikipedia to investigate on this problem arised with Wikipedia in Italy.--Italian rsw (talk) 10:17, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Please don't confuse opinions with facts

As stated above "facts" should be intended as "approved law explicitly directed against specific ethnicity". Till now, no such laws exist into the Italian system. (who disagree, please cite the laws and article number, as well as the approved text from "Gazzetta Ufficiale").

Everything else is -although sometimes important- opinion. In particular:

• Racism and xenophobia of LN is not as you say an "ideology", but it is a fact proved by Vatican and UN too.

FALSE: The Vatican "proves" nothing (and it can prove nothing being a religious authority, not a technical committee). They just say what they think about. That's "opinion", not proven fact. Facts are that certain UN as well as Vatican representatives express some opinons against the opinions of some LN exponents. Till now, none of their "proposal" had been literally translated into law, so there are just comparisons of opinions.

• However...take Roma fingerprints is not a behaviour but it is ethnicity

FALSE: There is no such law nor proposal. Figerprints are taken by Police to anyone is unable to provide a proven identity. It is valid for Italian as well. Every Italian male citizen having more than 35 years knows that, since when the Italian army was a mandatory service. Roma are not an exception to that rule. It is just the more frequent case, since they -for their own reasons- dont' have valid Romanian documents (Or ... they like to forgot them every time are arrested for whatever reason). The phrase "will take fingerprints to Roma children" was not from LN party, but is an instrumental description made by some PD members to oppose to LN proposal. Again "opinion" not fact.

• speak just about crimes made by foreigner is just ethnicity:

speack is not making laws. Laws are not made that way (see above). Unless you think that freedom of speech is related only to the opinion you agree about.

• from a safety point of view there are no differences between crimes made by italians and made by foreigners

TRUE: no distinction is done by law. Only by statistics, and used instrumentally by LN opposition to sustain their own interest against LN, and by LN representatives to sustain their own interest against oppositors. Nothing more than regular dialectics. You may like or dislike, but no fact derives directly from such.

It's not a problem to report opinions, but I think it is wrong to use such opinions as "prove" to facts. Facts must exists their own, not because someone think of them or to them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.225.224.133 (talk) 13:19, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok...Vatican and UN speak just about opinions. Let's speak about facts! If I'm not wrong, Lega Nord made an official proposal to take Roma fingerprints, does not matter if they were successful or not, it is a racist facts and racist behavior that you can not discuss!

An official LN deputy has insulted and joked southern italian citizens during an official speech. No LN provvediments against him. That's a racist behavior (even against other italian citizens)!

I have no statistics focused on crimes made in Italy, but if I remember well the number of crimes made by italians is more or less the same of the crime made by foreigners, therefore speak just about crimes made by foreigners is racist! That's also hypocrisy!

LN is also against Schengen agreement arguing on criminality in eastern Europe, it is interesting to note that eastern Europe criminality rates are much lower than those in western Europe, moreover Romania does not belong to Schengen zone (personally I can also say I lived in Czech Republic and I know that CR is much safer than Italy because czech policy is harder but not xenophobic). They made official proposals in EU focused on the Schengen agreement restriction, does not matter if they were successful or not! That's racist and xenophobic behavior!--Italian rsw (talk) 11:02, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

• "If I'm not wrong, Lega Nord made an official proposal to take Roma fingerprints, does not matter if they were successful or not" ...

You're wrong. The proposal says that figerprints must be taken to whoever is unable to provide certain identity. That's not for Roma, that's for anyone.

When that proposal was discussed in parliament, some left-wing depute argue that in such way also Roma children will be asked for fingerprints (There's an official transcription of the debate on the parliament site). That's certainly true, but not because they're Roma. Hence "race" here doesn't matter. It's only an intrumental aspect used to oppse to the proposal, not the proposal itself.

The proposal -then- had been approved (and hence they were successfull ...).

Instead of saying "if I'm not wrong", why don't you cite the exact test of the proposal and show us where it say so?

• "but if I remember well the number of crimes made by italians is more or less the same of the crime made by foreigners": true, but Italians in Italy are (still) more than foreigners, and foreigners are more than 30% of Italian penalties institute population. Far more than foreigns in Italy. You don't have statistic, you say ... so what are you talking about? Once again, just your opinion.

• "An official LN deputy has insulted and joked southern italian citizens during an official speech"

There no such concept of "official speech". In Italy official acts are written, not spoken. Jokes and insults between northern and souther italians exist bilaterally since 1861 (the date Italy had been unified). That's not "racism", just "campanilism". It's the same kind of insults that are exchanged between Mancester and Liverpool supporters. No action had never resulted form that. Apart jokes and novels.

• "LN is also against Schengen agreement...": That's not a crime, just an opinion. As to be in favor of it.
• "... arguing on criminality in eastern Europe": false. Arguing of criminality made by easter migrants in Italy (That's statistic: just look the italian crime population statistics), and its a different fact than the one you talk about, that never existed.

• "it is interesting to note that eastern Europe criminality rates are much lower than those in western Europe"

Irrelevant. Different law systems and managements. LN refers to criminal act done by eastern in Italy, not at home. It's clear that it is different. Criminals escape from home to go in other places, if they have less risk of prosecution.

• "moreover Romania does not belong to Schengen zone": so once again, why so many self-saying Romanian are in Italy without proper documents? That's even more an LN sustain argument... There is no IT/RO boundary, so who -in the Shengen zone- is allowing them to move, not respecting the agreement? How did them enter the Shengen zone iregularly?

• "personally I can also say I lived in Czech Republic and I know that CR is much safer than Italy because czech policy is harder but not xenophobic" : Harder respect to what? How? No "xenphobic" ... the police ?!? Please, be serious. This argument, written in this way, is a nonsense. Police procedures are not written by police itself! At least, not in Italy.

• "They made official proposals in EU focused on the Schengen agreement restriction, does not matter if they were successful or not":

Shengen agreement did not exist from ever... and it does not deals with "races" but to the way states controls people movements. Your right to be (or not) in Italy does not depend on the Shengen agreement, but on your position respect the migration laws of both the countries. The fact that you can move before being controlled (instead of after, as it was before the Shengen agreement was in place) does not depend on your "race". It's just a different way to control a "staus" of a "person" respect a SAME pre-existing agreement.

It seem you say they are "racist" because they want less "freedom of movement" (my understanding). But that's not related to "race" but to independence of "nations". Hence it is not "racism". At least in respect to the "racism" definition.

If that's you opinion, feel free to sustain it, but don't say it is a fact, since none of the "fact" you reported is relevant to that definition. IMHO of course.

• "true, but Italians in Italy are (still) more than foreigners, and foreigners are more than 30% of Italian penalties institute population. Far more than foreigns in Italy. You don't have statistic, you say ... so what are you talking about? Once again, just your opinion".

Once again speak just about crimes made by foreigners is racist or at least xenophobic. Also Hitler just spoke (at the beginning) about jews as the main problem of the Germany

• "An official LN deputy has insulted and joked southern italian citizens during an official speech"

There no such concept of "official speech". In Italy official acts are written, not spoken. Jokes and insults between northern and souther italians exist bilaterally since 1861 (the date Italy had been unified). That's not "racism", just "campanilism". It's the same kind of insults that are exchanged between Mancester and Liverpool supporters. No action had never resulted form that. Apart jokes and novels.

you are completely wrong. If someone during a private party insult southern people it is not a problem (but it is already racism), but if some deputy during an official speech says sentences as "Roma ladrona" (Rome big thieft) or "Napoli merda (Naples shit) it is not campanilism but it is big racism! Politicians do not say novels during official speechs! You are wrong when you say racism=official acts! Also nazism, till racist laws of course, just blamed and isulted jews!

• "LN is also against Schengen agreement...": That's not a crime, just an opinion. As to be in favor of it.

"... arguing on criminality in eastern Europe": false. Arguing of criminality made by easter migrants in Italy (That's statistic: just look the italian crime population statistics), and its a different fact than the one you talk about, that never existed.

Shengen agreement is a big conquest for freedom and friendship between different people. Be against this agreement means, in some extent, be xenophobic (if not racist). Say "black people are shit" it is as you say an opinion and it is not a crime! But it is a racist fact for sure! Once again speak just about crimes made by foreigners is racist and xenophobic. Immigrants from Shengen zone (from all EU with the exceptions of Bulgaria and Romania) almost do not belong to the italian crime statistics, therefore speak against SZ is a nonsense from a safety point of view, but it is just xenophobia. Moreover from an ethnic point of view Romanians do not belong to eastern Europe (they are a latin people like italians, they are not slavic people).

• "personally I can also say I lived in Czech Republic and I know that CR is much safer than Italy because czech policy is harder but not xenophobic" : Harder respect to what? How? No "xenphobic" ... the police ?!? Please, be serious. This argument, written in this way, is a nonsense. Police procedures are not written by police itself! At least, not in Italy.

Harder in camparation to the italian policy of course!! Nowdays italian policy is often xenophobic: i.e. if you are italian dealer the (italian) policy rarely controls you, if you are foreigner very often. In Czech Repubblic that's almost impossible.

• "It seem you say they are "racist" because they want less "freedom of movement" (my understanding). But that's not related to "race" but to independence of "nations". Hence it is not "racism". At least in respect to the "racism" definition.

You may say whatever you want, but make the equation (as LN does) "immigrant=criminal" is a racist fact! I do not say LN is racist just for missing freedom of movement, but mainly the upward reasons. For that reasons I say that LN's racism and xenophobia is a fact and not an opinion"

LN in Lucca made the official proposal to have in the city one restaurant of Lucca's food for each kebab shop, does not matter if the people from Lucca prefer kebab! That's a stupid and racist fact!

The Umberto Bossi's son (the son of the leader of LN) made a game called "rimbalza il clandestino" (refuse the clandestine), focused on the nonrecption of foreigners (who go through mediterrean sea on very dangerous boats) into the italian teritory even if it means kill them. That's racist fact! That's a xenophobic fact! Even if it is not an official act!

Clandestine crime will help criminals and black work bosses, it will scare just honest foreigner working people.

Italian people has been the biggest immigrant people, you do not feel to be racist and hypocrite (I guess you are italian too) to be againt people movements?--Italian rsw (talk) 11:56, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Heve respect to the langage

... and stop calling "racism" things that are not related rto "races" and calling "race" things that are only administrative differences. Until we recognize the existence of different nations in the world we must distinguish different citizens (Unless we want to qualify the O.N.U. as a racist organization) Italian RSW had been banned from it:wiki for the evident reason that it insist proposing his own opinions as the "absolute truth" and want wiki articles to report his "truth", when it is just personal opinion.

Morover, someone made isertion to some other comments making them mostly unreadable. That's far from being a "respactable behavior".

By now I must observe that who is talking about "racism" is in fact behaving "racisticaly" against who's retaining racism is not involved in the so called "racist behaviours".

Some facts happened in the discussion are a clear example of the intollerance towards LN by people like italianRSW. Just look at some part of his talk: If someone during a private party insult southern people it is not a problem (but it is already racism), but if some deputy during an official speech says sentences as "Roma ladrona" (Rome big thieft) or "Napoli merda (Naples shit) it is not campanilism but it is big racism!

The word "racism" is not a vague concept, it has a well defined meaning as described in whatever dictionary and cannot change his meaning depending on who is the speaker. Northern and Southern Italy have different histories, climate, organization and culture. The intent of any of the parts to defend his own when no respect is coming from the other can go into this kind of attacks. That are not direct to races but to cultures and their incompatibilities in certain behaviors.

North and South Italy are different. That's a matter of fact. Accusation of racism is often just a attempt to prohibit to speack about it. It's a matter of interest, not races.

Again, Roma ladrona is known to anyone to be directed not against people but against the concept of "capital of the centralist Italy" (Rome, if I remember well, is it's name, after all) and to the fact that taxes redistribution towards regions is not the same same incomes are. This is a fact. Anyone can agree or disagree about the need to change this situation, but -in any case- it is not an issue directed to "races" (unless you want to sustain that "south" has the "right" to get more incomes by the productivity of "north" ... but this may be intended as "racism" as well, since make "northerns" slave for "southerns" benefits)

And again, "Napoli shit" is a part of a stadium chore that is sung from at least 30 years (at least as I can remember), and refers (just listen well the entire song) to the cholera epidemy happened in Naples around the '70s. It is typically sung at every Milan-vs-Naples football match. Naples supporters usually respond "You've just only fog". Nothing to do with clear "racism", just with the wish to "prendere per il culo" (literally take from the ass, metaphorical idiom to say "hard joke to make someone angry", just to distract him from his goals). Taking that sole words out from their context with the only purpose to demonstrate an idea to be "the truth" is not honest. And in any case, that fact din't happen in a "official sppech". It was a private party, where some journalist where present.

""Shengen agreement is a big conquest for freedom and friendship between different people": That's an opinon. I have a number of friend from Swiss as well from Morocco and China ... Not to mention UK, that's out of the Shengen zone. Shengen from them is mostly ininfluent. Must we say UK is racist for this? I don't beleave so! It's just an administrative agreement between independent nations about the anagraphics management. Saying "is a big conquest to ..." is instrumental to sustain an opinion. Legitimate, but just an opinion, and hence "being against is xenophobic" is -again- just an opinion, not a fact.

"Say "black people are shit" it is as you say an opinion and it is not a crime! But it is a racist fact for sure!". Please ... what does it is related to the Shengen issue? And again, don't de-contextualize: If I'm, talking about swimming world championship this may be true! As it is false talking about running. "Racism" in politics arises when a proposal says "if you are of a given race you mast do things differently respect another race". Everything else is only instrumental.

"speak just about crimes made by foreigners is racist and xenophobic": Since such crimes exist, someone have to speak about them. What's the problem here?

"You may say whatever you want, but make the equation (as LN does) "immigrant=criminal" is a racist fact" Never heard about this equation. Unless you mean "illegal immigrant". But that's true by definition, otherwise what's the meaning of the word "illegal"?

"LN in Lucca made the official proposal to have in the city one restaurant of Lucca's food for each kebab shop, does not matter if the people from Lucca prefer kebab! That's a stupid and racist fact!" Saying "people from Lucca prefer kebab" is racist! People from Lucca (as from everywhere) prefer each one what they like. Registering a diseqilibrium in commercial activities ad propose a balance is part of whatever territorial planning. You may agree or not about that plan, and even propose another one, but "race" doesn't bother here. That's only a matter of interest.

"The Umberto Bossi's son (the son of the leader of LN) made a game called "rimbalza il clandestino" (refuse the clandestine), focused on the nonrecption of foreigners (who go through mediterrean sea on very dangerous boats) into the italian teritory even if it means kill them. That's racist fact! That's a xenophobic fact! Even if it is not an official act!" "Clandestine" is different from "foreign". Foreigners coming to Italy respecting the migration laws are not "rimbalzati" (refused). And it seems all other EU countries are "ribalzing" very well! I they don't like italian "rimbalzi" since they have more pressure and more need to "ribalzare" themselves. "Clandestine" are not because of their "race" but because of violation to immigration procedure. Go to Swiss forgotting the passport and you're clandestine.

"Clandestine crime will help criminals and black work bosses, it will scare just honest foreigner working people." True, but "honest foreign working people" are not clandestine and don't work in black. Don't play with words.

"Italian people has been the biggest immigrant people, you do not feel to be racist and hypocrite (I guess you are italian too) to be againt people movements?" Not at all. Italians migrant had been integrated when it was the case, imprisoned when it was the case, refused when it was the case. That doesn't mean no-one ever made mistakes, but hypocrisy is another thing. Does nations boundaries have the right to exist? If the answer is "yes", then "in" ad "out" must be regulated. (Note that Shengen -in this sense- is just a form of regulation: a number of countries with identical rules don't verify each other since they trust their respective anagraphs).

RSW user was banned by censor italian admin just because he spoke about tight relationship between cortisol excess (Cushing's syndrome) and diabetes. It is not possible to discuss this fact! The elimination of the inserted scientific articles is a proof of stupidity of it.wiki, this is also an issue written in the article censorship.

Shame on italian Wikipedia!

However this has nothing to do with this discussion!

It is really absurd that you compare an official speech of LN politicians with stadium chores, are you honest? Are you adult? However do not be minimize everything, you may say whatever you want but insults between people from different zones (as for example southern or norther Italy IS racism). Insult other italian is not defence, it is just racism! It is more or less as say: "black people are shit"! In every case is racism! By the way I'm italian too, and I know very well chores as "Napoli merda" and "Roma ladrona", they are insults for southern italians (racism!), nothing to do with the cholera's ephidemy. Once again you can't compare an official speech with stadium chores!

About the stupid and racist game of Bossi's son, I have no words! English readers have their opinions (not nice to that game). In any case it is always wrong to say: "but the others do it too".

About Lucca, say "Lucca citizens prefer kebab" is just a taste preference, in the commerce wins the strongest, nothing to do with racism! Be serious!

Once again speak just about crimes made by foreigners in Italy is racist! Do you want to say that foreigners do crimes? Ok! But say something like: "In Italy 40 % of crimes are made by foregners, the rest by italians" but not with tipical LN phrases: "Foreigners are criminals", "In Italy the crimes are made by foregners" "Black people= bingo bongo", "southern people= shit", "Naples=shit", "Roma=shit", "Roma big thieft" and so on...Thats LN racism!

Italians were never refused abroad! Italians went in USA without documents! But USA (and many other nations) did not refuse them! Be serious and honest! An italian against immigration is absurd!

Honest working people in Italy can get easily clandestine because they often must to accept black work. Be honest sometimes! (for that reason: if you are foreigner, do not work in Italy, you may get clandestine too easily!--Italian rsw (talk) 15:59, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Lega Nord is xenophobic! No lies!

Reasons of racism charges to LN are explained here and in the article. Stop with lies and minimizations!--Italian rsw (talk) 15:59, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

To all: this is not a forum

Please stop feeding this troll.

The word "racism" has a well qualified definition, and it is different than what RSW report. Also, a number of opinions of various people about exist. I think it should not a problem to anyone to accept a phrasing like

"LN had been (is ...) often accused of racism an (or ...) xenophobia from ABCD because of some expression of a number of members like XYZ [a][b][c][d]" These are facts.

Everything else (like LN is racist because ... or LN is NOT because ...) are just opinions. The fact they are legitimate in their own context doesn't make them encyclopedic, and cannot make them "absolute truth".

Just to make more evident what the problem is, just take this example: "It is really absurd that you compare an official speech of LN politicians with stadium chores" Here, one thing is missing and another thing is not correct: if it is an official speach, there should be a name and date for the event, a well defined pubblic (was it a public place? if not, who where the invited?) and a consequent official document of LN secretary reporting it and approving it, inserting it into a "program". Otherwise it is just ... freedom of speach and hence unofficial. (Or ... there is another definition for the word official I'm not aware of ?) Also senti che puzza scappano anche i cani, stanno arrivando i napoletani ... Napoli merda Napoli colera sei la vergogna dell'italia intera" IS a stadium chorus (you can listen to it by whatching Mlan-vs-Naples images ofthe 80's), and also, saying the anonymous was not related to the cholera epidemy id simply not true (that's part of the text!). Anyone may not like it is pronounced by a depute, but that doesn't change the nature of the chorus. That's not a comparison made by the anonymous. It's the real nature of it.

A number of issue reported by RSW are clearly his own (an many other's) opinion, but until a clear act(a precise document signed by LN secretary) that is clearly against a "race" is found, we cannot speack of "racism of LN" but about "racism" of ABC (choose what you like) respect to the opinion of XYZ (And RSW, in that context, can be Y) That's the point.

RSW is not "making lies", is simply arbitrarily extending his opinion to everything by enhancing only certain parts of facts and events in sustain to that opinion, skipping away everything else. He's having his own definition for "racism" ("I know very well chores as "Napoli merda" and "Roma ladrona", they are insults for southern italians (racism!)" ... "He knows ..." everybody else knowing different things doesn't care?) and everything matches makes a truth. Everything else, simply doesn't exist. But "Half the truth" is still "true" but it is not "the truth".

I understand RSW is convinced about it, as the anonymous is convinced by the opposite. But this fact (two people each one convinced of a different truth because of same "facts") clearly mans that's not the "truth" and that it should be somewhere else (probably in the middle). But it is not in the scope of an encyclopedia to find it. Just reporting facts for what they are in their completeness in relevance to show what the context (not the singular facts) is. Reporting only the part one likes is in any case POV.

Anyway, I must compliment with RSW for the incredible number of supects sokuppets! http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categoria:Wikipedia:Cloni_sospetti_di_Rsw —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keith 64 (talk • contribs) 06:46, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Sinebot...till now I did not say LN is racist because I thin or because I guess. I spoke about facts, that youminimize. If some deputy insults southern people is during an official speech is official, does not matter if without official acts (for you racism=offial acts...that's an incredible absurdity), Hitler at the beginning just insulted jews, no official acts since racist laws! LN is the same!

Concerning to the chores, it is true that at the origin were referred to the cholera's epidemy but it was instrumental use. Later the chores becamed a way to insult and discriminate southern people. If you think it is not racist, whay do not you go to Naples and sing it and see if they will take it just as a lesson of history?

Again it is absurd to compare official speech with stadium chores!

Why I'm not banned in english wikipedia? Why I do not you use sockpuppets here? Why you, in the last insertion, spoke as you were a different user (i mean you told sentences as: "the other anonymous user". Why do not you sign your comments? Why you always try to change arguments?

You are a LN defender and censor (there are no explanation concerning to the complete racism charges missing in LN article in Italy), but in that way you minimize evident facts?

Once I saw the incredible number of blocked user/IP (hundreds per day...), it was clear that usually they were not "vandals" (as the censors of italian wikipedia told) but people that wrote something against the ideas of italian wikipedia censors.

Thanx for your congratulations, I will fight against censorship in italian wikipedia. I'm proud to be one of the causes of italian wikipedia's crisis. In despite of wiki.it I'm not afraid to make insertions, here it is impossible to be banned without be a real vandal (and fortunately I'm not) --91.80.172.40 (talk) 07:55, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Stop with lies

LN is xenophobic! The reasons are explained here and mainly in the article. Stop with lies and minimizations!

I guess you would like to delete these comments and block this discussion as usually italian wikipedia administrators do!

Sinebot..we are not in the italian wikipedia in which every censor-administrator delete insertions even if they are correct. This is not italian wikipedia censorship!--Italian rsw (talk) 07:58, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Seriously:

"Why you, in the last insertion, spoke as you were a different user?

Because I AM a different user !

"Why do not you sign your comments?"

"My comment it is signed as keith_64."

"Why you always try to change arguments?"

Why I shouldn't ?

"You are a LN defender and censor (there are no explanation concerning to the complete racism charges missing in LN article in Italy)"

So what? They are missing (my understatement about your talk) because I did it? Read the article history and who are the modifiers. You're just trying to put me in your troll and flame.

If this is your approach i ask en:wiki to ban you for the same reasons as it been done in it wiki.

And than, it's me minimizing, or you maximizing ?

Don't answer: let anybody else to judge.

Keith 64 (talk) 12:49, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I did not see your signature. That's the demonstration that you know you are wrong and you do not have arguments to defend your dear, racist and xenophobic Lega Nord. You are trying to ban me by your provocations, but I will not fall in your flame and I won't be banned because I'm not vandal or flamer simply. I have not trolls and flames in english wikipedia. No critics on italian RSW user. I spoke briefly about correlations between cortisol and diabetes (the reason by which I was ban in italian Wikipedia) but I was not banned and the insertions and the citations remain.

Once again we are not in italian wikipedia in which the admins-censors delete every comments, citations who do not follow their ideas! Here nobody block discussion like in it.Wikipedia

I formally ask en.wikipedia to ban you (as flame maker) and to investigate about italian wikipedia censorshipin order to stop its crisis. Too it. wiki users has been banned without reasons!

At the end I would like to say sorry to all english readers for the discussion made by LN italian activists, but it was necessary to underlying clearly racism and xenophoby of LN here too. Sorry for my mistakes too! In order to save space, this is my last comment in this discussion and I will not answer to provocations made by LN italian activists.--Italian rsw (talk) 17:03, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

==

Franky speaking, when someone says "I did not see your signature. That's the demonstration that you know you are wrong and you do not have arguments to defend your dear" I cannot answer. No connection exist between hypotheses and thesis. My signature is added by me when I remember or by sign-bot when I forgot, since I am logged in by cookie. If he doesn't see, may be he need better glasses! If it is not there is because it is not from me. Everything else are just personal conjectures. Keith 64 (talk) 05:53, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Dear anonymous

To the anonyomous who likes to totally revert my edits:

I'm free to edit this article exactly as you. There is no way you can delete everthing I do. You asked me to divide my large edits in different edits. I don't like to waste my edits, but I chose to follow your request. I divided my edits in three parts so that you can judge them one by one through the chronology. In the future I'll try to remember to divide my edits even more because I'm eager for compromise. Are you?

With my first meticolous edit I corrected many small things, including footnotes, links and copyediting. The only thing I removed is a paragraph on the German/Celtic culture which seemed to me out of scope and redundant. As I told you can see each change by reading the chronology.

With my second edit I re-sorted the order of sections, putting "factions" and "popular support" just after "ideology".

With my last edit I moved some material from a section to another: there was a bad translation of Fini's and Formica's comments and I removed that. If you want to reintroduce it, please be careful that the translation is correct, but anyway I think it is very redundant: imagine if we fill the article about the Democratic Party with all the comments of Berlusconi describing it as "communist" (a non-sense as Formica's according to whom Lega Nord would be "fascist")!

Best regards. --Checco (talk) 18:09, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

>>There is no way you can delete everthing I do.

That's true for you too.

>>You asked me to divide my large edits in different edits. I don't like to waste my edits, but I chose to follow your request.

And if continue that way, we'll get along just fine.--93.45.116.173 (talk) 19:10, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Also, in the list of things you did in your "first meticulous edit" you forgot to mention that you reworked the whole "controversies" section, easily the most controversial part of the article itself, to an unknown extent since diffs don't work if you change and move a paragraph in a single edit.

So I actually don't have any quick way to know what you did to that section, and you can imagine that if you tell me I could assume good faith towards you more easily.--93.45.116.173 (talk) 19:40, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, we will get along just fine! --Checco (talk) 20:38, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

presidents and mayors

I don't know if it is "consistent" the section left the way is today... I mean ... after every administrative election someone will go and someone else will come. Unless there is someone here that takes care to immediately change the section accordingly, there is the potential risk -for an occasional reader- to match with non up-to-date information ... without any way to have knowledge about that.

My personal opinion is that whoever introduced that section and -more in general- whoever insets information that are subject to an "expire date" to explicitly declare what the period is. Anyone will so be able to immediately judge whatever potential "old" information without the need for further research.

Hope this may be helpful ... Keith 64 (talk) 11:24, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I share your doubts about the relevance and the opportunity of that section, especially because we should moreover update the population of the cities and provinces. For now I won't cancel the section and as far as I am active in Wikipedia I ensure that it will be up to date. --Checco (talk) 20:38, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Two remarks

I'm not going to make any changes to the article at this point, but I would like to express two remarks.

1. I would like to integrate the sub-section named "Counter-criticism" in the other parts of the "Controversies" section. This is simply because I think that a section that puts together the pro and con would be more balanced and appreciable. For example I don't agree with this edit.
2. I don't agree with this second edit too as I don't see why the symbols of the "national" sections of Lega Nord, symbols which are owned by Lega Nord itself, cannot be shown in the article. --Checco (talk) 20:11, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

As you know, for copyrighted images Wikipedia claims fair use, which is hard to do for ten images made up of small variations of the same basic Lega Nord logo. So that's why there is a policy restricting non-free contents on Wikipedia.

For the other one, my advice is to just follow this policy and merge everything in the appropriate section without even leaving a "criticism" section, but until we agree on that it's reasonable to keep counter-criticism separated.--93.45.57.72 (talk) 15:33, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

On images I actually continue not to understand. The images are used by Lega Nord and its "national" sections. Why is it difficult to claim fair use? --Checco (talk) 09:14, 5 October 2009 (UTC)