Jump to content

Talk:CasaPound

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


more Information to make this article bigger

[edit]

http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/CasaPound

Florence Shooting: The Neo-Nazi Who Murdered Two African Street Traders
http://uk.ibtimes.com/articles/266427/20111213/florence-shooting-neo-nazi-murdered-african-street.htm

--89.204.153.68 (talk) 06:25, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fascism and not Neo-Fascism

[edit]

Please take not that CasaPoundItalia is related to "Italian Fascism" and not to "Neo-Fascism". It's a big difference because Neo-Fascism is a far-right ideology that takes the nationalistic points of the fascism and take them to the extreme with racism and authoritarism. CasaPound relates itselfs to the anti-capitalistic and socialistic ideology of the fascism taking distances from racism or any kind of intollerance, and for this is more to relate to the "left-wing" or "terza via". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.190.173.233 (talk) 15:24, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Italian Fascism is just a glorified term for the same old fascism. They use the same old violence and threats against people they don't like. They definitely don't do much to distance their movement from racism and intolerance. Normally I would add a bunch of citations and links but this is just common knowledge and you can find a number of examples from any news outlet to debunk the claim that CasaPound is somehow different. 176.242.63.108 (talk) 15:34, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Italian "Casa Pound" Article

[edit]

I would to propose the merge with the Italian Page it:CasaPound. Is there any reason why the two pages are separated? I'm not an active wiki editor and quite unfamiliar with merging so I didn't want to be bold, even if the case seems simple. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Merovingian~itwiki (talk • contribs) 23:42, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confused

[edit]

I'm confused about this party, it supports gay marriage and it's fascist? That doesn't make sense. Edit: It is also in the category "organizations that oppose same-sex marriage". That makes even less sense. Alex of Canada (talk) 00:20, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They don't support gay marriage, which is something related to religious affairs, they instead support civil union, which regards the State. They think of fascism as a state and economic ideology more than a historical guide to politics. There were burning discussions about this in the party at the time, but the same-sex civil union front won since the party is officially secular and does not promote Christian doctine.
Either way, this article needs serious clarification. Alex of Canada (talk) 20:26, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fascism vs. Neo-fascism

[edit]

Hi, I see that since a few weeks ago there is an edit war going on on this page, namely between users Realcasapa and Vif12vf, regarding the characterization of CP as fascist or neo-fascist and the political position (terza via or far-right). The edit war was started by Realcasapa, who also added a legal threat in the comment section. Legal threats are not allowed on Wikipedia. Regarding the matter of the discussion, I would personally prefer the neo-fascist definition, since CP matches perfectly the description given in the Neo-fascism page and the definition given in the Encyclopaedia Britannica. About the political position I would say third position can be, along with far-right, a good description of CP, since the Italian Terza Posizione has historically a neo-fascist connotation. --Ritchie92 (talk) 09:23, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The way i see it, Realcasapa is another of the profiles made by CasaPound-members with the specific intention of disrupting this article. This isn't the first time and im not the first person who has had to handle this! Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 11:45, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vif12vf and whoever else was talking idk how this works. There is no "neo-Fascism" because it would imply Fascism is only a phenomenon of the 20th century period and ended after WW2 then "neo-Fascism" began. We fully reject this Western propaganda way of thinking, Fascism is just an umbrella term for ancient ideas just like everything else such as Capitalism and Socialism, there is no Neo-Capitalism or Neo-Socialism there is JUST SOCIALISM and JUST CAPITALISM just like there is JUST FASCISM. Far Right politics are of individualism and Capitalism, liberals are far right not conservatives. This new way of political assignment the Western propaganda machine has created is beyond retardation and we fully reject it. We are centrist and we'd rather be associated with the far left than the far right. I will continue to revert your disgraceful behaviour and libel on that page.

This is your personal (or your group's) opinion. Neo-fascism (or post-fascism) is defined as the political ideology of those parties who revive fascist ideas after WW2, and CasaPound is obviously one of them, whatever its members say. In any case, you should cite reliable sources and seek consensus on this page before reverting again because obviously not everybody agrees with your edits. --Ritchie92 (talk) 08:40, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CPI-DU

[edit]

CasaPound-United Right is the official national affiliation of CasaPound and so should be present in the infobox. Read here: http://www.destreunite.it/?p=728 to see that the alliance will continue. Ec1801011 (talk) 12:17, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The link provided failed verification for confirming that Casa Pound has continued any formal alliance with United Right following the election. Furthermore, we would prefer WP:SECONDARY sources. Simonm223 (talk) 12:21, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
With "Casapound Italia" we have started an important collaboration that I consider extremely positive: a sincere, true, reliable world, with militants ready to act, even when aware of the difficulties and even when they are insurmountable (just like on this occasion). This implies that their cooperation will continue, furthermore neither parties have stated that the alliance has ended. I have been informed by other admins that uses a primary source is best when presenting official information and so this comes directly from a member party. Ec1801011 (talk) 12:24, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Ec1801011: This isn't the first time, in July, that somebody has had to caution you about using inappropriate sources to project that temporary european political alliances among far-right parties will continue. I think a word of caution would be in order, and I'd suggest you would be well-served to avoid the appearance of edit warring while discussion is ongoing at talk. The WP:PRIMARY link you provided has inadequate information to support your assertion. Simonm223 (talk) 12:27, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If you are referring to the For Britain Movement article I was proven right and the editor I had conflicted with admitted my statements regarding it's membership in the Identity and Democracy Party where true. There was no projection instead I tried explaining that the political alliance was still in use which it is, see Identity and Democracy Party page since you are mislead on the situation. This source here https://www.giornalelavoce.it/torino-elezioni-regionali-verso-lista-unica-casapound-e-destre-unite-344666 states that the alliance will continue into the upcoming regional elections. Now stop deflecting and provide proof to your claims that the electoral alliance has been abandoned otherwise stop reverting my claims which are factual. Ec1801011 (talk) 12:32, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's not the way it works. The WP:ONUS is on you too demonstrate that your insertion is verifiable. I'd suggest you should go to WP:TEAHOUSE and learn more about proper sourcing. Simonm223 (talk) 12:50, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Now with regard to the La Voce article, I'm having trouble validating their bona fides. As far as I can tell, La Voce - the newspaper - ceased publishing in 1995. So I'm going to take this to WP:RS/N and ask some outside advice on this one. Please be patient. Simonm223 (talk) 12:54, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An electoral alliance is not a national affiliation. --Ritchie92 (talk) 13:00, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And, as I mentioned at WP:RS/N the article you provided is from April, while the EU elections were in May which may make this the territory of WP:CRYSTAL. We can't use this as a source for what happened after the election as it was written before the election. And Wikipedia avoids predicting the future. Simonm223 (talk) 13:01, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That article is flawed anyway, because the 2019 Piedmontese regional election happened on the same day as the European election. --Ritchie92 (talk) 13:04, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The opinion on WP:RS/N is that the best this could be used for is to state that the Casa Pound rep quoted said they would be doing this. It's not a reliable source that this was done and as such, notwithstanding the general reliability of the outlet, it's not appropriate for the infobox purpose. Simonm223 (talk) 13:53, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An electoral alliance is not a national affiliation, if so then explain why the Centre-right coalition is listed as national affiliation for it's members? National affiliation applies to an organised group of parties which an electoral pact under a specific name with it's own organised structure and logos applies to. Ec1801011 (talk) 14:58, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Other pages can be wrong. --Ritchie92 (talk) 15:54, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So you are claiming that the pages for the following Italian political pages: Lega Nord, Brothers of Italy, Forza Italia, Us with Italy, Democratic Party, More Europe, Popular Alternative, Italy of Values, Centrists for Europe, Union for Trentino, Article One, Italian Left, Communist Refoundation Party, Party of the South, Federation of the Greens, Possible, Greens, Italian Radicals, Democratic Centre, Civic Choice, New Force (Italy), Tricolour Flame and others are all wrong? Perhaps its you who is wrong because you fail to understand that an electoral coalition can count as a national affiliation.
Furthermore even if the CPI-DU is not still active I fail to understand why it should be completely removed from the page, other pages show previous affiliations in the infobox and why does even mentioning it in the history section of CasaPound lead to it being reverted? Ec1801011 (talk) 16:11, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I said they can be wrong. There should actually be a discussion about that with other users, but this is not the right place. In the case of the centre-right and centre-left alliances, those are well-established, long-standing, politically-relevant, traditional national alliances, so I am more prudent in my judgement. Instead here I am still questioning the existence of the national affiliation you are talking about (and by the way most likely the page CasaPound-United Right should be merged into the history sections of CasaPound and United Right). What you are talking about is a merely electoral joint list of two small parties, which existed for one election, and got 0.33% of the vote. I think it's more than superfluous, and it does not represent a "national affiliation" of CPI. --Ritchie92 (talk) 16:21, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The electoral alliance did not exist just for one election, it competed in both the European Parliament election and the Local Elections. As a recently created alliance it is disingenuous to argue against it by stating it's minor part in elections. Also it is not just a joint list since it includes more than two parties, I fail to see how just because an alliance that includes multiple parties, posses its own brand and ran in more than one election is not considered a real "national affiliation" whilst others such as the centre-right coalition and centre-left coalition are.Ec1801011 (talk) 17:00, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You have not provided reliable sources to support that assertion. The rest of this is WP:NOTFORUM. Simonm223 (talk) 17:02, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable sources to which assertions, I've provided a third party source stating the alliance's participation in local elections, https://www.isimbolidelladiscordia.it/2019/05/piemonte-destre-unite-non-puo-correre.html?m=0 explains the expansion of the alliance with the inclusion of another party, what more do wish me to prove through sources? Ec1801011 (talk) 17:07, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You have not provided any reliable sources that the alliance existed after May 2019. Simonm223 (talk) 17:11, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No elections have taken place since May, as an electoral alliance it competes in elections, if there are no elections then it is not active. The centre-right coalition does not organise outside of national and regional elections. The centre-right coalition isn't accused of "not existing" after each election, that's ridiculous. This source https://www.lagazzettadelmezzogiorno.it/news/italia/1139794/piemonte-destre-unite-fuori-da-elezioni.html states the alliance competed during local elections so it cannot be argued that it only existed for the European parliament election. Ec1801011 (talk) 17:15, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Find a reliable source for inclusion. Full stop. Simonm223 (talk) 17:29, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have provided countless sources, you either ignore them or move onto another point, I have provided plenty of justified rationales and provided multiple sources from third-party sites. It is not my fault that you keep ignoring what I am saying. Also this whole debate did not start from "unreliablbe sources", this issue only appeared when I proved that the original claim of the alliance not being a real thing is false. Every time a counter a claim made by you or Ritchie92 you ignore it and move the goalposts. Ec1801011 (talk) 18:20, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Take your pick and decide which is reliable enough for you. They all confirm the existence of the coalition.

Yes they ran together at the European election, you don't need to cite the authoritative source "cuneo24.it" to know that. The election in Piedmont was on the same day as the European one. So, where is the (reliable) source about the existence of this national group, apart from the day of May 26 2019? --Ritchie92 (talk) 18:31, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Are you just purposely ignoring me to prove my point? The last election in Italy was the regional elections of May 26 2019, electoral alliances exist to take part in elections. If elections are not occurring they are not active hence why CPI-DU (which includes CasaPound, Unted Right and Azzuri Italiani) is not currently active. That does not mean the alliance has disbanded, that is an assumption you have made that is not backed up by any sources.Ec1801011 (talk) 18:38, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The assumption that you have made is that the electoral alliance of 26 May 2019 is a national affiliation. Which is something not proven at all since this is a basically new joint list, it ran only once, no members are in the Parliament, no members work jointly as a group in any municipal council, regional council, etc. Where is this alliance put in practice? To me all these sources only prove that CPI and DU ran in a joint list at the EU election, like other parties also did (More Europe ran with Italy in Common, the Lega with PSd'Az, FI with UdC, etc etc) but we do not create a new article for each of these "alliances", do we? Nor we put them in the "national affiliation" in the infobox. --Ritchie92 (talk) 18:53, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is not an assumption, an electoral alliance can count as a national affiliation. The list has ran twice not once and the fact that it is not in power at any local or national level and does not actively organise itself at this moment has nothing to do with the discussion nor discredits it's existence. The joint list of Lega and it's allied parties does have a page and is listed as a national affiliation, see Centre-right coalition. Further more even if hypothetically what you are saying applies to CPI-DU you are still incorrect. The Left (Italy) is an electoral alliance that has only ran in one election and yet possess a page and is listed in the national affiliation of it's members infoboxes. I fail to understand why you are so aggressively against implementing what is consistently implemented across pages for Italian political parties.Ec1801011 (talk) 20:05, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Enough of this discussion. If they were in power somewhere one could use that as proof of an existing collaboration between the two parties, but they are not so we need actual proof. You need to give RS showing that this national alliance exists. The couple of RS among the sources you have given only show that they ran together in one election (why do you say two? they did not run at all in Piedmont!), and are not proof of a collaboration outside of the instrumental alliance that these parties, like many others, did at the EU election. --Ritchie92 (talk) 07:44, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merger from CasaPound-United Right

[edit]
MERGE
The proposal has reached wide consensus in favour of merging. No opinions against merging were presented. Ritchie92 (talk) 11:48, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I think the article CasaPound-United Right has no reason to exist, since it is about a single electoral alliance valid for the 2019 European Parliament election in Italy. Many other parties did a similar thing (see The People of Family and Popular Alternative, or More Europe with Italy in Common, PSI, etc) because of the electoral law in Italy (4% threshold and 30k signatures to obtain to present a list). However these temporary alliances do not have any article for themselves (as it should be). We can mention about the existence of the alliance in both this page and United Right, and delete the article.

By the way the article CasaPound-United Right has been created very recently, has only one user's contribution, and it's based on sources coming from: affaritaliani.it, rerumromanarum.com, casapounditalia.org (non third-party), destreunite.it (non third-party) and isimbolidelladiscordia.it. I would say none of these sources qualify as RS and the user should give a serious RS in any case if they want the rest of us to consider their statements. --Ritchie92 (talk) 08:04, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To qualify the existence of a small party it is not strictly necessary that the source is among the most authoritative, obviously it must be a third party (otherwise, how many parties should be canceled here in enwiki?). However, CasaPound-United Right is definitely unnecessary, but I think that it should be merged to this page, since Casapound was the main party of the alliance.--Wololoo (talk) 07:55, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
CasaPound-United Right is not a party, and AFAIK there are no sources to prove its existence as such. For what we know, it's the joint list of the two member parties at the European election. Same as others, which do not have their own page (as it should be). --Ritchie92 (talk) 13:07, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Are there more opinions on this matter? @Facquis, Nick.mon, Mélencron, Ec1801011, Simonm223, and Vif12vf: No RS has been given in the meantime to show that CasaPound-United Right is indeed an existing political alliance. If there are no more ideas I will proceed with the merger. --Ritchie92 (talk) 07:27, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, since it seems like a one-time electoral alliance, the sources are lacking and neither of the parties have any elected officials to make them even so slightly notable, i'd they there is no real rationale to keep this article. We dont need separate articles about 100% unsuccessful one-time alliances, in that case there would have been a lot more of these articles out there! Furthermore, the article for CasaPound now says that they are finished as a party and is going back to be a social movement, meaning that there will be no second election! Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 10:57, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the merge--Facquis (talk) 07:59, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:22, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:CasaPound&oldid=1216332213"