Talk:Democratic Party (Italy)/Archives/2019

This is an archive of past discussions about Democratic Party (Italy). Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Proposal of expansion

As the current article's leadership section is due to grow bigger and bigger with time (we already have seven announced candidates as of today [1]), I propose to create a separate article for the Democratic Party (Italy) leadership convention, 2007, following examples such as this. Let me know your opinion. --Angelo 21:08, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Definitely agree. --Checco 12:31, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh yes, absolutely. —Nightstallion 15:06, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

PES membership?

Any solid word on whether this party will be part of PES (Party of European Socialists)? A PES rep at the UK Labour party conference last week implied that it would, but unfortunately I didn't get opportunity to ask further. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MrShyguy (talk • contribs) 23:39, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

No. The Democratic Party has not adhered any of the European parties yet, and I personally doubt the party in a whole would enter the PES (at least in the next future) mainly due to its heterogeneous nature. --Angelo 00:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

How about the EDP, though? That might work. —Nightstallion 22:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know, in any case they are still yet to decide, and there are several different opinions on the matter. My personal feeling is that they would not decide in the next future, at least not before the next European election. --Angelo 22:19, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree with Angelo and I guess that it is more likely that PD will join one day PES than EDP. --Checco 11:27, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

It claims [here] that the Pd with join the PES. However, the article also claims that the Brazilian Workers Party and the US Democratic Party(!) are connected to PES somehow, which is more than a little factually inaccurate.--Free Socialist 01:14, 11 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Free Socialist (talk • contribs)

The PES is known to be a more heavyweight and well-organised group than ALDE according to my contacts in politics, so the PD would be able to wield more political clout as part of that group, I assume. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MrShyguy (talk • contribs) 18:12, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you that the best European affiliation for PD will be PES, but this is politics not political science. This is an encyclopedia not a blog, and, frankly, I find difficult to understand how your remarks are connected with our discussion. --Checco 01:39, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

The Union, the Olive Tree etc.

Does The Union (political coalition) still exist? Havent all the parties become part of the new party? And what about The Olive Tree (political coalition)? As far as I understand the Union is a newer coalition which is the olive tree + some extra parties. But I saw an overview on the election of 2006 here on wikipedia where the Olive Tree was still listed. This is all quite confusing (Italian politics is quite confusing, with incredibly many parties...). By the way, it seems like the article The Olive Tree (political coalition) needs being updated. It still talks about PLANS for a new party. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oddeivind (talk • contribs) 14:55, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

The Olive Tree has become the Democratic Party. The Union still exists (at least for now).

--Free Socialist 18:29, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

The article on The Olive Tree needs a complete rewrite and update. --Checco 00:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

In the article Democracy is Freedom – Daisy, we can read:

"In the 9-10 April 2006 general elections, the party was member of the winning The Union (L'Unione) and won 39 out of 315 senators. The Olive Tree list won 220 out of 630 deputies."

Does this mean that the Union only had lists for the Italian Senate, while the Olive Tree only had lists for the Italian Chamber of Deputies? Did this two coalitions exist at the same time? Is the Union a larger coalition than the Olive Tree? --Oddeivind 09:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

The Union parties all ran alone in the Senate, including Democrats of the Left and Daisy which instead ran together in the Chamber of Deputies (as Olive Tree). The Union is basically an electoral alliance which involves all centre-left parties of Italy (including Olive Tree ones). --Angelo 09:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

What Angelo wrote above is not correct. The Union parties run in coalition also in the Senate, they were the parties forming The Olive Tree which run separately, while for the Chamber they formed a joint list. The sentence cited above by Oddeivind is uncorrect too: DL and DS actually elected around 100 senators. Dear Oddeivind, let me know what exactly you want to know so that I can help you. What I can say now is what follows.

The Olive Tree was a coalition of parties formed in 1996 by PDS (later DS), PPI and other small centrist parties (later formed DL together), the Greens and the Italian Socialists (later SDI). For the 2001 election the coalition was joined by PdCI and UDEUR. In 2004 DS, DL and SDI decided to form a joint list for that year European election. The Greens, PdCI and UDEUR refused to enter. From that point The Olive Tree was meant as the close alliance between DS, DL and SDI. In 2005 the parties of The Olive Tree formed a bigger alliance with the Greens, PdCI, UDEUR, PRC and IdV and headed toward a united party, the Democratic Party. This party was fouded in 2007 by the merge of DS and DL. SDI had left The Olive Tree in 2005. Clear? --Checco 12:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

What I am trying to understand is the exact relationship between the Union and the Olive Tree. Did theese two alliances exist at the same time? I have the impression that the Olive Tree was an electoral alliance that itself was part of an electoral alliance. Doesnt that just mean that more parties became members of the first alliance, and that the alliance had just changed names? Was there a closer relationship between the parties in the Olive Tree than those in the Union, so that the Olive Tree continued to exist even after the creation of the Union? --Oddeivind 13:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Just read carefully what I wrote above... --Checco 13:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Once more: The Union is a large and loose political alliance, and one of its members was the Olive Tree coalition, a closer alliance (which does not exist any more, as its members merged to become the Democratic Party). —Nightstallion 18:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

A timeline could be useful:

1994-1996: Pact for Italy (PPI and Patto Segni) and the Alliance of Progressives (PDS, PRC, Greens, SI, others) separate alliances
1996-1998: The Olive Tree (PDS, PPI, Greens, RI, SI, UD/Dem, others) + PRC (external support)
1998-2004: The Olive Tree (DS, DL, PdCI, Greens, SDI, UDEUR)
2004-2005: The Union {The Olive Tree (DS, DL, SDI) + PRC + PdCI + Greens + IdV + UDEUR}
2004-2005: The Union {The Olive Tree (DS, DL) + PRC + PdCI + Greens + IdV + SDI + UDEUR}
2006-2007: The Union {The Olive Tree (DS, DL) + PRC + RnP (SDI, Rad) + PdCI + IdV + UDEUR
since 2007: The Union (PD, PRC, SD, IdV, Greens, PdCI, SDI, Rad, UDEUR)

I hope that this is helpful to you. --Checco 19:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I tried to fill in links to make it easier to see which parties are behind the abbrevations. I think I found out most, but these two Im not sure about: SI, UD/Dem. --Oddeivind 16:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

SI is for Italian Socialists (precursor of the Italian Democratic Socialists and of the new Socialist Party), UD for Democratic Union and Dem for The Democrats. --Checco 17:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I have put them in. --Oddeivind 19:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Ideology

It is mentioned in recent revisions that PD is a "social-democratic party" that is influenced in party by "fiscal conservatism". Has PD ever described itself openly as social-democratic? Could it be more accurately described as a "Third Way" party in the style of, most notably, the New Labour faction of the British Labour Party? --Free Socialist (talk) 18:35, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

The party is definitely social-democratic, as the majority of its members call themeselves social-democratic and are member of PES, but it is true that leaders prefer to use the word "democratic" which actually doesn't mean anything at all. Their program is social-democratic, anyway. I wrote that the party is characterized by fiscal conservatism: in fact Democrats are very keen on balancing budgets and staying within Maasticht crtiteria. It can sound strange, but that's what they are: fiscal conservative. --Checco (talk) 18:49, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Veltroni mentioned in the Spanish media "Somos reformistas, no de izquierdas" - "we are reformists, not the Left". When considering what reformist means in Italian politics, is Veltroni is emphasing the nature of PD as a moderate "centre"-left party rather than a party of the radical left? --Free Socialist (talk) 01:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this is what the PD is: a centre-left party. All the article explains that. But keep attention: the PD, although it prefers not to characterize itself explicitly as a social-democratic party, is clearly to the left of many European social-democratic parties and has within itself a strong internal left: most of its members come from the Italian Communist Party in fact... --Checco (talk) 08:04, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

So it's accurate to say that the former PCI element of PD still greatly outnumbers the other political diasporas within the new party?--Free Socialist 22:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, indeed a 55-60% of the MPs of the party come from PCI.--Checco (talk) 07:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Additional question: does PD have any formal ties to organised labour/trade unions? --Free Socialist 23:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

There are no formal ties, but most of CIGL, CISL and UIL members are affiliated to PD. --Checco (talk) 07:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Has the new party ever used the word 'democratic socialism' in describing itself or its policies? If not, it shouldn't be included in the ideology section.--Narjuko (talk) 12:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

The party does not use any official classification, but it is composed by groups which are or declare themselves social-democrats, Christian left and democratic socialists. --Checco (talk) 13:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

In 2018 I don't think that PD could be labelled as social-democratic, since the first Renzi's leadership in 2013 and his second victory in 2017. In 2013 i Renziani defeated both the former mate in Leopolda Beppe Civati, and the social democratic Gianni Cuperlo, endorsed by the left of the party. In 2015 Fassina and Civati split from the party. In february 2017 almost all of the leftist, pro-trade unions currents and their leaders (Bersani, Dalema, Epifani and Rossi) left the party in order to set a new social democratic party (Articolo 1). In the primary election of PD in April 2017 Renzi achieved an overwhelming victory against the social democratic Orlando, the Cuperlo's epigone, sanctioning the minority position of social democratics whithin the party. Nowadays PD could be labelled more properly a Third Way, Reformist party as it's majority currents see it. Social democracy, despite the PES membership of the party, is relegated to minority, while social and increasingly economical liberalism are majoritarian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edoardosav98 (talk • contribs) 18:21, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Ideology 2

In Italy there's difference betwen: leftist christian democracy (Popolari) and Christian left (Cristiano Sociali). In italian PD there are many christian democrats. The christian left (Cristiano sociali) is more small than Christian democrats (Popolari).

PD is "a social democratic party, strongly influenced by ideas of leftist christian democracy". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.57.78.25 (talk) 11:15, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Not true. Both Populars and Social Christians are Christian left (in Italian: cristianesimo sociale). --Checco (talk) 11:22, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Logo Ulivo 2006.png

Image:Logo Ulivo 2006.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 12:53, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Ideology section

An IP is continuing to delete a parte of the Ideology section. Below anyone can read the disputed part:

The common roots of the founding components of the party reside in the Italian resistance movement, the writing of Italian Constitution and the Historic compromise, all three events which saw the Christian Democrats and the Italian Communist Party (the two major forerunners of the Democrats of the Left and Democracy is Freedom – The Daisy, respectively) cooperate.

There is nothing wrong with it. The two major founding components of the party, DS and DL, have their roots in the PCI and the DC, respectively, and they cooperated mainly in three occasions: the Italian resistance, the writing of the Constitution and the historic compromise. That's simply history and the IP should accept that articles are the result of the cooperation between different users. I accepted some parts he wrote and I ask him to accept mine, as a compromise. Similarly I don't see what is wrong with:

The United States Democratic Party and American liberalism are also an important source of inspiration for the party, that pretends to be somehow different from the other European centre-left parties.

It is well known that the PD proposes itself as a very different party if compared to traditional European social-democratic parties. If there are any problems we can discuss, but please stop reverting correct edits and let's try to find out a compromies, as we did before. --Checco (talk) 00:24, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

PD, as well as PdL, has his roots somehow in all sorts of past political parties, except "Italian Social Movement" and "Proletarian Democracy". This edit is subsequent to my edits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.46.179.80 (talk) 16:48, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

In saying, "the party, that pretends to be somehow different from the other European centre-left parties," is an obviously biased statement, so I took the liberty of removing it. Perhaps it could be reworded, if there is an accurate and unbiased reference, to say that despite how it shows itself, it isn't much different from other European parties of the center-left. If no reliable reference can be found, than this part of the quote needs to be removed for obvious reasons. --Sparrowhawk64 (talk) 05:00, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you that the PD "isn't much different from other European parties of the center-left", but it is a fact that its leaders pretend some originality and difference from all the other European social-democratic parties, so the sentence is OK. So what? Can Angelo find a source or do we just re-insert the sentence? --Checco (talk) 20:53, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Infobox

I'm going to take off again social liberalism from the infobox, as it is not one of the main ideologies of the party. It is true that there are some social liberals in the party and I know the faction to which the IP who re-inserted "social liberalism" as I personally wrote the article about it, Liberal PD. In practice there are some social liberals in the PD, but they are very few, less than the democratic socialists and possibly the conservatives! Let alone this, I would accept "social liberalism" only if also democratic socialism is included, as democratic socialists are far more than social liberals. --Checco (talk) 20:12, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Newspaper

"Europa" is today the official newspaper of PD, as it was the one of The Daisy. Check this. In Google, it lists itself as "Quotidiano on line nel Partito Democratico - Direttore Stefano Menichini" [2]--Dans (talk) 18:26, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a primary source, so you cannot use another Wikipedia article as a source. Also, I cannot really find a source stating that the newspaper is directly controlled by the party itself. --Angelo (talk) 19:06, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Theo-Dems in minority area?

Are you sure if The Dems are in the minority area of Democratic Party. Paola Binetti supports Pierluigi Berdani after a shock with Franceschini.[3] --Baf09 (talk) 16:46, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, most Theo-Dems supported Franceschini, before and after Binetti's row with him. More infos are included in the specific article, where readers are informed also of Binetti's position. However, as most Theo-Dems seem to be set to leave the party soon, it's not a big deal. If that happens we will change the section accordingly. --Checco (talk) 21:02, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Third way

PD isn't a social-democratic party. It's a third way party. Olive Tree followed a New Labour.--Bellini.raf (talk) 11:01, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

By European standards the PD is clerarly a social-democratic party and it is definitely to the left of New Labour, which was however social-democratic too by European standards. It is true that most PD members do not hail from a social-democratic tradition (most are either former communists or left-wing Catholics), but they are now social democrats. No doubt about it. --Checco (talk) 09:05, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

It is not clear at all. These are just your personal opinions. The PD is clearly to the right of a typical European social-democratic party. --Fertuno (talk) 06:45, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Major parties

I would like to propose a change to the introductory paragraph, which states that PD and the People of Freedom party are the two major parties in Italy. According to all the latest polls (and this was confirmed by the recent regional elections) the Movimento 5 Stelle led by Beppe Grillo would beat the People of Freedom party as the second political force in Italy behind PD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.118.236.67 (talk) 19:29, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

PD colour

PD use 3 colour: red, white and green. With Veltroni the first colour was green; but with Bersani's leadership PD use red colour for his campaign. Very important: orange isn't an official colour of this party but only the coulor used during the Foundation in 2006! On english-wiki, PD is always associated with the colour orange, but it is a mistake that should be changed! --Cucchiaroni (talk) 14:34, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Progressivism

One of the party's ideologies listed in the infobox is "progressivism" and it has even a source. Despite that I'm going to argue for its removal. The reason is quite simple: "progressivism" is a generic term and it's also redundant for a party which is already described as social-democratic. Moreover, "progressivism" is not very revealing in the European context (see, for instance, Table of political parties in Europe by pancontinental organisation) as it is in the United States. It's no surprise that the source describing the PD as progressive is a book published in the United States and is clearly addressed to American readers. But let's read what the book says: "In the end, the parties present in parliament included the progressive Democratic Party [...]; the centrist Union of Christian Democrats; the center-right Popolo della Libertà [...]". It is clear that "progressive" is used here not as an ideology, but merely as a position in the left-right political spectrum, i.e. as a synonym of "centre-left" (or, better in this case, "center-left"); other parties are presented as "centrist" and "center-right indeed. --Checco (talk) 14:58, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough; after all, 'progressive' is a rather unspecific generic term, like centre-left, but arguably even less useful. Besides, when/if the PD joins the PES, there will be even less doubt that the PD is a fairly typical European social-democratic political party.--Autospark (talk) 00:00, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

After 50 days I think it's time to implement the removal of "progressivism", as supported also by Autospark. --Checco (talk) 12:04, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Metacolor

There's a discussion on the party's metacolor at Template talk:Democratic Party (Italy)/meta/color. Red, orange or what else? --Checco (talk) 08:58, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Big tent / Catch-all

Good evening, my proposal is to insert in the party's ideology the voice "Big tent", or maybe the one "Catch-all"; what do you think? Here there are some sources: 1 2 3 4. Sorry, but they are only in Italian. Thank you! -- Nick.mon (talk) 18:39 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree that in the main article text we should identify PD as a catch-all party, specifically a catch-all party of the centre-left. However, 'catch-all' and 'big tent' aren't political ideologies, so I cannot I agree citing either in the Infobox, particularly when we have descriptions of the party to cite such as social democracy which aren't so vague.--Autospark (talk) 11:05, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes you are right when you say that "Catch-all" or "Big tent" are not ideologies, but sometimes they are used in the Infobox, for example in United Russia's page. Anyway if we shouldn't cite it in the Infobox, as you said, you should write it in the article. -- Nick.mon (talk) 12:01 25 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Autospark. Sometimes "big-tent" is used in infoboxes to describe a party's political position, but the PD is definitely centre-left. Most of today's big political parties are big-tent, thus I don't see any need of specifying it in the article either. --Checco (talk) 14:02, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Democratic MEPs

The PD has currently 28 MPs. Three left the party over the last months:

Sergio Cofferati – see here;
Massimo Paolucci – see here;
Elly Schlein – see here.

National party affiliations are often not up-to-date in the EP's website (also Raffaele Fitto is still indicated as a member of FI). --Checco (talk) 13:02, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, you are right, they updated only the change of the group, and not the party's one. -- Nick.mon (talk) 13:07, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Social liberalism

An IP user included "social liberalism" in the infobox (see edit). As explained on 8 April 2009 (see above), I'm quite doubtful on the inclusion of "social liberalism" among the ideologies of the infobox. Even though the party includes some social liberals and also some of Renzi's attitudes are those of a "left-liberal" (in fact the sources proposed by the IP user refer to Renzi, not the PD), social liberalism is definitely not one of the main ideologies of the party. As I said, "there are some social liberals in the PD, but they are very few, less than the democratic socialists and possibly the conservatives!" Let alone "conservatism", I would accept "social liberalism" only if also "democratic socialism" is included, as democratic socialists are far more than social liberals". --Checco (talk) 10:44, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Checco, if we will insert "social liberalism", because many members came from The Daisy, which was a centrist and social liberal party, we must also add "democratic socialism", because lot of party members came from democratic socialist parties, such as DS. But if we insert "social liberalism" and "democratic socialism", we should also add other minor ideologies such as "Third Way", which is the main one of the Renziani faction. -- Nick.mon (talk) 11:22, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't think we should add social liberalism as an ideology - arguably not even a majority of The Daisy could be described as social-liberal, and Infoboxes for articles like this are for giving an overview of a party, not to focus on specific individuals or factions. Also, I'd argue that most if not all large European social-democratic parties have social-liberals (and democratic socialists) in them, so that aspect doesn't make the Democratic Party particularly unique in my opinion.--Autospark (talk) 14:03, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Fine. I'm going to remove "social liberalism" from the infobox. --Checco (talk) 09:03, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

I think it is one of the main ideologies. The two main ideologies are Social democracy and Social liberalism. Christian left is definitely less influent than Social liberalism. Barjimoa (talk) 11:55, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

So if we include Christian left we should include also Social liberalism. I am not sure if i was the user that edited the aricle. Usually i dont edit as an IP User. Barjimoa (talk) 11:57, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Democratic Party (Italy). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:16, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Democratic Party (Italy). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070927011856/http://www.unionesarda.it/DettaglioCategorizzato/?contentId=11794 to http://www.unionesarda.it/DettaglioCategorizzato/?contentId=11794

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:18, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Democratic Party (Italy). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140301073618/http://www.rinascita.eu/index.php?action=news&id=22749 to http://www.rinascita.eu/index.php?action=news&id=22749

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:06, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Orfini

I have a doubt: is Orfini a Secretary ad interim like Franceschini and Epifani, or is he leading the party as President? -- Nick.mon (talk) 22:23, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

As far as I know, Franceschini and Epifani were secretaries (full, not ad interim, even though their terms were limited), while Orfini is leading the party ad interim or, better, as a reggente. Let's check the party's website in the next few days. --Checco (talk) 07:45, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Ok thank you, then we should also change the article about PD Secretary, which now points out Orfini as 6th Secretary of the party. -- Nick.mon (talk) 08:00, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi!, Orfini was the secretary of the Party, but now this role is of Matteo Renzi , However Orfini is today the new president of the Party.LuigiPortaro29 (talk) 14:51, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Russophobia?

The claim that the party is russophobic needs reference quickly. If none is given, it should be removed. --Oddeivind (talk) 08:03, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Removed. It is not even an ideology, per se! --Checco (talk) 10:53, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Successors of the Communist Party

I think the article needs to clarify that the Democratic Party are the successors of the anti-communist/post-communist or CIA-wing of the Italian Communist Party.... the Communist Refoundation Party, which itself is pretty much revisionist, is in terms of ideology the primary successors. Claíomh Solais (talk) 11:30, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

The PD is not the successor of the PCI, but one of the two main founding members of the PD, the DS, were the successors of the PDS, which was the successor of the PCI. All this is clearly explained both in the article's lead and in the "history" section. Everything else, like "the anti-communist/post-communist or CIA-wing of the Italian Communist Party", is a little bit deceptive and should not be mentioned in the article. --Checco (talk) 09:34, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Democratic Party (Italy). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:33, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Democratic Party (Italy). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:49, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

DP political ideology

DP is, as 2017, a centrist party, closer to the old Christian Democracy than to the old Italian Communist Party. So, its origins are in the ICP, but now there are not connections with this past, especially because of a liberist economic ideology and a strong filo-OTAN and Europeist position in foreign affairs. So we have to take a distinction between before and after Renzi. 95.246.229.169 (talk) 16:56, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

The PCI? Uhm, why? We are talking about social democracy, not communism here! What's the deal? One could easily argue that the DC, which included centre-left factions, was closer to social democracy that the PCI. But let's talk about the present. The PD is perfectly in line with other European social-democratic parties. Every country has its peculiarities (thus we could argue that, on some respects, the French Republicans are to the left of the PD and on others established centre-right parties in southern Europe are to the right of some of the so-called right-wing populist parties of the North). However, the PD, a PES member, is not particularly different from the German SPD or the UK Labour Party under Blair—and it is probably to the left of these two on economic issues. --Checco (talk) 07:37, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Regional Governments

We already have a section about the elections in the Regional Councils and we decided months ago to remove the column about the "current" number of regional councilors because it was quite redundant and difficult to update; so I'm sorry for Wololoo, who did a long and harsh job, but frankly I think we should remove the new section. What do you think? -- Nick.mon (talk) 18:52, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

The column on the current regional councillors has been removed, but I don't see where the decision was made. I know that the regional councillors were excluded by the infoboxes beacause they do not represent distribution on the territory well, but I don't the reason why to remove these tables. Furthermore, the template and the general page about italian parties have an inclusion criterion concerning the current number of regional councilors, this data must necessarily be demonstrated in the pages, if not this criterion must be removed.--Wololoo (talk) 19:06, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

In my personal view we should insert the number of councilors in the infobox and remove the table regarding the "current number", because that kind of tables have been always used only for election results. -- Nick.mon (talk) 19:14, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

In my view too, I only say that if a page or template requires a data, this data must necessarily be demonstrated, in some way, but the proposal to insert the number in the infobox was rejected. However that kind of table is also used for other purposes, not just for elections --Wololoo (talk) 19:27, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, but if you look to articles regarding parties that tables are always about electoral results, anyway, of course you can use them for what you need :) -- Nick.mon (talk) 19:36, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Usually in the pages of political parties these tables are used for electoral results, but if the regional councillors are not indicated in the infobox, I don't see other way to indicate this data. Also because with the current criterion for the inclusion of parties in the the template or in the general page, the pages need these informations...

I am opposed to changes on the tables on regional electoral results. "Current number" is too difficult to track. However, if User:Wololoo wants to do that, why doesn't he/she start a new article on that, modelled on Consiglio regionale (Italia)#Gruppi consiliari in it.Wiki? --Checco (talk) 19:57, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Nobody talked about changes to the tables on regional electoral results. "Current number" can bee too difficult to track, but if the criteria also contemplate the number of regional councillors, this information must be indicated into the page. I have no interest in creating a page for all regional councils (that kind of page makes sense only if the regional councillors are indicated into the infobox)--Wololoo (talk) 20:17, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, the creation of a new article could be useful, moreover I still think that having two different tables, one regarding “Regional Councils” and one about “Regional Governments” (which are basically the same thing) is quite confusing. -- Nick.mon (talk) 21:21, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

In my view the best solution would be the indication of the current number of regional councillors in the infobox, otherwise they must be indicated in a specific table or in the same table of electoral results--Wololoo (talk) 21:27, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

As in the past, I support the “infobox solution”, because it’s used for all the parties all over the world. I know that there are many differences among the regional councils, but I think that councilors’ number in the infobox should be a useful information. -- Nick.mon (talk) 21:33, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

I opppose that: deceptive and too difficult to keep up-to-date. It is quite different to count a handful of seats for small parties to be included in the template about Italian political parties. --Checco (talk) 04:18, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Deceptive maybe, too difficult absolutely not. Furthermore the italian pages are usually updated about the number of regional councillors.--Wololoo (talk) 08:59, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't know if having the number of councillors in the infobox is deceptive, but in my view the two tables are absolutley redudant. -- Nick.mon (talk) 08:00, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree with User:Nick.mon that the second table is totally redundant. It is also nonsensical, confusing and not factually accurate as it is named "Regional governments", but then includes data on regional councils. It is finally difficult to keep it up-to-date and should refrain from complicating these articles as very few users work on them. I do not understand why a single table, updated from time to time, at Regional council (Italy) or, better, Composition of Regional Councils of Italy, cannot be the solution: we would just need to copy the one from it.Wikipedia! --Checco (talk) 09:34, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Ps: Once again, such discussions (implying structural changes to several articles) should be started at Talk:List of political parties in Italy, so that other users might have their say. We should really fix a place where all those issues can be solved with the contribution of all the users interested in Italian politics.

The table is nonsensical, confusing, etc. More important, as this talk shows, a consensus on its very existance has not been reached—yet. Boldness is a sound feature of good editing in Wikipedia, but boldness ends where consensus starts. Before editing several articles and devoting a lot of energy and time in doing that, it is better to seek consensus—and, as I wrote above, all the users involved in a set of articles (in this case, those on Italian politics) should have their say. This said, I am going to remove the controversial table from this and other articles. --Checco (talk) 07:55, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

"The table is nonsensical, confusing, etc." is a great nonsense. Then in this talk the only one opposed to showing the number of regional councilors in the infobox is you. You want a criterion that considers the current number of regional councilors but you do not want to show the number on the pages: your attitude speaks for itself. If you don't want to show the current number of regional councillor in the pages, that criterion must be eliminated.

@Nick.mon: I originally entered all the data into a single table, but Checco deleted the part relating to the current regional councilors by himself, for me also that version can be restored --Wololoo (talk) 06:54, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Shouldn’t we create an article about all the Regional Councils using tables like this? -- Nick.mon (talk) 07:39, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Regional Council of Emilia-Romagna
	Seats	Government

Democratic Party	29 / 50	In government
Northern League	9 / 50	In opposition
Five Star Movement	5 / 50	In oppposition
Forza Italia	2 / 50	In oppposition
Italian Left	2 / 50	In government
Brothers of Italy	1 / 50	In oppposition
The Other Emilia-Romagna	1 / 50	In opposition
Mixed Group	1 / 50	In opposition

The most recent table on "Regional governments" is not supported by consesus, as this talk clearly shows.

Regarding "Checco deleted the part relating to the current regional councilors by himself", a few months ago I deleted the data on "current" regional councillors from the regional council election results with the support of other users (at that time Wololoo was not active in en.Wikipedia: he comes and goes, leaving lots of things to be udpated). Wololoo is often always (mostly good) and often disintered in consensus (very bad). I am confident that most of my edits are appreciated, as I receive constant thanks by other users (at least three different ones). This said, I encourage those users to write in this talk and in other talks.

An article on each regional council including a table like the one proposed by Nick.mon would be a good idea, but too difficult to be kept up-to-date. Articles on politics and elections in Italian regions have not been updated after the latest regional elections, for instance, and that is simple! (I will do it, through "onlyinclude" transclusions, as soon as I can). Thus, the best solution, as it is connected to a rule of the template on Italian parties, is a single table on all regional councils in Composition of Regional Councils of Italy, matching the content of it:Consiglio regionale (Italia)#Gruppi consiliari. --Checco (talk) 08:48, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

@Checco where is the agreement to delete the current regional councillors from the tables? I did not find it... You say I am disintered in consensus, but you delete a political position of a party agreed in its talk page, maybe you should also look at yourself... However, the pages about the regional councils (separated or aggregated) can surely be create, but the problem in my view remains: there is a criterion that considers the current regional councillors, this data must be shown on the page of a party, if not it is a misleading criterion. The italian page of regional councils also serves as a support for the data in the infobox of the parties...--Wololoo (talk) 09:15, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

In fact there is no agreement on including the table! So, please, seek consensus first! (And 3–2 is not consensus!) "There is a criterion that considers the current regional councillors, this data must be shown on the page of a party, if not it is a misleading criterion": why that? why on the page of the party if it only serves the template! Better to have a single table in a single page. --Checco (talk) 09:29, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Agreement on including a table? Are you kidding? You can't think to be the only user to be able to freely edit in Wikipedia. Why misleading? Because if the data isn't shown in a page, the criterion is based only on an original research. The users can not be self-referential, the motivations about an edit must be demonstrated in some way--Wololoo (talk) 09:37, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Personally I prefer an article with a table for each regional council, than a single one with all the parties and all the councils. I know that it will be quite difficult to update, but I think that every councils should have a website with the current composition, but I don't know if they are updated. -- Nick.mon (talk) 09:39, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

@Nick.mon in itwiki there are both the single page and the pages for each regional council, obviously you are free to create them. But I don't understand why the table in the party is deceptive: Checco said that the total number of regional councillors in the infobox is deceptive (in itwiki no one has ever posed the problem), but if the table (created by me) with the councillors for each region is deceptive, the same goes for a page that includes all the regional councils, or not?--Wololoo (talk) 10:16, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

In fact, according to me, we can insert the number of councillors in the infobox, I am "against" the two tables Regional Councils/Governments which are absolutely redundant. -- Nick.mon (talk) 10:20, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

I have long argued that having the number of regional councillors would be deceptive (small regions are over-represented) and hard to keep updated. However, I do not oppose the inclusion of the number of regional councillors in the infoboxes anymore. In order to do that we need to have a single page in which those seats are counted: Composition of Regional Councils in Italy. That would need continuous update, but, if Nick.mon and Wololoo, are willing to do it, let's go ahead. Then, we can have also 21 articles on regional councils (now we have just a few): if Nick.non wants to do it and can update them all the time, it is OK with me too. Only one thing: I totally oppose the tables on "regional governments" uploaded by Wololoo. --Checco (talk) 11:00, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

These tables were introduced by me only to make up for the lack of data in the infobox, therefore I am pleased of this last position. So, I agree to delete these tables to create a page with all data of regional councils and to introduce the total number of councillors in the infobox --Wololoo (talk) 11:14, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Centrist party?

Historically PD was a centre-left party, but now? Isn't this the time to change the political collocation to center? The party evolved in a more economically liberist one, against labor unions. I think it is now more similar to the German CDU or to Macron's "En marche" movement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.22.221.133 (talk) 16:04, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

The PD is a centre-left party, without any doubts. Of course, inside the party there are important centrist factions, like Matteo Renzi's one, but many members of the PD (including current secretary, Maurizio Martina, and the frontrunner of 2019 leadership election, Nicola Zingaretti) are social democrats, and someone (like Gianni Cuperlo) are even democratic socialists. Moreover the PD is a member of the Party of European Socialists and seats within the S&D in the European Parliament. Thus, there are very few doubts regarding its political position. -- Nick.mon (talk) 16:45, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

S&D stands for Socialists & Democrats, not Socialists nor Social-Democrats. So PD is allied with the Socialists, but is not socialist itself. Its name is retained from the American Democratic Party, definitely not a social-democratic party and considered a centrist party in WP. Also Christian Democracy had some centre-left factions, but it remains a centre party. I think that the recent policy of the major party members is the only thing that counts. 5.170.125.127 (talk) 19:40, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

And PD's policies can be considered broadly centre-leftist policies. Of course, as almost every Western centre-left party, it assumed more "centrist" views in recent years (and this was one of the main cause of their declines), however the PD is, for example, a clear centre-left party regarding social rights, for example LGBT rights or advanced healthcare directive. -- Nick.mon (talk) 19:58, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Centre-left politics do not mean left-wing politics. The PD is obviously different from the PCI and also the PDS/DS. The centre-left includes leftist but also centrist ideas, and this is exactly the position of the Democratic Party. -- Nick.mon (talk) 20:02, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Sources consider it as a centre-left party, so that is what we must abide by. Impru20^talk 20:14, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

The PD is definitely a centre-left and social-democtratic party. Arguably, it stands to the left of several other European social-democratic parties, like the SPD or even Labour under Blair. Generic ideologies or positions like "centrism" or "centre" should be avoided as much as possible. Moreover, also US Democrats are arguably social-democratic, American "liberalism" is practically "social democracy" and the party is increasingly left-wing.

More generally, we should avoid recentism. Parties and their ideologies evolve (and also ideologies themselves do, thus the PD is perfectly in line with its European social-democratic counterparts!), but they change more slowly than most journalists, several politicians and, some unfortunately, Wikipedia editors think. The PD's ideology has not changed much under Renzi. At the same time, it is not true that the LN has changed much under Salvini. Most of the ideological tenets of the two parties have been the same for years. Discussing is fine, but let's engage more in improving articles! --Checco (talk) 07:14, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

I think we'll have to wait. If these changes will continue in the next months and years we'll consider the possibility of changing the political position. The left wing of the party abandoned PD to form LeU, so the party is going towards centre. We'll see. Social reforms can't be considered a feature of left parties, since in Italy the laws regarding divorce and abortion were voted also by the PLI (Liberals) and some DC members while In Germany the law about LGBT marriages was voted also by CDU members. With regards to LN I think that considering it a Regionalist and Federalist Party is obsolete, since the party is now diffused all over Italy and Bossi and Maroni have not power any more, but I'll open a topic about that on that page. --87.21.219.217 (talk) 09:37, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Only a fraction of the PD's internal left abandoned the party in order to launch the MDP and, later, LeU. Most of the party's members are social democrats and hail from the PCI/PDS/DS tradition. These notably include Martina (who is the current secretary) and Zingaretti (who is the frontrunner to become the next secretary).

As of today, the LN is still active only in north-central regions. Anyway, let's discuss about that somewhere else. --Checco (talk) 08:37, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Popular support's graph

@Ritchie92: Hi, yes, having a linear time scale is absolutely better, but how could we deal with parties (like Lega) which are active since the 1980s? -- Nick.mon (talk) 19:34, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

I think one can write '93 instead of 1993 for the dates, and anyway one can always adjust the total width. But I haven't seen how that would look. Another problem would be when there are more than one election in the same year. In that case one would need to subdivide the full xAxis on semesters or such. --Ritchie92 (talk) 19:36, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, for example in 1994 we had both European and general elections. I don't know how to do it, maybe if you want you could try to create Lega's one. However, if it's too difficult, we can restore the previous version, even if I'd prefer more the current one. -- Nick.mon (talk) 20:05, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Not sure I like those graphs altogether, but it is no big deal. --Checco (talk) 06:37, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

@Checco: Can you expand on this please? --Ritchie92 (talk) 09:00, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

I think this proposal has no sense. We do not represent years without elections with empty rows in the tables (and they shouldn't, per obvious reasons). Likewise, charts shouldn't represent years without elections. This will only pose technical issues once the timespan becomes too wide, as well as flooding the chart with lots of empty space, to no sensible benefit. Further, I think it is an error to mix up different types of elections into a single chart. This is clearly WP:SYNTH. I'm also concerned that results added into the chart seem to be randomly cherry-picked, what happens with results for Senate elections? The most sensible solution (as well as the most consistent one with what is actually done in the rest of en.wiki) would be to show chart columns when there is an actual election figure that requires for it (discarding this "linear time scale"-concept which is of little help), and to separate results by election type (i.e. Chamber with Chamber, Senate with Senate, and so on). Impru20^talk 13:40, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, maybe Impru20's solution should be the best one. -- Nick.mon (talk) 13:56, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with User:Impru20. The results tables are already there and they obviously just have rows corresponding to election years. By this argument then, we would not need another result table. However the aim of the popular support graph is not to show the results, it's to show the trend of the party support in time: if we show some trend in time we must have a linear scale otherwise it makes little sense. So if we return to the old version I would rather eliminate the graph altogether than repeat the election results that we already list two lines below. --Ritchie92 (talk) 14:15, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

What I mean is that, if we are not having a "linear time scale" in the result tables by having empty rows for years without elections (and indeed, no one has ever suggested something like this to be done anywhere in WP, because it has no sense), why does it somehow have sense in a chart? Further, the section is intended to show the party's electoral performances over time, yes, but not to randomly "show the trend of the party support in time" by indiscriminately mixing results from different types of elections into a single chart as if they were 100% comparable (unless there were reliable sources supporting such a comparation, but this has not been provided). Indeed, elsewhere in Wikipedia some political party articles do use charts, while others don't. But what is being proposed here is something vastly different, as this is basically a half-complete, entirely synthetised amalgamation of results. Impru20^talk 14:41, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

The whole definition of "popular support" is WP:SYNTH, and therefore also the former chart. The definition of popular support chart (if we will agree on one), in my opinion, makes little sense if it's not shown linearly in time. If we want a chart of election results, that can be put in the Electoral results section, next to each table, and of course we can show only the results for the election years, and separate Senate, Chamber, and EP results. --Ritchie92 (talk) 14:50, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Comparations between elections of the same kind are not SYNTH, as these are conducted regularly by reliable sources everywhere around the world, and routinely even by government official sources themselves on election days. Showing a "linear support chart" indiscriminately mixing results from elections of different kinds just because a few people feel that they look nice or better is SYNTH, unless this is can be proven to be a practice that is done by sources as well. I believe the difference can be understood and we can save ourselves from having a long discussion of trying to explain the differences of the obvious. However, to voice my specific opinion on the issue: yes, if the only purpose of this chart is the one brought forward here, then the chart should be scrapped altogether rather than leading to possible confusions to readers. If charts are to be added, then they should be specific to each parliamentary chamber. Impru20^talk 15:08, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

So what is the "Popular support" section about? I think the whole section should be scrapped then. It's anyway just putting in words what is already shown in the tables below. --Ritchie92 (talk) 15:10, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Just to clarify: I am not saying that comparing between elections of the same kind is SYNTH. I am saying that defining "popular support" as indiscriminately the result of a national or European election is SYNTH. But I thought that it was the consensus about these "Popular support" sections which are everywhere in the various articles about Italian parties. --Ritchie92 (talk) 19:40, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure. Articles for political parties in other countries usually have just one section for "Electoral performance/Election results/whatever name". I think the point of the "Popular support" section here is indeed to make some kind of written explanatory note about the parties' evolving trends, in a context where Italian political parties are relatively young and don't tend to last for long. However, I think such a section is rather redundant and can be easily scrapped, as the "electoral performance" section should already cover most of that through the already present tables while also avoiding some tendentious editing when describing election results ("thumping 40.8% of the vote"...). Also, having just one section would avoid inusual situations such as several columns in the "Popular support" table in this article showing aggregated results for several parties/candidates as PD's actual results and/or results for regional elections which did not even take place in the year of reference (2015), but 2013, 2014 or 2017. Impru20^talk 20:01, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

In short, I favour tables over graphs. I agree with User:Impru20 that "popular support" sections should "make some kind of written explanatory note about the parties' evolving trends". Take a look, among others, to Italian Republican Party#Popular support, Christian Democracy (Italy)#Popular support and Lega Nord#Popular support. That is how I originally crafted them. However, I have no problem with summarizing the results of different types of elections in one graph and I like empty columns. I strongly agree with User:Ritchie92 when he/she writes that "the aim of the popular support graph is not to show the results, it's to show the trend of the party support in time: if we show some trend in time we must have a linear scale otherwise it makes little sense". --Checco (talk) 07:02, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Yellow-red government

"Yellow-red government" would definitely be the best name for the latest sub-section of the "History" section. For my edit I was thanked by one user, but one other opposed it. I really do not understand why "Coalition with the Five Star Movement" would be better. Moreover, the section should be named "Coalition with M5S, LeU and IV". I throw all my energy and support behind "Yellow-red government", which is simpler, clearer and consistent with other articles. --Checco (talk) 14:56, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Simply, we should not use some newspapers' nicknames to describe facts in an encyclopedia. It is already mentioned in Conte II Cabinet that some news refer to it as "yellow-red", that's more than enough, since this is still not its name. Let's call it Conte II cabinet, I agree with changing the title of the section. --Ritchie92 (talk) 14:58, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

I do not like the section name I proposed. Sometimes, more accurate descriptions can be really awkward and obscure. "Yellow-red" and "yellow-green" are perfectly sourced names. Also the other edits you did, replacing "yellow-green" are pejorative, in my view. Furthermore, "Conte cabinet majority" is really bad English. We should be cleaerer and less ideological. Hope other users will agree with me. --Checco (talk) 15:02, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

@Checco: How is Conte II cabinet awkward and obscure? How is it ideological? Even though "yellow-green" is probably well sourced (yellow-red is not, since it's a translation from Italian sources), it is still a nickname, not an official name, not a semi-official name, not a WP:COMMON name for the Conte I (or II) cabinet. I really don't see what's wrong with calling the Conte II cabinet, indeed, "Conte II cabinet". Yellow-red is confusing, it's unclear, it's not the real name, only Italian readers would (probably) make sense of it. Let's just use the proper names. --Ritchie92 (talk) 15:10, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

We have long agreed on the status quo ante principle (in your words, "the principle is that if another editor disagrees with you, you should stop immediately and discuss, period"). In this case, there is no status quo ante. Nevertheless or because of that, we need to find new compromises.

You have been bold and blunt, but, so far, it has been just your opinion against mine. I have edited several articles for more than twelve years and I have some experience with crafting articles and choosing section names: my opinion counts exactly as yours.

"Coalition with M5S, LeU and IV", while the most correct name available for the section, would have been "awkward and obscure", that is why I do not like it. However, section names need to be not just correct, but also evocative. "Conte II Cabinet" is correct, but it is not evocative. My preference is for "Yellow-red government", but, if that is not possible, "Coalition with the Five Star Movement" will be the lesser of evils.

I hope other editors will have a say.

In the meantime, let's continue to edit articles, trying to improve each other's work. --Checco (talk) 06:24, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

@Checco: I don't understand, can I be WP:BOLD and free to edit, or not? What are you trying to say? There is no status quo, there is no previous consensus, I am just trying to improve the article. As I already explained, "yellow-red" and "yellow-green" are not the correct/official names (let alone for a section heading), and you have not given any reason supporting using these names (especially for using them for the first time the Conte I and II cabinets are mentioned in the article), apart from "I like it". There is no rule saying that the section headings should be "evocative", I think this is rather your personal taste (also, is "yellow-red" evocative?). On the contrary: what I know to be true, is that WP should not be written like a history book or a novel, the reader should not be thrilled by reading, but instead the reader expects an encyclopedic and accurate language. So making the style baroque and pretty is not the main objective here. In particular, WP:TONE states: "Articles and other encyclopedic content should be written in a formal tone. Standards for formal tone vary a bit depending upon the subject matter but should usually match the style used in Featured- and Good-class articles in the same category. Encyclopedic writing has a fairly academic approach, while remaining clear and understandable. Formal tone means that the article should not be written using argot, slang, colloquialisms, doublespeak, legalese, or jargon that is unintelligible to an average reader; it means that the English language should be used in a businesslike manner." And then also: "Another error of writing approach is attempting to make bits of material "pop" (an undue weight problem), such as with excessive emphasis, over-capitalization, use of contractions, unnecessary acronyms and other abbreviations, the inclusion of hyperbolic adjectives and adverbs, or the use of unusual synonyms or loaded words. Just present the sourced information without embellishment, agenda, fanfare, cleverness, or conversational tone." --Ritchie92 (talk) 07:41, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Exactly! In this case there is no status quo ante (and, if there was one, it was for "yellow-green" and "yellow-red"). Thus, everyone, as always in Wikipedia, is free to be bold in editing. Both you and I try to improve articles, but of course there can be disagreements among us. What is meliorative for one can be pejorative for another. That is why we have talk pages. I really do not see the problem here. Informal names of coalitions have been extensively used in en.Wiki and are linked in several articles. Just think of Grand coalition, Red–green alliance, Jamaica coalition (politics), Social-liberal coalition, Traffic light coalition, Lib–Lab pact, Plural Left, Centrism (Italy), Organic Centre-left, Historic Compromise, Pentapartito, Centre-right coalition, Centre-left coalition, etc. There is nothing colloquial about that. While I would prefer "Yellow-red coalition" as section name, I think we can settle on the compromise "Coalition with the Five Star Movement" until other users will have a say. --Checco (talk) 05:54, 9 October 2019 (UTC)