Talk:Forza Italia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


What is "Football" to do with this ? To be funny ? Unbiased and unrelevant

Who says there is no democarcy in Forza Italia ? Please state

Where is the reference for the "Champions League" sentence ? please state

This is all about being weaselspeking !!!!

If you do not see how football is an important theme in Forza Italia, you might notice that the party's name is a football-stadium cry, the colour of the party is on purpose the national football team's, and that Berlusconi owns AC Milan. This is at least the origin of the name, and is therefore relevant. (And I think you meant biased and irrelevant)
If you have a statute or any internal regulation that proves that Forza Italia has a structure that allows members to topple Berlusconi's leadership, at least in a theoretical setting, integrate it into the article. Until then, it is common knowledge that Forza Italia is Silvio Berlusconi's own party, and he has the ultimate say in appointing charges within the party.
The sentence about Luciano Spaventa and Champions League can be fetched in any newspaper before the March 1994 elections.

--Orzetto 09:33, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Remember that "Forza Italia" was the slogan of the Christian Democratic party for the 1987 elections.

Remember the meaning of "forza" is force, so what is the problem with a party called Force. In the world there are plenty of parties with the word "force" in their name...

Francesco Martini, 17 November 2005

Added explanation of the internal structure[edit]

Now that part (about internal structure) is NPOV! --TheDRaKKaR 11:56, 4 May 2005 (UTC)


Should the NPOV sign be removed? The article is quite empty, and lacks of a lot of things, but I don't think it has much POV content. I also think the football comments are properly placed. --Marianocecowski 11:38, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Hi. I think this article has not a neutral point of view.
Two examples: the article reported the party is a right-wing one. In truth the party describes itself as centro-destra (from center to right). Just the oppositors say Forza Italia is right-wing. Viceversa Forza Italia says of oppositors they are left-wing instead of centro-sinistra (from center to left). This is italian politics..
Second case: the article said in Forza Italia there is no democracy. There was not description about the real internal structure!! What NPOV is it?
The argument on soccer rethorical may be a point of view but the slogan forza-someone or forza-something it is not limited to the soccer folklore.
In conclusion the article is not NPOV but sadly I cant add nothing because my english is very poor.
--TheDRaKKaR 09:18, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Thnx for your answer.
What about "The party's political thinking is defined as center-right, though some consider it more right than center". I think this is true.
I have no idea about the structure of the party, but you cannot deny there's strong verticality of power on Berlusconi. But, this could be presnted more elegantly.
You cannot neither deny the football connection of the phrase "forza italia", and the repercussion on the italian fans who ceased using it because of the political implication.
I'll try to touch things a bit. --Marianocecowski 09:44, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

The article is not neutral[edit]

The article about Forza Italia is not neutral at all. I think that Wikipedia need some information to write a better article, and this is why I am writing.

A lot of things are very far form reality. There's no doubt that Berlusconi's Party is a in some way personalist, but most of Italian parties are: National Alliance, Communist Refoundation, Italy of Values, The Greens and so on.

The most important problem is that Wikipedia misjudges the identity of the party. Forza Italia is a centre party, member of the European People's Party, formed by ex-Christian Democrats, ex-Liberals and ex-Socialists. The ideology of the party ranges from Conservative Libertarianism to Christian Social-Democracy and presents itself as the party of renovament and modernization.

It can claim contemporarely to be a fresh new party, with no ties with the last governments of the so-called First Republic (unilke most of the leftish parties) and to be the heir of the best political traditions of Italy: a Christian-Democrat as Alcide De Gasperi, a Social-Democrat as Giuseppe Saragat, a Liberal as Luigi Einaudi and a Republican as Ugo La Malfa are cited in the preamble of the party's constitution as party icons.

The tone of Forza Italia can be populist, but not more populist than that of the US Republican Party or of the UK Labour Party. Forza Italia and Italian politics take inspiration always more from the anglo-saxon tradition, and always less from the french-german one, as in the past.

Most members of the party are former Christian-Democrats: Giuseppe Pisanu (former member of the leftish faction of DC, now minister of Interior), Roberto Formigoni (president of Lombardy, the biggest region of Italy) amd Claudio Scajola (minister of Industry) are only three examples.

Many members are former-Socialists, like Giulio Tremonti (minister of Economy), Franco Frattini (Vice President of the European Commission), Renato Brunetta (leading European MP) and Fabrizio Cicchitto (vice-coordinator of the party). Berlusconi himself was a close friend of Bettino Craxi, leader of Italian Socialist Party, in spite of his Christian-Democratic and Liberal background (he was a DC's activist in 1948 elections).

Many are former Liberals, Republicans and Social-Democrats: two former leaders of PLI (Alfredo Biondi, now president of Forza Italia's National Counci, and Raffaele Costa) and the former leader of PSDI (Carlo Vizzini) are all Forza Italia's parlamentarians.

Even some former Communists are leading members of the party, like Sandro Bondi (national coordinator of Forza Italia) and Fedrinando Adornato (chairman of the Constituent Assembly for the Party of Moderates and Reformers, the party in which Forza Italia, AN and UDC will merge in 2006).

The party's constitution begins with these words: "Forza Italia is a catholic party but not a confessional one, a liberal party but not an elitist one, a national party but not a centralistic one". These words explain what Forza Italia is more the than others.

I hope that Wikipedia will open a debate on Forza Italia and change the article about it.

Sorry for my 'Italian' English...

Francesco Martini, 17 November 2005

(short) Forza Italia is personality-driven more than any other political party in Italy or most-of-elsewhere. Forza Italia without Berlusconi is currently unconceivable, this is not true of most other parties (with the possible exception of Lega Nord). --Orzetto 12:08, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I think you are wrong, in fact Forza Italia is plenty of personalities and local leaders. In some regions, as Veneto Region, where I live, Forza Italia is anything else that DC with another name, plus some Liberals and without some leftish Catholics. I am sure that without Berlusconi Forza Italia won't be the same, but I guess that its experience will remain in Italian politics. Maybe for many years we will use "berlusconiano" to define a political ideology, as French use the term "Gaullist", even 35 years after De Gaulle's death. You can like him or dislike him, but Berlusconi has changed Italian politics as no-one ever did. The union between Christian Democrats and Liberals, embodied by Forza Italia, will last more than most commentators think.

Obviously this is only my opinion. We'll see in the next years, and expecially after the April elections. --Checco 16:29, 2 January 2006

About Riccardo Pacifici[edit]

About Riccardo Pacifici, it is a fact that he is a member of "Per Israele" list, which is the centre-right component of the Union of Italian Jewish Communities. Moreover he has strongly supported Berlusconi's government. See also [1]. Checco 20:15, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's not necessary to give me informations about Riccardo Pacifici because I know him better than you and I know he never backed Forza Italia. Anyway, I think the problem is solved because I noticed that you removed the entire paragraph. In conclusion ( and then I won't post anymore ), it's not fair to write false things about this or that person.(Lucano 02:02, 28 October 2006 (UTC))
Ok, but it is a fact that he has backed more the centre-right than the centre-left. In any case, if you see Riccardo say hello for me. I hold him in high regard. --Checco 07:42, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


FI is a liberal and christian-democratic party. This is what the party's constitution says and what every political scientist in Italy would observe. FI was founded in 1994 by Berlusconi alongside with a group of liberals from the Italian Liberal Party (Biondi, Martino, Costa, Previti, etc.). FI is considered liberal in en.Wiki as in it.Wiki. So, why on February 16, 2007 this is not correct, or at least no more? The problem is about you, dear Sparkman. I thought you were a good user, but what has happened today that turned you into a vandal? --Checco 19:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, if you felt offended by my words. Anyway, I can't understand why you have decided to start something like an edit war in article that has been quiet for months. Please state why in your opinion FI is not a liberal party. --Checco 19:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Me a vandal? Justify that claim, please! But Christian-democracy and liberalism don’t jive for me. You can be respectably one or respectably the other. You can’t be both. You can be an economic liberal (aka American imperialist, aka Thatcherite) but not without opposing the very roots of the European Christian-Democratic tradition, which recognises the needs of the poor and dispirited. Or you can be a Millite (John Stuart Mill, I mean) whose fine notion of free speech and freedom of action was not predicated upon the consent of some pope or other. Or some investment company or other. Berlusconi founded his political party not because he was a liberal, a Christian democrat or even a politician—remember how sheerly incompetent his first administration was?—but because the respectable right-of-centre politicians of the time—Mario Segni in particular—failed to get their act together. Quite simply Forza Italia has no ideology. It only came to power by uniting with the utterly unreconciliable Lega Nord and Fini’s ex-post-fascists.
There was an edit conflict and I will just leave what I wrote above without moderating it. Of course I wasn’t trying to engage in an edit-war per se, and I wasn’t wanting to attack your contribitions to the encyclopedia in general which I have noticed often and have found good. But the attrbution of liberalism to Berlusconi struck me as absurd (as an Englishman) as an attribution of socialism to Tony Blair. These are people who like being rich. They don’t have any ideology!
Ian Spackman 20:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Sorry again for calling you "vandal". You're probably right on many things, but remember that FI is a big political party, with 300,000 members and more than 200 MPs. Berlusconi is very important, obviously, as Blair is (or has been) important for Labour, but the party is also something more than Berlusconi and his interests.
It is true that originally liberalism and Christian democracy were very different concepts, but, as you know, Christian Democrats all over Europe embraced many things of liberalism as free-market (think of Merkel, Balkenende and Aznar). Truly there are also leftish Christian Democrats (for example in Italy many members of Democracy is Freedom - Daisy, but most of them are part of the centre-right European People's Party. The social-market economy has been in many cases replaced by free-market.
Anyway FI is at the same time liberal and christian-democratic because it tries to combine liberal ideas (about the economy, welfare, pensions, the judiciary and political institutions) with Christian values, as the US Republicans combine libertarianism (as you know liberalism has a different meaning there...) with social conservatism. If it is possible in the US, why not in Europe?
The second reason that makes FI a liberal party and also a christian-democratic one is that some members (mostly former members of PLI, PRI, Rad, PSI and PSDI) of the party are truly liberals (they even expose secular values and hold secularist views), while others are Christian Democrats, mostly coming from the conservative-liberal wing of DC. They, although being Catholics, emphasize personal responsibility and personal freedom.
In the end I want you to know that FI, which was designed in order to unite in one party Catholics and secular-oriented people (as coordinator Bondi often says), gives freedom of conscience to his MPs on social and moral issues, so that in the same party people like Martino and Biondi (militant atheists) can live together with Formigoni and Pisanu (devout Catholics).
Off course FI is a very strange party, but as it enters in its 14th year it can't be seen no more as the party of Berlusconi's companies, but as an important political movement (bad or good, let voters choose), full of interesting people, exactly as other Italian parties. They can sound strange due to their unusual names (Forza Italia, Daisy, Rose in the Fist) or history (Northern League, National Alliance, Democrats of the Left), but they are pretty interesting from a political scientist's point of view. --Checco 22:11, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  • FI isn't a "cristian democratic" party. It's a conservative-populist party.-- (talk) 19:27, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
This is only your wrong opinion. --Checco (talk) 17:30, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Merge faction articles?[edit]

Just as an idea, there's a lot of small but reasonably informative articles such as Popular Liberalism and Liberal-Popular Union on the factions within FI that go into the history and personalities of how they became established. As such they go beyond the current section in this article, which is a fairly basic description of ideology. Which is fair enough, as a detailed coverage of the factions would soon overwhelm this article. I think the best option would be to merge all the individual faction articles into a single article - Factions of Forza Italia or some such - which could unify them into an overview of the history and political differences. I am not the person to write that article (!!!) but I think there's the potential there for a really good article. Thoughts? FlagSteward (talk) 11:28, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree with you idea and I stick to the project of Template:Italian political party factions: in my opinion, every faction needs an article. --Checco (talk) 21:57, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


The ideology section violates Wikipedia:No Original Research. It does not use verifiable reliable, independent, external sources to sustain claims about the party ideology. All it does is take quotes from two party documents to sustain the claim that the party is liberal. External, reliable, verifiable sources are necessary stating that the party's ideology is such. Currently it comes close to violating WP:SYN "Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position". C mon (talk) 15:41, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

It is difficult to find sources about Forza Italia's ideology, but it seems self-evident that Forza Italia is a christian-democratic and liberal party. I'm very sorry that there are not such sources but we cannto invent them. Moreover, although the party is not well known and understood outside Italy, it seems self-evident that it is a christian-democratic and liberal party, a liberal-conservative party as all its EPP-mates. Forza Italia's peculiarity is however that it is fairly more liberal that other European centre-right parties.
Your source is of 2001 and the party is now a little bit different. I didn't have the possibility to read that book but it seems to me that defining FI as national-conservative is non-sense. --Checco (talk) 17:03, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
This is an encyclopedia not a personal blog. What matters is not what is self evident, but what can be proven by external sources. In a handbook on European politics, written by one of the main party experts in Europe, who resides in Italy, Forza Italia is called national conservative. You provided three sources for your view, one of which was a blog (not a reliable source), one of did not refer to Forza Italia, and one which was a book on television. That's not a lot of sources for your view. C mon (talk) 17:41, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Your source of Mair and Co. is not ok: there's nothing in Forza Italia's ideology which is national-conservative. I am impressed that there are political scientist so ignorant of Italian political parties. In any case Wolfram Nordsieck of Parties and Elections has always characterized Forza Italia as liberal-conservative: he now updated his website because of the April election, but if PdL (formed by FI and AN) is liberal-conservative, also FI (the more centrist of the two parties) is liberal-conservative. It seems obvious to me. The third source was an article by Marcello Pera, liberal philosopher and formerly President of the Senate of Forza Italia, not an unknown blogger. --Checco (talk) 18:08, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
You can't say your source is not okay because it does not say what I think, this is a reliable, external, verifiable, academic source! C mon (talk) 18:34, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
But it's flawed! Also political scientists make mistakes and that is an old book... --Checco (talk) 18:59, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with C_mon -- by European standards and in European politology, Forza Italia is obviously national conservative. —Nightstallion 14:41, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Tell me something about Forza Italia which is national conservative... Forza Italia is all but national conservative: you can call it christian-democratic, liberal, liberal-conservative, conservative, centrist, even social-democratic (as some of its leading members are "proud Socialists"), but not national conservative. At all. --Checco (talk) 14:45, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
From the article on national conservatism:
"national conservatism praises the family as a home and a centre of identity, solidarity and emotion." -- yep, sounds like FI to me.
"a variant of conservatism which concentrates more on national interests than standard conservatism, while not being nationalist or a far-right approach." -- yep, sounds exactly like FI to me.
"Many national conservatives are social conservatives, in favour of limiting immigration" -- yep, sounds like FI to me.
So why are you against calling them national conservative, exactly? —Nightstallion 14:51, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Forza Italia is midly patriotic (more keen on federalism), opposes any form of statism, supports market economics, EU integration, federalism and devolution, has no official social-conservative or confessional stance... what is national conservative about that?
Forza Italia is different from other European parties because of the strenght of its liberal and social-democratic factions. No other EPP member has such big factions within its ranks. In any case Forza Italia is a christian-democratic party in the EPP line.
Family values and strict immigration policy are typical of German CDU and many other EPP (and, regarding immigration, even PES) parties. The difference is that Forza Italia has a more liberal approach than CDU and other EPP members both on the economy and traditional values. --Checco (talk) 14:59, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Ah, what the hell. I give up on trying to convince you, but the fact remains that FI is perceived as being national conservative quite often from outside Italy... Good luck in getting C_mon to give up, though. ;) ;pNightstallion 15:18, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
You don't need to convince me. It is a fact that Forza Italia is a member of EPP, although having these liberal and social-democratic factions in its ranks, and I am very sorry that outside Italy this is not known. Forza Italia is not to the right of EPP, but to its left. --Checco (talk) 15:23, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
I am from Italy and I have my opinions on FI's ideology, and they are different from Checco's "self-evident" ones. But what is relevant here is not my opinion, neither Checco's one. What is relevant is to cite authoritative sources, as it seems Mair et at. is. Certainly, they may be wrong, but it's better to be wrong by referring authoritative sources than by referring non-authoritative ones, or no sources at all. And (in this moment) the articles does not actually say that FI is national conservative, but that it "has been characterized as" national conservative. I think that also the ideology in the incipit and in the template should be changed.
I must tell that it is not the first time that I see Checco writing claims about Italian parties' ideology without citing sources, and arguably without having sources. See for example Daisy Civic List. I'm not sure it can be defined as "moderate-conservative". I wrote that to Checco and he said that he will think about it... --Jaqen (talk) 15:27, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Most of the times we don't have sources and as political scientists we decide what ideology put in the template. Nightstallion knows this better than me, and above all most of you know that there are no good sources about Italian political parties. Another problem with Italian parties and Wikipedia is that some parties are very disliked by most Wikipedia editors and the articles are sometimes unbalanced. To describe Forza Italia as national conservative is simply incorrect because we are taliking about a party which doesn't fit in the category at all, as I explained to Nightstallion. PdL, which has been founded by FI and AN, is classified as "liberal conservative" by Wolfram Nordsieck of Parties and Elections in Europe and I think that this is correct: as FI is more liberal that AN, there is no reason to classify FI as more conservative that PdL! Also Nordsieck classified FI as "liberal conservative" before its unification with AN.
About Daisy Civic List, I would like to observe that it is described as christian-democratic, centrist and moderate-conservative: a balanced description, I think, but eveyone could change that. My only fault here is having written that article. Everyone can rewrite it, but I think that questioning my intellectual integrity is not fair. --Checco (talk) 19:54, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
If you really believe that "Most of the times we don't have sources and as political scientists we decide what ideology put in the template". Than you are completely mistaken. Wikipedia based on verifiability, not on your own opinion. Any way since your concern is with the term "national" and not with the term "conservative", I think we can all agree with what is in the template now. C mon (talk) 21:16, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that it is unfair that Forza Italia is treated differently from the Union for a Popular Movement and most other EPP members. When truth is so disowned and denied I am very disappointed. Moreover if PdL is liberal-conservative (see Parties and Elections in Europe) how can Forza Italia be considered more conservative? Until Forza Italia was not into PdL, Parties and Elections regarded it as liberal conservative. What is happening is completely non-sense. --Checco (talk) 21:26, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

If The People of Freedom is liberal conservative also for C mon (see this: ok for me and definitely correct), it is at least bizzarre since Forza Italia is the more liberal and centrist component of the new party. --Checco (talk) 21:55, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

As per logic, I made the change. --Checco (talk) 12:27, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Dear Checco, please find sources for your statements. I have proof for my position, you have none for yours. Replacing referenced information with non-referenced information is wiki's way. C mon (talk) 13:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
There are sources, but this is not the problem. As The People of Freedom is a liberal-conservative party, how can Forza Italia be more conservative if is undoubtely the more liberal and largest component of the new party? Your position has no proof because it says something which is simply obvious: that FI is conservative. Definitely FI, as German CDU and French UMP, is in the conservative camp, the EPP, but in Wikipedia we try to be more precise: there are many kind of conservatism, and, as Forza Italia is a christian-democratic and liberal party, how can you simply define it "conservative", especially if its successor party is liberal-conservative? --Checco (talk) 14:11, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Let's look at the sources provided by Checco to support the claim that FI is liberal conservative:

I think that you're getting mad with the issue. In most articles we have classifications which are based on consensus and not on sources. Here we have sources, but it's ok even so: I fear that you are a little bit biased, Jaqen. In any case it is embarassing for me that you don't know who some of the authors are, anyway, I can tell you that both Wolfram Nordsieck (who defines PdL as lib-con and who defined FI as lib--con too before the foundation of PdL) and Laurent de Boissieu (who classify FI as lib-con: serach) are respected experts of comparative politics, the first as a researcher at university and the second as political journalist. What about Alessandro Campi? He is one of the most well-know political scientists in Italy and speakes of liberalism. That's indeed the point.
If you begin to reaserach about every single EPP party in Europe you'll never find plenty of sources with "liberal conservative", as other terms are most used: "conservative" (which in Northern Europe is used also for centrist-conservative parties), "christian-democratic" and "liberal". I would be able to produce plenty of sources about FI describing it as a liberal or a christian-conservative party and also the party program and the article reflect itself. In fact, before C mon's edits, FI was described as "christian-democratic, liberal and liberal-conservative": a sensible classification.
There is not a plenty of books on current parties and a similar discussion would be possible about the Italian Democratic Party, which is correctly classified in en.Wiki as a social-democratic, Christian-leftist and social-liberal party, even if youn won't find many sources which classify it precisely. In Wikipedia we try to be precise and to use precise classifications. If the People's Party (Spain) is classified correctly as a christian-democratic and liberal-conservative, why does FI deserve different treatement, as it is fairly more moderate and liberal than the former? I think that hammering away at this article is not reasonable.
Thus my proposal is to come back to the previous classification of FI as christian-democratic, liberal and liberal-conservative. Its policies, its program, it complexion and its membership to the EPP in 1998, before non-christian-democratic parties joined tell us that. If that is not possible I can live with the current solution (lib.-con. with chr-dem, lib and soc-dem factions). --Checco (talk) 07:15, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm very sorry but wikipedia puts sources before consensus. We need to find sources for our classifications. There are plenty of sources on the political complexion of political parties: books on comparative party politics, country studies, books on political parties of a particular country. All one needs to do is get of the web and in a library. C mon (talk) 08:00, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Why hammering away at this article? There are many articles with no sources at all, while this article is well-sources. Obviously you will find sources describing FI as conservative (as you would find foer German CDU or French UMP), but we don't need generic classifications in en.Wiki! --Checco (talk) 08:08, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

C mon's revert[edit]

C mon reverted this edit of mine. It is simply non-sense to me to keep the same references in two parts of the article. And then the OR tag: why should we leave the tag with that huge list of references? I'm impressed by that way of working... --Checco (talk) 08:57, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

After my last review the section is perfectly referenced as few Wikipedia articles are and thus the tag is definitely inappropriate. On the other issue I think it is stylistically better if we leave references only in the body of the text and to cancel them from the infobox. I consider these two changes very uncontroversial and that also C mon will agree with me. --Checco (talk) 09:48, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
While the conservative liberalism part is "perfectly" referenced (I still consider most references of a poor quality, from an academic perspective), other statements (about liberalism and catholic social teaching) are not and appear to me to violate WP:SYN.
I believe the more important question is why you think these templates and references should be removed, without changing anything about the article's references. C mon (talk) 11:04, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
References should be in the body of the article and not in the infobox for stylistical reasons and also beacuse having the references at one point in the article should be enough.
What about the tag? Party documents speak of what you contest: I find difficult to understand why you oppose removing a tag from a perfectly referenced section. --Checco (talk) 11:09, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

We'd better discuss here and not in user talk pages.

You consider this sentence OR or POV: "The "Secular Creed" of the party explains that FI is a party which primarily underlines freedom and the centrality of the individual, as it is considered by liberalism and the Catholic social teaching". There is no doubt that "FI is a party which primarily underlines freedom and the centrality of the individual" (see party documents) and that individual is central both to liberalism and the Catholic social teaching. So, what's the problem? I will anyway improve the section. --Checco (talk) 11:40, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I made some changes, I added citations and references. I hope that now the tag could be removed. --Checco (talk) 12:13, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
I copy here a discussion C mon and I had in user talk pages. Let's continue here...

Can you tell me why you want to repeat the same references in two parts of the article: it is non-sense and no article in en.Wiki includes such repetition. And how can you talk about original research with that huge list of references? --Checco (talk) 08:53, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the more important question is why you removed the references and templates! We both agreed with this SQ, and then, without any argument or new sources, you change it!
On the issues: there is nothing wrong with having the same references for something which is debatable in the article, the article on the Dutch conservative liberal VVD does the same. Moreover I still consider most of what is written under ideology to be OR. Especially the sentence "The "Secular Creed" of the party explains that FI is a party which primarily underlines freedom and the centrality of the individual, as it is considered by liberalism and the Catholic social teaching:" Because the secular creed text says nothing about liberalism or Catholic social teaching. The relationship with liberalism and catholic social teaching is infered by the writer, without sources. C mon (talk) 11:00, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

This is simply POV: you can agree with it or not, but in party documents the party is presented like a Catholic and liberal party. We can express that this is a view of the party of itselft, but it is difficult to contest it. --Checco (talk) 11:03, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Repeating sources twice and putting them in the infobox when they are in the body of the article is not OK. You can't decide what is OK by yourself. --Checco (talk) 11:05, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

No, most of my OR/SYN related issues are in saying that: "The "Secular Creed" of the party explains that FI is a party which primarily underlines freedom and the centrality of the individual, as it is considered by liberalism and the Catholic social teaching."
You have source 1, saying that FI values the individual, and assumption 2 and 3, that these matter in liberalism and Catholic Social Teaching (CST), and from this it is inferred that FI lives up to liberalism and catholic social teaching. Nowhere does the secular creed say that the party lives up to liberalism or CST.
Second, what is wrong with providing sources for the same, controversial and debatable, assertion on multiple places in the article. It just gives readers in different places in the article a chance to look at your sources. There is no WP rule either way, moreover this is the consensus version we agreed on. The burden of proof is on you to convince me this change is necessary. C mon (talk) 11:11, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

After lunch or tomorrow I will read all party documents and will reformulate the sentence you don't like. However, don't confuse what you imposed with consensus, please. In the end I want to tell you that you are the first person in the world I ever heard denying that liberalism and Christianity are not based on the individual: it was so obvious to me that I did not think it needed a source. --Checco (talk) 11:15, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I like that you have added references but it does not remove my problem. Please read WP:SYN for the exact nature of my problem. But it goes a little like this:
You cannot say on wikipedia that A has characteristic B, because source 1 says that A has characteristic C and source 2 say that all C are B. This looks like a good piece of logical reasoning (but it is not), but as long as you do not have a source that A has characteristic B, this is not allowed on wikipedia.
So your assertion that FI is both catholic and liberal, because you have source 1 that states that FI is individualist, and source 2, that states catholicism and liberalism are individualist, is not allowed on wikipedia because you are synthesising new information from old information, which is original research.
Moreover, but this is a secondary argument, the reasoning is flawed. You assert that:
  1. FI is individualist
  2. Catholic social teaching is individualist
  3. Liberalism is individualist
  4. Therefore FI is catholic and liberal.
This reasoning is flawed, take for instance this example:
  1. Radicali Italiani are individualist
  2. CST is individualist
  3. Radicali Italiani are catholic.
That A has characteristic B, and all C have characteristic B does not mean that A is C. (All tomatoes are red, this Ferrari is red, therefore this Ferrari is a tomato). Because there can be things that have characteristic B, but not be C. There are more individualist ideologies than CST and liberalism, socialism, republicanism and anarchism for instance.
C mon (talk) 20:46, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

You like to be confusing and you failed to remember that there is also a source stating that FI is a Catholic and liberal party, thus all your arguments are flawed. Moreover my last changes eliminate the problem: nothing of your syllogisms is therefore correct. --Checco (talk) 06:23, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

One the refs issue, as we don't agree with having the same sources two times and having them in the infobox (something which is very bed from a stylistical point of view), what can we do about it? I asked Nightstallion, but, although he agrees with me on the fact that having the references at only one point in the article is enough, he doesn't want to interfere. --Checco (talk) 08:17, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

As I want to reach compromise, tell me exactly what sentences you dislike and let's discuss how to change them. I still think that your syllogisms are inappropriate, but if we can find a solution which is OK for both of us it will be great. --Checco (talk) 08:49, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Your referenced statement: "In a speech during a congress of the party in 1998, Berlusconi himself proclaimed: "our liberal vision of the State is perfectly in agreement with the Catholic social teaching"." solves al my NOR concerns. You have a reference to the previously synthesized claim. Great work! C mon (talk) 18:10, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm very happy of it. Can you remove the tag now?
Let's talk on the other issue: repetition of references. Can we find some kind of compromise or two different views are impossible to reconcile? --Checco (talk) 06:36, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the problem. These are the references you champion. What is wrong with having them multiple times, allowing readers to find all your beautiful sources. C mon (talk) 15:11, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

It is very bad-looking from a stylistic point of view. Moreover infoboxes serve the purpose of giving the reader a summary of the information available in the article. It is the body of the article which needs to be referenced and it is. What can we do about it? Our different views are difficult to compromise. That's why I asked Nighstallion to meadiate, but he told me that he did not want interfere with the issue again, even if he agreed with me on the fact that "having the references at one point in the article should be enough". So, what can we do about it? --Checco (talk) 15:47, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
We compromise. I removed the NOR tag, you let me keep "my" references. C mon (talk) 15:50, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
You removed the tag because there was no reason for having it there as all the content was well referenced. Now we are discussing about references and that's another issue... --Checco (talk) 16:04, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
The simplest solution would be leaving one reference up in the template: this should be the best work probably a book written by (a) prominent professor(s) of comparative or Italian political parties. The rest of the references could then go down. C mon (talk) 16:27, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
In the meantime we find it, can we leave only one or two sources in the infobox? Would it be an acceptable compromise for you? --Checco (talk) 16:30, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

You can pick the best reference from the ones you added. C mon (talk) 19:31, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I made my choice. I decided to leave in the infobox two refs. Hope it's OK for you. --Checco (talk) 07:17, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Forza Italia![edit]

I live in Italy and I too agree with C mon: Forza Italia! is not a patriotic expression, but simply something than people shout during the matches of the Italian national football team. I've never heard anyone using Forza Italia! in a different context. --Checco (talk) 22:13, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. Forza Italia is a generic patriotic expression which is of course also used as football chant (not differently from, say, 'Oranje boven'!)... but it is not intrinsecally related to football at all! One can shout 'Forza Italia!' in a number of different occasions... Olympic games, displaying generic support for the country etc. -- (talk) 11:41, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Ok, sorry: it is not simply related to football, but to sports in general. Stop. No-one would ever display generic support for the country saying Forza Italia!. --Checco (talk) 15:20, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Conservative faction?[edit]

The part of the article which deals with the factions mentions the liberal, christian-democratic and social-democratic factions. What about the conservative faction? (talk) 14:12, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The party has not a conservative faction. Christian democrats are to the right of the party on social issues, while liberals are to the right on economic issues anyway. --Checco (talk) 17:44, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

If the Forza Italia is a liberal conservative party, than there has to be a conservative faction. (talk) 12:45, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually not conservative in the European sense. The liberal conservatism of Forza Italia is the common ground of christian democrats, liberals and social-democrats, the three groups forming the party. As I told you, we can consider the christian democrats the most conservative wing in terms of social and ethical issues, while liberals are to the right of the party regarding economic policy. Liberal conservatism is often used to describe christian-democratic parties: this is the case of Forza Italia. --Checco (talk) 07:02, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Can you provide a reliable source to support your claim that the Forza Italia does not have a conservative faction? (talk) 13:28, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Can you provide a reliable source to support your claim that Forza Italia has a conservative faction? How is this faction named? Who are the members of this faction? Since I don't know anything about this faction because I've never heard of it, it doesn't exist and there aren't obviously sources about something which doesn't exist, how can I find sources? --Checco (talk) 13:30, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


"Forward Italy"[edit]

Here the party name of Forza Italia is given as "Forward Italy", but wouldn't a more appropriate translation be "Force Italy" or "Italy Power" or "Strength Italy"? Where exactly does "Forward" come from? Ljpernic (talk) 15:39, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Redirect to new party?[edit]

When you put "Forza Italia" into the search bar it brings you to this article, rather than the article for the revived party. Given the new party is now a fairly major part of the current Italian party system, is it worth changing this so that you automatically go to the new party's page? This article is now largely a piece of history, whereas the new article is very much still relevant. (talk) 18:01, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Not for now. However, if the new party reaches some of the notability of its predecessor (which was active for 15 years), we could move this article to Forza Italia (1994) and, subsequently, change hundreds of links (see here)—that's the main problem. --Checco (talk) 13:19, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
I wonder, shouldn´t the two artcles be merged? Isn´t this really just a reestablishment of the old party rather than a new party? --Oddeivind (talk) 09:19, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
It is more complicate than that. The new FI is primarily the evolution of the PdL and it is quite different in terms of composition and, to some extent, ideology than the first FI. It is no surprise that also other Wikipedias keep the two articles separate. --Checco (talk) 06:43, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Article's name[edit]

I moved the article back to its original name, Forza Italia. It was moved by User:Maremmano without consensus e without taking care of any double redirects to Forza Italia (1994). His reason was "as the italian page". Every Wiki has its customs and it.Wiki's are different for en.Wiki's. In our case, we have Christian Democracy (Italy) and Christian Democracy (Italy, 1997), Italian Liberal Party and Italian Liberal Party (2004), Italian Socialist Party and Italian Socialist Party (2007), etc. It is true that in our case both Forza Italias are big parties, but, before moving such an article, one should seek consensus. --Checco (talk) 08:51, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

For the moment I think we should stick to Forza Italia for at least three reasons:

  • the 1994–2009 FI has been a long-time established party (as the old DC or the old PSI);
  • there are plenty of redirects to Forza Italia that would require disambiguation;
  • it is not good to move pages back and forth, an encyclopedia should be stable as possible.

If a different consensus emerges and a bot is entitled to fix all the redirects, my opinion could change. --Checco (talk) 09:16, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Forza Italia (1994) and Forza Italia (2013) have the same dignity and importance, they are almost the same party, this case is very different from PSI's case and above all the DC's case...--Maremmano (talk) 11:24, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
You might be right, but for practical reasons I stay with the current name. Let's see what other users say (especially those who have agreed with me on leaving this article at its original title). However, we need to decide together and, in case of move, work a lot with redirects. --Checco (talk) 10:01, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
I prefer keeping both articles with their current titles, for practical reasons, and because at this point in time, we cannot foresee how significant the 'modern' Forza Italia will turn out to be in Italian politics - it may match the success of its predecessor or maybe already be at the height of its powers.--Autospark (talk) 14:10, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

--Autospark (talk) 14:10, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Populism as an ideology[edit]

I am not too sure that populism should be used in the Infobox. While the party was and is described as populist in many sources, that in itself suggests a party or movement with an undefinable or perhaps incoherant political programme. As listed in the article, Forza Italia as a party had definite ideological descriptions applied to it by various third-party sources (liberal-conservative, Christian democratic, etc), and the article goes some way to describe the party in the both Ideology and Faction sections. Yes, Forza Italia was heterogenous centre-right and arguably very much centred around Berlusconi, but I'm not sure on balance that populism accurately reflects the nature of the party as it existed.--Autospark (talk) 14:16, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I do agree with Autospark. Generally speaking, I think that "populism" can be applied, at least to some extent, to each and every political party (we should use it grudgingly then). Moreover, according to the Wikipedia article, "Populism is a political doctrine that appeals to the interests and conceptions (such as hopes and fears) of the general people, especially contrasting those interests with the interests of the elite": it is a blurry definition and it does not necessarily apply to FI. Finally, I think that "ideology" in infoboxes should be as concise as possible. --Checco (talk) 14:32, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I think it should. As I have written in my edit summary, in expert literature populism is very often cited as one of, if not the, defining feature of FI. Example: "Berlusconi used populist rhetoric and elements of populist ideology to gain ascendancy over a center-right constituency whose traditional point of ideological reference and political representation had disappeared. Berlusconi and the party he created, Forza Italia, reconstructed a new center-right ideology; however they did so by employing populism as a way to bring together the fragmented base of the former Christian Democratic and Socialist parties." (D. Woods (2014), The Many Faces of Populism in Italy, p. 41, citing I. Montanelli, M. Cervi (2012), L'Italia di Berlusconi) "The rhetoric of populism allowed Berlusconi to polarize the political landscape. He did this by 'stigmatizing his enemies – judges, communists, intellectuals'. Such polarization created an 'us' versus 'them' divide (...)" (Woods, loc.cit., citing M. Lazar (2013), Testing Italian democracy, p. 328) "In this role Berlusconi evoked populist rhetoric to cast himself as the person who was best positioned to defend 'the people'. (...) to defend Italians against the left and the state that wanted to over-tax and underserve them." (Woods, op.cit., p. 43)
Based on the literature about Italian parties that I have read, I have to disagree with Checco's argument that all parties are somehow populist. We have to go by the prevailing opinion in published literature, and FI is much more often described as a typical populist party than most other Italian parties. Not all Italian parties are described as utilising negative resentments against "the state", "the judges", "the intellectuals", "the establishment", "the old parties" etc. But FI is: "Rhetorically bashing Italy's traditional parties and party structures has typically featured very prominently on the agenda of populist parties and movements such as the Lega Nord and Forza Italia in its initial phase and, more recently, M5S." (F. Chiapponi, C. Cremonesi, G. Legnante (2014), Parties and Electoral Behaviour in Italy, p. 117) Not all party leaders portrayed themselves as "political outsiders" (ironically, or hypocritically, withholding that many FI politicians were long-established politicians who defected from the old parties). FI perfectly embodied the typical features of populist parties: centralized organization, charismatic leadership, a leader who has a direct link to the people, claiming to be "non-ideological", but to "serve the people" and prefer "straight talk", the language of common sense. (...) "One of the most successful center-right populist parties is Silvio Berlusconi's Forza Italia." (I.B. Berend (2010), Europe Since 1980, p. 110)
FI and Berlusconi are probably one of the most mentioned examples of populism in established European democracies in the 1990s (next to the Swiss SVP and Austria's FPÖ & Haider). Example: "Italy's Forza Italia and the SVP became the strongest populist parties in Europe." (K. v.Beyme (2011), Representative democracy and the populist temptation, p. 65) By contrast, I have never found FI mentioned as a genuinely liberal or Christian democratic party. I acknowledge that FI contained liberal and Christian democratic tendencies and its programme included elements that can be decribed as liberal or Christian democratic. But the party as a whole is never described as a Christian democratic or a liberal party. I agree that the ideology field in party infoboxes should be kept short. But if you want to cut down the ideology field, we should rather remove Christian democracy and liberalism than populism. I think that it is just good the way it is: all four ideologies are reasonably sourced and, together, describe FI's ideology as well as -ism catchwords can. --RJFF (talk) 17:21, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
According to Giovanni Orsina, "Berlusconism" (and this was without doubt the dominant trait of FI), "is an emulsion of populism and liberalism (or at least a certain kind of liberalism). (...) The two main components of the definition—populism and liberalism—have equal weight (...) The sanctification of the people, regarded as the depository of all virtues, and the corresponding attack on the elite that had 'betrayed' it are typically populist themes." (Orsina (2014), Berlusconism and Italy, p. 82) --RJFF (talk) 17:35, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Berlusconi may be populist, but FI was not (also Renzi is a populist, but the PD is not). As I have often argued, FI was a broad liberal-conservative and Christian-democratic party, containing also liberal and social-democratic tendencies. I know that sources are one of the pillars of Wikipedia and, while I think that most scholars (let alone Italian politically-motivaed scholars) are totally misguided when classifying Italian parties, I can't do anything about it. --Checco (talk) 09:09, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
I don't think that I will be able to convince you to change your opinion. But Klaus von Beyme is not Italian and he is – as far as I'm informed – one of the most respected European political scientists specialising in comparative politics and political theories. I doubt that he would have earned this much respect in his field if his works were "politically motivated". However I acknowledge that political science is not a "hard science", there is no "right" and "wrong", but sometimes there is a prevailing opinion and a minority one. As far as I can tell from the (English and German) literature that I have consulted, the prevailing opinion seems to be that FI is a populist party. At least I could not find a source that would expressly disagree with this opinion. (Perhaps you know one; I don't have any interest in casting this party in a certain light – I want this article to be as balanced as possible). Also the prevailing opinion seems to be that it is impossible to distinguish between Berlusconi's ideology and FI's because it is his "personal party". You may of course criticise this opinion, but it seems to be shared by a mainstream of publishing political scientists. Again, I would be happy to include a disagreeing opinion in the article, if you could cite a reliable source to support it. (I have not found any, and it was not my intention to only find sources that describe FI as populist and personalist). --RJFF (talk) 13:45, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm sure that you (and Klaus von Beyme) are not politically motivated, in fact I only said that most Italian scholars are. To be clear, I don't think that describing someone or something as populist means casting him/it in a bad light, but I simply think that FI's nature is not populist. I don't have much time to do research on this subject and most of what I'm doing recently in Wikipedia is coyediting and small updates, but, if I will find something interesting, I would definitely bring it to this talk. This said, I see that there is not a strong consensus on removing "populism" from "ideology". --Checco (talk) 09:22, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Forza Italia. 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.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:18, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Forza Italia. 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.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:27, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Forza Italia. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:24, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Forza Italia. 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.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:02, 3 January 2017 (UTC)