Talk:Italy of Values

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


I understand that IDV is called a justicialist party (with DiPietro being judge and all). But Justicialism currently is currently a redirect for peronism, and I don't see that link. So I'll remove the link to justicialism from the info box.C mon 17:01, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


IDV is not populist. Neither the italian page says that. --Subver (talk) 03:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

It.Wikipedia is not a reliable source and can't be a source for an article in another Wikipedia. Read populism and you will understand that the definition is correct. To be populist is not an offense: even other mainstream parties as Lega Nord or the Indian National Congress are defined populist, as some leading US Democrats, such as Barack Obama and John Edwards. IdV is an anti-corruption party with populist venatures (think about justice). It is a very good definition. Please don't make changes if there is no consensus about them. --Checco (talk) 08:45, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Checco hai introdotto tu "populist" senza alcun consenso da questa revisione: . IDV non si definisce populista e non mi interessa se sia un insulto o meno, non si possono appiopppare etichette a partiti, senza che loro si definiscono tali, se no potei appioppare "mafioso" o "affarista" a FI o togliere l'ideologia democratico-cristiana. Secondo me non c'è molto da discutere. --Subver (talk) 03:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Dear Subver, this is the English Wikipedia, so you're encouraged to use English in discussions like these. Secondly, can someone find a reliable secondary source, independent of the subject, static the most correct definition of IDV's ideology? Wikipedia is not a primar source, and everything in its articles should be sourced and verifiable by everyone. --Angelo (talk) 08:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Not for now, but I can only observe that reading the program of the party, it is not difficult to classify as "populist". In Italian the party is often described as giustizialista or qualunquista, which are clearly something that can be classified as populist attitudes. --Checco (talk) 08:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Maybe the party has been characterized as qualunquista by its adversaries, though personally I've never heard that. To me, you sound like you've got an axe to grind, Checco, and your adjectives are certainly very far from the NPOV that Wikipedia requires.--Exidor (talk) 00:11, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Anyway, CNN host Jonathan Mann describes IdV as "a populist anti-corruption party" (see Moreover Di Pietro, in an interview, explains that he is not afraid of being described as populist and gives of himself a description which is very populist (see The fact that IdV is member of ELDR does not mean that it is a liberal party: European Tribune reckons that "a number of non-ideological centre-populist ("reform") parties are members of ELDR" (see A number of non-ideological centre-populist ("reform") parties are members of ELDR): this definition is very sensible for IdV. --Checco (talk) 09:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Can you please include this reasoning (obviously, together with sources) into the Ideology paragraph? If we are going to label this party as "populist", "centrist" or "whateverist", we should explain why we're using that one label. --Angelo (talk) 09:48, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Done. Obviously your contribute is also needed to check what I did. --Checco (talk) 10:29, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd also say it's populist in the neutral sense of the word. —Nightstallion 10:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Forza Italia is a real populist party, but there is no populist definition at the beginning of its article. IDV define itself a mixture of catholic, socialist and libertarian ideologies in its statuto.This is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper which can say anything about anyone. Italian wikipedia doesn't use populist (Checco, why don't we discuss there?). If "populist" is OK, mafia party is OK for a lot of other parties. --Subver (talk) 12:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
From the "statuto": Art.3 ...Il partito si riconosce nell'insieme delle grandi culture riformiste del novecento: la cultura cattolica della solidarietà sociale e familiare, la cultura socialista del lavoro e della giustizia sociale, la cultura liberale dell'economia di mercato, della liberta'individuale e del buon governo, attraversate dalle grandi tematiche dei diritti civili, della questione morale e dei nuovi diritti di cittadinanza alle quali i grandi movimenti ambientalisti, delle donne e dei giovani hanno dato un contributo essenziale. L'Italia dei Valori vuole integrare i tradizionali valori di libertà, uguaglianza, legalità e giustizia con i valori nuovi del nostro tempo: pari opportunità, sviluppo sostenibile, autogoverno, solidarietà e sussidiarietà, responsabilità, iniziativa, partecipazione ed europeismo, nel quadro di un sempre piu’ avanzato federalismo europeo; --Subver (talk) 12:40, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
CNN source consist only in the simple "populist" definition given by a journalist (in a article not IDV related). The other interview in some word:
Question to Di Pietro: "You seem the closest to the people politician.Aren't you afraid to seem populista?"
Answer:" Yes i'm close to people, and I'm not afraid if others call me populist".
Obviously it's not an admission to be populist! --Subver (talk) 12:49, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
It.Wiki has many flaws and I understand that there is no political scientific culture there. Anyway, we could discuss even there. In the past I had a discussion on the issue and we reached a compromise in taking out from the template liberalismo.
A party constitution is not a reliable source and, above all, not a neutral one. Anyway in this case the party constitution of IdV is a good evidence of how that party is populist. I want to reassure you that "populist" is not a bad thing, not for me at least (sometimes I consider myself a "libertarian populist"). Your bizzarre arguments (mafia?) on Forza Italia and Berlusconi shows how you are a little bit POV on the issue. I understand that for you "populist" is an offense, but it is not and, anyway, there's no consensus about your proposals. --Checco (talk) 13:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Your argument to sustain "populist" are bizarre, not mine. The consensus...we'll see. An encyclopedia could not be based on a (unique) journalist citation (moreover 2 words phrase). You haven't verified consensus when you changed from liberal to populist. I think you are POV, I'm sorry. --Subver (talk) 13:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
There's nothing bad about being populist adn IdV is "populist in the neutral sense of the word", as Nightstallion observed some lines above. Most of the articles about Italian political parties are my work (is it a fault?), and thus I don't ask in talk page about everything I do. The fact that IdV is a populist party has never been contested by anyone in the last year: that's consensus, at some extent. Anyway, you don't agree and so we are discussing about the ideology issue. So what's the scandal about it? --Checco (talk) 13:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

By the way, Antonio Di Pietro is mentioned as "populist" on this PDF released by the Sussex University (UK) as well: [1], notably together with Ségolène Royal, Nicolas Sarkozy, Tony Blair and Yulia Tymoshenko. --Angelo (talk) 13:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I may not agree with that list, but that's a source too combined with consensus of three users... --Checco (talk) 13:42, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
This other one [2], dated 2000, defines Di Pietro as a "populist maverick". Here he is defined as a "genuine populist", whereas IDV is defined here as a populist anti-corruption party. I think they're way enough. --Angelo (talk) 13:48, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Can you put all these sources in the article? This way it will be more difficult to challenge the ideological characterization of the party... --Checco (talk) 13:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Only one more observation. In the article from the Financial Times linked by Angelo Di Pietro is defined "populist" in the economic sense of the term, read: "protectionist". This explains how difficult is to classify his party, which is very personality-driven as no other Italian political party (see the recent inquires by Radio Radicale, Panorama and Il Giornale, about it) is, as liberal too. --Checco (talk) 14:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I can find a lot of articles that define Forza Italia a populist party. Then do you agree to put as the first sentence of FI page. "FI is a populist party"? --Subver (talk) 14:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

FI is definitely a populist party, personally I see no problem in including it; however you should propose this change on the appropriate talk page. --Angelo (talk) 14:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
FI is a populist party exactly as most of Italian political parties are (probably the Democratic Party is turning to be fairly more populist than FI). In my opinion that is not a special character of the party, as it is for IdV and Lega Nord. For this basic reason I do not agree in inserting "populism" as a special character of Forza Italia, although I have nothing against underlining the populist attitudes of that party in Forza Italia#Distinctive traits. --Checco (talk) 14:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
That's the problem. You arbitrarily say that populism is a distinctive feature of IDV and not FI. Many people could think the opposite. That's why you can't begin the IDV article with "IDV is a populist party...". You could write AFTER..."something think that IDV is a populist party, because of..." or similar.--Subver (talk) 14:43, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
But there is no other way to describe IdV. I'm not saying that when a party has not a clear ideology is populist, but that's the case of IdV. It can be arbitrary, but here we work with consensus. if you form a different consensus on this or other page, I will stick to that, even if I don't agree. --Checco (talk) 14:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
The way exists. Describe IdV as Idv describe itself. Mixture of catholic, socialist, liberal values. This is done for ALL the parties, except IDV! I know there is some issues with this convention (like describe FI ad a catholic party, as I read on that page), but it's the only possible. Then comments and criticism can be added in the article. --Subver (talk) 14:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't agree to describe the parties as they describe themselves: it would be very POV. FI describes itself also as a social-democratic party, but I personally oppose saying that FI is a social-democratic party in the article! --Checco (talk) 15:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
What's the point in writing that the party "Italy of values" is populist? Indeed, if this party is populist, every party in Italy is populist. Sure enough, the Italian entry is far more precise than this: if no one else has got a leg to stand on, I'm going to correct that.--Claudio87 (talk) 11:49, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

It does not make sense to call a party both populist and centrist. This makes the entry look biased, confusing and less useful. It does not enhance Wikipedia's credibility. The word "populist" is not neutral, it is perceived as pejorative, like it or not. Igor (talk) 09:41, 25 July 2012 (UTC)


The traduction "values" is incorrect...the traduction correct is Italy of Valour. You must change soon this error of traduction —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexaglani (talkcontribs) 23:45, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Is incorrect the traduction Values...Valour is correct —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexaglani (talkcontribs) 23:54, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but it's not. "Value" is the most correct translation of "valore" in this context (see This is the identical case of family values, Christian values, etc. Moreover "valori" is plural, so the correct translation is "values". --Checco (talk) 08:47, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

POV tags[edit]

I added two [neutrality is disputed] tags to questionable sentences in the article. Using expressions such as “steal votes” as well as “liberal only by name”, extracted from partisan references like Berlusconi's magazine, is not an example of neutrality. (talk) 18:34, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, now one sentence is neutral ("attract votes" is used in other 75 articles in, according to Google, so I do not think this expression could be criticized as elogiative). There remains the problem of the other quote, “liberal only by name”. But I am confident that in the next days we can find a solution satisfying for anyone regardless his political beliefs. (talk) 18:46, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


LOL. italy of values is an anti-populist party —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:06, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

First past the post[edit]

Are they really in favour of adopting a system that could wipe them out? AJUK Talk!! 23:27, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, look at the source and many others are available. In fact the system wouldn't wipe them out, but would increase their key role for the centre-left to win instead. If there will ever be first-past-the-post in Italy it will be based on coalitions as it happened in 1994-2001. You may be surprised that the strongest proponents of first-past-the-post in Italy are the Italian Radicals, a very tiny party even if compared to IdV. --Checco (talk) 20:20, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

It's widely considered a Leftist party[edit]

IdV is widely considered a left-wing party, the Democratic Party is called to decide between an alliance with the Third Pole or an alliance with the left-wing (basically, IdV and SEL). The page doesn't give a realistic idea of IdV stances to the readers. In every theme IdV is a left-wing party. For example, in the labour market it maintains a definitely left-wing stance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:21, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

IdV was a centrist party once, but that is well in the past. I can't find any decent references for calling them left wing (even though it seems to be generally understood that they are), so I'll just remove centrism. Rafaelgr (talk) 14:23, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

28/29 March 2013[edit]

Italy of Values WAS a centrist, populist and anti-corruption political party in Italy. [...] — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:19, 3 April 2013 (UTC)