Jump to content

Talk:Left Ecology Freedom

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

Heterogeneous

[edit]

When Autospark wrote this article, he correctly defined SL as a heterogeneous left-wing alliance. In fact a list comprising centrist social-democrats, left-wing socialists and greens (and thus spanning the PES, the GUE-NGL group and the European Greens) the is obviously heterogeneous. In this respect I don't understand this recent edit by Enzino and I propose to re-insert "heterogenous" in the first line of the article as it helps the reader to understand the nature of the coalition. --Checco (talk) 09:19, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, I do not agree with Checco. To demonstrate that SL is a heterogeneous coalition, we need to have an open source (in English) that describes this coalition as a heterogeneous one. There is nothing like that (as longh as I know). In fact, these left-wing parties are (of course) split into different groups, but why not use the same word, i.e. for the Italian Democratic Party (PSE and ADLE), the PdL new-born (PPE and UEN)... Facts please, no opinions or unpublished studies on WP.--Enzino (talk) 19:22, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As usual you like to exaggerate the problem. Such a coalition is definitely heterogeneous as it is composed by such different groups and I don't see any need for an open source describing SL as heterogeneous, as we don't need any source describing it as left-wing. Both definitions are obviously correct. I don't see any problem in describing also the PD and the PdL as heterogeneous parties and in the articles about the two parties it is clear that they are big tent parties. Moreover "heterogenous" is not an offense, but a netrual characterization for parties/coalitions that are internally diverse. It's not a big deal and I don't understand your behaviour on such small things. Even if we don't write "heterogeneous", as Autospark did and I approved, every editor will understand the heterogeneous nature of the coalition. Thus I don't see any need to continue to discuss on the issue with you as it is just a waste of time. You imposed this to us and, as it's not a big deal, I let you do it. --Checco (talk) 20:14, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If it was not a big issue, why do you spend 1,084 digits to discuss it? I do not want to insist on it. You did.--Enzino (talk) 20:47, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It was because you made a strange edit in my view. Anyway, that's it, there's nothing more to say. --Checco (talk) 22:49, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any sources about Movement for Left and Unite the Left?It's sure that these two parties are not far left.It's also difficult to define them:socialist/communist is not right.We need a source in order to characterize them as democratic socialists/eurocommunists. Itanesco (talk) 11:59, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MpS and Uls are both breakaway groups from communist parties (PRC and PdCI, respectively), that's why I think that "communist/socialist" is a good characterization. I would personally avoid "eurocommunist" as that refers more to a historical phase that to an ideology. No problem with adding "socialist" also to UlS. --Checco (talk) 07:56, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Communism?

[edit]

I don't agree with the term of "communism" in the infobox. Left and Freedom is socialist, democratic socialist and it supports the green politics. In the italian version there isn't communism! --Baf09 (talk) 10:53, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SL is a heterogenous outfit combing moderate social-democrats with people stretching more to the left, greens and more conventional socialists. The main component of SL is the split of the formerly majority faction of the Communist Refoundation Party, so "communism" is quite OK in the infobox, along with "social democracy", "democratic socialism" and "green politics" of course. --Checco (talk) 15:15, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Boston98 (talk) 15:58, 2 September 2010 (UTC) I disagree with the definiton. Both from the manifesto presented in the web site, and in the declarations of his members (like Gennaro Migliore), Sel is not communist or even anticapitalist. There is not even a single tendency within it that can be linked to communism. The fact that some of them come from a communist party would take us to declare communist also the actual members of the Democratic Party (italian).[reply]

The main difference is that the Democratic Party is a social-democratic party by European standards, while SEL is a socialist party with communist influences. The first ideology of the party is socialism, but I don't see why ww should not add also communism to the infobox. What is good for it.Wiki is not automatically good for en.Wiki and we should remember that party documents are not neutral sources. --Checco (talk) 13:22, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bad translation

[edit]

It seems to me that "Left Ecology Freedom" is a bad translation. In Italian, the syntactical order of adjectives and nouns is different from English: the adjective follows the noun, rather than preceding it. "Ecology" and "Freedom" refer to Left, that is here taken to be a noun ("The left", "La Sinistra"), so the translation should be: "Ecology Freedom Left", or "Ecology and Freedom Left". Having said so, also translating the Italian "Sinistra" with Left is disputable, as the political connotation of "Left" is less obvious in English. Leftist Party seems a better translation. So, in case a less-literal translation is admitted, I would go for "Ecology and Freedom Leftist Party". Otherwise, one of the previous two. But for sure the actual translation should be revised. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.64.251.86 (talk) 17:31, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are right on the "syntactical order of adjectives and nouns", but you are wrong in this case for the very motivations you citing: none of the three words forming the party's name are adjectives, they are all nouns! Thus, "Left Ecology Freedom" is a perfect and indisputable translation. Finally, sinistra is perfectly translatable with "left" and there is no need to add a word ("party") which is neither included nor tacitly implied in Italian. "Ecology and Freedom Leftist Party": that would be a terrible and highly controversial translation. Better to leave the article where it is, but many thanks for your contribution. --Checco (talk) 08:38, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The title should be either "Left, Ecology and Freedom" or "Left, Ecology, Freedom" because "Left Ecology Freedom" is simply bad grammar. Moreover, Political Handbook of the World 2014 says "Left Ecology and Freedom" and the other three sources (BBC, EuroActiv and Financial Times) say "Left, Ecology, Freedom".Lucy1994 (talk) 13:24, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also the original-language name, Sinistra Ecologia Libertà, is bad grammar, but we can't do anything about it. --Checco (talk) 13:32, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We can determine which approach is more priority: grammatical accuracy or stylization. From the point of view of grammar, if a name is written in a language it should adopt its rules. From the viewpoint of stylization, the stylization of party's name should be respected in its origin language. Another question that has to be fixed is if the properly translation into English (in the case of establishing stylization in the origin language as priority criterion) should be kept or not.Lucy1994 (talk) 20:04, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why should we complicate things? Sinistra Ecologia Libertà = Left Ecology Freedom ≠ Left, Ecology, Freedom (or Left, Ecology and Freedom, btw). Maybe you should try to convince Vendola to change his party's name! :) --Checco (talk) 14:04, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and therefore we should consider writing well, especially, if the title is translated from other languages.Lucy1994 (talk) 19:04, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Left Ecology Freedom. 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 12:30, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Left Ecology Freedom. 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) 11:20, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Left Ecology Freedom. 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) 23:58, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Left_Ecology_Freedom&oldid=1208133727"