Talk:List of political parties in Italy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Italy (Rated List-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Italy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles on Italy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 List  This article has been rated as List-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Politics / Political parties (Rated List-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 List  This article has been rated as List-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Political parties task force (marked as Mid-importance).


I think this needs sorting into coalitions. I will volunteer to do this tomorrow unless anyone volunteers! Secretlondon 22:49, Dec 23, 2003 (UTC)

Which parties?[edit]

In response to this edit by RJFF, I have to say a couple of things. In Italy there are hundreds of parties and many of those parties have an article in en.Wikipedia (while most of them are not present in it.Wiki, in which rules are more strict). As it is practically impossible to list them all, in the present article we cathegorized parties in different sections, provided that they meet some conditions. In the case of current national political parties, we listed those parties that are represented in parliament or in regional assemblies, or that have at least participated to the last national (general or European) elections. Parties which are no longer active or parties, such as Communist Platform, which never took part to an election don't deserve any mention here. If we mention Communist Platform, we should mention at least one hundred more tiny but larger parties. That is why I will rollback RJFF's edit. I will never propose that article's deletion (I'm an inclusionist), but I don't see any reason for having it in the list.
--Checco (talk) 00:18, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the enlightenment. --RJFF (talk) 19:16, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Party or parliamentary group?[edit]

I'm writing this as an answer to Maremmano, who has been repeatedly removing Federalists and Liberal Democrats (FLD) from the list on the basis that the FLD were not a party, but just a parliamentary group. I urge him to understand that it makes no difference from a political scientist's point of view as parties can well be parliamentary-only. Moreover, it is particularly useful to have the FLD in the list for the sake of completeness and readers' interest. Also, I think that definition of the FLD ("a federalist and liberal political party in Italy, which was active mainly as a parliamentary group in the Chamber of Deputies from December 1994 to May 1996") that Maremmano has been repeatedly deleting in the party's article is quite balanced and sensible. Maremmano is a valuable editor, but too often he is stuck with Italocentric or journalistic stereotypes of political science. What is worst, he often tries to impose his views without seeking consensus in talk pages. --Checco (talk) 13:21, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

From a juridical point of view there are big differences, I repeat that a party is an association, a parliamentary group is a mere parliamentary organ, they are different. I thank you for saying that I am a valuable editor, but the "journalistic stereotypes" don't concern me, I refer to legal facts. If you want to make a section for parliamentary groups it's ok, but don't insert the parliamentary groups in a section for parties, please--Maremmano (talk) 19:32, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
For your own admitance, you are a "law student". This explains your legalistic approach to issues which have nothing to do with law (and your likely young age explains the rest). I duly appreciate your insights and contributions to Wikipedia, but you need to learn some things about consensus—and political science in order to be a better user. In Italy there are no registered parties and, more generally, in Wikipedia we define a party as "an organization of people which seeks to achieve goals common to its members through the acquisition and exercise of political power". That is a broad definition and clearly includes the FLD, who eventually registered as an association under the name Federalisti Liberali. Moreover, you should know that everywhere (and most recently in Estonia) modern structured parties emerged from parliamentary parties, and that a party can be parliamentary-only also these days. --Checco (talk) 07:40, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Checco that Maremmano needs to learn to seek consensus when making significant and quite possibly controversial changes to articles, including wholesale renaming of articles with long-established article titles, which can cause much disruption on Wiki (which, after all, is a collaborative group effort and by it's nature requires consensus). Also, there needs to be no legal basis for recognition of an organisation as a political party for an organisation to be deemed a political party - in many nations there is no legal registering of parties, and historically speaking many important political parties only operated, essentially, as parliamentary groups.--Autospark (talk) 11:23, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
These speeches are personal interpretations, pratically they are original researches, but Wikipedia is based on sources. I don't know the Estonia's policy, therefore I don't comment it, but in Italy the "only parliamentary parties" don't exist. I agree to create a section "Former parliamentary groups" (groups that didn't represent just a party with at least 20 deputies or 10 senators), but the parliamentary groups can't be inserted in a section for parties--Maremmano (talk) 19:50, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
Parliamentary parties exist according to political science, what Italian politicians, journalists or legal scholars (including you) say is not relevant. Please understand that this is en.Wikipedia and that we adhere to European/international standards. --Checco (talk) 10:13, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
I have finally understood your error! "Parliamentary party" is only a mere alternative name of "Parliamentary group" in the english language. There are two pages:
  1. Parliamentary group : "A parliamentary group, parliamentary party, or parliamentary caucus is a group consisting of members of the same political party or electoral fusion of parties in a legislative assembly such as a parliament or a city council."
  2. Political party : "A political party is an organization of people which seeks to achieve goals common to its members through the acquisition and exercise of political power."
Also Wikipedia says that Political parties and Parliamentary parties/group are two different things. How is this page called? "List of political parties in Italy"! This page concerns only the political parties and not the parliamentary parties (best known as "Parliamentary groups"). Therefore you CAN'T enter the parliamentary parties (or groups) in a page only for political parties. I hope you have finally realized it.--Maremmano (talk) 20:59, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Your comments are a good evidence that you are not aware of the basic notions of political science. It's not a big deal: I would not know anything about commercial law, of which you might be an expert. Everyone has his skills and Wikipedia is a great place to share them. If you had the opportunity to follow a class in political science or history of political parties, you would learn that modern parties emerged as parliamentary parties and only later structured themselves outside elected assemblies. This said, a party can be easily parliamentary-only also today—and I'm not talking about "parliamentary groups" (intended as a structured party's emanation in Parliament). I hope you will finally realize that there are many things you need to learn. --Checco (talk) 07:26, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
The sources say clearly that "Federalists and Liberal Democrats" was only a Parliamentary group, Checco! The original research is prohibited in Wikipedia! Where is written that Wikipedia adheres to this doctrinal theory? Nowhere!--Maremmano (talk) 20:20, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Don't you really understand that Italian sources, especially news sources, don't use political/politological terms correctly and that some Italian journalistic distinctions are not shared at the European/international level? --Checco (talk) 08:40, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
For Checco parties and parliamentary groups are the same thing. For this motive all parliamentary groups must be included in the list of parties. --Maremmano (talk) 22:35, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
They're not the same thing (and I've never said that, indeed). You're probably confusing political parties, which can be parliamentary-only (as in the case of the FLD) or, for that matter, extra-parliamentary (there are even parties which don't participate in elections), with parliamentary groups/parties. --Checco (talk) 07:16, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Following your reasoning groups and parties are the same thing. It is an original research, or we remove FLD from that section or I'll insert the other groups that are identical to FLD, for consistency--Maremmano (talk) 19:35, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
"You have wanted it" (sic), you say. No, I didn't. I repeatedly explained to you that there is a difference between political parties, which can be also parliamentary-only, and parliamentary groups per se. However, despite you're acting on the rebound and, in fact, disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point, I don't disagree with your last edit. The real problem is that the links you added are far from being complete: several other groups, including the current For Italy, are not included in the list. Please add them all. --Checco (talk) 10:06, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
PS: En.Wiki is open to everyone, also to non-native speakers like you and me, but please try to improve, starting with something little: using correct hyphens!
You don't have to explain me the difference between political parties and parliamentary groups, because you haven't understood it! You take advantage of the fact that I am only one, but imposing informations without sources is VANDALISM!!! Now the page is ridiculous. Wikipedia doesn't say that political partiescan be also parliamentary-only. All the sources say that FLD was only a parliamentary group and YOU IMPOSE AN ORIGINAL RESEARCH! This edit shows that you always want to be right, also when you are clearly wrong! This conduct is not mature. If the user Autospark were honest he would admit that Wikipedia doesn't recognize the parliamentary-only parties and that parliamentary parties and political parties are two different things! --Maremmano (talk) 09:24, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm sick and tired of your behaviour. It is you who don't understand what I'm saying. Simply, we hold opposite views: please respect mine, as I respect yours. You need to understand that Wikipedia is a co-operative effort. As you perfectly know, most of the times I appeased you. Please stop imposing your views and offending me. --Checco (talk) 09:14, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
I don't want to offend anyone but you haven't reason. Is it a strong consesus the opinion of only two users for you? Then you didn't answer my questions, you don't explain why for the the mere parliamentary groups and the political parties are th same thing, while I have shown that Wikipedia distinguishes the two concepts. Do you appeased me most of the times? It seems that I need your permission or licence to edit! The problem is that you haven't a real consensus to impose that statement on parties and if you can't prove what you say I can delete these edits. The mere consensus of only two allied users is irrilevant if the edit is wrong and it can't be demonstrated. Why refuse you my proposal to create a section for the parliamentary groups/parties?--Maremmano (talk) 21:17, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
I never said that! It seems to me that the main problem here is your inadequate familiarity with political science and knowledge of English. Worse, you keep editing pages in poor English and ignoring Wikipedia standards and other users' advices (e.g. how many times do I have to ask you to use hyphens properly?). Also my English is far from perfect, but I always do my best to improve and comply with writing customs. This said, I find your proposal on a section on parliamentary groups interesting. The problem is that it would cause long discussions on each and every outfit. The FLD, the Liberals for Italy, etc. are definitely parties by European standards, Independent Left, National Cohesion, etc. are clearly technical groupings, others might be difficult to classify. OR would be around the corner. In order to have such a section, we should first agree on its rules. Secondly, we would need to make sure all parliamentary groups thus defined are included. Otherwise, we should return to the previous consensus. Ideas? --Checco (talk) 08:04, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
"Inadequate familiarity with political science".... Isn't Italy an european country? Aren't the italian standards also europen standards? Please, don't say certain things, the european standards and italian standards are the same! Can you demonstrate that they are different? I doubt it. For example, the existence of a difference between People and Territory and Federalists and Liberal Democrats is only your opinion, but really they are two parliamentary groups that include some independents and some members of political parties. My idea is to create a section in which include the parliamentary groups that weren't the projection of a political party (with at least 20 deputies or 10 senators)--Maremmano (talk) 22:14, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Political science is not very studied in Italy and Italians frequently use political terms in a peculiar way: just think of political ideologies or movimento!
This said, I'm quite interested in your proposal. Could you draw a list of all the "parliamentary groups that weren't the projection of a political party" here? Then we could discuss whether and how including it in the article. Many thanks, --Checco (talk) 07:58, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
What you said is not true, it is only a a prejudice. Party can be a generic term, but in the specific terms there are some little differences between Movement and Political party in the strict sense. In this sense, following your reasoning, the hypothetical "italian's science" would be more accurate. The section would include certainly: Independent Left (Italy), Federalists and Liberal Democrats, People and Territory, National Cohesion, "For the Third Pole" and perhaps "For the Autonomies - PSI - MAIE". In the future also For Italy. --Maremmano (talk) 12:35, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
You recent comments are an evidence of your scarce knowledge of political science. We need to comply with European/Wikipedian standards here.
The list you are proposing is too short. We would need to include all parliamentary groups, past and present, and they are many more than those you mentioned. Please do a complete research (at least since 1946) and then we can discuss. --Checco (talk) 08:16, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
You talk about things that you do not know, it is now evident. But which European standards??? A group is a group and a party is a party, in Italy and in other european countries. The list of groups is complete, please be serious! Now I'm tired, I asked you the difference beetwen PT and FLD and you didn't answer, I asked you to prove your claims and you haven't done it. You haven't any consensus (an alliance between two users isn't a consensus) and you can't prove these imaginative european standards (different from italian standards). Imposing an original research is vandalism, this discussion has now become useless, I do not need your authorization to correct errors--Maremmano (talk) 19:31, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
You should be able to discuss calmly and understand what other users are telling you (otherwise ask). The list you are proposing is far from complete: only in the 1990s there were at least twice the parliamentary groups you mentioned. You need to do a complete research and seek consensus before editing the list. --Checco (talk) 08:36, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Ps: In my previous comment, I was referring to your strange comments on "movement v. party".
I have checked but I have not found other groups. You have inserted an advice but you have not even mentioned another group. If you know other groups you have to insert them, but for me the list is complete--Maremmano (talk) 19:51, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
You should be able to do a research on the historical pages of the websites of the Chamber of Deputies and the Senate by yourself, so please do it (as it is you who proposed the new sections). --Checco (talk) 13:44, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
I did the research for you and I found four more groups. Hope none is missing now. --Checco (talk) 14:48, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Some proposals on the names of parties[edit]

I propose to change the names of these parties that are listed in the page:

I also propose to unify the pages Liberal Party (Italy) and Italian Liberal Party (2004) (DISCUSSION).

Justify your positions, please--Maremmano (talk) 21:43, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I disagree with most proposals and I will answer in the respective talk pages. --Checco (talk) 10:13, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Latest moves by Wololoo[edit]

Hello, yesterday User:Wololoo moved the following articles:

  • Centre-right coalition to Centre-right coalition (Italy);
  • Centre-left coalition to Centre-left coalition (Italy);
  • The Extreme to Historical Far-Left.

I am not sure that a disambiguation was needed for the first two pages: only in the Italian context, coalitions are consistently referred to that way. Additionally, is Historical Far-Left the best name for the latter article? Or should we remove the hyphen (Historical Far Left)?

As a side note, I am going to add the latter to the list of former parliamentary groups. Are there othere former parliamentary groups which are not yet listed in the article? Can User:Wololoo, User:Nick.mon and User:Autospark help me to check that? --Checco (talk) 07:26, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I added 19th-century parties to the list. Even though their were active mainly at the parliamentary level, they were the parties of the time. 19th-century parties were loosely organised virtually everywhere. They were basically parliamentary parties. Hope everyone agrees.
If some parties you are aware of are still missing, please add them. Thanks and cheers, --Checco (talk) 08:10, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
I personally prefer "Historical Far Left" -- Nick.mon (talk) 09:08, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
I don't mind whether "Historical Far Left" or "Historical Far-Left", but adding a hyphen would make it 'fit' with a hyphen existing in the article name for Dissident Left-wing (which might need renaming to Dissident Left, to be honest). I would like Centre-left coalition and Centre-right coalition restored as article names without the redundant disambiguation.--Autospark (talk) 15:47, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
I don't mind either, but I slightly prefer "Historical Far Left", especially because I support moving "Dissident Left-wing" to "Dissident Left". Finally, I also agree that we should restore the latter two article names, without the redundant "(Italy)" disambiguation. --Checco (talk) 15:59, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Checco, but do you control my every edit? However I support the move to "Dissident Left" (the choice between "Historical Far Left" or "Historical Far-Left" is indifferent to me) but... how can you think that titles such as "Centre-left coalition" and "Centre-right coalition" are correct? Not even in itwiki there are titles like "Coalizione di centro-destra" or "Coalizione di centro-sinistra". These titles are generic, Centre-left or centre-right coalitions exist also in other countries (such as in France or in Albania). A (not italian) reader doesn't search a page such as Centre-right coalition thinking necessarily at the italian policy. It is necessary to specify a thing: currently in Italy, at national level, there are not either a centre-left coalition or a centre-right coalition. Indeed: currently, at national level, Northern League/Brothers of Italy and Forza Italia aren't allied. Same speech for the PD: it is at government with other centrist parties, but for now there is no real electoral coalition. Furthermore the page about the centre-left coalition is written in a wrong way: it was not founded in 2007 and it doesn't replace "The Union", but it concerns all the centre-left italian coalitions (Olive Tree, Union, 2008 coalition, Italy. Common Good). Finally: it is unthinkable keeping the previous titles, if you don't like the disambiguation we can move these pages to "Italian Centre-right coalition" and "Italian Centre-left coalition" (correcting the second page), but the reference to Italy is indispensable!--Wololoo (talk) 21:26, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Dissident Left-wing to Dissident Left: I moved the article; thanks for the support here and at Talk:Dissident Left.
  • Historical Far-Left to Historical Far Left: along with User:Nick.mon, I also support the move, but the current name is no big deal.
  • Centre-right coalition to Centre-right coalition (Italy) & Centre-left coalition to Centre-left coalition (Italy): like User:Autospark I oppose the moves (while I agree with User:Wololoo that both articles should be edited); "centre-right coalition" and "centre-left coalition" have been extensively used with reference to Italy (of course, there are centre-right/left coalitions in other countries, but they are more loosely organised); any opinion, Nick? --Checco (talk) 09:26, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Don't worry Wololoo, Checco doesn't control your edits, the only reason is that he had all the pages concerning Italian politics in his watchlist, to prevent vandalism :) anyway I prefer:
  • Dissident Left: if there's Historical Left (not Historical Left-wing) we should have also Dissident Left;
  • Historical Far Left: as I said before, I personally prefer this name
  • I have no preferences regarding Centre-right coalition and Centre-left coalition, anyway I think that adding "(Italy)" at the end of the two names could clarify any doubts about the disambiguation. -- Nick.mon (talk) 10:12, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Fair enough on User:Wololoo's bold moves: there are two users for and two against; in cases like this, we usually abide by the former established consensus, but I think that we all can live with the new names (do you agree, User:Autospark, or should we get back to the old names?). Regarding the proposed move of "Historical Far-Left" to "Historical Far Left", I think that User:Nick.mon can go ahead with it. --Checco (talk) 11:14, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
With a simple research on Internet it is possible to see that the results about "centre-left/right coalition" refer to many countries (Croatia, Portugal, Germany, Iceland etc.), therefore they are not terms "extensively used with reference to Italy", the reference to Italy is needed --Wololoo (talk) 16:03, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
As I said, it is not a big deal, but that is not the case. "Centre-right/left coalition is generically used in several countries, while in Italy it has a distinctive and unequivocal meaning. --Checco (talk) 11:40, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

More proposed moves[edit]

The following moves have been proposed:

--Checco (talk) 11:40, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

I specify that the pages should be moved to Unitary Socialist Party, that is the correct translation--Wololoo (talk) 21:46, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure on "unitary", but if User:Autospark (who is a native English speaker) agrees, I will also agree. --Checco (talk) 08:29, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Unitary is a more literal translation, but it does work without sounding unwieldy. I had a look at sources on Google Books for reference. While most English sources currently available on GB seem to leave the party's name untranslated, although translations used are Unitary Socialist Party, United Socialist Party or Socialist Unity Party. I find the first two relatively interchangeable, and would be content with either. (Also note that uses the title United Socialist Party–Socialist Consent for the Sammarinese party also named Partito Socialista Unitario in Italian.)--Autospark (talk) 15:25, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Well, I think that also the title of the Sammarinese party should be moved. After all the most correct translation is Unitary, right?--Wololoo (talk) 15:43, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
It is the most literal translation, yes. And having looked through Google Books, I can see there is precedent for the translation Unitary Socialist Party: here, here, here and here, for example.--Autospark (talk) 16:39, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

More edits by Wololoo[edit]

User:Wololoo was bold and modified the conditions of admission for regional parties. I have nothing against introducing the "one-elect" clause, but we should check all the results of regional elections in each region in order to see whether other parties need to be included accordingly. User:Wololoo, are you going to do that? Side notes: I restored "We Independent Veneto" because the regional councillor elected in the latest regional election was neither a member of Liga Veneta Repubblica nor of North-East Project; for the correct names of Lega Lombarda and Liga Veneta, see the websites of Regional Councils. --Checco (talk) 07:29, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Ehm, I feel a bit in the spotlight, Checco, it is the second title's discussion with my user name. I have only added a rule that includes the parties that have elected at least one councilor (more important than splinter parties with two regional councilors). After all, I saw that also you have recently modified the criteria without particular discussions. However, before these changes, the threshold was of 1%, this means that now there cannot be more parties than before. About the lombard and venetian sections of LN, I would say that the name provided by the official sites ([1] and [2]) is decidedly more important than the names of the groups in the regional councils... --Wololoo (talk) 21:59, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes, User:Wololoo, but you are in the spotlight, indeed: you rocked our world! Before your arrival, only three users (User:Nick.mon, User:Autospark and I) consistently contributed to the articles on Italian politics. It is no surprise that I could edit rules of admission without much debate. There was a general agreement on my edits and, instead of discussing in talk pages, we mostly "thanked" each other. Your arrival and your different perspectives opened several discussions and this is a good thing. On the issues, I do not think that regional parties having elected at least one councillor are more important than splinter parties with two regional councillors, but I accepted your edit, provided that you can add all the additional regional parties. Finally, on the Venetian and Lombard sections of Lega Nord, I really think that the most common name should be the one used in regional councils and, usually, municipal councils. --Checco (talk) 08:22, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Don't worry, I'm just going to correct and add a few things, I will not contribute here for a long time. However, making a research, I see that the most used names are LN-Lega Lombarda and LN-Liga Veneta, in the news and also for the groups in the communal councils of Milan ([3]) and Verona ([4]). Also LN-LL and LN-LV are used, but if the primary sources use LN-LV and LN-LV as names, I have no doubt about what is the official name! And about the other regional parties there aren't problems, because the previous list (with the 1% threshold) already included the parties that elected at least one regional councilor--Wololoo (talk) 10:32, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
The previous list, not the current one! Please update it. And, please, stay with us in the long term! --Checco (talk) 10:40, 18 February 2017 (UTC)


A few days ago User:Lommes included File:Italy-2nd-rep-parties.svg in the article, an edit I rollbacked beacuse I felt that the graph was "not particularly clear, helpful and useful". I still think that way, especially because most party symbols are obscure for readers (by the way, I am not sure one can use those non-free symbols in a graph) and parties/coalitions are not ordered in a reasonable way (let's say, right to left) or just a kind of order.

Yesterday, User:Lommes wrote the following message to my talk page (I always like to discuss on issues related to articles in their dedicated talk pages:

Dear Checco,

instead of just reverting the inclusion of File:Italy-2nd-rep-parties.svg, could you please give feedback as to why you think it is "not particularly clear, helpful and useful", and what one could do the remedy your concerns?

It may be that you, coming from Italy, have a very particular view on this. For someone from outside Italy, the italian political landscape with its dozens of parties is extremely confusing. The graphic aims at giving at least a rough overview of the parties, when they were active, and in which coalitions they took part in elections. For someone from outside Italy this information might be a crucial first step to navigating the complex of Italian politics.

Thanks, --Lommes (talk) 15:19, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Despite practically calling me "Italian" ("coming from Italy", to be precise), User:Lommes raised interesting points. As I said, I do not like the graph, I find it "not particularly clear, helpful and useful" (let me add also confusing) and I have doubts on its very rationale (as non-free symbols are used in it), but I am much open to a discussion on the issue and, for this reason, I would like other users to express their views. Cheers, --Checco (talk) 08:50, 4 March 2017 (UTC)