Talk:Forza Italia (2013)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Color

What about Forza Italia color? I have chosen #0F52BA, but I think that we could also choose the one used for the PdL. What do you think? -- Nick.mon (talk) 13:28, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Sure. The new Forza Italia is basically the evolution of PdL. The party colors for FI (1994), PdL and FI (2013) should be the same. --Checco (talk) 22:24, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Ok, no problem, the azure of the PdL and former FI is good. -- Nick.mon (talk) 11:45, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Ideology

Dear all,

We should probably wait a little bit before assigning any ideology to the new Forza Italia.

In my view, there are two possible interpretations on the party:

• the re-edition of the old one? then, it is a broadly liberal-conservative party, with liberal, Christian-democratic and even social-democratic factions (the same sources for the ideology of the old FI and that of the PdL are good for the new FI);
• a totally new party? then, it is too early to classify it.

In fact, the new FI might be much more liberal than its predecessor. For instance, Berlusconi recently spoke in favour of gay marriage and signed twelve referenda proposed by the Italian Radicals, including abolition of life imprisonment, decriminalization of soft drugs, liberalization of immigration, reduction of public funds to religious communities, introduction of a quicker path toward divorce, and abolition of public funding for parties (see here). We'll see.

In any case, I would wait a little more before adding ideologies to the infobox. Moreover, it is much more important to work on the article itself!

--Checco (talk) 22:24, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Berlusconi seems to be more liberal than in the past (has he never been a real liberal?). Anyway we must remember that in the new party, there are some prominent figures who came from right-wing parties, and in some cases, post-fascist parties, for example Daniela Santanchè, who will have a prominent role in the new Forza Italia. Yes, the leader seems to be more liberal (always a staunch anti-communist and anti-leftists, but more liberal), but there are also important personalities from right-wing movements. -- Nick.mon (talk) 11:44, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Checco that we should wait to see what transpires in terms of the new Forza Italia before deciding on ideology. It may in time turn out to be merely a rebranded Pdl, or a different beast entirely. Time will tell on this issue.--Autospark (talk) 13:29, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Santanchè is surely a leading figure within PdL/FI, but her views are much less important than Berlusconi's in determining the party's ideology, and she is not a full-fledged right-winger either. [She grew up in a Liberal household and has never been a fascist or a neo-fascist: her entry in AN was part of that party's strategy to recruit liberals, Christian democrats, moderate conservatives and even former Socialists. It's not a surprise, then, that Santanchè has sided with Berlusconi over the last years and has no intention to join the conservative party Alemanno, La Russa and other former AN dignitaries are trying to organize.] Generally speaking, in classifying the new FI's ideology, we should definitely pay attention to Berluscon's views and to those of thousands of liberals and Christian democrats, who make the party. This said, we still need notable and authoritative sources on the new FI in order to insert anything in the infobox. --Checco (talk) 07:57, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Santanchè run in 2008 for The Right-Tricolour Flame as the Prime Minister candidate for this party. Tricolour Flame is a neo-fascist party and The Right it's right-wing/post-fascist one, so Santanchè is not so liberal, in my view. Anyway in FI there's only one person who will took the decisions about all, Silvio Berlusconi. So the ideology of the party is inextricably connected with his ideology. And I agree with you two, we had to wait, before insert the ideologies in the infobox. -- Nick.mon (talk) 14:14, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

When Santanchè was with The Right, the party included also libertarians.

This said, I totally agree with you on the rest. --Checco (talk) 15:23, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Ok perfect! Now let's wait and see what Berlusconi will do, and then, we will write together Forza Italia's ideologies and positions in the political spectrum. -- Nick.mon (talk) 18:45, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Title

Deh, ma come? Forza Italia è Forza Italia e Alleanza Nazionale è National Alliance? E il PDL é Freedom etc etc? La traduzione dei nomi si fa ogni tanto e basta? --217.221.35.153 (talk) 09:59, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

First of all, please use English in en.Wiki, otherwise don't be surprised if no-one answers to your queries.

Secondly, we discussed this issue many times before (see Talk:Forza Italia). "Forza Italia" is not easily translatable in English because "forza" has many meanings in Italian; moreover, the party is know in international media primarily under the Italian name.

Take care, --Checco (talk) 10:34, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

It is precisely because the parties may have names difficult to translate that it would be better not to translate them. -- Yiyi (Dimmi!) 20:09, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I fully agree, we should not translate proper nouns. We may explain in parenhteses the meaning of the name (if it makes sense) - that's it. But never ever should we invent new names.--Sajoch (talk) 22:45, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

separate article

Hello all! I think it is a good idea for us to consider merging this article with the main Forza Italia one. Rather than a new political party, it seems (and is being reported that) this is more of a relaunching of the old party by Berlusconi. Any thoughts?

Sources that treat it as a relaunching:

BBC
ABC
Euronews (I'm unfamiliar with the source, so not sure if reputable or not)
Foxnews
Washington Post

I believe most are citing the AP article about it, but it is being widely reported as a relaunching. Ljpernic (talk) 15:50, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

As I have argued in some user talks, I am for the two-article option, per similar cases (see Italian Socialist Party and Italian Socialist Party (2007), Italian Liberal Party and Italian Liberal Party (2004), etc.). Legally speaking, Forza Italia 1994 and Forza Italia 2013 are two different entities. Even more important in my mind, having two distinct pages is the best solution for readers. --Checco (talk) 21:06, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, it is a good point about the other political parties, but the circumstances are a little different and that makes the comparison a little complicated... the Socialist Party disbanded in 1994 and didn't restart until 2007. Moreover, the 2007 party was formed from a group of smaller leftist parties, some of which had not been affiliated (or even in existence) when the Socialist Party broke up. The same is true of the Liberal Party, which broke up in 1994 and wasn't reestablished until 2004. Splinters from the original dissolution went in a variety of directions, and only a small group reemerged as the new Liberal Party. In both of these cases, a strong argument can be made that these aren't the same parties, but rather just new, ideologically-similar parties that took the same name. Forza Italia, on the other hand, wasn't dissolved until 2008, and at that time it was combined into the People of Freedom by Berlusconi (among others)... So, it seems to me, rather than FI being a new political party, it is the same one that Berlusconi had join the PdL and is now separating again. Initially, the PdL was a kind of federation of parties, and in this framework, FI was simply a member that is now becoming autonomous once more. What do you think of this line of reasoning? Ljpernic (talk) 21:44, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Also the composition of the new FI is quite different from that of the original FI. Several former AN members and many other individuals (and groups) will participate in the new party, which is more of an evolution of the PdL than a simple revival of the old party. I strongly think that two articles are needed (especially for the sake of readers), but let's hear other opinions... --Checco (talk) 21:55, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi there. We briefly discussed this in the German Wikpedia, too, and decided to launch a separate article for now. We however went on discussing the issue with our friends from the Italian Wikipedia (see it:Discussione:Forza Italia and it:Wikipedia:Bar/Discussioni/Nuovo_partito) coming to the preliminary conclusion that the "new" party in most every regard is a continuation of the "old" Forza Italia.
It's not even likely that they are two different legal subjects at all. What is known to be a "fusion" of Forza Italia and Alleanza Nazionale in 2009, in fact was a dissolution of the latter, followed by AN-members joining the new PdL. And now in 2013, PdL renamed itself "Forza Italia" again, with a fraction breaking away.
Now, given that not just the president, but even the headquarters remained the same in the whole Forza Italia->PdL->Forza Italia process, it is safe to assume that the "new" Forza Italia is either the same legal entity as the old Forza Italia, or at least the only legal successor.
For all of these reasons we're currently inclined to merging back the two articles, in line with the tenor of the discussion in the Italian Wikipedia. Regards, --PanchoS (talk) 17:12, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

That's not correct. At most it is the other way around: the new FI is just the PdL under a new name. Legal issues over parties are very complicate in Italy, especially because dissolved parties often continue to exist in order to take public funding: due to its participation in the 2013 election, the PdL will get public funding until 2018, as the Democrats of the Left (dissolved in 2007) did until 2012. Moreover, dissolved parties are often transformed into foundations in order to manage their properties: the Democrats of the Left and National Alliance, for instance, have still vast assets).

I am aware of the debate in it.Wiki, but it seems a little bit ludicrous, as many things going in there. FI, the PdL and the new FI should be treated as separate parties for the the sake of clarity and consistency (please note that similar cases have been managed this way: see Italian Socialist Party and Italian Socialist Party (2007), Christian Democracy (Italy) and Christian Democracy (Italy, 1997), etc.). --Checco (talk) 09:41, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Strongly agreed, we need to keep FI (old), PdL and FI (new) as completely separate articles (as, say, on the Italian centre-left PDS, DS and PD are kept on separate articles). Particularly as, currently, we cannot know if the new FI will match either the significance or longevity of the original.--Autospark (talk) 02:37, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Officina per l'Italia disagree with liberalism?

Is the prime reason to create Officina per l'Italia really disagreement with FI's liberalism? I would assume that the motives are more diverse (including personal ambitions and connections, making oneself more independent from Berlusconi - I think I remember Alemanno saying something like "post-Berlusconian centre-right"). Why should avowed liberals like Tremonti or Guido Crosetto disagree with liberalism? I thought they were not more conservative than FI's mainstream (and FI still include more conservative figures, don't they?) Officina per l'Italia claims to be open for the whole centre-right, including secular liberals, Christian democrats, reformists. Is there a source that argues that the FI - Officina per l'Italia divide is indeed mainly an ideological (i.e. liberalism vs. conservatism) thing? Kind regards --RJFF (talk) 18:34, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Earlier today I though about how changing that sentence. Please feel free to edit it as you like.

Officina per l'Italia is definitely to the right of the new FI: it's trying to attract people from different backgrounds, but they are mostly conservative (Allam is just an example). Moreover, I would not describe Tremonti as an "awowed liberal" (he is a social democrat on economic issues and a conservative on social issues) and Crosetto is at most a conservative liberal. Moreover, there is really a chance that the new FI will be more liberal than the PdL: liberals (like Galan) who were marginalized in the PdL will have a bigger role in the new FI, Sacconi accused the the new elite as nihilist, most social conservatives are close to Alfano and may leave the party, etc. Over the next months two or three parties might emerge from the break-up of the PdL: the already mentioned Officina (Brothers of Italy, Alemanno, Allam, etc.), the rightist "Movement for the National Alliance" (Future and Freedom, The Right, Tricolour Flame, Poli Bortone, etc.) and possibly a Christian-democratic outfit led by Alfano. A lot of work to do in Wikipedia! Stay tuned! --Checco (talk) 20:54, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Ideology (Part 2)

Hi what about the ideology of the new Forza Italia? In my view, the party isn't more liberal conservative as in the past. FI is now a soft Eurosceptic party, because Berlusconi criticized more and more frequently EU and Merkel's politics. So what do you think we should write about the ideologies? -- Nick.mon (talk) 16:13, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello,

Similarly to Berlusconi, Renzi is critical of Ms Merkel and of some aspects of the EU: is the PD a soft Eurosceptic party, then? I don't think so. Secondly, do you have sources in support of "soft Euroscepticism"? Finally, I don't consider "Euroscepticism" to be an ideology.

This said, I take this opportunity to explain my view on the ideology of FI, as well as that of NCD.

Having analyzed the two parties' composition, I have to say that, even though both are overwhelmingly Christian democratic, FI includes several liberals and social democrats, while NCD is more socially conservative and has fewer liberals.

FI's core is Christian-democratic (Gelmini, M. Bianconi, Fitto, Palese, Romano, Romele, Rotondi, Giro, Baldassarre, Antinoro, Bartolozzi, Gardini, Chiodi, etc.), but the party includes also several social democrats (Cesaro, Russo, Santelli, Bonaiuti, Bondi, Bonfrisco, Carraro, Caldoro, Sartori, etc.) and a disproportionate number of liberals (Brunetta, Baldelli, Capezzone, Fontana, Galan, Martino, Prestigiacomo, Ravetto, Vito, Romani, Bruno, Casellati, Ghedini, Malan, etc.).

For its part, NCD includes several Christian democrats (Alfano, Bernardo, Bianchi, Calabrò, Castiglione, Lupi, Roccella, Vignali, L. Bianconi, Di Giacomo, Formigoni, Giovanardi, Naccarato, Quagliariello, Sacconi, Schifani, La Via, Antoniozzi, Bonsignore, Cancian, Mazzoni, etc.) and a sizeable number of social democrats (Cicchitto, Pizzolante, Colucci, Dalla Tor, Gentile, Vicari, Pallone, etc.), but just a handful of liberals (Costa, Casero, Lorenzin, Compagna, etc.).

Former MSI/AN members, most of whom are now active in FdI, are very few in both FI (Polverini, Santanchè, Bernini, Gasparri, Matteoli, Mussolini, Rivellini, etc.) and NCD (Giorgetti, Saltamartini, Augello, Angelilli, Scopelliti, ecc.), but the latter has possibly more of them.

Generally speaking, FI is more liberal (both on economic and social issues) than NCD, which includes most of the former PdL's social conservatives and economic populists (=more traditional Christian democrats, statists, social democrats, etc.). Despite its current alliance with the PD, NCD is definitely to the right of FI. If you're not convinced, just listen to Schifani's remarks and Alfano's last five minutes of speech at NCD's first convention. Pure social conservatism!

Thus:

• FI: liberal conservatism, Christian democracy, liberalism
• NCD: Christian democracy, liberal conservatism, social conservatism

Of course we need sources (and sources might contradict me), but I'm much convinced of what I said, especially as FI wants to stay in the EPP and is stronger in the economically liberal North than the welfarist South. --Checco (talk) 15:26, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Ps: Please note that I classified the politicians for their current ideology not their former party (e.g. Brunetta, Rocella, Sacconi, Quagliariello, etc.)

Are now Bondi, Bonaiuti and the other social democrats? I do not completely agree. Anyway, your ideologies can be good...but all the political critics are saying that Berlusconi will do an electoral campaign for the European election focused on accuses to the EU, ECB and Merkel's politics. As you said now NCD has lot of social conservative members, one for all, Giovanardi, but saying that its position is more on the right than FI, I don't think it is correct. As you said in FI there are some former MSI/AN member, for example Santanchè, Gasparri and Matteoli, which are important in the party. And I am not completely sure that FI will join in EPP, or better, that the EPP will accept again Berlusconi after what he had said against them. And also Alfano often said that FI is now a party of extremists, well maybe this is only politic rhetoric, but I think that he is more informed than us. -- Nick.mon (talk) 14:45, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I confirm what I said. NCD is to the right of FI both socially and economically. FI is broadly a liberal party, NCD is broadly a conservative one. What Alfano says is just his political opinion—and an expression of his conflict-of-interest. Moreover, also UDC leaders long argued to be to the left of FI/PdL, but it's clear to eveyone that, by European standards, UDC is a right-wing party not a centrist one. I don't think the EPP will trade NCD for FI, as the latter will bring many more MEPs. However, whatever group FI will join (EPP or ECR?) after the 2014 EP election (now FI MEPs sit with the EPP), I wouldn't label it (or Renzi's PD, for that matter) "soft Eurosceptic".

Bondi, a former Communist, is clearly a social democrat: he is socially liberal on ethical issues, but on economic ones he is no free-market liberal. He is basically a centre-left politician, as many in FI are. In an another country, he would be a member of the social-democratic party. He likes Gordon Brown, Barack Obama, etc. Just read this and this.

Former MSI or AN members are a small minority in FI and, as I argued before, Santanchè comes from a Liberal household and is basically a liberal; Gasparri and Matteoli are two moderates now.

--Checco (talk) 12:01, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Excuse me but saying that Bondi has the same political view of Obama or Brown is, as we said in Italy, fantapolitica...Bondi, now he's not a social democrat, and in FI the right-wing members are more than the social-democratic one, otherwise FI would be the main centre-left movement in Italy, instead of the main centre-right one. Maybe Gasparri and Matteoli are two "moderates" (if a former fascist slugger can never become a moderate) but Santanchè is not a liberal at all, and she has never been a liberal; and what about Mussolini, is she a "moderate" or a liberal? I think that by now, in FI there are more extremists than in the past, when it was formed by "liberal" entrepreneurs, advocates and journalist. Indro Montanelli, a real liberal journalist who supported FI in its first years, understood than Berlusconi's party would never had been e real liberal party. As I said the former FI was more "liberal" than this one, which is composed by extremists, pseudo-liberals and former fascist. -- Nick.mon (talk) 14:13, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I would like to say something about NCD colors...what about a darker color? I was looking at the symbol and it is darker than the color that somebody have chosen... -- Nick.mon (talk) 14:21, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Bondi's views are very similar to those of a typical social democrat (he is the first to say it). Italian parties are quite ineteresting from a foreign point of view: FI includes plenty of social liberals (including a bunch anti-clericals), while the PD has many conservative elements (including those MEPs who tilted yesterday's vote in favour of anti-abortionists). FI is broadly liberal (though it includes also social democrats and conservatives), while the PD is broadly social-democratic (though it includes also conservatives and a bunch of liberals). Please do not consider individual members, but the whole party.

The current NCD color is just about right in my view. --Checco (talk) 15:36, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Ps: The fact that you use terms like "slugger" shows your POV. Gasparri and Matteoli have never been sluggers. Moreover, people change their minds: think of all those communists who are now social democrats, liberals or even conservatives (e.g. Bondi, D'Alema, etc.). Despite a year in The Right, Santanchè has always been a liberal. Montanelli never supported FI.

Your discussion is a very interesting read to me, but I hope that you are both aware that it is sheer original research. Nothing bad about well-informed people doing original research and discussing it, but Wikipedia is not the place for it. It is not a forum. If no one presents reliable sources dealing with the ideology of the new Forza Italia, this discussion is not leading to a substantial improvement of the article. --RJFF (talk) 18:34, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't completely agree with you, but I think that RJFF is right, maybe we are doing a political discussion not a discussion about FI ideologies with reliable sources. -- Nick.mon (talk) 17:47, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Btw, Checco's remarks and the discussion between both of you confirm my opinion that terms like conservatism, liberalism, socialism or social democracy and Christian democracy are near to meaningless in modern-day politics. They emerged in the 19th or early 20th century. Nowadays, the political cleavages may run completely different. Moreover "liberalism" and "conservatism" have very different meanings from country to country which makes them even less useful in an international project like Wikipedia. For Anglo-Saxons, "liberalism" is something close to European social democracy or greens, in most Romance countries (especially France) it is rather considered a right-wing current, corresponding to what Americans call "fiscal conservatism". Same goes for left, right and centre. It is much more important to describe the actual positions and policies of a party or a politician vis-à-vis specific issues instead of throwing around vacuous ideology labels. --RJFF (talk) 18:51, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

UDC is considered a centrist party because they are ready to enter coalitions with both the centre-left and centre-right camp, not because of their actual positions regarding programmatic questions. Left, right, and centre are often determined by the relationship of the different parties and movements among themselves and say little about the content of their programmes. If you look at their ideas, (Italian) fascists were neither more (socially) conservative, nor more capitalist than mainstream conservatives. What makes them far-right is their fundamental, insurmountable opposition to all leftists (and vice versa). --RJFF (talk) 19:00, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree with RJFF the ideologies changes from a country to another one, it's very difficult to establish a single political spectrum for all the parties of the World...especially now, in a time where parties are not more identified with a clear political ideology. -- Nick.mon (talk) 18:09, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

We all aware that Wikipedia is not a forum and that, without sources, our discussion is worth nothing, but, as also RJFF's comments show, we often like to discuss just for the sake of it. I don't think that "terms like conservatism, liberalism, socialism or social democracy and Christian democracy are near to meaningless in modern-day politics", but, yes, they "have very different meanings from country to country". Comparing and classifying parties, that's what comparative politics is all about. There are European standards and they should be implemented. Of course, we are not the ones who can do it. Hopefully political scientists will write about FI and NCD, but what are we going to do in the meantime? --Checco (talk) 22:25, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I must point your attention at WP:NOR. --Vituzzu (talk) 16:37, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

I must point your attention at it.Wiki (of which you are an administrator), where articles on parties are usually poorly sourced, there's a lot of confusion about ideologies, party colors are chosen according to the party's ideology (as interpreted by users) and thus ignoring the parties' official colors, etc. Here we are all aware of WP:NOR. There? --Checco (talk) 17:41, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Number of MEPs

There is no source on the exact number of Forza Italia' MEPs, but here's what I have:

• 12 MEPs are listed as FI members of the EPP at the EP's website and, as RJFF correctly pointed out, also Bertot and Comi definitely are;
• this source shows how also Mastella (EPP) and his UDEUR party joined FI;
• this source shows that also Antinoro (EPP), along his PiD/CP colleagues, joined FI;
• this source confirms De Martini's decision to join FI, despite sitting with ECR.

Thus, FI MEPs are 17: 16 seat with the EPP, one with ECR. I'm not sure on Rossi, a conservative former member of LN who looks closer to FdI or NCD.

I hope I won't upset anyone if I edit the infobox, according to my "original research". --Checco (talk) 14:45, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Nordsieck...

...refers to FI, not just the PdL, when describing the parties as lib-con and Chr-dem (see here). And he's right. --Checco (talk) 08:59, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Note: This comment was wrongly posted in Talk:Forza Italia and only now moved to here. --Checco (talk) 10:08, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

OK. --RJFF (talk) 20:57, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Adherence to EPP

The EPP's website simply is not up to date, but FI is the legal heir of Pdl and old FI, therefore the membership is automatic (and it dates back to 1999) --Maremmano (talk) 22:39, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure about this, but it is not relevant anymore as you provided a source for that! Many thanks. --Checco (talk) 12:45, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Number of senators

Hi Checco! I know that six FI senators are in GAL group, and in fact I think that we should write them only in GAL (which have 15 senators) and leave FI with 60 senators, as in the Senate website. Also in the group For the Autonomies there is a member of the PD, I don't know if it is counted also in the page of the Democratic Party. Thank you! -- Nick.mon (talk) 09:01, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Those six senators are fully members of FI, thus they should be counted as FI senators. However, you have a good point on Francesco Palermo, the Democratic senator elected in South Tyrol belonging to the For Autonomies group. I would count him in the PD article's infobox with note. --Checco (talk) 09:08, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I was bold and I didit. Good for you? --Checco (talk) 09:12, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Perfect! Thank you very much! -- Nick.mon (talk) 09:30, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Translation to English

Hello, I'm mother tongue English but living in Italy. "Forward Italy" is a terrible translation of "Forza Italia". It can't be easily translated but "Come on Italy!" would be closer.

Given that there's no good translation and the party is known internationally well by it's 'native' name would anyone mind if I just delete the part stating "translating to Forward Italy"? It doesn't add anything to the article and it's misleading. If someone was so inclined they could create a sub-section discussing the meaning of Forza but that's probably more for a dictionary than an encyclopedia. Bleveret (talk) 20:10, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Go for it! "Forward Italy" makes no sense at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.60.84.2 (talk) 20:00, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

It makes sense, in fact. It is a good translation and is used in several publications just a few examples are cited in the present article). While I think that the article should be named "Forza Italia" (an exception to the general rule according to which the names of the parties should be translated), I also think that "Forward Italy" is definitely a better, more literal and more appropriate translation than "Com On Italy" or "Let's Go Italy". There has been a general consensus on "Forza Italia" as primary name and "Forward Italy" as primary translation: I stick to that and strongly so. --Checco (talk) 06:25, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

"Forward Italy" is not a literal translation of "Forza Italia" at all. "Forward" would literally be correct if the name of the party was "Avanti Italia", the party isn't called "Avanti Italia", so "Forward Italy" is a literal mistranslation of "Forza Italia".

Also, what general consensus? Checco and Nick.mon are the only users to endorse this translation as far as I can tell. But why invent this translation at all? En.wiki is supposed to base things like this on prevailing use in English; the prevailing convention among respected English-language publications is to use the untranslated name Forza Italia when referring to the party. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.60.84.2 (talk) 19:31, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Forza and avanti are practically synonyms, but "Forward" resembles Forza more than "Let's Go". The general consensus in en.Wiki is that this article is named with the party's Italian name and the most commonly used translation is "Forward Italy". It has been like this for more than ten years and, in fact, in the past I opposed any moves to change the article's name, even though I usually support English names. This consensus is definitely supported by the three users who are more active in the articles about Italian politics and parties, namely User:Nick.mon, User:Autospark and myself. We perfectly know that most English sources use Forza Italia and we also know that there is not a fully convincing translation (for those two reasons the article is named "Forza Italia"!). This said, as in similar cases (see Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael, Sinn Féin, Plaid Cymru, Lega Nord, Lega Lombarda, Liga Veneta, etc.), we also provide and use translations, especially "Forward Italy" (by far the most commonly used in en.Wiki). Wikipedia is governed by sources and consensus. Regarding sources, there are English sources adopting "Forward Italy" (and you should STOP deleting them from the article—that is clearly vandalism). Regarding consensus, just think that, despite your inclination toward editing without consensus and vandalism, I quickly added "Let's Go Italy" to the article when you first proposed it. Please learn to respect sources, consensus and other users, especially those who have long contributed to this encyclopedia. If you continue editing without consensus and vandalizing, I won't answer to you anymore. --Checco (talk) 11:46, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Out of 15 different translations, "forward" is not among the English translations listed for the Italian word "forza". My objection is that "Forward Italy" is a seldom-used translation, and in addition to being seldom-used it is flat-out incorrect and should not be used in the Italian constitutional referendum, 2016 article. While The People of Freedom, an earlier iteration of the party, was a reasonably accurate translation of Il popolo della liberta, and "Northern League" is a close-enough translation of Lega Nord (I wouldn't raise any objection if you changed the title of that article), "forward" is simply not an accurate translation of "forza". I even consulted with a professional interpreter on this matter, who also agreed that "Forward Italy" makes no sense at all and would only be arrived at by someone with a poor grasp of either English or Italian.

I am lodging my complaint here regarding the mistranslation of the name of the party and encourage other users and editors to discuss here. "Forward Italy" is a terrible translation of "Forza Italia". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.60.84.2 (talk) 13:56, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Literal translations, let alone online translations, never tell the full story. "Forward Italy" is a perfectly adequate translation for Forza Italia. In fact, it is adopted in several publications. I know that also "Let's Go Italy" is used, but I don't see anything bad with "Forward Italy", and I have explained above why I prefer "Forward Italy" over other translations, let alone the fact that this article's name should be what it is, Forza Italia. --Checco (talk) 06:28, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Ps: Let me add that a more literal translation would be "Go Italy", not "Let's Go Italy".

I'll have to add that not all translations have to be literal translations, in fact it often helps readers' understanding if non-literal translations are used. Also, the translations "Forward Italy" and "Let's Go Italy" are well-sourced from third-party material, and have legitimate basis for inclusion in this article.--Autospark (talk) 13:36, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

My original point was to suggest to Bleveret that he wasn't wrong when he suggested that "Forward Italy" is not a good translation of Forza Italia, and when he asked for other editors' opinions on whether to remove the "Forward Italy" translation from the beginning of the article, I opined that this was a good idea given that most English-language publications, including the BBC, use the untranslated Italian name and given that "Forza" decidedly does not translate to "Forward".

I understand full well that translations are not always literal and may have nuances, especially when certain words have different connotations or uses in different languages. Frequently it is the case that there isn't a 1:1 translation, and this is where interpreters and translators have to be familiar with the way things are expressed in both languages. In this particular case, I felt that "Forward Italy" (1) was a patent mistranslation on the literal level and (2) did not capture the meaning, literal or not, that Silvio Berlusconi, owner of the AC Milan soccer team, had in mind when he named his party after a soccer cheer.

Based on all of this, I decided to be bold and remove what I felt was an obvious mistranslation of the party name from the article, especially since that is not a translation I have ever seen used in the many English-language articles I have read about Silvio Berlusconi and Forza Italia. I also suggested to Bleveret that it would not be a bad idea to do the same, but it appears that Bleveret has left Wikipedia due to dickishness from other editors who keep reverting his edits without discussion and without even attempting to use the talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.60.84.2 (talk) 16:05, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

I perfectly understand your motivations and, while disagreeing with it, I respect your opinion. However, here the only user who is edit warring is you. Just think of all your recent edits in this article, which had been repeatedly reverted by several users. --Checco (talk) 06:15, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

I didn't know "several" could mean "two". Checco and Nick.mon seem to be the only editors actively reverting my edits, and are doing so in a way that violates the Three-revert Rule. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.60.84.2 (talk) 17:08, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Autospark agrees with my reverts (and reverted one of your edits) and User:RJFF reverted your edit on "criminal" (and I perfectly agree with his edit summary there). No-one is violating Three-revert Rule, but you are clearly edit warring without paying attention to the other users' opinions. Being bold is good as long as other users agree. This is not the case of most of your edits. Please seek consensus first! --Checco (talk) 18:43, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

References

Silvio Berlusconi

Checco are you suggesting that Silvio Berlusconi isn't a convicted criminal? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.60.84.2 (talk) 18:57, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm suggesting it's not a relevant information for the lead and, to take User:RJFF's words, "lots of politicians have been convicted of a crime, we don't always mention this in the articles about their respective parties". I'm also suggesting you to stop edit warring and not seeking consensus when multiple users rollback your edits. As I said, it is quite useful to be bold, but if your edit is repeatedly reverted by different users, you should stop and discusss. --Checco (talk) 21:32, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Given Berlusconi's history of repeated scandals and public criminal trials, which often ended in acquittals only because he found ways to modify the laws under which he was prosecuted, I think it's very relevant in this case that the leader of the party is a convicted criminal, and perhaps more relevant than for some other politicians.

The article on John G. Rowland leads with the fact that he is a "twice convicted felon." I don't see why Silvio Berlusconi's tax fraud conviction is any less relevant in an article about Silvio Berlusconi's political party than the mention of the felony convictions in the lead for the article about Rowland.

And for the record, it seems that Checco is the only editor aggressively reverting my edit which calls convicted criminal Silvio Berlusconi a convicted criminal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.60.84.2 (talk) 23:24, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

You have been reverted by several users. I'm going to stop discussing with you until you stop edit warring. --Checco (talk) 05:58, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

As Checco and RJFF said, Berlusconi's legal problem are already written in his article; this is the one of a political party and it's not necessary insert this comments. Moreover I had something to say about the "two" users that reverted Checco edits...User:32.211.200.100 and User:204.60.84.2 are making always the same edits in the same articles (Constituitonal referendum and Forza Italia) and are supporting the same "ideas". Moreover 32.211.. give to 204.60.. an anti-vandalism barnstar, but which vandalism do you fight? Maybe I'm wrong but this could be a sock puppetry; anyway this is only my personal opinion, but it's curious... -- Nick.mon (talk) 08:20, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

P.S. This is a personal advise, in my first years on Wiki I was involved in many edit warrings (as Checco and RJFF probably remember, in fact many of these were "against" them), but than I understand that it's far better to discuss before about our edits and ideas on the talk pages and than starting editing with more consensus as possible. So please, listen to me, stop edit warring and start discussing. Have a good day. -- Nick.mon (talk) 08:28, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

I also think that behind the two IPs there is one person and, in fact, I always referred to him/her as a single user (what about registering?).

Regarding barnstars, User:Nick.mon would definitely deserve one for how he has been a devoted, passionate, respectful and conciliatory user during the last three years. It is true that, before that, he was much of an edit warrior, but he had the humility and the courage to change track and he is now one of the most serious and committed users I know. Our differences are still there and we disagree on several issues, but I like to discuss with him and I especially appreciate his intellectual honesty and committment to dialogue. Cheers to Nick.mon! --Checco (talk) 08:54, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much Checco for these kind words! It's a pleasure for me to discuss with competent and respectful user like you. Thanks again! -- Nick.mon (talk) 10:10, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Nick.mon makes a fair point, and I had not considered that one article was about a politician and the other was about a political party. I still think that the fact that the party secretary of Forza Italia is a convicted criminal is quite relevant, but if the convention for parties but not politicians is to not lead with this kind of information, it might be good to mention this in the lead for the article about Silvio Berlusconi himself.

Which is already the case! I'm very happy that the IP found User:Nick.mon's words more convincing than mine (as above, I acknowledge he is a nice guy), but, in fact, Nick.mon's point is the same User:Autospark, User:RJFF and myself have raised. Good! --Checco (talk) 13:15, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Ok, great! And as Checco said, why don't you creat an account on Wikipedia? It will be better for all. -- Nick.mon (talk) 15:30, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

I would like to discuss the issue of Berlusconi's status a little bit further. Even though this article is about a party and not Silvio Berlusconi himself, I think that it might be worth mentioning in the lead that Berlusconi is a convicted criminal.

Even though many politicians are convicted of crimes, I think it is unusually relevant here because Berlusconi has a long history of criminal activity that predates his entry into politics (i.e. Propaganda Due). Furthermore, he actively sought the premiership shortly after he was convicted primo grado of tax fraud. He also repeatedly dismissed the courts as "communist" and compared himself to Jewish victims of the Holocaust, and when he was later expelled from the Senate (most politicians would just resign when this happens), he had Panorama publish a cover story titled "Poligono Italia", accusing everyone of persecuting him.

Given how public his criminal trials have been throughout his career and the fact that he has even been disqualified from holding office because of his tax fraud conviction, it makes sense that the article about his party should mention that its leader is a convicted criminal in the lead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.60.84.2 (talk) 13:16, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

I personally agree in writing on Berlusconi's article that he is a convicted criminal. But isn't it already written? -- Nick.mon (talk) 15:00, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm suggesting putting it in the place where it kept getting reverted out of the article, but I'm giving reasons for it here first because I'm tired of edit wars. I'm suggesting putting it there because Berlusconi's legal problems have often been connected to his office; I wouldn't suggest this for the article on the Movimento 5 Stelle because Beppe Grillo's vehicular homicide conviction has nothing to do with his political career and does not suggest political corruption.

Also, Forza Italia seems to be the personal political party of Berlusconi; unlike, for example, the Partito Democratico, Forza Italia rose with Berlusconi and will probably go away after his death. For a party so personally tied to Berlusconi, it might make sense to mention that Berlusconi is a convicted criminal at the beginning of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.60.84.2 (talk) 15:14, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Okok anyway I agree in putting it on the head of Berlusconi's article, but I don't think that it's necessary here. It's only my personal view. -- Nick.mon (talk) 15:16, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

While I'm happy to the IP user discussing instead of edit warring, I disagre with most of his/her arguments and I fear he/she has not a NPOV on the subject. I admit I don't know very well Berlusconi's personal history (was he convicted before the 1994 election? I don't know and... so what?), but I would not add anything of what the IP wrote in the lead. Moreover, this article mentions Berlusconi's ejection from the Senate and Berlusconi's article mentions his affiliation to P2 (which was not criminal activity in his case), all his trials and supposed "persecution". Grillo's conviction is not mentioned in the M5S' article, but it should be because it is the main reason why Grillo does not stand in elections: a big deal, isn't it? Of course, I would not mention it in the lead. --Checco (talk) 10:11, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Berlusconi had a tax fraud conviction upheld by the Corte di Cassazione in 2013. This was what led to his expulsion from the Senate of the Republic and a six-year ban from holding office. Up until this time, he had been the subject of decades of criminal investigations, with some going as far back as the Tangentopoli scandals from the early 1990s.

When I wrote that Berlusconi is a "convicted criminal", which he is, I was going along with the way that other articles in en.Wiki are written, such as John G. Rowland and Bernard Madoff. Both of these people were convicted of engaging in criminal activity, and this information is featured prominently in the lead. Given that this is the way that other prominent criminals are frequently introduced, I felt that it was appropriate to do the same thing with this article, especially since Forza Italia seems to be tied more closely to the person of Silvio Berlusconi than any consistent ideology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.60.84.2 (talk) 20:14, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

That "he had been the subject of decades of criminal investigations" is not particularly relevant here. Moreover, Berlusconi is hardly a "promiment criminal" (he is prominently an entrepreneur and a politician). Any comparison with Rowland, who is no longer a politician, or Madoff, who has been sentenced to 150 years in prison, are frankly inappropriate. Finally, despite being closely linked to Berlusconi, Forza Italia has a clear ideology and has long been member of a mainstream Euro-party. Berlusconi's article includes all the infos that are needed on his trials. --Checco (talk) 08:04, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Would anyone else like to chime in on this? I would like to point out that as with Rowland, Berlusconi's crimes were serious enough to result in him being banned from office. And by being famous and having a recent conviction for a serious crime, I would say that Berlusconi is the definition of a prominent criminal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.211.200.100 (talk) 10:36, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

I disagree, but, however, this is not the article on Berlusconi, but on Forza Italia. --Checco (talk) 11:22, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Would anyone else besides Checco like to chime in? It would be nice to hear more voices on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.60.84.2 (talk) 21:09, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

The reference to Berlusconi's convinctions should ideally not be included in the article intro. This is an article about the party, not the politician or the individual, and we have encyclopaedic standards to uphold.--Autospark (talk) 00:00, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Well then can this go into the article on Silvio Berlusconi himself? If not the article on Forza Italia, I feel that it would be very appropriate to put it in the Silvio Berlusconi article the same way that it is also in the lead of the John G. Rowland article and in other en.Wiki articles about prominent criminals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.60.84.2 (talk) 14:45, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

The current lead of Silvio Berlusconi is OK with me and I'm not interested in biographies, but you can always try to edit that article or, better, start a discussion in that article's talk and seek consensus for your proposed change. As I told you, Rowland's and Berlusconi's are very different cases, and I don't understand why you strongly push for an edit, which is frankly not very relevant, if irrelevant at all. I'm sure your contribution to Wikipedia could be more than just that. --Checco (talk) 10:50, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Forza Italia (2013). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151107183546/http://conservatorieriformisti.it/inparlamento/ to http://conservatorieriformisti.it/inparlamento/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140514171348/http://www.ilfoglio.it/soloqui/10961 to http://www.ilfoglio.it/soloqui/10961

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 18:25, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Ideology (Part 3)

I am reporting here the following message that User:DCCIT posted on my talk page. It may be discussed here.

Dear Checco,

I am a new Wikipedia contributor from Italy. Thanks for your contribution. I decided to modify and add more information about the ideology of Forza Italia because the previous version was not that accurate, in my view. The 2014 article from Corriere della Sera seemed to suggest that the party is more liberal/progressive on social issues than it actually is. The more recent developments I added prove it is more socially conservative than it might have seemed. I would therefore cancel this reference again, or at least put it before my contribution. For example, I wrote that the party has declared to be against the jus soli, but then the sentence in which Berlusconi welcomes a quicker path to citizenship to Italian-born children of immigrants (older reference) contradicts this statement.

I think we should also slightly change information about the differences between FI and NCD/AP. Although at the beginning NCD/AP seemed more conservative than FI, in the end I think we can say the opposite, partly due to NCD/AP's governmental alliance with the PD and FI's opposition role with the rest of the centre-right. -- DCCIT (talk) 00:15, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your contributions. I have tried to integrate old contents with new ones. Let's continue to do it with boldness, otherwise we can easily discuss here. Also other users, including User:Autospark (who recently edited the page), should have their say. --Checco (talk) 14:56, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Anthem

I ping Checco and Aurospark, who are among the main editors of Italian politics, to talk about this issue: a user inserted a Forza Italia anthem in the infobox, is it useful? In my view it isn't, what do you think? -- Nick.mon (talk) 16:38, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

In my view, it is totally redundant, let alone in the infobox. --Checco (talk) 08:49, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Agree, it's trivial information and not really encyclopaedia-worthy.--Autospark (talk) 16:30, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

ThecentreCZ can you comment here please? :) I think that Checco, Autospark, Mélencron and me agree that the file is quite useless and redundant... -- Nick.mon (talk) 18:02, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Moreover I'm not even sure that this anthem is the official song of Forza Italia. In the few FI's rally that I saw on this campaign (or maybe during the Sicilian regional election campaign), there were Menomale che Silvio c'è. -- Nick.mon (talk) 18:08, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

@Nick.mon: I agree that anthem is not necessary information, but it have some information value and it is part of infobox template for long time now. Anyhow, I completely disagree with purposeful focusing on Italian politics and its articles. It is necessary to move inside all political parties, this is English Wikipedia. Anthems are parts of tens of articles, you have to open discussion on changing the whole template, when you have this kind of problem with one lot. This is for a bigger discussion, when you will question it. Thing I disagree completely is removal of party flag, when any party have one, it is always included as one of the major graphical elements, even when it is graphically similar to the logo. There is a plenty of users which even specializes on this issue. --ThecentreCZ (talk) 18:26, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Ok I reverted my edit about the flag, however, I remain by my opinion regarding the audio; it makes the infobox too large and, frankly, in my view it isn't so encyclopedical. -- Nick.mon (talk) 18:30, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

The flag is virtually identical to the symbol, thus totally redundant. I hope we can remove both the anthem and the flag. --Checco (talk) 19:07, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I "vote" to remove both. -- Nick.mon (talk) 21:32, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree with the comments above that including the flag in the infobox is essentially redundant. Mélencron (talk) 21:33, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

I disagree. --Mujdeda (talk) 20:26, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

You disagree, but you will stick to consensus, right? --Checco (talk) 07:57, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

I disagree, but there is a consensus 4 to 1 not to include anthem in infobox for deformation of proportion. There is no consensus on flag, 3 to 2 is not a consensus. --Mujdeda (talk) 13:22, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Flag in infobox

There is not a consensus on removing the flag from the infobox, so flag will remain. --Mujdeda (talk) 00:57, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

@Mujdeda: This is not the way WP:CONSENSUS works. Check WP:BRD. You've engaged in an edit war against multiple users who have reverted you and explained you the reasons why the flag should not be added. It is so unanimous that it does not even need to be reflected in a talk page discussion in order to be obvious that there is a consensus on removing the flag from the infobox, or rather, a consensus on not adding it. What there is not is a consensus on having it in. You should maybe explain your reasons for adding the flag in the infobox, then try to convince other users that this should be added so that a new consensus may be formed. What you can't do is to WP:EDITWAR against everyone throughout two articles. You've violated WP:3RR multiple times, and it may be just a matter of time before someone may choose to report this edit warring behaviour, so I advice you to rather seek consensus and discuss the issue here throughly. Cheers. Impru20 (talk) 09:06, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello, I propose to add current election logo as the main logo of the party, beacause it is mostly used by the party today. They have it on website, facebook, election materials etc. Same, as it used by for example by British Conservative Party. They have long-time logo, also used current one. --Janschuster (talk) 16:08, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

What nonsensical individual removed flag from the Lega Nord, which were there for many months? I bet u'all have fingers in it. This is real vandalism. --Mujdeda (talk) 16:15, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Here is evidence of absurdity of this dispute, according to convention of using Infobox at English Wikipedia:

--Mujdeda (talk) 17:13, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

I think that inserting a flag is useful if it is different from the party's logo, for example NSDAP or Lega, but it's quite useless for parties like Fidesz, Scottish Greens and, in my view (and in the view of some other users) also for Forza Italia, where the flag is identical to party's logo. -- Nick.mon (talk) 17:24, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

@Nick.mon: I think that every flag is useful, not just ones with completely different graphical composition. I find important also ones like Fidesz and Scottish Greens, but that is not the case of Forza Italia flag and logo at all, because these two symbols are different:

--Mujdeda (talk) 17:49, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Well I still think that it's not so useful, but my priority was to remove the audio of the anthem which was absolutely redundant; I sincerely prefer the infobox without the flag, but I can absolutely live also with it. -- Nick.mon (talk) 17:57, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

There is no point in including FI's party flag as it is virtually identical to the party logo. There is no point in including the Padanian flag as it it not the LN's party flag, but the flag of a proposed country, whose creation by the way the LN does not mention anymore. In my view, there is no point in including party flags also in the above cited articles, but I am not going to discuss on them here. --Checco (talk) 13:24, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Number of MPs in the infobox

Here, as well as in Lega Nord, and more recently in Italia Viva, we include in the total number of MPs in the infoboxes also members of other parties (basically having the number of members of the "Forza Italia" group in the houses of Parliament). Doesn't that defeat the purpose of counting the party members? This page, like the others I mentioned, are about the party, not the corresponding parliamentary group. --Ritchie92 (talk) 18:57, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Originally, I agreed with you, but, then, both for practical and substantial reasons, I changed my mind. Lots of users used to continuously change the numbers by uploading those they saw on official websites (camera.it and senato.it). Additionally, being a member of a party's parliamentary group for someone who is not a direct member of that party can be considered a kind of "double" membership. I think that the current solution, which was initially a compromise also for me, is a good one because it gives readers more informations. What is sure, I would not use references, but efn notes, so that readers can read the note within the infobox. As an example, I take the note on ELDR membership in Italian Republican Party's infobox. --Checco (talk) 05:55, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

We should not base our decisions on the practicality and on the fact that some editors make wrong edits all the time. I think this is a mistake in the article about the party Forza Italia, and actually does not give more information, it just gives a wrong information. The footnotes should serve only to specify some detail, not to change the meaning of the infobox. --Ritchie92 (talk) 09:09, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Practicality is quite important to me. Otherwise, we would talk of "President of the Council of Ministers of Italy" instead of "Prime Minister of Italy". A solution could be to give the correct number and, then, add a efn note on associate MPs. Generally speaking, this issue is not particularly relevant to me, provided that there is consistency on FI, LN, PD, etc. This said, it is a pity the no other users have a say. We should find a way to collect the ongoing discussions, so that all editors interested in Italian politics can have a say. --Checco (talk) 12:56, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it's not what's personally "important" to single editors that matters, so that does not count as an argumentation. You haven't given a good reason why we should list all members of the FI parliamentary groups in the FI party MPs. And as far as I understood from edits on Italia Viva, also User:Nick.mon saw my point (and in that case the group is called Italia Viva–PSI, so it's evident that there are MPs that do not belong to IV!). The issue with the Prime Minister of Italy is totally different, how can you compare the two? The name of the Prime Minister has not been chosen for "practicality": it's what most reliable sources usually take for the name of the Italian leader of the government. For what I understand, "practicality" for you here means that it's difficult to separate the number of MPs in the group FI from the ones in the party FI, and I see your point, but I think we can manage that. However that has nothing to do with the criteria we chose for the naming of the Prime Minister: that was based on a thorough look at reliable sources in English, and on WP:COMMONNAME. PS: I think this article is on the watchlist of many editors who are interested in Italian politics, so they can reply if they have an opinion. --Ritchie92 (talk) 17:04, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Hopefully, other users will tell us what they think (but I still think that we should start a WikiProject on Italian politics, to coordinate our efforts and collect ongoing discussions). Thank for understanding my point. As I said, I would at least change the refs into efns and list associate MPs. However, feel free to edit the infoboxes as you want, provided that there is consistency among similar articles. --Checco (talk) 17:37, 28 September 2019 (UTC)