Talk:New Centre-Right

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

Not a party?[edit]

Now it isn't a party, but only a parlamentary group. --Betau (talk) 20:40, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

not true. In Italy you can switching with a political party.If you leave your party, you are not a party free member but you can change of party or set up a party!81.58.144.30 (talk) 14:17, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
...I knew it, I live in Italy. Angelino Alfano didn't create a new party, only a new parlamentary group, because the name Nuovo Centrodestra belongs to Italo Bocchino (if you know italian language, you can read these articles [1], [2], [3]). Probably Alfano is going to create a new political party with a different name in the future; or Bocchino will sell the name. --Betau (talk) 13:05, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I perfectly know that Italian journalists and politicians often make distinctions between parties, movements and parliamentary groups, but these distinctions are not based on political science (as I noticed when discussing a different case). A party can be only parliamentary and all parliamentary groups are, by definition, parties (just think that the first parties in modern history were actually nothing more than parliamentary groups, formed after elections, and had no organization outside parliament). NCD's name might be only provisional (in that case, we will move the article to the new name and the incipit will say something like "XXXXX, previously known as New Centre-Right, is a centre-right political party in Italy etc."), but there is not doubt it's a party. --Checco (talk) 13:24, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, formally it isn't a party, but informally yes. If you want read more, on it.wiki we talk about it here. --Betau (talk) 13:41, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I read the talk but decided not to step-in. As always, I'm appalled by it.Wiki's ludicrous rules and customs. --Checco (talk) 13:54, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article's name[edit]

User:Nick.mon recently moved the article to New Centre-right. I too think it's better than New Centre-Right. --Checco (talk) 15:31, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just thought that in English should be more correct New Centre-right with lowercase r...--Nick.mon (talk) 15:40, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No. The Independent, Financial Times, Reuters, The Guardian all spell it with a capital 'R'. Wikipedia follows the spelling in high-quality English-language sources and does not make its own, according to what its users think to be better. --RJFF (talk) 16:00, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I simply said that in my view, and I think also in Checco's one, is better use r not in capita letter. -- Nick.mon (talk) 16:03, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No offense, but in this question your and Checco's views are not determining. You cannot simply disregard the relevant sources, because you think something else was better.--RJFF (talk) 16:08, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are right, but you don't do differently...for example in Next Italian general election, where you have deleted all my edits, without an explanation. Yes the election will be in five years, but in all other next election page all over the world there is the list with the possible candidates...and I am not so sure that the election will be held in 2018...anyway I think that we could also use with R in capital letter, no problem -- Nick.mon (talk) 16:12, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The explanation is in the edit summary. Just because you never provide one (even though several other users have repeatedly asked you to do so), does not mean other people do the same. --RJFF (talk) 16:20, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Btw, the next election pages all over the world are all violations of Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and should not be created before the election date is set, if you ask me. --RJFF (talk) 16:23, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I read your edit summary, I just wanted to have a clearer explanation. Now I will give you some example of page with the image of possible leaders even if the election day is not set: Spanish general election, 2015 French presidential election, 2017 United States presidential election, 2016 -- Nick.mon (talk) 16:36, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
They are all bad examples, because they all contradict the principle "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball". It has become a trend on WP to create election articles years before the election date, but this is a bad trend which should not be expanded. Please note also that presidential elections are not a good comparison, because the candidate question is much more crucial in them than in parliamentary elections. Moreover, all candidates mentioned in the US and French articles are sourced (or tagged with [citation needed], which means that they will be either sourced or removed), in your version of the Italy article, nothing was sourced. --RJFF (talk) 17:30, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are right, but I don't think to had it all wrong, I think it is quite good, without quotations, but good -- Nick.mon (talk) 17:43, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As I wrote a few days ago, I think that New Centre-right is a slightly more accurate translation, but I could easily live with New Centre-Right (that's why, for instance, I did not change the link at Template:Italian political parties). However, I think that the article should be moved back to New Centre-Right until consensus is formed (that's what I've always been supporting in similar cases). Let's discuss first. --Checco (talk) 14:56, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to know your reasons for preferring the variant with a lowercase 'r'. All English-language sources I found use the spelling with a capital "R". Moreover, it is a rule in English, that in the names of organisations all main words (i.e. all but the connecting words) are capitalised. So I am really curious about your arguments why the other version should be more accurate. --RJFF (talk) 15:08, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
New Centre-right is more coherent with the fact that Centrodestra is a single word, but you might be right. --Checco (talk) 19:40, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
IMO, New Centre Right (no hyphen, all words capitalised) would be the possible article title most consistent with en.wiki naming conventions for titles pf political parties.--Autospark (talk) 20:05, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Autospark is right (I wanted to say the same thing, having seen New Centre Right in some sources). This said, despite my slight preference, all three solutions are OK with me—and we should move the article back while we wait for a compromise. --Checco (talk) 08:15, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Social conservatism[edit]

According to Wikipedia, "social conservatism is a political ideology that focuses on the preservation of what are seen as traditional values. The accepted goals and ideologies related to preserving traditions and morality often vary from group to group within social conservatism. Thus, there are really no policies or positions that could be considered universal among social conservatives. There are, however, a number of general principles to which at least a majority of social conservatives adhere, such as support for traditional family values." Very few Italian sources would use the term "social conservatism" as the expression (and "conservatism" in general) are seldom used in the Italian context. This said, it is difficult to think of a description which is closer to NCD's ideology, along with Christian democracy, as shown by many newspaper articles on NCD's emphasis on "family values". This article from Corriere della Sera makes a parallel between NCD and the "European traditionalist right". However, I would not include "traditionalism" in the infobox, while I would accept "social conservatism" which seems to me to be more encompassing and appropriate. In general, I think we should be a little bit more relaxed on the interpretation of sources. In fact, also the current source for Christian democracy does not talk of "Christian democracy" explicitly... --Checco (talk) 13:58, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you are right, I think that social conservatism with reliable sources is the correct ideology of NCD. Many members of NCD are against gay union, and they want preserve the "family values", this is typical of social conservative parties. -- Nick.mon (talk) 14:15, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Again you are doing original research. (A.) NCD emphasises family values, is sceptical towards gay marriage and abortion. (B.) Social conservatives emphasise family values, are sceptical towards gay marriage and abortion. So (C.) NCD is socially conservative. This conclusion (C.) is done by Wikipedia users and not expressed by the sources. This is a violation of WP:NOR. Checco, you say that the term "social conservatism" is rarely used in Italy. It is an American term, then why apply it to an Italian party? Of course I can see the parallels between NCD's agenda and (American) social conservatism. But Wikipedia does not publish the original research of its users, no matter how reasonable they are, no matter how well-founded they are and no matter how qualified and well-informed the users are. If we want to publish our original research, we have to choose writing articles for a journal, or start a blog. This is a very young party. We should be patient and wait for more sources about it to be published. Maybe some day there will be one dealing with NCD's ideology and describe it as "socially conservative". But for now, we should not just do our own analysis and draw our own conclusions to fill this lack of sources discussing NCD's ideology, even if it may be tempting. --RJFF (talk) 21:31, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Social conservatism" is an English term, and this is en.Wiki. Of course we need to use English terms not macaroni English ones. I might add "conservatism" and "traditionalism", which are sourced, but I agree that the party is a "work in progress". --Checco (talk) 14:36, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on New Centre-Right. 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: 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) 21:56, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:New_Centre-Right&oldid=1203448623"