Italy Template‑class

This template is within the scope of WikiProject Italy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 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.ItalyWikipedia:WikiProject ItalyTemplate:WikiProject ItalyItaly articles Template This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Why this, Checco? —Nightstallion (?) 15:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Pole for Freedoms didn't exist at all (you might have confused it with the Pole of Freedoms), while "Paese Nuovo" and "Per l'Abolizione dello Scorporo" were neither coalitions nor parties, but only "liste civetta". I don't know if you understand the meaning of it... in a few words, they were false lists invented to deduct votes in order to not have problems with "scorporo". These are electoral techincalities and I can't explain myself in English... --Checco 16:07, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Italian Wikipedia, the it:Polo per le Libertà was different from the it:Polo delle Libertà, and while I know that both of those lists were liste civetta, they were still in some sense coalitions of the left/right... —Nightstallion (?) 18:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this is another mistake of it.Wiki... About "liste civetta", I don't agree with you, indeed they were lists exactly as FI, AN, DS or LN, they had their candidates. I would prefer to ignore them, but if you want to put them in the template you need to consider them as parties not coaltions. This is only my opinion, obviously. --Checco 18:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, okay then. Regarding the civetta... We could simply make a new line for them, which I will do now. —Nightstallion (?) 18:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer the Navbox version for two reasons

1. It is consistent with other version of parties template
2. It looks better than the earlier version, instead of bolding the group-names they are beneath each other in nice boxes.

Furthermore I don't see how this is consistent with other italian parties templates, which appears Nightstallion's only argument. C mon 18:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It takes up about twice the space, too. shrugs Fair enough, if you insist. —Nightstallion 19:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was definitely better before, I agree with Nightstallion. --Checco 23:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you agree with me,I suggest to separate the socialist parties by the social democratic ones.I tried some days ago,but I think I made confusion.Since the second Post War,there is the difference between democratic socialism and social democracy.So I think in Italy,there was this difference.What do you think of? Itanesco (talk) 20:33, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is confusing to classify a party called "Italian Socialist Party" as social-democratic. C mon (talk) 21:09, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As you've seen in the table,there are some parties which were social-democratic (Italian Democratic Socialist Party,Democrats of the Left) Itanesco (talk) 21:13, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what is the problem: in fact PSI was "socialist" only by name and was the most centrist social-democratic party in Europe (see data in Piero Ignazi's book about European political parties, I'll check the exact title). --Checco (talk) 15:49, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You would need to formulate a criterion or find external sources for this classification. We can't just classify parties on a hunch. Moreover, as long as the PSI called itself "socialist", you would need pretty good sources to classify it differently. C mon (talk) 16:25, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We should not confuse the names of the parties with their ideology... think about the Liberal Party of Australia which is a conservative party, the Social Democratic Party of Portugal which is a liberal-conservative party, etc. According to Ignazi, who presents a reseach classifying alla European parties from right to left, PSI was the most "conservative" social-democratic party in Europe. I will tell you more when I can. --Checco (talk) 07:23, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Checco:we should not confuse the names of the parties with their ideologies.I repeat:we have to separate the socialist parties by the social democratic ones.Italian social democratic parties adhered to PES and to Socialist International,like Italian Democratic Socialist Party,Unified Socialist Party (alliance of Italian Socialist Party and Italian Democratic Socialist Party),Democratic Party of the Left,Italian Socialists and Democrats of the Left.Maybe we can add Italian Socialist Party,Italian Socialist Workers'Party and Unified Socialist Party (as if in the beginning they were socialist,then they became social-democratic by adhering to PES and to Socialist International). Itanesco (talk) 11:45, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great you have now formulated a reliable criterion, I can live with this. C mon (talk) 12:16, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK!I'm going to edit the table of parties. Itanesco (talk) 13:57, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it is OK for C mon, it is OK also for me!

@C mon: In S. Hix - C. Lord, Political Paerties in the European Union, Macmillan, Houndmills 1997, p. 146 and L. Bardi - P. Ignazi, Il Parlamento europeo, Il Mulino, Bologna 1999, p. 115, you will find the table I was talking about. According to Hix and Lord, PSI was the most "conservative" party of PES (5.0 in a 1-10 scale), while PDS was the most leftist (3.5). Also according to these data, PSI was thus to the right of D66 (4.8) and slightly to the left of Belgian CVP (5.71). I don't believe too much in these classifications, but this is simply to remember how PSI was a centrist social-democratic party, even if it included more leftist factions (as that led by Fabrizio Cicchitto, who is now one of the leaders of Forza Italia - strange Italy!). --Checco (talk) 07:38, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had already thought of changing the section "Liberal" in "Conservative liberal" for some reasons:1)Italian Liberal Party was a conservative-liberal party.It did not participate into the centre-left governments,because it didn't like subjects like nationalization of light,taxes for Southern Italy,and because it thought that DC was conditioned by PSI (in particular),PSDI and PRI.2)Union of the Centre was the direct heir of the Italian Liberal Party,that's why it is conservative-liberal.3)The same thing is worth for Liberal Party,whose members will adhere to Forza Italia.What do you think of? Itanesco (talk) 10:37, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure. It is true that at the beginning PLI was a very conservative liberal party, but also that it included also leftists. Even after the exit of Pannella's Radicals, PLI had "left-wing" leaders such as Valerio Zanone, who supported a lib-lab alliance with PSI and who is indeed a member of the PD now. UdC was definitely centrist. Actually I would leave things as they are. --Checco (talk) 10:49, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover we could move the Radical Party and PRI to the "liberal" category... --Checco (talk) 10:50, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Checco!I don't think so!PRI is clearly a social-liberal party,even if today it is member of PDL.The former Radical Party was different than Italian Radicals.Radical Party was social-liberal,while Italian Radicals are liberal. Itanesco (talk) 10:54, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and no. I agree on the Radical Party before-1989, but not on PRI. The current ideology of PRI is simply liberalism. Since its foundation the party has shifted from a nerarly-socialist platform to market liberalism. However, although I am very unconfortable with having the Radical Party and PRI in the same category with The Net, I think that the current solution is the best one. --Checco (talk) 11:01, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's find a compromise:we put PRI into the Liberal section,but we let Radical Party in the Social liberal one.Ok? Itanesco (talk) 11:07, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's great for me if it OK also for you. --Checco (talk) 11:43, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Piccolo Modificatore Laborioso (PML) made this edit, making the template collapsed. I understand this edit, but as I think that collapsed templates are not that useful to readers, as they collapse every time you come back to the page where the template is, I would like to come back to the previous version. No problem if other users agree with PML, but we need other's opinions as currently we are 1 against 1. It's not a big deal, obviously, but there's currently no consensus on PML's edit. --Checco (talk) 07:25, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The template, you will agree, is very long, and the pages it links are usually short, sometimes so short that the template itself is longer than the rest of the article. Also, while collapsed navboxes can be expanded with a click, those set on plain cannot be collapsed. Checco, shouldn't this get the due attention, and should you still desire a return to the previous version, you might want to request a third opinion. Let me know if this happens.--Le Petit Modificateur Laborieux (talk) 11:56, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That the template is very long is not a problem, while I still think that having plain templates is better for users, to which the encyclopedia is aimed at. It's not a big deal, but I still desire a return to the previous versions and I actually don't understand how your opinion should be more important than mine. While waiting for other users's opinions, I think we should come back to the plain version. --Checco (talk) 19:51, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, let's just ask for a third opinion. If we wait for someone else to come across this page to give an opinion, it could be months before we get it.--Le Petit Modificateur Laborieux (talk) 01:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think I have significantly improved the template when, a few days ago, I made it consistent with List of political parties in Italy. There have been hundreds of parties in Italy and not all of them are relevant to this template. It is true that several parties were removed, but also that larger previously excluded parties were added. I think I did a good job and, in that, I have been supported by Autospark all the way. If there is a any consensus, there is one in favour of my version, which was both bold and thoughtful. I ask to User:Autospark and User:Nick.mon, the two most active users of Italian politics-related articles, and User:Wololoo to discuss. In the meantime, I will restore my version, which is definitely more encyclopedic, accurate and consistent with the other Wikipedia articles. --Checco (talk) 08:14, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, even if we had hundreds of parties here in Italy, most of them weren't so important in our political history, so I share this proposal of reduction of the number of parties in this template. -- Nick.mon (talk) 09:43, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I also support restoring the template to Checco's version. --Autospark (talk) 11:15, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Then they would be required written rules for the admission in this template--Wololoo (talk) 14:39, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What about introducing also for coalitions the rules of admission adopted at List of political parties in Italy? --Checco (talk) 23:11, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I felt bold today and I did what I proposed six days ago. I left "government-only coalitions" and I will add them at List of political parties in Italy.

@User:Autospark, User:Nick.mon, User:Wololoo: any comments? --Checco (talk) 17:22, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the threshold should be 10%, like the electoral law of 2005. It would also need to change some criteria about the template of current parties--Wololoo (talk) 21:02, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Threshold at 10% is OK with me. --Checco (talk) 07:15, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No objections!--Autospark (talk) 15:39, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I change the Threshold here and in List of political parties in Italy--Wololoo (talk) 15:52, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I must explain why I corrected the position of the PSI in the template. A preliminary point: consensus in an encyclopedia must be found over criteria: when the consensus has been found, facts must be based on sources.
Now, about the PSI, its story lasted 102 years, and Craxi’s leadership represented the 10% of this history (more, the first 7 years balanced by Pertini’s presidency). Social democracy in Italy was represented by the PSDI: even in 1968, the efforts of union between PSI and PSDI failed because in the PSI social democracy was still marginal at time. The PSI represented the story of socialism in Italy: we can discuss the structure of this template searching a consensus about it (and I can accept every idea about), but the history of Italy is a fact.--Barlafus (talk) 21:36, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear: if we would change the title of the template from actual “ Historical political parties and coalitions in Italy” to an “ Historical political parties and coalitions in Italy by their last ideology”, then, the PSI would pass in the social-Democratic cluster. But with the actual title, the “historic” ideology of PSI was, and this is a fact other than the obvious consequence of its name, the socialism.--Barlafus (talk) 21:53, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This template has a long history. I believe it was User:Nightstallion who worked a lot on it, but I may be wrong. However, there are conditions of admission and customs. Until a new consensus is formed, the template should remain as it is. For one thing, parties should be listed only once and, by custom, they are listed under their last ideology. My personal opinion is that there should be only one list and no categorization by ideology. --Checco (talk) 16:51, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ps: I am inviting other users involved in articles on Italian politics to express their view: @User:Autospark, User:Braganza, User:Nick.mon, User:Ritchie92, User:SDC.

Well, you also have to note that the other parties (except for PSRI and POI) were more closely connected to the PCI than PSI Braganza (talk) 17:12, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, indeed. The PSI should go with its splinter and successor parties. Moreover, the PSI did not adhere to social democracy with Craxi in 1976. It was a social-democratic long before that, at least since the 1960s. Social democracy is an evolutive concept: a social democrat in 1945 was different from a social democrat in 2020. Arguably, all social-democratic parties in Europe (notably including the Labour Party, the SPD—remember that the Bad Godesberg congress was in 1959 and the PSI) followed a similar trajectory, albeit with some minimal temporal differences. --Checco (talk) 17:34, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In my view a party should only be listed once in the template, maybe the PSI is better categorized as a social democratic party due to its recent history. Anyway I don't like these admission criteria, a party that had elected a MP/MEP should be listed as a historical party, instead then small parliamentary groups are listed which have no effective historical significance, like Italy Work in Progress. But I understand that discussing these admission criteria is not easy.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 20:17, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree we should consider changes to critieria, provided that they match those of List of political parties in Italy. --Checco (talk) 16:36, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Me too, I support changes in this template. But until then, the Socialist party must be (by evidence) between the “Socialist and post-communist” [1]. Even the PCI could be listed between the Socialist instead then the Communist party if we speak about its latest ideas. Pertini was a Socialist President of Italy until 1985, and he was never a Social democrat. In 1993 the PSI and the PSDI were always different parties: two parties, two different ideologies. The history of the PSI in the Italian Republic was the political version of the Buridan's ass. I suggest, user Checco, to solve the problem removing ideologies (a classification by strength or simply by left-center-right could be more neutral), but the history of the Italian politics can’t be falsified. --Barlafus (talk) 23:01, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is simply no consensus for your version. Until a new consensus is formed, the established version should stay. Wikipedia:Consensus: "In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit." Differently from what you are trying to impose in Italian Socialist Party, the PSI was social-democratic also before 1976, by the standards of the time. It first joined government in 1962, before the SPD did so in Germany, and its positionment was not to the left of the SPD at the time. Arguably, the PSI was already more moderate than most European social-democratic parties of the time. --Checco (talk) 06:49, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Following the revision of the current parties template, I think this template needs to be updated as well. Indeed, it is evident that this is based on the inclusion criteria of the old list of political parties in Italy. I propose a simplification of the inclusion criteria for this template and a more streamlined division between party categories. For example, I would have only two inclusione criteria:

• the parties having elected at least one MP or MEP with their logo
• the parties having had a parliamentary group in the Chamber or in the Senate.

I would also slightly simplify the division by ideology. What do you think about this simplification proposal? Scia Della Cometa (talk) 10:23, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I stand with you on both counts. Ideologies could be eliminated too. --Checco (talk) 14:04, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

for me no problem to eliminate ideologies. I would add the years of activity in brackets instead, listing parties by year of dissolution. Scia Della Cometa (talk) 20:46, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I proceed to edit the Template following the indications above.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 19:58, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]