User talk:C mon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Thieme

  • Hi C mon, I appreciate additions and revisions to the article I wrote List of Dutch vegetarians. I do however believe you got it wrong when you moved the image of Marianne Thieme , and have explained why on the relevant page [1] Baldrick90 (talk) 19:05, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, this solution jeopardises the order of the images, it's either keeping Thieme separated at the top or in the correct position, which would be between Nathalie de Rooij and Marijke Vos. Baldrick90 (talk) 19:15, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GreenLeft

Hi C mon, I noticed you are putting in a lot of hard work getting the GreenLeft article to a high level. Although I have very limited time, I might be able to do some simple tasks. I could do some proofreading. Although I am not native English but Dutch, guessing you are too, I might pick up on some things you didn't. I could also have a thorough read-through. I know some of the issues (I am a moderately active GL member in Utrecht) so I could help, but might not always be able to find all the references due to my crazy workload in real life at the moment. Feel free to ask me something to do, if I won't be able to, I will use my Dutch directness (bluntness to other nationalities) to say I don't manage. Cheers Arnoutf (talk) 21:57, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pluriform

I'll correct the errors. Thanks for pointing them out. The Transhumanist    19:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] speedy deleting a redirect

How do you speedy a redirect? Please see pluriform.

The Transhumanist    19:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] pluriform multiparty system

Is that synonymous with multi-party system?

Is there any such thing as a non-pluriform multi-party system?

The Transhumanist    19:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wiktionary error?

Please see: [[2]]. The Transhumanist    19:36, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reverts

I don't understand your edits. First, listing non-member parties is fairly useful to make the article more complete: examples help! Second, EFA has generally limited its membership to progressive parties, which are the majority of the party, but there are also conservative parties as members, notably Liga Fronte Veneto and Bayernpartei. --Checco (talk) 06:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Third, the sentence has no meaning and, however, EFA never expelled xenophobic parties because no xenophopic party ever joined it. Fourth, why does "observer members" is not ok? --Checco (talk) 06:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I can live with Progressivism (Majority) [although I hate both the term progressivism and using majority/minority]. But the EFA has expelled parties for being xenophobic or suspended their membership, examples are the Italian Lega Nord, Union Valdôtaine and Union für Südtirol. But I can also live with the current version. C mon (talk) 07:05, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Ok, good compromise, but don't make me joke: none of these parties is xenophopic! Only UfS has a taste for nationalism, but both Lega Nord and UV are centrist parties, both pandering to the centre-left. Finally I don't understand why you oppose yourself to listing of non-member parties. It is very useful to explain to the reader that most of the leading regionalist parties in Europe are not members of EFA. --Checco (talk) 07:12, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Why did you put "separatism (minority)"? Most of the member parties are separatist... --Checco (talk) 07:14, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Are we talking about the same Lega Nord? Well at least my source (the sole source on the EFA article) calls it a "Nationalist parties of the right" and Gallagher, Laver and Mair in their handbook on European politics have listed it under the "extreme right".
The point is when we start listing what a party is not, and not what it is we will be busy for very long, because more parties are not a member of the EFA, than parties are member.
We could which parties are separatist, I think it is the minority. Give me a sec. I'll count. C mon (talk) 07:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Please continue here. It is fairly inadequate to classify "Lega Nord" as nationalist or extreme-right, but there is such a disinformation on the issue that I won't try to explain what Lega Nord is. In any case I continue to think that any reader should know that European leading parties, except PC, SNP, ER and BNG, are not members of EFA: Lega Nord, SVP, UV, PNV, NVA... --Checco (talk) 07:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I've counted 13 separatist parties out of 31, so you're right. However these 13 separatist parties include all the relevant ones: those having parliamentary or regional representation. --Checco (talk) 07:31, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't want to list all non-member parties, but simply give some examples. --Checco (talk) 07:32, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
As far as I can see only 8 of the 26 parties are explicitly separatist (PC, SNP, AF, MK, BP, ERC, EA, Moravané). Of six I could not determine their stance. But 17 are definitely regionalist.
If the article would be longer, I could accept one or two sentences about which parties are not a member, but now it gives undue weight, because the article is already this short. Note that in the section European_Free_Alliance#Former_members we already discuss which parties have left the EFA. C mon (talk) 07:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
The problem is not about those parties which left EFA, but that most of the leading regionalist parties in Europe are not members of EFA: some of them were formerly members (Lega Nord, UV), but most of them never applied for membership (CDC, UDC, PNV, CC, SVP, NVA...). Note that some of these parties have been or are members of ELDR (Lega Nord, CDC and CC), some others of the EPP (PNV, UDC, SVP and NVA). --Checco (talk) 07:44, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

This argumentation only works if we have a standard of which parties are leading regionalists. I don't think f.i. that the SVP, UV or NVA are good examples of leading regionalist parties. You've also not mentioned the Vlaams Belang, electorally, the most succesful separatist party in the European Union and not a member of the EFA either. BTW the Lega Nord is not a member of the ELDR, but of the UEN. The NVA is also not a member of the EPP, but only sits in their group. C mon (talk) 07:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Lega Nord has been member of ELDR from 1994 to 1997 and wins 20-30% of the vote in Veneto and Lombardy, 8.3% nationally: probably the most successful regionalist party in Europe as it is also a mainstream party, frequently in government (its deputy-leader is now Minister of the Interior!). PNV, UV and SVP all obtain 40-60% of the vote in their regions. No problem about mentioning Vlaams Belang. --Checco (talk) 08:14, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Could we settle on just mentioning thoser regionalist parties that have gained over 10% nationally? C mon (talk) 08:50, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I would say 20% regionally or 5% nationally because only Vlaams Belang, a regionalist party in a small country, would fit the category. Do you agree with this? --Checco (talk) 09:16, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Notice that regionally Vlaams Belang is far less strong in Flanders equally stronger than Lega Nord in Veneto (Liga Veneta actually stronger than VB) and Lombardy (Lega Lombarda) and far less stronger than PNV in Basque Country, CiU in Catalonia, SVP in South Tyrol and UV in Aosta Valley. --Checco (talk) 09:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd be in favour of listing notable regionalist parties which are not members of EFA, but we'd have to discuss which ones to mention, I suppose. —Nightstallion 10:05, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Do you agree with may proposal of listing those parties which have a consistent share of votes in their region (20-25% would be fine), or which have a notable share of votes nationally (above 3-5%), or that have an important role in the government of their region or the whole country? --Checco (talk) 10:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Sounds like a good idea to me, yeah. —Nightstallion 11:15, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I'd settle for share of the votes nationally over 5% or participation in government. C mon (talk) 11:40, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Bad idea: only Lega Nord would fit into the category. It is fairly better what I proposed. --Checco (talk) 12:44, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Three parties would fit the category: Vlaams Belang (Belgium, NI), Lega Nord (Italy, UEN) and Swedish People's Party (Finland, ELDR). I don't see the problem. C mon (talk) 13:01, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
The Swedish People's Party is hardly a regionalist party, while on Vlaams Belang you're obviously right. I don't agree with you in listing only two parties and also Nightstallion seems to agree with me. --Checco (talk) 13:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Checco that there are more parties which are important enough to be specifically listed; could we simply compile a list of all parties which might be listed and then decide on a case-by-case basis? —Nightstallion 14:15, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Here you have the list:

Name Country Region EUparty  % Regionally  % Nationally in last EU elections Number of MEPs Government participation
Lega Nord Italy Northern Italy UEN 27% in Veneto, 22% in Lombardy 5% 4 Yes 2002-2006 2008
Movement for Autonomy Italy Sicily n/a n/a 0 0 Yes 2008
Vlaams Belang Belgium Flanders NI 24% 14% 3 No
NVA Belgium Flanders EPP-ED ran on combined list ran on combined list 1 No
Valdotanian Union Italy Aosta Valley N/a 47% 0.1 0 No?
South Tyrolean People's Party Italy South Tyrol EPP-ED 56% 0.5 1 No?
CiU Spain Catalunya EPP-ED 31.5% 5.2 (on combined list with PNV) 1 No
Basque Nationalist Party Spain Basque country EPP-ED 45% 5.2 (on combined list with CiU) 1 No
Swedish People's Party (Finland) Finland Swedes ELDR n/a 5.7 1 Yes
Party of the Hungarian Coalition Slovakia Hungarians EPP-ED n/a 13.2% 2 Yes (currently)
Sinn Fein United Kingdom Northern Ireland UEL-NGL .6% 26% 1 No
SLPD United Kingdom Northern Ireland PES .6% 16% 0 No
Democratic Union of Hungarians in Romania Romania Hungarians EPP-ED 5.5 n/a 2
Anyone can add what party he wants. --Checco (talk) 14:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
And what about Christian Social Union of Bavaria? It is a regional party of course... --Checco (talk) 14:31, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Another proposal: since this about the EP why don't we just mention those that have more than 3 MEPs? VB & LN? C mon (talk) 15:38, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Some of the parties you included in the table are not clearly regionalist. I would mention in the article about EFA: LN, MpA, VB, NVA, UV, SVP, CiU and PNV or at least the majority of them, not simply VB and LN. --Checco (talk) 16:06, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

You can't be serious! The MpA and UV haven't even got representation in the EP, the NVA hasn't got EP representation on its own. You can't argue that we are missing prominent regionalist parties if we don't include those. Moreover you insist on just including parties from Western Europe, what about eastern European regionalists? Can't we find some sort of compromise. C mon (talk) 16:31, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't consider EP representation as a fundamental issue. However MpA has a MEP and there are not such big regionalist parties in Western Europe. Both UV and SVP are very strong regionally, and all three (also MpA) have the President of the Region (Province in the case of South Tyrol). We are speaking about examples and more examples is better. I canlive even without NVA, UV and MpA (for evry different reasons), but all eight parties is the best solution for me. --Checco (talk) 16:44, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

What about Sinn Fein? The SDLP? SFP? And the Hungarian Parties in Rumenia and Slovakia? Why exclude those? C mon (talk) 16:49, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Inclusion list

Let's see. Of the full list of parties, I think we can all agree that we'll have to include: Lega Nord, Vlaams Belang, CiU, PNV, and the Democratic Union of Hungarians. Can we at least agree on those for starters? —Nightstallion 17:03, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

This is pointless. I'm working on another solution an expanded EFA article which has a separate part on all regionalist parties that are not included, like the Dutch wikipedia. I will finish it tonight. C mon (talk) 17:08, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh, that's great, too. :) —Nightstallion 17:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Next item: I'd personally also include both Valdotanian Union and Sinn Fein, as the former is simply too strong regionally not to merit inclusion, and the latter is clearly a very important party which still has ultimately separation from the UK as one of its program cornerstones. —Nightstallion 17:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd personally not include the following:

  • MpA -- negligible influence when compared to others in Europe, the UDC is more regionalist in Sicilia and the rest of the south than the MpA is
  • NVA -- not as important as the Vlaams Belang
  • SFP -- not really regionalist in the ultimate sense of the word, as there's no clearly defined Swedish region on mainland Finland; I would possibly include some of the parties on Åland, though...
  • SPLD -- not really THAT regionalist, actually

What would you say? —Nightstallion 17:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes for SF, UV and also... SVP! About MpA you're wrong: we are talking about a party which scored 22% (combined of three MpA lists) in the last regional election and has the President of the Region.
If C mon does what he said our discussion is over. That would be the best solution: a spearate and complete listing of regionalist, regional and minority parties. In that case also SFP, SDLP and CSU should be included. Great C mon! --Checco (talk) 17:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Great work. When you have time, can you create a table for all these parties? --Checco (talk) 21:31, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Great work, thanks! —Nightstallion 10:18, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Request for consensus

A question has arisen concerning classification of groups in the European Parliament. A discussion has opened up in Talk:Political groups of the European Parliament. Your input is requested there. This is a neutrally worded notification sent to a small number of informed, but uninvolved, editors and is intended to improve rather than to influence the discussion. This notification falls under the "friendly notice" clause of WP:CANVASS. Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 02:06, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Valdotanian Union

Can you tell me something about the Brussels Declaration and why Valdotanian Union broke with EFA on this? --Checco (talk) 07:10, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thank you. I added "expelled". ---Checco (talk) 07:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rock the vote 2008-05-11

Thank you for your contributions to the discussion on Talk:Political groups of the European Parliament. You may wish to take part in the vote here if you have not already done so. Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 14:07, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WPPP

You are being recruited by the WikiProject Political Parties, Emphasizing consistency, global perspective, and neutrality, the WikiProject aims to create good articles about political parties worldwide. Join us!

--Soman (talk) 16:23, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vlaams Belang

I understand that you don't like me, but it's not ok to revert every single edit I make. For example, on Vlaams Belang, I simply wikified the infobox, added direct links and inserted "national conservatism" in place of "conservatism" for two reasons: 1) the party is definitely not as moderate to be classified as simply "conservative"; 2) VB is listed in National conservatism as a national-conservative party.

I think that your rollback in this case was a mistake, if it wasn't: no problem, you live near Belgium and you definitely know better the ideology of VB than me, but please do partial rollback, as direct links and correct punctuation are usually a good thing. --Checco (talk) 14:30, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

As I said I simply tried to fix the infobox of Vlaams Belang's article, but if you think that that was not ok, it will be fine for me as soon as punctuation is ok. If you want to remove "Vlaams Belang" from the article about national conservatism too, it is also ok with me as I did not add the party there. I do think that "national conservatism" is the more right-wing strand of conservatism, while "liberal conservatism" is a moderate kind of conservatism, but again if you think that "conservatism" is more appropriate than "national conservatism" I'm fine.
I understand your concerns about sources, but there is a problem: parties are generally classified in books as simply "conservative" or "liberal" or "christian-democratic. That's a problem with Wikipedia, where (in every single article) we classify parties more precisely, listing some different kind of ideologies in order to explain better what kind of parties they are. Italy is a specific case, as there is not a plenty of sources and they tend to be very generic. I understand that Italy is a strange country where parties tend to take example more from the US that the rest of Europe, but they are European parties and we need to classify them as European parties. It has been a little bit difficult to find sources about Forza Italia as "liberal conservative" also because it is more easier to find sources describing the party as "liberal", "christian-democratic" or "liberal-socialist" (liberal-socialista, a strange Italian term for liberal social-democrats). Its EPP membership, its policies, its program and its complexion tell us that FI is that kind of party: christian-democratic and liberal, in one word liberal-conservative. I understand that outside Europe you have a different perception of it, that's what it is. This is not to say that people outside Italy can't edit articles about Italian parties, on the contrary we need non-Italian editors because Italian editors (remember that I am not exactly Italian too) tend to be a little bit biased on the issue. --Checco (talk) 07:32, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
What did you want to do with this? I don't see any particular change following your edit... --Checco (talk) 07:57, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
If you mean "2 columns", I don'see any change actually... --Checco (talk) 14:29, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
That's mysterious... anyway we'll need to make a table some day. --Checco (talk) 15:33, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Discovery of heaven.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Discovery of heaven.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
  • That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --01:07, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Conservatism

"Conservatism" has several meanings, which tend to diverge geographically and especially from Europe and the United State. "Conservatism" can be both a separate classification from "Christian democracy" and a general classification including "liberal conservatism", "national conservatism", "social conservatism", "Christian democracy", etc. You will find a large amount of sources identifying the Christian Democratic Union (Germany) as "conservative", but we will agree that the most precise classification for that party is "christian-democratic". Moreover also German sources classify CDU as "conservative" because in Germany the two terms are considered synonims, but the most precise classification remains "christian-democratic"

We should use precise classification by using European standards, not American, German or Italian standards. I know you realize this as I do. In Italy "liberal", "conservative" and "right-wing" are almost synoninms basically because in Southern Europe christian-democrats and liberals are often members of a united party (differently from Germany, the Netherlands and generally Northern Europe, where christian-democrats are divided also from the local "conservatives", who tend to be secular and more economy-oriented), but I won't use those terms as synonims in en.Wiki.

I acknowledge that every European party has its peculiarities. Forza Italia, UMP and CDU obviuously have differences, but what differences? I acknowledge that Italian parties (think also about the Democratic Party) and especially Forza Italia are very peculiar parties, but what are exactly their/its peculiarity. One peculiarity of Italian parties is that they tend to take example from American parties more than European parties (that's specifically the case of the Democratic Party (Italy)). The peculiarity of Forza Italia is that it is far more heterogeneous that UMP, CDU or Spanish PP: although most of Forza Italia members are christian-democrats and the party program explicitly supports Christian values and christian-democratic principles (as Christian humanism, solidairity and social market economy), there is also smaller but influent groups of liberals and social-democrats who take secular and "anti-clerical" stances.

What is very bizzare is that the result of this combination of christian-democrats and liberals which is Forza Italia is that the party, although not formally, endorses Christian views more than German CDU, Dutch CDA or Spanish PP do. Similarly to the US Republican Party, Forza Italia endorses Christian stances without being "Christian" by name as CDU or CDA. However that is not because Forza Italia takes example from America (it is the Democratic Party which is more modelled like its US counterpart), but because, like it or not (as an Italian voter, I'm not personally keen on this, but that's my POV!), it is stuck in the christian-democratic and centrist tradition of late Italian Christian Democracy). Definitely Berlusconi is a bizzarre figure in European politics, but his party is not so ideologically different from other EPP parties and especially christian-democratic ones.

All member parties of EPP are centre-right and can be classified as "conservative", especially by American and British political scientists, but we need to acknowledge the differences between those parties and not make the easy mistake of taking classifications out of context. That is what happens in en.Wiki on every single European party, also thanks to the work of our common friend Nightstallion, and this is what should happen also on Forza Italia. I hope we will have an interesting discussion on the issue here in your tlak page, as I put it in my watchlist. --Checco (talk) 09:25, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

The problem is not sources, but how you read sources. If one is not intellectually honest he could find and use sources telling everything and the contrary of everything, but that's not proper way of working.
Saying that Forza Italia is simply a "conservative" party is correct like saying that it is a "democratic": too general! There are more sources telling us that CDU is "conservative" than "christian-democratic", but go and tell to Nightstallion and all the other users that you want to eliminate "Christian democracy" from CDU's ideology. Do you want to reserach truth or simply to prove your personal truth? I think that with Forza Italia you're trying to prove your opinion about a party you don't even know very much by using sources written by people who aren't experts of Italian politics and they give a general defintion of Forza Italia without knowing how it works. Why concentrating of Forza Italia and not on every other single EPP party?
Moreover it is simply absurd to clasify in different ways Forza Italia and Forza Europa.
PS: Forza Italia has nothing to do with your "nationalistic" and "patriotic" characterization.
PS 2: My arguments show no weakness, even if I might have not explained myself well. In Italy the term "conservative" is almost never used. When it is used, it is to refer to those who are aganist reforms. Christian-democrats, liberals and social-democrats of Forza Italia don't share consevatism, nor economic nor religious one, as the two last groups are staunchly secular. How can a social democrat be conservative? What connects the three groups is a set of reforms and a vision of the future of Italy. I don'think however that you are interested in a long dissertation about Italian politics. --Checco (talk) 21:11, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I simply said that calling Forza Italia (and thus Forza Europe) "conservative" is too general. It's like saying that it is democratic: correct, but too general. I found very interesting your intellectual exercise, although I don't agree on everything (especially letter f). It is always very interesting to discuss with you! Thank you for your verve and friendship. --Checco (talk) 21:48, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I knew it and I found it pretty ridicolous (POV!). Do you think that these two Portugues parties will merge someday? The definitely resemble to me FI and AN... --Checco (talk) 22:20, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Political Parties..?

A (very) draft discussion on the policy on political parties has been started by me here - User:Doktorbuk/pp. If you can assist with this discussion, or know how to help me get this policy looked at, advanced, and accepted by the larger Wiki community, please let me know. Many thanks doktorb wordsdeeds 19:39, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Political groups in COR and PACE

I would like you to see my posts at Talk:Committee of the Regions#European Alliance and Talk:European Democrats#European Democratic Group respectively. --Checco (talk) 14:15, 5 June 2008 (UTC)