Talk:Italy of Values

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Italy of Values is within the scope of WikiProject Italy, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Italy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, an attempt to improve, organise and standardise Wikipedia's articles in the area of politics. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

[edit] Justicialist?

I understand that IDV is called a justicialist party (with DiPietro being judge and all). But Justicialism currently is currently a redirect for peronism, and I don't see that link. So I'll remove the link to justicialism from the info box.C mon 17:01, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Populist?

IDV is not populist. Neither the italian page says that. --Subver (talk) 03:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

It.Wikipedia is not a reliable source and can't be a source for an article in another Wikipedia. Read populism and you will understand that the definition is correct. To be populist is not an offense: even other mainstream parties as Lega Nord or the Indian National Congress are defined populist, as some leading US Democrats, such as Barack Obama and John Edwards. IdV is an anti-corruption party with populist venatures (think about justice). It is a very good definition. Please don't make changes if there is no consensus about them. --Checco (talk) 08:45, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Checco hai introdotto tu "populist" senza alcun consenso da questa revisione: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Italy_of_Values&oldid=87646140 . IDV non si definisce populista e non mi interessa se sia un insulto o meno, non si possono appiopppare etichette a partiti, senza che loro si definiscono tali, se no potei appioppare "mafioso" o "affarista" a FI o togliere l'ideologia democratico-cristiana. Secondo me non c'è molto da discutere. --Subver (talk) 03:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Dear Subver, this is the English Wikipedia, so you're encouraged to use English in discussions like these. Secondly, can someone find a reliable secondary source, independent of the subject, static the most correct definition of IDV's ideology? Wikipedia is not a primar source, and everything in its articles should be sourced and verifiable by everyone. --Angelo (talk) 08:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Not for now, but I can only observe that reading the program of the party, it is not difficult to classify as "populist". In Italian the party is often described as giustizialista or qualunquista, which are clearly something that can be classified as populist attitudes. --Checco (talk) 08:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Anyway, CNN host Jonathan Mann describes IdV as "a populist anti-corruption party" (see http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/10/i_ins.01.html). Moreover Di Pietro, in an interview, explains that he is not afraid of being described as populist and gives of himself a description which is very populist (see http://www.labitaliasystem.it/intervista_dipietro.html). The fact that IdV is member of ELDR does not mean that it is a liberal party: European Tribune reckons that "a number of non-ideological centre-populist ("reform") parties are members of ELDR" (see A number of non-ideological centre-populist ("reform") parties are members of ELDR): this definition is very sensible for IdV. --Checco (talk) 09:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Can you please include this reasoning (obviously, together with sources) into the Ideology paragraph? If we are going to label this party as "populist", "centrist" or "whateverist", we should explain why we're using that one label. --Angelo (talk) 09:48, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Done. Obviously your contribute is also needed to check what I did. --Checco (talk) 10:29, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd also say it's populist in the neutral sense of the word. —Nightstallion 10:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Forza Italia is a real populist party, but there is no populist definition at the beginning of its article. IDV define itself a mixture of catholic, socialist and libertarian ideologies in its statuto.This is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper which can say anything about anyone. Italian wikipedia doesn't use populist (Checco, why don't we discuss there?). If "populist" is OK, mafia party is OK for a lot of other parties. --Subver (talk) 12:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

From the "statuto": Art.3 ...Il partito si riconosce nell'insieme delle grandi culture riformiste del novecento: la cultura cattolica della solidarietà sociale e familiare, la cultura socialista del lavoro e della giustizia sociale, la cultura liberale dell'economia di mercato, della liberta'individuale e del buon governo, attraversate dalle grandi tematiche dei diritti civili, della questione morale e dei nuovi diritti di cittadinanza alle quali i grandi movimenti ambientalisti, delle donne e dei giovani hanno dato un contributo essenziale. L'Italia dei Valori vuole integrare i tradizionali valori di libertà, uguaglianza, legalità e giustizia con i valori nuovi del nostro tempo: pari opportunità, sviluppo sostenibile, autogoverno, solidarietà e sussidiarietà, responsabilità, iniziativa, partecipazione ed europeismo, nel quadro di un sempre piu’ avanzato federalismo europeo; --Subver (talk) 12:40, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

CNN source consist only in the simple "populist" definition given by a journalist (in a article not IDV related). The other interview in some word:

Question to Di Pietro: "You seem the closest to the people politician.Aren't you afraid to seem populista?"

Answer:" Yes i'm close to people, and I'm not afraid if others call me populist".

Obviously it's not an admission to be populist! --Subver (talk) 12:49, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

It.Wiki has many flaws and I understand that there is no political scientific culture there. Anyway, we could discuss even there. In the past I had a discussion on the issue and we reached a compromise in taking out from the template liberalismo.

A party constitution is not a reliable source and, above all, not a neutral one. Anyway in this case the party constitution of IdV is a good evidence of how that party is populist. I want to reassure you that "populist" is not a bad thing, not for me at least (sometimes I consider myself a "libertarian populist"). Your bizzarre arguments (mafia?) on Forza Italia and Berlusconi shows how you are a little bit POV on the issue. I understand that for you "populist" is an offense, but it is not and, anyway, there's no consensus about your proposals. --Checco (talk) 13:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Your argument to sustain "populist" are bizarre, not mine. The consensus...we'll see. An encyclopedia could not be based on a (unique) journalist citation (moreover 2 words phrase). You haven't verified consensus when you changed from liberal to populist. I think you are POV, I'm sorry. --Subver (talk) 13:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing bad about being populist adn IdV is "populist in the neutral sense of the word", as Nightstallion observed some lines above. Most of the articles about Italian political parties are my work (is it a fault?), and thus I don't ask in talk page about everything I do. The fact that IdV is a populist party has never been contested by anyone in the last year: that's consensus, at some extent. Anyway, you don't agree and so we are discussing about the ideology issue. So what's the scandal about it? --Checco (talk) 13:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

By the way, Antonio Di Pietro is mentioned as "populist" on this PDF released by the Sussex University (UK) as well: [1], notably together with Ségolène Royal, Nicolas Sarkozy, Tony Blair and Yulia Tymoshenko. --Angelo (talk) 13:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I may not agree with that list, but that's a source too combined with consensus of three users... --Checco (talk) 13:42, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

This other one [2], dated 2000, defines Di Pietro as a "populist maverick". Here he is defined as a "genuine populist", whereas IDV is defined here as a populist anti-corruption party. I think they're way enough. --Angelo (talk) 13:48, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Can you put all these sources in the article? This way it will be more difficult to challenge the ideological characterization of the party... --Checco (talk) 13:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Only one more observation. In the article from the Financial Times linked by Angelo Di Pietro is defined "populist" in the economic sense of the term, read: "protectionist". This explains how difficult is to classify his party, which is very personality-driven as no other Italian political party (see the recent inquires by Radio Radicale, Panorama and Il Giornale, about it) is, as liberal too. --Checco (talk) 14:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I can find a lot of articles that define Forza Italia a populist party. Then do you agree to put as the first sentence of FI page. "FI is a populist party"? --Subver (talk) 14:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

FI is definitely a populist party, personally I see no problem in including it; however you should propose this change on the appropriate talk page. --Angelo (talk) 14:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

FI is a populist party exactly as most of Italian political parties are (probably the Democratic Party is turning to be fairly more populist than FI). In my opinion that is not a special character of the party, as it is for IdV and Lega Nord. For this basic reason I do not agree in inserting "populism" as a special character of Forza Italia, although I have nothing against underlining the populist attitudes of that party in Forza Italia#Distinctive traits. --Checco (talk) 14:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

That's the problem. You arbitrarily say that populism is a distinctive feature of IDV and not FI. Many people could think the opposite. That's why you can't begin the IDV article with "IDV is a populist party...". You could write AFTER..."something think that IDV is a populist party, because of..." or similar.--Subver (talk) 14:43, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

But there is no other way to describe IdV. I'm not saying that when a party has not a clear ideology is populist, but that's the case of IdV. It can be arbitrary, but here we work with consensus. if you form a different consensus on this or other page, I will stick to that, even if I don't agree. --Checco (talk) 14:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The way exists. Describe IdV as Idv describe itself. Mixture of catholic, socialist, liberal values. This is done for ALL the parties, except IDV! I know there is some issues with this convention (like describe FI ad a catholic party, as I read on that page), but it's the only possible. Then comments and criticism can be added in the article. --Subver (talk) 14:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree to describe the parties as they describe themselves: it would be very POV. FI describes itself also as a social-democratic party, but I personally oppose saying that FI is a social-democratic party in the article! --Checco (talk) 15:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)