Talk:The People of Freedom

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Form of party

As asked by Nightstallion what it seems to be the form of the new party, according to what newspapers write today. As of today, the idea of Berlusconi is to form a network party, in which different parties, associations, movements, groups and individuals may join, a little bit like UMP (in which some small parties are member of it without losing some of their autonomy) and the United States parties (open parties, which are loose coalitions of different groups, more similar to parties than to factions, regulated by the primary system and in which single groups tend to be very autonomous from each other when elections are far away). --Checco (talk) 14:36, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Mh, it's different from the US, though -- in the US, the two parties may be very loose ideologically, but they're certainly not "network parties" in the sense that other parties can be subsets of the party. —Nightstallion 20:27, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I consider the US parties as network parties, but anyway if you don't agree, we can decide not to mention the fact. I only observe that even today Berluconi said that he is studying the organization of the US political parties and how their primary system works. No problem, anyway. --Checco (talk) 20:44, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm not contesting that he will be basing PPL on US parties -- I'm just fairly certain that UMP and EPP have a very different kind of "network party" structure than the Democrats or Republicans do. The current version is fine, though. Thanks! —Nightstallion 22:41, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Any news about the party?

According to the article the party should be launched 2 December 2007. Today it is the 3 December. Any news? --Oddeivind 13:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

AFAIK, it was announced yesterday, but not founded -- I'm waiting for Checco to confirm that. —Nightstallion 19:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
This time I don't know to help you. Yesterday there was a vote on the party's name, but no official results are known and the vote may continue. My sense is that the party will be officially founded in a constituent assembly between January and March, but probably we can use one of these dates (18 November or 2 December) as fundation date. --Checco 19:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 1842?

Quoth the article:

On 2 December 1842, during a big demonstration of the centre-right in Rome against the government of Romano Prodi, Silvio Berlusconi proposed..."

1842 is the wrong year, obviously. I'm not sure what it's supposed to be -- my guess would be 2007 but someone who knows for sure should change it. --Jfruh (talk) 17:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

2007. --Checco (talk) 17:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] please, check your sources!!!

Part of the "information" in the article about Popolo della Libertà is biased. No-one knows how exactly Berlusconi "counted" those 7 million vote against Prodi. The suggestions about the name of the new party - two - came both from Berlusconi himself. The very impressive information about the possible future votes PDL would get is very much thin air. As an EU citizen living born in Italy in Scandiavian I don't know if I should laugh at the rubbish or cry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.140.6.100 (talk) 13:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, you should use only direct sources, not second hand ones (e.g. note 1)

You should also check your informations before writing.

PDL is not a party, it is a list: according to the Italian law, different parties can join together in a unique list for the elections, and this list has its own symbol, even if the list isn't actually a party. It sounds odd, I'll make an example: party A and party B are 2 different parties, they have 2 different presidents, secretaries, headquarters, etc. they join together for the elections in a list called X. X is a list of candidates (according to Italian laws citizens vote for lists or parties, not for candidates) X has its own symbol candidates elected in list X are part of the same "parlamentary group", i.e. in paliament - only in parliamet - they belong to the same group (in case of speech, discussion, etc.); nevertheless they are members of different parties (somebody of party A, with president 1 - somebody else of party B, with president 2). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.31.152.141 (talk) 00:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

If you think that the article needs some rewrite, why don't you do it by yourself? In any case, some of the things you say are not completely true and, remember, we are writing an en.Wiki article, thus we use European categories not Italian ones. --Checco (talk) 07:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Liberalism and liberal conservatism

Someone has repeatedly taken away "liberalism" from the ideologies of the party in the infobox. As liberal conservatism does not comprise liberalism (it is simply a variety of conservatism, see liberal conservatism and conservative liberalism) and the People of Freedom has important liberal factions (which are 100% liberal and not conservative), I repeatedly re-inserted "liberalism". I hope that my argument is clear to all and we can concentrate on more important issues. Thank you! --Checco (talk) 16:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Dear Checco, if a party is "Liberal conservative" it is neither pure "liberal" nor pure "conservative". It is quite easy to understand. Moreover, the People of Freedom has also important fascist factions (which are 100% fascist and not conservative nor liberal), represented e.g. by Ciarrapico and Mussolini. If you want, we can add 'Fascism' to 'Liberal', 'Conservative' and 'Liberal-conservative'. I hope that my argument is clear to all and we can concentrate on more important issues. Thank you!

I'd agree with including liberalism in some form, but including fascism is also valid. —Nightstallion 17:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Valid? In what sense? Are you joking? Both Mussolini and Ciarrapico are not fascists and they are a very minority in the party, which is composed by a 25% of liberals (both classical and social liberals), 50% of christian democrats and 25% of (liberal) conservatives. Non problem in taking away "liberal conservatism", but to take away "liberalism" would be a big mistake. I do not understand the argument of the anonimous as there are no fascist factions in the party. Maybe two MPs out of 420 are neo-fascists, but what about the remaining 418? Even the Democratic Party and Italy of Values have some un-reformed communists within, but I wouldn't propose "communism" as one of their ideologies... --Checco (talk) 17:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough, but then we should include something like "mainly Christian democratic, minority factions of liberals and conservatives". —Nightstallion 19:02, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but I can also observe that many christian democrats in the party are also liberals. I think that the current solution (similar to the one adopted for many parties, see Civic Platform or Union for a Popular Movement) is ok. --Checco (talk) 19:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Obviously what is important for me is first of all not to include "fascism" which would be not correct, non-sense and very POV. --Checco (talk) 19:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Dear Checco, can you please give some verifiable source of your statements, e.g. :"[People of Freedom] is composed by a 25% of liberals (both classical and social liberals), 50% of christian democrats and 25% of (liberal) conservatives"? Thank you very much,

People of Freedom is composed by Forza Italia and other small liberal, christian-democratic and social-democratic parties by its 70% and by National Alliance by its 30% (see http://blog.panorama.it/italia/2008/02/28/pdl-accordo-sulle-liste-ogni-10-parlamentari-3-saranno-di-an/). Probably the elected people of the first group will be 75% and those coming from AN 25%. You can notice the composition of Forza Italia by reading List of Forza Italia leading members by political origin. As you can notice there is vast majority of former Christian democrats, to which can be added other people as Bondi and Dell'Utri (see Forza Italia#Factions, for a total of 60% of Christian Democrats, but also a 40% of former Socialists, Liberals, Republicans, Social Democrats and Radicals: all these people can be considered liberal by European standards, although some are classical liberals, some conservative liberals and some others still social-democrats. The most important minor parties which joined PdL were christian-democratic: Liberal Populars and DCA. AN itself was composed mainly by liberal conservatives, but also by some christian democrats and liberals. I will give you more precise figures when the new Parliament will be in session. --Checco (talk) 08:18, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
National Alliance is a national-conservative party with strong liberal-conservative and christian-democratic influences. It proposes everything that is explained as "christian democracy" in Christian democracy, wants to join EPP and also in it.Wiki is characheterized also as a christian-democratic party. A Christian Democrat is a person who supports christian-democratic policies, not a former member of DC, a historical Italian party which included both national-conservatives (think about Gustavo Selva) and social-democrats (Rosy Bindi). So, what's the problem with it? Moreover National Alliance is composed of a 15% of former memebrs of DC and the People of Freedom is overwhelmingly composed of former members of DC (60% of FI, PL, DCA...). What's the problem? --Checco (talk) 10:44, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
If you insist in inserting "national conservatism", a minority faction, I would be obliged to insert "social democracy", the other (larger) minority faction. Would be a good compromise for you? I personally prefer to leave things as they are in order to represente the party as a whole: "christian democracy", "liberal conservatism" and, at some extent, "liberalism" are ideologies in common to all party members. I said "at some extent" for "liberalism" because, although Berlusconi characterize the party only as liberal, I think that "liberalism" is not the ideology of all party members. --Checco (talk) 10:52, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
As a user continues to insert "national conservatism" which is a minority faction of PdL, I will insert also "social democracy" which is a minority faction in the party too. What is happening is simply absurd. --Checco (talk) 19:32, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Dear anonymous user, please stop making changes to this article without listening to others' voices. Why don't you show up here in talk page? Do you like "Christian democracy, liberalism, liberal conservatism, national conservatism (minority faction) and social democracy (minority faction)" as a compromise. I do prefer the original version (with too many ideologies the party seems a bazar), but I am interested in compromise. Are you? --Checco (talk) 19:47, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Dear Checco, you are interested in compromise, but I am interested in truth. The 'Others' voices" is simply and only your own voice. The absurdity is in your own statements. From National Alliance: "National Alliance (Alleanza Nazionale, AN) is a national-conservative Italian political party." You state that about 30% of the PdL MP's come from National Alliance. It seems to me quite easy to understand. I begin to be fairly sure that you are severely biased.213.156.52.124 (talk) 19:52, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Even I am interested in truth, and the truth is that People of Freedom will be a chistian-democratic, liberal and liberal-conservative party with both national-conservative and social-democratic minority factions. As a long-time editor of Wikipedia, I prefer to use defintions of the party as a whole, but I am open to compromise. As there are no sources about the party's ideology we discuss to find the most correct solution. The solution you now oppose has been accepted for months.

It's curious that you cite an article I wrote as evidence of my bias. If I were biased, all the articles about Italian parties would be biased as I was the principal editor of all of them. Please stop offending me: I have a long record as respected editor of Wikipedia. I have no problems about discussing with you, but please don't impose your views as truth. --Checco (talk) 20:20, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Also in it.Wiki it was decided to to put "national conservatism" as one of the ideologies of PdL. At it:Discussione:Il Popolo della Libertà, all around the page, you can read many arguments against inserting "national conservatism". --Checco (talk) 20:36, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Dear Checco, I am forced to repeat my previous statement because you did not answer to it. From National Alliance: "National Alliance (Alleanza Nazionale, AN) is a national-conservative Italian political party." You state that about 30% of the PdL MP's come from National Alliance. It seems to me quite easy to understand that national conservatorism is not a minority faction of the PdL, but indeed a major one. Why this statement is so terribly wrong?213.156.52.124 (talk) 20:43, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
You are quoting a sentence written by me, so, if everything I do is biased, why not that one? About a 25% of elected MPs come from National Alliance, but many of them, as we acknowledged in it.Wiki, are liberal-conservatives and national-conservatives. This makes "national conservatism" as small faction in the new party, exactly as "social democracy" is. PdL is primarily a christian-democratic, liberal and liberal-conservative party, with national-conservative and social-conservative factions. My argument is that we should define the party as a whole and not by its several factions. Do you understand this or do I need to repeat it again and again? --Checco (talk) 20:49, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
First of all, it is 30% and not 25%. Then, you are supposing that national-conservative factions in FI and in the other small parties amount to 0%: indeed, national conservatives are present in FI too, and their numbers have to be summed to the ones of National Alliance.

In the end, the difference between my position and yours is simple: you appear to say that the in PdL the social-democratic faction is as large as the national-conservative one!! I prefer to adhere to the truth and to say that the national conservative faction is considerably bigger.

We'd better wait the installation of the new Parliament. Anyway, I observe that in the previous one, there were 40-50 MPs of Forza Italia with social-democratic roots, while, among the 113 MPs of AN, there were many liberal-conservatives (Fini himself, Matteoli, Urso...) and many christian-democrats (Ronchi, Mantovano, Bongiorno...) and more or less 40-50 truly national-conservative MPs (and some of these left to form The Right). The question is: what is national-conservatism? If you think about national-conservative principles, you would easily observe that on many issues AN was more liberal and to the left of FI or UDC! --Checco (talk) 21:34, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
"40-50 MPs of Forza Italia with social-democratic roots" Who are you talking about? Please give reasonable numbers. Moreover, roots do not mean much in politics: if yes, National Alliance should be regarded as a fascist party. For instance, Sandro Bondi was a communist, but in his present political behaviour there is nothing left of his past adherence to PCI.
By the way: Mantovano christian-democrat? The one who fought against the political asylum for the Kurdish leader Ocalan? Your european christian democracy is more and more puzzling for me...
I don't follow you... your arguments are getting obscure to me. Tell me what Christian democrats in Europe fought for Ocalan? Where is written that a Christian-democrat should do that? --Checco (talk) 21:50, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] IT IS NOT A PARTY

Some times ago I replaced the (uncorrect) word "party" with "list". You can discuss everything you want, but there are some certain things: PDL is not a party. A party is enrolled as "party" in the Ministry of Interiors A list is enrolled as list in the same ministry. It's the Italian law, it's a fact, it cannot be discussed from different "point of view". So I will remove the word "party" and I will replace it with "list", and everybody should agree, as it is a fact. Best regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.31.157.72 (talk) 22:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

In the Italian law there is no such provision: there is no enrollement or registration of parties at the Ministry of the Interior. --Checco (talk) 22:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New cabinet

This is more of a question. Does anyone know when will Berlusconi will assume office, and does anyone have a list of who his cabinet members are??? Like Minister of family, or minister of the interior? Any info would help! Galati (talk) 21:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)Galati

Berlusconi will assume office somewhere between 1 and 15 May. Only at that point you will know who the cabinet members will be. If you want to see a list of ministers of the current government, take a look to Prodi II Cabinet. --Checco (talk) 08:48, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Primary elections

Dear Checco, Wikipedia is not Checcopedia: the problem of sources is a problem of everybody who contributes to wikipedia, i.e. mainly yours. Your statement is absurd: primary elections all over the world are kept to elect candidates, not names.. your statement can induce people to think that primary elections were held to elect candidates, and during these elections the name was chosen. For your dignity's sake please edit your statement: I am sure that you will get your pay from PdL all the same. As a matter of fact, you work hard 24-7 to keep the italian politics' articles free of any word which would shed a bad light on your beloved politicians.. I am sure that you employers will understand that your efforts are beyond any human possibility, and that this time you simply overdid for sake of goodwill. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.205.66.86 (talk) 17:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

In what sense speaking of "primary election" is praising a party? There is a source, so I really don't understand what is your problem about. I work on all the articles about Italian political parties: does this mean that I'm paid by all Italian parties? I you have a better idea about how explaining what happened on 1-2 December, it's ok, but if you start writing false ans ureferenced claims about an online poll, that's another sort of thing. Please, stop offending me and help me in writing these articles, instead of vandalizing them. --Checco (talk) 17:20, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Moreover, I did not insert that statement, but I simply did not find anything better to explain what happened. --Checco (talk) 17:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, the reference for the online poll is there. Since you cannot understand, even if you assert of being a student in political sciences, i will say to you that speaking of "primary election" is praising a party because it makes people think that candidates are chosen by the people, and not by the same party as it happened in Italy (without possibility of expressing preferences, thank to the Calderoli's electoral law). However, speaking of 'primary elections' to choose a party name is simply uncorrect, no matter if it praises or if it insults PdL.

Probably the words you used in your first edit are ok. The second edit is false and I rollbacked it. I don't know how to explain you that there was an online poll, but it was not counted because a vote to be counted had to be from a person who decided at the same time to join the party by signing a form taken from what you called "petition desks" or from the Internet. This is a very differnt thing from the online poll. Do you understand now? --Checco (talk) 17:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
The reference you are continously inserting is badly written, but at the end it cites the disclaimer of the online poll: i risultati riflettono le opinioni di coloro che hanno scelto di partecipare; pertanto non possono essere assunti come rappresentativi delle opinioni di tutti i naviganti né dell’insieme degli iscritti o dei simpatizzanti di Forza Italia. Indeed the online vote was only an opinion poll, like those in many newspapers' websites, and indeed it was not counted. --Checco (talk) 17:38, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, please give a reference for the fact that the poll was a joke and was not counted, and I will stop editing this page. If not, I will go on until some other peolpe will judge if it is you or me that is wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.205.66.86 (talk) 17:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The problem is yours. Every source (we have one in the article and that is fine), when speaking of the results, never mentions the online poll and also your source does not support your thesis. What can I do about it? The online poll was so unrelevant that no newspapaper cited it on 2 December, when the results of the poll were released. What I don't understand of you is why you are so happy in writing false things. --Checco (talk) 17:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Checco's absolutely right. —Nightstallion 18:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Dear Nightstallion, if you click on the image of my source (which is a snapshot of the Forza Italia web site) you can read: " PDL: sul sito di FI un gazebo on line per scegliere il nome due opzioni, Partito della libertà o Popolo della libertà ". I would like to remember that Panorama is a magazine owned by Berlusconi himself: this makes the source quite reliable! It is impossible to deny the fact that an online poll has been launched with the aim of selecting the name of PdL. Actually, Checco only says that the online poll was not relevant because (according to his own words), no newspaper cites it, but this is not a 'positive' source.

My proposal is the following: if Checco does not provide a positive source for his statement that the online votes were not counted, the article should stay as it is now. If Checco provides a source where there is reported the fact that the online votes were not counted, we can modify the article saying that an online poll was lauched to select the name (which is not deniable), but in the end the online votes were not counted (citing the source provided by Checco). I think that the name issue is rather relevant: as far as I know, the PdL is the only example of a political party which delegates to the people the choice of his name among two possibilities. Moreover, In Italy lots of people think that the name of the party was indeed chosen via the online poll: to spend some word on the issue is for sure not unrelevant. Checco's alternative (i.e., to remove any reference whatsoever to the online poll) would mean to eliminate an important piece of information about the origins of PdL and its approach to the web. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.205.66.86 (talk) 12:14, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

The article from Panorama is not clear, but anyway it doesn't state that the online poll was counted and the cited discalimer is an evidence of that. No source says that the online poll was contented and this is a fact: it was not counted. I wouldn't find probably a source that states that the moon is not green, but this doesn't mean that the moon is green! It is you who need to find evidence of your personal idea not us. --Checco (talk) 12:41, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Please, Checco, do not waste my time repeating the same thing over and over again. I am not paid by anybody to edit Wiki articles: I have to work to earn a living and it is not possible that each time that I want to cite a piece of truth in Wikipedia I have to lose hours and hours with you that repeat the same wrong things over and over, without dialoguing in a proper way. Your method of arguing over everything that you do not like is simply a really effective way to keep 'your' articles as they are, rejecting any contribution that you do not like on the basis of your own preferences.

Anyway, the source clearly states that an online poll was launched to select the name of PdL. The disclaimer "i risultati riflettono le opinioni di coloro che hanno scelto di partecipare" is obvious: every poll express the opinion of voters, either online or at a petition desk. It is NOT written that the opinions will not be counted!! Moreover, it is written in the source that " il Cavaliere lo aveva detto: “Saranno i cittadini a decidere”. Detto, fatto: chiunque può andare sul sito di Forza Italia e con un semplice clic (sono più di 4,5 mila, per ora) dare la propria preferenza. Stavolta, però, per prevenire le critiche sull’assenza dei controlli - che avevano messo qualche dubbio sull’autenticità delle firme di rivotiamo.it - le opzioni sono solo due e si può votare una sola volta: se si prova a farlo due volte dallo stesso computer, infatti, appare un messaggio: “Hai già votato, il tuo voto non verrà preso in considerazione”.

I cannot believe that you still deny that this source is clear!! This source IS clear, and it literally states that an online poll was launched to choose the name of PdL. Please stop insulting human intelligence with questioning the source. Even if the poll (as YOU say) was not counted, it is a matter of fact that the online poll was launched.

You would like to eliminate whatsoever reference to the online poll, and to remove it fron the realm of recorded things.. well, please go to the Orwell '1984' world and do it there. In this world, you cannot remove facts that do not suit your likes and dislikes. The online poll was launched: if you deny it you are completely unreliable. In my opinion, as already stated, the online poll is absolutely worth mentioning in the article. I presented to you two alternatives: please re-read my previous comment and choose the one that you like, and stop denying that an online poll was launched.

PS: I will not be able to read your eventual answer until next Monday. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.205.66.86 (talk) 14:08, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I still deny what you say because it is false. The online poll was definitely launched, but it was not counted. Only those who decided to become member of the party could vote from the Internet, but not through the online poll but sending s form. --Checco (talk) 14:26, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Ps: Many websites of parties launch polls on just everything: I don't think this is relevant for a Wiki article. This is our case. --Checco (talk) 14:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Corriere della Sera announced the decision of the name of the party in this way. No mention to the online poll, but only to what you call "petition desks". Same thing for Oggi. --Checco (talk) 15:13, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
I absolutely agree with Checco. —Nightstallion 17:49, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Checco, I am really astonished by your reply. You say:"I still deny what you say because it is false. The online poll was definitely launched, but it was not counted." If you try to read my contribution, I said that the online poll was launched, I did not say that it was counted for sure: since for sure you are an intelligent person and you are able to read, when you say that my assertion is false you are consciously writing a lie. This is not very good for a Wikipedian...

In my source, there is a snapshot of the www.forzaitalia.it web site, which is the official site of Forza Italia. There, there is written: "New party: which name do you prefer?" and the button is named "Choose". This means (if words and facts mean anything to you) that the poll was intended to give the possibility to people to choose the name of PdL, in the very same way that was done at the petition desks. The default action taken by a party which launch a poll is to count the votes: it would be very strange to invite people to choose the name of the party and then discarding their opinion, as anybody with some intellectual honesty would think.

I do not see why you are opposing to report about the online poll. The fact that an online poll was launched is important, since thousands of people voted on the web site (see source): this fact cannot be deleted at your will.

You say: "Many websites of parties launch polls on just everything.."... well, with these ultra-generic arguments and other completely stupid phrases as the one on the colour of the Moon you can discard any piece of information you like! I would like to see a single example of a party which decided to launch an online poll to choose its name. It is quite different from 'everything'. Moreover, I would like to see a party which invites people to choose the name and then discards completely the collected opinion without saying it explicitely. It is quite an unfair behaviour for a party.. maybe it is for this reason that you do not like the online poll to appear in the Wiki article?

You said before that "No source says that the online poll was contented and this is a fact". For the 4th time, I state that the important thing to be quoted is the fact that the online poll was launched. This is confirmed also from another source: in 'La repubblica' [1] is explicitely written: "La scelta del nome era stata affidata ai cittadini tramite un referendum sia via internet che direttamente ai gazebo allestiti in tutta Italia."

Finally, to Nightstallion: as you probably know, your contributions to the discussion are utterly unuseful: you should try to express yourself in a more articulate way. Moreover, I find really unfair that you decided to edit back the article without waiting for my reply. Finally, in the current version are cited 'open primary elections'. Me and Checco already agreed that 'open primary elections' was not a correct term to indicate the choice of the name: If you read the discussion above, you will find" I will say to you that speaking of "primary election" is praising a party because it makes people think that candidates are chosen by the people, and not by the same party as it happened in Italy (without possibility of expressing preferences, thank to the Calderoli's electoral law). However, speaking of 'primary elections' to choose a party name is simply uncorrect, no matter if it praises or if it insults PdL.

(Checco)Probably the words you used in your first edit are ok. "

it is quite clear that you did not even read the discussion entirely. Please re-read the discussion and try to explain to me why citing the launching of the online poll (which is a proven fact) would be so bad for the article.

My proposal is to write: "An online poll was launched on the Forza Italia web site to choose the name of the party (reference to the source), but there was no official statement from PdL about the fate of the online votes."

To both Checco and Nightstallion Please give an articulate reply to this discussion, avoiding for at least one time misinterpretations of my words: I will not stop if your replies are not precise and verifiable, because Wikipedia is not yours: I myself contribute with money to Wikipedia, and to see that the political articles are treated in this impossible way forces me to fight to make things right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.205.66.86 (talk) 12:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I have no problems about adding An online poll was launched on the Forza Italia web site to choose the name of the party (reference to the source), but there was no official statement from PdL about the fate of the online votes, even if that sentence is nor so relevant to be deserved in the article. --Checco (talk) 12:40, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] SIMPLE TOPIC: PDL IS NOT A PARTY

I wrote it several times, but somebody cannot understand. So I repeat PDL is NOT a party (NOT means NOT) so if you modify the article writing PARTY, you write incorrect information, that means NOT correct. Hope I will not need to explain it anymore. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.31.205.229 (talk) 23:36, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe PdL is not formally a party from an Italian perspective, but it is definitely a party from an European Part of view. Remember that a party can be simply a parliamentary group: this happened in England (Tories and Whigs), in Italy (Historical Right, Historical Left, Liberal Conservatives, Liberals...), in France (Ultras, Monarchists, Radicals...) and more recently in Estonia. Finally please consider that PdL id ok with the definition of "political party" present in Political party. --Checco (talk) 06:15, 8 May 2008 (UTC)