User talk:Checco/Archive 5 (July-December 2008)
IND/DEM done[edit]IND/DEM now upgraded as per your request. Now working on Independents for a Europe of Nations. Anameofmyveryown (talk) 02:22, 5 July 2008 (UTC) I-EN done[edit]Independents for a Europe of Nations now upgraded as per your request, although not as well as IND/DEM was. Anameofmyveryown (talk) 02:22, 5 July 2008 (UTC) Europe of Nations done[edit]Europe of Nations now upgraded as per your request, although not as well as IND/DEM was. Anameofmyveryown (talk) 15:44, 6 July 2008 (UTC) left-right axis[edit]Hi. Its not my intention to impose anything. Both of us been working long time enough at wikipedia to know the process of editing. We disagree on how the term 'far left' should be applied, we've both reverted each other's edits at several times. We have also discussed, and so far not yet reached a compromise. My rationale is as follows; Left-right descriptions are contextual, and I think they should be avoided when other definitions are available. Most of all, I'd like to remove 'Political position' altogether from the infoboxes of political parties. I think left-right axis positioning should be reserved for uncontroversial descriptions. If it possible to use the labels such as 'social democrat', 'communist', 'socialist', 'conservative', etc., that is more precise and less contextually dependent than left-right. 'Far-right' is a bit complicated, since just using the term 'nationalist' is not a perfect solution. There are 2,5 million articles at english wikipedia, and not all are on my watchlist. PdCI and PRC are on my watchlist, FPÖ isn't. At some point I have to limit my own scope of subjects that I monitor. But I do think that the passage "The far-right FPÖ and right-wing BZÖ" in the Austrian legislative election, 2008 article illustrate the problem quite well, namely that using separate terms for the two parties is highly abritrarily. One could, depending on pov, also label BZÖ as 'far-right', and with another pov neither would be 'far-right'. --Soman (talk) 17:57, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Politics sidebars[edit]Hi. Sorry to hear you're not happy with the above, which I can understand if the "edit" links no longer work. However, I tried to ensure I amended the {{politicsboxend}} links so these links would work -- did I miss one or two? The ones I've just tried now seem to be working okay. PS I just noticed that I missed one of the Italy templates (Politics of Trentino-AA/ST). Maybe that's what you spotted..? Have now fixed. Sardanaphalus (talk) 15:00, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Spam[edit]Checco: I talked to KyZan about his uncivil behaviour, but he just continued insulting people. I'd just ignore his unconstructive, uncivil behaviour. Anyway, I think you're right in removing his link and about the need to add more sources. Sadly I don't have much time to do this, on the short term, either. C mon (talk) 08:05, 28 July 2008 (UTC) Liberalism, radicalism, LO/LCR[edit]Firstly, thanks for linking me to that article. I'll dive in and do my best to it. Thanks a lot. Secondly, the ministry of Interior didn't breakdown the far-left vote as they did in 2007. So no separate LO/LCR figures. However, on a local level, most newspapers were able to break down the candidates and from those results, the LCR did much better than LO. Take care.--Petrovic-Njegos (talk) 01:17, 1 August 2008 (UTC) Invitation[edit]
National Liberalism[edit]Checco: I edited your National Liberalism article to add in a bit about a variant of NL in the UK. They were created by a previous party called the Third Way which has gone back to being a think-tank (their page will have to be edited). I have written an article about the NLP for Wikipedia but really don't have the skill or experience to post it. I was wondering whether you would be interested in doing so? One way or another could you pm me via my log in? --Benningson (talk) 12:46, 07 August 2008 (UTC) Sally Kern[edit]If you don't mind, may I ask you for examination of article about Oklahoma Republican Representative Sally Kern? She is currently an object of continuing smear campaign for her critical statements about homosexuality she made few months ago. Is a biblical stance towards homosexuality a sign of "homophobia" or not? Currently one of the administrators have taken side on the issue, which I believe is unfair and biased. Could you take a look at the discussion on the article talk page? Regards. Ammon86 (talk) 18:14, 9 August 2008 (UTC) Conservative liberalism[edit]The article was originally unsourced, and constains may contradictory statements that are synthesized by you. I changed this article to reflect the official definition of conservative liberalism. CounterEconomics (talk) 19:48, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Removal of Image:European-political-spectrum.png[edit]The image contains many original research terms. Conservatism means both authoritarianism and right-wing. Progressivism means both libertarianism and left-wing. Could you cite anywhere that the terms have two definitions? Perhaps you are confused with the conservative liberalism article is that you define conservatism that erroneous way. The official definition of conservatism means cultural tradition and resistence to change. It does not mean anything other than that. 65.75.189.67 (talk) 15:42, 16 August 2008 (UTC) Your definitions of left-wing and right-wing are wrong. Left-wing means equality and right-wing means aristocracy. They do not have anything to do with economic liberalism. And also economic liberalism and economic conservatism are NOT antonyms. 65.75.189.67 (talk) 15:45, 16 August 2008 (UTC) If you give me a definition of conservatism, then you give the same exact word conservatism. This means that you do not know the definition of conservatism, and you use conservatism as a catch-all term. 65.75.189.67 (talk) 15:48, 16 August 2008 (UTC) You also do not know the real definitions of progressivism and liberalism. 65.75.189.67 (talk) 15:48, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Factions in the U.S. Democratic Party[edit]Please do not start by insulting my knowledge of the U.S. political system. Your comment interrupted me from watching part of the DNC. More importantly: as long as the statement is unsourced, it is original research or speculation, which should not be on wikipedia. My greatest concern is however that the statement currently reads that there is a similarity between Progressives in the Democratic Party and Democratic Socialists. Democratic Socialists are distinct from social-democrats. Democratic Socialists believe in the establishment of some form of socialism with democratic means. No progressive in the U.S. Democratic party wants to establish any form socialism. That's Bernie Sanders' position. Find sources, change democratic socialism to social democracy and I'm happy. C mon (talk) 14:32, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Civica[edit]Is it a former party now? If so, the article should be updated... —Nightstallion 16:17, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Politics of Italian regions[edit]Hello Checco, I've seen that you are the main contributor of a number of articles concerning the politics of Italian regions. Frankly speaking, I completely disagree with what is currently written there. Italy is not yet a federal republic and it does not have sense to speak about ministers or ministries in regions, as well as of constitutions or similia, without even mentioning the fact that the regional laws and governments are subject to the rules issued by the Italian republic government and parliament. Is there any existing discussion on this matter that has been carried on and that I missed? --Cantalamessa (talk) 21:57, 31 August 2008 (UTC) Hello[edit]You seem interesting. Care to add me to your MSNM? Thanks. Siúnrá (talk) 16:27, 6 September 2008 (UTC) MSNM=MSN Messenger, also can mean Windows Live Messenger and all variants. Siúnrá (talk) 14:45, 11 September 2008 (UTC) Ciao[edit]Hello Checco. I noticed you are a native speaker of Italian. Would you be able to help at WP:PNT? There are a few articles that need cleanup after being roughly translated and some which still need translation. Regards, BalkanFevernot a fan? say so! 11:07, 10 September 2008 (UTC) MRC[edit]I don't have figures for the MRC available. The categories used in the results page are those given by the MoI on election night. --Petrovic-Njegos (talk) 21:53, 12 September 2008 (UTC) Italian newspapers and much more[edit]Hi Checco!First of all thank you for correcting me.You are right when you say that political allegiance does not mean strickly ideology.But let's analyze these Italian newspapers:1)If Corriere della Sera is centre-left,it cannot be liberal,but social-liberal.2)The same thing is worth for La Stampa.3)You've written in the political allegiance that Il Giornale is centre-right,but in the article you've written right-wing;maybe centre-right is the best answer.4)The same thing is worth for Il Foglio.5)La Repubblica cannot be left-wing,but centre-left.Social democracy and Progressivism are centre-left,it is written also in the Centre-left page.Then I would like to precise something:1)You've written that Italian Socialist Party (2008) cannot be democratic socialist if it is already for the Third Way.Let me tell you that there are parties in Europe,which have these positions:Democratic socialism,Social democracy,Third Way.There are three factions in the Socialist Party:the Angelo Sollazzo one(democratic socialist),the Pia Locatelli onw and the Riccardo Nencini one.2)Are you sure that PDT is democratic socialist?It adheres to Socialist International. Itanesco (talk) 08:52, 19 September 2008 (UTC) Political ideology sidebar templates[edit]Hi again, Checco. Would you mind reposting your objection
Agrarian parties[edit]I honestly don't know the answers to your questions. C mon (talk) 08:02, 1 October 2008 (UTC) San Marino[edit]Why the early elections? There must be some reason, and it should be mentioned, no? —Nightstallion 21:15, 2 October 2008 (UTC) Incidentally, which parties are in favour of EU accession? I believe at least part of the left is (the Christian Democrats claim this, at least), but who precisely? —Nightstallion 21:32, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Haider[edit]I'm sure you've heard -- I really can't say I'm sorry about it... Apart from that, he must have been going at far more than 100 kph for his car to be that badly wrecked. —Nightstallion 17:25, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi :)[edit]You're from Veneto so maybe you can help me with this question. I'm researching the Northern Italian surnames Costelli, Costello, and Costella. They are surnames of Northern Italian origin. I'm trying to find out the etymology of the names. They look like the Romanian name Costel, which is a diminutive of Constantin. Might Costelli, Costello, and Costella also have originated from Northern Italian diminutives of Costantino? A is putting the smack down (talk) 21:02, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
hey[edit]hey there, long time no see! i saw what is going on with poor supparluca. Icsunonove (talk) 20:27, 15 October 2008 (UTC) Semi-protection?[edit]There is a strict protection policy I have to respect, so I'll consider protecting these articles separately rather than as a whole. In addition, keep in mind that semi-protection can be justified only by heavy and persistent vandalism from IP users. I'll look at it. --Angelo (talk) 16:06, 20 October 2008 (UTC) Israeli election[edit]No worries - quite a lot of sources seem to be getting it wrong. Although it is very likely that the election will happen in February (and there are still two possible dates), most parties do agree on February 10. However, by law there is still a three-week period in which another party could form a government, and only then can the election date be officially set - see this news article. пﮟოьεԻ 57 11:50, 29 October 2008 (UTC) PD-IdV[edit]I thought the alliance had been broken? —Nightstallion 23:24, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Notification of DYK[edit]A discussion is going on Template_talk:Did_you_know#Articles_created.2Fexpanded_on_November_4 to nominate articles to appear on WP:DYK. One of the nominated articles is Political foundation at European level, which I have just written. Given that you have expressed an interest in this subject or related ones (Europarties/Eurogroups) over the past year, I thought you might wish to go there and comment, either for or against. This is a neutrally worded message falling under the "Friendly notice" clause of WP:CANVASS. Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 19:59, 4 November 2008 (UTC) Hi, similar to the request made for Val Gardena, can you provide an opinion for this page request? I'm familiar and have visited this town a few times, and even the local inhabitants use "Ortisei" for basic promotion in English. Icsunonove (talk) 22:41, 14 November 2008 (UTC) SD[edit]It's actually forming a left-wing party now? Who's going to join? —Nightstallion 22:27, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Referendum[edit]Will a referendum on the electoral law now be held in April 2009 or not? —Nightstallion 16:33, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
What's this talk about a PD del Nord? —Nightstallion 17:48, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Dutch Politics[edit]The best poller is probably interview/nss which can be found here. It posts a bi-weekly poll. More sensitive to shifts in public opinion, but less accurate is peil.nl (found here. The recent polls indicate that the social-democratic PvdA, which was doing very bad, is winning voters, probably due to the way their leader and our minister of finance Wouter Bos is preforming in the financial crisis. their good performance comes at the expense of the socialist SP. Other strong performers are the leftwing liberal D'66 and the rightwing liberal PVV of Geert Wilders. They are winning because of continued polarization on the migration issue, with D'66 taking a tolerant position and the PVV a nationalist one. This at the expense of the main liberal party VVD and Rita Verdonk's Proud of the Netherlands. Verdonk's movement is falling apart, as even her trusted campaign advisor recently left the sinking ship. Instability will probably characterize the Dutch political system for the forseeable future, especially in electoral terms. As for an explanation of this: I should refer you to Pellikaan et al. (2007)[1] it explains the electoral changes by a change of the dimensionality of the political system. Where traditionally the political parties and electorate were divided along religious and economic lines, a division between along economic lines and a migration/integration cleavage is developing. The LPF, and recently the SP, D66 and PVV all benefited from this new cleavage. Kriesi et al. (2006)[2] place this change in a larger change of European electorates due to the impact of globalization on the political system. (I recently started my PhD research on a related subject, so sorry for the footnotes). As for a prediction for the Netherlands after 2010: the PvdA will win the election, but will continue to govern with the CDA and one of either the Socialist Party, GreenLeft or D'66. The VVD will continue to see instability and will loose voters to the far right, which will be dominated by the PVV (Verdonk is on her way out). I hope that answers your question. C mon (talk) 14:52, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
2. The Socialist Party (Netherlands) can perhaps best be compared to the Die Linke in Germany, specifically the WASG-part: a party of people leftwing to the social-democratic PvdA who want to preserve the welfare state and protect the public sector. The SP combines this with skepticism towards European integration and conservative positions on migration and integration. 3. The Dutch grand coalition is not much different from the one in Germany, Austria or Belgium. The cabinet does not have many ambitions. But the parties may get better along because the CDA is more centrist than the OeVP, CD&V and CDU/CSU which are all quite rightwing Christian-democratic parties. 4. Verdonk's fall is coincided with two negative news moments: she lied publicly about being a member of a radical socialist party in the 1970s (Pacifist Socialist Party); and she got in a public fight with one of her financial backers. But the main reason she performs much worse than Wilders is that she has a larger ambition. She wants to enter government while all Wilders wants to do is tell people Muslims are evil. This ambition also caused her fall, because she needed more money, better campaigners and more voters. The higher you reach, the lower you'll fall. 5. Nobody is discussing changes to the electoral law currently and any change is very unlikely to happen. If you have any questions please let me know. - C mon (talk) 21:52, 2 December 2008 (UTC) P.S. To Nightstallion's response: could you show a political scientist which calls the PVV nationalist. It is part of a liberal tradition, and offers a liberal program which emphasizes secularism and low taxation. It might not be my kind of liberalism ...
Just a few links for PVV: [1], [2], [3], [4] -- I know those aren't analysts per se, but my point is that quite a few people consider him to be very nationalist and Fortuyn's heir, more or less. —Nightstallion 23:16, 2 December 2008 (UTC) Footnotes[edit]
Romanian legislative elections results[edit]Yes, I know. The BEC announced the final results for each Chamber, that can be found here, and here. (if you don't speak Romanian, the last column represents the party of each MP, if it run as a member of an alliance) --ES Vic (talk) 13:48, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
I must be tired, if I wrote 4! I have no idea how many National-Peasant's won a seat. For now nobody knows who what will do! there is still time to form a governing coalition. no need to hurry! ;) --ES Vic (talk) 14:22, 4 December 2008 (UTC) Swiss People's Party[edit]Hi, in spite of some disagreements we had, I'd appreciate if you could comment on this issue. --Pan Miacek (t) 17:01, 17 December 2008 (UTC) Semi-protection requests[edit]Law and Justice is semi-protected now; about Forza Italia, there is no sufficient recent activity of vandalism to justify another semi-protection, and additionally I think the concerns regarding some of the party's ideology definition could make sense (especially regarding its definition as populist, and the actual sense of defining a full PPE member and a centre-right party as "partially social-democratic". --Angelo (talk) 22:17, 20 December 2008 (UTC) Hi, do you happen to have a idea as to (on-line) sources about this party's 'position'? I have a dispute with another user there who wished to give the position as '(Far-)Right', based on one source by Leiden scholars. I really couldn't agree with that, based on what I've read, though right now I lack good sources, too. Any idea? --Pan Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 17:06, 28 December 2008 (UTC) Articles related to Lega Nord[edit]Hi checco, remember me, Piccolo Modificatore Laborioso? We discussed about the Italian regional templates a couple of weeks ago. This time I'll try and write in English, hoping I won't make too many mistakes ;) Anyway, I noticed some problems with some Lega Nord-related articles, and since you're by far the most active contributor for all of them I thought I'd drop you a line or two; beginning from the main article itself, Lega Nord. After reading the section about the factions internal to the party, I couldn't help but think there was some kind of original research behind it, as I've never officially heard of anythig of that kind, and I also failed to find any reliable source about them; It'd be great if you could fix this, as you are surely more knowledgeable about the subject than I'll ever be. Other than this, two related articles suffer from the same issue: they both use neologism as titles. They are Padanism and Venetism. You can find more about the concerns I expressed on the relative talk pages. --Piccolo Modificatore Laborioso (talk) 20:08, 29 December 2008 (UTC) |