User talk:Checco

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For old talks see:

[edit] Questions of ideology...

Checco, I already answered you on the PdL discussion page, but since I consider you, if not a friend (I don't really believe in OL friendships) at least an acquaintance, I feel I should not let this discussion undermine our bond. I never wrote anything about myself here on Wikipedia because I believe that expressing controversial opinions (and nothing is more controversial than politics) would make it more difficult to relate with people with opposing views, which happens all the time on this project. But in truth if I'm taking this so much personally (even if I never let this compromise my neutrality) it's because, as a right-of-centre person (my political heroes are Reagan and Thatcher, especially the latter) I was dismayed to find my very own political beliefs associated with the party that embodies them the least. Still, I don't believe this ever prejudiced my position as an impartial editor. I hope this will give you some explanations. Paix, Le Petit Modificateur Laborieux (talk) 19:49, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, wow, that wasn't the impression you gave me. For the rest, I'm still convinced we should be very prudent to define PdL as a liberal-conservative party. To me, it's more of a social conservative party, which economically is quite the opposite, as they did nothing to liberalise the economy, or curb on the power of Rome or even of the state as a whole. They didn't take serious steps to decrease the size of the civil service (still the largest employer in many southern regions), public expenditures, or red tape. Of course, this is all just a personal consideration, but it's also to explain why I think that the "liberal conservative" label is absolutely inappropriate and misleading for this party.--Le Petit Modificateur Laborieux (talk) 02:05, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of Two Sicilies independence movement

An article that you have been involved in editing, Two Sicilies independence movement, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Two Sicilies independence movement. Thank you.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message.

[edit] AfD nomination of Venetism

An article that you have been involved in editing, Venetism, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Two Sicilies independence movement. Thank you.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Le Petit Modificateur Laborieux (talk) 20:13, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

If you think venetism should stay, try to find enough adequate sources to support its existence (significant coverage in reliable publications, thus excluding personal websites, self-published or partial sources) and a meaningful title, all this preferably in English. I couldn't for either article, that's why they got nom'd.--Le Petit Modificateur Laborieux (talk) 21:00, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Checco, the title is just a red herring, no matter what you call it if its importance can't be proved it simply doesn't belong on Wikipedia.--Le Petit Modificateur Laborieux (talk) 21:10, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

To change the subject a bit, is there any reason why Lega Nord is not at Northern League (Italy)? I'm asking you because you usually take care of this kind of things.--Le Petit Modificateur Laborieux (talk) 21:26, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Now that's a curious opinion. How else would you translate "Northern league" if not "Lega nord"? On top of that, Lega Nord is the only major party not to have its name translated, though I agree that for Forza Italia it would have been tricky…--Le Petit Modificateur Laborieux (talk) 19:00, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] EFA

I'm not sure of those changes and that they're relevant at all. Why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.186.108.168 (talk) 07:48, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

It seemed to me that the source you used (whose reliability I'm not sure of)was not updated as you removed at least one party that is actually an EFA member. Moreover I don't think it is useful to tell the year of admission into the EFA sometimes telling both the year of observer status and the formal accession and in other cases only one year. --Checco (talk) 07:53, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Referendum

Could you briefly summarise the debate over the election date for the Italian electoral law referendum, 2009 in the article? —Nightstallion 08:33, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Decide!

Alright, thank you for telling me. Cheers, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:27, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Southern Italy autonomist movements

I give up. I started this article in a lighthearted, confident mood, put in sketches of the current movements, put in an outline of history up to unification, then made a start at filling in the gap between 1861 and today. The further I go the more I realize how difficult it is to give a one-dimensional view of the autonomy movements without giving political and economic background, how hard it is to do that without getting into a full history, and how poorly qualified I am to even make a reasonable start. "Southern peasants revolt against Italian colonialists" makes an appealingly simple story, but is a total distortion. The people of Naples were fully aware of the events of 1848. Garibaldi was seen as a liberator in the south. etc. etc. I am just not qualified to work on this article. Hope I have not left too much mess behind. Aymatth2 (talk) 02:33, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the article is taking shape, although it needs a lot more work: more detail on the unrest after unification, more on the Mafia (origins and the effect of WWII in rejuvenating it), more clarity on the different trends of thought about Meridionalism (not a movement, my current view), and more content to fill in the gap from 1950 to the present. I am not sure the title is right given the way the article has evolved, but it can stay. There are obvious spin-off articles such as Meridionalism. You asked about help on the Veneto article: I do not know anything about the subject apart from Casanova's autobiography, which is wonderful. I am afraid to get into it because I am building a backlog of articles I want to finish. Man Shield and Mega Rice Project (Kalimantan) are at the top. And first I have to take a break and do some real-world stuff. But this subject is fascinating. Aymatth2 (talk) 02:37, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Original? Well, maybe a bit. But the theme is coherent and references are good, so I am not going to worry about it... Aymatth2 (talk) 15:01, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Green Front

Checco, as far as I can tell I didn't nominate it for deletion. I remember commenting on the AfD, but I don't think it was me who put the tag there. Looking at the page history, it seems that it was added here by Invitamia. You can also see his nomination here. Hope this helps! Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 10:37, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's me. I didn't see no instruction about this. Anyway. Decide! is proposed for a deletion too: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Decide! --Invitamia (talk) 01:45, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Green Front - Deletion

Hi, the article Green Front has been proposed for deletion for the second time, please check instructions as by previous parties, best regards, --Invitamia (talk) 11:53, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Note that it is an AfD, not a PROD (proposed deletion). The discussion is here. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Green Front. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 20:05, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] EU elections

Hey Checco,

Would you mind explaining how the EU elections work in Italy? I've seen stuff about a 4% threshold, but parties that won 1% got seats in 2004. Do the EP constituencies work like in France with individual lists in each constituency?

Thanks for anything you might clear up :)

On a side note- I have some maps of French legislative elections from 1958 till 1981 that I didn't manage to put on my website but I'd be more than happy to send them to you, if you're interested!

--Petrovic-Njegos (talk) 02:15, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Warnings

[edit] May 2009

Regarding your comments on Talk:Venetian nationalism: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Coldmachine^Talk 13:39, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Alliance of Democrats

You added the phrase "...the former members of Likud of Kadima" citing no source. 1. What does that phrase even mean in the context of the sentence? 2. Where is the source? 3. What makes you think (if I assume what you are trying to infer) that Likud has ever been a member of the International Democrat Union? It is not member and has never been.

--Shamir1 (talk) 05:21, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Neutralità; Mario Borghezio

Checco mi rivolgo a te come studioso di politologia per ricordarti l'importanza di un approccio neutrale nella compilazione di voci anche "controverse" come quella di Mario Borghezio (versione inglese). Comparando le versioni in lingua italiana e quella in lingua inglese emerge subito la poca imparzialità della versione inglese. Certa che porrai rimedio in fretta a questa lacuna, ti saluto. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Uaua (talk • contribs) 10:32, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism and nonsense

I read in your profile that you're an a political pundit from Italy and I see you're quite the white knight when it comes to Lega Nord, as you made more than 300 edits to the page over three years and half, and the second most active user made like 30-35. I also saw you reverted an edit similar to my own, which you dismissed as "vandalism and nonsense", without even bothering to inform that user. Let's leave aside that thing called AGF for a moment, and let's focus on my edit. I have reason to believe you will want to revert it as well as "nonsense" or whatever you will decide. Don't do that. Unlike the edit I just mentioned, mine is referenced, using a source you yourself obviously deem reliable (evidence, evidence, even more), so if you feel uneasy with that "populism" label, drop me a note on the article's talk, don't just revert everything as you did before.--93.45.117.204 (talk) 16:29, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm a white knight when it comes to each and every article about Italian parties. If I have done more edits on that article than on others, it is simply because that article is frequently vandalized. I won't remove your edit as it is sourced, but let me tell you that, even if I consider that website as reliable, I don't agree on all the parties' classifications. However it was a "vandalism and non-sense" to insert "populism^{[citation needed]}", now that there is a source, no matter how good or bad, it is different. --Checco (talk) 07:40, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

That's what you said two weeks ago, and yesterday you already tried to slip in a "dubious" tag along with tens of other changes, without reporting it in the edit summary, or even opening a discussion on the talk page. How unbiased are you now?--93.45.138.40 (talk) 10:47, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't want to open an infinite discussion, but what I did is not biased or incoherent. I don't think that right-wing populism is correct in describing Lega Nord, that's why I put the "dubious" tag. I did it yesterday because only yesterday I had the time to update the article after some time. I will repeat those things in talk page. It is not correct to take unilaterally away a tag that was put just some hours before. --Checco (talk) 10:53, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

So a source reliable for a page is not reliable for another? How's that being neutral? The most important newspapers worldwide often write about the populist if not outright xenophobic elements of LN when dealing with Italian politics, so how does it come as a surprise to you? Perhaps you don't consider their political teams to be informed enough about the current state of the party?--93.45.115.104 (talk) 20:45, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Veneto

You're up early this morning. Me too. Anyway I see we have different views. See discussion - I'll be here. My idea is, like things go together. Religion under culture. Modern material together. You say there is a pattern. What pattern? Thenb there is the issue of the tags - looking forward to hearing from you.Dave (talk) 08:50, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I proposed Venetian National Party for deletion - bye --Invitamia (talk) 15:22, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Now, new AfDeletion, bye --Invitamia (talk) 21:44, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Articles for deletion nomination of Alliance of Socialists and Democrats for Europe

I have nominated Alliance of Socialists and Democrats for Europe, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alliance of Socialists and Democrats for Europe. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Chzz ► 20:16, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] I wish to draw your attention to this

I have opened a discussion here to which I wish to draw your attention. This is a friendly notice under the auspices of WP:CANVASS. Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 03:14, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Young Italy (current)

Checco, is this faction still active? Its website doesn’t seem to have had any activity for a long time. The last press release was in December last year [1]. The last advertised event was in May 2007 [2]. ‘In primo piano’ goes back to March 2008.[3] Under recommended sites, the link to http://www.forzaitalia.it/ has not been updated.[4] And the section ‘Circloli’ has only one, whose content is simply ‘Contenuto da inserire’.[5]

The reason I ask is that I was surprised to find Young Italy as a dab page. I suspect it would be better to have it redirect to the Mazzinian movement—which is certainly what most readers will be expecting to find—and have a hat note {{redirect}} pointing to Young Italy (current).

Indeed, it probably be a good idea to move that page to Young Italy (2004). Cheers, Ian Spackman (talk) 09:19, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Does Alliance for Europe of the Nations still exist?

Discuss it here. Incidentally, you updated Alliance for Europe of the Nations when AN left by merging. Given your expertise on Italian politics, can you give it a look-see and see if Sicilian Alliance also left? Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 01:36, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Move request for Meran

There is a request that Meran be moved to Merano, at Talk:Meran#Requested move to Merano (5 July 2009) Ian Spackman (talk) 14:36, 5 July 2009 (UTC)