Talk:Federalists and Liberal Democrats

Party or parliamentary group?

For a long time, the article's intro has described the FLD as "a federalist and liberal political party in Italy, which was active mainly as a parliamentary group in the Chamber of Deputies from December 1994 to May 1996". It looks to me a sensible, balanced and well-crafted intro, but Maremmano disagrees. The problem is that, despite bringing a lot of interesting arguments for describing the FLD just as a "parliamentary group", he has not yet reached consensus on his proposed intro. Maremmano seems not to understand that the concept of "political party" in European political science is wider that the use made by journalists and politicians in Italy.

Here is an extract of the discussion we had on Talk:List of political parties in Italy:

I'm writing this as an answer to Maremmano, who has been repeatedly removing Federalists and Liberal Democrats (FLD) from the list on the basis that the FLD were not a party, but just a parliamentary group. I urge him to understand that it makes no difference from a political scientist's point of view as parties can well be parliamentary-only. Moreover, it is particularly useful to have the FLD in the list for the sake of completeness and readers' interest. Also, I think that definition of the FLD ("a federalist and liberal political party in Italy, which was active mainly as a parliamentary group in the Chamber of Deputies from December 1994 to May 1996") that Maremmano has been repeatedly deleting in the party's article is quite balanced and sensible. Maremmano is a valuable editor, but too often he is stuck with Italocentric or journalistic stereotypes of political science. What is worst, he often tries to impose his views without seeking consensus in talk pages. --Checco (talk) 13:21, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

From a juridical point of view there are big differences, I repeat that a party is an association, a parliamentary group is a mere parliamentary organ, they are different. I thank you for saying that I am a valuable editor, but the "journalistic stereotypes" don't concern me, I refer to legal facts. If you want to make a section for parliamentary groups it's ok, but don't insert the parliamentary groups in a section for parties, please--Maremmano (talk) 19:32, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

For your own admitance, you are a "law student". This explains your legalistic approach to issues which have nothing to do with law (and your likely young age explains the rest). I duly appreciate your insights and contributions to Wikipedia, but you need to learn some things about consensus—and political science in order to be a better user. In Italy there are no registered parties and, more generally, in Wikipedia we define a party as "an organization of people which seeks to achieve goals common to its members through the acquisition and exercise of political power". That is a broad definition and clearly includes the FLD, who eventually registered as an association under the name Federalisti Liberali. Moreover, you should know that everywhere (and most recently in Estonia) modern structured parties emerged from parliamentary parties, and that a party can be parliamentary-only also these days. --Checco (talk) 07:40, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Checco that Maremmano needs to learn to seek consensus when making significant and quite possibly controversial changes to articles, including wholesale renaming of articles with long-established article titles, which can cause much disruption on Wiki (which, after all, is a collaborative group effort and by it's nature requires consensus). Also, there needs to be no legal basis for recognition of an organisation as a political party for an organisation to be deemed a political party - in many nations there is no legal registering of parties, and historically speaking many important political parties only operated, essentially, as parliamentary groups.--Autospark (talk) 11:23, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

This said, I kindly ask Maremmano to stop editing the intro at his pleasure, without prior seeking and reaching consensus. --Checco (talk) 13:35, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Really you are editing at your pleasure! Wikipedia is an encyclopedia based on sources and you're imposing an ORIGINAL RESEARCH. Where is written that FLD was a political party? The sources are essential in Wikipedia and the sources say that FLD was only a parliamentary group! The sources prevail over the personal opinions of two allied users. In this case you have to prove that FLD was a political party, the your personal opinion isn't sufficient. I am not more free to edit because you control all my edits and I always have to ask your permission. It isn't possible! I know the basic rules of Wikipedia, you impose original researches or derogations to WP Manual of style (such as Il manifesto) without consensus, you can't do it! What should I do with you? --Maremmano (talk) 22:19, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I should say that, not you! I've been an editor of en.Wiki for many years and I've never refrained from discussion. Few months ago you came out and since then I started to have a hard time here: most of the time you simply don't understand Wikipedia rules and basic English. As I explained to you many times, your understanding of "political party" is too narrow. Autospark and I are not allied users, we're just users who happen to agree many times. Please seek consensus and/or arbitration before editing the article against the current consensus. --Checco (talk) 13:50, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

First: Autospark has never said that FLD was a political party, his reasoning was generic. Second: you has never answered my question: Can you prove your statements? I know the most important wikipedia's rule: the information have to be sourced and can't be an original research. Can you explain me why your statement isn't an original research? Because if you can't do it, consequently your statement is an original research and I can delete it. Answer, please!

ps: It is obvious that you have never had any problems, for years you have edited freely because there is almost no one who edits these pages. Really easy. I'm beginning to understand why you stopped to edit in the italian pages...--Maremmano (talk) 13:35, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

I stopped editing in it.Wiki because some of the basic notions of political science are ignored there. That's often the problem with you. --Checco (talk) 07:50, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

HAHAHAHAHAHA, in it.wiki there are only ignorants and the only intelligent italian user are you! MAPERPIACERE!!! un esamino di coscienza no, eh?--Maremmano (talk) 19:38, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

You keep offending and fooling me, but, yes, I'm OK with my conscience. I studied political science and history in English texts, that is why I find easier to edit in en.Wiki and cooperate with users with whom I share knowledge and teminology. --Checco (talk) 08:34, 4 July 2014 (UTC) PS: Please don't call me Italian.

Really you are offending the italian users, that for you are all ignorants in the matter. It is obvious that for me this thing is very funny --Maremmano (talk) 12:10, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

My impression is that you are simply misunderstanding what I am saying. Sorry about that. --Checco (talk) 07:24, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

We settled this issue before, but now another user (or at least a user with a different name) is pushing through repeated, non consensual edits over the nature of this subject: political party or parliamentary group? The main problem is a confusion over political science's terms and a bad interpretation of sources. I do not want to repeat myself (I confirm the above edits by me), but I completely agree with User:Autospark: "there needs to be no legal basis for recognition of an organisation as a political party for an organisation to be deemed a political party — in many nations there is no legal registering of parties, and historically speaking many important political parties only operated, essentially, as parliamentary groups". FLD was technically a party. There may not be sources describing it as a "political party", but there is need for it, as it fits in Maurice Duverger's broad definition for Encyclopædia Britannica: a political party is "a group of persons organized to acquire and exercise political power". Regarding sources, once again, please let's not confuse news sources with international academic/scientific sources—just an example: some parties in Italy have long been described by the media and their members as movimenti not partiti, but still their were parties by international standards. --Checco (talk) 16:04, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

I support maintaining the description of FLD being a political party – going back to my earlier statement as quoted by Checco, many parties existed mostly or exclusively as parliamentary groups, historically speaking. Additionally, there is a clear description in the lede that the party operated mostly as a group in Chamber before its later incorporation as a formal party, so it is already made clear to the reader about how the FLD was formed.--Autospark (talk) 17:54, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

I find the compromise edit by Scia Della Cometa to be acceptable.--Autospark (talk) 16:44, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

I see this discussion about the nature of FLD on this talk page, Checco's comparison with parties/movements is decidedly inappropriate: in Italy there are parties that prefer to define themselves as political movements, but a political movement is essentially something else. "Political party", "Political movement" e "Parliamentary group" have their own page on Wikipedia not casually, but because they are different subjects. Stating that a particular entity (FLD) was a party when sources claim it was de facto a parliamentary group is an original research, and Wikipedia rules don't admit the original researches. I rewrote the incipit of this page with a compromise version to avoid the continuation of an unproductive edit war, however I will still start a discussion for the alignment between the Italian and the English page about the definition of this subject.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 19:46, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Clearly, "political party", "political movement" and "parliamentary group" are different subjects, but my argument is precisely that those three terms are used by the Italian media inconsistently with the standards of European/international political science. For instance, "in Italy there are parties that prefer to define themselves as political movements, but a political movement is essentially something else": I agree with that. Also, some parties which are described only as parliamentary groups are parties by European/international standards. This said, I also agree with the compromise version (with some corrections) and, consistently, only FLD should be listed in List of political parties in Italy, otherwise there should be two different articles for FLD and FL. --Checco (talk) 17:30, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

International standards are perfectly superimposable to Italian standards, in the absence of scientific sources, journalistic sources are in any case more important than personal opinions and in any case Tina Lagostena Bassi was not a journalist. A group of MPs in parliament, if it does not have a real structure, is a parliamentary group, it is a fact. Therefore the true nature of this FLD will have to be discussed. Furthermore, christian democracy was openly one of the three ideologies of the group, as stated by the founders. --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 09:25, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

We look for third-party sources, for a reason! FLD members are not. --Checco (talk) 13:57, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Nature and leadership of Federalists and Liberal Democrats

After doing a more in-depth research on FLD, before opening a specific discussion, I discovered that already in 1995 it had actually transformed into a political movement (a term that in Italy is also generically used for political parties with a light structure), therefore I believe that the conditions are already in place to standardize the description of this page with the Italian one. In practice, FLD was a parliamentary group from 1994 to 1995, when it turned into a political movement (into a party, de facto). Finally, in 1996, it evolved into a full-fledged political party, the Liberal Federalists. All this not on the basis of a personal interpretation, but because there are actually sources that state it.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 12:47, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Indeed! I am happy you got it, even though those are just Italian intrepretative categories. From a political scientist' point of view, FLD was a party since its very foundation. I am also happy that you acknowledge that movimento is used by the Italian media and politicians in an erroneous way. There is no such thing as "political movement" meaning "political party with light structure" in international/European political science. --Checco (talk) 13:57, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

I rely on what the sources establish, which prevail over strictly personal opinions. I found this source in which they claimed to give themselves a political organization (a first-part source) so I thought it justifiable to describe FLD as a party as well. Without any source my opinion would not have changed, because in that case there would have been an original research. And the pages written in different languages must be coordinated, in fact I have partially corrected the Italian page too.

Ps. Gubetti was the leader of FLD until 1995, as the sources claimed in those years ([1], [2], [3]). Only after Gubetti controversially left FLD to join Forza Italia, Costa began to be defined as FLD's ledaer by the sources. --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 08:31, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Possibly, you are too young to remember. You are right that articles need sources, but some can be very partial, after so many years. Gubbetti was FLD leader in the Chamber, but the actual leader of the party was Costa. As "Leader" is not an official title, I propose a compromise: having "Leaders" (Costa, Gubetti and Michelini, by alphabetical order, without dates), otherwise we can leave the parameter empty. --Checco (talk) 10:08, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

In Wikipedia what is relevant is not the "memory", but the sources. The sources univocally indicated Gubetti as "leader" and not simply as Chairman of the parliamentary group from 1994 to 1995. Only after he joined Forza Italia did Costa begin to be considered its leader. --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 10:16, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

One single source, that may be controversial, means little when there is no consensus about it. As usual, you are trying to impose your views through edit warring, while I am always trying to find a viable compromise. If we cannot agree on what including in leadership parameters, it is better to leave them empty. I am offering a new compromise: having "Party Leader in the Chamber of Deputies" in the infobox. --Checco (talk) 10:21, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Gubetti remained leader until he joined Forza Italia, therefore even after leaving the leadership of the group to Costa. The sources unambiguously indicated him as leader of the Federalists (this is the name with which the movement stood in the elections in 1995). I am not referring to a single source, some I have indicated above. Costa began to be considered a leader only after Gubetti joined Forza Italia, not when he became chairman of the group. "Party Leader in the Chamber of Deputies" is simply the chairman of the group: that way you would admit it was just a parliamentary group... The "Party Leader in the Chamber of Deputies" and the "party leader" are two different offices; if FLD was a parliamentary group, "Party Leader in the Chamber of Deputies" is ok, otherwise the party leader must be indicated, and the indication of the leader must be supported by the sources. --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 10:30, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, I argue that Costa was always FLD leader, even though Gubetti might have held a formal office. This said, if we cannot agree on this, we should simply leave the parameter blank. Additionally, it really makes no sense to have FL as successor party in the infobox, when FL was simply the re-organisation of FLD. However, would not oppose a separate article on FL: consequently, FL might be considered the successor party of FLD. Let's leave both parameters blank until we find an agreement. --Checco (talk) 14:40, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Please, don't remove these important data from the infobox, I did a lot of research to understand the nature and history of this FLD, and until Gubetti joined Forza Italia, he was indicated as a leader by the sources. Costa and Michelini were co-founder of FLD, but the main leader was Gubetti. After his departure, sources began to claim that Costa was the leader of FLD (not only the chairman of the parliamentary group): it is not an original research, the sources stated it. I removed the wikilink of FL, but it must remain in the infobox because it is really FLD's successor (indeed the infobox indicates 1996 as the date of dissolution). If I had found more information on Liberal Federalists I would have created a new page, but the information available is too little, so it is best to keep it on this page. That doesn't mean it's not FLD's successor, therefore it must be indicated as such. --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 16:04, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

I am opposed to having FL as successor in the infobox as it was basically a renaming of FLD, but, as long as it is not particularly controversial, let's leave it there. I am offering a futher compromise on the "leaders" issue: let's have both Gubetti and Costa, without dates, as it happens in most articles on defunct political parties in Italy. --Checco (talk) 17:42, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Number of MPs

I did not read the source, but LIF never joined FLD directly and the Chamber of Deputies website ([4]) shows that FLD had not more than 40 deputies as of 20 December 1995.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 22:54, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Wonderful. We could easily correct the sentence, not remove it. --Checco (talk) 04:38, 20 August 2021 (UTC)