Talk:New Italian Socialist Party

Social democratic??

How can this party claim to be a social democratic party when it is part of the right wing alliance???--Oddeivind (talk) 08:36, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Exactly as the Italian Socialist Party was social-democratic when in coalition with Christian Democracy and the Italian Liberal Party in the 1980s. --Checco (talk) 14:45, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

But then the coalition was more centrist. The alternative would have been a cooperation with the communists. As far as I can see social democracy is to the ledt of the centre. I am a social democrat myself, and I wouldnt even "touch" Berlusconi with gloves. Besides,there are parties in the centre-left coalition which are probably to the right of social democracy. It doesnt make sense that they should ally with the right. But I read somewhere that this is the party of Bettino Craxi and that he has close personal ties with Berlusconi (ties that are connected to the mafia??) Is this correct? --Oddeivind 11:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Undoubtely Forza Italia is born by the union of Christian democrats, liberals and social democrats. Berlusconi himself was a Socialist voter. The party is basically centrist, but there are some groups who are clearly social-democratic (by German or British standards) and also the party Vice President, Giulio Tremonti, is more a social democrat than a liberal and indeed he was a former Socialist too. The NPSI is one of the heis of the late Italian Socialist Party and is a social-democratic party. It is close to Berlusconi's Forza Italia, but connections with Mafia are only speculation. Some members of FI (as some members of every Italian political party) had been accused of being connected with Mafia, but this has nothing to do with the alliance of NPSI with Forza Italia. I think that you are mixing different issues and making a lot of confusion! Let me know if there is something else you don't understand. --Checco 12:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

But Forza Italia belongs to the right wing alliance, right? If you look at the left wing alliance, you have people that are to the right of socail democracy, like Romano Prodi, who used to be a member of the old Christian Democratic Party, although probably on that partys left wing. And Forza Italia cooperates with people who used to be fascists. To me Forza Italia seems clearly to the right of the Christian Democrats. About the new Democratic Party, one of its predecsessors, Democracy is Freedom-Daisy, had as one of its founding members the PPI, which itself descends from the Christian Democrats. When I take a look at the new party, it seems to be a mixture of social democracy, social liberalism and christian left. Forza Italia seems to be more of a Thatcherite party. What about those who used to vote for the old Socialis Party. I would guess they vote for the left wing alliance. --Oddeivind 13:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Forza Italia is not Tatcherite at all (sigh for me) and is the major Christian-democratic party in Italy. AN members used to be neo-fascist (in a very moderate and democratic way), but as they founded AN they are a group of moderate national-conservatives. Romano Prodi was a member of DC but this does not mean that he is not a leftist: many mebers of DC were clearly to left from PSI. The former Socialist voters vote overwhelmingly for Forza Italia, even if some of them support small SDI and some others PD. You may find interesting to read Italian Socialist Party#Diaspora and especially note 1. Also most votes of DC now vote for Forza Italia and UDC: indeed these parties have more than 35% together in opinion polls, while DL took barely 10% of the vote the last time it run alone. PD is a mixture of social democracy, Christian left and social liberalism, exactly as DL was a mixture of Christian left, social liberalism and social democracy (the order is important). You may find interesting also Forza Italia#Factions, List of Forza Italia leading members by political origin and it:Provenienza dei politici appartenenti a Democrazia è Libertà - La Margherita. --Checco 13:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree with oddeivind in that NPSI is not a social democratic party per se. In politics, when forming alliances, people's relations or corporate interests are often more important than nominal ideological positions. I remember that the electoral archive electionworld.org also used to qualify NPSI just as a 'conservative' party (at the time this party still had deputies in the parliament). This was probably also based on the fact that out of two main alliances of the Italian political landscape the NPSI belonged to the one that was apparently more right-wing (correct me if I'm mistaken).Miacek (talk) 15:05, 7 December 2008 (UTC) OK, I have to correct myself: they still have deputies, as the article says.

Thus, in my opinion the IP was thinking in the right direction. I suggest adding sth in the infobox that would reflect NPSI's position in actual politics. Miacek (talk) 15:27, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

NPSI is a social-democratic party and also many members of Forza Italia, the main party of the centre-right alliance, are social democrats. It can be strange, but Italy is strange... --Checco (talk) 10:54, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I believe the Soc dem faction(s) of Forza Italia is/are centre-left in the Forza Italia context. Most of the DP members are probably to the left of the FI soc dem faction members. Similarly, when the Democratic Left Party was formed, it included minor splitters from all the main parties (exc. MSI but inlc. Liberals and Republicans). If I remember correctly, many Socialist Party members (let alone Democratic Socialist Party members) used to be to the right of the DC positions, nominal affiliation notwithstanding. If there are any English source for NPSI, you would be more than welcome to add them. The article says that decision regarding not entering the centre-left coalition laid in the past during Mani Pulite affair when the old Italian Socialist Party disintegrated while the ex-Communist party was left untouched. As of now, I believe that the NPSI was formed by former socialist who were personally on friendlier terms with the new centre-right groups and their socialist affiliation is now only a tradition, folklore, so to say. --Miacek (talk) 12:50, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

It is not exactly as you say. In the PdL there are some people who are to the left of some PD members. In fact some conservative or centrist politicians who dislike Berlusconi joined the PD, while some progressive and social-democratic politicians who disliked the "communist" roots of the PD joined the centre-right. The NPSI is a small party and I don't think it deserves a long discussion, especially because it will merge into the PdL in two months. This article will soon be the article about the NPSI 2000-2009 and I don't think it is problematic to consider it social-democratic, as in some contexts it formed alliances with the centre-left SDI (the other party of ex-Socialists), its members even joined the PES group in the European Parliament and their political positions are actually left-wing on many subjects. --Checco (talk) 14:47, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, in a way, your sentence “The NPSI is a small party and I don't think it deserves a long discussion, especially because it will merge into the PdL in two months” can actually sum up the dispute here ;-) Miacek (talk) 15:06, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Regarding your last edit, other that observing that it.Wiki can't be a source for wn.Wiki (as I told you in your talk page), we should consider that this party has been social-democratic throughout all its short history (2000-2009) and that it would be incorrect to describe it only because of its final collocation. --Checco (talk) 15:27, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't base my judgments on other wikis, esp. in languages that are difficult for more to understand. However, as already said, the consensus was pretty clear there. Also, my version does consider that theoretically “this party has been social-democratic throughout all its short history (2000-2009)” as well as the fact de facto they have been part of centre-right throughout this period. I'd like to have both of these reflected in the infobox. --Miacek (talk) 15:40, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

It is already written with which party the NPSI is in alliance. Anyway we cannot leave "centre-right" because it is not an ideology but a political position: what about centrism? Morevoer left-right labels are misleading when used in international contexts and, in fact, the Italian centre-right encompasses also a part of what is considered centre-left in other countries and includes many social democrats, so the NPSI is not an exception, as most members of the late PSI joined the so-called centre-right. --Checco (talk) 15:50, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

As also Itanesco pointed the NPSI was a social-democratic party. I say "was" as it is a former political party, as it was merged into the PdL in March and that many of its core members had left in 2007 in order to join to the left wing Socialist Party. The NPSI has been an ally of the centre-right (but is the German SPD centre-right because it is an steady ally of the CDU in many states and currently also in Berlin?), but it was not a centre-right party and also Forza Italia contained a large group of lefists, making it more a centre-left party that a centre-right one from an European perspective.

I don't see any reason for labelling the NPSI as social-democratic and I perfectly agree with Itanesco's edit, that's why I reverted Miacek's rollback. This is a small party and not a big deal, but I hope that Miacek won't matter if we describe this party correctly as a social-democratic party. Moreover the article explaines everything about the NPSI's alliances (anyway in many regional/municipal contexts the party was part of the centre-left). --Checco (talk) 08:00, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Socialdemocratic? (2)

Social democracy?! Is it a joke? --Baf09 (talk) 15:36, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

we could only reach consensus by having both 'social democracy' and 'centre-right politics' and/or 'liberalism' in the infobox. The party definitely pursued centre-right policies; however, as the article explains, one of the faction of NPSI indeed joined other social dem. goups to form a Socialist Party of Italy - likely a genuinely social democratic organization. Regards, --Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 16:31, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Let me add that the party did not pursue centre-right politics and, although the party joined the centre-right PdL in January 2009, it previously suffered the split of the party majority that was merged into the PS, a party that is now in alliance with left-wing parties such as the Greens and former Communists (see Left and Freedom). Moreover it is useful to remember that the alliance with the centre-right was not so awkward as someone might think outside Italy as most members of the late PSI had joined Berlusconi's Forza Italia in the 1990s. --Checco (talk) 13:28, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

But note also that formal affiliation with a certain ideology may sometimes remain just something formal. I remember I once saw an article where Italian political parties of 1980s were positioned on a map with both left-right and libertarian-authoritarian axis. The Democratic Socialists were surely positioned (economically) to the right of Christian democrats, and perhaps PSI, too. After all, there's no 'once a red, always a red' thing in politics. The Jamaica Labour Party did indeed begin as a centre-left organization, but later developed into a decidedly right-wing organization. --Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 11:59, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I know that and I always urge users not to confuse the party ideology with its name. Anyway the NPSI was definitely a centre-left party, and the PSDI and the PSI were definitely on the left of DC as a whole. It is true anyway that a large group of DC members were left-wingers (DC was a non-ideological catch-all party cobbling togehter Catholics of any sort) and in fact, after the 1990s realignment, most of these people have joined the centre-left along with former Communists. --Checco (talk) 15:01, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Still extant?

Is this party still an existing organisation, whether as a political party or PdL faction?--Autospark (talk) 18:02, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Name of party

I propose to move this page to New PSI. The statute of party called it “Nuovo PSI” (with the acronym), (Statuto del Partito “Nuovo PSI”) that is the official name of party (also for the UDEUR the official name is an acronym).--Maremmano (talk) 20:14, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Object - English language translations of political party names are used on en.wiki for article titles, not acronyms.--Autospark (talk) 23:50, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Following your reasoning, the name UDEUR Populars has to be changed, or not?--Maremmano (talk) 13:33, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

For the sake of readers, clarity and all the pages linking here I would leave the article at its current place. The legal name of the party is not that relevant here as it is in the case of UDEUR Populars, whose extended name would be too long. --Checco (talk) 11:57, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

I have to make some clarifications:

1. "Popolari UDEUR" is the official name of the party (see statute [[1]]), such as "Nuovo PSI"
2. "New Italian Socialist Party" (24 words characters) isn't longer than "Union of Democrats for Europe" (25 words characters)
3. Autospark says that the acronyms can't be admitted (where is it written?), but UDEUR is an acronym. We can't apply the rules (?) only for some parties and not for the other parties (that have an acronym as official name)
4. The name "Unione Democratici per l'Europa" is more correct than "Nuovo Partito Socialista Italiano". Indeed, in 1999, the official name of UDEUR was "Unione Democratici per l'Europa" while the "Nuovo PSI" has never been called "Nuovo Partito Socialista Italiano".

Therefore: or we change the name of this party or we have to change the name of UDEUR, for a reason of consistency. I prefer the first hypothesis--Maremmano (talk) 20:30, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

The article's name would be "Unione of Democrats for Europe – Populars" (41 characters), not "Union of Democrats for Europe" (30 characters, not 25 characters—let alone words!). I strongly oppose any move of "New Italian Socialist Party" and I don't support the move of "UDEUR Populars", but, in case, I could live with "Union of Democrats for Europe", not with "New PSI". --Checco (talk) 08:06, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Ok, we have established that the acronym for the traslations can't be admissible. I'll move the page of UDEUR for WP:consistency. "Populars" is facultative, is one of the prefixes used by this party. The first name of party and the meaning of acronym is "Union of Democrats for Europe" (that perhaps is the english most common name). If this page can't be named with an acronym, the Udeur's page can't even be it.--Maremmano (talk) 21:26, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I do think there's a difference, but I have no objections about moving "UDEUR Populars" to "Union of Democrats for Europe", provided that all the links to that page (and not just some, as it often happens) are fixed too. --Checco (talk) 08:35, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Okay--Maremmano (talk) 19:27, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

re-proposal

I re-prpose to move the page to New PSI, this is undoubtedly the correct amd best name. Originally this page was correctly named Socialist Party – New PSI (Partito Socialista Nuovo PSI), after the split the name of party became Nuovo PSI, but the page has been re-named New Italian Socialist Party. It doesn't exist a rule that prohibits the use of acronyms, "Nuovo PSI" is the official and most common name, PSI is a well-known acronym and moreover there are other parties named with acronyms: Fidesz and above all Unified PSI–PSDI. Therefore PSI was already used for another party!!! There are a lot of reasons to move this page. The eventually contrary positions will must be well motivated--Maremmano (talk) 21:49, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I have waited a week and there have been no replies on my re-proposal. Considering the name New PSI compatible with the existing Unified PSI–PSDI, I move the page using the translation of the official name.--Maremmano (talk) 19:10, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

There is a new element (the page Unified PSI–PSDI), I have opened this discussion, I have waited a week, if no one is able to answer me, now the page remains to the actual name, even the creator of the page said nothing. I'm right and I have followed the procedures!--Maremmano (talk) 20:39, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

There was clearly no consensus on your proposed move and you knew it because other users, including me, told it to you before. You could be right, but you did not follow any procedures. In fact, your move was promptly rollbacked by User:Autospark. That's why I have just rollbacked your second move. Please also understand that Wikipedia is not a job and we are not mandated to be always online. Consensus and... patience are quite useful! --Checco (talk) 10:39, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

"Other users, including me"? Really only you and Autospark, as always. The previous discussion is invalidated because the motivation was wrong. The acronyms can be used for the translated names (Fidesz, ANO 2011, TOP 09 and above all Unified PSI–PSDI), in effect he no longer intervened. Wikipedia isn't a job but it has its times, Deletion process goes on a week and if you don't intervene in that week... I have explained the reasons to move this page, an opposition has to be motivated. Why do you oppose??--Maremmano (talk) 19:53, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

I already explained why I oppose the move (in a nutshell, the current name is a long-standing, clear and evocative one). I also oppose Unified PSI–PSDI, which is not how the party was formally (see Ministery of the Interior) and informally known. --Checco (talk) 06:46, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Ps: Only Autospark, you and I intervened in this discussion, but the article's name has been upheld by many other users before.

And no one has re-moved the page. This name for me isn't correct and I am against the original researches. Unified PSI-PSDI is the correct official name, used in the statute and for the groups in Parliament. I am tired of these discussions for each my propose. :( However the italian name Nuovo Partito Socialista Italiano doesn't exists and I can delete it--Maremmano (talk) 08:41, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

ps: the reason of Autospark in the previous discussion was not valid, only you and I intervened in this discussion

There are some sources that called it "New italian socialist party", but there is a great inconsistency with the Unified PSI-PSDI--Maremmano (talk) 17:28, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose move. "New Italian Socialist Party" is well established in English-language expert literature:
  • Bull, Martin J.; Newell, James L. (2005). Italian Politics. Polity Press. p. 54.
  • Di Virgilio, Aldo; Kato, Junko (2011). Party Competition Under New Electoral Rules in Italy and Japan, 1994–2009. Springer. p. 23. {{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help)
  • Padovani, Cinzia (2005). A Fatal Attraction: Public Television and Politics in Italy. Rowman & Littlefield. p. 262.
  • Utter, Glenn H.; Strickland, Ruth Ann (2008). Campaign and Election Reform (Second ed.). ABC-CLIO. p. 102.

Wikipedia:Article titles#Use commonly recognizable names asks us to use the name by which the subject is most commonly referred to in reliable sources, even if it is not the official name (see also the essay on Wikipedia:Official names). --RJFF (talk) 09:28, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Ok, the title of the page will remain "New Italian Socialist Party", but the official italian name can't be invented, it is Nuovo PSI ([2])!--Maremmano (talk) 22:29, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

There are plenty of sources citing Nuovo Partito Socialista Italiano, thus I don't see the problem. --Checco (talk) 09:36, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Barani still a member

According to the two sources cited in relation to the most recent party events (1 and 2), Barani is still a member of the NPSI, a party which allows "double membership" with other parties. I haven not found any source, after October 2015, stating otherwise. --Checco (talk) 14:56, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

The first source declares that the double membership is compatible with Forza Italia or PSI, not with ALA. The second source is dated October 2015, now we are in 2017. Indeed in 2015 Barani was still a member of NPSI, but has he renewed his party membership card in 2016 and 2017? I don't think, and however there isn't any source that declares that Barani was still a NPSI member in 2016. The NPSI membership of Barani is only an unlikely supposition, but in wikipedia sources are necessary... --Wololoo (talk) 21:56, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

The first source reads that party membership would be "compatible" with FI and the PSI, but it looks like the two are just examples (both my interpretation and yours might be correct). Otherwise, how could Barani be present at the October 2015 national council as a full member of the party?

The facts are the following: in July 2015 Barani was a founding member of ALA; in October 2015 he took part to the NPSI's national council. After that, we have no updates. The fact that Barani might have not renewed his membership to the NPSI for 2016 and 2017 is just a supposition (in fact, you say "I don't think..."; you don't think, but you are not sure of that). I perfectly agree that "in Wikipedia sources are necessary", but the fact is that the latest sources (October 2015) tell us that Barani was a NPSI member and there is no evidence that he later left the party. --Checco (talk) 07:16, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Now stop it, Checco, you have not proved anything, the suppositions, POV or original researches are not admitted in wikipedia, it is obvious that in 2015 Barani was still member of Npsi, but there is not any evidence about 2016 and 2017, since 2016 Barani has no more acted as member of Npsi, it's a fact!--Wololoo (talk) 07:52, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

You cannot prove it, so it is not a fact. There is no source stating that Barani has ever left the NPSI, while the latest sources cited in this article and available on the web state that Barani was a member in October 2015, that is to say AFTER he had joined (also) ALA in July 2015. Your knowledge of Italian politics are much welcome, but you have been a contributor of en.Wiki and the only consensus on this page is the established one. You talk about consensus and sources, but you are respecting neither of the two. Your inexperience in en.Wiki is not an excuse. --Checco (talk) 09:34, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Inexperience in enwiki? Wich is the difference between itwiki and enwiki about the MPS number of a party?? None. And I confirm it, since 2016 Barani has not more been reported as member of Npsi. In 2015 Barani was still a member of NPSI simply because he still had the party membership card and he was not immediately expelled from the party, so it is natural that in 2015 he was still a member of Npsi (initially ALA was a mere parliamentary group), but why renewing the membership in 2016, after taking another path? Reason or not reason, there isn't any source about the Npsi's membership of Barani since 2016 and in itwiki this fact is accepted naturally by all. In enwiki one user cannot determine by itself the number of MPs of a party without any source. An edit war about this matter is frankly incomprehensible...--Wololoo (talk) 22:48, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Yours are mere suppositions, not supported by sources. Why should I repeat myself? --Checco (talk) 22:56, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Very fast.... however they are not at all suppositions, it is true that since 2016 Barani has not more been reported anywhere as member of Npsi --Wololoo (talk) 23:04, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Also the opposite was never reported... --Checco (talk) 23:08, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

I think the burden of proof needs to be placed on Wololoo to show that Barani is no longer a member of the party.--Autospark (talk) 23:00, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, User:Autospark, that was what I was trying to argue. Autospark's opinion confirms what the established consensus is, but I would like to ask for more "third opinions" to User:Nick.mon and User:RJFF, who have been long involved in Italian politics-related articles. --Checco (talk) 07:13, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

I try to find some sources about Barani and the NPSI but I didn't find them, anyway it.Wiki said that, on 5 August 2015, Barani resigned as Secretary, but remained as party member, and I think that this is the last source that we have about his membership. -- Nick.mon (talk) 09:59, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

There are also some October sources. So what do you think we should say in the article? --Checco (talk) 21:52, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

In my view we should say that even if he left the office of party secretary, he's still a member of the NPSI -- Nick.mon (talk) 22:59, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

But my question is: why? I don't understand: since 2016 all the sources refer to him simply as ALA's member, since 2016 no source refers to him as NPSI member. Then, if you want to affirm here at all costs that Barani is still member of NPSI, peace, I can't do anything more, but it would be a bit strange indicating a different number of parliamentarians from itwiki...--Wololoo (talk) 00:38, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Ok, but it.Wiki says that Barani is still a member of NPSI (as you can see from the infobox), and so I think that there's an error in it.Wiki's page about New PSI, regarding the number of senators. -- Nick.mon (talk) 10:26, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

No, itwiki does not say this! It says only that Barani resigned as secretary in 2005, not that now he is still a member of NPSI...--Wololoo (talk) 21:24, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I also noticed that Barani was still listed as a NPSI member in his article, but that does not actually matter. Another Wiki may well be a source of inspiration, but not a source per se. --Checco (talk) 07:20, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

It.Wiki says exactly "On 5 August, Barani left the office of New PSI secretary, but remained a party member", as you can see here, in the section "Elezione a senatore (2013)". -- Nick.mon (talk) 21:54, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on New Italian Socialist Party. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131005015147/http://www.socialistalab.it/Partito/Statuto.asp to http://www.socialistalab.it/Partito/Statuto.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:17, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

No official alliance with the centre-right

The NPSI was an associate party of FI until 2015, then it decided to let its members choose to join a larger party, under "dual membership". Consequently, some members of the NPSI are members of FI (including Caldoro), others of the PS or other parties. Battilocchio's membership of FI and his successful bid to become a member of the Chamber of Deputies were his individual decisions and do not imply anything for the party. There was no official positionment of the NPSI in the 2018 general election. Thus, we cannot insert "Centre-right" in the electoral results' template. --Checco (talk) 06:20, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

The NPSI however remains an organic party of the centre-right coalition, it allows the dual membership but the facto all its executives are members of the centre-right. Also if the candidacy of Battilocchio is only an individual decision (but the individual decisions for the candidacy in policy don't exist) it happened with the centre-right, and there were no candidacies of NPSI's members with other coalitions, therefore the edit was absolutely correct. --Wololoo (talk) 22:11, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Why doesn't your "meticulousness" apply here? The NPSI is NOT an "organic party of the centre-right coalition", despite most of its members are close to the centre-right. The fact that Battilocchio is also a member of FI and that his candidacy for the Chamber of Deputies were not decided or approved by the NPSI: these are individual decisions, like those of non-party indepedents who decide to run for a party in an election. There was no formal pact or alliance between the NPSI and FI, let alone the centre-right, and Caldoro has not led the party in the election. --Checco (talk) 06:21, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

One question: how do you know that there was no formal pact or alliance between the NPSI and FI (or centre-right)? --Wololoo (talk) 22:39, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

It would contrary to the political line taken in 2015. Could you bring evidence of the opposite? --Checco (talk) 06:16, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

The political line of 2015 simply allows the dual membership, and then? The nation executives of the NPSI are affiliated to the centre-right, also Battilocchio is a national coordinator of the party. I see only one evidence: there was only a candidate of NPSI (a national coordinator) elected with the centre-right, and this was the information I had correctly indicated in the table. But you must always have the last word...--Wololoo (talk) 13:20, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Battilocchio was not a candidate because of his affiliation with the NPSI, but because of his affiliation with FI. Dual membership means dual membership. The NPSI is practically neutral, its members are not. --Checco (talk) 06:31, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

The NPSI remains a centre-right party, regardless of the possibility of dual membership for its members. However it isn't a great problem, the table can also remain in this version--Wololoo (talk) 20:40, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Two issues

The consensus in this article was to:

• having "New Italian Socialist Party" as the party's name, hence the article's name;
• not including "liberal socialism" among ideologies, as the politically-motivated use of the term by politicians and journalists has nothing to do with political science, not to mention the fact that Craxi's PSI and its successors had nothing to do with the original "liberal socialism" and mistakenly used the term instead of "social liberalism" or, more properly, "social democracy", according to European standards. --Checco (talk) 06:54, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

@Checco your opinion is not more important than that of journalists or politicians, you must understand that Wikipedia is not based on the personal opinions of the editors. Furthermore New Italian Socialist Party is the title of the page, but Nuovo PSI is not the short name of Nuovo Partito Socialista Italiano, you can't start the page with an invented information. It is not written anywhere that the intro of the page should begin with the title.--Wololoo (talk) 07:19, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

What I mean is: it is essential not to enter information invented or original researches in Wikipedia: "Nuovo PSI" is the main italian name of this party (also written in the same statute), so "Nuovo Partito Socialista Italiano" is the extended name, the intro "The New Italian Socialist Party (Italian: Nuovo Partito Socialista Italiano), often shortened New PSI (Nuovo PSI)" is objectively wrong.--Wololoo (talk) 07:38, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Ideology. There are no political scientists describing the party as "liberal socialist". Italian politicians and joirnalists use terms like socialismo liberale, cattolicesimo democratico, cattolicesimo liberale, popolarismo and so on, but they mean very little from a political scientist's point of view.

Name. There is no consensus for "New PSI" as main name of the party, indeed there article is named differently.

@User:Wololoo: As usual, I do not understand why you do not seek consensus first. — @User:Angelo.romano, User:Autospark, User:Braganza, User:Facquis, User:Holapaco77, User:Impru20, User:Nick.mon, User:Nightstallion, User:RJFF, User:Ritchie92: Please have a say. --Checco (talk) 13:41, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

As usual, you remove an ideology based on sources, without consensus. You can't do it. About the intro, no one denies that "New Italian Socialist Party" is the main name of the page, but you write a wrong statement, because "Nuovo Partito Socialista Italiano" is not often shortened as "Nuovo Psi", "Nuovo Psi" IS the italian name of this party, so it is not a shortened name, while "Nuovo Partito Socialista Italiano" is the extended name; it is obvious, you can't write the contrary. If you write a wrong statement, I have to rollback it. The written informations must be true, so you can write the intro as you want, but write it correctly. --Wololoo (talk) 14:55, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Name: We long debated on how referring to the party and consensus is for "New Italian Socialist Party".

Ideology: "Liberal socialism" is a controversial description and is not supported by authoritative sources.

This is what the current consensus is about. Of course, a different consensus could be achieved through discussion. Unfortunately, no other users seem to care about these issues, thus, for now, the established consensus should stay. --Checco (talk) 06:35, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree that "Liberal socialism" should not be in the ideology box, as it is the party's self-described ideology. By all means add a passage in the article text that mentions that the party see itself as liberal-socialist, but the more generalisable "social democracy" should be in the infobox instead. Additionally, the article title should be kept as it is, not shortened to "New PSI".--Autospark (talk) 13:54, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

@Autospark: I had few doubts that you would have intervened to help him, but two users can't decide to remove an ideology based on multiple sources. Instead, on this page I saw many legitimate doubts about social democracy, since this party is allied with the centre-right. I too disagree with social democracy as the main ideology, but I certainly did not remove it as he did arbitrarily with liberal socialism. I saw also that for this page was decided the extended english name, both names are correct as a title also if New Italian Socialist Party is clearer, Checco talks about the name of the page but nobody wants to change it! He talks about the title of the page to justify a false sentence in the intro: indeed Nuovo Partito Socialista Italiano is not often shortened Nuovo PSI, it is a false statement, the opposite is true, "Nuovo Partito Socialista Italiano" is the extended (and little used) name of "Nuovo PSI", the current intro is perfectly compatible with the title and with the reality, so I will revert any disruptive attempt to remove an ideology without consensus or to introduce the page with a clearly false statement.--Wololoo (talk) 15:30, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

There are thousands of sources, especially newspaper articles on riformismo or popolarismo or cattolicesimo democratico (used in Italy to describe centre-left Christian democrats), as well as socialismo liberale, but that does not mean that they are accurate or correct. That is why we discuss and seek consensus. To put it simply, as also User:Autospark's comment shows, there is no consensus for "liberal socialism" here, let alone on the naming issue. --Checco (talk) 06:38, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

And, by the way, no authoritative sources support "liberal socialism" for NPSI. --Checco (talk) 06:31, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

"Liberal socialism" is so inaccurate, unsourced, controversial and unconsensual that there is nothing more to say.

On the name issue, one should remind what Wikipedia:Consensus and WP:CommonName say. The party was known as "New Italian Socialist Party" since the beginning (see, for instance here). Moreover, the article has been named this way also before 2007. Additionally, just an example: also the PRC's symbol reads "Communist Party – Refoundation", but the party is almost universally known as "Communist Refoundation Party", hence the Wikipedia article's name. --Checco (talk) 06:07, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Again, I'll restate that the article title should remain as "New Italian Socialist Party", unambiguously, as it the use in at least one academic source. Liberal socialism should not be in the Infobox, particularly as it is backed up by sources linking to the party's own website.--Autospark (talk) 14:36, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

I reply for the last time: you CAN'T remove the official ideology of this party, which has remained on this page for years, without consensus. I will always rollback your arbitrary edits on this matter. And the page of the semi-non-existent Socialist Party simply does not make sense if it is not explained in the page that the name of this party changed following the division of the two factions (from PS-NPSI to PS and NPSI). However it would be better to merge that page with this one as had already been proposed. --Wololoo (talk) 20:17, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Just two words would suffice: no consensus. There is simply no consensus on adding "liberal socialism" and changing the article's intro.

The concept of "official ideology" is contrary to the principles of Wikipedia. There is plenty of parties which pretend to be something they are not. Moreover, we tend to use European standardised ideologies for European political parties, thus typically Italian expressions like socialismo liberale (which, by the way, has nothing to do with the NPSI and the old PSI as well), cattolicesimo democratico, popolarismo, etc. should be avoided. Additionally, the name of this party has always been "New Italian Socialist Party" and the Wikipedia's article has always been named that way. --Checco (talk) 12:12, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Again, there is no consensus on talking about "Socialist Party – New PSI" and adding "liberal socialism" to the infobox. When there is disagreement on a new edit, that edit can be discussed in talk page and, in the meantime, the established version should stay, per Wikipedia:Consensus. Additionally, "a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit".

The party was referred as "New Italian Socialist Party" in this article well before the supposed name change. Also before that, this article was named "New Italian Socialist Party". User:Nightstallion was the one who moved it to the current name. Even the main source included in this articles, as well as the videos of the party's founding congress, refer to "New Italian Socialist Party". All this means that the NPSI should be referred as NPSI even before the supposed name change.

I have nothing more to add on "liberal socialism" because my arguments above are already quite clear.

More important, as I said, without a new consensus, the former one should stay. --Checco (talk) 08:59, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Ps: As one can easily see from the archives of Radio Radicale (see here), since the beginning, the party was referred interchangeably as "New Italian Socialist Party" or "New PSI, practically never under the abstruse Socialist Party – New PSI. I will however proposed a compromise version.

There is nothing worse than a user who doesn't knows the matter but still wants to impose his opinion about it: "abstruse" only in your head, "Partito Socialista - Nuovo PSI" was the official name of the party by statute (that you never read), since 2007 the official name is "Nuovo PSI" (that until 2007 was the short name of the party). "Nuovo Partito Socialista Italiano" has always been an informal name. And the page about the "Socialist Party" of Del Bue and De Michelis makes sense only precisely writing the reality of the facts, that it was the result of the division of the name "Partito Socialista - Nuovo PSI", that Socialist Party was only the result of a partition but de facto never existed (De Michelis and Del Bue acted on behalf of the NPSI up until the end). And I will always rollback your removal of the ideology without consensus.--Wololoo (talk) 19:40, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

What you do not realise is that the issue is about WP:CommonName and WP:Consensus. In Wikipedia "New Italian Socialist Party" was considered the party's most common name and was adopted as article's title before the supposed name change. As your bold edits have been opposed by at least two users, User:Autospark and I, you should seek consensus first, instead of insisting on unconsensual edits. It is you who continue to edit the article without consensus and with explicit opposition by two users, both on naming and ideology. --Checco (talk) 06:18, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

While I preferred the original version, I have to say that I agree with the compromise version offered by User:Wololoo between 16 and 18 July. I hope he/she will accept my compromise version on "liberal socialism": while this is not an ideology per se and it is not applicable to a modern party, especially one which does not support the abolition of capitalism, as liberal socialists did, what about leaving it and accompanying it with "self-proclaimed"? Something like that appears in other parties' infobox. Of course, sources are not third-party ones and there can never ben an authoritative source on "liberal socialism", an element of propaganda by Craxi and his followers, not a correct political classification. Having a self-proclaimed ideology in the infobox is not a good precedente for other parties, but we need a compromise: we have already wasted too much time on this issue and, more broadly, on this party. --Checco (talk) 06:16, 24 July 2019 (UTC)