Talk:Italian Radicals (disambiguation)

The entry on Italy's radicals was a bit confusing, and I have tried to fix it. Let's tackle with the name, first. Unlike the English word "radical", the Italian word "radicale" conveys only an idea of determination. "Avere una posizione radicale" means that you have expressed a clearcut opinion, and you are outspoken about your stand. It does not mean that you are an extremist. And in fact the Partito Radicale started out as a very determined yet non-violent Italian civil rights movement in the 60s and early 70s.

Italy's old Partito Radicale (Radical Party) ceased all national political activities, and stopped running for the elections late in the 80s. It went then "transnational", and has been active only in the international arena ever since.

After the shift in focus from Italian to global politics by the Partito Radicale, a number of radical groups were founded in Italy to keep radical activities running at a national level too. These groups, which could be affiliated to the new transnational Radical Party, kept taking part in the Italian elections as well.

Among the new Italian national radical groups and parties from the 90s on, one finds the Lista Pannella (Pannella List), the Movimento dei Club Pannella Riformatori (Movement of Pannella's Clubs for Political Reform), both named after radical leader Mr Marco Pannella, the Lista Bonino (Bonino List), named after prominent radical EU commissioner Ms Emma Bonino, the Radicali Italiani movement (Italian Radicals), and many more minor organizations.

As it is correctly mentioned in the entry, two major dissenting radical, but not-Transnational-Radical and Pannella-led parties are the Movimento Federativo Radicale (Federal Radical Movement), and the Radicali di Sinistra (Radicals Of The Left).

Title of entry is misleading

I see that there exist a number of different political groups in Italy, calling themselves "radicali". Using "Italian Radicals" as the the title for this entry is misleading, as these two words exactly translate the name of one such political group, whereas the clearly (or hopefully, in the spirit of Wikipedia) non partisan intention by the author(s) is to give an account of the radical world in Italy.

I suggest that the title of the entry be changed to "Radical Parties in Italy" (one of which will then be the "Italian Radicals" movement).

Alternatively, a "non partisan" page should be created, with that name, linking to all the various radical movements and parties, regardless of their political affiliation, be it on the right or on the left side of Italy's political spectrum.

In fact I have discovered that there exist a disambiguation page called Radical Party, with a list of parties incorporating the world Radical in their name. I have added there a link to the Radicali di Sinistra. Entries for Quaderni Radicali and Riformatori Liberali (see the Scissions section of Italian Radicals) seem not to exist yet.

What about removing links to pages devoted to opposing political parties?

The entry devoted to the Italian Radicals is in my opinion indeed unfair and politically biased. It therefore violates the non-negotiable principle that Wikipedia should not be a place for POV entries and political propaganda.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view

A reference to the Radicals of the Left, an Italian political party opposed to the Italian Radicals was removed twice, and the link from here to the page in Italian which I wrote was disrupted again on 4 January 2006. By the way, the entry I gave my contribution to in the Italian Wikipedia was also vandalized by anonymous visitors in the past.

Of course I am not claiming that Italy's Radicals of the Left indeed represent the true expression of the Radical ideology, whatever anyone's opinion may be on the subject of Radicalism in Italy, and the role of the many radical movements in Italy's political life. That's not my job, and Wikipedia would also not the right place for such claims.

The facts are that the Radicals of the Left do exist (many of them are former members of the Italian Radicals, by the way), they describe themselves as Radicali, and they do criticize the stance of other Radical groups in Italy on various subjects. These facts should not be hidden by carefully erasing references and links to further relevant entries.

Is this happening just because the person who edited the entry may not like what he feels it is an opposing party? Though not relevant here, his opinions are to be respected of course, but this fact does not imply for him the right to try and prevent the readers from knowing the existence of other conflicting opinions on a given subject. Or does he feel he is entitled to deciding who is truly Radical and who is not, and can therefore be safely removed from the entry? A party being small is not a good reason for anyone to deny its existence, is it? Let me be explicit: this sort of behaviour is not academically sound, and just does not belong here.

In the entry I contributed to along with others (for those who can read Italian) you find a historical section in which the evolution of Italy's Radicalism is traced back to the XIX century, and in which due mention is made of both the Radicals of the Left and the Italian Radicals.

I do really believe that people with a strong political bias and a missionary attitude should refrain from editing political entries before having their own contribution double-checked by someone who is politically independent. Anyhow, I will not reinstate the erased portion of this entry again. I am not interested in edit wars. 81.211.225.179

So I tend to agree with you that it makes sense to mention the Radicali di sinistra somewhere in this article. By the same token, though, I note that your article it:Radicali di sinistra has no link to the Riformatori liberali, who presumably would also claim to "continue the tradition of the Italian Radical Party". --Trovatore 19:07, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I would not object to adding a reference to Riformatori Liberali. Even more: I will do that as soon as I leave this page, despite the fact that Riformatori Liberali do not call themselves Radicali, as you may have noticed. My point is that the impression one gets when reading this page and its history is tahat Radicali di Sinistra have been flatly expunged.Wikipedia entries, though, should not be used as a political forum or as a substitute for the homepage of a political party. 81.211.225.179

Fatto! I have just updated the it:Radicali di sinistra entry to include a reference to Riformatori Liberali both in the historical section and in voci correlate ("related entries"). I have not added any reference to the Movimento Federalista Radicale, instead, because I have no direct knowledge of the reasons which led that group to split up from the Radical Party in the second half of the 80s, and I do not want to speculate. Wikipedia is under the GPL and anyone is invited to contribute to any entry. 81.211.225.179

As you've noticed, someone named "Gac" has reverted you. I don't know why. I still have a concern with your version, though, not strictly limited to Riformatori Liberali; the first sentence claims that the Rds are the party that continues the tradition of the Partito Radicale Italiano. That strikes me as a bit like saying "the Roman Catholic Church is the church that continues the tradition of Jesus". I mention RL mainly because they're the only group I know of that still calls itself a "party" and descends from the free-market tendency of the Radicals; for all I know there are others. (When I was in Italy there was a small list that had split off from the Greens called something like "Verde sole che ride". A friend of mine commented, "siccome erano in due, hanno deciso di dividersi".) --Trovatore 00:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi! I have noticed that. In fact I think that Gac must have believed I might be vandalizing the entry :-). As to the articolo determinativo issue, I have deliberately used it to stress what I think is happening nowadays in Italy's Radical world. The post-war Pannella-led Radical Party has turned into an NGO, whereas the Radicali Italiani have merged with part of the Socialists into a new political socialist-radical party called "Rosa nel Pugno". Presently there is only one entity which at the same time claims to be a party, and describes itself as Radicali, i.e. the Radicals of the Left. Partito Radicale (Transnazionale) is not an Italian party, Radicali Italiani is not a party, Rosa nel Pugno is not radical, but radical-socialist, Riformatori Liberali are akin to Italy's Liberal Party, and conservative. Hence my articolo determinativo "the", for the time being. My intention would be to try and keep that entry up-to-date, while at the same time being as strict and as precise as possible in the chosen wording.

The wording is indeed a huge issue. The problem posed by the great number of groups and organizations claiming to some radical heritage in Italy, and which are often interrelated in a way going beyond human understanding :-) is touched upon in the talk page at it:Radicali di sinistra. I must admit that I do not like the way Mr. Pannella and his followers have been swinging to the right (I am left wing), and then back to the left, while at the same time continually changing the name of their party. They have changed their name, they have changed their political allegiances. They were left wing, then they went neoconservative and pro-Berlusconi, and now they say they are left wing again. Whatever they are and believe, they no longer use the word Radicali to describe themselves (officially at least, see it:Radicali_Italiani#La_"Rosa_nel_pugno"), but someone spends part of his time erasing the traces of opposing radical groups from Wikipedia, which should be an impartial collective work, instead. The choice itself of their latest name "Radicali Italiani" sounds a bit imperialistic, doesn't it. It looks like as if they were trying to hint that they are the only legitimate radical party in italy and that elsewhere, to stick to your Roman Catholic Church example, there is no hope of redemption... Yet they are not the one and only Radical Party in Italy. There are two in France, there used to be two in Italy (left and right radicali), and now there is just one.

But if you think that I should correct the first sentence and avoid using "the", I unserstand your point: that sentence may sound biased (it did sound biased to you, and this may happen again with other readers); so I will comply with your request.

-- Have you noticed? The entry was rolled back to its correct form. I have already removed il and I have substituted it with un. "I Radicali di sinistra sono un partito italiano che continua la tradizione del Partito Radicale italiano e dell'Estrema Sinistra di Felice Cavallotti." "The Radicals of the Left are a party that continues the tradition of Italy's Partito Radicale and of the Extreme Left by Felice Cavallotti". I have added a mention of the XIX century Estrema Sinistra, to make clear that I am referring to the ancient Radical Party, and not to the ONG with the same name led today by Mr. Marco Pannella.

Is Rosa nel Pugno a merger or an alliance?

Question asked by Electionworld 22:47, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Rosa nel Pugno has been described in official documents by the leaders of Radicali Italiani as an Associazione politica (i.e. a "political association") and as a nuovo soggetto politico ("a new political group/organization" - "soggetto" basically means "person" in Italian, but here that word is used metaphorically to refer to an entire political organization, in order to stress its specificity. It is implied that Rosa nel Pugno will be unique as a group, like every person is unique as an individual)

Here http://www.radicali.it/view.php?id=44533 you find a speech by RI leader Mr. Daniele Capezzone. With reference to bringing together Radicali Italiani and Socialisti Democratici Italiani (i compagni dello SDI, "our comrades from SDI"), in the header of paragraph 5 one can read the words la nascita del progetto comune ("the birth of a common project"). The third paragraph below incorporates the words "Per questo, mi auguro che questo nostro Congresso voglia [...] dire il nostro sì, anche formale, alla nascita di un nuovo soggetto politico", "for these reasons I hope that this Congress of ours [...] will approve [lit. "will say yes"] also formally to the birth of a nuovo soggetto politico". The "common project" finds therefore its expression in the "nuovo soggetto politico", ie. Rosa nel Pugno.

Here http://www.radicali.it/view.php?id=45608 Rosa nel Pugno, or the "nuovo soggetto politico" is referred to as an "associazione politica" ("political association"). This is from the official press release marking the birth of Rosa nel Pugno on 17 November 2005.

"Il Comitato di Coordinamento costituito a Fiuggi (nel corso della Convenzione del 23, 24 e 25 settembre 2005) da Socialisti Democratici Italiani, Federazione Giovani Socialisti, Radicali Italiani e Associazione Luca Coscioni, costituisce, con l'approvazione delle quattro organizzazioni promotrici, l'Associazione Politica denominata "La Rosa nel Pugno - laici socialisti liberali radicali", che sceglie di richiamarsi al trinomio: Blair-Fortuna-Zapatero"

(sorry, this is one instance of the traditionally ambiguous and bloated jargon spoken by politicians in Italy. Breathe deeply... let's go! ;-) "The Coordinating Committee established at Fiuggi during the Convention [held there] on 23-24-25 September 2005 by Socialisti Democratici Italiani, Federazione dei Giovani Socialisti ["Federation of Young Socialists"], Radicali Italiani and Associazione Luca Coscioni [the Association "Luca Coscioni"], establishes, with the approval of the four founding Associations, the Political Association bearing the name of "The Rose in the Fist - lay, socialist, liberal, radical", which chooses to draw its inspiration from [the political vision] of three political figures: Mr Blair, Mr Fortuna, and Mr Zapatero". - A list of names of the persons making up the RNP "Provisional National Secretariat" follows.

In the English Wikipedia entry on Radicali Italiani, the word "alliance" is used with reference to SDI, and RnP is defined as a "movement"; in the Italian entry it:Radicali_Italiani#La_"Rosa_nel_pugno" though it is stated that "Capezzone ha auspicato che "Rosa nel pugno" sia proprio il nome, oltre che il simbolo, del nuovo partito radical-socialista. La proposta è stata accettata dal segretario dello Sdi, Enrico Boselli." "Mr Capezzone expressed his hopes that "Rose in the Fist" will be the very name, and not just the logo, of the new radical-socialist party. This proposal was accepted by SDI Secretary Mr Boselli"; furthermore Radicali Italiani are said to be a "movimento politico" in Italian it:Radicali_Italiani, whereas they are referred to as a "group" and a "party" here (mention is made of the "party program"). "Movement" seems therefore to be used as meaning the same as "political party", and also "group".

In addition to all he above, Rosa nel Pugno will be running in the general elections next April, so I would definitely say that RnP is not just an alliance of two independent bodies; also from the way it is referred to, it is a new political party, and therefore a merger is what occurred on 17 November 2005.

You may also want to ask your question in the talk page at it:Radicali_Italiani, or at it:Rosa nel Pugno. 83.176.28.243

I am Italian, and, for what I know, the "Rose in the Fist" should be referred to as a "confederation" of parties. Not yet a unique party, but not just an electoral alliance. IMHO, only the next election will give a definitive answer to your question. Anyhow, for now consider it as "something more than an alliance". --Angelo 20:07, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Name dispute and disambigation

I have created a disambigation page at Italian Radical Party, which distinguish between the Nonviolent radical party and this one. However, it is wrong, I think, to name this article "Italian radicals", since this party is not the same one as the party founded in 1955. This leads to confusion, such as Marco Pannella redirecting here: it should redirect to the Partito Radicale entry. Since this article apparently doesn't exist yet, I won't make a redirect to the Nonviolent radical party, because that one was founded in 1989. So, this means we have three different parties, and only two entries. Hopefully an Italian could help us here. Tazmaniacs 00:58, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

In after-thought, I'm moving the page to Radicali Italiani, which is the proper name for this party. Then, this "Italian Radicals" can disambig everything and explain what an Italian explained up there on the talk page. It should definitely not be named "Italian Radicals" since there are various such parties. Tazmaniacs 01:01, 4 May 2006 (UTC)