Talk:Italia Viva

History before Conte II

Do you agree that in the "History" section there should be mention of all the times the media and Renzi himself mentioned that he could create another party? I think this started since when he was PM. --Ritchie92 (talk) 07:15, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, we should include it. -- Nick.mon (talk) 07:20, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Name

Hi, do you think should we rename the article "Alive Italy", or should we keep the Italian name? -- Nick.mon (talk) 09:32, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

I would say "Italy Alive", because Italia Viva actually means "Italy is alive" or "Make Italy alive", I guess. However as usual, there are no sources for now so we cannot say for sure. Let's wait a day or two if some foreign newspaper talks about it (for now the ones that talk about it cleverly don't mention the name of the new party). --Ritchie92 (talk) 10:23, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Okay, a bit of research on the reliable newspapers: Reuters says either "Alive Italy" or "Italy Lives", and the Financial Times says "Italy lives". --Ritchie92 (talk) 10:33, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Ok, in my view, if we decide to translate it, we should use "Italy Alive" or "Alive Italy", because "Viva" is an adjective, so "Italy Lives" is a bit incorrect. -- Nick.mon (talk) 10:43, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

It could be seen as an imperative like in "Viva l'Italia!". --Ritchie92 (talk) 11:43, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

L'Italia Viva ("The Alive Italy") was a slogan already used by Democratic Party and Walter Veltroni during the campaign for 2008 Italian general election (see: here). So "Alive Italy" is good for me. --Holapaco77 (talk) 11:46, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

That's obviously a reference to "Viva l'Italia", just exchanging the order. Also in the source there is no English translation. --Ritchie92 (talk) 11:52, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Absolutely, "L'Italia Viva" was also a goliardic slogan similar to "Forza Italia": then in 2008 was created the hybrid neologism "Vetrusconi" (see: here). --Holapaco77 (talk) 12:06, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

What does the term "Veltrusconi" have anything to do with this? Also, the English source you mentioned earlier (EN24.news) is far from being a reliable source, I would say. Let's focus on the main news outlets, or on official sources. --Ritchie92 (talk) 12:13, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

I like both "Alive Italy" and "Italy Alive". I would ask User:Autospark, as native speaker, to tell us which is best. We just need an English name! It is quite worrying to me that recently we have started to name articles on Italian political parties in Italian, not just this, but also Cambiamo!. That is quite inconsistent to what we have done so far. --Checco (talk) 14:40, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

We should just follow the guidelines (refer to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (political parties) and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English)#No established usage in English-language sources), and if an English translation is not common in the sources then discuss every time about what to do and reach a reasonable solution. Also remember that the current main Italian political party, the Northern League (very well-established English name in the news and books), has an Italian name on WP, so I wouldn't worry too much about this. If the translation exists, let's use it. If it doesn't, let's not invent translations ourselves, that would be WP:OR. --Ritchie92 (talk) 15:42, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

All Italian political parties have an English name, that is consistency. The only (big) exceptions are "Lega Nord" and "Forza Italia". There are reasons for that. However, you can always propose a move of those articles. --Checco (talk) 08:18, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

These articles have an English name either when the name is very common in English literature (e.g. "Five Star Movement" or "More Europe" or "Brothers of Italy") or when their name is anyway obviously easy and univocous to translate with common political terms (think about "Italian Liberal Party" or "Italian Republican Party" or "Party of Italian Communists" etc, that have common political words in their names). In the case of "Forza Italia", this is a slogan, so it's actually not translated in most English sources, and also difficult to render in English. In the case of "Lega Nord" there's a whole discussion about it and some editors were insisting to keep it in Italian (mainly for disambiguation purposes) even though the English translation is actually very straightforward and common in the literature. Now in this case, the term "Italia Viva" is (1) a slogan containing a wordplay, so generally not so straightforward to translate to English, and (2) not yet established in English sources. My proposal is: let's wait for a consensus in the most authoritative sources that we agree upon, and use that as the article's name. I will keep searching for them because I also like English names, but only if they are correct. --Ritchie92 (talk) 10:34, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Now Reuters also uses "Italy Alive", while in the article four days earlier used "Alive Italy". --Ritchie92 (talk) 18:22, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

I think we already have some precedent for an English language title. Italy Alive sounds more grammatically correct than Alive Italy, even if not as literal a depiction of the native Italian language name. So my personal vote is for Italy Alive as the English language title of this article.--Autospark (talk) 13:09, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

I also support moving the article to "Italy Alive". --Checco (talk) 13:15, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Merging with Renziani

Should this page be merged with Renziani? --Holapaco77 (talk) 11:37, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

INMHO we should keep two different articles. Renziani were a main faction of the PD, while Italia Viva is a distinct party. -- Nick.mon (talk) 13:50, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

I strongly oppose that. Moreover, some Renziani will stay in the PD. Surely, that and other articles need update. --Checco (talk) 14:30, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Additionally, let me say something on the big picture. I think we should not waste too energies on this article, which is already too long in my view, while it would be better to update and, in some cases, start all the articles on minor parties (just think of the recent split within AP/CP with Lorenzin joining the PD and Toccafondi joining IV) and PD's factions (there is always movement there!), in order to let readers navigate and get updated infos. User:Nick.mon and, possibly, User:SDC, would do a great job. I also hope to find some time to give my contribution too. --Checco (talk) 08:35, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Of course, Checco, we need to update them -- Nick.mon (talk) 09:00, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

European affiliation + other issues

It appears Italia Viva is politically close to the new Renew Europe grouping, with Sandro Gozi providing a link between IV and En Marche, so while no formal decision has been taken, it would seem relevant to mention this? Culloty82 (talk) 14:55, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Not news yet, as far as I know!

Additionally, what about ideology? The party is definitely liberal, but can it be considered also Christian-democratic or Christian-leftist at least? The party includes not only liberals, but a majority of Christian democrats, as well as some social democrats (as Bellanova). --Checco (talk) 15:09, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

That is why I added and a little bit arrogantly re-added a part on Renzi's and the party's cultural and ideological roots. That was controversial to some, but was appreciated by others. Please let me briefly know what do you think on that and the aforementioned issues. --Checco (talk) 06:18, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Ritchie92: I am pinging you here beacuse of this recent edit of yours and these ones on Italian Socialist Party (PSI), as well.

Articles should be well referenced: there is no discussion about it. Particularly, the article on the PSI should be better referenced. This said, I do think that "over-referencing", similarly to over-linking, is not good for Wikipedia. When short descriptions and links with well-referenced articles are added, there is no need to add sources for every single word. Additionally, articles' leads: they should be the summa of what the article's text talks about, thus references there should not be excessive or none at all. My opinion is well described in Wikipedia:Citation overkill and Wikipedia:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue. It is good to add sources, while adding citation tags on obvious infos is not. That Renzi is a Catholic or that he was president of the Province of Florence are obvious things that can easily checked by going to Matteo Renzi. Same for Mussolini's Socialist upbringing or the PSI's legal successors.

Finally, I would like to hear from you and possibly User:Autospark, User:Nick.mon, User:SDC, etc. what they know/think about the IV's ideology, as well as its European affiliation, per Culloty82's question. Thanks and... cheers, --Checco (talk) 06:24, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

@Checco: This is a bit OT, but whatever. I don't see any issue here: simply WP is based on reliable sources. None of the cases you mentioned above are a case of WP:Citation overkill (citation overkill is something like "...^{[1][2][3][4][5][6][7]}" or citing every single word one says, but it's not the case when adding one citation for each meaningful sentence) nor I am advocating to cite something so obvious like the sky is blue. This is English WP, people are not expected to know where Matteo Renzi comes from or what party was Mussolini in. This is not obvious or everyday knowledge. In the case of Renzi, I actually even specified that the "citation needed" template is mostly for the whole Renzi's past (like the fact that he was a "devout" Catholic: anyone could challenge this statement!). The easy way is to take the same reference used in Matteo Renzi, articles should be self-consistent, especially for statements like "Renzi is a devout Catholic" or "Renzi is a centrist". For the PSI article, it is in a very bad state so I don't know what's your objection or if you are telling me that we should "go slow" on citations. Also, lead sentences must be verifiable too, as per WP:LEADCITE: obviously they should not have all the citations of the lead, but at least the ones needed for trusting some non-trivial statements (and remember, something might be trivial for you or for me, but not for the average reader).

About the IV ideology, my reply is: let's put what sources say and not try to do our WP:OR and analyze the party's ideology ourselves. Same for the European affiliation (the EP members of IV are still in the S&D group so it does not look like they are officially affiliated to Renew Europe). --Ritchie92 (talk) 08:06, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

About the European affiliation it's simple, currently IV has no European affiliation (also because, to my knowledge, it is not even represented by any MEP). About the ideology it's a little more complex, being a party of recent fondation, there are no sources, but it substantially a centrist and liberal party, as already written in the infobox.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 08:39, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

There're no doubts that Renzi has a Christian democratic background, however I think that this party's ideology is very similar to the one of Macron's En Marche, as well as it's very linked to Renzi's thought and views. So I think we could keep "Liberalism" and "Social liberalism", which are the two main ideologies, but if there's consensus, we could add "Christian democracy" as the third one, even if it isn't absolutely the main ideology. -- Nick.mon (talk) 13:54, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Matteo Renzi Leopolda 2019.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:06, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Sandro Gozi

@Checco: According to the official EP website, Gozi has been sworn in as MEP on 4 February (see here). Instead, Danti changed group later in the month. So I think Gozi was the first MEP of IV. --Ritchie92 (talk) 15:59, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

You are right on Gozi's swearing-in and Danti's change of group, but Danti has been an IV member since October. --Checco (talk) 16:07, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Right, I got confused. --Ritchie92 (talk) 19:20, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Both "liberalism" and "social liberalism"?

Is it necessary to list both "liberalism" and "social liberalism" in the infobox of this article? It seems clear that IV is predominantly social-liberal, so isn't this a little redundant? Ezhao02 (talk) 15:06, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

​​​Pinging some users who seem to be pretty involved with this page. Ezhao02 (talk) 18:27, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Since there is not so many reliable sources localizing this (relatively new) party on the ideology spectrum, I would say that it's better to keep only the more generic term "liberalism", which surely also includes social liberalism. --Ritchie92 (talk) 07:17, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree with User:Ritchie92: let's have just "liberalism". --Checco (talk) 13:58, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for everyone's input! Ezhao02 (talk) 14:02, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Describing in objective terms an ideology or the ideology of a political party in objective, non abstract terms is sometimes a puzzling question. I think attention should be rather paid to the actual acts and decisions by that particular party or political leader. In our case the leader's party brought to power twice another (xenophobic) far-right group. When today's Italia Viva leader was the Premier of Italy, his policies included backing oil-drilling in fragile ecological environments off the country's shores; or restricting the right of workers as laid out in Italy's "Workers' Statute" by abolishing its art. 18. That doesn't appear really "liberal" to me; and IV leader himself has a background as a Christian Democrat, i.e. a member of Italy's old conservative party, the Democrazia Cristiana. I would rather write Italia Viva describes itself as a liberal party, instead of validating the claim by the party itself, so the readers may decide by themselves. 151.76.21.201 (talk) 12:57, 22 February 2021 (UTC)