User talk:Itanesco

This user may have left Wikipedia. Itanesco has not edited Wikipedia for a considerable amount of time. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.

Welcome!

Hello, Itanesco, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! eric (mailbox) 11:06, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

European Democratic Party[edit]

Hi! I have responded on the corresponding talk page: Talk:European Democratic Party. C mon (talk) 18:54, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Centrist liberal[edit]

I think that is very creative, but without proper sources to back that up, there would be no place to put that up on wikipedia. See wikipedia's rules about "original research". C mon (talk) 19:24, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To state my point more clearly: I do not know what the right solution (centrist-liberal/liberal centrist) would be, but any solution would need to be backed up by external sources. C mon (talk) 19:25, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Original research[edit]

Before going into detail with the exact cases, I want to stress these two things:

Wikipedia is not about opinions, it is about sourced fact. You need to back up your edits with sources.
It is flawed reasoning to say

On average /in general, A are have value B on variable C
D is an A
D has value B on variable

The flaw is that although on average/in general A might have value B, there may still be variance on variable C. So for example:

On average social-democratic parties (A) are centre left (B) on the left-right dimension (C)
The UK Labour Party is a social democratic party
The UK Labour Party must be centre-left on the lef-right dimension.

But this is simply not true, because the Labour Party may deviate from the average position taken by its peers. That is the nature of an average value. You make this flawed reasoning all the time.
So now lets look at the reverted edits:

Factions in the Democratic Party. I reverted the edit because you a) a removed a reference (that is not just an external link, but a link where a particular statement on wikipedia is based upon) without any reason and b) because the statement you inserted was an irrelevant unsourced opinion. The statement "the American progressive democrats are like the European democratic socialists" without a source is just an opinion, or original research. Which is irrelevant to the subject, which is about positions of the progressive democrats and not their similarities to other organizations.
Liberal Forum. Here you show a reasoning I called flawed just now: that a lot liberal party rejects the left-right spectrum (altough I would like to have a source for that) does not mean that the Liberal Forum does that. You need to provide proof that the Liberal Forum does so.
Czech Social-Democratic Party: idem 2.
Irish SP: you said that it was "not at government" that is why I reverted your actions, because being in government was not a criterion.

I would like end by pointing out two things to you: take a look at the rules, guidelines and principles of wikipedia. The five pillars of Wikipedia is a good start. The principle of not doing original research and providing sources for statements is of the highest priority on wikipedia. Second, please sign your posts on talk pages with four tildes ~~~~, so we can see what you posted. C mon (talk) 11:23, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Constitution Party[edit]

Please see the discussion I have started regarding your recent edit to the Constitution Party article. Thanks. Have a wonderful day! JBFrenchhorn (talk) 03:31, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

EUL/NGL[edit]

I agree with you on EUL/NGL, but we should stick to the compromise we reached at Talk:Political groups of the European Parliament. I stated my opinion there, if you want you can discuss it and try to change the description of the group. --Checco (talk) 22:21, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes I disagree with you, but in general I think that you have a great deal of knowledge about parties and ideologies. Welcome to Wikipedia and keep in touch! --Checco (talk) 08:12, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Italian newspapers[edit]

"Political allegiance" does not mean strickly "ideology", so please don't revert my edits on Italian newspapers... --Checco (talk) 07:09, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...and also please stop cancelling "centrism" from the articles. I agree with you that "centre-right" or "left-wing" are not ideologies, but "centrism" is different: it is very useful to describe parties which don't have a clear ideology or which are both something and centrist. Rememeber also that in the US, centrism is regarded as an ideology, as conservatism and liberalism, and they correspond to the centre, the right and the left, respectively. --Checco (talk) 07:12, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First, newspapers: Corriere is liberal but is close to the political centre-left, Repubblica is progressive/social-democratic and is close to the left-wing, and so on... political allegiance is useful to give to the reader an idea of where the newspaper is located in the political spectrum.

Second, Italian PS. It is definitely a centrist social-democratic party. I would describe it as simply social-democratic, but if you add third way is not a problem for me, what is problematic is in fact its carachterization as a democratic-socialist party, which it's not. I know how the internal factions of PS describe themselves, but remember that politicians are politicians not political scientists and they often use political terms erroneously. Anyway, if you really want to put "democratic socialism", I can live with it.

Finally, Brazilian PDT. Socialist International includes both centrist parties and more left-wing ones. PDT fits the second category: it is a populist and democratic-socialist party, very to the left of Lula and most SI social-democratic parties. Even in this case I could live with the "social-democratic" classification, but in my opinion that party is more to the left than social democracy. The best thing we can do is to ask to some Brazilian users or start a discussion in talk page.

Take care, --Checco (talk) 10:45, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to a Brazialian user, PDT is a populist social-democratic party. Subsequently I re-inserted "social democracy" instead of "democratic socialism". --Checco (talk) 15:58, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

US & Dutch parties[edit]

Hi! Please understand that wikipedia is about facts and not opinions. It does not matter what you or I think of a particular party on basis of our own criteria. What matters is what external reliable academic sources think of political parties.

I advise you to get a basic text book on American politics to find references for your claims about the social-liberalism c.q. social-democracy in the U.S. Democratic party. I assure you that they will all say that the U.S. Democratic Party is a liberal party, and specifically a social liberal party.. But if you can find a source (a peer-reviewed journal article, a book authored by a political scientist or recognized pundit) that sustains your claim, than that will be fine. But asssigning the U.S. Democratic Party an entire ideology merely because what you think their trade policy is, is not how wiki works.

About the GreenLeft: Essentially its economic policy is a green economic policy. Their economic proposals center around shifting taxation from labour to capital and pollution in order to boost employment and fight pollution. For more information see green tax-shift. Trying to assign this position in the rigid categories of social-liberalism and social-democracy without specifying criteria what characterizes this, is completely pointless.

About the VVD. You may add centre-right to VVD. If you can provide a source for it. Without a source this is just your opinion and not a fact sustained by reliable, external, academic sources.

-- C mon (talk) 08:23, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with C mon, but it is also true that the progressive Democrats, those of the Congressional Progressive Caucus (which includes also Bernie Sanders, a self-proclaimed "democratic socialist") are probably to the left of most European social-democratic parties. I say this for personal experience in talking with some CPC members and Sanders himself. Anyway, C mon is right also on this: we need sources, so let's look for them! --Checco (talk) 10:48, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to base stuff on personal experience start a blog. As for wikipedia, find sources. Thirdly: there is no law in political science that says that a social-democratic party necessarily is more or less leftwing than a social-liberal party. C mon (talk) 20:51, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is exactly what I meant to say. --Checco (talk) 12:58, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Piping links[edit]

FYI, it is not necessary to create piped links with different initial capitalization (for example, [[Mixed economy|mixed economy]]) as you did here. Wikipedia's software automatically deals with the first letter, so this produces exactly the same thing as [[mixed economy]] by itself. You can learn more about this at WP:PIPE: "Never use piped links to convert first letter to lower case: write simply [[public transport]] instead of complicated [[Public transport|public transport]]. Both display identically as public transport." -David Schaich ^Talk/_Cont 01:50, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agrarian parties[edit]

I stared a list of agrarian parties as part of the article about Agrarianism. If you know any agrarian party which is not included in the list add it and, if you are interested in the issue, help me in finding more parties to add. Thank you. --Checco (talk) 07:21, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The list is now at list of agrarian parties. --Checco (talk) 11:15, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

it.Wiki[edit]

Why don't you contribute also to it.Wiki? --Checco (talk) 21:43, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Italian parties[edit]

We should continue our discussion about the ideology of Democracy is Freedom – The Daisy and the New Italian Socialist Party... In the meanwhile can you tell your opinion in talk pages about Template:Historical Italian political parties and The People of Freedom? --Checco (talk) 07:29, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Centre-left[edit]

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Centre-left. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Centre-left. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:16, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Liberal Democrats[edit]

I think this deletion requires discussion on the article's Talk page since you gave no reason for it and the ideologies section appears to have consensus as it is. Thanks. Rodhull andemu 18:54, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:58, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]