Talk:Action (Italian political party)

Member of the Chamber of the Deputies?
@: Who is the member of the Chamber of Deputies you edited in the box? Richetti is a senator
 * Yes, you are right. If I did that, it was an unwanted mistake. --Checco (talk) 18:51, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I forgot again to insert my signature. --Broncoviz (talk) 20:00, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

"Progressive"? What is that?
Please stop using left-wing terms to hide socialist and left-leaning attitudes. 62.226.72.181 (talk) 07:25, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * What do you mean? Action is a broadly a progressive party and, more specifically, a social-liberal one. The party has nothing to do with social democracy (despite Calenda being a member of the S&D group in the EP), let alone "socialist and left-leaning attitudes". --Checco (talk) 13:58, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

This party is inspired by Carlo Rosselli's Action Party (Partito d'Azione). The party's official ideology is liberal socialism. --RVD3 (talk) 14:52, 1 January 2022 (UTC)RVD3


 * We do not count on what politicians say of themselves, but on third-party sources. To be clear, none of the ideologies you added are supported by third-party sources. Additionally:
 * 1) "liberal socialism" is hardly an ideology suitable for Action and, moreover, it is not even an ideology per se, but an outdated political philosophy;
 * 2) "green politics" is not suitable for Action;
 * 3) "popolarismo", meaning "Christian democracy" in English, is clearly misplaced;
 * 4) "pro-Europeanism" is not an ideology, but a policy.
 * Over the latest months, only two ideologies have achieved consensus and they are really uncontroversial: "social liberalism" and "progressivism". I would be OK also with leaving only "social liberalism", as too many ideologies, especially when interchangeable, are hardly useful in an infobox. Please, seek consensus here before adding new ideologies to the infobox. You are new of en.Wikipedia, but I am sure you will soon learn how to cooperate with other users. Welcome! --Checco (talk) 15:18, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

"We do not count on what politicians say of themselves, but on third-party sources"
 * 1. Define what you mean by "third party sources";
 * 2. The old sources were newspapers not controlled by Action;
 * 3. The sources for progressivism is based on what Carlo Calenda (the party leader) says;
 * 4. There is no source for "social liberalism".

"We need a liberal-progressive force" - C. Calenda: https://www.globalist.it/politics/2019/09/05/calenda-lascia-il-pd-e-fonda-il-suo-movimento-serve-una-casa-riformista/ --RVD3 (talk) 15:34, 1 January 2022 (UTC)RVD3


 * You are missing the point. I see you are a newcomer, thus I invite you to read Consensus and Independent sources. A newspaper might be a third-party source, but, when it simply quotes one party leader, that quote is not. There is consensus on both "social liberalism" and "progressivism", as they have not been challenged for months and you too are including them in your edits. There might be no third-party sources, that is why in my latest edits I left them without reference. There is no consensus and there are no third-party sources on "liberal socialism", "popolarismo" alas "Christian democracy" and "green politics", thus you are have no right to re-add them. Yours were bold edits challenged by another user: you need to stop editing without seeking consensus first. "Pro-Europeanism" is another sort of thing: it is clearly redundant and it is not a political ideology, but simply a policy (like "opposition to immigration", "anti-corruption" or "pro-LGBT"), however it can stay for now. What is most important is to not include controversial, completely unsourced and alternative ideologies in the same infobox. Finally, it is better to have just one or two ideologies in each infobox, as it is simply a summary of what the article is about. --Checco (talk) 06:32, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * In our case, only one ideology could stay in the infobox: "social liberalism". As argued above, "progressivism" is too generic, while "pro-Europeanism" is redundant and not an ideology per se. There is no doubt that Calenda and his party are social liberals, but surely we need third-party sources to support that. --Checco (talk) 06:38, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree that we must distinguish between policies and ideologies, and should use only the latter. (I realise that one could argue that "pro-europeanism" skirts both definitions, but I don't exactly agree with that view myself, and that is an argument best for elsewhere.) Also, the broader the fewer ideologies listed the better – social liberalism is fine, as it's a broad, cohesive and recognisable ideology, but needs third-party sources backing it, and not ones merely quoting a party figure's own views on the subject. As for "progressivism", it's just too vague to be much use as a descriptor, and redundant if more specific ideologies can be identified with references.--Autospark (talk) 18:09, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Liberal socialism
Given that the party is self-described as a "liberal-socialist"... Sources: https://www.azione.it/socialismo-liberale https://www.azione.it/inizia_la_fase_due

"Liberal socialism" must be considered: https://www.mondoperaio.net/in-evidenza/per-unazione-consapevole/ https://www.avantionline.it/calenda-rilancia-il-liberalsocialismo/ https://www.pensalibero.it/calenda-dare-sostanza-a-unarea-riformista-liberale-e-socialdemocratica/ https://www.tp24.it/2021/12/21/rubriche/oggi-piu-che-mai-c-e-bisogno-di-uno-stato-sociale/172109 https://www.linkiesta.it/2021/04/calenda-azione-martelli-renzi-riformismo/

In my opinion, the sources are sufficient and the absence of "liberal socialism" is completely unjustified.

--RVD3 (talk) 13:55, 5 January 2022 (UTC)RVD3


 * The main problem is that "liberal socialism" is not a political ideology per se. Craxi and the PSI started to use the "liberal-socialist" label at the end of the 1970s or at the beginning of the 1980s, but they meant "social democracy". The reason why they could not use "social democracy" is that another party, the PSDI, used that label. This is en.Wikipedia and we need to use standard European political terms. "Liberal socialism" is not, "social democracy" and, in this case, "social liberalism" are. --Checco (talk) 15:20, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed – liberal socialism was a label used in a specific circumstances by politicians of the time for a political ideology (or ideologies) with more recognised name(s). The more general, recognised, modern terms must be used. (In addition, we should also not describe political parties based upon statements of self-description made by party leaders or figures. Mentioning in the article body that Calendra may have referred to "liberal socialism", using references, is fine, but taking that as an objective statement of fact is not.)--Autospark (talk) 20:17, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Liberal socialism is an ideology created by Carlo Rosselli; Liberal socialism was the official ideology of the Action Party (Partito d'Azione, 1942-1947) and Justice and Freedom (Giustizia e Libertà, 1929).--RVD3 (talk) 17:15, 12 January 2022 (UTC)RVD3
 * Calenda referred both to Rosselli's liberal socialism (which was, by the way, anti-capitalist, something Calenda is definitely not) and to the Action Party (which was not anti-capitalist too, thus not liberal-socialist, but socia-liberal or social-democratic). Liberal socialism was a philosophy and has never become a proper ideology of a proper party. It is defintely out-of-date when describing a party established in the 2020's. --Checco (talk) 16:04, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Article's name
I felt bold and I moved the article to "Action (political party)", consistently with Article One (political party) and Possible (political party). --Checco (talk) 04:38, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Action (Italian political party) → Action (political party) – It seems to me the natural disambiguation. Identifying the subject as a political party is more relevant than identifying it with the country. The article's name should match those of other parties in Italy, like Article One (political party) and Possible (political party), whose move discussion was closed just a week ago. There are no other parties named "Action", thus the name I am proposing is viable and, as said, consistent with similar cases. --Checco (talk) 03:26, 28 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Support per proposal. The current name is too long. Otherwise, we should go back to the article's original name, that is "Action (Italy)". --Checco (talk) 03:36, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment — if you look at the dab page, you'll see that there's two other parties in that section... Paintspot Infez (talk) 03:40, 28 April 2022‎ (UTC)
 * You are right. Sorry to everyone! We could move the article back to its original name, "Action (Italy)", matching also Action (Cyprus). --Checco (talk) 03:47, 28 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Action (Italian political party) is the most WP:PRECISE, given that also other countries have parties named Action. Yakme (talk) 06:59, 28 April 2022 (UTC)


 * I'm equally supportive of "Action (Italy)" and "Action (Italian political party)", although leaning towards the latter.--Autospark (talk) 15:44, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. We can all be content with that. --Checco (talk) 16:31, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

"centre-left"
Now since Azione left CSX and was joined by many FI dissidents it should be removed imo Braganza (talk) 14:17, 5 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Once again, I think that political positions are very deceptive, especially because they can be quite different in different political contexts, and should be removed altogether. Action is not aligned with the centre-left coalition in Italy, but, by European standards, is likely a centre-left party in the mould of UK Liberal Democrats. --Checco (talk) 06:18, 7 September 2022 (UTC)