Talk:National Alliance (Italy)

AN and Fascism
Alleanza Nazionale has distanced itself from Mussolini and fascism, especially in the recent years, that it the main reason most die-hards left it, its transforming into a moderate right wing party. Listing it as “neo nazi” is unfair. It is a party in the ruling coallition in an EU country.--GeneralPatton
 * I think I added it on the basis of a link from Neo-Nazism, which could probably do with a similar note. Sorry about that - David Gerard 08:08, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * I've added it now--GeneralPatton 11:57, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * It is neo-fascist, not neo-nazi. The two ideologies are related, althoug not exactly the same. --Oddeivind 20:23, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Party's logo
Alleanza Nazionale changed its logo, please update. This is the new one, showed just a few days ago: http://www.italianosdargentina.com.ar/noticias/images/alleanzanazionalenuovosimbolo.jpg Full article: http://www.italianosdargentina.com.ar/economia/index.php?n_noticia=1373

Flik
I do not know if it should be correct to be cited here, but a couple of years ago, during a nation wide political campaign they borrowed the Pixar A bug's life character Flik for promotional purpose. It is unclear if Pixar never authorized such an use. ALoopingIcon 14:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * It wasn't Flik and the most interesting thing is that AN used the carachter in Spring 1998, while the film was released in November. If someone copied one another, this was Pixar copying AN!!! --Checco 23:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Why rollback?
I do not understand why my changes were rolled back? This article is not encyclopedic and contains a myriad of unsourced entries which is nothing more than propaganda. One can write just about anything on Wikipedia and if it stays on the page long enough it all of a sudden becomes a fact!?Ellipsis4677 19:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I changed something of your edits in order to make things clearer. I re-added only the intro about Christian Democrats and Liberals who joined the party. I can't understand why you cancelled this information. --Checco 23:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * My whole problem with this article is that everything has been done to highlight anything which can possibly be portrayed as being negative. If someone who knows nothing about the party reads this, he or she gets the impression that AN is just a bunch of recycled fascists. Unsurprisingly, that's exactly the way the left would describe the party... ten years ago. The constant references to the party's past are also unsourced, which is unfair in itself. As I said, on Wikipedia all you need to do is write what ever you like about a subject, hope that it stays online without anyone noticing for a while, and all of a sudden it becomes a "fact". AN's ideology is based on being close to the Catholic church and law and order!? If being close to the church is part of their program, then I suggest we add that to every Italian party from Forza Nuova to Mastella and l'Ulivo, as they are just close as AN. This is just one example. There is almost nothing which truly factual and objective in this entry...
 * "Distinguishing itself from the MSI, the party has distanced itself from Benito Mussolini and Fascism and made efforts to improve relations with Jewish groups. With most hardliners leaving the party, it seeks to present itself as a respectable conservative party and to join forces with Forza Italia in the European People's Party and, eventually, in an united party of the centre-right."
 * Here is another example... Even the MSI changed a lot with Fini in the early 1990s, let alone AN. The party already has established excellent relations with Jewish groups. It doesn't "seek" to present itself as a "respectable conservative party", it already is. This entry is full of this "weasel" like garbage, and I don't understand how you are not aware of this? This was possibly a fitting description for the party ten years ago when it was portrayed as a fringe party by opposition sources, but certainly not in 2007.Ellipsis4677 07:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I am not a leftist and I haven't anything against AN. Look what was the page 4 months ago... From then I tried little by little to improve the article (as I did for those of FI, LN, UDC and DL). Work with me, but remember that we have to balance our personal opinions. To say that MSI in 1992 was a respectable conservative party is not exactly what the 95% of political scientists would have said: as of 1992 MSI had a close relationship with Le Pen, was full of people like Rauti, was anti-American instead of pro-US, and the figure of Mussolini was still revered in the party. Now it is true that Fini is sometimes a progressive (on other issues he continues to be a national-conservative or a moderate nationalist), but the party? Catholicism and law and order are definitely two things shaping the image of the party. Catholicism is common with UDC (a right-wing conservative party from a European point of view and we are writing in en.Wiki), parts of FI and of DL, but Gasparri, Alemanno, Storace and Pedrizzi are clearly more chistian-conservative than Pisanu or Marini. Anyway help this article and at any time I will collaborate with you. --Checco 08:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Italian Neofascist organizations
AN should, in my opinion be listed among the Italian Neofascist organizations. Oddeivind 06:14, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


 * It won't. Indeed there's very little neo-facism in AN, which is a respectable national-conservative party. --Checco 20:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Don`t you know that almost all the present leaders, including Fini himself were former members of the Italian Social movement? This is definitely NOT an ordinary conservative party. The former Christian Democrats were conservative, but today the closest you would come to conservatives in Italy is Forza Italia. Note the following sentence in the article: "Former MSI members were however still the bulk of the new party." It is no coincidence that most of the members came out of the MSI. Both the MSI and AN were/are neo-fascist parties. The difference is merely one of political style. Otherwise there is very little difference between the two organizations. --Oddeivind 20:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Further to the fasicsm controversy...
It really comes down to what the sources say. The BBC describes the NA as "post-fascist" and quote its leader saying, "I am a post-fascist and I hope that Italy stops talking about fascism and anti-fascism." CNN calls them former neo-fascists. The Guardian calls them post-fascist.

Now, that's not to say that the "National Alliance = fascist!" POV should dominate the article, but it's going much too far to remove references to fascism entirely. We should describe them neutrally as post-fascist, acknowledge that the party originated as a splinter group of the fascist MSI, and summarize the claims and counter-claims about their current allegiances. The current article is a bit of a whitewash. &lt; el eland / talk  edits &gt; 00:00, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * MSI was neo-fascist and to some extent post-fascist, AN is neither neo-fascist nor post-fascist. Fini could have said these things in 1993 or in 1994, but then he even declared in 2003 that "fascism is the absolute evil". Off course AN is the direct heir of MSI, but it not post-fascist from any perspective. Moreover, almost all AN members who called themselves post-fascist switched to Tricolur Flame (1995), Social Action (2003) and The Right (2007). Now, aftere these three major splits, there are virtually no post-fascists within AN. --Checco 02:22, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Also, I would like to underline that AN policies are far from fascism of any sort: it strongly supports European integration, the United States and Israel, it is economically (and to some extent socially) liberal... --Checco 02:28, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Ideology section
"Distinguishing itself from the MSI, the party has distanced itself from Benito Mussolini and Fascism and made efforts to improve relations with Jewish groups."

How on earth are "improving relations with Jewish groups" a relevent second part of the sentence? The doctrines of Italian fascism are not antisemitic and there are even such things as Italian Fascist Jews. Non of the newer Italian fascist leaders make antisemitic statements either so how is this relevent at all? - Gennarous (talk) 15:57, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * It is very relevant that AN became one of the parties which are more closer to Israel. Change the sentence as you feel it would be better. No problem. --Checco (talk) 16:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Ideology in the infobox
National Alliance is a national-conservative party with strong liberal-conservative and christian-democratic influences. It proposes everything that is explained as "christian democracy" in Christian democracy, wants to join EPP and also in it.Wiki is characheterized also as a christian-democratic party. A Christian Democrat is a person who supports christian-democratic policies, not a former member of DC, a historical Italian party which included both national-conservatives (think about Gustavo Selva) and social-democrats (Rosy Bindi). So, what's the problem with it? Moreover National Alliance is composed of a 15% of former memebrs of DC. What's the problem? --Checco (talk) 10:44, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Christian democracy and christian-democratic policies (such as the support for a social market economy) is clearly part of the party's ideology. Also it.Wikipedia acknowledge it. He asks sources, but, as there are no sources even about the party's "national conservatism", should we leave the ideology section blank? --Checco (talk) 19:35, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * the support for a social market economy does not mean that a party is christian-democratic: as anybody know, it is not so simple and the sillogism is the other way round. This is something evident, but Checco continues to deny the fact. For anybody who lives in Italy but for Checco, the definition of national alliance as 'Christian democratic' is a plain absurdity. If you have no sources, it is better to leave the section blank: as you should know, it is better to have no information than a wrong information.213.156.52.124 (talk) 20:03, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * You continue to confuse what journalists or "people" say in Italy with European politological stanbdards. By European standards AN is definitely a national-conservative, as well as liberal-conservative and christian-democratic party. Also it.Wiki denotes this, so where the absurdity lies? --Checco (talk) 20:27, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Even by the european politological standards, National Alliance is not a christian-democratic party.Italian christian democrats are represented by UDC, FI, UDEUR and other small parties. As you know, many christian democrats are now in the Democratic Party, but DP is (correctly) not defined as a christian-democratic party. Are you stating that all parties from National Alliance to DP are christian democrats?213.156.52.124 (talk) 21:09, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Those former members of DC who are members of PD today are hardly Christian democrats by European standards, they are indeed social-democrats, no matter their religious beliefs. The old Christian Democracy party was the "party of the political unity of Catholics", but this doesn't mean that they were all Christian democrats by ideology. Romano Prodi, Rosy Bindi or Franco Marini are moderate social-democrats by European standards. And what about National Alliance? As only a few members of PD would call themselves "social-democrats", a very few members of AN would call themselves "christian-democrat". This is because of the anomalies of Italian politics in the so called First Republic (one big anomaly is the idea of the "political unity of Catholics", as a Catholic can be either right-wing, centrist or left-wing). Nevertheless most policies of AN are christian-democratic and there is nothing uncorrect in defining the party as "national-conservative" (first), "liberal-conservative" (second) and "christian-democratic" (third). --Checco (talk) 21:17, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * You say: "Nevertheless most policies of AN are christian-democratic": in the same way most policies of the Democratic Party are christian-democratic. With your reasoning, both parties deserve the 'christian-democratic' title. Moreover, your "European standards" are amazing: my "European standards" are different. Can you cite sources for your european standards?


 * No policies of the Democratic Party are christian-democratic: they are indeed social-democratic and the party is thus widely considered social-democratic by European standards. Your allegations are directed to me but in fact are directed to many the editors both of en.Wiki and it.Wiki who agree with me on these issues. Indeed the parties are defined identically both in en.Wiki and it.Wiki. It is not a conspiracy and I am not so powerful: simply what many editors and I write happens to be correct. --Checco (talk) 21:44, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Ideology: law & order
I noticed that there is a questionable sentence in the "ideology" paragraph, i.e. : "law and order, especially laws aimed at controlling immigration and promoting national cohesion"

I do not see why "control of immigration" and "promotion of national cohesion" are linked together. "National cohesion" has (hopefully!) nothing to do with law and order and with the control of immigration, but from a xenophobic point of view.

Since I hope that this is not the case, it would be better to separate "national cohesion" from "law and order". My proposal is to put the part of sentence about national cohesion somewhere else. I do not know where, because in this moment no examples of "laws promoting national cohesion" come to my mind... Then, I will wait for suggestions before removing the "and promoting national cohesion" part. FrontalAssault (talk) 14:19, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, we definitely need to separate the two things. --Checco (talk) 14:24, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I would also say something about punishment in general. --Checco (talk) 14:30, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I made the change you proposed and I had the occasion to update or fix other sections of the article. --Checco (talk) 07:16, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Recent edits by anonymous user
An anonymous user insterted a section about some statements of two senior members of AN. Although I don't think that this is really relevant to the article as Wikipedia is not a last news website but an encyclopedia, I accepted the good part of the section, including good sources from Corriere della Sera, which published the interview of Alemanno which started the whole thing. That is the best source as it is the only primary source. I don't understand your claims: now the section explains exactly what happened with a lot of references. Then the IP started to change the ideology of the party, which is sourced, with things like "cryptofascism", which is obviously incorrect. I ask to the user to stop editing the article in this way, eliminating sourced statements and including unsourced claims.

A final observation: is that section really relevant for the article? --Checco (talk) 13:56, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The Corriere della Sera article is in Italian, is it better practice to use English language sources here as most readers wouldn't know Italian and thus would find it hard to verify. The English language sources here are more than adequate. This is a notable controversy. As has been said here before, the previous version was a total whitewash in favour of this undoubtedly unsavoury political party. --84.65.193.186 (talk) 14:17, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't know how you are aware of Italian politics. AN is a conservative party and since 1995 it has become the most staunchly pro-Israel party in Italy. Some prominent Jews have entered Parliament in AN's ranks. Fini and many leaders have very good relations with the Rome's Jewish community. You wanted to insert a reference about Alemanno and La Russa's remarks: it's OK, but we should insert exactly what they said, as it is reported by Corriere (which published the interview of Alemanno). You wanted sources for the ideology: I included sources. You wanted to insert some s: I left them were they are, even if it is a little bit absurd to have a reference on just everything.

I'm trying to do everything I can to reach a compromise with you and what you do is simply to revert completely my edits, reinserting imprecise citations and facts, and to insult me. I'm not a fascist, I personally don't like Fini and AN'ideology is very far from my political views, but Wikipedia is not about our personal ideologies: it is about what is true and correct. It is fairly incorrect to describe AN as a fascist party, exactly as it would be very incorrect to descrive the Democratic Party as a communist outfit. Please look up for a compromise with me and not just reverts. --Checco (talk) 14:45, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm very sorry that you continue to call my proposal of compromise as "fascist whitewash" and I kindly to ask to stop insulting me in this way. --Checco (talk) 14:55, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * There are also Jewish people in the fascist British National Party, but that does not stop it from being a fascist party, although Nick Griffin, like Fini, continues to deny this. If the Democratic Party leadership started praising the Soviet Union, I would take the same position as here. I think you are naive at best here. --84.65.193.186 (talk) 15:01, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The problems here are two. Firstly, I'm very sorry that you don't see any difference between BNP and AN. Secondly, you probably did not read what Alemanno and La Russa said: they may be fascists in their hearts and liars (as you wrote somehere else), but what they said is a little bit different to praising the USSR or fascism itslef. That is why I have nothing against having the remarks cited in the article, even if a section about this late-Summer turmoil is no so necessary in a Wiki article: in order to let everyone read and make his opinion. --Checco (talk) 15:14, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * What motivates you to say you are "very sorry" that I "don't see any difference between BNP and AN"? I have a healthy distate for all things far right, unlike you. Somehow, I don't think promoting neutrality is your prime motivation here. You think praising the army of a Nazi puppet state is "conservative" and harmless? Do you take me for an idiot? --84.65.193.186 (talk) 15:26, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I fairly dislike far right parties, but AN is not such party. Italy had a civil war and also Luciano Violante remembered in one of his speeches the repubblichini in an attempt of reconciliation. La Russa did just that, without praising RSI. Anyway in the article there is the exact remark made by La Russa, so what is the problem? --Checco (talk) 15:39, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * You just contradicted yourself, which proves your dishonesty. You said: "they may be fascists in their hearts and liars" Then you say: "I fairly dislike far right parties, but AN is not such party." The AN is rooted in fascism, and if it had really embraced European Christian Democracy then we wouldn't see skinheads saluting at AN victory rallies, as happened in Rome this year. --84.65.193.186 (talk) 15:51, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I meant to say that I don't know if Fini is fascist in his heart or Veltroni still a communist, but that they act as true democrats. That some supporters of AN are nostaligic of fascism and that some Democrats are nostalgic of communism is likely, but this does not mean that the two parties are respectively fascist and communist. --Checco (talk) 16:21, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * If you "don't know if Fini is fascist in his heart", then how do you "know" that the AN is no longer fascist? Again, you have lost your arguments here. The Democrats have not praised the Red Army. However, the AN's acting leader has praised the "patriotism" of the RSI traitor army which fought for Hitler, not the Kingdom of Italy. If that is the position of the leadership then it would not be a surprise to see skinheads congregating at AN events. The only difference between Fini, Griffin and Le Pen is that Fini is a better strategist. --84.65.193.186 (talk) 16:40, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * This is your opinion: the big difference has to do with their policies instead. La Russa has not praised the "patriotism" of repubblichini, but simply remembered them, exactly as Violante did some years before. The remarks of La Russa and Alemanno are included in the article, thus I don't see the problem. --Checco (talk) 16:52, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, I do see a problem. The big problem here is your dishonesty. La Russa said they were fighting for Italy. They were fighting for Hitler. You also deleted the fact that skinheads were openly and freely parading at an AN victory rally. --84.65.193.186 (talk) 17:03, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

La Russa did not say that. I consider the second fact irrelevant, as it is irrelevant that in the Festa Democratica of the PD in Florence the image of Che Guevara was displayed behind a counter or that images of Stalin and Lenin are displayed in some sections of the PD. Do you think are these thing relevant? That is not my opinion, and if you will try to include these information in the article on the PD, I would delete it as well.

This discussion is leading us to nowhere. Why don't you ask to other users or to Nightstallion what they think about you inserting "cryptofascism" as ideology of AN? It seems to me that you are trying to use Wikipedia as a place where supporting your personal convictions. That's not the goal of Wikipedia. Regarding political parties, it is too easy to include plenty of parties in the same catgory without making distinctions. There is no party which is identical to another one. It is interesting to observe, as political scientists do, that two similar parties such as FN and AN have taken such different paths, or that FN is different from the Freedom Party of Austria, or that the latter is different from Vlaams Belang, or that the new Democratic Party in Italy is a very interesting party if compared to other European centre-left parties, or that there is a difference between PRC and PdCI. That's political science: I'm interested in political science, non simply in politics. --Checco (talk) 17:17, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Alemanno denies that Mussolini's rule was "absolute evil", contradicting Fini's earlier stunt. Yes, indeed La Russa said "they fought in the belief they were defending their country." They didn't and weren't. Political scientist or not, you have proved here that you are dishonest, a fascist sympathiser and a troll. --84.65.193.186 (talk) 17:30, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

As you don't stop insulting me, you don't deserve any more attention. Bye. --Checco (talk) 17:46, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not insulting you, I am stating facts that you yourself have proven on this page. Judging by the other discussions here, you appear to be in a minority of one. See Ownership of articles. --84.65.193.186 (talk) 17:53, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * You called me a fascist sympathiser and a troll. They're both insults in my view. --Checco (talk) 18:29, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * No they are not, because you have proven here that you are both. Describing this party as "conservative" is an absurd whitewash and a lie. Incidentally, the source you have deleted exposing the party is the Daily Telegraph, a British right-wing conservative newspaper. --84.70.186.74 (talk) 16:36, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * You accuse me of being fascist (so please at least stop saying that you're not insulting me), above you will find someone describing me as a leftist. That's good: it means that I'm really neutral. Daily Telegraph is a British right-wing newspaper, Corriere is an Italian centre-left newpsaper which interviewed Alemanno: tell me what is wrong with using a primary source. --Checco (talk) 17:06, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * You have proved your allegiances by your clumsy dishonesty here. The Corriere source is an interview, not an expose of the party, and I don't understand Italian so I can't verify it. If British Thatcherites can't trust the party, then describing it as "conservative" is not credible. --84.70.186.74 (talk) 17:16, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

The fact that you are British (correct?) and that you don't live in Italy explain many things. No-one in Italy would ever describe AN as a fascist party and Italians have a very different perception of fascism than people from other countries, who confuse Italian fascism with German nazism (I'm not talking about you). There is a long talk in Italy by senior left-wing politicians (Luciano Violante, Carlo Azeglio Ciampi), journalists (Giampaolo Pansa) and musicians (Francesco De Gregori) about the need of reconciliation after 60 years of clashes rooted in the 1943-1945 civil war. Fini is a respected politician especially by left-wing politicians and voters, who in contrast dislike more Berlusconi. When I told you about Jews being close to AN, I was talking for instance about Alessandro Ruben, who was president of the Italian section of the Anti-Defamation League, or about Fiamma Nirenstein, who was a staunchly pro-Israel correspondent from Jerusalem before enetering parliament for AN and Forza Italia. I'm not among those people who like Fini and I would never vote for AN because of its patriotism, its Italian rethoric and many other reasons, but it would be very dishonest and incorrect to describe Fini and AN as fascists. I'm sorry that British newspapers (I'm a subscriber of The Economist) tent to be very imprecise about Italian politics, but I understand that Italy is a chaotic country. --Checco (talk) 17:41, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, really? You are not in a position to decide who is covering Italian politics "correctly" and who isn't. Anyway it wasn't a civil war, the RSI was a Nazi occupation with many Italian collaborators. As I said, there are Jews in the "changed" BNP here and the party is still condemned across the British political spectrum. British politicians are rather less naive than some Italian ones. --84.70.186.74 (talk) 17:57, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * AN and BNP are simply uncomparable: they propose completely different things; also the old MSI was fairly a respectable party if compared to BNP. I don't know how much you know about RSI, but I can tell you that the people perceived it as a civil war and in fact people joined both the RSI army and the partisan resistance (my family chose the resistance and three of my grandaunts were interned in concentration camps by the Nazi with the help of RSI militants - I'm very proud of them). The fact was described as a civil war also by senior left-wingers in Italy, as I told you. I have no more arguments for you. My impression is not that you are biased, but that you simply don't know much about AN. If you have any other things to say, tell it to Nightstallion, who can definitaly explain better than me why AN is not a far-right party as you believe. I know that you are in good faith, so I apologise you for your continued insults. Have a good evening. --Checco (talk) 18:11, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Again you take me for a fool. The RSI is defined by Wikipedia as a collaborationist Nazi puppet state, as is Vichy France. The AN, FN and BNP are very similar, particularly on economic policy. Thou doth protest too much. --84.70.186.74 (talk) 18:25, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * This is another issue. Any as far as I know social market economy is not among the core policies of FN and BNP. Many parties anyway propose similar economic policies (and I don't think this is the case of the parties you mentioned), but this doesn't mean the they are identical also regarding other issues. Take foreign policy: AN proposes a totally different foreign policy from FN, including a pro-Israel, pro-US and pro-European integration stance, support for Turkey to join the EU and so on. --Checco (talk) 18:31, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, Fini is good strategist. You are wasting your time here. --84.70.186.74 (talk) 18:33, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * You're right on both things. Take care, --Checco (talk) 18:45, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * You can't polish a turd. --84.70.186.74 (talk) 18:48, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Take care, --Checco (talk) 18:52, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * You can shower me with as many "good wishes" as you like. As I said, you can't polish a turd. --84.70.186.74 (talk) 18:59, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I did not. Take care, --Checco (talk) 19:06, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Don't tell me to take care. You have no credibility with your pathetic excuses for this party and the Nazi puppet regime. --84.70.186.74 (talk) 19:11, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * You're short of arguments. Bye bye (if you prefer). --Checco (talk) 19:13, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * On the contrary. Unlike you, I don't write a load of waffle and condradict myself with dishonest arguments. --84.70.186.74 (talk) 19:16, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Bye. --Checco (talk) 19:22, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * You are just making yourself look more and more guilty. --84.70.186.74 (talk) 19:24, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Register yourself with an account and edit the article: we'll see what other users will say. --Checco (talk) 20:02, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Quit obfuscating. Other users on this page are unhappy with your whitewashing. Again, see Ownership of articles. --90.241.186.22 (talk) 12:31, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * An admin classified your edit as vandalism and protected the article. I've nothing more to say. --Checco (talk) 17:37, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

An image on this page may be deleted
This is an automated message regarding an image used on this page. The image File:Alleanza Nazionale.png, found on National Alliance (Italy), has been nominated for deletion because it does not meet Wikipedia image policy. Please see the image description page for more details. If this message was sent in error (that is, the image is not up for deletion, or was left on the wrong talk page), please contact this bot's operator. STBotI (talk) 17:08, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on National Alliance (Italy). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071217055735/http://www.ansa.it:80/opencms/export/site/visualizza_fdg.html_65043240.html to http://www.ansa.it/opencms/export/site/visualizza_fdg.html_65043240.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20111121084433/http://download.alleanzanazionale.it/Elezioni2008/SenatoriPDLinXVILEGISLATURA.pdf to http://download.alleanzanazionale.it/Elezioni2008/SenatoriPDLinXVILEGISLATURA.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 10:40, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on National Alliance (Italy). 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/20131110124209/http://www.cattaneo.org/archivi/adele/iscritti.xls to http://www.cattaneo.org/archivi/adele/iscritti.xls
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090615195058/http://www.skylife.it/html/skylife/tg24/politica.html?idvideo=56053 to http://www.skylife.it/html/skylife/tg24/politica.html?idvideo=56053
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121119111338/http://www.tau.ac.il/Anti-Semitism/asw2006/italy.htm to http://www.tau.ac.il/Anti-Semitism/asw2006/italy.htm

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:51, 1 December 2017 (UTC)