Talk:National Alliance (Italy)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

National Alliance (Italy) is within the scope of WikiProject Italy, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Italy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
WikiProject Politics This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, an attempt to improve, organise and standardise Wikipedia's articles in the area of politics. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Mid This article is on a subject of Mid-importance in Politics.

Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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. <eleland/talkedits> 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)