Talk:Lega Nord/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 7

It.Wiki vs. en.Wiki

It's not acceptable that Lega Nord supporters are involved on editing the Lega Nord page, they can't have a neutral point of view at all, they don't want to have one. I was blocked be cause of my criticism on the italian page of Lega nord regarding the typical racism Le Pen's style of this party. This is an urgent issue that wikipedia Should have to face, thank to these people in Italy wikipedia is no more free, this is the sad truth.--151.82.183.203 (talk) 14:31, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand where your issue is. Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia where everyone can contribute. Lega Nord page is not an exception: no one can prevent a LN supporter to contribute, if what he writes in the page is referenced and accompanied by reliable sources, both in English and Italian wikis. Remember that questions and problems about Italian wikipedia must be addressed in Italian wikipedia, not here.--Grasso83 (talk) 13:33, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

To claim that an issue like that described above should be discussed only internally to wikipedia italy and not outside is a proof for the typical mafia style mentality of the Lega Nord, "cosa nostra" means "our business". For italian Wikipedia the problem is that politics (and their slaves) has become part of a bullying phase in our encyclopedia and they does not scruple to fake reality. We have known this same kind of people during the fascist regime. This is not just an Italian problem but this is a problem throughout wikipedia, this is a problem that concerns the essence itself of wikipedia.--151.82.51.25 (talk) 17:23, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Uhm ... an italian (151.82) that has nothing better to do than speaking about "spaghetti mafia mandolino" an other stupid stereotypes (and that it seems educated to "spread its shit around", instead that in "his own WC" -- please note hte double quotes) is actually telling us that "For italian Wikipedia the problem is that politics (and their slaves) has become part of a bullying phase in our encyclopedia and they does not scruple to fake reality"

Now, even admitting this is true, who grant us that this anonymous it is not itself another of such a slaves that -for opposite reasons- are exactly doing the same things for his own political part?

After all, he's talking about "the kind of people known during the fascist regime": It shold be something like 80 years old! And is using the word "slave" (hoping l'Unità will not ask for the copyright!).

There is so many people that say "you are a fascist" and that wants always to be in the truth, I'm in serious trouble in understanding who the real fascist actually is!

Throw your mask off: RED-FASCIST!

Freedom of speech is not something that apply only when the speak is what you like!

Keith 64 (talk) 12:30, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, only to give a short feedback to the ridicolous answer of Keith64: today, in Italy, the government led by Berlusconi is indicted becasue it's composed by the most dangerous allies of the mafia and the Camorra, they are also indicted for money laundering and other crimes, well, this government is strongly supported by the Lega Nord without any scruple. What should we have to think about Lega Nord? What should we have to think about the hundreds of volunteers of wikipedia that have been blocked and censored because they have been accused of being vandals? Full support to 151.82 people! --57.78.11.41 (talk) 16:55, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I have no intimate knowledge about Italian affairs, but from what I've heard through my national press I have the impression that Berlusconi has cracked down on the mafia ("Cosa nostra") like no previous government in Italy. Nevertheless, "mafia-talk" is highly irrelevant for this specific Wikipedia article. -TheG (talk) 20:40, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

It depends on the papers you usually read, can you link here the sources you mention about? I'll transalte that for me, I'm curious.

following some interesting links for you (there are hundreds you can read):

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/09/14/the_bordello_state

http://www.ilfattoquotidiano.it/2010/09/19/de-magistris-vicini-alla-verita-sull%E2%80%99impero-di-b/62193/

http://it.wiki.x.io/wiki/Silvio_Berlusconi

http://it.wiki.x.io/wiki/Marcello_Dell%27Utri

http://www.corriere.it/cronache/10_giugno_29/dellutri-sentenza_c8806998-8350-11df-aec8-00144f02aabe.shtml

http://espresso.repubblica.it/dettaglio/quel-silenzio-sulla-lega/2134376

/24 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 57.78.11.41 (talk) 08:58, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Everybody should note that this anonymous user (57.78.11.41) is only capable to make vandalism. He came in my user-talk page just a few days ago to insult me, so I think he's only to make noise and to prevent other people to work. In Italian we describe this kind of people as "coglione".

To get an idea of this user's intelligence, I report here what he wrote in my talk page: (in Italian) "Con la bandiera della padania prima ci puliamo il culo e subito dopo con la stessa bandiera puliamo la faccia ai leghisti." For those that can't understand Italian, it means: With Padania's flag we first clean our ass, and soon after with the same flag we clean the visage of Lega Nord's electors. This could prove that this user belongs to the worst species of troll.--Grasso83 (talk) 10:10, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Umberto Bossi, the leader of the Lega Nord, said:"Quando vedo il tricolore mi incazzo. Il tricolore lo uso per pulirmi il culo" that means:"When I say the italian flag I get angry, I use italian flag to clean my asshole", don't you believe? Please look here the souce: http://it.wiki.x.io/wiki/Umberto_Bossi

Well, here you'll find the today's news: Lega Nord push to reserve Universities of North Italy to student living in North Italy, this is the apartheid-like point of view of Lega Nord. http://milano.repubblica.it/cronaca/2010/09/22/news/universit_l_ultima_tentazione_della_lega_precedenza_agli_studenti_lombardi_nei_test-7330113/

Furthermore you can enjoy some news about one of the typical proposal of Lega Nord, in this case the proposal is about the creation of subway trains/cars reserved only for Milan citizens together with other trains of the subway reservd only for immigrates, again an apartheid-like mentality, http://www.repubblica.it/2009/05/sezioni/cronaca/metro-riservata-milanesi/metro-riservata-milanesi/metro-riservata-milanesi.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 57.78.11.41 (talk) 11:02, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, There'se many people in italy that are anti-italian form many reasons. If we put them all together we arrive easily to 70%. Lega nord is just 30% of them... (I suppose Bossi was referring in particular to the red side of the flag :-) ) About the university issue, the problem is what does it mean "leaving". If it just means "be in a place being capable to sustain your existence in that place", that's the same the actual EU directive says: go where you want, but don't stay more than three mounts if you don't have away to leave where you are." Comparing this to "Apartheid" (that is: go in another place because you look different, even if you are native of this same place )is meaningless. Uness you're following your own personal definition (or better "la Repubblica" definitions) of such terminology. The last point was a joke against the inverse proposal of the left to admit clandestine on the underground without ticket (because they're by default supposed by them to be unable to pay for that). None of the two where never been formalized and discussed. (hence they -formally- don't exist, or better are not "proposal", since no vote have never been required for that.) Moral of the story, dear 57.78, if you want to tell the story, you've to tell it all, not just the parts the politically adversed newspaper tells, just to make their own propaganda. Keith 64 (talk) 12:00, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Keith 64. Anyway I'd like to reply to 57.78.11.41 (why don't you register and come as named user?). If you want to express your personal point of view against Lega Nord's politics I suggest you to visit any of the thousand anti-LN blog and forums. One can have a positive or negative opinion about a political party, but insulting its supporters and/or its members, especially in a place like Wikipedia which is not a blog, is the worst way to express that opinion. I could apologize for giving you the "coglione", but first you should accept to behave in a more polite way, not only against myself but in general against every user, and to stop vandalizing other user's personal pages. The facts you cite are strongly different between themselves. The last one is a personal proposal by a Lega Nord's MEP, that was never endorsed nor approved by the party's leadership. The first one is a recent proposal presented by a LN regional deputy that was not yet approved. You may think it is discriminatory, by reading the article presented by the linked newspaper, that is independent but almost ever strongly critical against Mr. Berlusconi and his allied parties. A neutral point of view may be archived by reading other articles on other newspapers. The Corriere, for example, did not report this news. By the way I don't see nothing of racist or discriminatory in such proposal, since one of its basic motivations (the average of high school's final test results is generally better in Southern Italy than in Northern-Central Italy) was recently proven by ministerial statistics, and it does not mean that Southern Italian students are better than Northern ones.--Grasso83 (talk) 12:09, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Grasso83, Keith64 you're both so nice today, what a surprise! Ok, let's go to the point, I have a question for you: would you be so kind to explain the meaning of the following sentence of Gentilini during the Lega Nord festival? « Voglio la rivoluzione contro i campi dei nomadi e degli zingari. Io ne ho distrutti due a Treviso. E adesso non ce n'è più neanche uno. Voglio eliminare i bambini che vanno a rubare agli anziani. Se Maroni ha detto tolleranza zero, io voglio la tolleranza doppio zero» that means "I want the revolution against camps of the nomads and gypsies. I've destroyed two of those in Treviso. And now there is not even one more. I want to eliminate children who go to steal the elderly. If Maroni said zero tolerance, I want the double zero tolerance", source http://it.wiki.x.io/wiki/Giancarlo_Gentilini. What is your interpretation? Why these claims can't be assumed as proofs of racism? Kindly.

In case you can even have a look with youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bA-f9i8DYmk

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 57.78.11.41 (talk) 13:53, 23 September 2010 (UTC) 

It is very very very simple: because it is not talking about a race, but about illegal behaviors.

Abusive camps, use of minors to accomplish illegal acts etc.

According to the existent Europeans directive, people taking this behavior should be arrested and take to ther original place to expire the penalty. That's not an LN invention.

Gentilini was simply asking to make such laws to be respected.

Keith 64 (talk) 19:48, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

On October 26, 2009 Gentilini was sentenced by the Court of Venice for inciting racial hatred, Gentilini can not do public meetings for three years and must pay a fine of 4,000 euros. In the following video you can even observe Gentilini inciting to the "ethnic cleansing" against homosexual people in Treviso, the name used by Gentilini to call the gays is "culattoni" that might be translated in english as "big asshole". http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OdmLuZXb0Ak

Other interesting video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d25IJqpDa1M&feature=related —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.82.38.27 (talk) 09:21, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

It has been posed a specific question on a specific fact.

I gave a specific answer to that specific fact.

Now, this is a different fact, not related to that qestion. So why it has been posed in aswer to me?

It should be posed as a new section, but ut is a WELL KNOWN FACT, ALREDY DISCUSSED. Rediscussing it adds no value.

Keith 64 (talk)

Hello, you can also enjoy this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dytOacNMrwQ where Mario Borghezio, one of the Lega Nord leaders, says: "Noi che siamo celti e longobardi e non merdaccia levantina e mediterranea..." that means "We, who are Celtics and Longobards and not Levantine or Mediterranean shits". Do you think this is racism?--151.81.210.248 (talk) 19:25, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry: i don' "Enjoy" videos. I watch them! Be respectable to people you don't know!

please note that just yesterday, without any reason, in the italian wiki discussion page of lega nord a warning toward the trolls has been appended: http://it.wiki.x.io/wiki/Discussione:Lega_Nord --151.82.38.27 (talk) 10:47, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Tt is not "without any reason".

It is "without a reason you can understand".

Or do you perhaps know "everyone's reasons"?

109.112.28.224 (talk) 17:16, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

The reasons should have to be objective for everyone, anyway checking the history of the page http://it.wiki.x.io/wiki/Discussione:Lega_Nord here: http://it.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Discussione:Lega_Nord&action=history anyone will be able to understand the true reasons. The evidence is that you continue to monopolize the page blocking not aligned contributors and erasing contributions that you don't like, even in the talk page from years up to now!!!!! Wikipedia is not the bathroom of Lega Nord, please keep your bullshits in padania. Anyway, for me the war is over: the king is naked. All the best. --151.82.233.65 (talk) 19:53, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Please, can you specify who is the "you" you are referring?

The troll banner was added by Aron90, that's not a LN aligned or supporter. That's what the history say.

Wikipedia is not the bathroom of LN but is also not the bathroom of anti-LN. So please, stop discussing of things that have already been discussed over and over and add no information, and try getting consensus on NEW facts, not on things that already had their own attention.

Keith 64 (talk) 09:18, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you and I believe this talk page should not be used as "complaints office" with respect to what happens in the corresponding page on Italian wiki. Whether these claims have a basis, or they have not (as indeed I think), they have to be notified to Italian wiki's administrators. On English wiki nobody cares what happens on other wikis.--Grasso83 (talk) 13:43, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

What Grasso83 said is perfectly true: here we don't care about it.Wiki and we are less incluenced by political bias. I know it.Wiki well enough to say that it is generally biased against Lega Nord and not the other way around. Moreover I would like to tell to the anonymous user (why don't you become a registered user? what are you afraid of? as far as I know there are no it.Wiki admins who are close to LN, so, if you have been blocked there, it was not because your opinions were discrinated!) that this is not a blog, but a talk related to the present en.Wiki article. If someone has any proposals in order to improve it, we will be happy to benefit of his/her contribute. Before contributing, anyway, anyone should remember that what we need here is neautral articles based on facts and supported by appropriate sources. --Checco (talk) 12:00, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Ps to Grasso83 and Keith64: As you know it.Wiki articles about politics are often a mess. Why don't you contribute to en.Wiki instead? I'm sure that your contribution would be very valuable. I would appreciate to see more users working on such pages in en.Wiki!

I'm afraid that would be technically impossible.

Unless until politics will be "the thing where if I defend my friend against you is bad but if you defend your friend against me is good".

And since this is not a citation about somebody else, cannot stay on wiki.

If you also add the fact the the most of the culture of politics and of politicians is anti-scientific by nature (if you measure the coherence in the above statement, you can guess what the problem is) you will understand that whatever scientific method will never been accepted (or even understood) by such a community.

It is not a problem of it or en or es or fr wiki. It is the nature of politics. The only self-defined science where no coherence is required in opinion sustainment.

Sorry for the rant.

Keith 64 (talk) 13:13, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Other "racism" allegations

I moved this fragment here, since it was inserted in the middle of another discussion, causing a sort of "temporal paradox".

Keith 64 (talk) 21:58, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Why has the peice I added about Xenophobia and Racism edited. I specifically mentioned that the first "black mayor" in Italy, who is a member of the Northern League is only "half black", her father is African American and mother is Italian, I believe that has baring on how she is treated. If she was a pure black African woman from Nigerian, she could easily be seen differently by nationalist/xenophobs/racists.

I also added a section about the League's "White Christmas" campaign, that was properly sourced. How League members would round up people they "thought" were immigrants and demand to see their visa papers or they would report them to authorities. They called this campaign a "white Christmas" campaign, and that is obviously racial. This information was removed by Grasso83 at 20:19 on 12 March 2011. They gave no reason for this action. Dragonhorse1 (talk) 10:39, 13 March 2011

I did not give any reason for my edit simply because I didn't remove anything but I only added some information about the new coordinator of LN's section of Malnate. Altough I think the paragraph about the "White Christmas" champaign is not so important (and not obviously "racial", since racism is a crime and I did not see any court investigate about this fact), you should better read the article's hystory before accusing someone to remove informations without give any reason.--Grasso83 (talk) 11:32, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

First off, you can not be that naive. Racism is a crime. LOL Please consult your dictionary definition of racism. I was not aware the only way racism can be defined is by the Italian criminal code. The idea you will have a "White Christmas" by rounding up foreigners and demanding to see their documentation (with no legal authority to do so) implies strongly that the Christmas will be "white" meaning there will be no "non-white people" there at Christmas. That may or may not be racist, but I think most would consider it Xenophobia. The site section is for racism and Xenophobia.

As far as the edits. You are correct, I apologize. It was Checco who edited it. He said it was an unimportant local issue. LOL If a Lega Nord person organized the party at a local level to do something considered by many to be xenophobic or racist it does reflect on the national party, unless the national party comes out publicly to condemn the actions of their members, and state that this has nothing to do with them. THEY DID NOT. As I said above, the mayor being half black (half African American/half Italian) is important. Saying she is "black" in Italy implies a pure black African woman becoming mayor, that is not the case. Racism and Xenophobia is not universal. One person may hate or dislike "X" group of foreigners or minorities, but like "Y" group of foreigners or minority. Being racist or xenophobic does not mean you hate everyone equally. In that case, her specific ethnic heritage is important. Dragonhorse1 (talk) 14:59, 13 March 2011

Dragonhorse1, please understand that this is an encyclopedia (something has to teach concepts), not a newspaper (something that has to tell facts). The point of "allegation of racism and xenophobia" to me, in the way it is written, is not encyclopedic.

I have to say that, since it now appears as a sequence of events and related sources (the most of them held by political oponents...) but does not give a precise idea about the reasons of the allegation themselves (the most of them comes from political opponents, but no-one is actually investigating the why such opponents use those argumentation, and what do they expect to obtain from them). It describe the reasons of the allegators, not of the allegations.

Adding more and more identical facts doesn't change the nature of them, and doesn't explain them.

So, please, stop LOL-lling (there is nothing to laugh here) and try to analyze the logic of your phrase.

"How League members would round up people they "thought" were immigrants and demand to see their visa papers or they would report them to authorities. They called this campaign a "white Christmas" campaign, and that is obviously racial". The only obvious thing, here is that it was almost Christmas, and that "White Christmas" is the title of a song, that was used by the local police (not by "Lega People: it was an Local POLICE control, in a Common lead by a Lega mayor!) as a name for an investigation (so they have the full right to do so, as they have the full right to report to the authority everything is found irregular). But since the title contains the world "White", that name was instrumentally used by political opponents to invent a "case".

Your description is distorted, and driven to be instrumental to sustain your own opinion.

Nevertheless, the facts itself exist, as the allegation, but understand that there may be another description, equally POW as yours:

"In a common close to Brescia, a Mayor asked the local Police to check the "citizenship status" of a sample of people, since he was suspecting a number of clandestine immigrates where present. Since it was close to Christmas, the police named the operation "White Christmas". From them on, all political opponents started to talk about "racism"".

Moral of the story: is it possible from these two clearly POW description to have one about the fact themselves, and not about the opinion of the ones who tell us about those facts?

Is it possible to come to an analysis about WHY such facts are considered 'racism'? Who gain and who loose from such an allegation?

Keith 64 (talk) 22:40, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with everything Keith 64 wrote, but I have an argument to add to this discussion. The "controversies" section is mostly unencyclopedic, but what is worse is that it is full of local episodes which have a low relevance and, as Keith 64 pointed out, have been quite distorted too. I thus think that, first, we should remove very local facts such as the one about Coccaglio and the one about Malnate, and reduce that about Ms. Cane. It is real news that the first black mayor of Italy is a leghista, but we should not pull out too much on that. As for the "half-black/black" issue, I have to say that, as Barack Obama is the first black president of the United States (his mother was white and his father black), Ms. Cane is the first black mayor of Italy. Most African-Americans have white ancestors, but they usually identify themselves as blacks and African-Americans. That's the case of Ms. Cane too and the reference article just says that.

Since 2006 I have edited virtually all the articles about Italian parties, from The Right to the Communist Refoundation Party, and I use the same standards for each of them. It is not good to have "controversies" sections and in fact there are no such sections in any other article about an Italian party. It is not good especially when such a section is full of local episodes or (mostly old) actions/statements by single party members who don't represente the party as a whole. Most articles about Italian parties are quiet, but a few: in fact, both this article and that on The People of Freedom are frequently visited by users who simply add a something to the "controversy" section or change the ideology in the infobox. I don't know why these two articles receive this kind of attention, but I imagine that these users do what they do for political reasons, against the NPOV principle. I'm not saying that Dragonhorse1 is a vandal or something like that, and I assume his/her good faith, but I don't understand the ratio of his edits. What has Coccaglio's "White Christmas" to do with the general picture of Lega Nord? Just nothing and, as Keith 64 explained (and I assume his good faith too), there is much of bias about it. That is why I made that edit and why I propose to remove again that material.

Ultimately I think that the article would require more hard work (as what I did today by cleaning up and fixing all the references of the article) and less small edits aloof and isolated from the general picture. Moreover these actions have often a blacklash: for instance, one added that Giancarlo Gentilini (a very minority figure in the League: he's even proud of being Italian and proclaims his faith in Italian unity at almost every breath!) said what he said, but then it came out that Treviso is one of the provinces in Italy where immigrants are best integrated. And this is only one example. --Checco (talk) 02:10, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree that Controversies section, and everything like that, is not the thing one should expect inside an encyclopaedia, but in a gossip page. Moreover we should include articles in favour of Lega as well, to balance the page, otherwise we would transform the section into an anti-Lega article: it would then become too long and intricate, in my opinion, to be effective, and we would be involved into a kind of war about which articles to include and which other not to. -- Filippo83 (talk) 15:55, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Having read the opinions of Grasso83, Keith 64 and Filippo83, I think we have the consensus in order to shorten the section. --Checco (talk) 18:39, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually yes the northern league, or 'Lega nord' is a highly racist political party. The article should mention how they are bigoted towards Southern Italians, blacks, etc.

Right-wing populism (again)

Before including "right-wing populism" in the infobox, one should look at the previous discussions. There is no consensus on that and, more important, Lega Nord is neither populist nor right-wing. I know that Wolfram Nordsieck's website describes Lega Nord as such, but, although I respect and admire Wolfram's work, I don't think he got it right with Lega Nord. This party is a broad big-tent movement encompassing all the political spectrum. Lega Nord's opponents give terrible descriptions of the party, but usually try to form alliances with it (that's the case of the centre-left Democratic Party). That's because Lega Nord is a pivotal centrist party with strong support in the most developed areas of the country. In the article we acknowledged how the party is viewed by some foreign media. I think it is enough. Unfortunately most of these media tend to be very biased and confused when on Lega Nord or, more simply, they ignore many things of the party. I thus support Tia solzago's position and here are some reasons why I do.

By taking a look to the article on right-wing populism, we understand that:

Right-wing populism is a political ideology that rejects existing political consensus and combines laissez-faire liberalism and anti-elitism. It is considered "right-wing" because of its rejection of social equality and government programs to achieve it, its opposition to social integration, and its nativist overtones. It is considered "populism" because of its appeal to the common man as opposed to the elites.

Lega Nord clearly does not fit in this description. Here are some evidences of that:

1. LN is an establishment party – the establishment party in Veneto and parts of Lombardy – and has been a stable member of government at all levels. The party flourishes when in government, while populist parties tend to be unconfortable with government responsibilities.
2. LN does not support laissez-faire liberalism and does not reject social equality (and government programs to achieve it). In fact many people are annoyed by Lega Nord because it is not liberal enough (being instead a "neo-labourite" party) and because it sometimes tends to support regional/local forms of dirigisme.
3. LN is neither nativist nor anti-immigrant. It supports integration (the cities and the provinces governed by the League are those where immigrants are best integrated – see article) and its main leaders tend to be very moderate on the issue (that's the case of interior minister Roberto Maroni, who is steadily the most popular minister in Italy with a 62% approval rating according to IPR – see poll). It is true that there are some extemist figures within the party, but that's because of its catch-all nature.
4. As the article on right-wing populism states, "classification of right-wing populism into a single political family has proved difficult, and it is not certain whether a meaningful category exists". If it is so, why should we use such a weird categorization?

For all these reasons (and there are many more) I oppose the insertion of "right-wing populism" among the party's ideologies. --Checco (talk) 02:24, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I think that is a very complete and agreeable analysis of the problem, I can't do anything but quote Checco --Tia solzago (talk) 17:41, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

This is not a Forum. Is not an issue of opinion, is about references. The sources are clear: [1], Der Spiegel, BBC, University of Zurich, Renner Institut Vienna. Unfortunately, the arguments mentioned are not true. LN constructs its discourses against the establishment of the Italian State represented by Rome and the traditional political parties of left and right, although being a party of government today. Even fascism and Nazism does not support the laissez faire, and support a certain social justice, based on national (or subnational) belonging. In fact, many of the populist right parties in Europe are authoritarian, statist and contrary to the laissez-faire. The LN policies are anti-immigration, which consider it an "invasion". In fact, they make campaigns about it. Including claims of its leader Umberto Bossi. --GiovBag (talk) 19:06, 4 April 2011 (UTC)--GiovBag (talk) 19:06, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I completely disagree with what GiovBag wrote and my arguments are above. I perfectly know that criticism and bashing of Lega Nord is quite common (and we wrote about it in the article), but that does not mean that those things are true. --Checco (talk) 18:39, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Support: I support Checco's point of view. Lega is clearly a catch-all party, since inside it one can see very different positions, from communist Salvini to post-fascist Tosi, from social-democrat Maroni to christian-democrat Zaia, and so on. The only things which undoubtfully unite Lega are the policies in support of a deep federalist reform of the Italian state (not all Lega leaders support the secession of Padania from Italy) and to protect their local enviroment (sometime even up to real enviromentalist positions, as against nuclear power plants). Even the policies toward immigrates can vary from leader to leader: e.g. inside Veneto, Tosi was convicted of racial hatre, while Zaia often includes foreign workers among "Venetian" citizens equal to native ones. Thus, in my opinion, Lega cannot be considered populist, and even less it could be considered right-winged. Filippo83 (talk) 15:49, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Just to avoid problems for the encyclopedia, Tosi was completely cleared of that early conviction by Italy's Court of Cassation. --Checco (talk) 18:39, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Look at this: Thomas W. Gold: The Lega nord and contemporary politics in Italy [2] The Lega Nord, one of the most important right-wing populist parties in Western Europe,--GiovBag (talk) 10:34, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

The book was published by 2003, using mainly data from the '90ies: I think that it is a bit outdated. -- Filippo83 (talk) 15:23, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

That source is good, even if it is a little bit old: since 2001 the League has become a stable and natural party of government, while it has never lost its ability to be a pivotal centrist actor in Italian politics. Note anyway that the quotation in bold is not from the book, but from the review of the book. Some other sources are not so good (the article from BBC News described LN as "right-wing" and as "populist" but never as "right-wing populist"; the papers by University of Zurich and Renner Institute Vienna both mention LN only once and don't describe LN as a "right-wing populist" party). I don't deny that some relevant sources describe LN as a "righ-wing populist" party and we should include that in the article. But we are now discussing if "right-wing populism" (which is however not widely recognized by political scientists – see my arguments above) is a main character of LN, which is a big-tent political party united by basically two ideologies, "federalism" and "regionalism" (I have doubts on "Padanian nationalism" too). This is what this discussion is about. GiovBag, please keep in mind two things:

• seek consensus first (and stop saying that all the users here are supporters of Lega Nord 'cos it is not true)
• put references in the correct format (see other references in the article; I will do it for you right now)

I will also make some changes to the intro both to reflect and highlight our discussion. --Checco (talk) 22:36, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I see that unknown users are making edits to the page, continuing to write that Lega Nord is a right-wing populist party. It is very strange that free, unknown users are all making the same changes, and even intervene in a very short time to roll back the changes of Wikipedia users (like me). I hope that no Wikipedia user called some friend in help to impose his views against the majority of Wikipedia users: we do not use these rude methods, and it is not fair at all. Could we protect the page, from being modified by non-registered users? Filippo83 (talk) 10:27, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that page needs to be protected in this moment. Behind ip addresses there is always the same user --Tia solzago (talk) 11:00, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

The IPs change, but Tia solzago is probably correct: behind those IPs there is probably always the same user, GiovBag. --Checco (talk) 12:00, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Hey Padani rilassatevi, non tutti gli utenti anonimi siamo questo benedetto GiovBag, potete anche smettere fi fare questa caccia alle streghe. Alcuni solo non siamo d'accordo con voi e la vostra censura in Wikipedia. IP in giro (Marco)--79.8.236.225 (talk) 18:07, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Marco, this is English Wikipedia: you have to write in English and not in Italian (and you even write in a bad Italian). We have discussed for long, and there is no censorship at all: the fact is that someone is unable to behave politely and to accept the decisions made after long discussions. -- Filippo83 (talk) 09:23, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Conflictive user

I saw the history of the article. But, this article is property of Tia solzago?, who choose him as a "guardian" of the article?. Tia solzago what kind of consensus are you talking about? (the changes dicussed by no one?), and why you delete all my contributions?, who are you?. I remember you, this is the Free Encyclopedia. Bye--ForEverRome (talk) 00:46, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Have you read sections above? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tia solzago (talk • contribs) 06:21, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

ForEverRome please stop making edits without discussing them and without having consensus on them. We have discussed for long several issues, and we do not need a new user who does not want to follow what we have decided here. As commented by Tia solzago, read the Talk paragraphs above. Filippo83 (talk) 09:16, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

There is many references demonstrating that the Lega is a right-wing populist party [3], [Der Spiegel, BBC, [4], [5], [[6],[[7], [8], [[9] and internationally is considered in that form. In fact, until consensus is reached, the sentence inserted by the user Checco is perfectly correct[10]. One thing is to discuss and seek consensus, another sabotage the article, denying the references. If there is a good reason, consensus must change. Considering the many references it's clear that there is a good reason. --ForEverRome (talk) 11:52, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

A precisation: I did not add any sentence to the article, but I just tried to find a compromise version. At this point it doesn't seem to me that there is a consensus on adding "right-wing populism" to the page and the infobox, so at least leave the "disputed – discuss" tag. Tia solzago is not a conflictive user at all, and the article is neither his property nor yours. Please discuss and don't accuse respected users: this won't help you to convince others of your opinions. --Checco (talk) 14:29, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Another one, look at this: [11]. Ten references are presented showing that the Lega Nord is a Right-wing party. How much more are needed?, a signed declaration by Umberto Bossi?--ForEverRome (talk) 16:16, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

ForEverRome, the Talk page is always open. If you have any evidence that Lega Nord is considered (which is anyway different from being) a right-wing populist party, you can present them and seek a common, shared position about, which could agree with your ideas or not, and which you have to respect anyway. It is in fact not true, for the reasons expressed above in several discussions, that Lega Nord is a right-wing populist party: it is often considered so, but at most it is just a part of Lega Nord, a catch-all party which include several political positions inside itself, from far left to far right, from social-democrat to christian-democrat, to liberal. If you had read all the Talk page, you would have known the shared position we had (at least in terms of consensus): you have to respect it and to behave in a correct way; if you have a conflicting opinion, as written, you have just to present your reasons and evidences and we all (so you too) will evaluate them. We all, you too, but not only you. Filippo83 (talk) 22:57, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes I have. Just read it, they are in front of you. But read it honestly. In fact my ideas, your ideas and everyone ideas, doesn't matter, is not a problem of "opinion", is about references. It's not true that the Lega is a Party where you can find left-wing and right-wing possitions, and that goes beyond traditional political divisions. This is only part of the party's populist propaganda. Don't be retoric, there is no sources that support the Lega is a left-wing party. Consensus does not mean imposition Wikipedia is a dynamic and free Encyclopedia. --ForEverRome (talk) 00:59, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

And another one [12]--ForEverRome (talk) 10:40, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

ForEverRome, please, understand that this is an encyclopedia, not a "breaking news" edition.

To say "LN is a rw-populist party" (in particular to use the verb IS) you must not find a newspaper reporting someone opinion, but a self-sustaining fact (like an LN internal source) that defines the party that way. (Note that "define", here is intended in mathematical sense)

Your sources are not "authoritative" about LN. They just say the opinion of the commenter (or of the interviewed) about it. The term "right wing populism" is just a label applied by opponents to help them in sustaining their own ideas, not something that can be technically described as a definition.

We can say LN is "retained to be a right-wing populist party by ... because ... since ...", but not that is IS.

But we must not exceed in reporting opinions: the title of the page is "Lega Nord", and not "Opinions on Lega Nord".

Keith 64 (talk) 17:22, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Again on "right wing populism"

I found the following comment dispersed twice in the text. I moved here since it was inserted inside other past discussions, breaking their flow. Keith 64 (talk) 16:38, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Checco, you know very well that Lega Nord does its propaganda blaming foreigners citizens without discriminations beetween honest and non honest foreigners (they never speak about honest working foreigner citizens), they force doctors to take finger prints of Roma childrens (but no italians), they speak just about crimes made by foreigner but no about the many crimes made by italians (in Italy and abroad), they force doctors to be spy against foreigners, they say that foreigners steal work to the italians (without saying that italian do not do many works), you know how it is easy to hide italian problems creating the stereotype of foreigner criminals...if this is not right-xenophobic-racist populism... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.80.248.138 (talk) 10:58, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

The comment is clearly referred to Cecco's main position against the "right wing populism" as a party description.

I left to Cecco himself any comment on his own position.

By my side I see in this comment anything new: just the old anti LN propaganda, without support of facts and a minimum of consistent logical analysis.

Generic phrases like "Lega Nord does its propaganda blaming foreigners citizens without discriminations beetween honest and non honest foreigners" are nonsenses. There are LN mayors that are foreigns and a single of them is enough to make all this thesis a "false theorem". The user ignores (but I suspect he's convenient for him to act like ignoring) the difference between legal and illegal migration and speak about honest and non-honest ... How honest is an illegal migrant if honesty is also the respect of laws? And from then on, all the theses is deliberately based on the systematic confusion about thesee two terms.

"they speak just about crimes made by foreigner but no about the many crimes made by Italians (in Italy and abroad)"... They are politics, not journalists: they speak about what they think is useful to support for their own ideas. They are Italian politics in the Italian parliament operating on the Italian legal system. They cannot do anything for crimes made by Italians abroad, there are the "abroad laws" for that.

They don't speak of Italians made crimes since there is just the Italian law for that. But for foreigns, such crimes could not exist if they are not accepted illegally.

This is not "populism". Is just "syntactic analysis" on the meaning of the terms contained in laws of the various countries about legal and illegal migration, with a minimum of mathematical logic.

Keith 64 (talk) 16:57, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't need to answer to the IP user because Keith 64 did it for me, even if we may hold slightly different opinions on the issue. Of course there is a lot of confusion between legal and illegal immigration, and I tend to ignore IP's claims when they are completely out of scope and out of touch from reality.

Back to the general discussion, Tia solzago, Keith 64, Filippo83, Grasso83, I and many other users who intervened in this discussion have different arguments, while opposing the characterization of Lega Nord as a right-wing populist party. As Filippo83 repeated once again above, Lega Nord is a catch-all party including almost every political position. It is no news that opposing parties and newspapers have a bad opinion of Lega Nord especially when its poll ratings rise. Notice that this is something that never happens to the so-called right-wing populist parties when in government: in fact Lega Nord is no right-wing populist at all (by any definition) and the very definition of "right-wing populism" is very controversial from a political scientist's standpoint. I think that we should acknowledge that there is no consensus for "right-wing populism" in the infobox. --Checco (talk) 15:45, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree not to indicate right-wing populism in the infobox. Filippo83 (talk) 13:55, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I return in this talk page after 40 days and I think that it's time to decide about the matter. As I and other have already said, right-wing populism can't be considered an ideology of the party, so it should be removed from infobox. On the other hand, is correct to report that sometime the party is seen as populist; the correct place to do that however is not the forth line of incipit. The fact is already present in the section "Allegations of xenophobia and racism" and, if it will be considered necessary, can be put also in section "Ideology" --Tia solzago (talk) 15:11, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I totally agree with Tia solzago and I also think that it would be better to report the issue just in the sections mentioned by Tia. --Checco (talk) 08:21, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I also agree. "Right-wing populism" is not an "ideology" (something that inspire), but just an allegation (something others say about). And as an allegation should be treated. Keith 64 (talk) 13:11, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I perfectly agree with all your considerations.--Grasso83 (talk) 19:06, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

As shown by this discussion, there is no consensus on having "right-wing populism" in the infobox nor in the article's introduction. I thus ask Tia Solzago to edit the article according to his proposal, which is sensible and has the support of many users. --Checco (talk) 22:01, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Only you, Italians and adherents to the Lega Nord, are the only ones who want to make this change. No one else. Ignoring references. I fact, there is a lot of references to support the category "Right-wing populism", look at this:

• Parties & Elections, The database about parliamentary elections and political parties in Europe, by Wolfram Nordsieck [13]
• Simon Bornschier, Univerity of Zurich, "Do Right-Wing Populist Parties constitute a European Party Family?", even if he does not study the Italian case, considers the League one of them. Said: In other cases, the model is specified in that party systems and political economies characterized by patronage make a populist-anti-statist strategy most successful, as in the case of the Austrian FPÖ or the Italian Lega Nord..
• Der Spiegel. Der Spiegel
• BBC. [14] "... right-wing ally, the Northern League (...) The populist party almost ...".
• Thomas W. Gold: The Lega nord and contemporary politics in Italy [15] said: The Lega Nord, one of the most important right-wing populist parties in Western Europe,
• Hans-Georg Betz, "Exclusionary Populism in Austria, Italy and Switzerland", Renner Institut [16] "...Austria, Switzerland, and Northern Italy have become home to three of Western Europe's politically most successful exclusionary populist parties, the Austrian Freedom Party (Freiheitliche Partei Österreichs, FPÖ), the Swiss People's Party (Schweizerische Volkspartei, SVP), and the Northern League (Lega Nord, LN)." (...), the FPÖ and the LN as exemplary cases of "populist, antistatist parties" whose appeal derives primarily from their "antipartitocratic" stance (...) However, the Lega Nord's regionalist populism was motivated less by the experience of political or economic discrimination than by the desire to escape the larger national context".
• Euro Topics [17] Pero esto es un logro exclusivo del partido populista de derecha Liga Norte.
• Press Europ [ http://www.presseurop.eu/es/content/article/218811-la-liga-norte-unos-buenos-chicos]
• Alberto Spektorowski. Global Review of Ethnopolitics. March 2003. "Ethnoregionalism: The Intellectual New Right and the Lega Nord", </ref>

--GiovBag (talk) 15:01, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Once again, consensus was formed. Of course there are sources describing Lega Nord as a "right-wing populist" party and that is mentioned in the article. Please stop editing the article against consensus and accusing users of being partisan editors. --Checco (talk) 18:01, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

There is consensus about 3 o 4 italian users, nothing else. Please be serious, and at least wait to see what have to say some neutral editors from another country, who not defend or attack the Lega. In fact, rebember, the populist right-wing parties never recognized it sef as populist right-wing. Even the Nazi parties in history have said they are integrated by people of all political spectrum (from right to the left), but this doesn't deny its nature. Nature identified and described by many reputable sources, international media and universities.--GiovBag (talk) 18:18, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

5 respectable users worked out a compromise version which doesn't deny anything. Please respect consensus. --Checco (talk) 18:22, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

All italians and defenders of Lega Nord in Wikipedia. There is no a real consensus, please find a real one, including "references" not only personal opinions, over your "little group". I don't accuse anyone of anything, just say things by their name. Checco and Filippo83: define them selves as "venetian nationalist", always opposed to being told that the Lega is a right-wing party, despite the immensity of respectable references and research that support it, without taking them into consideration. Tia solzago: Even if don'e define it self as "lombard nationalist", he always defend the Lega as if it belonged to that party. Grasso83: he declared himself belonging to the northern Italian, federalist, and vote the Lega Nord. Although I respect the work of all those users, at least it's clear that they are not neutral. --GiovBag (talk) 18:42, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

If you know anything about Italian politics, you know that many Venetists are not supportive of Lega Nord at all. I don't know where you found out that Grasso83 is a voter of Lega Nord. Please stop accusing people of being not neutral. We have long discussed about "right-wing populism" (which is not even a clear ideology!) and worked out a compromise according to which "right-wing populism" is mentioned in the article, albeit not in the infobox and the introduction. Please respect the consensus we reached. --Checco (talk) 18:54, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I am not accusing, I am describing. Maybe there is many Venetists that not support the Lega Nord, but, is it your case?, please be honest, you define your self as nationalist, catholic and conservative[18]. About Grasso83, look at this [19]. Anyway every person has perfectly right to be adherent or supporter of the Lega or any political party, but it's necessary to know it, because alter the neutrality of the issues and the "alleged" consensus. If an agreement was reached by 4 or 5 supporters of the Lega, it's not very encyclopedic and violates the neutrality of wikipedia. Especially because you are denying and minimizing the references presented without showing any proofs. Before make your changes, find a real consensus.--GiovBag (talk) 16:31, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

This discussion started two months ago. From then none agreed with you and your only contributions to discussion are attacks and delegitimation against other users. In this moment there is a clear consensus on "my" version, accept it or your behavior will become problematic --Tia solzago (talk) 17:07, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

GiovBag: Thank you for misrepresenting my views... Where do I describe myself as a nationalist and a conservative tout-court? Anyway, LN is neither nationalist nor Catholic or conservative. So what? --Checco (talk) 14:01, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Is that a threat? There is no a real consensus. You want to make a change but there is no agree about it, wait to see what thinking about it, some non-Italian users (more neutral). What's the rush?--GiovBag (talk) 18:58, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

GiovBag, please find where, in my Wiki profile, I define myself a Venetian nationalist. The truth is that you cannot read a page better than you can have a polite discussion and accept community rules. You seem to have just a monothematic hate against Lega Nord and everyone not considering it almost as a Nazi party (why have you cited that German party...?) Moreover, you are trying to discriminate people in reason of the pages that they edit: but if I am a Venetian nationalist because I edited the Wikipedia page about, you should be the more leghista among all us! Anyway, as stated by Checco, you are making big mistakes while talking about politics of North-East Italy. We have tried to reach a common and equilibrate position, not being supporters nor haters of the Lega Nord party, just basing on facts - otherwise, all Italian parties, above all after recent referenda, should be defined as populist ones. The consensus was reached and Wikipedia rules were respected: you have to come to terms with, and not to label other users.

Filippo83 (talk) 14:42, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

"What's the rush?" Dear GiovBag, some months ago you started imposing your views and we discussed, discussed, discussed up to a point in which it was clear to all that your particular version was not supported by consensus. Tia solzago's version (which includes also "right-wing populism", albeit not in the infobox and the introduction) had the support of five users. We tried to compromise, but it looks like you just want to impose your view. --Checco (talk) 14:01, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

The argument of GovBag is weak: if "RWpop" is so important for LN to be considered a (sort of) mainstream ideology, how do GiovBag explain LN support to M. D'Alema in 1996, after leaving the Berlusconi 1st? Is D'Alema an RWpop himself? (do you remember "la lega costola della sinistra"?)

A simple look to the history makes it clear that RWpop is just an instrumental language, not an inspiring ideology.

But the impression is the for GiovBag the only important thing are the number of sources. The fact that they are not "independent each other" and are all referring a same original source are not important. To me, a same fact described hundred of times with identical words is a clean revelation of not-independent thought. And it count as "one". And in this sense I decided my support.

Keith 64 (talk) 12:30, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Lega

If any one understand Italian, please listen this interview [20] of Mario Borghezio on "Repubblica TV". He said that many of the ideas of Breivik (the Norwegian right-wing terrorist), are the same ideas of Lega Nord. For example: "many of his ideas are good, some great. It's because of the invasion of immigrants if then have resulted in violence". (Molte sue idee sono buone, alcune ottime. È per colpa dell'invasione degli immigrati se poi sono sfociate nella violenza). How some one could say that the Lega is not a Right-wing party?.--95.250.5.210 (talk) 17:36, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

"Grazie a Daniele Sensi sappiamo che nel 2009 la Lega Nord aderì alla reunion delle destre estreme di tutta Europa organizzata dal Blocco identitario francese." (Thanks to Daniel Sensi we know the Northern League in 2009 joined the reunion of the extreme right from all over Europe organized by the French identity Blocking).[21]. --95.233.156.125 (talk) 09:40, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Mr. Borghezio did not speak in name of the entire Lega Nord party, as confirmed by the Italian government member Roberto Calderoli that said "The LN officially apologizes to Norway the terrible und unspeakable considerations personally expressed by (Mario) Borghezio" (see the original sentence here). However, in the LN there is someone that agreed with Borghezio's point of view, such as Mr. Speroni (another MEP), but they didn't receive any kind of support by the party's leaders and they currently don't hold any particular key role in the party itself.--Grasso83 (talk) 19:27, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Grasso83 is right. In fact also Speroni, who had spoken in favour of Borghezio's freedom of speech, told the press that he did not agree with Borghezio. In this particular case, as often happens, Borghezio was completely isolated within party ranks and was especially criticized by Calderoli and Maroni. Borghezio is definitely a right-winger, but this only confirms the catch-all nature of the party which is home both to leftists and conservatives. --Checco (talk) 09:21, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

This is a recurring argument. LN is not "right" or "left". It's just "independentist".

There are people coming (and having) left-wing ideas and people having right-wing ones.

Mr Borghezio is clearly one of them. But he doesn't make the whole party as such.

A right-wing party can be defined literally as such only if it has an internal policy that denies left-wing oriented people to be part of it. But there is nothing in LN statute that defines this (kind-of) limitations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keith 64 (talk • contribs) 13:48, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Incompatibilities of the Northern League with the Italian Constitution

Sorry, it is not even a mention of the incompatibility of the very existence of the Northern League with the Italian Constitution? The fact that it is a party actually governing Italy has nothing to do with the fact that it is a party with a constitution outlawed in Italy. It 'another of the anomalies of this amazing country. Under the sources add, is not my opinion but the law of the Italian Republic. I would say that this anomaly should be pointed out in the voice.

STATUTE OF NORTHERN LEAGUE FOR THE INDEPENDENCE OF THE PO VALLEY

Article 1 - Purpose The political movement known as "Northern League for the Independence of Padania" (in hereafter referred to as the Movement or the Northern League or Lega Nord - Padania), consisting by political organizations, has as its purpose the attainment of independence Padania through democratic methods, and its international recognition as a Federal Republic of independent and sovereign.

CONSTITUTION OF THE ITALIAN REPUBLIC

Article 5 The Republic, one and indivisible, recognizes and promotes local autonomies, and implements services that depend on the State the fullest measure of administrative decentralization accords the principles and methods of its legislation to the requirements of autonomy and decentralization. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pickett76 (talk • contribs) 14:52, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

The Italian Constitution is not "Written on stones". There are articles in the constitution itself that allow the constitution to be changed and modified. (A double approval on both the Chambers at at least 6 month of distance).

To "attain to a different constitution" is not a contradiction with the "running" one, at least until the method used to "attain" respect the "running" constitution.

Keith 64 (talk) 13:37, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Right, and we have to remember that Italian Republic is all but "indivisible", since it gave up parts of national territory after the treaties following World War II, both in 1947 and as late as 1975. Answering to Pickett76: another, very strange thing about Italy, is that many people once strongly opposing nationalistic and patriotic rethoric in the name of internationalism and pacifism, are today strongly supporting a patriotic if not nationalistic view of Italy, just to oppose some political opponent.

Filippo83 (talk) 10:40, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Position of Northern League (left-centre-right)

The issue about what position should the N.L. have in the politics of Italy has been resumed by some anonymous user. It is not a bad idea to make a discussion about it. I think that centre-right would not be a bad definition, since it is the position of the Italian governments in which the N.L. has ruled until now: but it is not precise. Actually, as repeated many times, N.L. is properly a catch-all party, as we can see here:

Italy's Northern League reviews support for Berlusconi, from BBC News Europe

The League claims to be a broad church.

"We have many people from the left and right," says Paolo Grimoldi, who heads the League' s youth section. "The Lega Nord is a movement, more than a party - a kind of trade union of the North."

Following the recent suspension of Mario Borghezio (which could prelude to expulsion) as well as the rising power inside the party of Roberto Maroni (notoriously social-democratic leaning) the claims that N.L. is a far-right party are even more a non-sense - but, being a catch-all party, it can include even extremist people. Thus, what could we write? Centre-right? Catch-all? Filippo83 (talk) 10:54, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Filippo83 for your thoughts. I would either leave the position free or add "big tent". I oppose any other option. --Checco (talk) 15:09, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Don't deceive yourselves. It's not true that LN is a "catch-all" party. Is a right-wing party with some extremist sectors and other moderate, some more "social" or more liberal, but always right-wing. Maroni is not social-democratic, maybe he defend a "social right-wing", that is different. As a mass movement is a populist party (in the strict sense of the word, not the pejorative) whose rhetoric stresses placed beyond the left-right division, but this is just propaganda.--178.25.217.225 (talk) 22:18, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

This is just your opinion. It is YOU who can't decide by yourself. --Checco (talk) 15:43, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

As said by Checco, this is just your opinion - and I would add that it is not supported by facts. I think you have even confused ideas on politics, like your phrase on Maroni being a "social right-wing" man suggests (you have perhaps confused him with Alemanno, Polverini or Rauti): that idea recalls to me the Italian Communist Party labelling the Italian Social-Democratic Party as "social-fascists" in 1948. Filippo83 (talk) 10:06, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

ZANU-PF vs Lega Nord on Wikipedia

The section on "controversies" should simply be deleted. This is just a list of things Marxists dislike, people who are racist against ethnic Europeans. It could be summed up in once sentence "Marxists and people who advocate foreign immigrantion dislike Lega Nord." The page of ZANU-PF, the party of Robert Mugabe, who are engaged in an open policy of murder and ethnic cleansing, does not mention the word "racist" once, let alone a controversy section dedicated to politically incorrect opinions. This makes Wikipedia look like a far-left joke, edited by pot-smoking Bolshie college students. - 90.215.164.38 (talk) 18:42, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

The comment is a bit strong, but the comparison it propose is based on the real status of this WP articles, and is a clear proof by contradiction about WP neutrality.

I think many authors of this articles should question about themselves before clearly come to a so evident example of two weights - two measure!

109.116.230.75 (talk) 20:20, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I may agree with the sense of your phrases, but I think that few authors of this article have worked on the ZANU-PF page. As you see, the controversies section tends to represent a strongly critical view of Lega, showing that this party is often labelled on purely political points of view (often they take a real controversy, but they distort and pump it up to make Lega to appear in a bad light). Above all, anyway, this section shows how much this page is "democratic" in comparison with ZANU's one! Filippo83 (talk) 10:14, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

"Democratic" ?!? What the ...

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia: should use scientific methods to define contents. And science is not democratic: a thing is "good" when results are confirmed, not when the majority believes that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.112.30.193 (talk) 21:15, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I am an engineer, and I do know what science is: and politics are definitely not science. We have to represent facts as they are, I agree, but a big part of political issues are made just by opinions (even if opinions by experts). Filippo83 (talk) 15:17, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

The first user here actually has a point. If this article seek to be a good article, it is not appropriate to have a separate section of "controversies" that just lists up and draws "connections" among some cherrypicked incidents. By nature, the section suffers from WP:SYNTHESIS, WP:RECENTISM, and is a loose end in itself. It is also not obvious why some, or most, of the content is important or relevant to an article about the party per se. I think the section should be deleted, while possibly some relevant content could be merged into other sections. Perhaps one could create a new more appropriate section, although I question how it could be done. The section as it is today is rubbish by Wikipedia standards. —Filippusson (t.) 16:32, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

The section is balanced (for virtually every accusation there are facts testifying the contrary), but still it is arbitrary. I agree with Filippusson: the section should be deleted altogether, while possibly some relevant contect (there is few anyway) could be put somewhere else. --Checco (talk) 02:53, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I have reverted the removal of the sentence. If the section is removed I will have to slap a NPOV tag on the article, because outside of Italy Lega Nord is mostly known for its anti-immigration stance and relations to extreme-right forces. These are things that have to be treated in the article. I agree that there is synthesis - but most of the synthesis consists in juxtaposing "positive" information to balance out the criticism. Removing the entire section is not the solution.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:04, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

In fact, Manus reverted also my edit which reintroduced some parts of the deleted section and include some other changes. The "Controversies" section is full of unrelevant and unrelated facts. Filippusson was maybe bold enough to remove it altogether, but we had a discussion here and we all agreed that it was not balanced. Some of the contents of the section are relevant to the article and I had just merged those contents to other sections, per Wikipedia rules. I thus found Manus' edit a little controversial and I urge users to support my compromise version instead. --Checco (talk) 19:48, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Controversies section

I would support to keep most of the content of the controversies section, but to incorporate the information in the ideology and history sections where possible, instead of marginalising them in a separate "controversies" section. The claim that the contents were irrelevant and unrelated is very general and so is the wholesale deletion of the whole section. I would like to invite you to explicitely designate the sentences that would be irrelevant in your views, and to discuss this in detail. I cannot see that most or all of this section would be irrelevant or unrelated. Kind regards --RJFF (talk) 21:22, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

With my compromise version I already made clear which parts were relevant and which were not in my view. Of course, we could keep also some other parts I forgot to reinsert in my edit. The reference to the 1992 Le Nouvel Observateur article may stay, even though it was 20 years ago! I think anyway that most of the information is out-of-date, misleading and not relevant to the article. For instance, Bossi's remarks on boat people are quite old (2003). Same is to say about Gentilini's (moreover, Gentilini has never held higher office other than mayor of Treviso and he quit that job in 2003 – he is a mostly ceremonial deputy-mayor now). It is a little bit unconventional to have such long quotations from ECRI reports. Finally I don't see which relevance the so-called "Abrahamowicz affair" has: the priest, though close to some LN members, was no official chaplain of the party and his controversial remarks (strangely enough he is of Jewish ancestry) have nothing to do with the party's stance on Jews and Israel (the party is staunchly pro-Jew and pro-Israel indeed). I will try to propose a new compromise version soon. --Checco (talk) 22:05, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I can support the version you have proposed.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:15, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

the european commission against racism and intolerance-reports are relevant. suggest you retain the content from these in order to comply with wp:npov (your proposed version does not).-- mustihussain  23:54, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I was bold tonight and, given other users' opinions, I merged most of the content of "Controversies" section into a new sub-section named "Illegal immigration". I shortened some sentences, I removed the "Abrahamowicz affair" and some other things (mainly obsolete links). I still think that we should cut some more parts (among which those highlighted in my previous post in this section). I welcome more opinions, especially by Filippusson (who didn't rejoin the discussion after his last week's edit and post), Filippo83 (whose opinion is not completely clear to me), historic users who worked on this article, etc. --Checco (talk) 01:36, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

"Illegal immigration" is not an NPOV title. By all account Lega Nord is against nearly all kinds of immigration. I cannot accept a version that downplays the importance of the party's right wing populist stance on immigration - all relevant sources mention this.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:47, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

"takes a tough stance" is also not neutral but pov language which is not in accordance with most of the descriptions in academic sources, that clearly describe the party as anti-immigration and local-nationalist in general. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:52, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

In fact LN opposes illegal immigration and Islamic radicalism, but welcomes immigrants (from the South and outside Italy) in party ranks. Anyway I won't remove the tag (I too agree that the section is not neutral, but for opposite reasons from yours!). We should instead re-insert the paragarph you removed because "helping poor people in their countries" is an important feature of Lega Nord's policy toward immigration. --Checco (talk) 03:14, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes just like all other right wing populist parties in Europe, claim to be. This does not make it so. What reliable sources by scholars write that they do is what counts.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:16, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

LN is not a right wing populist party. Is a "regional independentist party". By saying so you just prove your misinformation and ideological bias. There are members of the party with clean and proved left wing provenience, there are clean and documented left wing approval (one for all Massimo D'Alema: "la lega è una costola della sinistra") There are immigrant inside LN ranks. The fist black mayor in Italy is from LN.

how do explain that for what you define as "right wing populist"?

simply your definition doesn't match some of the facts, hence, it cannot be a definition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.96.3.242 (talk) 15:37, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Populism and positionment

While several scholars who have studied the ideology of the Lega confirm that the "right-wing populism" or "radical right-wing" labels are not easily applicable on Lega Nord, there is consensus in literature that mere "populism" (without the qualifier "right-wing") is an essential constituent of Lega Nord's ideology. I think it is impossible (and would absolutely contradict basic Wikipedia policies like e.g. WP:V and WP:NPOV) to ignore and dismiss this factor. --RJFF (talk) 16:39, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

It is a better point, than previous claims about (right-wing or not) populism of Lega Nord party. I think that LN should not be defined populist inside the Italian contest, since all Italian parties (out of a very few ones, often minor ones) are more or less affected by some kind of populism, right of left-winged. Anyway, we could discuss it here. Filippo83 (talk) 13:56, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

How is LN far-right? You would think they were talking about Hitler or Mussolini, not a peaceful non-racist populist group? Anyone else think this should be changed something more accurate and less biased, like maybe Right-Wing (similar to how UKIP is right-wing). In between centre-right and far-right?--68.186.161.12 (talk) 19:53, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Very shortly, here are my thoughts on the issues raised above (which I unified in this section):

1) Lega Nord is not far-right or right-wing. It is a regionally concentrated big-tent party, which includes people of all political backgrounds. Depending on the issues and the interests of northern regions, LN takes positions that could be classified as left-wing, centrist or right-wing, thus it is difficult to classify it on the left-right scale.

2) I agree with Filippo83 on populism: the party certainly uses some populist themes, exactly as all the main Italian parties do. LN is a party of government and it is not populist in absolute terms. I will take a deeper look to the sources found by RJFF: they are definitely relevant to the article, yet the authors mentioned seem very simplistic on the issue. I think it's better to move those notes to the "Ideology" section and leave just "federalism" and "regionalism" in the infobox.

--Checco (talk) 01:09, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is based on verifiability with reliable sources, it is not based on the knowledge, observations, perceptions and analysis of its users, even if they are very well-informed, even if they are experts in the fields they work on. If several (arguably most) of the authors of specialised literature on Lega Nord describe its ideology as populist, then it is not up to Wikipedia editors to decide if this description is indeed correct, accurate, or relevant in the context of the Italian party system. Checco: if the description seems simplistic, that's alright. The ideology categories and labels in the infobox are always simplistic. The infobox categorises a party's ideology with simple (maybe even over-simplifying) labels, the article's body can describe the party's policies and positions in detail. If several relevant authors deem populism to be a substantial influence of Lega's ideology, then this belongs undoubtedly in the infobox. And I assure you, the sources are not fringe or "cherry-picked". --RJFF (talk) 16:59, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Btw, Checco, why can't a government party be populist? Why can't a populist party be in government? Who says so? African National Congress is a populist party and rules South Africa with a 2/3 majority. Indian National Congress is a populist party and has ruled India for most of its history, and its main contender Bharatiya Janata Party is a populist party as well. Smer in Slovakia is a populist party and in government. Chavez-Morales-Correa are populists and presidents. Austrian FPÖ, the prototype of a right-wing populist party, was part of a government coalition end of the 1990s. Many other examples... --RJFF (talk) 17:07, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

The authors mentioned are clearly not specialized specialized on LN. This is a party that most people outside Northern Italy misunderstand and, in fact, underestimation is its biggest strenght. Leaving aside African and Asian parties, I don't think LN can be described as populist by European standards: if it has something of a populist party, that is much more in common with the late US Populist Party than with any European party. Moreover, LN does not follow the common patterns of European populist parties in many ways. Of course there are successful populist government parties, but in Europe that's not the case. Every time a populist party governs in Europe, it loses votes. That's not the case of LN, which, thanks to its moderate record in government, gets usually stronger.

There's nothing bad or disparging with the term "populism". I'm personally fascinated by populist movements and I have studied the US Populist Party. Yet I don't think that "populism" is a correct classification for LN. I agree that the perception political scientists have of it should be mentioned in the article, but not in the infobox. That's my proposal and I ask users (RJFF included) to weigh it. --Checco (talk) 00:12, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I cannot assess whether they are specialized on LN, but Betz and Tarchi seem to be experts on populism. (I am not a political scientist, so I don't know how reputable they actually are, but they seem to be.) So, if they analyse a party thoroughly and consider it populistic, it is not up to us editors to simply renounce this classification. I, too, do not use "populism" in a judgmental or pejorative sense, but merely as an established category in political science. We should not forget that for many political scientists, not only programs and aims influence an ideology, but also political style. So maybe the classification of LN as populist is determined by the authors' analysis of LN's political style rather than by its program or objectives or decisions when in governmental responsibility. (A party can, e.g., have the same program and objectives as a conservative or a classical liberal party, but if it has a populist style, it is considered populist, and not classical liberal or conservative.) "Populist" seems to be one of the ideology labels most often used to describe the Lega Nord in the relevant English-language specialist literature, therefore I do not see a reason not to include it in the infobox.

Checco, you say that Lega Nord is not populist in the European sense, but may be comparable with the U.S. Populist Party. But the Populist Party was undoubtedly populist! I don't want the infobox to read "Populism in the European sense", but just "populist". Anyone who reads the whole article, will get to know LN's ideology and program in detail. The infobox can only provide the superficial reader with simple labels, that may not satisfy the wish for thoroughness or complete accurateness.

By the way, the FPÖ has governed Carinthia for about 20 years, so, yes, European populist parties can be in government on a long-term basis, too. And is the Lega's continued anti-elite and anti-establishment rhetoric not populist (ironically even if they themselves are part of the establishment now)? --RJFF (talk) 01:27, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Checco, I see that you cite an article by Duncan McDonnell. Isn't McDonnell in "The Lega Nord Back in Government" (2010) precisely arguing that Lega Nord (being a regionalist and populist (!) party) disproves the common concept that populist parties cannot survive in government and are bound to lose members and voters? Read McDonnell. I interpret his findings as supporting my position. --RJFF (talk) 01:49, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I come from Veneto, where the League is the establishment and governs in perfect continuity with the centrism of all Venetian governments since 1970. That is probably why I find very difficult to see it as a populist party, let alone a right-wing one. I was probably not clear with the US Populist Party's example, so I will leave it alone. Still I think that having "populism" in the infobox is misleading (paraphrasing Filippo83, LN's style or substance is not more populist than the average Italian party) and I propose to move it to the article's body. --Checco (talk) 00:40, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Ps: I disagree with McDonnell indeed. I added his paper just to balance a little bit the sentence.

Checco, you know that I esteem your admirable knowledge of Italian politics. And I love to read your descriptions and analysis of Italian parties. But you also know that Wikipedia is not a forum where users exchange their knowledge, their observations and analysis, but an encyclopedia project based on verifiability which explicitly rejects original research. Probably you have studied the policies and ideology of the Lega over a longer time and more thoroughly than some of the authors cited by this article. But we cannot incorporate your "field research", i.e. your observations and analysis (unless you have published it). Complying with Wikipedia policies we have to hold onto published sources. And I must say that there are several sources making a very reliable impression (if you have objections, please express them), that consistently describe the Lega Nord as a populist party. As far as I can see, "populism" is the ideology most often associated with Lega Nord in English-language specialist literature. This being the case, I cannot approve of removing it from the infobox. --RJFF (talk) 13:07, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

P.S. I think I understand your example. "Populism" is usually understood as radical, provocative and unconstructive populism in Europe. The Lega Nord's populism is not (at least not downright) deconstructive, as the party has shown that it can govern in a reasonable and constructive way. But who says that this unconstructive and aggressive form of populism is the sole interpretation of populism? Obviously the cited authors don't, and neither do you, admitting that the Lega is populist in a particular way, just not populist in that sense (i.e. radical, aggressive, destructive populism). --RJFF (talk) 14:15, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

RJFF, many thanks for your appreciation. I perfectly agree with the Wikipedia principles as you exposed them and, in fact, I want the references on populism to stay in the article. I just don't think that "populism" should be in the infobox as it is misleading and over-simplifying. As you said, and I agree with you, "populism" is usually understood as a radical, provocative and unconstructive ideology (Wikipedia is not a forum, but I perfectly agree with your view on populism and the League, which is by the way more of a volkspartei, a people's party, than a populist one). That is why I think it is misleading to have "populism" in the infobox. So, let's see if other opinions emerge. Ours are very clear. --Checco (talk) 21:34, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I think that the present discussion is very interesting and can bring us to make a better Wiki page about Lega. I got both the points of RJFF and Checco, and I frankly have to agree with both two! Populism is not necessarily to be intended in the worst sense, and a government party can be populist as well without "destroying" its country. On the other side, Lega Nord is often labelled as a populist party (in the worst sense): but, to tell the truth, just some political campaign could be considered as "populist". We can say just a thing: Lega is definitely not a right-wing populist party. The campaigns against immigration in Italy were indeed right-winged; but, right in these weeks, Lega is enjoying a left-wing populist point of view about welfare and labour reforms. We can also say that Lega has a populist behaviour on the independence of North Italy: right, but absolutely not right-winged; at the contrary, independence of North Italy is opposed to the usual point of view of right-wing parties in Italy (looking only to a united Italy, and suspicious about a federalist republic). Thus, in the end, I could agree to reach a compromise and write populism in the page of Lega Nord; but I would strongly disagree about right-wing populism. I beg your pardon if I repeat my point of view, but almost every political party in Italy could be (and, indeed, is) labelled as populist, since every party tends to join a populist point of view on some question, often preventing the political reforms Italy needs. Filippo83 (talk) 10:20, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Controversies

Since Lega Nord is strongly criticized (by Vatican, EU, immigrants and others) due to its xenophobic nature, I think it is necessary to report this in a specific section. Thanx — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.178.76.86 (talk) 08:43, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

If some aspects are missing, you may of course add them, but what you added, a huge "Controversies" section is WP:UNDUE, violates Wikipedia's policy of neutral pointo of view (NPOV) and is principally deprecated here. Moreover, it was widely redundant, as the article already has a section covering LN's stances on immigration in detail. Many of the incidents you listed under "controversies" are already incorporated in the "immigration" section. You should at least read the article before you edit it, to avoid such redundancies. Moreover many of the issues you adressed, have already been discussed several times and heatedly and have eventually been declined. I'm not sure if the consensus has changed since. So, you might read the previous discussions on this talk page and in the archives before you launch another major and unilateral change. --RJFF (talk) 14:01, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree and add that most of the information the IP introduced is already mentioned in other sections of the article. --Checco (talk) 21:34, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Padanian nationalism

[This talk was started at User talk:Checco]

Hi Checco, I am Nick.mon, I think that we could insert in Lega Nord's ideology, Padanian Nationalism. What do you think? Regards. -- Nick.mon (talk) 15:03, 26 May 2013

I am not Checco, but I think that, first, you have to find a reliable source verifying it. But if Checco knows where to find one, it will be fine, too. --RJFF (talk) 15:28, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Large sectors of Lega Nord are definitely Padanist, but I don't have specific sources to support that. --Checco (talk) 18:54, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Lega Nord Political Position

Hi, maybe you have already talked about it, but I don't understand why Wikipedia does not insert Political Position of Lega Nord. Many verified and reliable sources included Lega Nord in right-wing politics and sometimes right-wing populism; for example this site 1, which is used as quotation for all the other parties in Europe. I think that this is a verified and reliable source. What do you think about it? I saw that another user edit political position of Lega Nord with right-wing to far-right but it wasn't me, I prefer to talk with you before editing. Thank you for your attention and excuse me for my English. -- Nick.mon (talk) 09:27, 16 July 2013

In fact, we talked about the issue many times. I personally oppose any characterization of the party as right-wing, let alone right-wing populist. As I have already observed, there are definitely many right-wingers within the League but the party as a whole is not right-wing; it is the classical example of big-tent or catch-all party. --Checco (talk) 12:29, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Ok maybe you are right, but now, as you can see, extreme position are growing up in Lega Nord ideology. Borghezio and Calderoli are clear examples. I think that LN ideology has been changed over the years, and now is more racist and xenophobic than in the past. -- Nick.mon (talk) 12:37, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. I would say that the most extreme positions are fading (no matter what is happening these days and no matter what media highlight from time to time). Borghezio, for instance, is no longer a leading member of the party: his star has been fading for a long time. Moreover, for every Borghezio, there are dozens of party members who hold different views (in fact there are also prominent black, foreign-born or Southern Italy-born leghisti). Read for example this quintessentially liberal comment by Fiorello Provera, another MEP. The party is home to right-wingers, but also conservatives, liberals, Christian democrats, social democrats, etc. --Checco (talk) 12:55, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Ok I have read it. But I remain of my opinion, I gave you an example. The leader of Lega Nord Bologna, Manes Bernardini, who heavily criticized Calderoli for his sentences about Minister Kyenge, few months ago, maybe in February if I remember well, he led a patrol against Roma people and gypsies in the Maggiore Hospital of Bologna, chase them away from the hospital, as you can see in this article (repubblica.it). and I think that chase Roma away from an hospital is not properly a social democratic view. And Bernardini has criticized Calderoli, think if he had supported him. -- Nick.mon (talk) 13:12, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Local episodes are important, but not always appropriate to build a general theory. Otherwise, would you say that the Democratic Party is racist too because of this and that? I don't think so. Both LN and the PD are complex parties; we should not classify them by using some facts, no matter how much highlighted by the media, and ignoring others. --Checco (talk) 15:04, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with you, but is different when a racist statement is done by a communal or a regional councilor (as Bernardini or the democratic one of Prato) or by a national leader (as Calderoli). Anyway, as you have said the position of a party sometimes is different from the one of individual members of it. -- Nick.mon (talk) 11:48, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I think that it is difficult to establish a unique political position of Lega Nord on many issues, even about racism/immigration: we can consider Luca Zaia to be a prominent party leader, even more important today than Calderoli. Zaia's point of view about immigrates is to welcome and integrate them - of course, the ones the country can welcome as good citizens and labourers - but with no distinction of nationality, race or religion. A phrase that he likes to repeat about Venetian people, is "veneto é chi il veneto fa" (we could translate: who behaves as a Venetian, this one is a Venetian), explicitly meaning that all "well-integrated" immigrants should be considered Venetians. He may also favour the so-called ius soli: this is clearly in contrast with the position of a part of Lega's party and electorate. Filippo83 (talk) 13:58, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

By the way, we have an almost identical turn of phrase in the English proverb wikt:handsome is as handsome does. Ian Spackman (talk) 14:32, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes you are right, it is very difficult to establish an unique political position of Lega Nord. Anyway in my view some LN's position would be considered by "neutral" observers who are not from Italy, right-wing positions. But I also know that Lega Nord is a party composed by a lot of wings and it is almost impossible to choose a unique ideology. I would be for right-wing politics but I know that it is very very difficult. -- Nick.mon (talk) 18:32, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I would partially agree, since Italian politics are very complicated. I mean: everyone would state that PdL is centre-right, and PD is centre-left wing, right? But, some politician inside PdL was linked to the old Italian Socialist Party, which never rejected its leftist roots (just marxist ones), and actually a part of PdL favours large public expenditures as well as large welfare and public employement politics. On the other side, some "Blair-like" positions inside the centrist wing of PD are quite in contrast with the left-wing of the party, which is in a position that I would define "middle-way between Avana and Miami" (or even "on the Cuban coast"). -- Filippo83 (talk) 13:38, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

However, we can agree that the PdL is broadly centre-right and the PD broadly centre-left, while Lega Nord is more difficult to describe. To respond to Nick.mon, I would not rely too much on supposedly "neutral" foreign observers. As I have experienced many times, they often don't have a clue about Italian politics. Also The Economist, considered as a sort of a Bible by many Italian journalists and politicians, frequently runs into gross misunderstandings of Italian political events, personalities, and parties, due to basic mispercetions of Italian reality. --Checco (talk) 08:30, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that The Economist frequently runs into gross misunderstandings of Italian political events, personalities, and parties, due to basic mispercetions of Italian reality; unfortunately main of them are true. Anyway I agree with you two when you said that it is very difficult to find a position of Lega Nord; and the socialists in PdL are a minority, the main part is a liberal conservative with some national conservative representative. -- Nick.mon (talk) 15:40, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

In fact, I think Italian politics and Italy in general are in a much worse shape than what The Economist thinks... --Checco (talk) 11:48, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Ideology, again

Over the last weeks new changes have been made to the article's infobox. As a premise, let me say that I don't understand the need to modify it continuously: the article is quite steady and encompasses a lot of issues; the infobox is just a short summary—the longer, the worse. As I have argued before, I don't understand how a party which supports the direct election of the President of the European Commission and the strenghtening of the European Parliament's powers can be considered Eurosceptic, but I understand there's a lot of confusion on the issue; the problem is that we have never reached any consensus on either Euroscepticsm and Padanian nationalism. While I can live with these two ideologies, I strongly disagree with this edit by Nick.mon for several reasons. In brief, ideologies, also those of internal factions, should be included in the "ideology" section of the infobox, not in the "political position" section. But do we really need them for Lega Nord? I don't think so. The party is surely a catch-all party, encompassing most of the left-right scale, but the infobox is to be just a short summary of the article. I don't think we need such a list, that can be a least misleading: for an in-depth analysis readers can always read the article. Ultimately, big tent is a good describtion and is well explained in the article; if that is not OK for other users, we can always leave the entire "political position" section blank as it has been for years. --Checco (talk) 10:22, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
PS: Regarding "right-wing populism" (inserted by Nick.mon along with liberalism, centrism and social democracy), we long discussed on the issue and we finally reached a compromise on "populism". I stick to that for many reasons, mainly because that is a questionable ideology from a political scientist's perspective.

I have done those changes because I thought that Big tent was so general as a political position; so I decided to write also four of the factions that composed Lega Nord: as Checco said, "Right-wing populism", "Liberalism", "Centrism" and "Social democracy". Regarding the Lega Nord's Euroscepticism, I think that Lega is a soft Eurosceptic party; it often opposes Bruxelles and the ECB ([22]). Anyway this is my personal view, maybe Lega Nord is not a right-wing populist movement, but I think that there is a big part of it which is Eurosceptic and almost right-wing populist. -- -- Nick.mon (talk) 12:20, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello everybody! The real problem here is that Lega Nord is something difficult to analyse. This is mainly due to the fact that its main leader, Mr Bossi, often stated something and the next day he changed his mind (he once said that he would never have been a Berlusconi's ally!!). Another interesting thing is that Lega Nord joined an alliance with a nationalist party such as Alleanza Nazionale, which is a huge contradiction for an indipendentist party I think. I think that the contradictions of this party could be an interesting topic. Al Màt (talk) 14:13, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

This article does not adhere to Wikipedia's standards

Hi. I just wanted to make a few comments about this article.

1) It is quite clearly not written by someone whose first language is English. This can be easily resolved by a bit of editing.

2) I think it's too long - it's longer than most pages on British political parties which are arguably of more interest to English-speaking readers. The section on electoral results/popular support could definitely be trimmed down, perhaps using the article on the Italian Democratic Party as a model. This section is also heavily slanted to interpreting polls in terms of how many are in favour of independence for Padania and not how many are against, with many of the links not even taking you to polls that back this up. (in particular 225). Is the long section on all the leaders of the Lega in the various regions for the last three decades really necessary in English when the vast majority don't even have Wikipedia pages in English? I think it could be removed.

3) The article is non-neutral in many sections with too many unsubstantiated personal comments by the author. Just by way of example: "However, contrarily to what many pundits observed at the beginning of the 1990s, Lega Nord became a stable political force." Said who? "However, the alliance with Berlusconi and the government itself were both short-lived: it collapsed before the end of the year, with the League being instrumental in its demise." How? "After a huge success at the 1996 general election, its best result ever..." Not objective. "The years between 1996 and 1998 can be considered the first golden age of the party" By whom? "In March 2004 Bossi suffered a stroke that led many to question over the party's survival, but that ultimately confirmed Lega Nord's strength." Said who?

That's just in the first five sections of the article, I can't list them all.

I think the article misses out some important information about the controversies the party has courted: it mentions Belsito briefly, but in an article as long as this there is no mention of Renzo Bossi? Maroni's sentencing to four months in prison for resisting arrest? The Enimont trial? The party's more controversial politicians such as Borghezio and Calderoli? The party's and Bossi's relationship with Berlusconi without whom the Lega wouldn't have been in government?

These things are of interest to non-Italians who want to read the whole story about the Lega and not something that reads like an essay, and at times like a party political manifesto, with too many personal opinions. I would suggest that the whole article be rewritten. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.218.1.242 (talk) 08:24, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

The article has been written by several users (most of whom non-native Englis speakers), thus more editing by native speakers would be greatly welcome.

I also agree that the article is too long. There are sections that should be trimmed down (e.g. the part on opinion polls over independence) or moved to new articles (e.g. the section on popular support to Electoral results of Lega Nord, although I personally like the pre-2010 version too).

The article was started long ago and is the result of several stratifications: it's not a surprise then that some sentences have been there, unchallenged (despite being unsourced) for 5 or 10 years. Most of those infos are correct (e.g. LN's instrumentality in bringing down Berlusconi's first government), others are self-evident (e.g. in 1996 LN took 10.6% in single-seat constituencies: its best result so far nationally), but more sources are always welcome.

On one thing I disagree with the IP: the "controversies" issue. According to Wikipedia:Criticism, we are asked to "avoid sections and articles focusing on criticisms or controversies". Moreover, we should never confuse controversies involving individual members of the party with the party itself.

The article surely misses something and something else should be exposed in a different and/or better way, but unless we want the article to become even longer, something has to be cut off. In the next weeks I will start editing the article following some of the IP's suggestions, but let me be clear: everyone, including the IP him/herself, is is fully entitled to edit the article. --Checco (talk) 10:04, 19 November 2013 (UTC)