Open main menu
WikiProject Italy (Rated C-class, High-importance)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Italy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles on Italy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Politics (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Article One, not LeUEdit

Consistently with all articles on Italian governments, political parties, not parliamentary groups, should be mentioned. Thus, we should barely mention Free and Equal (LeU). Speranza is Article One's leader and should be classified as such. Probably, there will be under-secretaries of Italian Left too. --Checco (talk) 14:32, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
Parliamentary groups, not parties, participate in talks with the President and other parliamentary groups in order to form a government, but governments are made up of parties. We always list parties, not parliamentary groups, therefore also this edit is not acceptable to me. Otherwise, the Conte I Cabinet would have been formed by the Five Star Movement and the League–Salvini Premier–Sardinian Action Party, not the League. --Checco (talk) 14:54, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

governments are made up of parties I don't think this is a general statement. Governments can be made of independents. Otherwise, the Conte I Cabinet would have been formed by the Five Star Movement and the League–Salvini Premier–Sardinian Action Party, not the League Governments are made by whatever makes them: in this case (Conte II) the LeU as a united group has been participating to the talks and the construction of the government, so I think it would not be fair to only list Article One just because of some made-up "rule" on WP. Also most sources (newspapers) in the last days refer to LeU rather than Art.1, and WP should report what sources say. Regarding the Conte I, the Sardinian Action Party entered in the Lega group (in the Senate) only later; furthermore, we usually shorten "Lega Nord" with "Lega" which is already not the proper name of the party. --Ritchie92 (talk) 15:01, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
The "Conte II Cabinet" is substantially a M5S-PD-LeU government, Roberto Speranza has been appointed minister as member of LeU, therefore it is the entire LeU that is part of the government, not just Art.1.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 18:51, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
All this is a big mistake and an outrage to consistency. Parliamentary groups are never mentioned in the articles on Italian governments. Speranza was appointed minister specifically beacuse he is the leader of Art.1, which is part of the LeU parliamentary group. Likely, there will be under-secretaries of Art.1, SI and possibly other LeU members. I would love to see LeU becoming a joint party (and, maybe, being part of the government will lead its members to join forces again), but that is not the case yet. There is no reason for treating this government differently from others. --Checco (talk) 06:20, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
I agree with this edit by User:Ritchie92 (summary: "LeU is not a political party"), thus I am a little bit confused by what he wrote above. I disagree with just one thing: "social democracy", not "democratic socialism", is the main ideology of both Art.1 and Art.1-dominated LeU. Of course, I disagree with this edit by User:SDC. --Checco (talk) 06:28, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
I think wherever it's written "Party" we should put the actual party name (Article One), so in the tables and in the infobox (Member parties). In the lead sentence (so in the text) I think LeU is appropriate because it is what most sources say. I will try to reach a compromise for the lead. --Ritchie92 (talk) 06:57, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
It's a very strange situation, because almost every sources cite LeU and no one mentions Article One, but technically LeU was disbanded as a political alliance in November 2018 and it only survives as a parliamentary group. Maybe we could find a compromise indicating both. -- Nick.mon (talk) 08:45, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
Portrait Office Name Term Party Deputy Ministers
Minister of Health
Roberto Speranza
5 September 2019 – present
Free and Equal
(Article One)

I like both proposals, User:Ritchie92's and User:Nick.mon's! --Checco (talk) 12:25, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

I like the solution for the table on the composition of the government proposed by User:Nick.mon, the problem is the infobox and the section "Supporting parties": above all the Conte II Cabinet is universally considered as a M5S-PD / M5S-PD-LeU government, not a M5S-PD-Art.1 government, we cannot to not take into consideration that Roberto was appointed as a minister mainly as a member of LeU and not as a member of Art.1 (also Pietro Grasso and Loredana De Petris had been taken into consideration as possible ministers: in the case of Grasso, which party would have been indicated?) Then, the section "Supporting parties" is strongly wrong: M5S, Pd and Art.1 are not the only supporting parties of this government, in this case it is even more misleading to indicate Art.1. I would like to underline that LeU is not just a parliamentary group, but a federation of parties that ran in the last general election as a unitary political subject, and in the same way it has been considered as a unitary subject for the composition of this government. @User:Ritchie92 @User:Nick.mon @Checco I think that the indication of the specific party should be made in the general table, both for ministers and for undersecretaries, like the example above, but in the other sections LeU should be indicated, since it is the latter that is a founding member of the government. --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 07:49, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
Real quick. Grasso would have been listed as an independent. "Supporting parties" is wrong, per se: it should be "Member parties"; otherwise, we should include also external supporters. Everything will be clearer when under-secretaries will be appointed. --Checco (talk) 13:08, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
@Checco: Am I wrong, or were you the one who claimed the existence of the so-called "parliamentary parties"? While now LeU, that ran with its list in the last general election, it must be considered a mere parliamentary group... but Speranza has been appointed Minister as member of Leu and not as member of Art.1, and anyone can't deny this, and in the same way Grasso would not have been appointed Minister as a simple independent, like Luciana Lamorgese, but as a member of Leu, so there is a certain difference. Leaving out the fact that the "Supporting Parties" section seems to me totally useless, it seems important to me to indicate LEU as a member of this government. Anyway I did not understand the position of User:Nick.mon in this regard, since I would have preferred his initial version, which was later modified...--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 14:25, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
In my view, the parliamentary majority is clearly composed by PD, M5S and LeU, thus I'd support the use of Free and Equal, but if there isn't consensus, I think we could insert both, as I said before. -- Nick.mon (talk) 16:16, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
Since there is no clear agreement on either Art.1 or LeU, I believe you are right and that for now both must be indicated.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 21:53, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

The Liberal Popular Alliance or the Federalists and Liberal Democrats were mainly parliamentary parties. That is not the case of Free and Equal for the specific fact that it is composed of parties (mainly Article One and Italian Left), as well as independents. Speranza was appointed minister on behalf of LeU, but he was chosen among others specifically because he is a member of the largest party within LeU, Article One. I would correct User:Nick.mon's proposal in the following way:

Portrait Office Name Term Party Deputy Ministers
Minister of Health
Roberto Speranza
5 September 2019 – present
Article One
(Free and Equal)

Party means inequivocally "party". --Checco (talk) 06:22, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

I can live both with the two versions, but I would keep LeU in the section "Supporting parties". -- Nick.mon (talk) 07:34, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Probably Speranza was really chosen as Minister because he is the leader of Leu's biggest component, but this remains a personal opinion. And anyway he was chosen in the first instance as a member of Leu, and only later as a member of Art.1, therefore the indication of his membership to Leu should have a prevalence over that to Art.1. --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 12:14, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
We should stick to facts. Speranza's party is Art.1, not LeU and the latter is not a party. --Checco (talk) 13:12, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
For those who speak (or, at least, read) Italian, there is a similar discussion in it.Wiki: see here. I am not fond of it.Wiki, but in this particular case I was happy, delighted indeed, to see that authoritative editors there agree with me. --Checco (talk) 13:34, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
I don't think it's fair to other users to use Italian-language WP discussions to prove a point here. But as I said before I agree with using LeU in the text and Article One wherever the word "party" appears, so like for Independent (M5S) we could do Article One (LeU). --Ritchie92 (talk) 13:42, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Sorry about that. However, it would be contrary to WP rules to use it.Wiki as a source, but there is nothing unfair in linking opinions that represent my opinion better that what I could do with my own words. This said, I agree with using LeU in the text (possibly mentioning LeU members in brackets) and Art.1 wherever the word 'party' appears" (possibly with LeU in brackets). --Checco (talk) 13:48, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
I would like to point out that the discussion in Itwiki is not totally superimposable to this one, since the discussion started from Leu's external support, and that the setup of the Italian page is a few different from the English one. Anyway, I would prefer write LeU with Art.1 in brackets, for the reasons already explained above, and also because it would be more practical if there were also undersecretaries of SI, for example. However, I would expect the appointment of the undersecretaries to see which is the best approach.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 18:01, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Sergio Costa as M5S memberEdit

According to news sources from Corriere, Repubblica, il Fatto Quotidiano, and even Politico, Sergio Costa is listed as a Five Star Movement member. Politico even says "Former general, Sergio Costa of the 5Stars, remains environment minister". Should it be listed as such in the tables and in the minister-party count? --Ritchie92 (talk) 09:27, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Found one more putting Costa in the M5S: The Local. --Ritchie92 (talk) 16:15, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
I think so. That should be done also in Conte I Cabinet, both for Costa (M5S) and Bussetti (LN). --Checco (talk) 13:09, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
I agree, especially for Bussetti, but I think we could say the same for Costa too. -- Nick.mon (talk) 20:47, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
Giuseppe Conte, Sergio Costa and Marco Bussetti are independents of area (Conte and Costa of "M5S area" and Bussetti of "League area"), but however they remain independents. Their reference area may be indicated in brackets, but they should continue to be referred to as independents.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 21:51, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
In English "area" means nothing in this context. Let's go back to the previous version, replace it with "M5S-proposed") or with "M5S independent". Any of the three options I proposed is OK with me, while I prefer the third one. --Checco (talk) 06:24, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't see sourced statements here. On the other hand I presented many sources stating that Costa is M5S, I will revert back to sourced information. --Ritchie92 (talk) 08:12, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

More sources: Il Messaggero stating he is "one of the members of the Five Star Movement", and ANSA calling him "pentastellato", i.e. five-starred. --Ritchie92 (talk) 08:23, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

There are many sources that affirm that Sergio Costa is a Independent of the M5S ([1], [2], [3], [4], [5] etc.). Some sources describe him generically as a member of the Five Star Movement (simply by writing M5S in brackets to indicate its membership), but in reality it is an independent close to the M5S. Honestly I don't know how this situation can be effectively translated into English, for me also the "M5S independent" proposed by Checco is ok.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 12:03, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
@Scia Della Cometa: Two of your sources are old. Please acknowledge that, we're talking about the Conte II, not the Conte I. All the other sources say "independent of the M5S" which is a very weird statement. I think that there is no reason to discard the sources I gave (they are all reliable) and therefore the sum of the sources should lead us to put him in the circle of the M5S. That is why I would put the yellow color, the party name "Five Star Movement", and a note saying he's likely not a member of the party. --Ritchie92 (talk) 12:15, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
@Ritchie92: But there is no source that states that he fully joined the M5S, the generic indication in some newspapers of the M5S in brackets cannot be a proof of his adhesion to the party. I agree to use the color of the party and to indicate his closeness to the party in the same box, but he must still be indicated as an independent (and however the same criterion should also apply to Bussetti and Conte).--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 12:21, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
There is a tendency of most Italian and foreign newspapers to portray him as M5S. This is what sources say. We have no way, for now, to check if he has a membership, but this is not the point in this table, I think. Anyway, more newspapers were considering him as an Independent during the Conte I cabinet formation, with respect to now. This means that he got probably closer to the M5S during the year in the Conte I government, so that now the newspapers feel confident to bracket him as M5S, and not Ind (like they do for Lamorgese, instead). So the fact that he's yellow here does not necessarily mean he (and Conte) must be yellow also in Conte I Cabinet. --Ritchie92 (talk) 12:26, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
The situation does not seem to have changed much: both Conte and Costa were close to M5s also last year (like Bussetti was close to the League), since they had already been proposed by Di Maio during the electoral campaign as ministers of his hypothetical government. I do not see sufficient evidence to establish whether Costa fully adhered to the M5S (while Conte has already claimed to have remained an independent). And however, the difference between Conte/Costa and Lamorgese is the closeness to a party of the first two, while the last one is a "technical" minister.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 13:02, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
@Scia Della Cometa: I am perfectly aware of the difference with Lamorgese, that's exactly the point! We should not use the same colors and classify them in the same "Independents" group, because one is an actual independent, the other is a M5S aficionado, just without the official membership of the party, and should be counted as M5S. It looks very weird at the moment that the minority parties in the government have in total more places than the main party... And in fact this is not the case, since they in practice have the Prime Minister and another one of the "independents". --Ritchie92 (talk) 13:07, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
@Ritchie92: Indeed I proposed to list Conte and Costa as independents of the M5S (in the most correct form, perhaps "M5s area" in English means nothing), and possibly also using the color of the reference party. Same speech for the previous cabinet. But to simply indicate them as members of the M5s would not be substantially correct.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 13:19, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Sorry if I missed something in the talk. Possibly, something happened during Conte I Cabinet. People like Conte, Costa and Bussetti became increasingly close to the parties which appointed them. Actually, both Conte and Costa had endorsed the M5S before the election, thus they can be considered "M5S independents" also in Conte I Cabinet. And what about Bussetti who takes part to LN's rallies and usually sports the LN's logo on his suits? I would personally adopt for each of them party colours and the "XXX Independent" or "Independent (XXX)" format. --Checco (talk) 13:22, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
I like the format "Independent (XXX)" better because the official party is actually "Independent". The next question is now: what do we do with the party count in Conte II Cabinet#Party breakdown? --Ritchie92 (talk) 13:24, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
I also like the "Independent (XXX)" format better. I would count those independents among party members. --Checco (talk) 13:32, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

I have to say that this edit comment made me have second thoughts, I am actually not sure if this is clear enough. We should find a better wording or make a different decision. --Ritchie92 (talk) 14:49, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

In my view we should insert him as an "independent" with the note "Proposed by the M5S" (as for Conte), or we should consider him a member of the M5S. I don't like so much the format: "Independent (M5S)" with Five Star's color. -- Nick.mon (talk) 15:33, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

We can also keep the color for the independent politicians, but I think it would be necessary to make explicit that Conte and Costa are "expression of the M5S", even if they remain independent, but I don't know what the most correct formula could be.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 17:46, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
You're right, anyway, they're officially independent politicians, backed by the M5S, so INMHO the best alternative is keep the independent color and use a note to express their link with the M5S. -- Nick.mon (talk) 17:54, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Italia VivaEdit

This party (whose article should be named in English, btw) was launched after the birth of the government. This article should reflect this. In previous cases, we have different sections for "beginning of term" and "end of term". Also the "Council of Ministers" table should reflect that Bellanova and Bonetti were originally appointed as PD members, as we did in Gentiloni Cabinet. Having no time now, I am going to simply rollback User:Nick.mon's latest edits, which are partial and inconsistent with other articles. @User:Nick.mon: Do you have the time to fix this? --Checco (talk) 07:00, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Checco, yes, you're right. I will fix it! -- Nick.mon (talk) 07:13, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
I think that was a work in progress, there was indeed a section for beginning of term and current composition. And I think Italia Viva should appear in the first sentences too. --Ritchie92 (talk) 07:19, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, User:Nick.mon for your great job done! As IV's date of formation, we can either adopt 16 September (announcement) or the day when the parliamentary groups will be formed, as they could be formed on different days. I support 16 September. --Checco (talk) 14:24, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
No problem, but I think the announcement was yesterday, wasn't it? -- Nick.mon (talk) 14:44, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
The news filtered on 16 September and Renzi was interviewed on that day.
A third would be to have the day in which the symbol will be unveiled. --Checco (talk) 14:48, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Return to "Conte II Cabinet" page.