Open main menu


European migrant crisis#RetitlingEdit

Please see: Talk:European migrant crisis#Retitling the page. --Corriebertus (talk) 11:40, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Opinion polling for the 2018 Italian general electionEdit

I don't think either of us want to edit war over a tag. It's certainly a large article so it's not inappropriate that myself and others want to start a discussion about its length. There was a previous discussion about a particular split of the article that I had made, but that was a discussion about a very specific action and not regarding the article generally. Onetwothreeip (talk) 09:50, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

I opened a talk section, as you should have done before reverting my legitimate rv. --Ritchie92 (talk) 10:06, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
It was my intention to open a discussion if the person who originally placed the tag did not do so. This is a tag to promote discussion, it's not a contribution of content. Onetwothreeip (talk) 10:40, 15 April 2019 (UTC)


Ok, you think you know Italy better than Italians? You decide to delete that the Economist is controlled by the rich and powerful italian family, the Agnelli? Ok, live in denial, is good to write a BIASED OPINION as a fact on a whole nation. BAH! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stivmeister (talkcontribs)

@Stivmeister: 1) If you bother to read my user page you would discover that, indeed, I am Italian. 2) Yes, I decided to delete that information because it's not true (The Economist group is not "controlled", it's owned partly by the Agnelli family, but also by Rothschild, Cadbury and others) and most importantly it's not relevant in that place and in that article. 3) I don't see any biased opinion, the Economist Democracy Index is a well-known classification cited everywhere. --Ritchie92 (talk) 19:44, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stivmeister (talkcontribs)

@Stivmeister: Please sign your comments on my (and any other) talk page. Also, watch your tone, this is not a forum. Now since I'm nice, I will reply to you. Being the majority owners of a company does not mean being the owner or, as you wrote, to "control" the company. And again most importantly, the fact that The Economist Group is partly owned by the Agnelli family is not a relevant detail to be stressed when mentioning the Democracy Index for Italy in that context: that sentence is present in all "Politics of ..." pages (see Politics of France, Politics of India, etc.) and the remark about the Agnelli is not and should never be added. --Ritchie92 (talk) 21:19, 7 May 2019 (UTC)


Hi. The fact that the 1995 Pole would be the successor of the League is obvious only for you, not for the Italian political history. If you think my edits are not elegantly written, you can arrange the grammar as you want, it’s not a problem for me, but if you will continue to restore unsourced and false facts in that page (as the alleged alliance with Pannella), I’ll had to flag all the page as unsourced. Bye.--Barlafus (talk) 13:29, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Hey, you are the one pushing edits without source, not me! I just reverted and you're accusing me of unsourced edits? You can flag the page as unsourced (it is in fact mostly unsourced) as far as I'm concerned, no worries! Now, I never said the Pole is the successor of the League, you're malicious. I said the Pole for Freedoms is the rightful successor of the Pole of Freedoms, regardless of the League and Pannella in or out, because two out of three leading parties (Forza Italia and National Alliance) were still in. Finally regarding the language, it's not about elegance, it's about clear English. --Ritchie92 (talk) 13:53, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
Reverting, you add again false facts (as Pannella), so you add unsourced facts. Elegance or clearness, I said you can arrange the language as you like, but it does not justify adding unreferenced facts. I am not malicious, you show you want to write about an argument you don’t know. The National Alliance was not one out the three leading parties of the Pole as you wrote, AN (called by Bossi as “the fascists”) run in opposition to the Pole exactly as the Progressives or the Pact. The Pole was a written pact, there was a contract assigning to the League the 70% of the seats: evidently, the League retirement was not a detail as you think.--Barlafus (talk) 14:44, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
I don't see the need for your aggressive tone. Editing and reverting is the whole point of Wikipedia. Anyway, you're right about the National Alliance. But the substance does not change, the political idea behind the Pole remains the same (a united centre-right electoral alliance) also after 1995. That makes the Pole for Freedoms the political successor, in Italian politics, of the Pole of Freedoms. --Ritchie92 (talk) 16:39, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
Also, you're not actually adding reliable sources to your edits so me reverting is not a purposeful removal of sourced content. --Ritchie92 (talk) 16:44, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
Another “ex post” error. The electoral victory and the consequent government with AN created the Centre-right, not the Pole. Before the election, the goal of the League was to create a liberal, centrist alliance. The League had nothing to do with the right or any conservative idea, its goal was the most radical transformation of the political structure of Italy. In January, Maroni had signed an agreement with the centrist Pact, and later Bossi decided to join the Pole instead simply because he (correctly) though Berlusconi would obtain more votes than Segni.
Finally, about the sources, concretely you could simply ask me what you want to know.--Barlafus (talk) 00:39, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
The Northern League "had nothing to do with the right or any conservative idea"?? This is funny, since the party was born with the common sentiment of despise and racism towards Southerners and illegal immigrants. Maybe there were some leftists in the Lega, but I'm sure the LN was not looking for a centre-left alliance. But let's not make it a discussion about the Lega's past. Centre-right alliance Poles with Berlusconi as leader are a constant in Italian politics since the 90s until recently, you cannot neglect the continuum here.
About the sources, I will add cn templates wherever I believe a citation is needed. --Ritchie92 (talk) 07:35, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
Dear Ritchie, do you know how many illegal immigrants there were in Italy in the late 80’s? Maybe they could harshly fill the teams for a football match... Take a look to the electoral fluxes in 1990 Lombardy. As you can see, the League took its votes even more from the Communists than from the Christian Democrats. Do you think that quite a third of the Communist supporters of 1985 became a bulk of racists in 1990? The League was a member of Rainbow Group (1989–1994) of the EP at time, certainly not a conservative or rightist meeting, and even after its expulsion because of the government with AN, it joined the ELDR, again not a conservative or rightist association. We must discuss about the League’s past because we are discussing about a coalition of which the League had the 70% of the shares. Poles with Berlusconi are a constant of Italian politics since 1994, in fact I support to show the Pole for Freedoms as the successor alliance in the page of the Pole of Good Government, but here we are not speaking about Berlusconi or, at least, we are not mainly speaking about Berlusconi.--Barlafus (talk) 20:15, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
For the second time, don't use this tone on my talk page. Anyway, you say in the 80s?? The Pole of Freedoms is born in 1994. Albanian immigration should ring a bell. The fact that the Lega was part of a regionalist group in the EP doesn't mean that as you said, Lega "had nothing to do with the right". Nothing to do? I believe something to do, not everything but enough to make it at least centre-right. The fact that former voters of the PCI voted Lega is a sociological phenomenon, linked to the old partigiani and the deep localism of the Lega, which resembled a lot the idea of the Communist case del popolo. But anyway, this discussion should not be on my talk page, it should be on the Talk:Pole of Freedoms page. --Ritchie92 (talk) 20:25, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Italian languageEdit

Ciao, sei italiano vero? Beh, pure io. Volevo parlarti della pagina sulla lingua italiana (Italian language) L'italiano è riconosciuto come lingua minoritaria in Romania e Bosnia-Herzegovina, come riporta l'European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. Ho citato più e più volte diverse fonti e aperto una sezione nella talk page, ma come puoi vedere un certo utente continua ad annullarle per ragioni senza senso, arrivando persino a definirmi un troll. Ti andrebbe di controllare la situazione o almeno partecipare alla discussione nella talk page? Grazie DavideVeloria88 (talk) 17:35, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Italy's growthEdit


What is your objection to my use of the European Commission's economic forecast for the Italian economy's growth? KREOH (talk) 11:22, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

IMF is a better, more detailed source to link to. It is easy to find and read the relevant data. It is the same source from which the rest of the data reported in the infobox is taken. It is easy to check for changes and updates in the future. I think it's very handy, and I don't see any reason why changing a reliable good source like this one. --Ritchie92 (talk) 11:29, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
I agree that it's a good source, I use IMF databases constantly. I'm thinking the EC source would be even better because they update more frequently than the IMF. Also, I'm not changing the entire infobox, only the growth parameter. KREOH (talk) 11:43, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
The IMF source is also frequently updated. I think that changing to the EC reference means ahving to change reference every time it's updated with a new PDF file. The link to the web page is way handier. Also, I believe the opposite as you say: if you want to use EC data for growth, then per consistency you should change the whole infobox (or the bigger part of it, at least all the GDP numbers) to refer to EC data. But that's not what I would do since I think IMF is just fine. --Ritchie92 (talk) 11:52, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Could use this more direct link I guess Economic forecast for Italy. It would be best to use multiple sources instead of relying on just the one. KREOH (talk) 12:01, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Also, the EC data does not make a distinction between estimates and definitive data, like the IMF does. This link is better but there is (expectedly) a disagreement on the 2017 figures. Different sources can give different numbers, so one has to pick one and attain to it in the whole infobox, unless you want to list all of them. Then one should add World Bank, the Italian statistics institute (ISTAT), etc. --Ritchie92 (talk) 12:09, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
I'm gonna leave the growth as is. KREOH (talk) 12:19, 16 June 2019 (UTC)


Richie, we must respect the standards of Wikipedia. All the pages, not a single page about the Spanish Senate election, use that standard. All the pages about US Senates use that standard, regardless to the variable not contested seats. All the pages about assemblies with a partial election use that standard. Let’s be clear: I don’t support that standard, if you want to open a discussion to change that standard I’ll not oppose you, but if all other pages will remain on that standard, I will adequate the pages about Italy.--Barlafus (talk) 21:23, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Show me the place where it is written that what you refer to is a "standard" of Wikipedia. In Italy there are senators for life that can change the number of seats at any moment, so it does not make sense to write that the number of seats in the Senate is "x", because there can be any number of senators. --Ritchie92 (talk) 21:25, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Even in Spain. And all the pages about Spain use that standard. If you want to change the Spanish pages I will not oppose you, but ceteris paribus the pages about Spain and about Italy must be the same.--Barlafus (talk) 21:33, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
No they must not. --Ritchie92 (talk) 21:35, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Why? Any rationale reason?--Barlafus (talk) 21:49, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Because the Spanish Senate does not have life senators. Also there is no Wikipedia rule forcing the Italian politics pages to be on the same standard as the Spanish ones. Why not the opposite then, I might ask? I do not know of any "standard" about this, if you can show me that there is a Wikipedia policy about this I will agree. --Ritchie92 (talk) 21:52, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Stop Richie, we are wasting time. You continue editing about thing you evidently did not know. There are no MP which changed side, there are candidates that the electoral law used to fill the list. There’s a universal standard used by all the pages of Wikipedia you must respect, other users are not obliged to search into 15 years of Wikipedia discussion. And remember that maths is not an opinion: you can’t edit adding erroneous sums.--Barlafus (talk) 23:48, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
I repeat, there is no rule for that. There is no standard. Belgian Senate also does not have life senators. Also, you're mixing two different subjects.
Regarding the results of the election, we need to list the seats obtained by each party by the vote counting, and not the membership of the people that actually go in the Parliament. These are two different things. --Ritchie92 (talk) 00:27, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Also, the source you cite here is a sitting from October 1994, so far from being good for the "initial composition" of the Parliament, that had the first sitting in April 1994. --Ritchie92 (talk) 00:31, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Found another source which confirms that I'm right: here just click on "mostra la composizione storica" and Ctrl-F "Lazzarini". Your eyes will notice that he was member of the Lega Nord group "dal 21 aprile 1994 al 19 dicembre 1994". --Ritchie92 (talk) 11:49, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

The problem with fascismEdit

To put it bluntly, the problem with not referring to fascism as a far-right ideology in the lede is that there are a lot of Conservatives who would like to call fascism leftist on the grounds that "It was called the National Socialist Party," and on Mussolini's pre-Fascist involvement with Marxism. And there are more than a few Centrists who think Doughnut Theory is a real thing and believe that far-left ideologies such as Anarchism and Bolshevism (yes! both of them!) are indistinguishable from Fascism. These opinions are not supported by scholarly sources, but they are very popular with a certain class of opinion columnist. Especially those opinion columnists who are uncomfortable with de-platforming and direct action as tactics to confront fascists on the basis of the concept of the Marketplace of ideas and an un-examined belief that Voltaire wrote the final word on civil rights.

So the problem here is not one of the dolphin being a grey mammal; rather, it's all the self-reported pescetarians trying to claim that dolphin is a fish. Simonm223 (talk) 15:45, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

You're mixing two different things, I think: that fascism is, among other things, right-wing as an attribute (and with this I agree, along with the RS), and that the fascism definition is that of a right-wing ultranationalism (and this is definitely debatable, in my view, for various reasons). What I would like to stress is that Wikipedia cannot be written with the thought in mind that there are people outside in the real world who are impartial. That will always be the case, and I think users will still have to fight against people who think that fascism is left-wing. Wikipedia instead should be universal and independent from all of this. In other words, I am aware of what is going on in politics now, but the encyclopedic definition of fascism shouldn't depend on the current political situation. --Ritchie92 (talk) 16:12, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
I don't disagree with you. But the reason to put that fascism is a right-wing philosophy up front is in part because this is misunderstood by many readers. It's not universally understood, it is centrally important to an understanding of the subject. Simonm223 (talk) 17:00, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
This is also why my reaction to "but the Atlantic says," is to say, "they are of no significance here." There's plenty of academic work, from the centrally important Routledge Companion to Fascism and the Far-Right to my personal favourite history of fascism and anti-fascism Against the Fascist Creep that situates fascism as being a far-right ideology; what some journalist thinks because Antifa scares him shouldn't be relevant. But there are a few editors who believe it should be. And that's pretty much a constant assault on the page. Simonm223 (talk) 17:02, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Disruptive editsEdit

I'll put it simply. stop disrupting the page for Identity and Democracy and stop reverting my edits. Your removal of content has been in no way useful or helpful and has just caused conflict, also do not warn me about a three revert rule block when you too are guilty of repeated reversion of my edits. Ec1801011 (talk) 16:44, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Your refusal to discuss generated this situation. It caused no conflict at all, you are the only one pushing for the PVV to be in that table. As I explained many times, it should not be in the table because it violates WP:CRYSTAL. Finally, my reverts where only after I tried to discuss with you. Your reverts where associated to silence and refusal to participate in the discussion that I started for you in the talk page. --Ritchie92 (talk) 16:52, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
(talk page stalker)I had a peek at the page in question and, gotta say, Ritchie appears correct. That's WP:CRYSTAL in that table. Brexit hasn't happened yet. Simonm223 (talk) 16:58, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Reminder about the results for each constituencyEdit

Hi, the reminder on the 2019 European Parliament election page seems to me quite useless, I believe that the results for each constituency are not present for any other european election, then this reminder should be present on every page. This expansion is not necessary, if a user wants to write these results he is free to do so, but with this reminder the section seems incomplete, but it is not. --Wololoo (talk) 14:34, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

It is incomplete indeed, because technically there is no "Italian"-wide election. The seats gained by each party are picked based on the results for each constituency, and on the total number of seats available for each. --Ritchie92 (talk) 14:37, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
It is an "Italian"-wide election, the allocation of seats is another matter. This reminder is not present on the other pages, for consistency it must be present on all pages or none. But I don't think other users are interested in writing these results. If you are interested you should write them yourself, otherwise these reminders make these sections seem incomplete, when instead they are already ok.--Wololoo (talk) 14:44, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
Furthermore the reminder is wrong because the results of the individual constituencies should be written on specific pages, that page concerns only national results, therefore the section is complete.--Wololoo (talk) 14:52, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
I disagree. The results that matter for the seat-count are only the constituency results, not the nation-wide ones. The template should stay. --Ritchie92 (talk) 15:04, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
The page concerns only the national result, like all the other pages of parliamentary and European elections. The results referring to individual constituencies are always written in separate pages, therefore in any case that notice does not concern information to be included on that page. Why do you put that notice only on the 2019 European election page? And since nobody will write these results, why you don you not write them yourself? that warning is likely to remain there forever for information that should not even be written on that page.--Wololoo (talk) 19:13, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
There is no national result in the European election in Italy, regarding the seat distribution. In order to make sense, there should be an indication of how each party went in each constituency, otherwise the numbers of seats for each party come from nowhere. Also, you can't possibly know if anybody will write something about it, and you also don't know if and when I will have time to do so. The template is not a warning; it's a reminder, it's nice to have it for completeness, and it does not mean that something's wrong with the article. --Ritchie92 (talk) 11:41, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
The system of allocating seats and the national result are two different things... the page on "2019 European Parliament election in Italy" concerns the national result, results by constituency are usually written in separate pages. Your reasoning should cover all the European elections and all the elections for the Senate, but this reminder in present only on the 2019 European election page. In any case with a reminder a section always seems incomplete, and this does not seem very nice to see...--Wololoo (talk) 18:06, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
The page concerns the European election in Italy, which includes the final composition of seats, ergo an explanation (i.e. a little more detail) on the distribution of seats per constituency is relevant. By your reasoning the table with the results by each country in 2019 European Parliament election should not be there, because that page should only show the overall European results... And by the way Wikipedia is a work in progress, so it is perfectly ok to have a small reminder of some undone work. --Ritchie92 (talk) 18:36, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
The reminder requires "detailed results for each constituency", not the distribution of seats per constituency (like the "2019 European Parliament election" page). And however the notice is present only on the 2019 European election page, while this problem would concern all the European elections since 1979...--Wololoo (talk) 18:58, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
Yes, other stuff exists... The existence of other pages is not a reason not to have something different (in this case additional details) on one page. Otherwise change would not happen anywhere until it's done in all pages of one category. --Ritchie92 (talk) 19:53, 7 July 2019 (UTC)


Edit against the talk page consensus again and you'll find yourself the subject of an AN/I report. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:53, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

There is no such a thing as consensus to edit in a talk page! What are you talking about? Consensus is about edits on the article page. You are being disruptive by archiving ongoing discussions because you don't like them! --Ritchie92 (talk) 11:14, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
You're also violating the guidelines about archiving in a talk page. From WP:ARCHIVE: The talk page guidelines suggest archiving when the talk page exceeds 75 KB (or 75,000 bytes), or has multiple resolved or stale discussions. However, when to archive, and what may be the optimal length for a talk page, are subjective decisions that should be adapted to each case. For example, ongoing discussions and nearby sections they reference should generally be kept intact. So it actually is debatable that you just archive ongoing discussions on a whim. --Ritchie92 (talk) 11:57, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Except you are mischaracterizing what happened here. BMK was archiving discussions for which there was a consensus that, notwithstanding WP:DEADHORSE complaints from editors who repeatedly failed to produce satisfactory WP:RS to support their desired changes, were long since stale. In fact these tendentious discussions had staled to the point we needed to add an alert to the talk page about it. I'm sorry that you stridently disagree with consensus but keeping a bunch of stale threads live so that we can say, "please produce reliable sources," over and over forever is counter-productive. And you are very precariously close to WP:3RR on the issue - which I assure you does apply to talk pages. Simonm223 (talk) 13:26, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
The 3RR rule has possibly been violated already by BMK ([1], [2], and [3]). There is no dead horse here because that specific debate was active and not dying. And by the way WP:DEADHORSE is an essay, it is a suggestion on how to behave on talk pages, it is not a talk page guideline. The guideline instead says that archiving is allowed when the talk pages are very long or when a discussion is resolved or stale. In this case the ongoing discussion about the presence of "right-wing" in the lede (and, again, not about making it "left-wing", I'm not crazy), was not resolved and not stale at all. Also many of the other archived discussions were still active. This would qualify the edits of BMK as disruptive, not mine. --Ritchie92 (talk) 16:37, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
You know, if it weren't for the fact that the majority of editors who actually contribute beyond drive-by snark agreed with BMK's actions you might have a point. But contrary to your belief, consensus matters in article talk when it comes to archiving, hatting and deleting off-topic comments. And BMK's got consensus on this one. Furthermore I'm perfectly aware that WP:DEADHORSE is an essay. But WP:DE is not. And what I've been cautioning you about with talk of deceased equine mammals is that it is your insistence in rehashing dead debates, with no evidence you're actually bringing new sources to the table beyond the same tired parade of incident reports from American online dailies, that is disrupting article talk, and not BMK's custodianship. Simonm223 (talk) 16:59, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
How do you determine that BMK has consensus on archiving those discussions? There's no such a thing! If we count the number of users archiving and the number of users reverting the archiving it's 2 to 2. But counting heads is not how consensus works, there are rules and guidelines that override consensus. And as I said, archiving discussions is permitted only in case of very long talk pages or in case of resolved/stale discussions. In this case it's none of the above, therefore BMK's edits qualify as disruptive. --Ritchie92 (talk) 17:37, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "Ritchie92".