Talk:Transnational Radical Party

Errors

There are many errors in this article (I'm sorry folks but I'm currently too busy to edit the article myself --I'll do it in the near future):

• The Transnational Radical Party is actually the Italian Partito Radicale, which only extended its name in the late 80s to be more compliant with its international activity. Just to clarify, its latest Congress which took place in Tirana, Albany is numbered as the 38th, while the first one was the founding congress of the Partito Radicale dating back to 1955.
• The T.R.P. doesn't currently partecipate in elections as itself, because of its NGO status at the United Nations. However other national parties, such as the Lista Bonino or the Lista Pannella or many others were founded and supported by the T.R.P.
• Note that the Italian political movement named Radicali Italiani, which is wrongly linked as the Italian Partito Radicale, is completely different from the T.R.P. (which is actually the Partito Radicale, as stated above).

--Alessandro Ranellucci 19:18, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Besides, the text is by and large a copyvio of various texts from TRP's web site. It's hardly a model of a neutral Wikipedia article. Duja► 10:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

As far as Amnesty International is concerned, it is not correct to say that they have strong links with that organization. To the contrary, in the '90s they had a bitter row with AI in Italy over the issue of the death penalty. They said that AI should back them in their work to obtain from the UN General Assembly a resolution calling for a moratorium of all executions, and claimed that AI was failing to support them. 83.181.181.34 13:13, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

no one was forced out

This edit http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Transnational_Radical_Party&diff=765306285&oldid=765244878 introduces a not neutral point of view. Marco Cappato himself declared that he is not aware of an eviction ("non mi risulta che siamo stati sfrattati"). Here http://video.repubblica.it/politica/radicali-cappato-dopo-lo-sfratto--cosi-andiamo-verso-l-autodistruzione/267540/267926 That RI were forced out of the historical headquarters is disputable. The secondary sources mentioned are not reliable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Catonano (talk • contribs) 8:19, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

My observation about the previous edit was not satisfied by the new edit. No one was forced out. The sources mentioned are not reliable. First hand sources disputed the view that anyone was forced out. Rather, Radicali Italiani lost a congress and stopped to support the committments of the Radical Party. For reference see here http://www.affaritaliani.it/roma/bufera-radicali-tra-debiti-appetiti-del-brand-la-verita-raccontata-da-turco-464109.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Catonano (talk • contribs) 14:34, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

I also think that the RI lost a congress and stopped supporting the commitments of the TRP, but we need to include both versions of the story here. Moreover, it is perfectly true that since March 1st the RI will not be able to stay at Torre Argentina headquarters. Both first-party sources and third-party sources are cited in the article, and, thanks to your inspiration, the article is now more balanced than it was before. However, the sentence you do not like is perfectly supported both by first-party and second-party sources. Cappato might have said what you wrote before, but Bonino said "I'm looking for a location" on Saturday at the event organised by Della Vedova. If you want to improve the wording, do it, but please do not insert out-of-scope tags. --Checco (talk) 15:24, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

It seems to me frankly exaggerated to use twice as many words those that are used to tell the 25-year history of this organization, to explain in detail an event of no value in the organization's life itself. Moreover from a thorough reading of the sources, the organization does not affect on this event itself even, but rather the owner of the spaces (this is not the TRP) which freely decides theirs destination. Also, the event has not taken place yet, hardly one could advocate this edit as having enciclopedic value. I argue that this edit should be deleted at least until the evolutions of these facts could make this contents worthy of an encyclopedia and do not have a purely propaganda value (which is also against the organization mentioned in the entry). -- Exedre (talk) 14:33, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

I partially agree with you. In fact, the previous wording ("In September 2016, after Pannella's death in May, the party's congress elected a collective leadership led by Rita Bernardini, Antonella Casu, Sergio D'Elia and Maurizio Turco, as opposed to the wing led by Bonino and Marco Cappato, who, in turn, controlled the RI. In February the PRT and the RI parted ways and the latter were forced out of the historical Radical headquarters.") was OK with me. However, it is better to explain at length what happened during and after the 2016 congress. In the future, with a more historical perspective, we could cut some parts off. Finally, if you are able to expand the party's previous history, please do it. --Checco (talk) 23:31, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

It's now been over ten months since then, and the Italian Radicals are still inside the Radical Party headquarters, have you been convinced that no one has been kicked out and that this whole news was a hoax and that the sources you're quoting are unreliable? You have also inserted another propaganda news on Bonino that has absolutely no relation to the subject of the page. You clearly have your ideas on the matter and use this page to promote them. Are you sure you're doing a good job as wikipedist? I expanded the "previous story" of the NRPTT, and you censored it to support your prejudice that the party was closed in 1989. As I explained here that is false. -- Exedre (talk) 00:52, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

I know that. There is not problem in adding a sentence saying something like "As of December 2017 the Italian Radicals are still inside the party's headquarters". Of course, it would be better to find a source on that, too. --Checco (talk) 06:48, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

I always thought that if someone publish an hoax, it's his duty to find proper sources for it, not someone else to deny it. You tryed to deliver the false fact that they was «forced out» with unreliable sources, as time has clearly demonstrated. I really do not understand why this small unsignificant fact should be on this page. If you think it's so important in the history of Italian Radicals, why don't you put it on their page? -- Exedre (talk) 01:53, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

It is already mentioned, also, in that article. --Checco (talk) 07:27, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Most of the history of the Party deleted without any motivation

One of the last edits (this against that) made by Checco is totally obscure to me. I really do not understand why he has cut at half a very well crafted voice, deleting not less than 50 notes and a very precise reconstruction, yet small in size, of the long history of that party. If someone can explain me why he had deleted more than half of the story (after he himself have requested it) I'll be glad. Thanks. -- Exedre (talk) 00:31, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Additionally, User:Exedre wrote the following message to my talk page:

On Tuesday evening, Radio Radicale invited me to talk about the censorship you have made on the item concerning the Radical Party that I had written. Since I myself would be interested in knowing what your reasons are, I would be pleased if you could even participate directly in the program. If you're interested, send me a message. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Exedre (talk • contribs) 16:43, 16 December 2017 (UTC) }}

The reason is quite simple: this article should cover the party's history since its foundation (or, better, transformation), thus since 1989. Moreover, I do not think that what User:Exedre wrote was "well crafted": English was often poor, there were plenty of redundant infos and there were no third-party sources. To be too closely associated to a subject of an article is not necessarily a good thing. Wikipedia is free: User:Exedre added contents, I reduced and fixed those contents, User:Autospark made his fixes too (I much need them because I am not a mother-tongue speaker too), we can discuss and improve the article. I listen to RadioRadicale quite often and it would be a honour to participate in a program, but, as a Wikipedia editor, I prefer to maintain my independence and privacy. --Checco (talk) 06:48, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Checco, thank you for your kind reply. I move my answer in a separate section due to its relevance. Probably this is the central point also in response to the first discussion on the other page of the Radical Party, too. I understand your point to my invitation and I appreciate it. I wonder if it is possibile to intervene somehow without breach anonimity. -- Exedre (talk) 01:40, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

The TRP name for the page is a bad mistake

The name "Transnational Radical Party" is not the "most common name", as Checco said in the abrupt change of page name, but the worst name you can use in English. Not only this is not the proper name of the organization, but if Checco were an English speaker he would have clearly known that in Anglo-Saxon political tradition, opposed to the French/Italian one, "Radical" is strictly linked to "using violence" or «favoring, supporting, or representing extreme forms of religious fundamentalism», which is really not the case of NRPTT. This is the motivation why they prepended the "Nonviolent" label to the english name.

So by using this short TRP name (never used by the ONG itself in international occasions) he denies the very essence of the Nonviolent nature of the Party, beginning from its the name. I really do not understand why he wants to depict this ONG in that bad way, which is not correct, and badly offensive to them. For sure it is not neutral. Very different is in the Italian case. In fact, in Italy the "Partito Radicale" had a very distinctive identity in political struggles with nonviolent means. Also in political science in Italy and France the word Radical has very different meaning than in the US. So no one in Italy could ever think that Radical could mean Violent at first, that's why you could call them Partito Radicale Transnazionale without make any harm.

Then, as the name of this ONG is officially "Nonviolent Radical Party Transnational and Transparty", and is so known at the ONU ECOSOC, and they use it in every occasion, and this is very different in meaning from the one Checco want to use, I really am not able to understand why he want to call them in another way? To Wikipedia, don't they deserve their very own name?

If his problem is to maintain it in sync with the Italian page, why don't change that italian page to the more correct name? -- Exedre (talk) 16:56, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

I am not a frequent editor of it.Wikipedia and a Wikipedia can't be a source for another Wikipedia, however it was striking to me that in Italian the party is most often referred to as Partito Radicale Transnazionale. In my view, that name, albeit not the official one, is more representative of the party. We can discuss on another name of course, but let's discuss first. Users can be bold in Wikipedia, but in this case User:Exedre boldness was not agreed by another user (me) and the move was simply reverted. Reverting means bringing an article back to its previous version. In fact, my move was not abrupt. The only abrupt move was User:Exedre's. Before that, the article had been named "Transnational Radical Party" since 20 March 2002 to 5 December 2017, more than 15 years! I would like to specify that I reverted the move and I profoundly edited User:Exedre's version, but I tried to keep most of the relevant contents he added, while improving them. --Checco (talk) 06:48, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Ok, let's discuss. Someone already tried to name this article "Nonviolent Radical Party" in 2005 or so, and you reverted it back then too. My idea is that we are not entitled to change the proper name of an organization just because we feel that it sound better to us. Maybe they deserve their very own name if they choose it. Also, in this situation, the presence or the absence of "Nonviolent" from the name makes difference as the ideas delivered by the name are so distinct, as I tried to explain before.

And then, in Italy, the Radical Party is most referred as... Radical Party, no one I know "often" calls it Transnational Radical Party, as you can easily find in a simple search on Google News for instance for the two names. (22,000 results over 1,550). If you want to maintain a separation between the historical Radical Party, with its electoral connotation, and the new NGO, yet simplifying the name you can use (as the proposal of the precedent redirects) "Nonviolent Radical Party". But I simply do not understand why you want to call something with a different name by its own. (that it's true for it.Wikipedia too). For instance, Amnesty International so far has a page named Amnesty International, which says «Amnesty International (commonly known as Amnesty or AI) ...». Can this be a model for you?

Summarizing: "Transnational Radical Party" is not common and is not correct, so let's find an alternative.

(one last thing: it's you, in your revert, that have used another it.Wikipedia as a source for this one saying « in line also with it.Wiki article» to justify the reverts in the logline.).-- Exedre (talk) 01:55, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

The fact is that, while "Nonviolent Radical Party" could be a good option as article's name, "Transnational Radical Party" is more explicative of the nature of the party/NGO. Surely, in my view, the official name is too long and obscure to be the article's name, in my view. --Checco (talk) 07:27, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

I understand your view but I do not like it because the meaning conveyed by the English name is bad without the word "Nonviolent" (that's why they also changed their name in UN ECOSOC papers), also there is no evidence to support your idea that TRP is the "most common" name in present days, neither in nor outside Italy, as the simpler "Radical Party" is most used. However, I think we should adhere to the same convention that other Wikipedians used for other organizations having different names from those commonly used. In addition to "Amnesty International", of which I have already spoken, I believe that the typical case is that of the Red Cross. Universally known as the Red Cross or Red Crescent (and so users search it), the name on Wikipedia is the long name complete with sub-pages for each of its articulations each with the full official name.

In this regard, in Wikipedia sometimes the initials were chosen, when they are actually the most universally known thing (ie YMCA) or rarely an abbreviation of the full name (I found "Sorel Foundation") when it is actually really in "common use", but in countless and predominant other cases, regardless of the fact that there was another more widespread name, is used the official name, preferably in the English form if exists a reliable translation (as in this case). For example, the "Sindicato Vertical/Vertical Syndicate" (which was the only trade union of Francoist Spain, commonly known by this name) on Wikipedia is cited as the Spanish Trade Union Organization. More hundreds of examples are possible. If the "Transnational" feature is crucial for you we could find a compromise solution like "Transnational Nonviolent Radical Party", which is not the real name nor the most common, but at least not entirely mistaken for me. But I really stand for the proper, complete and real name. After all, redirections exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Exedre (talk • contribs) 08:35, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Let me summarise my thoughts: 1) I do not like long names as article's names; 2) in my view, the most important and interesting character of the TRP/NRP/NRPTT is its "transnational" character (it is no surprise, then, that it has long been referred to as "Transnational Radical Party" and that it.Wikipedia adopts Partito Radicale Transnazionale as article's name). This said, while preferring "Transnational Radical Party", I can live also with "Nonviolent Radical Party". I would kindly ask to the other two Wikipedians who are mostly interested in Italian issues along with me, User:Nick.mon and User:Autospark, to let us know their opinion. --Checco (talk) 14:20, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Well I must admit that I'm not an expert in the history of the Radical Party, but I saw that in it.Wiki the article's name is "Transnational Radical Party", so we could keep it also here. Anyway, if we want to stress the difference from the term "radical" as it's used in the Anglo-American culture, we could name the article "Nonviolent Transnational Radical Party", even if it's a bit long... -- Nick.mon (talk) 14:35, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

The NRPTT is born in 1955 not 1989

Checco, I agree with you. The history of this NGO, should be reported from its foundation, we just don't agree that the foundation is 1989. Alessandro Ranellucci tryed to say the same thing in 2005 without success (see previous discussion in this page). The foundation date is 1955 because this is the only formally traceable date on the organization's own documents. The big image on the heading of the organization own website now stating «1955-2015 sixty years of nonviolent struggles» should suffice as proof (. http://www.radicalparty.org/it/chi-siamo ). Also in the history page (now under construction) of their new site ( https://www.nrptt.org/history/ ) they say: « This page will contain a schematic overview of the campaigns conducted by the Nonviolent Radical Party Transnational and Transparty since its foundation in Italy in 1955, as well as pivotal turning points in its organizational structure.». To me, that is a satisfactory proof that 1989 is the foundation of nothing, without the need of any third source. Are you stating that they are lying in their own website? In fact, there is no foundation or even formal act of "transformation" in 1989 and you should support your point of view with a primary source, avoiding opinions. To prove your view we need an actual act from the organization itself. Since we are talking about a definite deed (closure, transformation, foundation) there must be such a formal act (as a statement or motion, a statute or so), any other source is unreliable. The sheer fact that, on a secondary article in Wikipedia, nobody has been interested in correcting some of these assertions for years, does not mean that these facts have magically become true in the real world, they were simply badly represented in Wikipedia, as it could legitimately be. As someone is now trying to improve Wikipedia content, you should not prevent it on such basis. Where do you get the date of January 1, 1989 as the date of foundation? Why do you consider Marco Pannella the one and only founder of the NGO, when he was not even in charge as secretary (Stanzani) or president (Zevi) at the time? Thanks -- Exedre (talk) 00:49, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

I understand your concerns and also your affection for the Radicals (a sentiment that I share, even though to a different extent), but you need to understand that what a subject says of itself is not necessarily true or correct. That is why we try to adopt a neutral point of view and look for third-party sources in Wikipedia. The PR was not founded as an NGO in 1955 and, until the 1980s, it was solely an Italian political party (I wouldn't say "an Italian political party like others" because the PR's case is peculiar on many respects). For clarity and users' sake, in most Wikipedias we have two separate articles on the PR and the PRT/TRP/NRPTT to highlight the two different phases of the subject. Of course, those phases are connected, but for a lot of reasons it is better to treat the PR and the PRT/TRP/NRPTT separately. That is what we have done also for the Union for a Popular Movement and The Republicans, or Forza Italia (1994), The People of Freedom (2009) and Forza Italia (2013), the Italian Communist Party, the Democratic Party of the Left and the Democrats of the Left, or the New Centre-Right and Popular Alternative, etc.

I much appreciate your interest in contributing to Wikipedia and I will aprreciate it even more if you were to contribute also to articles on other subjects. I perfectly understand that your motivation for editing is truth (or, at least, what you consider to be the truth), but beaware of being just promotional and not neutral. Users like User:Nick.mon, User:Autospark (who fixed my edits to this article) and me spend a lot of time and energy in order to maintain articles up-to-date and preserve consistency. I would be more than happy that, far from being just an one-issue editor, you will help us in all that.

--Checco (talk) 07:27, 18 December 2017 (UTC)