Talk:Union of the Centre (2002)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Name issue[edit]

I have taken the liberty of adding a "local" perspective and to explain the estero riding concept, a novel one except for the Romans who allowed a Citizen of Rome to vote anywhere, but of course at that time Rome owned everywhere. Can't help you with the name, except that the DC (Democrazia Cristiana) is still the calling card and most candidates througout the world for the 12 seats and 6 senatorial seats insist that they are in the tradition of the La Democrazia Cristiana, associated with the economic miracle and the good old days pre-Berlusca, as they "affectionately" call the Cavaliere of Forza Italia.


This article has experienced a number of moves in its recent past, because of different interpretations about its actual correct translation. I looked around to have a look about the translations used in the web, and (surprise!) I have found different ways of translating it even there.

Notably:

  • The Financial Times [1] uses the name "Union of Christian Democrats"; it is used this way also in a San Diego, California website [2] (but the news seems to be taken from Reuters);
  • The AGI, an Italian news agency, uses the notation "Christian Democratic Union" [3] in its English-language version;
  • "Union of Christian and Center Democrats" is instead suggested by the CIA World Factbook [4].

Anyway, the current name is wrong, because it includes with no reason the useless "(Italy)" disambiguation part in the title. The "Union of Christian and Centre Democrats" page exists, and is actually a redirect to this one.

Tell me what to do guyz, I'm gonna hopefully propose a final move for this article. --Angelo 16:57, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cosimo Mele Resigns[edit]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/08/01/wpros101.xml

Guess none of the party noticed him runnign around with hookers and cocane before this? LOL

Still active?[edit]

Is it still active? I understand that it has never been officially disbanded, but is it possible that it simply fell out of activity? According to the article, it has not held a congress since 2008, its leader is the leader of UdC, its secretary is the secretary of UdC, its president is the president of UdC, it has exactly the same number of members as UdC (really?), it has exactly the same number of deputies, senators, MEPs as UdC. Is there still any difference to UdC? --RJFF (talk) 18:30, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pratically there aren't differences, initially Union of the Centre was a federation between UDC and White Rose, then it has become an evolution of UDC. Also the statute and the charges of the UdC are the same than UDC. In Italy, cases like this are Force of the South/Great South and Populars of Italy Tomorrow/Popular Construction. However, for me, UDC can be considered a former party --Maremmano (talk) 20:04, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure whether the latest congress was an UdC one or an UDC one. Moreover, the party still uses the UDC label sometimes, most recently in the 2014 regional election (see here). However, I agree that we should settle the issue someway. What about merging the two articles, explaining that soon after the launch of UdC in 2008, the two parties have become undistinguishable? --Checco (talk) 08:48, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that a merged article is the best solution, unless there is strong enough evidence for UDC dissolving. I may be wrong, but it seems fairly clear that the UdC considers itself a party in its own right rather than an alliance of parties. Worth noting that both the EPP and IDC-CDI both count the UdC rather than the UDC as an current member party (although admittedly the EPP count the UdC as being the original DC!).--Autospark (talk) 12:02, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is complicated. I think that a title such as "Union of the Centre (2002)" would be wrong, but UdC is evidently the evolution of UDC.
A little note: in the 2014 Sardinian regional election the party was present as Union of the Centre and not as UDC ([5], [6]) --Maremmano (talk) 23:54, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We could easily name the joint article Union of the Centre (2002) per Italian Socialist Party (2007). --Checco (talk) 10:38, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In this case the only source that counts is the official one, hence Union of Christian and Centre Democrats.
However the list was Union of the Centre --Maremmano (talk) 21:50, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, it was named Unione dei Democratici Cristiani e Democratici di Centro (once again, here is the official source). --Checco (talk) 07:21, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Union of the Centre (2002) seems fine as a title for a joint article at this point in time.--Autospark (talk) 12:37, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The congress celebrated in 2014 was the 4th, therefore UDC and Union of the Centre are the same party, I agree to the merged article, but I propose the title "Union of the Centre" without date, also because it is the very most important UdC. However in this source([7]) there are the official deposited lists, therefore in the 2014 Sardinian regional election the list was Union of the Centre, but it isn't important, only to specify--Maremmano (talk) 20:58, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is far more correct to have the joint article named Union of the Centre (2002)—and not only because there is already a Union of the Centre (1993). --Checco (talk) 07:47, 11 July 2014 (UTC) Ps: Regarding the 2014 Sardinian regional election, for the fourth time: please don't confuse official sources with secondary ones![reply]

@User:Autospark, User:Maremmano, User:RJFF:
I feel bold today and I'm going to merge the two articles into Union of the Centre (2002). Please note that in it.Wiki the articles were merged into Unione di Centro (2002) (it.Wiki can't be a source for en.Wiki, but it's interesting that they did, with my contribution, exactly what we were discussing a few months ago). --Checco (talk) 09:07, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, that was long overdue, and combining the two articles was a very logical decision.--Autospark (talk) 15:49, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, the merge is right. --Maremmano (talk) 21:40, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Centrist or centre-right?[edit]

I disapprove the classification of the party as "centrist". While it is commonly considered centrist in Italy, the party is not centrist by European standards. Given the fact that the UdC is quite a tiny party, some journalists might not have made enough research on it. --Checco (talk) 09:14, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. It is quite clear from the content of the article, and an understanding of the UDC/UdC and its history, that it is not objectively a centrist party in the widely-recognised sense of the term due to its strongly socially conservative stances. These seems to be the case of English-language journalists taking the name of the party a bit too literally in good faith.--Autospark (talk) 11:18, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ahaa, these "european standards" (what a beautiful original research). Really, this party has been allied both with the centre-right and the centre-left. Normally, a party such as this, situated between the left and the right, is considered "centrist". An information demonstrated by a lot of sources can't be deleted for the personal opinion of two users --Maremmano (talk) 22:23, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Following your reasoning, are the Independent Greeks a left-wing party? Please avoid mockery. --Checco (talk) 14:38, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Evidently you didn't understand my reasoning, all sources indicate the Independent Greeks as a right-wing party. Excluding the only electoral alliance with the Panhellenic Citizen Chariot in 2012, the party has never made other electoral alliances with left-wing parties. However, "European standards" is an empty term without sources, the informations can't be based on original researches--Maremmano (talk) 14:15, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but we should use and interpret sources accurately and put them in the correct context (otherwise, most political terms can be misleading, just think of liberalism, let alone centrism). That is what consensus is all about. --Checco (talk) 16:35, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed the UDC is perfectly a centrist party in our contest and however there isn't the consensus to delete the information--Maremmano (talk) 18:21, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is no consensus to keep it either. Describing the UDC/UdC as "centrist" is a misrepresentation of the party's history and ideology. Terms like centre-left, centre-right (etc) typically refer to a position on the political spectrum, not (as is usually the case in Italian politics) whether a party is affiliated to a specific bloc/alliance/coalition of parties.--Autospark (talk) 19:24, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't a misrepresentation, excluding a proven information for the only volition of two users would be unfair. Indeed an information based on a lot of sources doesn't need consensus --Maremmano (talk) 21:05, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I did not understand what you wanted to said exactly, but you are wrong. Editors of Wikipedia always need to choose between an high number of sources and seek consensus. --Checco (talk) 09:42, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Union_of_the_Centre_(2002)&oldid=1205857988"