Jump to content

Talk:Brothers of Italy/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

lede: does brothers of italy support liberal democracy?

or does it support Illiberal democracy like fidesz under orban? Gooduserdude (talk) 09:35, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

the reason i reverted several times was due to that i wanted to correct my edit summary Gooduserdude (talk) 08:00, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
the National Alliance (Italy) might have embraced liberal democracy in 1995, but the current wording in the lead implies that the current party supports liberal democracy while the party has more in common ideologically with fidesz under orban (and therefore supports Illiberal democracy), maybe someone could clarify this in the lead (or remove the whole last sentence in the lead like i did) Gooduserdude (talk) 08:26, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

In a meeting of 1995, the National Alliance officially abandoned neo-fascism and embraced the values of liberal democracy. In fact, that's why the Social Movement changed its name to National Alliance. Also, technically Meloni doesn't align with Orban (albeit she is friends with him) but rather with the US Republican party and the European conservative group. However, perhaps the best solution is to remove "Liberal" and leave only "but abandoned neo-fascism and embraced democracy in 1995" if that's an issue.Barjimoa (talk) 08:30, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

AN did abandon neo-fascism. I've found a couple of sources regarding illiberal democracy, although they rather mention "illiberal politics of Meloni", and not directly the party itself. Vacant0 (talk) 13:07, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
I'd also add that self-descriptors in these cases do not matter. Meloni describes herself as a "centre-right" politician, a descriptor that is not used by reliable sources. --Vacant0 (talk) 16:36, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
Moved from User talk:Vacant0
 – --Vacant0 (talk) 16:25, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
@User:Vacant0 on your talkpage, you considered WP:UNDUE to include the sentence "but abandoned neo-fascism and post-fascism in 1995." lets just remove the sentence, it is the best and most simple solution, but because i already got reverted myself, i request you to remove it, so i dont break WP:3RR Gooduserdude (talk) 16:14, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
And Fini, who proudly described himself as "fascist" while head of the MSI, was still the head of the AN. Why would anybody fall for such a blatant rebranding operation? I think one would have to be a fool to take at face value the semantic games played by fascists. Mussolini himself tried to portray himself as a respectable politician working within the accepted norms - before he could install one-party rule. 72.86.132.54 (talk) 22:22, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
personally id prefer this version https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brothers_of_Italy&oldid=1101701395 Gooduserdude (talk) 16:20, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
The US Republican party is itself increasingly illiberal in the policies it promotes. It has long had a range of official and semi-official policies whose purpose is to limit or eliminate the ability of non-Republican supporters to vote in elections (it was under a federal court order for decades prohibiting it from using some of those tactics), and its gerrymandering of national and state voting districts has reached a point in multiple states where it can virtually assure its dominance of government however the public votes. It has also enacted various policies that prevent the reinstatement of voters wrongly excluded from voting, even when backed by legislation and/or referenda. That is by any normal definition an endorsement of illiberal (or "managed") democracy, such as Orban's regime in Hungary or the 70+ years of one-party rule by the PRI in Mexico. 72.86.132.54 (talk) 14:47, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

RfC: Neo-fascism in the Infobox

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
This was a relatively poorly-attended discussion consisting mainly of the Wikipedians who're heavily involved in Italian politics with few uninvolved users opining. I therefore offer its conclusion with relatively low confidence, but as Giorgia Melone looks like she will lead the next government of Italy and the article is attracting a lot of attention, this RfC should be closed now. There is a weak consensus for option 4, and the appropriate edits may therefore be made.—S Marshall T/C 21:47, 26 September 2022

What would be the best option to solve the ongoing dispute regarding the ideologies in the infobox?

Survey

  • Option 4: it is the most balanced solution, it covers all points of view, excluding none, but at the same time it does not automatically describe the party as neo-fascist.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 06:56, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Option 1 or Option 1 but within "Factions". Multiple academic sources support "neo-fascist" as an attribute for FdI, in a number that is comparable with the sources given for other ideologies like right-wing populism and conservatism. These sources currently appear in the infobox footnote,[1] and I do not see a reason why neo-fascist should be hidden in a footnote compared to other equally justified ideologies. Regardless of what the single editors think of the party, Wikipedia should report a summary of what reliable sources claim. The reason why I also support the "factions" option is that some news sources ([1], [2], [3], [4], etc) show that there are specific subgroups inside the party which practice fascist or neo-fascist tradition, symbolism, and propaganda. So this might justify moving "neo-fascist" into "factions". Yakme (talk) 08:15, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Option 1 As of now, there are six academic sources present in the article that describe FdI as neo-fascist. From my research, I've found out that this is a common descriptor that has been used by academics, "post-fascist" and "conservative" are also commonly used descriptors. For example, Đorđe Sredanović used the descriptor "post- or neo-fascist" to describe FdI, New Force, and CasaPound in 2019; FdI distanced from New Force in October 2021 though. I've also pointed out a November 2021 analysis in the discussion above where I mentioned this quote: "Secondly, at the local level, the party has never failed to flaunt its sympathy towards nostalgia of fascism during (online) public assemblies of representative bodies." I also couldn't find any sources that contradict these claims, meaning that reliable sources that explicitly reject that FdI is neo-fascist or post-fascist probably do not exist. Including it in the footnote would give off an unbalanced viewpoint, given that there's either more or less the same amount of coverage that the descriptors in the Infobox received. --Vacant0 (talk) 10:38, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Option 4 is the balanced and source-supported choice. The observation that there are individuals or even groupings, such as local sections, that celebrate the fascist tradition is accurate but cannot be used to describe the whole of the party; a write-up in the Notes section is quite appropriate. Almost all sources cited so far in support of labeling BOI "neofascist" are about efforts of individual neofascists to infiltrate the party and influence its direction. (It's telling that the BOI party itself, as one source cited above reports, routinely distances itself from these activities, when not outright condemning them.) The clamor is mostly about the non-insignificant entrist efforts of a grouping around Roberto Jonghi Lavarini; see e.g. the original report. Sources supporting this position:
Italia Oggi: "a center right [party candidate]"
La Repubblica: "Giorgia Meloni non ha nulla a che fare col fascismo del Ventennio. Ha abiurato il fascismo" ("[party leader] Giorgia Meloni wants nothing to do with 1920s' fascism". She has renounced fascism.")
Vanity Fair: "Un partito di estrema destra per la prima volta alla guida di una grande economia dell’Eurozona sarebbe un evento sismico." ("A far-right party at the helm of a major Eurozone economy for the first time would be a seismic event.")
Il Giornale: interview of Massimo Cacciari, philosopher, public intellectual, and former member of the Italian communist party. "Fratelli d'Italia è una destra sociale, un'identità storica della destra che l'Europa ha conosciuto spesso, e che si muove in territori dove la sinistra ha smobilitato completamente: i quartieri popolari, le periferie, i ceti a basso reddito." ("Brothers of Italy is a social right [party], a historical identity of a right that Europe has often known, and which moves in territories where the left has completely demobilized: the common-people neighborhoods, the suburbs, the low-income classes.").
Sky TG24: "Elezioni, Meloni: centrodestra reggerà? Già governato senza problemi" ("Elections and [BOI leader] Meloni: will the center-right hold up? They already governed without problems.")
Left: "Fratelli d’Italia, come tutta l’estrema destra in Europa, è espressione degli interessi di una minoranza ricca e privilegiata. Attaccare Meloni perché 'fascista' semplicemente non funziona" ("Brothers of Italy, like all the far right in Europe, is an expression of the interests of a rich and privileged minority. Attacking Meloni because [she is a] 'fascist' simply does not work.")
and so on.
The text is fine as it is. -The Gnome (talk) 11:32, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
I do not think that [a]lmost all sources cited so far in support of labeling BOI "neofascist" are about efforts of individual neofascists, in fact the sources cited above[1] are not referring to single individuals but to the whole party, and by the way they are as recent as 2021. On the other hand, bringing up interviews and opinions about the future of Italy under Meloni, or about Meloni herself, does not necessarily make a great point in regards to categorizing the FdI party ideologically based on reliable sources. I am still not convinced that – based on what academic sources claim – the party cannot be defined as neo-fascist as a whole. Yakme (talk) 11:44, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
Also, the fact that the party routinely distances itself from these activities is not 100% true, see for example this instance. Yakme (talk) 12:08, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
Could you point out specific positions taken by BOI that would qualify the party as neofascist or even post-fascist? Intolerance towards immigrants or Euroscepticism do not, on their own, a neofascist party make. Otherwise, the Conservative party of Britain, for example, would qualify as such. -The Gnome (talk) 21:51, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
I already pointed out instances in which party members have shown to be fascists/neo-fascists, there are plenty in the news. On top of the ones I already cited above, see also more celebrations of the Duce, with memorabilia in their regional headquarters, and even Nazi memorabilia. And I just did a quick research, there are more examples for sure. Yakme (talk) 07:14, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
The question posed here is about the ideological position of the party itself; not about its members of even some sections of it. If it was about individual members or local sections I'd have no opposing argument. But almost all the media that we can use, which does not include polemical political media or engagé works, does not go as far as labeling Fratelli d'Italia neofascistic. A few weeks ago I was arguing in support of denoting Movimento Sociale Italiano as neofascist. That was based on solid evidence coming from (a) the party's leading personalities, (b) the party's platform, and (c) the party's actions & activities. They were all proud acolytes of Mussolinian fascism and attempting, if anything, to ameliorate "hard fascism" into something more palatable to the electorate - hence, the term "post-fascist." But practically nothing of the sort exists regarding Fratelli. Some academic sources indeed deploy the term "neo-fascist," yet do not support that use with solid evidence. Once again, I refer interested parties to the relevant, seminal works by Marxist political philosopher Nicos Poulantzas in which, among other things, he has dismissed conclusively the Left's reflexive, wide, and entirely false use of the term "fascist" for regimes such as Portugal's and Greece's dictatorships. They're indispensable for anyone after accurate political terminology. -The Gnome (talk) 10:12, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
Sorry, but what you are claiming to be doing (a reasoning like [...] based on solid evidence coming from (a) the party's leading personalities, (b) the party's platform, and (c) the party's actions & activities) is called original research on Wikipedia: we should not be making our own conclusion and logical reasoning by putting together "evidence" to prove a point. We need reliable sources that explicitly make a statement that we can report on WP. As it happens in this case, we have exactly this! We have six academic sources, scientific publications, that – when mentioning the party FdI – call the party "neo-fascist". In my opinion: (1) We cannot just ignore nor give its due weight to such a considerable number of scientific publications.[1] (2) We cannot consider media sources as higher-value with respect to academic sources. (3) We cannot use direct statements by party leaders or party platforms as proof for anything, really, as these count as primary sources. From WP:PRIMARY: Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so. An additional note for this case: obviously FdI party leaders are always going to deny neo-fascism because it's a label that currently in Western Europe is very much despised and gives a very negative publicity to the party. But in general we should not trust politicians to be accurate about their party's political positions, as most of their statements/interviews are usually made for publicity and campaigning. This is why secondary reliable sources like academic publications are some of the best we can take from. Yakme (talk) 07:56, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
Much ado about nothing, Yakme. I am not doing any kind of "original research"! Of course I'm not. I never do. And I loathe the intrusion of the practice into Wikipedia. There has been no synthesis or analysis from my part of what the party's leading personalities, its platform, or its actions & activities signify. I was, as always, strictly invoking reliable sources that report on what the party's leading personalities say and do, on what its platform offers, and on its actions & activities are, and what they signify as to what Movinmento Sociale Italiano was ideologically. (I hope you noticed that my reference was specifically to the MSI, in support of my position that the same path must be followed for the FDI party.) I already presented a small sample of those sources in the RfC about MSI. My position about Brothers of Italy is formulated on exactly the same basis: sources. Of which, I also presented here a small sample. End of story. -The Gnome (talk) 16:07, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
Yet another example of Romano La Russa, FdI member in the Lombardy government, and brother of FdI founder Ignazio La Russa, doing the roman salute five days before a national election: link. Yakme (talk) 09:08, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
Such a practice, if adopted, would open the door for all sorts of synthesis and arbitrary assertions for political parties, which would be based on the positions of factions within a party. And it would be a major mistake for an encyclopaedia. We should make every effort to keep out of Wikipedia ideological battles, since the latter are typically economical with the truth. -The Gnome (talk) 10:48, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Option 4. The infobox should be restricted to what is verifiable and uncontested. A footnote saying it "has been also described as neo-fascist by some academics" is verifiable and, I presume, uncontested. The "he said..she said" business can be dealt with in the relevant section of the article (where it's not dealt with particularly well at present, considering the wealth of sources provided here on the talk page). Scolaire (talk) 17:41, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Option 5. The party, as a whole, has nothing to do with fascism, neo-fascism and post-fascism. More specifically, FdI is not a fringe far-right party, but a mainstream conservative one, which is recently wooing several liberals and centrists, notably including Giulio Tremonti, Marcello Pera and Carlo Nordio (the first two former Socialists). Arguably, neo-fascism was no longer a character of the MSI in its latest decades and was surely not party of AN's ideology either. As I wrote above, FdI is, at best, a post-post-post fascist party, similarly to Spain's PP. Recently, I found particularly interesting what Stanley G. Payne, Jaume Vicens Vives and Hilldale Professor Emeritus of History at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, had to say on the issue: "The Movimento Sociale Italiano, a significant minority party, once seemed the best candidate for neofascism, but moderated and mutated continuously in order to win votes. By the 1990s it had morphed into the Alleanza Nazionale, a relatively standard and anodyne center-right parliamentary group. A valid rule of thumb is that the more important an extremist group, the less truly neofascist it is. Conversely, the more genuinely neofascist, the smaller, more ­isolated, and doomed to irrelevance" ([5]). --Checco (talk) 20:32, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
An op-ed in a conservative magazine like First Things definitely does not compare to reliable sources like the academic sources that have been presented. Yakme (talk) 07:24, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Option 2–4 would be my favourites. This party is still more moderate than most neo-fascist parties such as FN, CPI or NPD and this should be clearly seen it is still influenced by fascism unlike the Sweden Democrats which began as a neo-nazi group too. Braganza (talk) 12:09, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
I would also like to point out that Serbian Radical Party, Svoboda and Our Homeland Movement do not include neo-fascism in their infoboxes Braganza (talk) 12:14, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
Which is more accurate than the fatwa issued by a few other academics, some of whom have been invoked in the article and this discussion, that condemns the BOI party itself as being fascistic. Hence, a note in the infobox is the evidently proper placing of that information of nuance. Take another example: Studies have shown that there are many racists voting or agitating in support of Lega Nord. Would we label that party "racist" as a whole? We shouldn't, because there's no support of that either, in sources. -The Gnome (talk) 08:29, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
How can you claim that several independent academics are together in a fatwa against FdI? Why would they do that? It seems like something a FdI party member would say to attack the "radical leftist academics". Anyway, an editor added another source (although not an academic study) stating: there are wings in the party linked to the neo-fascist movement. In my opinion this is adding support for the "Factions" option, as it clearly states that there are factions of FdI that are neo-fascist. And finally, the example of "racism" within LN is completely inappropriate, as (1) racism is not a political ideology, and (2) we do not determine the "ideology" section based on what party voters do or think, but only based on what WP:RS state about the party itself or party members. If multiple reliable sources stated that LN policies were "racist" then we would definitely have to at least mention it in the text, but not as an infobox ideology of course because it is not an ideology in the first place. Yakme (talk) 06:17, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
The remark about some academics bundling FDI among the European neofascist political formations denotes the basic arbitrariness of that categorization; not some kind of collectively planned stance. We know there are individuals (a better word than "elements") within FDI that are neofascist and we know this from many available sources. About "wings"? There are no official factions or groupings within FOI that are neofascist. The term "faction" denotes something specific. (Incidentally, the Wikipedia entry for "political faction" is atrocious.) We simply do not have enough sources denoting FDI as a "neofascist" party - with evidence (and not by simply using epithets). By the way, did I mention how much I care about what an FDI member says? I didn't? Feel free to guess.
As to your disputing that racism is a political ideology, of course it is! It was official policy of the NSDAP, and its many imitators at the time; and let's not ignore that pure, unadulterated racism was part of the platform of many parties advocating eugenics, among other things in their platform. Per available evidence, the KKK is today a political organization with an explicitly racist platform. There are more. So, the fact that we are unable to find adequate and enough citations for FDI being racist party, which they aren't (and that is why we are unable to find them), does not mean that there no citations about any organization being racist. -The Gnome (talk) 11:16, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
Your examples of Nazi Party and KKK show exactly what I was stating, indeed both articles do not have "Racism" in the list of political ideologies in the infoboxes, even though they are parties with racist platforms. Instead they have actual political ideologies like Antisemitism or White supremacy. Yakme (talk) 12:48, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
I don't see why you feel these examples vindicate your position but enough is enough. If we have sources stating that BOI are antisemitic or white-supremacist or racist, etc, we're perfectly entitled to have such notations in the article. Otherwise, no, we're not - irrespective of how strongly we personally feel about the subject. The Wiki-verifiably description is not that BOI is a neofascist party. The current status is entirely adequate. -The Gnome (talk) 11:04, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
They do not vindicate my position about FdI, but they show that racism is not considered a political ideology – indeed it is not present in their infoboxes and they are history's most racist parties I could think of! The Wiki-verifiably description is not that BOI is a neofascist party: I still do not agree with this in principle, given that the majority of academic sources we have mentioned agree in calling FdI "neofascist". Yakme (talk) 08:41, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
We're not supposed to quote and invoke sources uncritically. Otherwise, we'd quote all sorts of bogus or semi-bogus science tnat has not yet been identified as such. Those academic sources, a large part of which I have personally examined, are mostly performing what on Wikipedia we have determined is "synthesis". (I have already stated, in a previous, similar discussion, about MSI, that I have endeavored quite thoroughly into the modern political history of Italy.) They fail, first of all, to determine what constitutes a "fascist party", which ipso facto makes their chartacterization rather unstable. I re-iterate that labeling Fratelli as a neofascist party would be a serious misstep. The current status of the article is fine. -The Gnome (talk) 10:02, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Discussion

References

  1. ^ a b c Mammone 2015; Benveniste, Campani & Lazaridis 2016, p. 36; Campani & Lazaridis 2016, p. 45; Kuhar & Paternotte 2017; Jones & Pilat 2020; Bosworth 2021
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Post-fascism

Italian wiki which obviously knows better than we do have post-fascism in ideology section and with Edits locked. Sort it out i am friends with loads of members who are neo and post-fascists and they want a moderate constitutional variant of fascism thats what they say amongst themselves. Publicly they deny this to appeal to more voters but they constantly signal post-fascism to its voters to assure them that that they still follow the Italian Social Movement tradition of the social right. Ghostangel1 (talk) 17:14, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

  • There is an ongoing RfC above, you can give your opinion about it there. Vacant0 (talk) 21:01, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
  • "Post-fascism" is how MSI defined itself as an alternative to "neo-fascism". AN abandoned "neo-fascism" and "post-fascism" and switched to "National Right", which is the current ideology of Borthers of Italy. These terms have precise meanings in Italian politics, let's not make confusion. Barjimoa (talk) 09:17, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
  • It does not work like that, Ghostangel1. Neither what "other Wikipedias" have in their respective article, nor what our own personal experience has been amount to anything of substance. In Wikipedia, sources rule the roost. End of story. If another Wikipedia's article contains more sources than the English Wikipedia, then that is indeed helpful in the sense that we can use those sources here as as well. But this does not mean the Wikipedia article written in the language of the subject's nationality (in this case, Italian) is perforce more reliable than the English Wikipedia article. Again: It's all about sources. For more about my position on the specific subject see above. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 11:33, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
left-wing straw man arguments driven by left-wing, marxist hate. By your own logic any party left to the SocialDemocrats is basically a communist party if you just mirror your critical standards you impose on the right of center parties.
And wikipedia is clearly not the ministry of truth and never will be. 80.131.56.43 (talk) 02:05, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
This is typical WP categorisation argument nonsense. Instead of writing vast tomes on the talk page arguing whether this party is or is not fascist, how about someone writes a small section on this party's key policies, and let the reader sort it out for themselves. Currently this is only a part-article. 14.2.200.220 (talk) 01:31, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Selective refs?

Change "right-wing populist" to "far-right". Literally the evolution of historic fascism, and it's supposed to not be far-right? And no, putting it in some small font in a box isn't an adequate substitute to putting it on the first line. Also, 'populist' means nothing, practically... not even sure why anyone uses it anymore, being some kind of a magic trick... but the fact it's the word that replaced what would adequately describe it makes it ludicrous. Also, there's LOTS of refs out there describing it as far-right, including many on huffpost itself (1 of the 3 refs present now)... so, really, nobody can argue this is due to refs, as clearly they're being selected intentionally (and if I should presume there's many more that have the 'far' than not). I noticed exactly this being done on the Sweden Democrats page too, and it just so seems like there's some PR being done by the parties themselves, possibly (or their voters, of course)... as an encyclopedia a spade should be a spade, not a "really-a-bit-central-but-right-and-supposedly-doing-what-the-voters-want-but-in-reality-as-usual-a-tale-of-greed" etc... also a bit strange that this page was debating whether the evolution of historic fascism is neo-fascist... if it's not then what is? Like, it's one thing for random comments on social media to randomly try to gaslight, but how could an encyclopedia make an effort (contrary to many reliable refs, mind) to pretend fascist parties don't exist anymore and somehow they're all sensible people who just want a little genocide...? It's not like sources everywhere aren't calling them far-right, so it's not like people elsewhere will miss it, but surely this site should reflect that...? 80.42.140.247 (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Aidan9382 (talk) 19:00, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Can an article like this be balanced?

I understand that some users find very difficult to be balanced, when they have strong political opinions and bad feelings on some political parties. This article has been improved in recent days, but it still contains unbalanced, biased or, at best, redundant and irrelevant information. One example: "A general election candidate was sacked after praising Adolf Hitler. While he remained a candidate, FdI removed its symbol from his candidature. He was elected in the single-district constituency of Agrigento, Sicilia, with 37.8% of the vote". How can this information one one single candidate out of hundreds be relavant? Any reasonable user would understand that that information should be removed. Articles should give a broad perspective on parties. Just think about the Democratic Party and the handful of candidates who were accused of anti-Semitism and anti-Israel sentiments during the electoral campaign: to cite them in spite of a general position of the party against anti-Semitism and in favour of Israel would be quite controversial. In general, information or sections on "controversies" should be avoided. Think about it. -- Checco (talk) 06:31, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Think about it: how is it not relevant that a major party elects a Nazi in the Italian parliament? Yakme (talk) 06:36, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
To call that candidate a Nazi is a long shot. More importantly, he is just one in about 200 elects and he is no longer a party member. Anyway, if that is what you think, I am sure you will update the article on the Democratic Party, adding information on "anti-Semitic" candidates and elects. Quite the contrary, I think that adding bias to articles is not a good thing and, by the way, today it is not the first time you have infringed the three-revert rule (on "the", which is used in most English-language sources, when referring to "the Brothers of Italy"). This said, generally speaking, articles should be balanced and give a broad perspective of parties. It should be a shared effort. --Checco (talk) 06:51, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
Indeed the sentence correctly stresses that the guy is no longer a party member, I do not see the controversy.
Regarding "the" I opened a discussion section, as you should have done. So I do not think I am being non-collaborative, on the contrary. Yakme (talk) 06:54, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
My point is quite simple: information on individual members of broad, big-tent parties should not have place in articles on parties. My standard is the same here and in the PD article. --Checco (talk) 08:08, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
We mention its multiple centre-right candidates and one extremist candidate, who got international coverage from the BBC (unlike the others, which are from Italy but is fine by me to contextualize the whole thing; the party wouldn't have gotten the results it did without broading its appeal and gaining centre-right voters and candidates) and is therefore due. As for the comparison with the PD, there is controversy about anti-Zionism on whether any criticism of Israel is antisemitism, while this is essentially a Nazi being elected to the Italian Parliament, as stated by Yakme — they aren't even remotely relatable. By the way, even though I didn't ! in the RfC, I do agree with Yakme that we can't ignore the academic sources describing the party as 'neo-fascist' but I'm fine with the current structure and I like the compromise I helped put in place was appreciated. Likewise, I think mentioning both the centre-right personalities and the single Nazi candidate is a good compromise. Davide King (talk) 12:32, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
Yes Checco's position is particularly confusing because he himself added information on individual members in the case they were considered to be more centrist. So I guess I agree with Davide's take on this: if we report individual members' positions stressing that they are more moderate/centrist, then why shouldn't we report a case where a member is a Nazi? In my opinion this is even more relevant – let's not forget that en.wiki readers are not just Italian people, and by other countries' standards being an open Nazi is sort of a big deal. Yakme (talk) 06:59, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
There is a big difference. Nordio, Pera, Tremonti, etc. are leading members of the FdI party and newspapers have long covered them, while the other one is an obscure former member and not a Nazi, btw. --Checco (talk) 06:21, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
Nordio, Pera, Tremonti, etc. are leading members of the FdI party this is definitely not true, given that they were introduced in the FdI electoral list less than a month ago, and before that had little-to-nothing to do with the party. Leading party members are Meloni, La Russa, Crosetto, Lollobrigida, I would say. But anyway, the point is that there is no "rule" stating that we cannot report individual members' details on this article, and surely having radical positions like being a supporter of Nazism is relevant enough to be inserted in the text. Yakme (talk) 12:32, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
Again, Nordio, Pera, Tremonti, etc. are recent entries in the party, but were given the status of leading candidates, topped electoral lists and are now leading voices in the party, while the one, who is not a supporter of Nazism per se, was an obscure, second-tier candidate (a better source on his statements is needed). Newspapers were and are full of articles on Nordio, Pera, Tremonti, etc., while the other fact was barely mentioned. --Checco (talk) 04:24, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
Being a leading candidate in election lists does not mean at all that the person is a "leading member" of the party, especially in the Italian system. At the very least, it's debatable. I see that you keep changing your position, since you started this discussion with My point is quite simple: information on individual members of broad, big-tent parties should not have place in articles on parties and now you are advocating for a selection of individual members (made by whom?) to be kept on the article. I say we should go with what WP:RS cover and state. I am not arguing for the removal of Nordio etc, I am arguing for keeping the information about an FdI candidate who made a lot of news coverage about him, because of his support of Hitler. See The Guardian, BBC, euronews, Der Spiegel, and then Repubblica, Corriere, il Fatto Quotidiano, Quotidiano di Sicilia, il Post, and many others. Yakme (talk) 07:59, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
Again, leading members and/or candidates matter, obscure and marginal individual members do not. --Checco (talk) 05:43, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
Says who? What matters is what WP:RS cover and what meets general notability. Yakme (talk) 11:44, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
There are reliable sources on just about everything: our role as editors is to choose what is relevant. Clearly, the information about that candidate is not particularly notable. A reading of Wikipedia:Criticism is quite helpful. --Checco (talk) 16:50, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
Honestly, this is a masterpiece of void statements: "There are reliable sources on just about everything" Again, says who? Certainly there are no reliable sources stating that cows have 10 legs, for instance. WP:RS are the foundation of Wikipedia, ad if many RS covered extensively this episode of a party member being a Nazi supported, then it meets WP:DUE, and can definitely be mentioned in the article. Yakme (talk) 13:26, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
There are many irrelevant infos that are covered by reliable sources, so what? --Checco (talk) 17:48, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
Again and again and again: irrelevant says who? If multiple important media networks around the world talk about it, then it means that by WP standards it is notable enough to be mentioned. Yakme (talk) 05:29, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
"Too much information = zero information". Again and again and again: there might be multiple sources and neverending information on each and every aspect of a subject, but obviously not everything should be part of a WP article. --Checco (talk) 13:04, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
The same, of course, would apply to this but I wouldn't want to remove that either. I think it's pretty balanced and we even say the Hitler candidate was sacked. There's no need to remove it. Davide King (talk) 16:19, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
Arguably, both informations are redundant and can be removed. I am open to a discussion on the subject. --Checco (talk) 06:18, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
there might be multiple sources and neverending information on each and every aspect of a subject no, that is simply not true! If an event is extensively covered by multiple, international, reliable sources, this is not a very "common" thing that happens to each and every detail of any subject. On the contrary it means, by definition, that this is something notable enough to deserves a mention here on WP. Yakme (talk) 09:40, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
Again, if we were to add each and every information "extensively covered by multiple, international, reliable sources", articles would be endless. It is up to us editors to write good articles, that are sourced, complete and balanced, while not being excessively verbose. --Checco (talk) 06:18, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
if we were to add each and every information "extensively covered by multiple, international, reliable sources", articles would be endless: this is just a random opinion (very likely without a factual base), certainly not a verified evidence. Being covered by so many reliable news media is not a common thing, it's actually quite impressive and makes the event quite notable. I absolutely do not think that sentence in particular makes the article "verbose". The subject definitely meets the WP inclusion criteria. I don't think we have to keep going on this given that after 10+ exchanges it's clear that we cannot agree. Yakme (talk) 08:11, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
Surely, we will not agree, even though what I wrote is so logical and common sense that I am quite surprised by your insistence in trying to prove the opposite. --Checco (talk) 19:54, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
I am not trying to prove anything. I am grounding my comments based on what many top-level international reliable sources cover. This is the Nth times I am writing this, and you completely ignore basic evident facts, and also WP policies. You are trying to prove (without actually any proof) that sometimes, randomly, some notable information should not appear on WP, based on editors' opinions. This is not how this works. Yakme (talk) 09:27, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
If we were to include in an article on a subject all the infos that are sourced, that article would be endless. Clearly, it is up to editors to write articles that are both complete and restrained. Just a silly example: there might be several sources on the Meloni's height, but still that would not be relevant to the article, in my view. The fact that one obscure candidate said something has little impact on the party, especially as that person was never a leading figure and now he is no longer a member of the party. --Checco (talk) 21:44, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
This article is about Brothers of Italy, a political party – it should include stuff about politics. Meloni's height has obviously nothing to do with party politics. Unless, for example, in an alternate reality, multiple reliable sources would stress some link between her policies and her height: in that case, WP editors could and should add details on the link between her height and her politics to the article, since it would meet the notability criteria (for example the article Napoleon has a paragraph about his height because it has been a notable theme of study and controversy). So, your example has no effect. The news about a party member making comment praising Hitler – an extremely relevant political figure – has been covered by all main international media and it makes a lot of sense to add it to the party article. But again, no need to keep going back and forth as you appear to not understand my point, and we appear not to be able to agree on this. Current status quo is retained. Yakme (talk) 08:14, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
Meloni's height (I thought about it with reference to the article on her, not this) was just an example of how a well-sourced information may not be relevant. Who decides that the information of the former FdI member, a very obscure figure with no relevance, is relevant? That can be decided only through consensus. The status quo ante was without any reference to this candidate, thus, if we are talking about established consensus, of course that information is not established consensus. It is quite obvious that contents should be supported by both sources and consensus. Also, their presentation is consensual. Otherwise, if users were able to add whatever they want, articles would be endless and quite chaotic—as it.Wiki articles tend to be. This is general principle that anyone should easily understand. --Checco (talk) 11:27, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
There seems to be a misunderstanding on how WP works. In fact, WP does not work based on the opinions of editors, it works based on reliable sources. Who decides that the information of the former FdI member, a very obscure figure with no relevance, is relevant? Response: reliable sources. I have just proven to you that the instance we are discussing is indeed relevant enough, by definition of "relevance" on Wikipedia (see for example the notability criteria). I have shown that many reliable international top-tier news networks have covered the event, therefore deeming it relevant enough. What you brought to the table is your personal opinion that this event is not notable, without any backing with factual evidence. An encyclopedia is not an average of random opinions, it is based on evidence. Yakme (talk) 09:47, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
I also think that there seems to be a misunderstanding on how Wikipedia works in your reasoning, but logic is what is really missing. There is no way that all sourced information on a subject can be part of the article on that subject. It is evidently impossible and not beneficial to the article. If this were the case, articles would be endless. It is up to us editors to dicuss what is relevant to an article and how to present it, otherwise Wikipedia could be well written by a machine, not by editors. It is perfectly OK to rewrite articles in order to clean-up redundaent information, especially from a historical perspective. That is what good editors do all the time. For instance, you had your good reasons to not include any reference to the PDIUM in the MSI's article's lead, but in that you found the opposition of two users. This is how consensus works. --Checco (talk) 15:08, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
I won't be probably able to convince my sparring partner, but I think this discussion, despite being already too long for newcomers, is useful. We need to have a balance in Wikipedia. Usually, individual facts on individual party members, let alone obscure ones, do not get into the article of that party. Just think of Andrew Cuomo or Anthony Weiner: the two's "misadventures" were extensively covered by the media, but of course there is no mention of them in our article on the Democratic Party (United States)! --Checco (talk) 20:44, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Again, this is not just some "sourced information". In this case all major reliable news networks in Italy, in Europe and in the US, covered the subject in relation to the FdI party and to the latest election. FdI is a very small and short-lived party compared to the US Democratic Party, so obviously in that case there is a necessity of being more concise – the two cases cannot be compared. Here, given the amount of coverage that this event had, and given the current length of the article, it is perfectly fine that the extensively covered information about some Nazi sympathies among party members is given in the text. Yakme (talk) 16:47, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
One obscure member who once misspoke and was immediately ejected? Seriously? --Checco (talk) 17:24, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
The evaluation on the relevance of the subject is not going to be done by us, it is evident looking at (I repeat this for the 1000th time) all major news networks talking about this, in relation to the party and the last election – a major turning point for the history of Brothers of Italy, where all international media has spent pages and pages describing and analyzing the far-right neo-fascist roots of this party. Yes, a member of the party being a Nazi supporter is definitely relevant, given the context. Yakme (talk) 09:59, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
It is not definitely relevant. This is just your own opinion. There is no WP rule that dictates mentioning the issue. Its relevance is to be discussed by editors. Again, major news networks talk about several issues connected to this political party, but not all those infos are included in this article or need to be included. As of now, it is mainly your opinion against mine. It is about consensus, not sources! Sources are only the precondition.--Checco (talk) 14:24, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
You are wrong, it is not my opinion, it is the opinion of all major international news networks. They deemed the issue relevant enough to cover it, even if in principle it could look like a detail on a minor candidate in a small town in Italy. On the other hand, saying that the issue is not relevant is just your opinion – not supported by any objectivity. Also, I think I have the support of other editors like Davide King. Yakme (talk) 09:35, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, are we still discussing this? As for consensus, I have not checked the edit history yet, but Checco appears to be the only to be opposed and seems to fit WP:SILENCE, and we don't need to have an RfC anytime a single user disagree if no other users seem to have problem with it. Perhaps in the future all this will be irrelavant but for now there appears to be significant coverage for it and is clearly relevant due the party's ambiguous stances on its neo/post-fascist past. After all, they chose it as their candidate. Davide King (talk) 15:22, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
There was no significant coverage in the Italian media, but I acknowledge that several international news outlets mentioned the news. No WP policy mandates that all the sourced infos on a subject should fit in its article. This said, with User:Davide King's intervention, there is a (weak) consensus on keeping that information for now. Two users against one, not a strong consensus, though. --Checco (talk) 17:14, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

"The" Brothers of Italy?

Definitely not the most common name. See 240,000 hits vs 5 million+ hits. Most times when it's "the Brothers of Italy" it's actually because the text states "the Brothers of Italy party", which might make sense. Otherwise, as a proper name it does not have the article before it. Yakme (talk) 06:40, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

This is one case in which Google hits do not tell the right story. I do not know which English-language newspapers you read, but really the party is mostly referred as "the Brothers of Italy". This said, it is not a big deal to me and I will definitely not infringe the three-revert rule, as you have done, to impose my view. It is really not a big deal, but maybe other users will have their say. I appreciate that you started this thread. --Checco (talk) 06:59, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
Guardian and BBC do not use "the", while the NY Times does. Indeed let's see whether other editors have more insight, given that Google hits are not enough apparently.
You can't complain about the 3 revert rule if your usual editing strategy is: "I make an edit, someone reverts my edit, and I will revert back until they break the revert rule first". Indeed it's not a mathematical rule: one can be disruptive also with one single revert per day (see for example what you are doing on the Lega article day by day since 17 September). In some cases your behavior, as well as mine, is not among the best standards of WP practice (and from my side I am certainly not proud of it). Yakme (talk) 07:16, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
I perfectly know that, despite being rude, you are a honest and co-operative editor. For my part, I am quite consistent: I am always open to debate and compromise, while staunchly supporting Wikipedia:Consensus (especially "in discussions of proposals to add, modify, or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit"). Thus I backed down on "the" beacause the established version was without "the" and my bold edit was legitimately challenged by you, while I am entitled to revert bold edits that are not supported by consensus or have been challenged by one or more users. --Checco (talk) 08:08, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Political position

@User:Barlafus: this is not the correct way to act, a user cannot remove information (with edit war) just because he does not agree with it. I don't agree with that political position either, but neutrality comes first: we must report what the sources state. Before removing information from a long-established version of the page you must first find consensus. However no, it is not the same scheme as PCI-PDS-DS: FdI is located more to the right than the National Alliance of the 2000s. Scia Della Cometa (talk) 21:20, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree that we should discuss first, but I also agree with User:Barlafus that "far-right" is misplaced in this article's infobox and intro. The FdI party is the latest evolution of the MSI/AN political family and it is surely to the left of AN. Not only the FdI party is a much broader party including more Christian democrats and liberals, but it is its political program to be clearly more moderate than that of AN. --Checco (talk) 06:18, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
Most academic sources vehemently state that FdI is a far-right party and part of the European radical right. They are listed throughout the article. A consensus was already formed about describing it as "right-wing to far-right" in order to cover all that is found in WP:RS. So, as Wikipedia is founded on sources, it's definitely WP:DUE to have "far-right" among the descriptors of the FdI party. Yakme (talk) 10:47, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
WP:3RR and WP:BRD (optional) exist. I've noticed that EdJohnston noticed this edit warring yesterday; Barlafus did not respond yet. This is clearly a dispute between some editors. We've had a RfC on whether to include neo-fascism in the infobox; it was kept but as a footnote in the infobox. Majority of reliable sources, news and scholar ones, describe FdI as far-right; the consensus is to keep "right-wing to far-right" and this should be only changed via RfC, not with edit-warring. FdI's page is controversial, so I'd suggest to refrain from edit warring and follow WP:BRD instead; this will develop a more healthy environment.
@Checco: If you have any sources that claim that "the FdI party is a much broader party including more Christian democrats and liberals, but it is its political program to be clearly more moderate than that of AN", feel free to present them here. @Barlafus: should read WP:RELIABLE and check WP:RSP; edit summaries such as "there are many leftist sources saying that. But this is an encyclopedia not a political fanzine", "even between the cited “leftist” academic sources", and claiming that certain websites are leftist just because you disagree with the descriptor, are unconstructive, especially when you're edit-warring. Vacant0 (talk) 10:58, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

I mean I myself was wondering why exactly is the political party not labeled in the initial description as a far right party, despite the article itself actually including a source that classifies them as such. I think info could be slightly reorganized so that the label is stated at the beginning; since for example far right parties tend to be populist anyway so the beginning text is a bit redundant. Chefs-kiss (talk) 13:40, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Nationalism

@Checco and @Vacant0: I didn't understand one thing: why do you want to remove nationalism (a source widely covered by the sources for this party) from the infobox? Is there any specific reason? I can't figure out the reason. Scia Della Cometa (talk) 13:03, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

It is all about consensus. A proposal was put forward by User:Davide King (having just two ideologies in the infobox: "national conservatism" and "right-wing populism") and that has now become the article's established consensus. There is no consensus on having also "nationalism", as there is no consensus on having "sovereigntism" in the Lega article and, more generally, on adding every ideology that is sourced. As I argued before, only a few ideologies should be listed in party infoboxes and I stick to that. --Checco (talk) 21:30, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
The infobox is supposed to include ideologies that the party is mainly associated with so, regarding nationalism, we should rather see if that ideology is due enough to be included in the infobox. The current consensus stands that national conservatism and right-wing populism should be in that section, with neo-fascism in the footnote. Any additions should be discussed just for the sake of avoiding edit wars. Vacant0 (talk) 11:09, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
@Vacant0 it's not true that every addition has to be discussed first, Wikipedia doesn't work like that. There was consensus to include those two ideologies, certainly not to exclude others. If there is no consensus to include certain information (or if there is consent to exclude it) it is another matter. But these positions must be justified. So I'd like to know why you're against including this ideology.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 15:32, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
Also, when you removed nationalism from the infobox on August 3 of this year, it doesn't seem to me that you did it as a result of a discussion.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 15:48, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
Read the edit summary: "Nordsieck source only mentions "national conservatism", which is present in the infobox". Vacant0 (talk) 15:51, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
Read again what I've said. I haven't said that discussions must take place for every addition, but that they should in this case so that potential disputes can be avoided. I also never said that I'm against including nationalism, but that "we should rather see if that ideology is due enough to be included in the infobox". I'm aware that sources clearly exist for this description, but would it be helpful to include it alongside national conservatism, a nationalist form of conservatism, and right-wing populism? I don't think so. Vacant0 (talk) 15:49, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
@Vacant0 And why don't you think so? I think the opposite, for example. Furthermore, you recently removed nationalism from the infobox even when I pointed to sources that quoted it explicitly (including Nordsieck)...--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 16:10, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
I think that the infobox should only contain ideologies that the party is mainly associated with, this is in resemblance to MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE which states that "the purpose of an infobox is to summarize key facts that appear in the article", and that "the less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose". There's not a doubt that FdI has been described as also holding other labels, so including every single label in the infobox would not be helpful and would violate the aforementioned manual of style. I'm not against including nationalism if it is actually what the party is mainly associated with, so I think that the best option would be to hold a RfC in order to determine which actual ideologies (or an ideology) should be included in the infobox. I'll look more into what scholars and experts think but as of now I'm in favor of either switching national-conservatism for nationalism (so that this section in the infobox would only include nationalism and right-wing populism) or removing national-conservatism and only keeping right-wing populism. Vacant0 (talk) 14:16, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
@Vacant0 FdI is surely a conservative party, but it seems to me that it is much more often described as a nationalist party than a (right-wing) populist party. Anyway, I totally agree with you to start an RFC on the matter.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 22:29, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
No problem with a RfC. At this time several sources may be confusing, as the party is not primarily nationalist or right-wing populist, but is more properly described as a mainstream conservative party in the British Tories / ECR mould. Hopefully, observers will evolve on the matter. Some, like The Economist have just begun doing that (see the latest special report). --Checco (talk) 07:51, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
@Checco: IMHO this party is not comparable to the British Conservative Party, much more heterogeneous internally than FdI. On the other hand, many sources, including very reliable ones, describe FdI as a nationalist party (after all, why on earth should it be a negative concept?). Anyway fine, let's proceed with an RFC. --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 11:09, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
That source only mentions this:
There is no mention of FdI being described as a "mainstream conservative" party in that source and this "mainstream conservative" description seems to be a description that Meloni actually uses to describe her own party. Vacant0 (talk) 12:34, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
@Checco The League has nothing to do with this discussion, and the consensus about having or not "sovereigntism" is the same as having or not "regionalism", just to say. However, I would also like to know from you why you are against the inclusion of this ideology in the infobox, it is not enough to affirm that there is no consensus or to be against it without explaining the motivations.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 15:38, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
Of course, every editor can do bold edits, but, when those edits are challenged, he/she should refrain from implement them and he/she should seek consensus first. There is no consensus on adding "nationalism" in this articles's infobox, as there was no consensus on adding "sovereigntism" to Lega's infobox. On the merit, I favour having only a few ideologies in infoboxes (big-tent parties like Lega or the SVP may have more, same for longtime parties) and I am fine on having only two encompassing ideologies in this infobox. National conservatism and right-wing populism as clearly the most appropriate and sourced ideologies for FdI. I also favour reducing the ideologies in Lega's infobox. --Checco (talk) 19:48, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
Again, the League is another topic (and regionalism was challenged just like sovereigntism). You have not explained why you are against nationalism (widely supported by the sources), you must provide a reason for your position to be valid. There has never been a consensus to remove nationalism from the infobox, just as there has never been a consensus to keep only two ideologies, this must be clarified.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 20:07, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
Again, User:Davide King's version (having only two ideologies in the infobox, namely national conservatism and right-wing populism) was (possibly boldly) implemented and has since been supported by several users (implicitly or explicitly) and upheld until now. On the contrary, in the Lega's talk page your bold edit of adding "sovereigntism" was challenged by three users and no-one supported you. The FdI's infobox is consensual, "sovereigntism" in Lega's infobox is not. --Checco (talk) 22:01, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
I don't intend to discuss further about other parties here, even if I have not seen three oppositions about that matter. Anyway, I have found the thread you keep quoting about the "Davide King's version" (Talk:Brothers of Italy/Archives/2022/February#Problems of this article). However, it doesn't seem to me that that discussion was actually finished, indeed nationalism, for example, was also removed long after that discussion. I think a broader discussion of which ideologies to list and which not to list would be very useful. How useful would be the motivation (which I have already asked you about) concerning the exclusion of nationalism from the infobox.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 23:00, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

RfC: Ideologies in the Infobox

Which ideologies should be listed in the infobox?

Survey

  • In favor of listing in the infobox: Nationalism (as the main ideology, as the ideology most supported by the sources), National conservatism and Social conservatism (they could be summarized as Conservatism in the infobox) and Right-wing populism in the third place. Decidedly contrary to Ultranationalism, since these sources use the term in an absolutely inaccurate way: the ultranationalism "is an extreme form of nationalism in which a country asserts or maintains detrimental hegemony, supremacy, or other forms of control over other nations" (so absolutely nothing to do with the party we are talking).--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 16:26, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
  • I agree with most of them but i would leave Conservatism, Anti-immigration & Nativism out since they are already part of the other ideologies Braganza (talk) 22:36, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
    • I would strongly support National conservatism, Nationalism and Right-wing populism and i would generally support Anti-immigration, Social conservatism and Ultranationalism too Braganza (talk) 15:53, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
  • I appreciate the current compromise version ("national conservatism" and "right-wing populism"), put forward by User:Davide King, however I would rather have only "conservatism" and "national conservatism". On the other proposals, I have to say that "anti-immigration"i is just a politicy not an ideology, "nationalism" and "nativism" are long shots, "social conservatism" (whish I would accept) is part of "conservatism" and "national conservatism", while "ultranationalism" is really a non-starter. --Checco (talk) 15:28, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
  • I'm in favor of including only nationalism and right-wing populism as these descriptions are mostly used by reliable sources and scholars. --Vacant0 (talk) 15:41, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
    After reading Davide King's detailed comment, I'd be fine with keeping the current compromise too, which is listing national conservatism and right-wing populism only. Vacant0 (talk) 11:40, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
  • National conservatism and Right-wing populism are the party's main ideologies per Vacant0, though I'd have to agree with Yakme that Neo-fascism is also hard to ignore,1 since these are all academic books and not news sources but I'm fine with the current compromise. Both conservatism and nationalism are too redundant and generalized, especially when nationalism it is obviously used to mean (Right-wing) nationalism and/or (Neo-) nationalism, the former of which redirects to right-wing populism. As we write at "Nationalism" with inline references:

    "Nationalism can be combined with diverse political goals and ideologies such as conservatism (national conservatism and right-wing populism) or socialism (left-wing nationalism).[4][16][17] In practice, nationalism is seen as positive or negative depending on its ideology and outcomes. Nationalism has been a feature of movements for freedom and justice, has been associated with cultural revivals,[8] and encourages pride in national achievements.[18] It has also been used to legitimize racial, ethnic, and religious divisions, suppress or attack minorities, and undermine human rights and democratic traditions.[11] Radical nationalism combined with racial hatred was a key factor in the Holocaust perpetrated by Nazi Germany.[19]"

    Anti-immigrant and nativism are either more political positions than ideology, just like Euroscepticism, or already covered by Right-wing populism. As the infobox is supposed to summarize, I support no more than three ideologies (proper ideology, not any political policy ending with -ism) and branches (e.g. national conservatism, social liberalism, etc.) over broad ideologies, unless we and sources can't agree on the proper label or the party is broad enough to justify it.2 More than the label itself, it matters more what sources meant by it, and for this party it makes more sense to link to right-wing populism/nationalism or even neo-nationalism, what those source mean when they refer to the party as 'nationalist', than "Nationalism", since the latter can include anyone from socialists to conservatives. Also what's the point of both Nationalism and Ultranationalism? We should summarize what reliable sources say and avoid redundancy, please. For all that, there's the lead and body.
1. Yes, the more recent is from 2021 and doesn't take their time in government (many governments in liberal democracy have had to moderate, so it's not surprising; just because the party has turned Italy into a one-party dictatorship doesn't automatically void what these scholars, published by the academic or mainstream press, have researched) but it goes back to at least 2015 — we're supposed to summarize a party's evolution or history ideologically, and at the very least we should keep the current footnote about this academic research.
2. Yes, this party, like any other party, has factions but I don't see reliable sources stopping from labelling it as 'national-conservative' and/or 'right-wing populist' as its main ideologies, which is what the parameter in the infobox asks us to list. It isn't like the Democratic Party in the United States. Davide King (talk) 23:34, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Conservatism, Nationalism, and Populism. Just going by the hit counts from sources. National conservatism is a close call; I'd lean against as the hits are fewer, and we already have nationalism and conservatism. As all of these have thousands of hits, and the quality looks good too; i.e. Nationlism has NBC[6], WaPo[7], NYT[8]. Definitely opposed to anything whose hit count is in the hundreds without a terrific showing of quality, which I'm not seeing. Adoring nanny (talk) 16:04, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Mostly agree with Davide King. So National conservatism and Right-wing populism as per sources given. Yakme (talk) 08:46, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
  • I would maintain the ideologies currently shown, National conservatism (this definition includes both Nationalism and Conservatism, in my opinion) and Right-wing populism. I concur with Davide King's explanations. P1221 (talk) 11:17, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Agree with Davide King's general proposal, as in National conservatism and Right-wing populism should be the only ideologies listed. (NB, listing social conservatism and nationalism alongside national conservatism is completely redundant, so I oppose their inclusion in the Infobox. Also "anti-immigration" is a policy position, not an ideology.)--Autospark (talk) 17:05, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Sources

Discussion

Coalition with the Italian Liberal Party

"On March 15, 2016, after initial support for Guido Bertolaso's candidacy, she [Giorgia Meloni] was nominated by the center-right for mayor of Rome, with the support of a coalition consisting of Fratelli d'Italia [Brothers of Italy], Noi con Salvini, Partito Liberale Italiano [Italian Liberal Party] and two civic lists."

https://www.ilsecoloxix.it/italia/2022/09/26/news/giorgia-meloni-dalla-garbatella-verso-palazzo-chigi-storia-di-una-ragazza-di-roma-1.41688568

93.45.229.98 (talk) 11:46, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Changes

I want to have my changes not undone because they are corrections. The information in the article does not completely match the links. For evidence read the links. Braxmate (talk) 10:00, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Okay, let's go through your edits @Braxmate:...
  • Ref 4, 5, and 6 were added on 22 July 2022 (Special:Diff/1099824461) by Saxones288. No one objected to these refs until now and there were no discussions about these refs specifically. I did check one available ref now and FdI is not mentioned in it; I do not have access to other sources. It also seems like these refs were copied from National Rally. @Saxones288: could confirm whether FdI is mentioned in the other two sources or whether the editor just copied the content from National Rally's article without checking the refs. I've added a {{failed verification}} tag next to one ref for now and if FdI is not mentioned in other two refs, a {{citation needed}} should be placed instead of those sources.
  • Ref 2 and 3 back up the claims that FdI is a party of the radical right, so I am not sure why you moved the refs next to far-right. I added Ref 2 while @Yakme: added Ref 3.
  • Although the RfC from September 2022 was poorly-attended, it is still a consensus to keep neo-fascism in the footnote. My opinion on this issue has not changed, but a new consensus will be needed in order to replace the current one. You should read that RfC first before starting a new one, see the reasonings behind why option 4 was actually chosen as the consensus and try to counter the opinions in the new RfC. Until then, the footnote should remain as it is.
  • I've reinstated Special:Diff/1171927911 (the edit in the lede) considering that this is mentioned in backed up in the sources listed.
I did not check the edits in depth until now so I conclude that this is not a case of vandalism but rather bold editing. As I've said, if you want to change the already-existing infobox structure in relation to the party's ideology, you should start a RfC, otherwise your edits will most likely be reverted by a different editor. Vacant0 (talk) 16:56, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for the respons @Vacant0:
  • The sentence should be removed because it is all failed verification. Ref 5 is just using a sentence from the abstract, it makes no mention of Brothers of Italy or Fratelli d'Italia. Ref 6 has no page number, only a google books link to a chapter, but neither chapter nor entire book mention Brothers of Italy or Fratelli d'Italia. It is using a sentence that says "anti liberal but increasingly mainstream and (nominally) democratic far right parties like FPO and RN".
  • It was a cosmetic change. I moved it because there was nothing left for the footnote. It also gives impression that FdI is exactly called radical right but that isn't true in academic literature, it's used interchangeably with far right so seemed like no reason to make point like that.
  • Okay, I have read the RfC and I will start a new one. Your position is correct in the old RfC, the counter argument is very bad, it is not following rule of no original research and based on misunderstanding. It is confusing "center right coalition" that is the formal name of the coalition to ideology to contradict but it doesn't contract (neo-fascist party can be part of coalition which call itself center, center right, center left, left, etc), or it is showing newspaper opinion ref link that says "attacking Meloni because 'fascist' simply won't work" but that can be true even if the party is neo-fascist, or it is non refs based personal opinion that the party not neo-fascist, etc. They all ignore the academic literature in front of them or use this one or two newspaper opinion or media comment to counter which are not academic literature to say "some academics".
  • But editor called Checco has changed it back. It is being done by not following the refs links again, giving a personal reason and also saying it is per the consensus but consensus wasn't about this, it was about the question of putting neo-fascism in infobox, footnote or nowhere. What should be done?
Braxmate (talk) 08:28, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
Regarding the sources for radical right, they should be moved down into the body of the article. You can start a RfC if you think one is needed, I’ll promote it to other relevant WikiProjects and discussions in order to garner more responses. For the last point, I’ll revert the edit because it is WP:OR to claim something that it is not backed up in the listed sources. Vacant0 (talk) 09:10, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Leadership roles

Precisation: Arianna Meloni is not secretary per se but head of the political secretariat, while Edmondo Cirielli is not coordinator per se but coordinator of the national board. The party's number one is Giorgia Meloni, while number two is Giovanni Donzelli. -- Checco (talk) 08:40, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Brothers_of_Italy/Archive_2&oldid=1267474907"