Wikipedia

Talk:Brothers of Italy/Archives/2022/February

< Talk:Brothers of Italy
Latest comment: 2 years ago by PrimeBOT in topic Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment


Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

  This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 January 2019 and 20 March 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: TcooneyUCSD.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:21, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Italian nationalism

Latest comment: 4 years ago22 comments8 people in discussion

I know that we had reached an agreement writing "Nationalism (Italian)" and I know that the reference used only the term "Nationalism" but it's quite obviuos that the party's ideology is the "Italian nationalism" (just look at the party's name). So why can't we write Italian nationalism? -- Nick.mon (talk) 12:44, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Nationalism is better written and sourced than Italian nationalism, but I would remove "Nationalism" altogether. --Checco (talk) 15:19, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
To be clearer, in my view the party is not nationalist per se, but national-conservative. "Nationalism" is quite more generic than "national conservatism" and I could argue that also the Democratic Party, especially its leader Renzi, is nationalist. --Checco (talk) 15:48, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
According to me we could write only Nationalism, if we don't want to use the term "Italian". About Renzi, I think he is civic nationalist and one of his focus (maybe only for propaganda) is to make Italy the leading country in Europe; anyway if you agree with me, we could also leave only "Nationalism" which is better than "Nationalism, (Italian)". -- Nick.mon (talk) 17:28, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Only "Nationalism" is an improvement, but, as I said, I would remove "Nationalism" altogether. --Checco (talk) 07:29, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
In my personal view we should mantain "Nationalism". I'm going to remove "(Italian)". -- Nick.mon (talk) 07:32, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
I lean towards just keeping national conservatism in the Infobox - that neatly conveys that the party's ideology combines nationalism + politics on the right. IMO putting Nationalism as in ideology for a party not based on either a pro-independence or irredentist platform seems a bit redundant.--Autospark (talk) 14:38, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Here we go again: the "nationalism" v "Italian nationalism issue! Contrarily to what one may think, the former article is much more relevant in the infobox because it outlines the characters of the ideology called "nationalism": "Nationalism is a political, social, and economic ideology and movement characterized by the promotion of the interests of a particular nation [...]". On the other had, most of what the latter article's intro says is applicable to most Italian parties, notably including the PD: "Italian nationalism asserts that the Italians are a nation with a single identity and seeks to promote the cultural unity of Italy as a country, in a definition of Italianness claiming descent from the Latins who originally dwelt in Latium and came to dominate the Italian peninsula and much of Europe. [...] Italian nationalism is often thought to trace its origins to the Renaissance, but only arose as a political force in the 1830s under the leadership of Giuseppe Mazzini. It served as a cause for Risorgimento in the 1860s to 1870s". Linking to such an article is definitely less useful than linking directly to "nationalism". I stick to the 2015 consensus. This said, I can accept having both "nationalism" and "Italian nationalism", and I still think that the FdI are not a nationalist party, but national-conservative one: there is a difference. --Checco (talk) 14:08, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Checco, you know, I've always preferred "Nationalism" instead of "(Italian) Nationalism", but I sincerely don't know why shouldn't we use "Italian nationalism". Consistency is a quite important thing here, and I've seen very few times a party with only "Nationalism" in its infobox. For example, if you look to the party which can be considered FdI's French counterpart, the National Rally, it is considered a French nationalist party, not simply a nationalist one, and I could say the same for Alternative for Germany. Regarding the fact that FdI isn't a nationalist party, well I don't agree with you, they've always stressed their "patriotic" and "nationalist" stance, so I think we could keep it, moreover Nordsieck is one of the most used and authoritative sources. -- Nick.mon (talk) 18:30, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
I also oppose having "French nationalism" instead of "Nationalism" at National Rally, "German nationalism" instead of "Nationalism" at Alternative for Germany, etc. More generally, I am not happy with the fact that terms like "Nationalism", "Right-wing populism" and "Far-right politics" are used too easily (and, sometimes, with contempt), while "Communism", "Left-wing populism" and "Far-lef politics" are adopted with much more caution. --Checco (talk) 07:02, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
Well, if a party advocates "nationalism", it is obviously a nationalism deeply linked to its own country, so in my view, using Italian nationalism, as well as French nationalism and so on, is the more correct option. However, I would like to know the opinions of other users like Autospark, Wololoo, Ritchie92, Braganza, Facquis, Mélencron, Ec1801011. -- Nick.mon (talk) 11:54, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
Nationalism can differ very drastically depending on the nation as different cultures and social beliefs unique to nations can effect it therefore if a page dedicated to a specific nation's nationalism exists, Italian nationalism for example, then I would link to that instead of the vague general Nationalism page. -- Ec1801011 (talk) 13:03, 13 April 2019 (GMT)
Interestingly enough, Italian nationalism is vaguer than Nationalism. While the former article's content is at least partially relevant to virtually all Italian parties, especially the Democratic Party and Forza Italia, the latter article is more specific about the kind of nationalism FdI supports (national conservatism, in my view). One thing is nationalism of stateless nations (Scottish, Welsh, Flemish, Catalan, Venetian, etc. nationalisms), quite another the more general nationalism which applies to nationalist parties in the so-called "nation-states": on this respect, FdI's nationalism is similar to that of alike parties in other countries. At least, let's have both ideologies. --Checco (talk) 12:24, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Checco I think you are not distinguishing between nationalism and patriotism. What you refer to when talking about the "moderate" Italian parties is Italian patriotism. Also if you go on in reading the lead in Italian nationalism you can find: Italian nationalism has also historically adhered to imperialist theories. which is linked to the right-wing Italian parties. Also, that article explicitly mentions only the current right-wing parties. However, Nordsieck only mentions "Nationalism" in the description of Brothers of Italy, therefore I would keep that one in the infobox. "Italian nationalism" could be linked in the introduction, or as another item in the infobox. I totally agree on the national-conservatism being there too. --Ritchie92 (talk) 14:24, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

It is the article which mixes "Italian nationalism" with "Italian patriotism". By the way, the article on Nationalism is much more appropriate. For the same reason we do not link Liberalism and radicalism in Italy instead of Liberalism. This said, I also agree that having "National conservatism", "Nationalism" and possibly "Italian nationalism". I have no objections on having all three. --Checco (talk) 17:13, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Checco is not arguing in good faith. It's plain that he is somewhere on the right wing, seemingly with affinity for the far right wing, and he keeps moving the goalposts to protect right wing extremists from being described as such. Hence his admonition that it's unfair somehow to describe Italian Nationalists as such. No, he will insist that the accurate label is Nationalists tout court. Then he'll insist that Ultra Nationalists is 'redundant' if you've already used some other label with "nationalist". In different circumstances, though, "ultra nationalist" is inaccurate to describe the neo fascist heirs of MSI; they're not any more nationalist I guess than other nationalists. In other circumstances, Checco flatly contradicts himself and declares that "ultra nationalist" is not 'redundant' but 'inaccurate' because even 'nationalist' is too extreme to describe a party that is to the right even of the loudly and proudly fascist-curious Matteo Salvini's Lega. These are not he mental gymnastics of an honest broker. These are the evasions, excuses, and distractions tossed out randomly by an apologist for far-right extremism. Yes, the MSI was neo-fascist; that is how vast numbers of Italians described it. Yes, FdI is neo-fascist, that is how vast numbers of Italians now describe it. Fascist has no meaning at all if it cannot even or ever be applied to a political movement as long as an apologist can be found to deny that it is genuinely fascist fascist. There will always be such apologists, just as back in the 20s and 30s the pointed questions about Mussolini's fascism were turned on their head by his spokesmen ('What really is this "fascism" anyway?'). The other day I added back "ultra nationalist" to the list of -isms, knowing that Checco would materialize quickly to delete it and provide yet another (different) rationale for why it doesn't apply to the (really very cuddly) FdI. He did not fail to disappoint, of course.72.86.138.120 (talk) 22:53, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

You are totally wrong, especially on me. No other mainstream party in Italy is far from my ideas than FdI, but this is not the place where political views can be argued. We should be balanced, as we are writing in an encyclopedia. I have argued against "far right", as the term should be used mostly for fringe groups like New Force in Italy, same for "neo-fascism". While the FdI is the heir of two post-fascist parties (AN and MSI), it is not neo-fascist at all and is quite mainstream, more than the National Rally in France or the Party for Freedom in the Netherlands. This said, I find totally inadequate and, at best, redundant adding "ultranationalism" to the infobox, especially when that redundant ideological characterisation is supported by a completely un-authoritative source. It is time for frequent editors of articles on Italian politics to step in and settle the issue. @User:Autospark, @User:Braganza, @User:Nick.mon, @User:Ritchie92, etc., please have your say! --Checco (talk) 04:34, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
Well, I'm against using both neo-fascism and ultranationalism, however, as you know, I always supported the use of Italian nationalism, as French nationalism is used for RN, German nationalism for AfD, and so on. Anyway I oppose "Nationalism (Italian)", which is quite absurd for me. -- Nick.mon (talk) 09:03, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
TBH, as things currently stand, I'd rather remove nationalism and ultranationalism from the Infobox, as they both use journalistic references from news websites. However, "Nationalism" or "Italian nationalism" I would be fine with keeping in the Infobox, as long as they are backed up with references of a sufficient quality.--Autospark (talk) 11:51, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
FdI is a nationalist party, but Ultranationalism is simply wrong, on the same page there are right-wing parties (like FdI) alongside neo-Nazi parties, that list must be corrected. Between Nationalism and Italian nationalism, the second should be indicated for consistency with other parties (like RN and AfD), although "Nationalism" seems to me less redundant.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 14:11, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

I just noticed this discussion and wanted to throw my thoughts in: I’ve removed the mention of Ultranationalism from the article because the provided source failed to call the party such. I a,so agree we need to deal with the shenanigans of this party being used as the prime example of Italy’s far right on the page just linked (tricolor flame would do much better as an example than this party). I don’t think it really matters whether we say nationalism or Italian nationalism, we could say Italian nationalism and then have it link to the article on nationalism. Nigel Abe (talk) 14:21, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

  • Nigel Abe, I just reverted the IP again; the France 24 article did not say the party is "ultra-nationalist"--the article merely quotes "Jean-Pierre Darnis, a specialist on Italian foreign policy at the Institute of International Affairs in Rome, in an interview with FRANCE 24", who makes that claim, and that is not the same. Now I am going to look at the article history to see if we need to throw some blocks or semi-protection around. Drmies (talk) 00:55, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
  • I just blocked the editor's range. In their last revert they claimed "The citation states that FdI is ultra-nationalist", which is patently and obviously untrue: the citation does not state that; the news channel interviewed someone who claimed that. Drmies (talk) 01:01, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Brothers of Italy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:11, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Far-right

Latest comment: 4 years ago19 comments10 people in discussion

This party is within the modern European definition of the far-right according to numerous reliable sources.

--92.236.165.108 (talk) 11:33, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

News sources are not reliable political science's sources and often over-indulge with the term "far-right", while they rarely use "far-left". Brothers of Italy is definitely a right-wing party and, as you can easily understand from my userpage, it is very far from me, but still it is not a far-right party, but a mainstream national-conservative party in line with its predecessor, National Alliance. You are the first user trying to include "far-right" in the article, thus please seek consensus first (as you are doing now in this talk page) and refrain from editing the article again on this respect until a new consensus is formed. --Checco (talk) 14:50, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Despite the discussion here about using news sources to qualify whether or not the Brothers of Italy is a "far right" party, the article lists it as "right to far right" and cites only news sources for the citations, including two from the same author writing for the financial times. Was a consensus that was mentioned above formed that Brothers of Italy is a far right party that justifies using the potentially politically charged news articles as citations?--TcooneyUCSD (talk) 05:36, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

It's obviously a far-right party, and the excuses and evasions offered here to avoid stating that are absurd. FdI is a neo-fascist party, quite simply, and the failure of the article to state that clearly and unequivocally is a demonstration of the fear and paralysis that the rise of neo-fascism breeds and thrives upon.72.86.136.223 (talk) 04:53, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Quite wrong. The party is not far-right. It is not even neo-fascist, as it was not its predecessor (National Alliance) and the predecessor of its predecessor (Italian Socialist Movement), which was only post-fascist. Whether you like it or not, FdI is quite mainstream by European standards. --Checco (talk) 16:06, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
Nonsense, that is the talk of fascist apologists. Meloni has stated that she has a "serene relationship with Fascism". She joined the MSI in the 1990s. She and her party are fascists, though they find it useful to be coy about that because it allows defenders like yourself to muddy the waters whenever useful.72.86.138.101 (talk) 16:58, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
And for what it's worth, your insistence that MSI was not fascist contradicts even what is acknowledged by most of those in the Italian fascist movement today, who sometimes seek to distance themselves publicly from fascism by contrasting their party with the fascist MSI. When I lived in Italy decades ago, every Italian friend I knew from a range of political parties stated explicitly that MSI was fascist. Yours is the talk of the classic fascist apologist.17:03, 28 January 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.86.138.101 (talk)
As you can read from my user page, my political views are totally opposite to those of Italian nationalists and neo-fascists alike. I just expressed my genuine opinion, which I deem quite objective. Describing the FdI as neo-fascist or the PD as communist are clearly unobjective claims. I agree with User:Ritchie92's latest edit on mainspace ("one news article is not sufficient to state that FdI is a neofascist party, in the lead sentence") and I add that consensus, not just sources, is needed too. Please seek consensus with civility, without accusing people of apology of fascism. --Checco (talk) 18:07, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
If that is consensus within the tiny group of "experts" who are controlling this page, then why do the Italians I've met agree that FdI is neo-fascist? In any case, your "genuine opinion" doesn't stack up well against a news article published by a major newspaper that states unequivocally that FdI is neo-fascist. I know all about cabals of editors working together on WP to dominate pages and grind their own axes thereby. Denying flat out that a reliable source stating that X is true cannot be used to demonstrate that X is the case, if you genuinely are seeking the truth, ought to be a treated as a wake up call to re-examine your ideas rather than dismissing it with a shrug. And yes I am quite fed up with neo-fascist fellow travellers trying to paint them as less extreme than they are, just as many were back in the 1920s and 1930s. The fact that these same group of "experts" also go as far as to deny that FdI are "far right" tells me everything I need to know about their tendencies.72.86.138.101 (talk) 18:37, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
Then, why should we discuss with you?
You are clearly not well informed. Your "Italian friends" are neither a source nor consensus. --Checco (talk) 18:44, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
Why should anyone discuss it with you? You clearly are not well informed because you insist that the 'heirs' to the neo-fascist 'tradition' are not far-right.72.86.138.101 (talk) 20:52, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

It seems obvious to me that we should follow the preponderance of reliable sources here, which seem to describe the party as on the far-right (or at least far-right-leaning) portion of the political spectrum. The part has been described as "post-fascist" (NYTimes; two academics writing in the Washington Post); "hard right" (NYTimes); "far-right" (Times of London; Times of London again; and this academic book published by Palgrave Macmillan; and both "post-fascist" and "far right" (Associated Press). Neutralitytalk 19:41, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Those sources are quite inaccurate, as it usually happens with Italian parties, and, as I have argued in the past, there is a over-usage of terms like "hard-right", "far-right", etc. I disagree with those descriptions, but indeed they are already included in the article. I quite dislike this party, but it is not fair to describe it as "far-right", let alone "neo-fascist". I am glad that none of those articles mention it. --Checco (talk) 15:00, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
All of these sources are well-accepted as reputable and reliable sources. You may disagree personally with their usage of terms, but that's not relevant here, since Wikipedia policy is to follow and rely upon reliable sources. Neutralitytalk 16:58, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
And... consensus. --Checco (talk) 16:54, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

This is one of the most absurd discussions I have ever read on Wikipedia. The academic literature on Alleanza Nazionale is very clear in them being far-right. They are usually discussed between "Neo-fascist" (up until the 90s) and "Post-fascist" (since their alliances with Berlusconi), focussing on how they moderated from a rightwing-extremist party to a far-right to rightwing party. In their new version as the Fratelli, they have been called far-right (Donà 2020, Mudde 2019, Schwörer/Romero-Vidal 2019), right-wing (D'Alimonte 2019) or rightwing populist (Albanese/Barone/de Blasio 2019). Calling them anything but a rightwing to far-right party is purely subjective and not grounded in academic sources.

What is worse: The only source provided to prove them being "national conservative" is not a source on political ideology, but a German summary of voter results in the recent election. That is a much worse source than articles and papers actually exploring the support base, elites and ideological background of the party. 126.244.173.12 (talk) 14:12, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

The most authoritative source you mentioned, D'Alimonte, says "right-wing", not "far-right". The party has nothing to do with far-right outfits as New Force, CasaPound Italy, the German NPD, the British BNP, etc., indeed. It is a mainstream right-wing party, including also former Christian Democrats and Liberals. Even if we both dislike this party, we should be objective. Finally, Nordsieck's website is probably the best comparative study of European parties: I do not always agree with the website's classifications, but it is definitely a good source. --Checco (talk) 16:40, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
What makes D'Alimonte the most authoritative source and not, say, Mudde who has developed alot of the definitions of what is "right-wing" and "far-right"? That seems completely arbitrary to me; you take one source which fits a little better into your view and disregard the others. I provided all of them to give a better picture of where academics are leaning; please don't cherry-pick my sources. I merely suggested that rightwing to far-right, which gives a range, better reflects the academic opinions on that; instead, you suggest taking a single source out of them, and then softening that terminology of "rightwing" even further. Yes, they are not the same as CasaPound, but at no point did I claim so, and neither to the sources which I provided; but calling them a "mainstream right-wing party" is NOT what D'Alimonte suggests, and not what any of the sources suggest, that is your personal opinion which should not matter. CasaPound and similar movements are generally not called "far-right to rightwing", they are called extremists or, as Wikipedia does, neo-fascists, neither of which I am suggesting for FdI.
Also, a website is not a study; saying so sounds like you do not know what constitutes a study. My point was exactly that is is not a study; you do not answer that concern and rather just say yourself without a proper argument that it is a good source. Please elaborate why a website classifying parties is superior to a number of articles which develop and define concepts such as "far-right" and "rightwing" before applying them to the Italian case. Finally, I honestly don't care who like that party and who doesn't; that is irrelevant to the argument I am trying to make here, that you are cherry-picking and ignoring what is probably the academic majority opinion because you do not like it. So, for the sake of compromise: If you consider D'Alimonte the most authoritative source on this, why not change "national-conservative", for which you only have one disputed source, to "rightwing", which everyone here seems to agree on, including a source you seem to approve of? 126.244.16.199 (talk) 13:06, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
Checco never provides coherent answers, and when pressed hard he stops responding entirely. It's all bobbing and weaving, turning back and reasserting his own (alleged) opinions about where the right wing parties line up on his own personal spectrum. When those kind of mind games fail, he just moves on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.86.138.120 (talk) 23:02, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
I now see this thread and it reminds me of a practically similar thread on the Lega Nord talk page. Leaving aside the discussion on post-fascism, it is natural to report a given content in a substantial number of sources, even if this contrasts personal ideas, it is one of the main rules of Wikipedia.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 14:32, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

2018 General Election

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

This section is rather bare, considering the party's role in the laborious formation of the Italian government after the 2018 election. Although I don't speak Italian I noticed some sources on the 2018 Italian general election page that might be of use in covering an important period in the party's history as it entered into the new government with 5 star and Lega Nord.--TcooneyUCSD (talk) 06:01, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

The party never entered the M5S–LN government. --Checco (talk) 16:06, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Ultranationalism

Latest comment: 4 years ago20 comments6 people in discussion

Why is this term being removed despite reliable sources? 68.197.116.79 (talk) 01:07, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

  • Hmm sorry you missed this. I don't think you're the same person as the IP I just blocked, but I could be wrong. Drmies (talk) 01:12, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
    • The article quotes an expert: "Jean-Pierre Darnis, a specialist on Italian foreign policy at the Institute of International Affairs in Rome, in an interview with FRANCE 24." That's a reliable source quoting a reliable source. 68.197.116.79 (talk) 01:15, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
      • Asked and answered. You know there is no way that this is enough for us to say "ultra-nationalist" in the infobox as an incontrovertible fact, so drop it: it's trolling. Funny--you write just like that other IP editor. Y'all related? Drmies (talk) 01:19, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

And it's not like it's just one source. For example, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2018/04/10/the-popes-challenge-to-orban-and-europes-far-right/ refers to "Italian ultranationalist Giorgia Meloni". You keep insulting and threatening me, which makes me doubt your good faith. 68.197.116.79 (talk) 01:21, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

And another. https://www.just-international.org/articles/the-popes-challenge-to-orban-and-europes-far-right/ 68.197.116.79 (talk) 01:25, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

  • I haven't insulted or threatened you at all, but I will be happy to block you for trolling. Who is Giorgia? That's right--this is a party we're talking about, not some individual. Drmies (talk) 01:30, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

She's the LEADER of the party. Or are you going to claim that, while she's an ultranationalist, the party she leads isn't? As for not threatening me, you just threatened to block me for (checks notes) finding three sources to back up some text you've been edit-warring suppress. Physician, heal thyself. I will gladly report you for abuse of admin rights. 68.197.116.79 (talk) 01:43, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

A political party is not its leader, and vice versa. It's (at best) very poor academic practice to conflate an organisation with its leader, or any other individual member, and is an example of WP:SYNTH rather than encyclopaedic writing.--Autospark (talk) 11:47, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
That would make more sense if we didn't also have reliable sources which call the party ultranationalistic. But we do, so there's no synthesis involved. The sources calling the party's leader ultrationalistic are supporting, not synthetic.
Thank you for your opinion; I will be sure to give it due weight, under the circumstances. 68.197.116.79 (talk) 18:18, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out that old thread, as it is where I found this gem:

It seems obvious to me that we should follow the preponderance of reliable sources here, which seem to describe the party as on the far-right (or at least far-right-leaning) portion of the political spectrum. The part has been described as "post-fascist" (NYTimes; two academics writing in the Washington Post); "hard right" (NYTimes); "far-right" (Times of London; Times of London again; and this academic book published by Palgrave Macmillan; and both "post-fascist" and "far right" (Associated Press). Neutralitytalk 19:41, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
This was a few months ago, but I can't find any response that refutes it, just some refusal to accept reliable sources that are inconvenient. 68.197.116.79 (talk) 02:48, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
Unfortunately, this discussion has been quite confusing, as it is divided in three different sections.
However, the FdI is neither far-right nor ultra-nationalist. As one who opposes Italy as a united country, I much dislike this party, but we need to be fair. Some international news sources know very little of Italian politics, let alone this party. Under Meloni, the FdI has recruited back most of the political class of the former National Alliance party and also a large number of Christian-democrats, some of which quite centrist in outlook, like Guido Crosetto, Raffaele Fitto, Elisabetta Gardini, Alfredo Antoniozzi, etc., and even some former Socialists, like Antonio Guidi. The FdI is a mainstream right-wing party. --Checco (talk) 12:35, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

“ As one who opposes Italy as a united country” are you a Padanian nationalist? Just curious. Nigel Abe (talk) 14:37, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

I should not answer to this here, but I was the one who threw the rock... While being politically liberal, I am for the re-organisation of Italy into medium-sized states, as well as the transformation of the European Union into a federation like the United States (see Eurotopia). My federated state would be Veneto (possibly enlarged to the current neighbouring regions), as I am a Venetian and a Venetist. I use "Venetist" instead of "Venetian nationalist" because, as a liberal, I am quite opposed to nationalisms of any sort and the concept of nation-state. --Checco (talk) 16:44, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

The idea that a party led by an ultranationalist is not itself ultranationalist -- or even right-wing! --- is hard to swallow. This sounds like some sort of personal synthesis or unsupported opinion, not what the sources tell us. 68.197.116.79 (talk) 18:29, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Meloni is a conservative, not a nationalist, let alone ultranationalist. --Checco (talk) 16:14, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
That's your opinion, not what reliable sources say. 68.197.116.79 (talk) 01:00, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
To remind you, I mentioned two above.[1][2]. Why should we go with your personal opinion instead of these reliable sources? 68.197.116.79 (talk) 01:01, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
Those sources, while authoritative, are clearly not well informed about Italian politics.
No relevant source from Italy, not even left-wing newspapers, would describe this party as nationalist, far-right, etc. --Checco (talk) 16:45, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:51, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

National Conservative

Latest comment: 3 years ago10 comments5 people in discussion

Can this please be removed? In the discussion here, a total of 18 sources have been brought up, ranging across journalistic and academic literature, which call the party variations of rightwing and far-right, with a lean towards far-right. A single source has been brought up which calls it national conservative.

In the debate, Checco has stopped replying to multiple commenters. The main argument seems to be that basically any source, no matter how reputable, is "biased" or "uninformed" because it is not Italian enough. This is ridiculous. Either provide evidence for a national conservative label, or simply change this to "rightwing to far-right" or literally any variation thereof.

The last edit says that "multiple sources have called the party rightwing"...and so it changes the label back to national conservative. At this point, I don't even understand how that is a coherent thought or how to argue against "my sources say A, so clearly B is true".

P.S.: Oh I stand corrected - there is now a second source, after only 4 years of debating. This must be what progress feels like.

Greetings 126.248.131.196. I cannot comment about the edits by Checco as I have not seen them, nor the quality of the sources.
The label of far-right was removed from the opening sentence because both right-wing and far-right have multiple supporting citations. Therefore, to simply label the party as right-wing or far-right would be weighting in one particular direction. For an editor to self-determine which one is more true is original reaserch. Saying right-wing to far-right would be fine to say in the opening sentence as both positions have multiple citations. However, it is usually preferable to provide the party's main political ideology as opposed to just its political positions, as it usually more specific and informative.
My apologies that myself and other editors have not come forth before now to explain their edits to you. It is always best to establish clear communication between editors as to why they are making the changes they are, especially in regards to speaking with new/less experienced editors like those that edit from an IP addresses and may not be well informed on Wikipedia's rules and general etiquette. Helper201 (talk) 16:28, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
I have long argued against "far-right" (mainly, this party is not a fringe one and that characterisation should be left to extreme-nationalist, neo-fascist, Nazi, etc. parties) and also on how poor journalistic and academic literature can be. Most of the times, political science terms are not properly used. How many times I have read that a social-democratic party is labelled as a small-s socialist one? This party is quintessentially national-conservative as its ideology is halfway between conservatism and moderate nationalism. Nordsieck is quite authoritative and he is not alone. --Checco (talk) 16:49, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
helper201 I appreciate the explanation, and also adding a second source; my main concern is still checco making up things in the debate. You can see in the discussion page that barely anyone agrees, yet there is a repetition of "all sources I don't like are bad" without a good reasoning. To adress your points here again checco: you have still not answered a) what makes Nordsieck an authoritative source other than you liking him, and 2) what those other sources are you keep mentioning. I repeat: A total of 18 sources do not agree with a national conservative label, about a third of which are academic ones. If "rightwing" is an agreeable term, why not use that? checco cannot decide which terms are properly used and which ones are not based on his gut, that is up to external sources.
As to why Nordsieck is not an authoritative source, look above for arguments on that which you have ignored for months, checco. The way I see it, there is only one user protecting his personal take on the party by cherry-picking sources and not providing an argument that is sustainable against a broad range of sources and arguments. As you noted, I am not usually a Wikipedia editor, but I have been following the discussion here since 2019 and it went from interesting to mildly entertaining to quite frustrating. 126.248.131.196 (talk) 19:00, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
"Right-wing" is an agreeable term and, indeed, I would have just it in the infobox. --Checco (talk) 16:34, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
I prefer the use "national conservative" in the opening passage rather than naming a political position (which should be kept in the infobox for most political party articles). I would like "social conservatism" and "conservatism" removed from the Infobox, as although referenced, they are redundant to the more well-sourced and descriptive national conservatism.--Autospark (talk) 17:57, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Totally agree with User:Autospark. --Checco (talk) 18:15, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
I think we should keep the page as it is. The infobox is not overloaded and social conservatism does not always fully overlap with national conservatism. The more information we can give readers without overwhelming (which this doesn't) the better. Helper201 (talk) 19:57, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Political party articles are already overloaded with ideologies in their Infoboxes – we do not need to list every single iteration of overlapping sets of ideologies. (Ideally in Infoboxes ideologies should be limited to three at the most.) We don't need "conservatism" as well as "national conservatism", particularly when one is backed up with a single journalistic source.--Autospark (talk) 16:42, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
And "national conservatism" is definitely more accurate. --Checco (talk) 06:30, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
"National conservativism" is poorly sourced. You basically disregarded every argument in this thread, and then determined not to change anything, without backing your position up. 2A02:908:2813:BB40:B026:CA0A:D5D0:8765 (talk) 19:15, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

The party is NOT Far-right

Latest comment: 3 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

This political party is not Far-right, in Italy far-right parties are Casapound and Forza Nuova, but this party is only national conservatism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.237.101.218 (talk • contribs)

Many sourced depict it as such. You can't just remove parts of the article which you don't like without a good reason. Also, since all your edits have been reverted by different editors, it obviously means that you are acting against consensus. --Ritchie92 (talk) 13:43, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
There is always a plenty of sources and, as editors, we should be able to decide which sources to cite in the infoboxes as most relevant and accurate for parties. I also think that labels as "far-right" and "far-left" should be reserved for fringe parties like New Force or Power to the People!, and not used for mainstream parties. Curiously enough, there is a trend of over-using such terms especially for right-wing parties. FdI is a mainstream conservative party, more in the mould of British Conservatives than the French National Rally (which, in my view, is not far-right too, anyway), thus I perfectly agree with User:95.237.101.218/82.50.38.249. I also agree with him/her on Lega Nord, which is even more moderate and big-tent than FdI. As he wrote in one edit summary: "i think to know what is the position of this party because it is in my country, even if i don't vote for it [...] the league is not far-right". --Checco (talk) 17:06, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
@Checco: there are plenty of sources, also academic sources, stating that both Lega Nord and FdI are far right. On Wikipedia we report what sources state, we do not make theories based on our opinions. --Ritchie92 (talk) 08:49, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Also, actually in the infobox there is "right-wing to far-right", and both terms have multiple sources. So since it is undeniable that some sections of FdI are very far-right and even neo-fascists, I think this is a decent description of the party position. --Ritchie92 (talk) 08:58, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
There is no single neo-fascist in FdI parliamentary ranks. FdI is post-fascist, as AN was. We should be more careful with terms: FdI is a right-wing party, while the LN (which includes several leading people who would be considered social-democrats almost everywhere) is a big-ten party, currently aligned with the liberal centre-right, surely to the left of FdI. --Checco (talk) 13:39, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
Please give reliable sources for your statements, otherwise these are just your personal ideas. Also, the page actually states that FdI is a right-wing party ("right-wing to far-right"), so I don't see the issue. --Ritchie92 (talk) 15:55, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Euroscepticism or soft Euroscepticism

Latest comment: 3 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

​I think there may be some merit to the change someone made to labelling the party as soft Eurosceptic. As far as I'm aware the party doesn't advocate for Italy leaving the European Union but instead supports reform of the EU from within. Helper201 (talk) 22:07, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Oppose this – I would rather Euroscepticism be removed from the Infobox entirely than resort to invented neologisms like "soft Euroscepticism".--Autospark (talk) 14:34, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
That seems fair to me. The issue is potentially complicated by the fact that I don't know if the term "soft Euroscepticism" even exists within the Italian language/vocabulary, so looking for a supporting citation for such a specific phrase could be highly problematic, even if this is what is meant. Helper201 (talk) 18:57, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
Generally speaking, I think that "Euroscepticism" (a policy, not an ideology) should not be mentioned among ideologies in political party infoboxes. This said, FdI is the most Eurosceptic among mainstream parties in Italy—and I agree with User:Autospark that "soft Euroscepticism" is a useless neologism, as well as the supposed contrast with "hard Eurosceptism" looks quite controversial to me. --Checco (talk) 17:18, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Infoboxes and political spectrum

Latest comment: 3 years ago15 comments6 people in discussion

I have been motivated to write this after one of Checco's comment above stating to "have argued against 'far right', as the term should be used mostly for fringe groups like New Force in Italy, same for 'neo-fascism'." That is not wrong — the real issue is whether the party is national-conservative, in which case it can be categorized as right-wing (as I will write at length below, we need to stop bloating the infobox; we can just have Right-wing or Far-right in the infobox, while saying in the body sources that describe it as both), or right-wing populist, in which case the party can be categorized as Far-right as part of the radical right, a subset of far-right politics. Academics do categorize parties by their famille spirituelle.

We do actually need to have an agreement on criteria, definition, and rely on academic sources over news ones. Are there no academic sources or books about this party?

Davide King (talk) 15:33, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Foreword

I like Norberto Bobbio's left–right political spectrum. It must also be understand that while in academic terms there is a clear understanding of far-right politics and what it entails, there is much less understanding of far-left politics, especially among the population and the media. There is also a sort of centrist and horseshoe theory bias in defining some nominally left-wing authoritarian countries as far-left when they are in many ways conservative; that does not mean they are not left-wing, it just mean that far-left is not a good definition for them (putting them together with libertarian leftists and anarchism is not exactly good science and only focuses on their similarities rather than their many differences, while this is either not the case for far-right politics or is much less pronounced) and left-wing would fit better, placing them in an authoritarian axis like the Political Compass. There is no Oxford Handbook of the Far-Left like there is for the far-right (there is no conspiracy behind this), and I follow Luke March and the few academic studies that essentially the far-left is anything to the left of the Left; personally, I put on the far-left only anarchists and those to left of Communist parties, and I prefer radical over far- to describe them, especially when they are trying to reclaim the social-democratic tradition abandoned by centre-left parties (March 2012), e.g. Keynesianism and the post-war consensus, which were centrist or the mainstream at that time. For the Right, I follow the views expressed by many academics of seeing right-wing populism as radical right, a subset of far-right politics.

Davide King (talk) 15:33, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Introduction

As I understand it, the political spectrum is communism and socialism on the Left, left-liberalism, generic populism, and Christian democracy in the Centre, and conservatism and New Right liberals on the Right. Anarchism and those to the left of mainstream communist parties are the Far-Left, while radical right-wing populism and fascism are the Far-Right. Speaking of political parties-related articles, I think we need to stop with those clumsy, bloated infobox and work more of the body. Ideally, we should limit to put only the main ideology, and no more than three, in the so-named parameter, and we should stop with those Centre-left to left-wing or Centre-right to right-wing et similia because:

  • (1) all parties have more or less moderate and radical factions;
  • (2) it may be presentist in presenting (no pun intended) a party as more moderate or radical depending on which faction the party leader belongs to;
  • (3) it makes more sense to use that for centrist parties who may lean a bit to the left or right, though this can be easily explained in the lead without making the infobox look weird;
  • (4) we should present the position of the party as a whole, not that of its factions, which is what to seems to imply (The Left being Centre-left to far-left is more accurate);
  • (5) both far- and centre- are subsects of left-wing and right-wing politics anyway, so it would still be accurate, though this would mainly apply to more left-wing and right-wing parties, as mainstream centrist parties can be easily characterized as centre-left, even though both include factions that can be categorized as more leftist or rightist;
  • (6) all of this can be better explained in the body (the infobox should be a summary for key facts) and the lead can use the centre- to -wing or -far wording but the infobox should be concise and only use Left-wing, Centre, and Right-wing for the political position, and Centre-left and Centre-right for the mainstream, traditional governing parties.

This could lead to improvements, as most of the time, including this one, the lead is so short that would benefits from putting in prose stuff from the infobox, while trimming the latter, and could be helpful in my view in reducing disputes. We should also rely on academic sources, as I have see news sources, such as the Associated Press and The Guardian, using left-wing and right-wing for parties that would be otherwise be overwhelmingly considered to be centre-left or far-right leaning, respectively. Such articles do not explain what criteria are using for their definition (they may be using far-left to describe the most left-wing party in parliament and vice versa), especially when they differ from the meaning in academia, and are then used to add the to position, which is all the more reason to rely on academic sources and only use the best news sources if there are none of the former.

Davide King (talk) 15:33, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Criteria

Academic criteria, definition, and context are important. As an example, Thatcher belonged to the right wing of her own centre-right party but since the 1980s her ideas have stretched to the right wing of the mainstream centre-left parties. Another example could be that centre-left parties which have adopted the Third Way after the neoliberal paradigm would be seen as centre-right in the previous Keynesines paradigm, while those who are seen as left-wing today would be the centre-left yesterday. As a result, many left-wing parties are called far-left in some news media, even though they advocate a return to the post-war consensus of Keynesianism and more relatively widespread nationalization policy, and are simply called left-wing in academic sources; it may make sense in a political spectrum skewed to the current economic paradigm but it would not be neutral and academic sources understand this. In Italy, I understand the PD as being centre-left, its left-wing splits as being slightly to their left but still within the centre-left, SI being on the left, and the new PCI, the PRC, and the like to be to its left, but it is not clear the criteria or definition for where the left ends and the far-left begins; this is particular relevant for Italy, as the main party on the Left has been the PCI, which was left-wing, not far-left, which is why I use far-left for those to the left of communism). For the right-wing parties, this is less of a problem, as there is a much more clear definition, and right-wing populist parties can be more accurately described as far-right (radical right) because there are handbooks about it.

Davide King (talk) 15:33, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Possible solutions

There are at least two possible solutions for this in the infobox:

  1. We use only Left-wing, Centre-left, Centre, Centre-right, and Right-wing, without any to in the infobox (it can be put in the section about its ideology) for most parties, and use Far-right only for neo-fascist and neo-Nazi parties, while using Right-wing and putting a footnote for right-wing populist parties like is done at Alternative for Germany. We do not use Far-left unless there is consensus for it in academic sources, and rather than have Left-wing to far-left, we just use Left-wing.
  2. We use Left-wing, Centre-left, Centre, Centre-right, and Right-wing, without any to in the infobox, use directly Radical left and Radical right—link to Radical right (Europe)—for left-wing and right-wing populist parties (but only for those that are included in academic books about it, not news sources), as it is actually done in academia (Radical Left in Europe and Populist Radical Right Parties in Europe) and plain Far-right for neo-fascist, neo-Nazis, and the like. We do not use Far-left unless there is consensus for it in academic sources (if some books say far-left, others say left-wing, we favour plain Left-wing), and rather than have Left-wing to far-left, we just use Left-wing.

Davide King (talk) 15:33, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Problems of this article

I think this article has some of the problems that affect most parties. It has a body that does not go enough in detail about the party's ideology, while the infobox is bloated and refbombed with news sources. At Ideology, we could easily trimming to just National conservatism and Right-wing populism, while moving conservatism, Euroscepticism (a policy, not a proper ideology, despite the -ism), and nationalism to the lead. Here, I have actually proposed to add parameters such as Factions and Policies but they have not been added, so we should not add policies or factions to the Ideology parameter. Sources for neo-fascism do not seem to support the claim of the party being neo-fascist, they are better moved in the body in a section where we summarize its post-fascist legacy (MSI/AN), explain some in the party do not repudiate fascism, they have appealed to neo-fascists and neo-fascists groups (which is different than being neo-fascism as a whole), or there is a faction that can be considered neo-fascist (this would be much better than sticking a label in the infobox without context and not respecting the fact there is no Factions parameter. Considering the recent scandal, perhaps academic sources may call the party as far-right or neo-fascist but until they do, this is something that is better discussed in the body rather than the infobox. Davide King (talk) 15:33, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

This comment or, better, essay is very thoughtful and I agree with most of it. I agree especially on the fact that "we need to stop with those clumsy, bloated infobox and work more of the body" and that "we should limit to put only the main ideology, and no more than three, in the so-named parameter, and we should stop with those Centre-left to left-wing or Centre-right to right-wing et similia". That is a general thinking, affecting not only political parties in Italy. --Checco (talk) 14:03, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
Very much agree – too many political party articles seem to list half the possible ideologies in the Infoboxes, and with redundancies like "centre to centre-right" (etc) in the Position section. I am of the opinion that two ideologies in the Ideology section for any party should be a maximum, save for rare exceptions (regionalist parties, or noteworthy highly heterogeneous parties). Anyway, as for FdI, I agree with Davide King's proposals for streamlining the article – National conservatism and Right-wing populism is enough in the Infobox. Listing, as we do currently, "National conservatism", "Conservatism" and '"Nationalism", is an example of needless redundancy that we should be actively avoiding.--Autospark (talk) 22:22, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
A consideration regarding the political spectrum of parties: this is not the right place to discuss it. And the idea of choosing a single political position is very difficult to apply, in many cases there are sources that describe a party with a political position and other sources, equally authoritative, that describe a party with another political position. The choice of only one of the political positions reported by the sources might seem arbitrary. Furthermore, in many cases, it would cause long disputes and discussions about what the prevailing political position should be.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 11:19, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
There is an endless number of sources on just about everything. We, as editors, should choose through consensus. --Checco (talk) 19:25, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
Exactly, to exclude information supported by authoritative or academic sources, a strong consensus is needed, and I doubt that on such sensitive issues it is easy to reach it.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 20:20, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
Surely, this is way better than the awkward and bloating to stuff. As I said, my main issue is with a bloated infobox; if a party is described in some sources as centre- and in other as -wing or far-, we can reflect that in the lead and body, without bloating the infobox. Problem is this looks like to be caused by the use of news sources, which are fine if there is no academic source about it, because they do not explain what they mean by it, it is usually just a passing mention (again, see the use by The Guardian, which is a reliable source, of plain left wing or right wing for obviously centre-left or far-right parties; because news sources are not uniform, this is misunderstood by many users as if that implies we must add Left-wing or Right-wing to any centre-left or far-right party).
If we actually used academic sources, we would have no such problems, as there are clear categorizations for parties and it is much rare to have disputes, beyond mere disagreement. The problem is the only academic source used in the article is EU: Beyond the Crisis: A Debate on Sustainable Integrationism, a book that categorizes the party as national conservative, though it is from 2016. The Rise of the Far Right in Europe, also from 2016, actually does categorize the party as neo-fascist, which is a better source than anything we have got for it in the body; however, it is not included in Radical Right-Wing Populist Parties in Western Europe: Into the Mainstream? (2016), and it also appears not to be included in The Populist Radical Right: A Reader (2016)
Several other books in the 2010s about the radical right does not mention it. Perhaps books in the 2020s will categorize it in the radical right-wing populist family, though International Populism: The Radical Right in the European Parliament (2020) does not mention it, and I would exclude right-wing populism. On the other hand, national conservatism is in a book that is focused on the European Union rather than political parties; neo-fascism appears to be more supported even among academic books — it is mentioned in Transnational Neofascism in France and Italy (2015), called out as such in Understanding the Populist Shift: Othering in a Europe in Crisis (2016), The Routledge Companion to Italian Fascist Architecture: Reception and Legacy, and Mussolini and the Eclipse of Italian Fascism: From Dictatorship to Populism (2021), and is categorized alongside Lega as far right in Anti-Gender Campaigns in Europe: Mobilizing Against Equality (2017) and described as "reactionary right-wing ... whose platform includes overtly xenophobic and neo-fascist pillars" in The Discursive Ecology of Homophobia: Unraveling Anti-LGBTQ Speech on the European Far Right (2019).
Why were none of those easy-to-find sources used in the first place? I thought that this party could be summarized as national conservative and right wing in the infobox, with a note about its far-right, neo-fascist links, but if those sources are high-quality and can be verified with further analysis, I think it can be categorized as neo-fascist and far right in the infobox, with a note about its more liberal-conservative faction. To be sure, I would ask The Four Deuces, who is very knowledgeable about politics and scholarly consensus (e.g. noting that several far-right parties called neo-fascist in news outlets do not fit the scholarly consensus of scholars of fascism), if they could analyze the sources and whether they are high-quality enough (e.g. some of them may not be scholars of fascism) to support having just Neo-fascism and Far-right (with the aferomentioned note) in the infobox. Davide King (talk) 07:12, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
Showing party ideologies is useful to readers because they can then relate them to parties they are familiar with. A British reader for example might want to know if a party is more like the Liberal Democrats, Tories, Farage's UKIP or the the BNP. Being told the party has right-wing liberals, conservatives, right-wing populists and neofascists and other elements of the Right and far right isn't helpful.
I find the use of "party families" most helpful. These are extreme right, conservative, Christian democratic, liberal, green, socialist, left, communist, nationalist, agrarian and uncategorized. Within these are more specific ideologies such as right-wing populist or neo-fascist within the extreme right family. The best sources for this are books on comparative politics, which group parties according to family, or books about specific types of parties, such as right-wing populists.
I don't find the political position helpful because different writers place parties differently. The Tories for example could be called right-wing, center-right, centrist, or far-right to center-left.
This article leaves me confused about what kind of party it is. Maybe we should have a centralized discussion about this since the issue comes up across multiple articles.
TFD (talk) 11:22, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
I agree with TFD's proposal to have a centralized discussion. This isn't the only page affected by this issue. --Vacant0 (talk) 20:24, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
I agree. I keep getting reverted, though eventually they have stood, for simply trying to make us follow WP:INFOBOX, especially WP:INFOBXOREF, and get false accuses in return (removing sources, when in some cases some 'ideologies' were unsourced or when I simply moved them to lead, where I have actually turned into a proper introduction, rather than treat the infobox as if it was the body). The Four Deuces, that has been what I have been following when improving the infobox. In this case, where does the party belong? Thank you. Davide King (talk) 02:42, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Brothers_of_Italy/Archives/2022/February&oldid=1105253274"