Talk:Lega Nord/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Agrarianism

@User:Nick.mon: I have removed agrarianism from the infobox because neither of the three sources given actually described the party as "agrarian" or "agrarianist". One of them was not even a third-party source, two did not even mention the LN. Only the third one said something about the LN, but support for agriculture does not equate to "agrarianism". The latter is decribed in en.Wikipedia as "a social philosophy or political philosophy which values rural society as superior to urban society, the independent farmer as superior to the paid worker, and sees farming as a way of life that can shape the ideal social values", stressing "the superiority of a simpler rural life as opposed to the complexity of city life". That is probably the core of early populism in the United States (it reminds me of William Jennings Bryan's Cross of Gold speech), but has little to do with the LN. Moreover, as I wrote above, the proposed sources did not connect the LN with "agrarianism" either. --Checco (talk) 07:10, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Hey User:Nick.mon: And what do you think about this? --Checco (talk) 16:16, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I completely forgot your post. However, agrarianism is probably different from Lega’s view, but I inserted that ideology due to many links between Lega and a sort of “ruralism” and for the implementation of many policies in support of (Northern) Italian agriculture. -- Nick.mon (talk) 18:38, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Reply to far-right

I support the change of Right-wing to Right-wing to Far-right. I agree with User:Wololoo, User:Sideshow Bob and User:Nick.mon. It is absolutely correct and not vandalism. It has been proven by many sources the Lega Nord is far-right as well. —  by Pizzalover12 (talk • contribs) 15:23, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to this talk page! I dealt on the issue in the section above. --Checco (talk) 09:31, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

I have already told you Checco at the voting process was in effect, And the majority of voters voted for right wing to far right it was 4 in support and 3 against, It has every right to be there that’s what a voting process is. --Pizzalover12 (talk) 09:14, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

I answered above, as I did before (please consider the parallel with Forza Italia and the PD). --Checco (talk) 16:16, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

User Vif12vf did not confirm his/her vote. You can’t just put a name and put his name where you want it to be. --Pizzalover12 (talk) 12:47, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

You are wrong on Vif12vf. Discussion continues above. --Checco (talk) 07:04, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Summing up

We had a little bit of controversy lately and we can continue to discuss forever, but we need some clarity. First of all, I would like to remind everyone what consensus is about. Consensus "does not mean unanimity (which, although an ideal result, is not always achievable); nor is it the result of a vote" and "decision-making involves an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines". Notably, "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".

Three issues particularly divided us:

• replacement of "right-wing" with "right-wing to far-right" in the infobox: four users have been in favour of the change (Wololoo, Sideshow Bob, Nick.mon, and Pizzalover12—do you confirm?), three against (Checco, Filippo83 and Autospark), meaning that the previous consensus has to be retained—for now at least;
• infobox's name: one user wanted "Northern League" (Wololoo), four wanted to retain the article's name "Lega Nord" (Checco, Autospark, Vif12vf, and Pizzalover12—do you confirm?), meaning that the previous consensus has to be retained—for now at least;
• adding the electoral symbol to the infobox, while retaining the official one: four users liked this compromise (Checco, Nick.mon, Autospark, and Pizzalover12) and one opposed it (Wololoo), meaning that the two-symbol solution is supported by a majority of users.

I do not think that four users against one is a strong consensus to change an established version, thus I will not re-add the electoral symbol to the infobox—for now. At the same time, there is clearly no consensus to change the previous version on political position and infobox's name.

As I said, we can continue to discuss forever (and, while I like better to devote my time in editing than discussing, I appreciated talks too). But... As explained in Wikipedia:Consensus, users can be bold, but when their edits are challenged, they need to seek consensus through discussion and "a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit". --Checco (talk) 15:09, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

In Wikipedia two factors are important: consensus and sources. The political position "right-wing to far-right" obtained 3 favorable opinions, 2 contrary opinions and one opinion more favorable to keeping only right-wing (Autospark admitted that certain sources can not be ignored). In the absence of prevailing opinion, it is obvious that it has precedence the position supported by reliable sources and not that one based on personal opinions. About the english name, you are denying a factual situation, Northern League IS NOT only a name often used by english literature, but the name used by official and institutional sources: there is a big difference. You don't want the official english name in the intro and in the infobox, if the reason is only because you don't like it (the reason seems to me this one), I would like to remember that "The arguments "I just don't like it" and "I just like it" usually carry no weight whatsoever". If the original name has been chosen as page's title, this does not mean that the official English name must be hidden (for example, the belgian parties). If you think that Northern League isn't the official name of this party, you continue to want to ignore the fact that it is the name recognized by the MENL (official european party of LN), by the LN's members themselves and also used for the presentation in english language of the italian Chamber of Deputies. I have interpellated Vif12vf, but the user has not replied, he preferred not to intervene in the talk. About the two logos in the infobox: it would be a particular change (I don't see any party infobox with two symbols) and in any case without particular utility. In this case I have not understood if the user Nick.mon prefers the infobox with one or two symbols: indeed the discussion began with the proposal to replace the official logo in the infobox with the one used in the latest general election, for me both symbols are fine, but choosing one of the two. However this edit must be discussed, since it is not a compromise but a new proposal.--Wololoo (talk) 16:29, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

I confirm my position and without further explaination have decided to back Checco on all of the three issues. Tiberius Jarsve (talk) 17:56, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Reverting an edit without giving explanations does not seem to me the most constructive way to contribute, valid reasons are needed to remove sources or informations, otherwise it is better to avoid--Wololoo (talk) 19:14, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

If an edit is challenged, or is likely to be challenged, editors should use talk pages to explain why an addition, change, or removal improves the article, and hence the encyclopedia. I have fully explained my edits and proved the sources, even in this last post I do not see how these changes or removals can improve the page, positions must be motivated and demonstrated. --Wololoo (talk) 19:25, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

In my view we should use the “Lega” symbol, but as I know that the party’s official name is still Lega Nord and consequently the official logo is still the “previous” one, but the new logo is now used almost everywhere, so I support the compromise until the party will clarify this situation, or until other users will support the use of “Lega” symbol. -- Nick.mon (talk) 19:28, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Obviously, if the majority of users agree, the second logo can be inserted in the infobox (even if I personally disagree this solution, for me the best solution would be to use the only symbol of Lega in the infobox)--Wololoo (talk) 19:34, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

About the political position, I would also like to remember that I am trying to enforce one of the five pillars of Wikipedia, the Neutral point of view: All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.--Wololoo (talk) 20:18, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

"If an edit is challenged, or is likely to be challenged, editors should use talk pages to explain why an addition, change, or removal improves the article, and hence the encyclopedia": several editors explained why they don't support some proposals (like it or not, those were explanations) and nothing was removed from the established version (it was Wololoo who tried to add and change infos in the first place. "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic": the article, starting from the intro, explains the complexity of this party and different views on the party are represented (I personally don't think the party is right-wing and that it has similiarities with the so-callded "right-wing populist" parties, but I would never propose to delete those infos); we can always improve the article, but starting from the infobox is not a good idea and, having seen the precedents, discussing first would be wise.

This said, now that User:Vif12vf (alias Tiberius Jarsve) has expressed all his/her preferences, this is the situation:

• political position: three users support Wololoo's proposal, four oppose it;
• infobox's name: only Wololoo support his/her proposal, three oppose it;
• symbol(s): four users support the two-symbol solution, one opposes it.

I will leave aside the issue on symbol(s), which would mean a change from the established version and might need further debate, but I will bring the article back to the previous and long-established version on position and infobox's name. I will also restore some fixes deleted by Wololoo in his/her total rollbacks, without explanation. I understand his/her concerns and displeasure, but there is no reason to have a version supported only by one user or a minority of users. I will continue to welcome disussion and be interested in debate, but, until we don't achieve a new consensus, the old one must be upheld. --Checco (talk) 08:05, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

@Checco: Do you think that these not motivated positions are sufficient to circumvent one of the five pillars? I don't see the consensus to remove informations based on reliable sources! The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view. The arguments "I just don't like it" and "I just like it" usually carry no weight whatsoever. Where is the quality in a sentence like "I confirm my position and without further explaination have decided to back Checco"? Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a wikiproject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope. Do you continue to remove the English official name from the infobox and from the intro: Are you able to give a valid and consistent reason? Answer this question, please. I don't see any valid motivation to remove it. Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a wikiproject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope. The english name in indicated in each party infobox where it is present. The sentence "The party is usually referred to as Northern League by English-language sources" is simply misleading. Why do you not remove the english name from the infoboxes of belgian parties (or other parties too), for example? The removal of the name is an inconsistent behavior, there isn't a real consensus to remove it, because no valid explanation was given. The matter must be addressed as a whole, for all similar cases, not just for a single party. For this reason Northern League must be reinserted, since it is the ONLY english name used by official and institutional sources, books, newspaper and academic texts. I'm tired of explaining the obvious. I'll wait for the political position, but a valid motivation by User:Vif12vf to remove a political position supported by academic text is needed, if not his opinion is vain, consensus is not a vote. --Wololoo (talk) 12:23, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

No violation of any pillar is happening here and no "community consensus" has been overridden. There has never been consensus on Wololoo's recent proposals of theirs. I explained my views a lot. I would also be pleased if other users will write more. "The party is usually referred to as Northern League by English-language sources" is a well-crafted and balanced sentence: I do not understand how it can be "misleading". I already told my opinion of the articles on Belgian parties, so I do not think I need to repeat myself: if someone starts a debate on moving those article to English names, I will be on his/her side (and others here too, I guess). The reason for naming the infobox just "Lega Nord" is quite simple and was perfectly summarised by User:Autospark: "The party name in the infobox should be left simply as "Lega Nord", in line with the article title". Yes, the article title. Wololoo twice proposed a move to "Northern League (Italy)" in less than two months (even though, per Wikipedia:Consensus, "proposing to change a recent consensus can be disruptive") and his/her proposal was twice refused. There is thus a consensus on the article's title (which, per Wikipedia:Article titles, is recognizable, natural, precise, concise and consistent, albeit only with very similar articles), thus there is also a consensus (implicit and explicit—see the above talk) on the infobox's title. --Checco (talk) 06:48, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Another consideration: just for the complexity of this party, there are in the infobox much more dubious and debated historical positions (left-wing to centre-right). If the position of this party is complex, all the founded positions should be shown, otherwise "left-wing to centre-right" (for which there is not even a source) must be removed too (following your reasoning), since these positions had no consensus in the previous discussion; showing in the infobox very dubious and debated positions (like left-wing) or without sources (centre-right) and not positions based on academic sources is a countersense. Is it not so? Either the infobox contains all the informations, or it indicates only the main position, redirecting to a specific section for the other political positions based on sources. I see these two solutions. --Wololoo (talk) 12:52, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Any improvement is welcome. However, I do think that the article already gives a broad account on the party's ideology, ideological journey and factions—all with a lot of sources. All that represents "fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views" on the party. Recently, one user added "Conservatism" among "historical, now minorit[y]" ideologies and that is OK with me: I will also add "Social democracy" and "Christian democracy" with a source—however all this is already explained and sourced through the article. The infobox should summarize the article's content and there is a lot of good content here. We can do more, while preserving a historical perspective and avoiding Wikipedia:Recentism. --Checco (talk) 06:48, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

"Left-wing to centre-right" had no consensus: following your reasoinig, these positions must be removed. "Social democracy" and "Christian democracy" never represented this party in any way. About the name in the infobox, why do you not answer my question? Don't you know what to answer? If you don't want to tackle the matter as a whole, the name will have to be entered in the infobox, for consistency with other pages, all the pages of wikipedia must be treated in the same way--Wololoo (talk) 09:32, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

As far as the infobox's title is concerned, I gave an extensive answer. I have nothing more to add, especially to User:Autospark's quote.

"Left-wing to centre-right" has been there for a year and has not been particularly challenged. Of course, we can discuss on it, as on everything else, but that can be considered an established version, as of today. The fact that the LN has had several ideological trends represented in its ranks is renowned (possiby Wololoo is too young to remember it), as well as extensively explained and sourced through the article. However, as "Conservatism", "Christian democracy" and "Social democracy" have always been minority ideologies, we can remove them and leave just "Liberalism". In the 1990s there were lots of leftists and social democrats within the party They obtained one fourth of the seats in the self-organised Padanian Parliament election of 1997. However, most of them were trending toward liberalism, similarly to the majority of the party. Curiously enough, history repeats itself, at least a bit: two of today's leading Leghisti, Giorgetti and Siri, were formerly connected to the Italian Socialist Party! They are no longer social democrats, but personal history counts. We will see. Compelling days! --Checco (talk) 08:07, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

About the name in the infobox, your answer was only "It isn't the official name", "the title is another", "there isn't consensus": it seems me that you don't know real reasons to remove the english name from the infobox. First of all I don't see this explicit lack of consensus of wich you speak (the main reason the page has not been moved was the disambiguation, certainly not because the name was incorrect). The page the belgian parties have both titles in the infobox. Nazi Party, Conservative Party (UK), Syriza have their complete name in the infobox and not the name equal to the title. "Name" in the infobox refers to the main name used in the english language, not to the pages's title! So, if the english name exists, it is always indicated in the infobox. Northern League is used by the official sources and the LN's members themselves (and by almost all English sources), so it is pratically the only official english name of this party. "North League" doesn't exists in the english language, and Wikipedia is only based on the sources. I said I'm available to discuss the matter as a whole, with the other users, but you did not answered on that, if you don't want to discuss on that, the english name must be entered in the infobox, for consistency.

About the political position, you talk about consensus, but with 3 users v. 4 (one of which did not motivate his position), in my view it isn't enought to remove academic sources, since Wikipedia is based on reliable sources. "Left wing to centre-right" were not particularly challenged, but I see that you are the only user that repeatedly deletes the edits that don't like you (and this behavior is not constructive in a community). In the previous talk most users didn't agree on "left-wing to centre-right", but I had left it in the infobox only because you were contrary to removal. Since you continually removed a shared and initially agreed position in this talk page, there is no more any reason to keep them in the infobox: left-wing is a very dubious position, while centre-right isn't based on any source, it is unthinkable to keep only these positions and not others based on more reliable sources. There is unanimous consensus only on the main position, "Right-wing", not for all the other positions. We can deal the other positions in a specific section, otherwise there would be a discretionary choice of only some positions, above all with an evident disparity of reliable sources. Just as we can not include very dubious ideologies based only on Youtrend. --Wololoo (talk) 20:53, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

First of all, Wololoo should avoid total rollbacks. This time he rollbacked some edits in the "Further reading" section, probably without even realising it.

I extensively explained why "Lega Nord" should be the infobox's name, but I never opposed including "North League" and/or "Northern League" (there is no official translation, but "Northern League" is definitely how the party is "usually referred to"): I also offered a compromise version, that was rejected. To say that the party "is usually referred to as Northern League by English-language sources is hardly misleading: does Wololoo understand "usually"? By the way, there is no doubt that "Northern League" is more common than "North League", but the latter (more literal) translation is perfectly correct and is used by a minority of sources.

Finally, the LN definitely started its political journey from the left-wing and it is now variably and widely considered a right-wing party. I disagree on "right-wing", but there are sources and consensus in support of that. As of today, I do not see any consensus on the removal of "left-wing to centre-right" as historical position. Wololoo may start a discussion on that whenever he wants. In the meantime, I am going to rollback all the changes that are not supported by consensus, while I will preserve Nick.mon's latest edit (I actually do not like the line, but there is nothing controversial in it). --Checco (talk) 12:24, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

North League used by a minority of sources: which sources? These sources are an absolute minority, and, furthermore, they are much less important than the sources referring to the party as Northern League (official sources, important newspapers, academic texts). The party is not simply "usually" referred as Northern League by the english sources. About the name in the infobox, I will try to start a wider discussion, since you don't want to do it. In the previous talk there was not consensus on left-wing to centre-right, while you didn't see the initial consensus on the proposed position. Does the consensus work differently from one user to another? Since there wasn't consensus of the users on these positions in the previous talk, I'll remove them. And, anyway, it is totally wrong (and contrary to the rules of Wikipedia) to arbitrarily decide which positions to include and what not in the infobox, without consensus and with an imbalance of sources in this regard. The only alternative is to keep the main position in the infobox and to write a specific section that summarizes the minor political positions of the party with related sources. Discretionary and not neutral exclusions and selection of informations are not acceptable in Wikipedia, remember that. --Wololoo (talk) 14:30, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

I am more and more convinced that the real problem here is Wololoo's misunderstanding of "usually". I think I do not need to repeat myself more to defend an established sentence, which has recently been modified to appease Wololoo and is now completely uncontroversial.

Any discussion is welcome, but first of all let's avoid total rollbacks (this time Wololoo rollbacked a fix of a website, probably without even realising it, as usual). Secondly, let's respect current and/or established consensus. Thirdly, let's seek consensus first. Quoting User:Autospark's edit summary of his latest rollback of Wololoo's latest non-consensual edits, "rv, not a consensus – and please don't be antagonistic. A compromise solution can be reached...". --Checco (talk) 06:40, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

No misunderstanding of "usually", Northern League is the english name used by official and institutional sources, following Wikipedia:Naming conventions (political parties) it should be the title of the page but for reasons related to the disambiguation, the original name was preferred (it was the only truthful motivation). Anyway, the current intro is the correct and there is no reason to change it. If you avoid deleting all my edits, do not worry, there would be no problems with the rollback of minor fixes.--Wololoo (talk) 08:18, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

OK, then, the problem is understanding "official". "Northern League" is not the official translation of Lega Nord. There is none. The MENL website, as well as LN's participation in that organisation, is clearly over-estimated. The established intro was perfectly correct and there was no reason to change it, but I already modified it by integrating some of Wololoo's preferences. I "usually" avoid total rollbacks, while Wololoo's "official" modus operandi is total rollbacking. :) I constantly receive thanks for my rollbacks of Wololoo's edits and also other users have consistently rollbacked Wololoo: I am quite sure about where current consensus lies. New threads of discussion are always welcome and, as everyone can see, I do not refrain from talk pages, but each discussion should go with the respect of the established version, not an edit war. I would ask to the other users involved in this talk page to clearly express once and for all their opposition to Wololoo's edit warring. --Checco (talk) 09:24, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Ps: On the political position, let me add that I would remove "to centre-right" as the LN has never been centre-right (nor right-wing in my view, but I duly respect the current consensus on having "right-wing" as the party's current position), while its roots are notoriously left-wing. It is just a matter of consensus. The current consensus is to have "left-wing to centre-right" as "historical, now minorit[y]" positions.

Please... you'll receive thanks by the same 1/2 users. In the previous talk there was not consensus on "left-wing to centre-right" in the infobox, even if you have apparently ignored that discussion. The minor positions must be explained into the page (including far-right), since they don't have the consensus to stay in the infobox. And the edit war is not my initiative, YOU are the user that reverts every my edits. And however this is a collaborative project and other users do not need everytime your pass to edit a page. About the name, official or not official, Northern League is the english name of LN (I don't mention "official" in the page). In your view the participation of LN in the MENL is "clearly" (?) over-estimated, but the name "Northern League" is also used by the MEPs themselves, in their CV in the European Parliament's website or in their personal websites (Lorenzo Fontana), besides being the name used for more than 20 years by important newspapers and academic texts. Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, and you can not just ignore them.--Wololoo (talk) 21:57, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Wololoo continues to ignore consensus and does not accept established versions. I have nothing more to add. Until he/she refrains from all that, a constructive debate is not possible and I will need to rollback non-consensual edits. --Checco (talk) 06:45, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Checco, you are the one to ignore consensus, you did not even read the previous talk, in which 3 users were favorable of removing these positions from the infobox. The intro is correct and clear, I see no reason to change it, your edit war seems useless to me. The constructive debate is impossible, if you reverts all my edits, imposing not consensual political positions and don't considering eventual compromises. --Wololoo (talk) 08:00, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Wololoo your most recent edits have indeed been without concensus. Please refrain from editing any further without getting concensus, concensus has recently been on the side of Checco. Tiberius Jarsve (talk) 12:07, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Tiberius Jarsve above, Wololoo has not gotten consensus for his edits, and his constant reverting/altering to a non-consensus set of edits is getting to the point where it is approaching disruptive. Of course there is room to change and improve the article, but it must be accomplished via consensual means rather than unilateral edits.--Autospark (talk) 15:17, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Really, where is the problem in my version of intro? ARE YOU ABLE TO GIVE ME A VALID REASON? Your approaching is disruptive, not answering, giving unfounded motivations and reverting all my edits. @Autospark and Checco: I'm seriously starting to think you are not acting in good faith, there are too many positions that you do not explain: in the last move proposal, I asked you to prove your statements, you did not answer me. Were they lies? Or did you completely ignore me? Now, I asked you where is the error is in my intro, I did not see any motivation... Are you not able to prove where I am wrong? I pledge to demonstrate my position, explaining the motivations and showing the sources on which I rely. @Vif12vf:: you intervened twice in this discussion and did not express a minimum opinion, why are you against my version of intro? You can't delete my edits without motivations! ( Edit summaries are especially important when reverting another editor's good faith work.; Repeated reversions are contrary to Wikipedia policy under Edit warring, except for specific policy-based material (such as WP:BLP exceptions) and for reversions of vandalism) This seems mobbing against me, I did not write anything strange in the intro, I have simply shown that the sentence "usually referred to as Northern League" is wrong (this name was used by the LN's members themselves!!!). I am removing a sentence that I have shown to be incorrect!

About the political positions: in the previous talk three users (me, User:Sideshow Bob and User:Nick.mon, tell me if I'm wrong) agree that left-wing in the infobox was quite inappropriate, because in the past LN was rather a big tent party. There isn't the consensus on these positions in the infobox! Checco removed "far-right" from the infobox saying that with 3 favorable users and two against there wasn't consensus to enter a position in the infobox! Well, where is the consensus to enter "left-wing" in the infobox?? Is the opinion of some users more relevant than others? I have proposed a compromise, and I have received no answer. Great constructive attitude. "Centre-right" is not even based on any source (so it is an original research), and you have wanted to remove a position based on academic texts. This is a contradiction of one of the main rules of Wikipedia (All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic).

If we are not able to find a compromise, in my view the only solution is to request a Mediation or the intervention of the admins, because in my view many important rules are not respected. I think it, since you have not shown much of your declaration and you have removed informations based on reliable sources without a clear majority of opinions (an user intervened only to say that he was in favor of the removal! The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view. The arguments "I just don't like it" and "I just like it" usually carry no weight whatsoever.) --Wololoo (talk) 21:00, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

@Autospark, Checco, and Vif12vf: Summary: you can't revert every my edit without a valid reason (it is contrary to the rules of Wikipedia). In this talk Checco proposed only to remove the english name from the infobox, but then he also reverted my changes to the intro, without any valid motivation. "Left-wing" doesn't have the consensus of the users to stay in the infobox, like "far-right". "Centre-right is an original research. If you want to continue this absurd edit war, we need a Mediation. --Wololoo (talk) 21:25, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Wololoo fails to understand that there is an established, consensual version. User:Autospark, User:Vif12vf and I are defending the principle according to which, unless a new consensus is formed, the established version has to stay ("a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit"). Unless Wololoo stops editing without having achieved consensus, a constructive debate will not be possible. I will be happy to participate in that debate and, for instance, I also disagree on "centre-right" as one of LN's historical positions. --Checco (talk) 07:01, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

It is totally useless try to talk with users who are not able to answer, obviously you see consensus only where you want and ignore everything else. Another user (User:Pizzalover12) added far-right in the infobox, as you can see,there isn't even a majority anymore (as if it were indispensable), if all positions remain in the infobox for me it's ok. Continue to make senseless reverts and I will act accordingly.--Wololoo (talk) 15:05, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

@Pizzalover12, please, don't modify the previous messages of other users, if you want to express your opinion, do it below. Now, we are talking about the political position (Checco would to include some positions - without consensus - and exclude others, but this would be a violation one of the pillars of Wikipedia) and about the opportunity to revert the current intro of the page, that, in my view, is correct and unassailable. Checco and allies are not able to explain the reasons of their reverts (another violation of the rules on the consensus of Wikipedia, the edits cannot be reverted without a valid reason). Currently, we are not discussing about the "double name" (english and italian) in the infobox, this matter must be dealt with separately, in a wider way. Can you express your opinion here below? At least the talk is more understandable, thanks. --Wololoo (talk) 18:07, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

(Anyway, in the reverted intervention, the user Pizzalover12 supports the only italian name in the infobox, if I understood correctly, and "Right-wing to far-right as political position.)

Another consideration: Checco, in the two sources on "Left-wing", where did you read that the League was a left-wing party?? In "La Lega nord e la transizione italiana" I read that the League was neither right nor left, in "Il libro che la Lega Nord non ti farebbe mai leggere" I only read that the rhetoric of the local League of the south Romagna was closer (about the autonomism) to the old PCI than to the belligerent rhetoric of the Venetian-Lombard League. Also the source added by Pizzalover12 doesn't say that the League was a centre-right party (it refers only to the centre-right coalition). I did not read anywhere that the league was a leftist party, Checco, can you indicate me the pages? The political position of a party must be treated seriously, with reliable sources, and not with original researches. If these sources do not say that the League was a left-wing party, must be removed (and therefore Left-wing would be an original research). For this reason I fully support the proposal of Nick.mon to indicate "big tent" as historical political position in the infobox (position confirmed by the same sources). --Wololoo (talk) 19:52, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

I much appreciate that Wololoo is eventually accepting that there is an established, consensual version that has to be upheld until a new consensus is formed. This said, everything can be improved. On left-wing I have to admit that, while there is no doubt that the LN started from the left of the political spectrum, the two given sources are not fully appropriate. Bianchini clearly explains LN members' left-wing (or, better, far-left) roots, while Biorcio shows some data on how a portion of LN voters were left-wing. Does someone really doubt that the LN was originally a left-wing party? "Big tent" is not a political position and features left-wing to right-wing positions, moreover the LN is still big tent: a party which obtains 30–40% of the vote (Veneto, Lombardy, FVG) cannot be otherwise.

On far-right (I am answering here to Pizzalover12), there is still no consensus. "It has been proven by many sources the Lega Nord is far-right as well" means little, as sources need to be evalued and weighted. Pizzalover12, who is a supporter of Forza Italia, perfectly knows how the party has been described as populist, right-wing populist, right-wing, even far-right: the party is nothing like that and, fortunately, those classifications are absent or downplayed in en.Wiki. The same can be said of the PD, which is correctly classified as a social-democratic party, while critics describe it as a centrist, neoliberal or, even, right-wing party. The same logic must be adopted with the LN, which is a broad big-tent party with an (arguably) tension toward the right-wing of the political spectrum in recent years. We need to be balanced and not too influenced by recentism. I am thus going to remove "far-right", which is still not supported by consensus.

On the intro, while I disapprove Wololoo's repeated edits without consensus, I have to say that I will refrain from rollbacking him/her again: he actually downplayed "Northern League", which was accompanied by a much stronger sentence "usually referred to as". I will just fix it in order to have it consistent with other articles. --Checco (talk) 09:31, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

No Checco, for the position "Right-wing to far-right" there are 4 favorable users and 4 users against, for "Left-wing" there are 3 users against and 1+2 users favorable (including the two allied users too, which anyway did not express themselves on this topic). For each positions there is no consensus to keep them or to remove them. The difference? Left-wing is essentially based on original researches and personal opinions, Far-right is based on important newspapers and academic sources. You can't remove a position based on important souces and keep positions based on no source. I think anyone can doubt that the League has ever been a leftist party (indeed I have not yet found any valid source that supports this thesis), since it has always been a economically liberal party, in favor of reducing taxes and near to traders and small and medium-sized businesses, nothing to do with the left. Some of its important exponents came from the far-left (but also from the far-right), but this does not matter, also some important exponents of Forza Italia came from the far-left, for example. As the reasoning about the 30-40% of the votes in Veneto or Lombardy does not matters, for decades the left has taken 50-60% of the votes in some regions, a party does not necessarily need to be transversal to be rooted in a certain territory. I'll remove the sources on left-wing (and centre-right), they are very interesting but they say the exact opposite of what they should prove (they state that in the past the League was neither right nor left) and I'll reintroduce Far-right, because there is absolutely no consensus to remove it. In my view, the most respectful version of the sources would be "Right-wing to far-right" and "Big tent" as historical position, since Wikipedia should be based only on sources and not on personal opinions of editors. If there is a position that should be removed first, on the base of sources and consensus in talk, this would be "left-wing"! Anyway, I continue to see the maintenance of only "Right-wing" in the infobox as the only current possible compromise, excluding original reserches or debated political positions.

@Checco: About the intro, there is no need for consensus for every simple edit, if it's clear and correct, anyway I appreciate you have finished the edit war. However, the website of MENL refers to the complete name, and the names "Lega" and "Carroccio" must be treated in separate sentences, the first one is now the name officially used by the party (and therefore it does not concern only Italy), the second name is a nickname only used by italian media. I have corrected these details. --Wololoo (talk) 21:55, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Wololoo seems interested in compromise only when he/she is no longer in lone minority, otherwise his/her modus operandi is edit warring. I am very sorry that he/she continues not to understand the difference between an established/consensual version and a proposed version. Consensus is not the result of a mere vote. Alas, there is no consensus on introducing "far-right". However, while I have no doubts on LN's original left-wing position — User:Wololoo is maybe too young to remember the early LN; even D'Alema in 1995 ([1]) and Berlusconi in 2000 ([2]) described it as "left-wing", btw —, I acknowledge that it is not easy to find old sources online and also that "left-wing to centre-right" is not supported by a wide consensus now that another user, User:Pizzalover12, stepped in. I will thus remove both "far-right" and leave "left-wing to centre-right" out. I strongly oppose "big tent" as "historical, now minorit[y]" position as it is not a position and the LN is still big-tent (Zaia, Maroni, Giorgetti, etc. are centrists, indeed). I am sure that good reserachers like User:Nick.mon and User:Autospark will eventually find sources on "left-wing" as historical (now minority) position.

I totally agree that there is no need to seek consensus on each and every edit. Let me also add that boldness (in the first place) is a value. Yes, User:Wololoo started several edit wars on this article and it is a pity that I had to craft compromise versions and eventually end those edit wars. Unfortunately, he/she has not yet learned how civil debate and cooperation work and herald good compromises. All of this is not entirely User:Wololoo's fault's fault: he/she comes from it.Wiki and, probably not intentionally, he/she is importing some of it.Wiki's bad habits.

On the intro's intro, I am going to fix a few things, per consistency (not boldness). --Checco (talk) 07:49, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Checco, Lega's roots are absolutely in the left-wing, but already during middle 1990s, many prominent members shared right-wing ideologies (one above all, Borghezio), that's the reason why I've always supported "Big tent" for the past; however if Big tent isn't accepted I vote for "left-wing to centre-right". -- Nick.mon (talk) 14:12, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Most of the founding members and the early leaders of the party were leftists (Bossi, Maroni, Formentini, Farassino, Rocchetta, etc.), then there were liberals (Miglio, Pagliarini, Speroni, etc.) and, of course, there were also some right-wingers (like Borghezio) but pretty much on the minority.

@User:Nick.mon: I think we need to end this discussion and fully restore established consensus (meaning "right-wing" and "left-wing to centre-right") and then, provided that no edit wars are occurring, open a new thread on "big tent" v. "left-wing to centre-right". Do you agree?

@User:Pizzalover12: In this page four users supported "right-wing to far-right" (Wololoo, Sideshow Bob, Pizzalover12 and Nick.mon—the latter quite mildly in my view, but he can explain his mind better whenever he wants) and four users opposed it (Checco, Filippo83, Autospark and Vif12vf aka Tiberius Jarsve). However, this was not a "voting process" and consensus is not merely the result of a vote. Please also consider my parallel on Forza Italia and the PD above: sources are not everything. --Checco (talk) 16:16, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, sincerely, I don’t want to be the decision maker, because I did not partecipate as carefully as you all to this discussion. However, as I said many times, I prefer the version “right-wing to far-right” but the main focus of everyone should be the end of the edit warring (which is now certainly happening). So we should try to find a compromise. -- Nick.mon (talk) 18:53, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

@User:Checco: Truly avoidable observation, now D'Alema and Berlusconi are sources that can be considered to establish the political position of the League...! D'Alema has also recently claimed that the League is neo-fascist [3], must we include neofascism in the infobox? We are serious! The political positions must be derived from reliable sources, that are academic texts, reliable newspapers or books on the subject, not from original researches or simple statements by someone. Are sources not everything? The rules of wikipedia are clear: the information must be based on reliable sources, NO original researches. Unfortunately you are inventing a non-existent consensus to keep "left-wing" in the infobox and at the same time to remove the "far-right". If you continue to remove information based on reliable sources without consensus, perhaps it will be necessary to ask to someone else if it is a behavior that complies with the rules... --Wololoo (talk) 21:26, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

@User:Nick.mon: I do not agree with you on "right-wing to far-right", but I totally agree that our main focus should be stop edit warring. The only way this can happen is to uphold the established, consensual versions and then discuss and verify whether a new consensus emerges.

@User:Wololoo: Read carefully: I did not write that D'Alema and Berlusconi are sources. Only you have challenged "left-wing to centre-left" as "historical, now minorit[y]" position, a compromise version which is still accepted by User:Nick.mon, User:Autospark, etc. (whom I ask to find sources; actually, the previous sources explained how the party contained also left-wing elements). However, if you stop edit warring, we can start a debate on three options: "left-wing to centre-right" or "big tent" or no historical position. Please, do it! You may be on the winning side of the debate, if you only decide to play by the rules!

@User:Pizzalover12: Four users supported "right-wing to far-right" (Wololoo, Sideshow Bob, Pizzalover12 and Nick.mon) and four users opposed it (Checco, Filippo83, Autospark and Vif12vf aka Tiberius Jarsve, who actually did confirm his/her vote by writing "I confirm my position and without further explaination have decided to back Checco on all of the three issues"—@User:Vif12vf/Tiberius Jarsve: please explain your mind once again). There is thus no consensus on "right-wing to far-right". Consensus is not about voting and is not the result of a simple vote, especially when a long established consensus is in place.

@All users involved in this talk page: Please help me to stop this edit war by upholding the established, consensual versions, then we can start separate threads on single issues. Obviously, I would be the first to defend any new consensus, as I did before with "right-wing" (which I still deem incorrect, as the party, a catch-all one, still includes all kinds of political positions, from the left to the right of the political spectrum. --Checco (talk) 07:04, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

@Checco: obviously instead there is the consensus for "Left-wing", is it true Checco? Last warning: remove again informations (based on many sources) without consensus and I alert the admins. --Wololoo (talk) 08:12, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, an established consensus over a compromise version, recently supported by User:Nick.mon and challenged only by Wololoo. I will not repeat "last warning" because I always hope Wololoo refrains from vandalism and edit warring. --Checco (talk) 08:24, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

"Left wing" has the same consensus as "Far-right", the difference is that the first position looks like an original research, while the second one is based on many sources! And in Wikipedia the informations must be based on the sources, not on the original research or on personal points of view.--Wololoo (talk) 08:38, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

ps. It was not me to remove "left-wing to centre-right" from the infobox in recent days, if you look carefully (and when I removed them, I let only Right-wing), so I'm not the one to discretionally choose which positions to hold in the infobox and which ones not, without consensus.--Wololoo (talk) 08:51, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

There are two differences: one is a proposed version (favoured by four users and opposed by four others), the other is an established version (challenged only by one user to date). Can Wololoo start to uphold consensus and seek consensus first? How much time should be waste before we can actually discuss on the issues? As of now, this discussion is poisoned by edit warring (and I was not the one who started it: I always respect consensus, even when I do not like it—e.g. on "right-wing"). I am tired by all this, as also Wololoo I am sure is. It is no surprise that other users have refrained from intervening again and again here. All of us — including Wololoo (a rough, but knowledgeable user) – are here for editing articles, not talk pages. I have always preferred en.Wiki over it.Wiki because users tend to be pragmatic, balanced and not fond of infinte discussions. Please let's not make en.Wiki like it.Wiki. --Checco (talk) 09:08, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

@User:Pizzalover12: You are the second user to oppose "left-wing to centre-right", not enough to invalidate a previously established consensus/compromise, which has been lately supported by at least two users. This said, I think we can easily compromise in adding "left-wing to right-wing" and re-introducing the two sources removed by Wololoo: they did not describe the LN as a full-fledged left-wing party, but clearly explained how the party featured all kinds of political positions. What is sure is that there is no consensus on adding "far-right" to "right-wing" as current position. --Checco (talk) 10:59, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

There is clearly no consensus on adding "far-right" to current position (also Wololoo acknowledged it in one of his/her latest edits) and on removing "left-wing to centre-right". Thus, I have once again removed "far-right" and restored "left-wing to centre-right" or, better, "left-wing to right-wing" (I did that in order to be more ecumenical and more consistent with Biorcio). However, on the latter issue I am opening a straw poll below. --Checco (talk) 12:32, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Checco, perhaps the consensus in necessary to remove an information based on reliable sources, not to insert it. This behavior is no longer acceptable (and the rules are the same for both en.wiki and it.wiki).--Wololoo (talk) 12:42, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Sources have to be weighted and, currently, there is no consensus on what you are proposing. Moreover, there are plenty of sources and editors decide which sources should be included, through consensus. Obviously, the article already explains that the LN is classified as a hard-right party by some political scientists, but there is no consensus on "far-right" in the infobox". --Checco (talk) 13:34, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Left-wing to Centre-right

I deleted Left-wing to Centre-right because there was no proof, it was edited by Checco who put no sources, you can’t put things without sources (you need proof). --Pizzalover12 (talk) 6:43, 24 May 2018

(I moved this thread below as it was the latest.)

Please respect chronology and please do not open new threads when issues are already discussed elsewhere. --Checco (talk) 10:59, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Salvini and the left in the Lega

The article doesn't really cover it, but Salvini who is now the Federal Secretary of this party stood for election for the Padania Communists in the 1990s.

Through hysterical screeching on the Electric Anglo-Saxon (the television set) those of us who have the misfortune of living in the Anglo-occupied world are simply told by the media that "the fascists" are now back in control of Italy (their jimmies are especially rustled by the fact that the Lega isn't Russophobic). Upon closer inspection there appears to be a wider pattern of people from left-backgrounds being involved in the Lega as well (other than Salvini, Marico Formentini is another example), rather than it being an uncomplicated rightist outfit.

The article needs to describe for non-Italian readers clearly this complex nuance and how it is that the Lega has some people from left-backgrounds in it and how this relates to the rest of Italian politics. As far as I can tell the "right" of the party appears to be, basically, the people who oppose mass immigration and also the traditional Catholics and the "left" of the party appears to be people who are opposed to neoliberal economics, distrust the EU and would have back in the day voted for the Italian Communist Party. Is this an accurate assessment? Claíomh Solais (talk) 00:42, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello User:Claíomh Solais, you might be interested in participating in the above talks, indeed!

Lega Nord's history is very complex and its catch-all, multi-ideological nature is a further complication. Everything can be improved, but the article already covers Salvini's "Padanian Communist" former allegiance, his (former?) "leftist" instincts, the party's left-wing roots, the left-wing upbringing of most of its founders ad leading members, the party's ideological variety and how some of its members (notably Zaia) still identify with "labour" politics.

This said, I am not sure on the accuracy of your final assessment. The party includes some traditional Catholics and some conservatives, but most of its anti-immigrant fervour comes from its elects and voters in the so-called "Red Regions" (and, surely, some of them used to vote for the Communists). In its Northern heartland the party is very similar to the former Christian Democracy party, but, then, there are Zaia and Maroni, who hold some socially liberal views. In a nutshell, while the LN has long been misinterpreted by the media as a right-wing party and, actually, it has recently tilted to the right, it is still a heterogenous, catch-all party.

--Checco (talk) 11:25, 5 June 2018 (UTC) Ps: The LN opposes illegal immigration, not immigration per se (Italy's sole African-born MP in 2018 was elected with the party).

Current political position, again

While we are having a respectful debate on the historical political position of the party, there is still a problem with its current political position. The addition of "far-right" to "right-wing" has garnered the support of four users (Wololoo, Nick.mon, Sideshow Bob and Pizzalover12), while four others have opposed it (Autospark, Vif12vf, Filippo83 and me). There is thus no consensus on changing the estalished, consensual version. "Right-wing" has to be upheld and "far-right" should have no place, for now at least. In a recent talk with User:Kelapstick, User:Wololoo wrote that he/she has "also tried to propose a compromise, like keeping only the indisputed political position in the infobox (only "Right-wing"), but without results". While Wololoo has started most of the recent edit wars on Lega Nord, I know that, like me and everyone else, he/she is tired by all that, that he yearns for compromise and that he wants to focus on editing articles (he/she is a knowledgeable user and, most recently, has done a great job on Composition of Regional Councils of Italy). I hope that Wololoo will be consistent with his reasoning: why not "keeping only the indisputed political position in the infobox (only "Right-wing")" and continuing to politely discuss on the proposed change, as we are doing on the historical position? --Checco (talk) 06:30, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment on the Composition of Regional Councils; obviously I'm very tired by all that, but the edit war was not started by me. I am consistent and I confirm that I have proposed a compromise solution: the deletion of the historical position, keeping only "Right-wing" as political position in the infobox. Obviously this solution should find the consensus of the other users, but I don't currently see the consensus nor to delete the historical position, nor to delete Far-right (which, unlike the historical position, is based on many sources). However, if the page remains as it is now, it is ok for me.--Wololoo (talk) 20:06, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

It was you who started adding "far-right" without first seeking consensus: it was a bold edit and there was nothing bad about it, the problem was that you were told that there was no consensus (there was a different established, consensual version: "right-wing" — once again, I disagree with that consensus, as I believe that the LN is not right-wing, but I duly respect it) and you continued to add "far-right". However, as we are all interested in finding a compromise, let's forget the past. I would accept the compromise you are proposing, but at the same time there is another established consensus on "left-wing to centre-right" as historical position, there is an emerging consensus on "left-wing to right-wing" and, more important, five users (four not including me), have opposed the "no historical position" option above. I would accept that compromise, but the two infos are hardly related and a simul stabunt, simul cadent reasoning is not easily applicable here. It is time for you for understanding that there is no consensus on "far-right". Will you please acknowledge it, in the end? --Checco (talk) 06:42, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

I simply added a political position based on many sources, and you removed it several times, without consensus to remove it. It seems me like you have a strange idea of consensus: adding an information based on many reliable sources is NOT a bold edit and it doesn't need consensus to be inserted in a page! All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. Maybe it is time for you for understanding that an information can't be removed only because you don't agree with it. I sincerely hope you do not want to re-start removing this information again... --Wololoo (talk) 21:49, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Several sources describe the M5S as "far-right" and the PD as "centrist": should we include those sources in those parties' infobox? Sources must be weighted by consensus, indeed. You also proposed a compromise, trading the removal of "left-wing to centre-right" with the removal of "far-right": by doing that, you acknowledged that a compromise and/or consensus can overcome sources and, while I disagreed on the connection, you were right on principle. Be logical and intellectually honest, please! To be sure, currently, there is no consensus on "far-right". --Checco (talk) 08:44, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Which neutral and reliable sources describe the M5S as "far-right"??? It is possible that some articles of italian left-wing journals describe the M5S as right/far-right party, while other articles of italian right-wing journals describe it as left/far-left party, it is normal for a big-tent party, but I refer to authoritative journals or academic sources. The sources must be weighted above all by their reliability and neutrality, then by the consensus too. It is obvious that a great consensus can overcome the sources too. I am intellectually honest, in this case there isn't the consensus to remove an information based on many sources, also academic, I'm tired of repeating it. The editors of Wikipedia should not be influenced by personal opinions, but they should be neutral, you can not remove an information just because you do not personally agree with it. On the contrary, the Wikipedia rules state that all positions must be reported, if based on reliable sources. --Wololoo (talk) 19:41, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

The M5S has been described as far-right by several media. Let me offer you five examples: La Stampa, Newsweek, The Independent, Express and The Guardian. Most of the newspapers describing the LN as far-right often describe the M5S as far-right: it might be that those newspapers are "left-wing" and not neutral on the issues, but they are the same sources you are adopting for the LN! You are perfectly right that "sources must be weighted above all by their reliability and neutrality, then by the consensus too", thus I am tired of repeating that there is no consensus on "far-right" and, as you have just argued, some newspapars might not be neutral! You said it!

To be sure, there is also no consensus on "right-wing populism": we discussed a lot about it and the result was to add just "populism" to the infobox. Consequently, also this edit of yours is not consensual. --Checco (talk) 10:44, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

The Guardian doesn't refer to M5S as far-right, but only as populist and anti-establishment, in the Newsweek I honestly did not see any reference to the M5S. However, if you want use the other sources to enter "Far-right" in the Infobox of M5S, you are free to do it! If there is consensus to remove this position, it will be removed, very simple. However, in the infobox of this page I reported academic sources, and not simple article of newspapers! Please, do not say falsehoods about the sources.

About this edit, the two sources refer explicitly to right-wing populism, I did not invent it. The last discussion about the right-wing populism is dated 2011! In the last few years the League has changed radically, it's a fact.--Wololoo (talk) 12:25, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Both edits have no consensus. There can be sources on just about everything: it is up to editors to choose which sources and which infos are to be added in articles. You are right that "in the last few years the League has changed radically": it has become more ecumenical and catch-all, indeed. It even formed a pact with the M5S, which is a catch-all party too, but definitely panders more to the left than the right. The fact that some newspapers and even academic texts misunderstand the nature of some Italian parties is not news. Of course, articles should contain those infos (that is already the case of this article), but it is up to editors to decide, through consensus, how to summarise the article in the infobox. --Checco (talk) 09:36, 6 June 2018 (UTC) Ps: Newsweek reads "far-right Five Star Movement".

"It has become more ecumenical and catch-all, indeed": it can also be, but it's just your opinion, all sources say the opposite. You're free to disagree with these sources, you are free to think that you are the one who knows the truth, but these opinions exist and you are not free to remove them, without the consensus of the community. The consensus to remove or hide these informations, in contradiction to the rules of Wikipedia, is not there. Ah, the page Right-wing populism states "In Italy, the most prominent right-wing populist party is Lega Nord (LN)". This discussion has been going on for 3 months and now it's getting boring, I have nothing else to add, please to respect the main rules of Wikipedia.--Wololoo (talk) 20:55, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

It is not my opinion, it is consensus. What is intesting that you also at times favoured compromises (including the removal of "far-right") and acknowledged that consensus can overcome sources. I am also bored by this discussion (before your arrival to en.Wiki, everyone was so collaborative!). Four users opposed "far-right", three favoured it (including User:Pizzalover12, who was soon later banned for sockuppetry). Previous consensus chose "populism" over "right-wing populism", as User:Autospark recently acknowledged in one of his latest edit summeries. Please respect consensus, in the end. --Checco (talk) 06:48, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

No, it's just your opinion. You have a little distorted idea of consent. It seems to me that, in your view, collaborative means condescending. Maybe the consensus can overcome sources, well, in this case the consensus is not there! And I rememer you that four users support "far-right" in the template, not three! For me the discussion ends here, I have nothing else to add...--Wololoo (talk) 07:14, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, sorry: four users oppose "far-right", three (not including a banned user) oppose it. There is no consensus and, thus, I feel free to remove your non-consensual edits anytime. --Checco (talk) 07:47, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Four users oppose it, including 2 users that said "Ok, I agree to remove it", without much explanation. It is a pity that consensus is not a voting procedure and that sources and motivations are very important for this purpose, according to the rules of Wikipedia. For this reason I will feel free to delete any not consensual removal of informations based on sources...--Wololoo (talk) 08:09, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

I refrained from rollbacking your latest non-consensual edits ("far-right" and "right-wing populism") because I hoped you would acknowledge what consensus is about in this specific case, so I am sorry that your modus operandi is still edit warring, something you are event theorizing now. --Checco (talk) 08:21, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

The war is theorized by you first, I'll simply defend my contributions (based on reliable sources) from possible non-consensual removals.--Wololoo (talk) 08:26, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

You never achieved consensus for those edits. --Checco (talk) 08:54, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Correction of the arrangement of League and Noi con Salvini in the template of italian parties

I report this thread (the second part of the discussion).--Wololoo (talk) 19:47, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Controversies

I've noted that the Italian version of Wikipedia has a very large section regarding controversies involving Lega, issues about Xenophoby, Homophobia and legal problems. I think that these facts should be inserted in the page, especially the electoral fraud of 49 millions Euro (a trial is ongoing). --87.21.234.253 (talk) 09:58, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

"Criticism" sections are not that welcome in en.Wikipedia. There was once such a section, but its content was integrated into the article as a whole. I do not know about it.Wikipedia, but it so low-quality that I frankly do not bother about it. Take a look to this template, that is applied to "Criticism" sections:

The issues you mentioned are already treated in the article, within regular sections. If you think that something should be added, do it in sections, with the benefit of authoritive sources and through a NPOV approach. Thanks! --Checco (talk) 10:52, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

I know that the Italian Wiki has a very low quality, I don't write anymore there because the admins feel theirselves like dictators and it has political views. If the trial ends in a condemn, and if it will be decisive in the founding of a new party, it must be inserted. If it won't, the page will last as it is. 87.21.234.253 (talk) 11:11, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Souverainism v. regionalism

I rollbacked this edit by User:Wololoo. "Souverainism" is an obscure, controversial and, in LN's case, poorly-sourced term. The term is primarily used in French-speaking contexts, especially Quebec, where it is a synonym of separatism/indipendentism. A party can be regionalist, thus in favour of regional autonomies, also when it is represented every corner of a country and, by the way, the LN, as such, is still officially active only in the north-central regions of Italy. Under Salvini, the party's ideology is evolving, but "regionalism" and "federalism" are still its main ideologies. Let's discuss, anyway. --Checco (talk) 09:08, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't think the two concepts exclude one another. As far as I understand, LN is souverainist when it comes to the relations between Italy and Europe. In this sense, it's against a federal Europe and advocates for more political/economical independence of each Nation inside the EU. On the other hand, I agree that LN still supports federalist and regionalist policies regarding internal Italian affairs. Ritchie92 (talk) 11:40, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree: the two ideologies do not exclude one another. The LN has always been "souverainist": it once supported the creation of Padania! This said, "souverainism" is quite an ambiguous, obscure and controversial term. Indeed, there are practically no English authoritative sources describing the party as "souverainist", while I found an interesting, albeit not authoritative, article in French. As I said, "souverainism" is not particularly used in English. I find "souverainism" redunant, ambiguous, etc., but I can live with it, as long as "regionalism" is mentioned before. --Checco (talk) 12:07, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

I had no doubts that you reverted my edit. Actually it's true that there are not English authoritative sources on souverainism, but it is not an ambiguous, obscure and controversial term as you said. And it is a fact that the League is no longer a regionalist party (despite its statute), because it has spread throughout Italy, a regionalist party is not present throughout Italy. It is now wrong to present it mainly as a regionalist party in the intro, Regionalism is no longer a representative ideology for the new League.--Wololoo (talk) 20:24, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

You probably misunderstand the meanining of regionalism, by confusing "regionalist" with "regional". A regionalist party supports regional autonomy, while a regional party is active only regionally. A regional party might not be regionalist and viceversa. The LN is still a regionalist party and, by the way, is not present throughout Italy (formally, its southernmost regional section is Umbria). --Checco (talk) 07:03, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

I wanted to open a new topic, but I've found it here. Although LN has not regional sections in the southern half of Italy, it is now a nationally spread party, able to gain votes also in Rome, Naples or Palermo, while until the 2013 elections it didn't existed there. To remark in a better way it I remember that Salvini this year was elected representing the southern region of Calabria and that the party presented on the ballot at the last elections without the term NORD in its symbol. LN's history is in the North, where the party still gains most of his votes, but the political motto now is "Italians first", not "Free Padania" as it was until 2013. Since this change started in 2013 it isn't a recentism any more too. The concept of Souveraignism isn't the Canadian one, it is the European one, simply Italian nationalism, another way to emphasize the change of the party ideology. Checco, can you insert a recent interview of an important League member saying that his party wants to increase regional powers or to transfer government's buildings across the North? 87.21.219.217 (talk) 09:51, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

The answers to some of the IP's comments are above, but I will repeat myself for clarity.

Regionalism. A party can be regionalist and/or support regionalism (i.e. the organization of the central state on a regional basis) even without being regionally-located. By the way, the LN is currently active only in north-central Italy, while its counterparts in southern regions and Lazio have recently been Us with Salvini and/or Lega for Salvini Premier. These days, there is talk about a merger of northern and southern leagues into a single party. If that happens, we will need a new Wikipedia article.

Souverainism. This term, derived from French, is not particularly used in English, let alone for Canadian souverainism, and can be translated into English as "separatism" (Canada) or "Euroscepticism" (France). I perfectly know that sovranismo is increasingly used by journalists and politicians in the Italian context, but, as in the case of other Italian expressions (popolarismo, cattolicesimo democratico, etc.), it is always better to use English terms in en.Wikipedia. The Italian-language sovranismo is a mixture of Euroscepticism, populism and anti-immigration policies. The LN is already described (correctly) as Eurosceptic and populist, (more or less correctly) as anti-immigration (the party opposes only illegal immigration) and (incorrectly, in my view and according to consensus in this talk page) as right-wing populist. Isn't all of this enough? I do not see any need of importing sovranismo into the infobox. In case, we can discuss about "national conservatism".

More on regionalism. The IP is very welcome to add infos on the "recent interview of an important League member saying that his party wants to increase regional powers" (he/she probably refers to Salvini's press conference in Venice last week, during which endorsed, once again, Venetian regional autonomy), but isn't it a little bit redundant? The article abundantly covers the issue, already. --Checco (talk) 08:30, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

1) Regionalism: The common perception of Italians now is that one of the Lega's main feature isn't regionalism any more. The theme of Regionalism still is in the recent "contratto di governo", but is very rarely used now in political speeches, also to take distance from the past and impose as a national party. Sections of the party are forming in the South too, at the last Pontida rally there were Lega groups even from Sicily.

2) Sovranismo: you're right Checco, there's no equivalent of this term in English. We can make a comparison with its European allies: a)The French Front National is described as Souverainist, but the article about souverainism refers to it as an anti-federalistic idea, so Lega can not be souveraignist in this way b)Fidesz, the party of the Hungarian MP Orban is described as "Hungarian Nationalist", not souverainist at all, while Italian media often call it "souveraignist" c)The same of Fidesz applies for the Polish PiS d)The British UKIP, not a Lega ally but with a very similar behavior towards the EU and migrants, is described as English Nationalist. I say that the best adjectives to describe Lega should be: national conservatism Italian nationalism Right Populism Anti-Immigration Eurosceptisism Anti-Globalization Federalism should be for sure considered a historical political position. Fedenna (talk) 19:57, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Regionalism. On thing is a (hardly demonstrable) "common perception" (in Veneto, Lombardy and other traditional strongholds, the LN has not changed much lately and, particularly in Veneto, autonomy is still the main issue), another sort of thing is a party's program, let alone its ideology. The party's southers sections have not been affiliated with the LN, but NcS and "Lega for Salvini Premier". Hopefully, these parties will merge into one and everything will be clearer. As of today, that has not happened yet and there are even distinct membership recruitments. If that happens, we should start a new article on the new party.

Souverainism. Thank you for acknowledging that it is an obscure term in English. "National conservatism" would be fine, but both "regionalism" and "federalism" should stay because they are two distinctive features of the party. The LN still supports regional autonomy (especially for northern regions) and federal reform, and, as several news sources point out, represents primarily northern interests within the government. --Checco (talk) 06:59, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

I've inserted National conservatism in the party ideology, as it's OK for both. I'm from Rome, and I didn't know Lega still had these aims in the North. Maybe its behavior is different in the different parts of Italy to gain more votes, so it is very ambiguous determining it. I think that we have to wait until the formation of the new party, as it could be formed in a few months so this talk will become useless. Of course, we'll have to create a new page. I think that the Souveraignism page should be modified, as it applies only to the Canadian point of view. I'll be very glad if you follow me on the talk I'll open on that page 87.21.234.253 (talk) 10:04, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

You got it! The LN (or, better, the Leagues) is a big catch-all party and, similarly to the U.S. Democrats and Republicans in the old days, has different goals and approaches in different parts of the country. Hopefully, the new party will bring more clarity.

In my view, the article on Souverainism is good as it is (the term comes from French and has been used mainly in Canada regarding the Quebec independence movement and, more recently, in France regarding Eurosceptic, mostly Gaullist parties and/or attitudes). Of course, everything can be improved. A line on the Italian very recent use of the term sovranismo can be added, but there is no such ideology per se in Europe. There is no need to import terms when "Euroscepticism", "national conservatism", etc. are already available. --Checco (talk) 10:52, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

@Checco In my view the main problem is the presentation in the intro; your statement "A party can be regionalist and/or support regionalism even without being regionally-located" it's quite controversial, but the case of the Northern league is particular: officially it is still a regionalist party, in practice it has become a nationalist party. This contrast between the two positions (the official one and the de facto one) it makes it difficult to describe the party with a single term, for this reason it would be preferable to delete the reference to regionalism from the intro.--Wololoo (talk) 21:58, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Straw poll: historical political position

@User:Autospark, User:Filippo83, User:Nick.mon, User:Pizzalover12, User:Sideshow Bob, User:Vif12vf, User:Wololoo (these seven users were involved in recent talks) and all other users who might be interested in the issue: I am starting this straw poll in order to verify whether the is still consensus on having "left-wing to centre-right" as "historical, now minorit[y]" position. One may select more options, as well as add more of them. --Checco (talk) 12:32, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

"Left-wing to centre-right"

1. Support. As User:Nick.mon and I have argued above there is no doubt that the early LN included also left-wingers—it was actually founded mostly by left-wingers. Both Bianchini and Biorcio (whose publications I restored as sources) gave an evidence of that and I am sure that several other political scientists have done the same (obviously, more sources would help). Moreover, also Giordano was removed with no reason, as his paper reads "there was a section of Lega Nord parliamentarians who had affiliations to the centre-right". --Checco (talk) 12:32, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
2. In the middle. If you have reliable sources backing your statement but if it’s not reliable, then it can’t be there. --Pizzalover12 (talk) 11:28, 24 May 2018
3. Support. At the moment, I think this is the best compromise position. (Obviously this should be backed up by further referencing.) This is a party which has been in its history a member of ELDR and EFA, and has arguably changed as an organisation over time.--Autospark (talk) 23:03, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
4. Support. As Checco said, there’s no doubt about Lega’s leftist ideas in the past, but also about it centre-right to right-wing views. -- Nick.mon (talk) 07:48, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
5. Support I feel like any comment from me right now would be the same as what has been written earlier. Tiberius Jarsve (talk) 10:59, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
6. Oppose. In my view, the worst solution. In my opinion "Left-wing to centre-right" does not mean anything...--Wololoo (talk) 20:30, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

"Left-wing to right-wing"

1. Support. A wider description is even better than the narrower option above. --Checco (talk) 12:32, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
2. In the middle. Same thing for the top, If you have reliable sources backing your statement, you can put it, but if it’s not reliable, then it can’t be there. --Pizzalover12 (talk) 11:28, 24 May 2018
3. Support. As above. Moreover I probably prefer this solution. -- Nick.mon (talk) 07:48, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
4. Support. I moderately support this solution (the current version in the infobox). The LN in the past was a transversal party, the sources say that in reality it was neither a right-wing party nor a left-wing party. "Left-wing to right-wing" could be an alternative to "Big tent".--Wololoo (talk) 20:30, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
5. Support This would serve pretty much as well as the one above, however it might represent the diversity of the party somewhat better. Tiberius Jarsve (talk) 11:06, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
6. Support. I essentially agree with Wololoo's assessment, above, and I am fine with this position. I probably would prefer it to be stated more elegantly than "Left-wing to right-wing", however, but it's a fine compromise if we can't think of another description.--Autospark (talk) 16:09, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

"Big tent"

1. Oppose. "Big tent" is not a political position per se and the LN is still a big-tent, catch-all, broad-church party. --Checco (talk) 12:32, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
2. Oppose. I think Big tent or catch-all can be both an ideology and a political position, but I disagree with it being an ideology or position, maybe we should put Right-wing to far-right (socially) and Left-wing (economically) . -- Pizzalover12 (talk) 11:28, 24 May 2018
3. Oppose. Generally, I prefer to avoid the description "big tent" for Infoboxes, as its not an ideology or political position per se (although it is a perfectly decent description for use in the main article text!)--Autospark (talk) 23:03, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
4. Support. As I always said, I prefer this solution, for the reasons that I’ve enounced many times. -- Nick.mon (talk) 07:48, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
5. Support. In the past, in many respects, the LN was essentially a "Big tent party".--Wololoo (talk) 20:40, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
6. Oppose I think it is definitively possible to determine the exact position of Lega Nord, both currently and in the past. Big tent would in my mind suit the party better if they were following a wide variety of social and economic policies and ideologies. Tiberius Jarsve (talk) 11:06, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
7. Support While I ordinarily do not support the use of "big tent" in infoboxes, I think it's accurate to say it's a big tent in that it allowed all possible ideologies (from Communist to Fascist, I am unaware of any Padanian nationalists being expelled for extremism in Lega's history) while maintaining support for Padanian nationalism as a single issue party. Padanian nationalism does not necessarily belong anywhere on the spectrum; therefore, Lega Nord was a big tent party. Furthermore, if it currently includes far-right elements (even more so if Salvini is considered far-right, as he would be "historical" as well), then I doubt those were ever expelled from Lega Nord when it was a big tent party historically. Thus, "left-wing to right-wing" is unacceptable because it would have to be "left-wing to far-right," and furthermore Lega Nord would probably still admit Communists at that time, even if their interest in Padania would be minimal (especially due to the existence of the Italian Communist Party). "Far-left to center-right" would also be a good minority position to ascribe to Lega Nord, should we go that route. Nuke (talk) 20:17, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

No historical position

1. Oppose. I think it is better to fully reflect LN's past in the infobox. --Checco (talk) 12:32, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
2. Oppose. The LN surely does have a political position, it should stay in the infobox. --Pizzalover12 (talk) 11:28, 24 May 2018
3. Oppose. The LN is a party with an 'interesting' history, both ideologically and otherwise. I feel that we should reflect this in the Infobox as well as the main article text.--Autospark (talk) 23:03, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
4. Oppose Lega’s position has considerably changed in recent years, so I think that a separation is necessary. -- Nick.mon (talk) 07:48, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
5. Oppose I think it is absolutely relevant to highlight the fact that the party has changed throughout the years, had the change only been minor i would have supported this idea, however the apparent change seems too big to ignore. Tiberius Jarsve (talk) 11:06, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
6. Support The "historical" section (of both the ideology and the position parameter) inflates the infobox. The purpose of an infobox is to summarise and simplify things, to provide a quick access to basic information at a first glance, not to become a parallel article in bullet point form. Other political parties have developed and changed their ideologies in the course of time, yet it is common practice to only mention their current ideology and position in the infobox. Everything else belongs in the main text.--RJFF (talk) 12:03, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
7. Support as per RJFF's observation. In my opinion, options #1 and #3 are simply factually incorect, while #2 is completely meaningless. Sideshow Bob 06:55, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

@Checco: I would like to remind you that consensus is not a voting procedure. --Wololoo (talk) 12:36, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Personally I think we should divide (as it happens for other parties) between clear right-wing tendecies about social policies (immigration, civil rights) and left-wing views regarding economic policies. -- Nick.mon (talk) 12:50, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

I think that the economic policies of LN have always been the opposite of the left: tax reduction, the proximity to small and medium-sized businesses and now the flat tax, have nothing to do with the left. Indeed I still do not see sources that claim that the League was a leftist party. Most sources claim that it was neither a right-wing nor a left-wing party. --Wololoo (talk) 13:02, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

In the beginnings Lega could be considered a leftist party and this is a fact. However I still think that Trasversalismo (Big tent) should be the best ideology for the past: they were neither leftist nor rightist, they just wanted more powers and autonomy for Northern regions. -- Nick.mon (talk) 13:14, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

@User:Wololoo: I know that consensus is not the result of a vote. In fact, there is no consensus on the edits Wololoo you have long proposed. We need to respect established consensus first and to discuss in order to eventually achieve a new consensus. Do you understand the meaning of "straw poll"? Bianchini and Biorcio give an account of left/right tendencies within the party, which was "neither left nor right" because it included both.

@User:Nick.mon: I agree that the LN was orignally a leftist party, but not on the economic/social dinstinction: in the 1990s its economic policy was a mixture of economic liberalism and social democracy (welfare, pensions, etc.), but it was its social policy which was really leftist: the party supported a stronger separation between church and state, the legalisation of soft drugs, same-sex marriage (in 1996!), etc. --Checco (talk) 13:34, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

@User:Nick.mon: I have many doubts about the League originally as leftist party (indeed there do not seem to be sources that support this thesis), while I substantially agree that the League was a Big tent or transversal party. --Wololoo (talk) 14:02, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

I do not think they are correct solutions (the sources say the league was neither a right-wing party nor a left-wing party). but between "Left-wing to right-wing" and "Left-wing to centre-right", the first hypothesis (and current version) is certainly better, because it covers a wider political spectrum. --Wololoo (talk) 08:32, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

I am glad that this "straw poll" has offered the chance for an open debate. I hope that also User:Filippo83, User:Sideshow Bob and User:Vif12vf will participate. I would also ask User:Nick.mon to specify his preferences among the aforementioned options and User:Autospark to clarify whether "left-wing to right-wing" might be accepatable to him, as it is mostly acceptable for User:Wololoo as "it covers a wider political spectrum". --Checco (talk) 06:30, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, if the choice is between “Left-wing to centre-right” and “Left-wing to right-wing” I vote for the second one, which can represent better all the factions of the party from late 1980s to 2000s. -- Nick.mon (talk) 07:03, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

@User:Nick.mon: Fair enough, but can you express your "support/oppose" on each of the options, possibly above?

@User:Autospark: Can you clarify your opinion or preference on "left-wing to right-wing"?

@User:Sideshow Bob, User:Vif12vf: Can you also take part to the straw poll? --Checco (talk) 07:38, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

@User:Vif12vf: Thank you for answering. Could you please say something also on the other three options ("left-wing to right-wing", "big tent" and "no historical position")? And could you explain each of your "support" and/or "oppose"? Thanks in advance! --Checco (talk) 11:38, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks to User:Wololoo for answering to the straw poll—Could you say something also on the "no historical position" option?

Once again, I kindly ask User:Autospark to clarify his opinion on "left-wing to right-wing", User:Vif12vf to say something also on the remaining three options, User:Sideshow Bob and User:Filippo83 (I forgot about him!) to participate from scratch. --Checco (talk) 06:33, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

I would also be favorable to "no historical position", but all the other users are against it. I think it is complex to describe in a elegant way the historical position of this party in the infobox. According to the sources the most correct solution would be "Neither Left-wing nor Right-wing", but maybe it would be unusual...--Wololoo (talk) 20:41, 31 May 2018 (UTC)