Jump to content

Talk:Brothers of Italy: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 174: Line 174:


:::::::And "national conservatism" is definitely more accurate. --[[User:Checco|Checco]] ([[User talk:Checco|talk]]) 06:30, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
:::::::And "national conservatism" is definitely more accurate. --[[User:Checco|Checco]] ([[User talk: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. [[Special:Contributions/2A02:908:2813:BB40:B026:CA0A:D5D0:8765|2A02:908:2813:BB40:B026:CA0A:D5D0:8765]] ([[User talk:2A02:908:2813:BB40:B026:CA0A:D5D0:8765|talk]]) 19:15, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Revision as of 19:15, 19 January 2021

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.

Italian nationalism

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)[reply]

Nationalism is better written and sourced than Italian nationalism, but I would remove "Nationalism" altogether. --Checco (talk) 15:19, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Only "Nationalism" is an improvement, but, as I said, I would remove "Nationalism" altogether. --Checco (talk) 07:29, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In my personal view we should mantain "Nationalism". I'm going to remove "(Italian)". -- Nick.mon (talk) 07:32, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Far-right

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
And... consensus. --Checco (talk) 16:54, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

2018 General Election

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)[reply]

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

Ultranationalism

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

  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

“ 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Meloni is a conservative, not a nationalist, let alone ultranationalist. --Checco (talk) 16:14, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's your opinion, not what reliable sources say. 68.197.116.79 (talk) 01:00, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

National Conservative

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"Right-wing" is an agreeable term and, indeed, I would have just it in the infobox. --Checco (talk) 16:34, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Totally agree with User:Autospark. --Checco (talk) 18:15, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
And "national conservatism" is definitely more accurate. --Checco (talk) 06:30, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"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)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Brothers_of_Italy&oldid=1001453593"