Jump to content

Talk:Italian Social Movement

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Legobot (talk | contribs) at 20:01, 27 June 2022 (Removing expired RFC template.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Title

Hi! I'm Italian. The page Movimiento Social Italiano has got a wrong title, infact the right spelling is Movimento Sociale italiano with a non-capitalized I in italian, because it is an adjective. Could you correct the title of the article? Thank you -- giandrea

Thanks for finding that error. In fact, it appears that the correct capitalization is "Movimento sociale italiano", per Encarta. [1]. Cheers, -Willmcw 22:37, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

I'm also italian and i don't agree. In Italian the parties names got all capitals , whatever the element of the name is a substantive or an adjective. See for example in the italian Wiki http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partito_Comunista_Italiano http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movimento_Sociale_Italiano http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democrazia_Cristiana --Neopagan 17:43, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it is true: it is correct to write Movimento Sociale Italiano. I'll correct the page. --Checco 16:46, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The link to the MSI posters is not working.....

strategy of tension

This section is part history, part conspiracy. See also this article on Gladio. Intangible2.0 (talk) 00:24, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Title 2

Some days ago I asked to Nightstallion to move the article for Wikipedia:Most common name. This is our conversation on the issue. --Checco (talk) 14:54, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nightstallion, I would like to make you think abou moving Italian Social Movement–National Right to Italian Social Movement. Even if MSI-DN was the official name during the last years of existance of the party, no-one in Italy actually refers to the party as MSI-DN but simply as MSI.

I think it is the typical case of Wikipedia:Most common name: in fact many Italian political parties have or had complicate and long names, but they are or were referred to simply with the shortened name. Examples? For current parties: the Italian Radicals, whose complete name would be "Italian Radicals. Liberal, Liberist and Libertarian Movement, Constituent Member of the Transnational Radical Party", Union of Christian and Centre Democrats, which should be "Union of Christian Democrats and Centre Democrats", Democratic Left, whose complete name would be "Democratic Left. For Socialism", and Lega Nord, which sould be "Lega Nord for the Independence of Padania". For former parties/coalition: The Olive Tree, which was actually named "The Olive Tree–Together for Italy" and Republican Left, whose complete name should have been "Republican Left–Republicans for the Unity of the Democratic Left". --Checco (talk) 10:13, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mh. Maybe...
BTW, regarding the above: The ÖVP does have one member of government. —Nightstallion 15:26, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, even I noticed that the People's Party has a member of the Carinthian government. Thanks.
Regarding the MSI, what does "maybe" mean? Is it something we can discuss and decide together? --Checco (talk) 17:25, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm thinking about it; I suppose you're right. —Nightstallion 22:05, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, there is no hurry about it... think! --Checco (talk) 14:39, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks. --Checco (talk) 14:52, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Gladly. —Nightstallion 17:02, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Predecessor

I strongly disagree to indicate the Republican Fascist Party as the predecessor of this party. The Italian Social Movement was founded ex novo, the predecession should be removed --Maremmano (talk) 20:54, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will re-insert it, explaining that it was not a legal predecessor. More infos are always better, for readers' sake. --Checco (talk) 08:14, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The facts are more important than opinions, MSI was a new party without predecessors, also if it was founded by some RSI's members. This affirmation needs consensus--Maremmano (talk) 20:10, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As I told you many times, your legalistic approach is disputable. It is very useful for readers to know from the infobox that, before the MSI, most Fascists were active in the PFR. It is not a wrong information, if accompanied by an explanatory note. Once again, let me tell you that you need to seek consensus before re-proposing an edit which is not supported by consensus. You are free to edit whichever article you want, but, when a user challenges one of your edits and re-instates the previous compromise or established version, you need to stop re-proposing your version and discuss. --Checco (talk) 08:58, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand why my edits need always your "nulla osta", stating that the MSI was the successor of PFR is hasty, wikipedia is however an encyclopedia and these affirmations certainly aren't encyclopedic. It seems that you often confuse the consensus with your permission--Maremmano (talk) 11:51, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all. My opinion counts as yours. However, when only two users are involved in a discussion, the established version must be upheld for it is supported by a former explicit consensus or an implicit consensus. --Checco (talk) 07:44, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For me it remains an original research, the rules of wikipedia are different...--Maremmano (talk) 22:51, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This has to do more with English language than Wikipedia rules: "preceded by" does not mean "formal predecessor". --Checco (talk) 10:25, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with Maremmano on this - this is WP:OR. Do we have a reliable source stating that MSI is a successor of PFR? While I agree that many MSI figures were active in the PFR, I don't think this amounts as a formal or informal "predecessor/successor" status, unless some solid source (e.g. a book on MSI) states this. --cyclopiaspeak! 10:37, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The PFR was the successor of the MSI, as Christian Democracy was the successor of the Italian People's Party. It is such an obvious thing (most leading members of the PFR joined the MSI, whose "Social" referred to the PFR's Italian Social Republic), that does not need sources, but of course there are plenty of them, starting from Storia del movimento sociale italiano: dalle origini del movimento sociale ai giorni nostri: 1946-1991 and Fascisti dopo la liberazione: Storia del Fascismo e dei fascisti nel dopoguerra in Italia : Dalla Repubblica Sociale al Movimento Sociale Italiano: 1945-1956. Obviously, in 1946 the MSI could not be the formal successor of the PFR: the Italian Constitution forbade (and forbids) the re-creation of the "Fascist Party" (at least under that name). --Checco (talk) 10:56, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not an obvious thing at all - and on WP, even "obvious" things need sources. Could you please quote the relevant passages in the sources you mention, and add such sources to the infobox? --cyclopiaspeak! 08:40, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Checco. It doesn't need to be a formal legal successor to be considered a successor party academically. Legal status is a technicality. The reasons why it wasn't a formal successor party are much more superficial than the ways in which it is. --4idaho (talk) 19:19, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree with 4idaho and Checco, in many cases a successor party can be a de facto successor rather than a legally recognised successor organisation, particularly in a case like this where there was a constitutional element to preventing legal recognition.--Autospark (talk) 11:43, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Italian Social Movement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:11, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Italian Social Movement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:06, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Political position

@Checco: Could you point me out where the sources you entered indicate precisely the MSI as a just right-wing party? I have read these sources:

  • the first source makes a very generic initial reference to the right, and then begins to analyze movements and parties of the radical right; therefore, de facto, it refers to the radical right;
  • the second source just makes another generic reference to the right;
  • the third source describes the Italian Democratic Party of Monarchical Unity as a right-wing party;
  • the fourth source refers to the word missino and it's the only source that actually describes the MSI as a right-wing party (I noticed this later). The source is authoritative, but the specific lemma of the encyclopedia Treccani ([2]) describes the MSI a little differently: practically, Treccani describes it as a radical right-wing party.

Furthermore, the neo-fascist ideology (and moreover as the main ideology) automatically makes a party only of the far-right. MSI is currently being put on an equal footing with Brothers of Italy, but that's not quite the case. I think an RFC will be needed as has already happened for the French National Rally.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 07:51, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing automatic. I am personally opposed to the "xxxx to xxxx" format and I would remove political positions altogether from party infoboxes because they are ultimately deceptive as those terms vary too much from country to country. However, the "xxxx to xxxx" format is very common in Wikipedia and, for consistency, it can be used also here. I offered four sources and your evaluation is not correct: the first source clearly explains how, differently from radical right parties, the MSI was more mainstream; the second source includes the MSI among "right-wing parties"; the third source describes the MSI as a "right-wing party" ("In the 1972 general elections MSI joined with another right-wing party", thus also the MSI was a right-wing party); the fourth souce describes the MSI as a "right-wing party". If "far-right" and "far-left" are used, only extreme fringe parties should apply: the abuse of "far-right" and "far-left" in Wikipedia is definitely a problem. The MSI was not extreme, especially in later years: for instance, it was keenly Atlanticist. --Checco (talk) 18:06, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The MSI was Atlanticist when its leaders were Augusto De Marsanich and Arturo Michelini: in that period it was a righ-wing party. Treccani itself claims that the party was not moderate after the end of their leadership ([3]). Including a movement or organization generically in the right-wing area does not mean that it is just a "right-wing party". A right-wing terrorist organization remains a far-right organization, without the necessity to specify it, it's pretty elementary. The first three sources do not state what you are claiming, the fourth source (the definition of Missino di Treccani) is better specified in the lemma concerning the same MSI. Furthermore, if you do not approve the xxx to xxx format, this party would be all the more referred to as a far-right party. I advise you to find more adequate sources. Anyway I will start a Rfc, certainly the MSI was no more moderate than the current French National Rally.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 20:06, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can you pull out a quote or page number from the sources in question that you think supports this? I am not seeing it at a glance, and the fact that the context of all these sources is books about the far-right makes me skeptical of your interpretation. I definitely don't think that something like In the 1972 general elections MSI joined with another right-wing party is sufficient, though; after all, that describes what unified the entire coalition, not MSI specifically. The fact that that source describes it further down as having a fascist heritage seems a lot more significant. A far-right party is, by definition, a type of right-wing party, so if you want to argue against the sources that describe it as far-right you will need sources that use right-wing in a way that clearly has a different meaning and distinguishes it from the far right, rather than ones that vaguely just lump it in with the rest of the right. Something like "it formed an alliance with another right-wing party" in the context of describing it as a neofascist party whose reputation caused the collapse of the first government it joined doesn't really qualify. Or, in other words - the "X to Y" phrasing is for when we have sources that specifically say that the party covers that sort of wide ground, which I don't think your sources do. --Aquillion (talk) 20:22, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I question the extensive usage of "far-right" and "far-left" for parties which are not fringe or extemist ones, I think that political positions should be avoided because they are too deceptive and I also question the usage of the "xxxx to xxxx" format. However, as of now, political parties have political positions in the infoboxes and the "xxxx to xxxx" format is used for several parties. It can be used also here. I consider the MSI, let alone the French National Rally, just a right-wing party and not a far-right one, but established consensus, sources and Wikipedia customs are for "right-wing to far-right". Heritage is of little importance, otherwise we should describe the Spanish PP as far-right because of its Francoist heritage. The MSI travelled a long way from fascism and was a post-fascist party, not a neo-fascist one (the Italian Constitution forbids the re-foundation of the Fascist Party). Indeed, the issue before us is quite simple: the MSI, depending on sources, can be describe as "right-wing" or "far-right"; per Wikipedia custom, we should continue to have "right-wing to far-right". The sources for "far-right" are not better than those I provided for "right-wing": one uses "Far Right" as synonym for the MSI, exactly as one of my sources uses "Italian right" as synonym for the MSI, while another one is unverifiable. We should go back to the established consensus and the sources on "right-wing" should be included. --Checco (talk) 13:46, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Those sources do not describe the MSI as a classic right-wing party and it has already been explained why. The "xxx to xxx format" is used when a party is indistinctly described with both one position and another (such as League and FdI). This does not seem to be the case with the MSI: there may be sources describing the MSI simply as a right-wing party, but certainly not those sources.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 14:48, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For example, the second source posted by User:Autospark states that the MSI was a right-wing party (I am unable to read the first source). For this reason I think that at the moment the page can stay like this, but the underlying problem remains. There has been an Rfc on the political position of the French National Rally, which is currently more moderate than the MSI. So I'm going to start a RFC for this party too, in order to have a definitive consensus on the political position of the party.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 20:58, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RFC: Italian Social Movement political position

Looking at reliable sources, how should we describe the political position of the Italian Social Movement?

Please choose one of the three options, preferably together with a motivation and reliable sources that explicitly support the party's political position.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 19:20, 28 May 2022 (UTC) --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 21:10, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

  • Per the description of the party in the current lead, Option 4: center-right to far-right. (Failing that, option 1, but I don't think that quite captures the transformation of the party over time.) Option 3 as currently phrased is nonsensical: "right-wing" includes "far-right". Loki (talk) 00:23, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 2: The MSI has never been a centre-right party. In some years it has had a more moderate political line (1950s/60s and 1993/94) but it has generally always been described as a neo-fascist party and therefore as a far-right party. The infobox itself describes the MSI as a successor to the Fascist Party (although I'm not fully convinced of that information). All these data are in contrast with a simple "right-wing position". And as stated by the user above, "Right-wing" often includes the concept of "Far-right", so some sources may refer generically to the MSI as a right-wing party, without however excluding that it was actually a far-right party. Ps. Furthermore, two years ago it was decided through Rfc to describe the National Rally as a far-right party, but this party is now certainly more moderate than MSI was. I believe that a certain consistency is needed both with the information inside the page (which describes it as a neo-fascist party) and with the pages of other parties.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 09:41, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 1 or only “neo-fascist”: MSI became “centre-right” AN in the 1990s under Fini (per BBC) or as being in the “right-wing” group (per NYTimes), and the MSI under Almirante is described as “right-wing” (per BBC). I would generally avoid sensationalist labels and as an overall summary anything more seems not suitable, particularly when the lead is mentioning it having moderated and that seems the bulk of its existence. (Looking at NY Times articles 1946 to early 1950s versus the late 1950s thru early 1990s.) I also think the better (more common) RS use is actually just “neo-fascist”, in a factual sense and not hyperbolic labelling, so it could just use that and none of the option listed. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 12:19, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 1. The party was broadly right-wing. It was post-fascist (neo-fascist would be an exaggeration), but it was not a fringe or extremist party. In my view, "far-right" and "far-left" should be used only for parties on the fringe or opposing democracy. I also think that political positions should be avoided in party infoboxes as they are too deceptive and depends so much on the national context—it is no surprise that political positions are not included in the infoboxes of the United States Republican and Democratic parties. The "xxxx to xxxx" format is also not a good thing, but I could accept "right-wing to far-right" as compromise. --Checco (talk) 03:39, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 2, per WP:RS. I have seen no reliable source explicitly stating that MSI is a classical right-wing party as opposed to far-right. Instead there is a plethora of sources describing MSI as far-right or radical right. Also, neo-fascism and post-fascism are far-right ideologies, so if MSI is broadly neo-fascist or post-fascist, then the best descriptor is definitely far-right, rather than right-wing. What happened afterwards with Fini and AN does not change what MSI was: a far-right party. Yakme (talk) 06:47, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 2, There are sources (e.g. Williams[1]) that characterize Italian Social Movement as a radical right-wing party. The characterization even cites the "radical right wing" social movement as a model adopted by other organizations such as the French neo-fascist organization, Ordre Nouveau. Darwin Naz (talk) 12:15, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 2 per my analysis of the sources above; the sources that go into depth on its politics describe it as far-right or words to that effect, and a few passing mentions that lump it into broad lists of right-wing parties do not contradict this, especially when even many of those sources describe it in ways that emphasize that it is clearly radical. --Aquillion (talk) 20:26, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ Williams, M. (2006). The Impact of Radical Right-Wing Parties in West European Democracies. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. p. 81. ISBN 978-1-349-53470-8.

Threaded Discussion

  • Comment I agree with User:LokiTheLiar that the MSI had also "centre-right" elements, as well as "far-right" ones, that is why I think that "right-wing" is a fitting categorisation. It would be a little bit awkward, but I would accept also "centre-right to far-right", as you proposed. --Checco (talk) 03:29, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Checco and LokiTheLiar: You would like to describe the MSI as a centre-right party, but I would like to remind you that these claims should be supported by at least any source, not by personal opinions. On the other hand, I have never known centre-right neo-fascist parties... --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 13:19, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, my preference goes to "right-wing", which is mentioned in several souces, and that covers the spectrum of a political party, which had a broad centre-right majority and a far-right minority. The MSI, especially from the 1970s, was home to conservatives of all stripes as well as liberals, religious consevatives as well as anti-clericals, monarchists and republicans, and so on. All the parties of the so-called Italian "First Republic" were very heterogenous, so that, after the realignment started in 1992–1994, people from all the old parties joined each and every new party. What is sure is that the MSI was not neo-fascist as some fringe groups (i.e. New Force) are. More correctly, it was a post-fascist party and, starting from the 1970s, it absorbed politicians with different political roots. Anyway, also the neo-/post-fascism = far-right equation is not correct, otherwise what should we say of the Christian democrats who co-operated with the Francoist regime and, its political heirs, mainly the People's Alliance/Party? --Checco (talk) 16:30, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I just read a whole lot of WP:OR and no substance here. By the way, collaborating with a fascist regime is not equivalent to being neo-fascist or post-fascist. OTOH being ideologically neo-fascist means immediately belonging to the far right of the political spectrum. Yakme (talk) 19:28, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Italian_Social_Movement&oldid=1095340187"