Talk:Giorgia Meloni

Untitled

This page is factually incorrect. Whoever wrote she is a fascist is a liar, and should be sued for false informations. The categorisation (bottom) of "Neo-Fascist" is a blatant lie and political attack. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.183.238.76 (talk) 01:50, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

You can start a discussion here on the talk page by suggesting what you think it should say. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:52, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

is it any surprise, that the leftwing lunatics who have ruined wikipedia have already slandered this subjec? WirmerFlagge (talk) 15:38, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

None of it is even cited, how is it allowed to be on the main page?Clarissacolgate (talk) 00:50, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Yeah Wikipedia is really going crazy with this article. You aren't allowed to make edits but they also don't put the LOCK picture in the top right. So if you didn't know better you'd think this is what people actually believe. Whatever makes the people in power happy, I guess. 2600:4041:5801:400:1C55:F445:403:47C8 (talk) 19:02, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Read WP:LEADCITE. Everything that you see in the introduction is backed up by reliable sources that are located further down the article. The page was locked yesterday due to vandalism (see page history) and will stay protected until September 29. Vacant0 (talk) 19:09, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

"Reliable sources" are just billion dollar corporations that are all centrally controlled by the CIA and pump out propaganda designed to manufacture consent for war profiteering that kills mostly brown people. 2600:4041:5801:400:2407:1F63:BE9D:B6C7 (talk) 19:25, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

What sources do you think are reliable then? Vacant0 (talk) 19:28, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

it's not what alternatives are reliable that is the issue, but that what is deemed reliable can say any nonsense and the wikipedia leftist edit warriors will accept it ... and use editorial hierarchies to block any attempt to qualify or contextualize the characterization of the subject by these corporatist mouthpieces. wikipedia's ethical standards are laughable. WirmerFlagge (talk) 15:48, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

"wikipedia's ethical standards are laughable because they don't precisely align with my political views". i fixed that for you. johnnycat (talk) 06:09, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

typical. lazy, revealing, self-referential. but, typical. somebody get this cat a mirror. fixed it for you WirmerFlagge (talk) 19:49, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Self-described

Meloni described …

Meloni self-described …

In what universe is “self-described” more precise, more clear, or in any other way an improvement on “described”? 143.59.33.8 (talk) 12:01, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

"Described" means someone else said it about it. "Self-described" means she said it about herself. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 01:10, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

She said what about herself? 2600:4041:5801:400:1C55:F445:403:47C8 (talk) 18:45, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

at least they've given her that courtesy. most of the subjects the edit mafia on wikipedia hate are just labelled racist, transphobe, etc etc etc ad nauseum, and any attempt to provide the subject's own description of themselves is undone, or targeted, or brigaded to death. WirmerFlagge (talk) 15:41, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Adding or Nominating as Prime Minister

Do not adding or nominating her without official sources from {https://www.governo.it/it/il-presidente} Raden Maksim (talk) 10:15, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 September 2022

This page is full of assumptions and adjectives that go beyond fact. This is propaganda, not knowledge. To repeat whatever criticisms and opinions have been voiced against anyone, in a falsely 'neutral' way, is simply the amplification of a smear campaign.

To say that she "has been described" or "has been accused", is not verified fact against the subject of the description or accusation - it's only fact in respect to the accusers.

The article itself looks more like the minutes for a prosecution. Unacceptable, because Wikipaedia should deal with fact - not opinion - but also not make politics. This is a knowledge base - not a tribune.

As usual, things become more clear if we reverse them: a similar article against any left-wing politician, with political accusations of equivalent nature, would be deemed as "fascist" and intolerable and immediately censored! Antenato (talk) 10:57, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Yakme (talk) 11:03, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

typical. wikipedia is dead. the far left corporate, globalist, groomer edit mafia have won. WirmerFlagge (talk) 15:42, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

"far left" "corporate" ... pick one — seriously though, please read WP:PERSONALATTACKS and WP:RELIABLESOURCES. Davide King (talk) 19:43, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

are you seriously implying a division between far-left politics and the corporate oligarchs? "you'll own nothing and like it"? "climate change is the biggest threat to our world"? "white men are the biggest threat to our country"? "pride"! are you living in a world we've discovered? and, david, a personal attack requires a person ... who was ... wait for it ... attacked. you're welcome, genius. WirmerFlagge (talk) 19:53, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

sorry ... davidE? didn't mean to misgender you. WirmerFlagge (talk) 19:56, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm not a transgender, I'm just a *gasp* foreigner to you (Davide is the Italian for David). There's no point further discussing this with you, as you appear to know nothing about political science, confuse the centre-left for the far-left, and don't appear to realize it's the centre-left that moved to the right since the 1970s as the Neoliberal (Counter-)Revolution took hold. "you'll own nothing and like it" Just like our existing society, "private property is already done away for a large of the population; its existence for the few is solely due to its non-existence in the hands of the rest of population" (semi-quote), and if you meant houses, there are still millions who don't have it, but you probably think this ain't "real capitalism". And as for personal attacks, what do you think "edit mafia" referred to? To Wikipedia editors, who may come as a shock to you but they're people too. Going back to the subject of this article, the New York Post, The Sun, and the Washington Examiner have all described Meloni as far right. Are they far left too? Davide King (talk) 12:15, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Citations needed

Citation need for the lines ‘ She has expressed controversial views, such as praising Italian dictator Benito Mussolini in 1996 and Nazi collaborator and co-founder of MSI Giorgio Almirante in 2020.’ Unless this is already cited before the text it needs it to keep up to the neutrality standards Wikipedia says to set. 216.150.112.139 (talk) 23:44, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Citations are not always included in the lede in cases where it summarises information that is included (with citations) later in the article. Check citations 132 and 133. TWM03 (talk) 08:38, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Read MOS:LEADCITE. Vacant0 (talk) 10:47, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Citations?

Are we done with backing up our articles with citations now? Is that a thing of the past? 2600:6C5E:5D7F:F073:D103:3F5F:F549:F7E (talk) 02:53, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Read MOS:LEADCITE. Vacant0 (talk) 10:47, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 September 2022

She has been elected Prime Minister of Italy and yet the page does not provide this information Adams334 (talk) 14:26, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

 Not done – she has not been elected PM. Yakme (talk) 14:29, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

yes she has WirmerFlagge (talk) 15:43, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

"Should Meloni succeed in her quest to form a government, she will likely take the reins of prime minister in October."

From https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/foreign/italys-far-right-giorgia-meloni-first-female-pm 51.6.122.18 (talk) 10:36, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 September 2022 (2)

The second paragraph under "Personal Life" is unfounded speculation, and all sentences in the paragraph are cited from a single notoriously biased source with a single author (citation #163). They do not belong on this wiki, please delete that entire paragraph. The clear attempt of the author is slight the subject, which is not in line with wikipedia's objectives of fair and unbiased knowledge gathering, and should serve as grounds for limiting or monitoring that contributor's future attempts at editing articles. Dyno99 (talk) 15:06, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

 Done – I boldly removed that paragraph. Indeed it was sort of useless to point out her literary preferences. Yakme (talk) 16:05, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Would it be fair to describe her as a fascist ruler once she gets into power?

It's no secret that Meloni was a member of a full-blown neo-fascist party, and has praised Mussolini, Nazi collaborators, and the most virulent members of the MSI. However, while multiple sources describe her as still being a neo-fascist, would it be appropriate to categorize her as a fascist ruler? She would still preside over a government that is constitutionally liberal democratic, even if her sympathies lay with a more classically fascist system.

Personally, I'm up to adding the category of "Fascist rulers" to her, and I think that her own personal ideology is more important than the type of regime she leads, but I'm open to hearing debate on this. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 17:22, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

In my opinion this would only be appropriate if the substantial majority of reliable sources describe her as being a fascist at the time she is (will be) in power. We should leave it up to them to decide whether her own ideology or the type of regime she leads is more important. As of now I see a variety of descriptors used including "far-right", "hard-right", "right-wing populist" to describe her current positions, and not enough consensus to describe her as a fascist ruler. TWM03 (talk) 17:56, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

We should wait. If reliable sources in future tend to acknowledge her as "fascist"/"fascist ruler" etc. then I'd recommend to launch a RfC to reach a consensus for the inclusion of the category in the article. Vacant0 (talk) 18:55, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Sure, so long as her regime is characterised by a dictatorial leader, centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition, belief in a natural social hierarchy, subordination of individual interests for the perceived good of the nation and race, and strong regimentation of society and the economy. :) 78.146.243.73 (talk) 21:55, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Who knows, maybe she will be? Regardless, it's important to note that us editors aren't the judge of such descriptions, reliable sources and scholarly consensus are. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 22:29, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Extremely politically biased and shameful to Wikipedia

This entire page should be put under review for political bias. Has any actual Italian speaker reviewed this at all? It's insane.

1. As said many times before, there are no sources

2. Take a look at her ITALIAN Wikipedia page. It provides an unbiased and very neutral descripion of her with a much fairer section titled "political ideas" where they discuss her right wing views.

Hopefully this gets taken seriously because from my perspective the current article is fully written by one of her opponents on a bad day.

In the 4 years of my politics degree I never encountered a more biased page about any political figure. The entire page is, even if you don't know who she is, CLEARLY written by someone who hates her and wants to make every single possible fascist association and connection extremely evident. You have to recognise that it is bias. All of this should be condensed inside a "fascism associations/controversy/whatever" section. Even the personal life section is half dedicated to something about a fascist slogan. The political points made at every possible turn (almost literally in every sentence) should be restricted to one section. This page mentions fascism more than Mussolini's page. - I dread to think the misrepresentations I may have learned from pages about other foreign political figures. Wilpy590 (talk) 17:39, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

1. This page has 162 sources.

2. This page mentions "fascism" or "fascist" 10 times, and Benito Mussolini's page mentions "fascism" or "fascist" 155 times.

You are more likely to be taken seriously if you make your points specific and do not make wildly false assertions like these, or make personal attacks against editors as you did when you stated that the article was "written by someone who hates her". TWM03 (talk) 18:43, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

• This page has been mostly edited by Italians through out the recent period.
• This page lists 162 references. If you're talking about the introduction, read MOS:LEADCITE. I've already pointed this out to several users above.
• The Italian page is tagged for neutrality, meaning that it is biased towards certain viewpoints.

Vacant0 (talk) 18:46, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

yes it should. i agree. but, it is unlikely. because wikipedia is controlled by, guess what, a political agenda, designed to further the globalist destruction of family, nation, and rights. WirmerFlagge (talk) 20:06, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

The Italian article also calls her a fascist, lists her fascist ideas, lists her fascist friends, and talks of her love for conspiracy theories, so if you want to use that as the standard for the English article, I can support it. Cdjp1 (talk) 21:28, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 September 2022

Once again, the second paragraph under Personal Life appears, after it was deleted this morning for clear irrelevance and bias. The citations have changed slightly but are still referring to a single author from a single notoriously biased source, whose clear intent is slander. This paragraph should be removed (again), it does not belong on a factually-based knowledge sharing site. It would appear that the author has editing rights, and I would again suggest that those rights be revoked or monitored, otherwise he will keep reintroducing his irrelevant and subjective content about fantasy fiction. Dyno99 (talk) 03:53, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

How exactly it is biased? You guys cry bias for anything, now for her literature preferences, which WP:RS (no matter that you think are unreliable or "biased") linked to her politics. I hope for copy editing and further improvement but it seems relevant to her politics and the New York Times piece has since received secondary coverage. I say we should follow WP:PRESERVE for now and try to improve it rather than remove it outright. Davide King (talk) 08:31, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

It's biased because it's sourced from a single person writing for a single publication, who has cobbled together a debasing allegation that he's assigning to a political realm in order to make it look ridiculous and based in fantasy. Taking a couple disparate alleged quotes and gluing them together with the author's inventions of motive doesn't make it anywhere near credible, quite the opposite, and viewers shouldn't have to read hearsay presented as general knowledge. The secondary coverage is still just referring to the single author, and it is objectively tabloid and politically motivated. I recommend that the wikipedia article just stick closer to common fact, as it does for most Personal Life sections, and ditch the fantasy fiction drivel. Dyno99 (talk) 11:06, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

It no longer is, as it is also mentioned by Agence France-Presse (AFP). Both AFP and The New York Times are considered WP:RELIABLESOURCES. Even the New York Post and The Sun (actual tabloids) have described her as far right — are they biased too for you? Davide King (talk) 11:13, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

It would appear you're focusing on the reference I made to the secondary coverage still just referring to the single author as a basis for the entire allegation about fantasy fiction. You can read it yourself. I'm not commenting on what publications in the world should be labelled tabloid, nor did I mention anything about the label "far right". I'll say it again, the fantasy fiction hearsay and slander does not belong on this wiki. Dyno99 (talk) 11:32, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

I will try to give you a better answer and address your issues. I don't know who added this in the first place, I added the AFP ref — I think the person who added and edited it in the first place would give a better answer because I still do not see where the issue is. How is it hearsay and slander? It was published by reliable sources, which linked it to her politics as stated below by TWM03, and I see no WP:VERIFY issues. So what that it was written by a single author?

There is no requirement that every article must be written by more than one author, so what it changed if it was written two or more authors? It needs to be published in a reliable source, sometimes the publisher matter more, other times the author matter more but in this case everything is fine — published by a reputable source and written by a journalist who has extensively covered Italy and other Southern European countries, not a politician or an op-ed. Many other articles also includes things about a politician's personal life that are relevant to their politics or career, not someone's favourite stuff, which truly does not belong on this wiki. There must be a link, which in this case I think reliable sources have provided. Davide King (talk) 20:47, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

I appreciate your continued dialog. I am earnestly following up to represent my points, not trying to squabble. It's hearsay because you've got one person alleging quotes from the subject, and then assigning motive to those alleged quotes. Hearsay is "the report of another person's words by a witness", which is further exacerbated by this guy's sheer speculation about intent. It's all him saying I heard her say 'this' and she meant 'this'. Hearsay. That doesn't belong on here, his dislike for the subject is quite clear, he's not interested in a neutral encyclopedia. And it's biased in the same vein, you've got one single person making sweeping allegations, that's inherently biased to that one person. The slander is plain as day... rather ask the question, how is this not slander. Dyno99 (talk) 22:13, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

The concept of hearsay does not apply when the person who said the thing is the person the statement is being made about. In order for the statement to be libelous or slanderous it would have to be false. TWM03 (talk) 22:25, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks to TWM03 for having given you a much more concise answer than I ever could. It appears that the problem is you don't like the author and the piece, which is really not a good reason to remove sourced information. As I said, the author is a qualified and respected journalist who has been covering Italy and the region for many years, was published in a reliable source that has editorial standards and factchecking to verify what was said in the article, and was additionally covered by at least another reliable source. If there was anything that was actually "libelous or slanderous", or false, rest assued they would issue retractions. Davide King (talk) 11:58, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

 Not done as there are multiple reliable sources linking this to her politics, and I see no evidence that the intent of the articles is to slander her. A disagreement over what content should be in an article is not a reason for someone's editing rights to be removed. TWM03 (talk) 08:39, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

you are misunderstanding wikipedia's definition of "reliable source." it simply means whatever furthers the leftist corporate agenda and shows sufficient obeisance to the so-called protected classes the edit mafia represent. WirmerFlagge (talk) 20:03, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Again, "leftist" "corporate" – make up your mind. I think WP:RELIABLESOURCES and WP:NEWSORG is pretty clear — "that a news organization engages in fact-checking and has a reputation for accuracy are the publication of corrections and disclosures of conflicts of interest", which The New York Times, no matter how you may think is biased, qualifies. If you think "mainstream media" is "fake news", I don't know what to tell you and is pointless to discuss this any further. I'm trying to assume good faith, but if you are not here to build an encyclopedia, you should at least stop making personal attacks and slander our community. Davide King (talk) 20:47, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

If you want to only work on an online encyclopedia that only aligns with right-wing ideas while ignoring what is published, Conservapedia exists. Cdjp1 (talk) 21:24, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

A full paragraph on this is clearly WP:UNDUE. Why is this information relevant? And why is it put in "Personal life"? Ovinus (talk) 06:30, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree that it could be trimmed down. I think it is relevant because reliable sources have covered it and linked it to what Meloni is known for (her politics), though over time this may become irrelevant in comparison to other more important things. Where should it be put if not under "personal life"? TWM03 (talk) 10:58, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Dubious claims

I'm out of the loop on this topic, but did some spotchecks. The article currently states, "Meloni opposes abortion, euthanasia, and laws that recognize same-sex marriage or civil unions." It's sourced to this, which says, Known for her strongly nationalist and anti-immigrant views as well as opposition to abortion and same-sex marriage, Brothers of Italy (Fratelli d’Italia, or FdI) leader Giorgia Meloni .... Okay. But NYT says, Asked about the law, Ms. Meloni, who has said her mother nearly aborted her, vowed in an interview that she “wouldn’t change it” as prime minister, and that abortion would remain “accessible and safe and legal.” But she added that she wanted to more fully apply a part of the law “about prevention,” which, she said, had been effectively ignored until now ([1]). Thus the unqualified statement that she "opposes abortion" is false. The opposition to civil unions is also apparently untrue. [2] (NYT) describes her opposition to adoption by gay couples, but says: Ms. Meloni has said that civil unions are good enough for gay couples.

It's worrying to see these kinds of factual errors on a BLP; if anyone else would like to check through the references I would appreciate it. Ovinus (talk) 06:26, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

I think that was because the the part about her social views was written some time ago and the two sources you've added were published those days. I've since added them. Davide King (talk) 13:10, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

BLPN

FYI, there’s a discussion about this article happening at the Biographies of Living Persons Noticeboard. See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Giorgia Meloni. Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:07, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

@Davide King:, I changed your wikilink edit[3] because it's not clear from the quote from the NY Times article ("the genre of fantasy in Italy has always been cultivated by the right") whether Croppi is referring to just the far right or the right in general. It's clear that the far right uses these camps to indoctrinate the youth, but the "fantasy" may extend to the entire right spectrum. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:12, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

No problem. Perhaps we may also add the quote from an expert. AFP says: "Meloni's frequent references to The Lord of the Rings are no surprise for Paolo Heywood, an anthropologist at Durham University who has researched Italy's fascist movements. Far-right movements around the world 'have always been fascinated by the images of manly Nordic heroes found in Tolkien's work', he explained. In the case of Italy's far right, the fascination dates back to the early 1970s, following the publication of a first translation of The Lord of the Rings, prefaced by the philosopher and scholar of mysticism Elémire Zolla." Davide King (talk) 22:58, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

There may be some synthesis, but it's clear that Croppi refers to the far-right as just the right. No surprise since he was one of the founders of the camp. I do not object to adding a shortened version of your proposal. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:59, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

"... it's clear that Croppi refers to the far-right as just the right." I'm not sure I understand what you're saying but that's why I used 'far-right' because he is/was far-right and so 'the right', while it could also refer in more broad terms, I understood it to mean 'far-right', that's why I used that link but it's not a big deal. As for the rest, if you have any preferred wording or suggestion for that little addition, I'd be happy to work it out with you. :-) Davide King (talk) 02:07, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

I meant that extremists (whether it's fascists or nazis) never see themselves as extremists. It may just be simpler to reinstate your interpretation than add more text. Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:23, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, that’s what I thought too. I will work on it. By the way, The New York Times referred to the folk band as “extremist”, AFP as “far-right”, and Le Monde as “neo-fascist”. Davide King (talk) 02:40, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Mussolini in the lead

I am very skeptical about having Mussolini in the lead. But if he is in the lead, we should say that she praised him when she was 19. Saying that she praised him in 1996 is inadequate because it would require people to do some math to figure out she was a teenager. Teenagers say all kinds of crazy things, and most readers will not weight them as heavily as if said by an older person. The *only* reason to say “1996” and not “19” is to obscure the truth: that she was just a teenager. Here is the edit. Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:55, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

So what that she was 19? As recently as two years ago, she praised Almirante, the co-founder of a party including actual Fascists after the fall of the Mussolini regime. Ultimately, what matters are reliable sources and since there is a section about it (per significant coverage by reliable sources), it is lead worthy. Note that we also say she condemned the end of democracy and the anti-Jewish laws. I have not written that part or even the whole lead but I think it is balanced. Davide King (talk) 19:58, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

You may not think her age was significant, but reliable sources do, see Ritchie, Alice and Branchereau, Gael. “Italy’s Giorgia Meloni: From teen activist who praised Mussolini to brink of power” Times of Israel (26 Sep 2022). Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:35, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Ironically, the fact we have so many reliable sources mentioning this after all these years, it means it's certainly due. I've since clarified the year-age stuff, but it's lead worthy. Davide King (talk) 21:11, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Aspen institute

Is there any proof she is a member of the aspen institute? The sources are dubious and she is not listed as a member on their website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Famaja (talk • contribs) 18:51, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed it as you can see she is not a listed member https://www.aspeninstitute.org/programs/society-of-fellows/sof-members/ Famaja (talk) 19:11, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

La Repubblica is not a dubious sources, and neither are the other sources just because they're in Italian, and she is listed as socia. Perhaps member is not a goot translation for that (a literally translation is 'partner') but she has associated with them since February 2021. Davide King (talk) 19:54, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

That’s just hearsay though there’s no official confirmation she’s a member, partner etc on any of the institutes official websites, that article claims she listed as a member yet does not provide proof. Famaja (talk) 21:20, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

It’s possible she was invited to join yes, there is no proof she is an official member or partner. Famaja (talk) 21:21, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

What do you think reliable source do? They verify their sources and get their fact straight. La Repubblica is a newspaper of record, and was also reported in other sources, and unless they have since retracted this fact or other reliable sources show it was false, I don't see why it should be removed. It's also relevant as it's made up of people and ideals she abhorred, as noted in the sources, and is thus relevant to her political changes and moderation. Davide King (talk) 21:26, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

It’s not unusual for even mainstream papers to get facts wrong it happens very often,I think if the next prime minister of Italy was a member of the aspen institute it would be all over the internet but the only evidence is a few newspapers not substantiating anything. I wouldn’t be satisfied unless she’s listed as a member/partner on one of their official websites. Maybe you’re right but it’s not confirmed. Famaja (talk) 22:15, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps she joined in February 2021 but left or she joined as socia but is not a full, official member. Perhaps she's one of those 5 'Anonymous'. Or the Aspen Institute simply doesn't put all its members, after all there's an asterix after 'Current Members'. Either way, I see no reason why this wouldn't be true or why several reliable sources would've got this basic fact wrong. Unless other reliable sources say she's not a member or that those sources got it wrong, I see no reason why it wouldn't be enough it was published by reliable sources. Davide King (talk) 22:47, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

I found two more refs, this time in English, one of them being from the Atlantic Council.12 Davide King (talk) 23:30, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Maybe you’re right I just find the lack of official conformation strange. Famaja (talk) 00:41, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Nazi collaborator?

The lead says Almirante was a “Nazi collaborator”. But the sourcing is very weak: an opinion piece in The Independent, plus an editorial in an Italian newspaper that explicitly relies upon a tweet. According to our article Collaboration with the Axis powers, collaborators were typically understood to be people in countries occupied by the axis powers, whereas Italy was itself an Axis power. Almirante was a government official in Italy starting in 1943. I doubt that all members of the Italian government were at that time “collaborators”. If so, then we need better sourcing. Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:53, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

I think it is probably meant to be more Nazi (wartime) collaborator. The Italian article "Collaborazionism" (link to the English "Wartime collaboration" rather than "Nazi collaboration", which redirects to "Collaboration with the Axis powers"). The RSI technically does fit the former description in this sense, as a part of Italy was no longer part of the Axis Powers in 1943 and the Togliatti amnesty referred to those collaborationists in this sense because they were considered to be doing "cooperation with the enemy against one's country of citizenship in wartime". It should probably be unlinked or redirect to "Wartime collaboration" instead. Davide King (talk) 23:06, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Why not just say he was a member of the Mussolini government? “Wartime collaboration is cooperation with the enemy against one's country of citizenship in wartime.” Germany was not an enemy of Italy. Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:12, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

It was an enemy when Italy changed sides, while Almirante and other Fascists followed Mussolini in the RSI, which in practice a Nazi puppet state. Davide King (talk) 23:29, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

That’s an interesting point, I hadn’t read much about this aspect of WWII. So are you saying that the dictator Mussolini was deposed by his king, and subsequently (after getting out of jail) Mussolini became a nazi collaborator? Maybe, but I haven’t yet seen Mussolini characterized as such. More to the point, I haven’t seen Almirante characterized as such, except by the two opinion pieces that we cite as sources. Also see this article involving a similar question about France. Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:01, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

It depends on what is meant by that — he was already an ally of Nazi Germany so my understanding is that those who followed Mussolini and the Nazis in the RSI, rather than the King and Allied Italy, were Nazi collaborators in this sense; they were Italians but cooperated ("against one's country of citizenship in wartime") with Nazi Germany ("cooperation with the enemy") — Almirante joined the RSI. From The Forward, "In 1942, Nazi propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels wrote a frustrated diary entry about Italy's 'extremely lax' treatment of Jews: even though fascist dictator Benito Mussolini (1883–1945) was a Hitler ally who enacted antisemitic laws, everyday Italians resisted deporting their country's Jews to the Nazi killing machine. This changed in 1943, when Mussolini was deposed and Italy surrendered to the Allies. Germany responded by invading the northern half of Italy and making Mussolini head of the Italian Social Republic (RSI), a Nazi puppet state. Over 7,800 Italian Jews trapped in RSI territory were imprisoned, deported and murdered." This piece by Il Post (not an op-ed) refers to him as a collaborazionista dei nazisti (lit. collaborator of the Nazis). Davide King (talk) 00:28, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

No doubt Mussolini's last government was vicious, and no doubt Almirante worked for it. There are hundreds of reliable sources that describe all of that, but only a few that use the "nazi collaborator" description for Almirante (and none that do so for Mussolini whose orders Almirante was following). If Meloni had said how much she respects and admires the "nazi collaborator" Almirante, and what a great job he did collaborating with the nazis, then I'd have no qualm about it being in the lead, but of course she didn't say anything like that, and there's no indication she was referring to anything other than his postwar career. All in all, I would prefer if, instead of "nazi collaborator", we'd follow in the lead the NYT obit of Almirante which is not fawning in the least, yet omits the "nazi collaborator" label in favor of "minor role in Mussolini's last government". I'll leave it at that, thanks for the discussion. Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:50, 1 October 2022 (UTC)