Talk:Five Star Movement

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Italy (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Italy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles on Italy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Politics / Political parties (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Political parties task force (marked as Mid-importance).


Shouldn't the proper translation be "Five stars movement"? "Stelle" is plural. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:19, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree --Twilight 19:49, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
No, that would not be proper English. Examples? "Five-star hotel", "three-way race", "four-night stay", etc. --Checco (talk) 08:32, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
So, why not Five-Star Movement, with the hyphen? --LNCSRG (talk) 16:15, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Both versions are correct, but I think that, stylistically speaking, it's better not to have the hyphen. --Checco (talk) 10:41, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
The better version, with hyphen, was used initially in scholarly work. Because there is no official M5S name in English and it's a bit strange to translate a name this way, it might be worth putting the form "Five-star Movement" in the article at least once. A couple of [links] if you [want]... - phi (talk) 13:18, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Suggestion of a Third alternative, which is proper English: Five star's movement.--Xact (talk) 23:58, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
This doesn't really work: "Five star's movement" literally means "Five movement of the star" or "movement of the five stars". Both are awkward and not really good translations of the original Italian. Checco is right that "Five Star movement" is by far the best English phrasing, and the hyphen is unnecessary. Furthermore, English news sources like the BBC and the Economist already use "Five Star Movement" nearly exclusively.SnarkyShark (talk) 06:08, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
I have rollbacked Xact's move and returned the article to its original and proper title, Five Star Movement. That is the most correct translation and, in fact, as observed by SnarkyShark, most English news sources use it. --Checco (talk) 14:29, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Beware of the original officially registered and legally recognized trademark name, that is "5 stelle", with 5 in cypher NOT letters and plural "stelle".. Could be as well legal infringements to misuse an voluntarily mistake a registerd brand name.. themore other Italian parties "movimento Forza Italia" is translated here in Wikipedia "Forza Italia movement" and "Lega Nord" is here in English Wikipedia "Lega Nord" and not "North League" because of the same motivation as it's a registered and copyrighted name; uniformities and coherences with translations and legal copyright matter call for "5 stelle movement" instead of "five star movement" (nobody's ever translate the copyright brand super car name "Ferrari" in "Blacksmiths"..nor "Lancia" in "Lance" ..nor "Forza Italia" in "Italy Force"..) - k r o n OS - 07:09, 4 November 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kronos (talkcontribs)
The party is widely known in English-language media and literature as "Five Star Movement". --Checco (talk) 15:18, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Bias article.[edit]

The article is well written but is missing the point - the approach is very much biased and not corresponding to the reality. The events and traits described by the article are real, but the light and negative emphasis on some of its feature are wrong. It is impossible to describe or even analyze this phenomenon with argument of conventional rhetoric - it requires a paradigm shift to be fully understood. Although a well written article must be critical and challenging - it misses the important feature that characterize the movement (not political party), rather it considers relatively important feature in order to give a bad and biased impression of it. It must be revised. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:23, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I am concerned that the article is suppose to be describing a new political movement - but does not explain the meaning or the reasons for the movemnet as expressed by the stars. I would love for some one who understands this movement to add their sourced perspective.--Eric James Wolf (talk) 19:23, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

From George Friedman's free report from Stratfor (5 March 2013) "Two things are of interest about this movement. First, one of its central pillars is the call for defaulting on a part of Italy's debt as the lesser of evils. The second is that Italy, with 11.2 percent unemployment, is far from the worst case of unemployment in the European Union. Nevertheless, Italy is breeding radical parties deeply opposed to the austerity policies currently in place."Halconen (talk) 23:58, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I think the article needs some reference to Italy's international standing with respect to corruption at the official level. This is, after all, the ground upon which M5S is built: anti-corruption. According to Transparency International, Italy is equal in official corruption to Romania and Bulgaria. Interesting, because Italy is a G8 country and those other two aren't even close. Jimbaba (talk) 20:05, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Not necessarily: this article is about the M5S, not Italy or Corruption in Italy. --Checco (talk) 08:36, 11 April 2017 (UTC)


In the introduction is stated that M5S is Eurosceptic. But their programme doesn't mention anything versus Euro

So the characterization "Eurosceptic" in the introduction isn't justified — Preceding unsigned comment added by For the leg (talkcontribs) 14:48, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Characterization of the movement[edit]

Someone is trying to delete the section "Manifesto" and is trying to empathiz e the fact that M5S is euro sceptic. This isn't the real objective of M5S indeed in the programme doesn't mention anything versus Euro — Preceding unsigned comment added by For the leg (talkcontribs) 14:39, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

1) You will get nothing from deleting/reverting referenced information (just a ban maybe). If you think what's in the article is wrong, challenge the sources, provide sources for your opinion, and/or discuss here without any further reverts. Political movements usually do not put everything about them in their programs; morevover, I think inherently the manifesto is not a neutral source. 2) Please bear in mind that by reverting you destroy not only the sentence you seem to be interested in. 3) Direct links (i.e. to the manifest) are not accceptable in the body of an article 3) WikiHannibal (talk) 23:22, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for your kind reply. The best source for Five Star Movement not being Eurosceptic is the italian Wiki (if you don't know italian please use automatic translation ). Also the Five Star Movement objectives are all stated in their manifesto (programme) where there aren't any actions versus Euro (So you really can't say that Five Star Movement is euroscepticism or at least you can't say this in the first introduction). Moreover the word "populist" is a derogatory adjective given by political opponents of the party, and doesn't deserve to be in this wiki. For the leg (talk) 23:58, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
I am going to revert the change to reflect the more accurate italian wiki to remove euroscepticism For the leg (talk) 12:14, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
"Populism" is an established term in political science to denote a certain political ideology or style. It is not necessarily derogatory. Several independent sources describe the movement as populist, not only its political adversaries. Wikipedia articles should always be based on reliable sources (principle of verifiability). Other wikis - like the Italian one - are no reliable sources, because they may be edited by anyone and are not fact-checked. The movement's manifesto is not a reliable source either, because it is partisan rather than independent and neutral. We have to follow the description of the movement by independent observers. And they often label it as populist, anti-establishment and eurosceptic, as you can see from the cited sources. --RJFF (talk) 00:29, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
populism is considered derogatory by the movement because adovating e democracy doesn t mean populist. read this indipendent source for more information about the movement. (talk) 00:43, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Well, the source you cite does use the term 'populism' as well. Even in the head line. Whether the movement itself likes the term or not is irrelevant, if independent sources think it is appropriate to use it. The article is not meant to please the movement or its supporters or to reflect their point of view, but to inform in a neutral way. And neutral sources say that the movement is populist, not in order to disqualify or disparage it, but simply in order to characterize their political style. --RJFF (talk) 01:12, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Some of these points[edit]

It is unclear which (if any) listed points of the manifesto were "copied" by other parties. The provided references do not name any of them, and only some similarities can perhaps be deduced from them - and that is not for editors to do. Other issues might be added if need be, or the sentence in question removed (again). Please provide references to articles about the points that were copied. Here we can also discuss the reliability of the sources and notability of the information that something was copied. For the leg (talk), even though your last edit seems to aim in the right direction, please stop making any disruptive edits, with which the history of this article already abounds. WikiHannibal (talk) 22:16, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Should I add more references? A simple google searches lists hundreds of various references. (Google search: A point over the others: PDL said that their MP will lower their salary and MP can be elegible only for two mandates. I didn't specify the points neither the parties that copied to don't open a new flame war For the leg (talk) 23:51, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Not more, but more to the point, as mentioned below by AL458. The fact that in this article there are more references to certain sentences is the result of the controversies discussed here, not a common (or needed) thing. I see that your sole concern at the English and Italian wikipedia is this movement. Please have a look at guidelines to editing again. I removed the template, so please do not be tempted to re-insert that sentence without proper references. WikiHannibal (talk) 22:08, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Providing a decent demonstration that one party copied part of the program from another party is a complex operation, requiring an extensive dissertation on the chronology of the ideas and the publication of the programs themselves. Citing a couple of blogs is not enough for a serious encyclopedia. That part cannot be kept in this voice like it is, otherwise it would be mere propaganda. --AL458 (talk) 12:56, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

How to deal with translating the manifesto[edit]

The M5S has now produced an English version of its manifesto/programme (at We're now using the English version as our source for the manifesto, but it's a pretty poor translation from the original Italian -- it looks almost exactly like what you get when you run the original through Google Translate. I'm not sure about what to do in this situation; should we use the rather poor official translations or the better ones we already have? For example, we have "Ineligibility of convicted criminals for public office" while the official English version says "Ineligibility to public office for citizens convicted". SnarkyShark (talk) 03:12, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Five Star's Movement is not a party[edit]

The article appears to me to be biased precisely because the article expresses so overtly that the Five Star's Movement is a party. Thus the article clearly stands in opposition to what the movement itself say what it is. Thus the text is its truthtentativety in opposition to the Movement's claim. Isn't this the Occupy Movement in Italy occypying representative democracy with 25 % direct democracy? Similar to the the M15 Movement in Spain? At best this article is not much more than an attempt at reducing the Italian phenomenon to something that the habit-longing conditioned mind is able to grasp. --Xact (talk) 00:14, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what word we can use other than party. The Occupy Movement is a poor equivalent; it never took part in American elections, has no leader and lacks a stated agenda. True, the M5S wants to remake Italian society -- just like Occupy wants to remake American society -- but all Occupy ever did was sit in squares and protest. On the other hand, the M5S, while it certainly isn't a mature party like the PD or the PDL, just came in third in a general election and has a single leader and a reasonably comprehensive list of demands and goals. As Wikipedia itself puts it, "A political party is a political organization that typically seeks to influence government policy, usually by nominating candidates with aligned political views and trying to seat them in political office". This is exactly what the M5S does, and it sets it apart from both Occupy and Spain's 15M. SnarkyShark (talk) 06:01, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
The M5S has not a party structure - it is not funded with public money, it has not a political party status and is not hierarchically structured. It is pretty much horizontal rather than a vertical structure like traditional parties. It relies on the web to gather information and intelligence on various topics, and it is based on a territorial organization of citizens through the MeetUp platform. All the Cities (small - medium - large) have a MeetUp that works and applies the strategy of the movement on the territory. Normal citizens with no interest in politics will govern his own territory without interests of traditional political nature, that in Italy like everywhere in the west, are source of corruption and misuse of the state apparatus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:13, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
The distinction many Italians (especially journalists and politicians) do between "party" and "movement" is totally misguided, misleading and unfounded from a political scientist's point of view. A group does not need a party structure to be a party: there are several examples of parliamentary-only parties in history. But this is not the case of the M5S, which has a structure and fields canidated for public office. "A political party is a political organization that typically seeks to influence government policy, usually by nominating candidates with aligned political views and trying to seat them in political office": this definition definitely applies to M5S, a party among parties. Members and supporters of M5S (and those of Lega Nord and the PdL, whose leaders also pretend that theirs are movements) can say what they want, but thier "movement" is emintently and evidently a party. --Checco (talk) 10:01, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Bad English[edit]

Be aware, guys, the article is written in shitty English. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:52, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

There's a tag at the top of the page, indeed. Would you like to contribute? --Checco (talk) 15:09, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm happy to try. Could you explain some of the sentences? In particular, I have no clue what "as well as Italian citizens would disembark in life Italian civil from bad policy" is supposed to mean. Marnanel (talk) 23:55, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea. That's why I added the tag. My suggestion is that the article needs a complete rewrite and clean-up, consistently with the other articles about Italian parties. It is is also too long and detailed for a party with just five years of activity. --Checco (talk) 09:02, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
The noun sbarco ("landing") and the verb sbarcare ("disembark", in English) are the words you would use in Italian to refer to the D-Day (lo Sbarco in Normandia). I think he's trying to say that just like the Allies landed in Normandy (D-Day) and from there they freed Europe, the M5S will metaphorically "land" on the "shores" of Italy's civil society and will then proceed to free the country of bad politicians. Writing this in the entry would represent of course outright POV and original research. (talk) 15:11, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Position of M5S in the political spectrum[edit]

Hi. Yesterday M5S activists voted to be part of EFD, which is a political group in the European Parliament to the right of the Conservatives. Consequently I added the word "extreme right-wing" party to the definition of this party based on the results of their vote. If I am member of a group that also sees the participation of UKIP and has seen contributions from Italy's Northern League I am not centre or left, am I? These words have been reverted and I cannot see the rationale of this as "right-wing" is what EFD MEP are. If you do not like it one could drop "extreme", but honestly I do not think they would like being called "centre", let alone "left". (talk) 09:08, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

EP groups are loose coalitions of national parties. Whatever their current or future group affiliation, I strongly disgagree on describing either the M5S or LN as right-wing parties, let alone extreme right-wing ones. --Checco (talk) 13:53, 20 June 2014 (UTC)


What are the M5S's colours? User:Nick.mon and I disagree on that, as one can see from the recent article's history. As far as I know, the party has no official colours, thus the colours that are to be indicated in the infobox are those of the party's logo, flags, etc. In all these, the colours used are black, red and yellow. It is not our business to choose a party's colours, and, if we keep disagreeing, it's better to leave the infobox empty on that. --Checco (talk) 10:16, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes I agree with you. In my view the color which often represents M5S is Yellow, but ad you said in the logo there're also Red and Black. Anyway if any other will express his opinion about that, we could leave the infobox empty on the part about the colors. --Nick.mon (talk) 10:26, 24 October 2014 (UTC)


Hello, I recently improved the "criticism" section with some information about some conspiracy theories that gained support from important M5S members. This is how it looked like:

It was then deleted by user Enok with the excuse "You can't describe the ideology of a political movement based on some tweets". Obviously I wasn't describing its ideology, just some controversies. And yes, assumptions can be based on tweets because they represent the party members' personal point of view. There were many controversies, and it's my duty to include them in the section. Otherwise, it's censorship. :) --SuperSardus (talk) 17:14 June 2015 (UTC)

Out-of-chrono comment. --Checco (talk) 09:11, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
You're not too bright, are you.
"Conspiracy theories" are not a bad thing. You adhere to one, if you believe that it was the Nazis who torched the Reichstag, or if they faked the pictures of dead Germans before they invaded Poland.
More importantly, who gives a rats ass if his opinions have been "ridiculed"? So was Charles Darwin. It doesn't matter.
Also, are you denying that vaccines can cause allergies and deaths? Are you trying to say that people should be forced to be injected with potentially dangerous substances?
Vermin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:17, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
I don't know who this idiot who called me "vermin" is, but I do know that he's a coward because he didn't sign with his name. The fact that you defend the nazis says an awful lot about you. "Are you denying that vaccines can cause allergies and deaths?" Vaccines don't cause allergies and deaths, you idiot. Vaccination prevents diseases. And yes, it should be compulsory. Get an education, you knob. --SuperSardus (talk) 23:33 27 July 2015 (UTC)
"Vermin" was the IP's signature, indeed! --Checco (talk) 11:40, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
The section if for the most part is not written in an encyclopaedic style. Some of the sources are of devious merit, and most of the section is about Grillo as an individual rather than the M5S party.--Autospark (talk) 22:06, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Actually, articles should not have a "criticism" or "controversy" section at all. It is better to include this content in the other sections (history, ideology; maybe start a new section on "(internal) structure" or "organisation" which can include the question of internal democracy). I agree with User:Autospark that much of this section is not presented in a neutral and encyclopedic style. Moreover, it is far too long and too detailed. Many of these incidents were "storms in a teacup" that are not of historical relevance which is required in an encyclopedia. Finally, many of the references do not qualify as reliable sources, e.g. blogs, youtube, websites of rival politicians. --RJFF (talk) 13:26, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Agreeing with Enok, Autospark and RJFF, I think that the "Criticism" section (which was even worsened by SuperSardus's edits) should be deleted altogether, although some the information included could be integrated in other sections of the article. --Checco (talk) 08:48, 29 June 2015 (UTC)


What is "provocative" about referring to his movement as "populist"? (talk) 03:55, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Nothing. Populism is an approriate description of the party's ideology. --Checco (talk) 09:51, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

BuzzFeed News[edit]

Here is an article on Buzzfeed. I don't think Buzzfeed is always accurate, but still it's interesting to read about fake news, pro-Russian, pro-Trump and anti-migrants. All this sounds like this party/movement have become more and more right wing the last years. Maybe someone can investigate this more and add it to the article.

--Jeroen (talk) 13:46, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Agree It is becoming clear that this article ought to mention Russia/Putinism somewhere (it does not currently); new piece in The New York Times:
Cpaaoi (talk) 06:21, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Leader or Guarantor?[edit]

No dubt that Grillo is the leader of the Five Star Movement, but I think that the most correct title is "Guarantor" of the M5S, as it's often described by Five Star's members and Italian media. Here are some sources: LaRepubblica FattoQuotidiano RaiNews BlogDelleStelle

Didn't he say that he's the "political head" of the M5S? However, we can use that term or (if there is one) a better translation of garante once, but, despite what Grillini usually say, the M5S is a party and has a leader. --Checco (talk) 16:25, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes you are right, he also said that he was the Political Head of the movement. Anyway we can continue to use "Leader" which is more understandable to non-Italian readers :) -- Nick.mon (talk) 16:33, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Generally speaking, M5S scares the hell out of most of the Italian media, especially the newspapers. The reason is simple: the newspapers are entrenched in the current wheeling-dealing nature of Italian politics, and find M5S's prescription of radical democratic modernization to be incomprehensible. Jimbaba (talk) 20:10, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Might be, but this is your personal view, unfortunately not supported by sources. --Checco (talk) 08:36, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Any group that seeks to align itself with Putin's Russia (see above) cannot under any circumstances be described as 'radically democratic'. Cpaaoi (talk) 06:24, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

On vandalism[edit]

Regarding this edit by Jimbaba, rollbacking this edit of mine, rollbacking this edit by Jimbaba, a discussion was openend at User talk: Jimbaba:

"Future reverts by non-English speakers will be reported as vandalism" is a bit over the top. Good-faith contributions aren't vandalism, and while we expect a decent competency in English, your preferred version involves a subtle interpretation of national varieties of English that would be obscure to most native speakers. Acroterion (talk) 14:36, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Look, this guy from Venice whose English is unacceptably poor took the time to REVERT a perfectly good edit of mine, on a page which Wikipedia has FLAGGED for its sloppy English! Now you have to ask yourself: what is his motivation for doing that? It's simple: he thinks the page belongs to him personally. I'm just telling him: back off dude, Wikipedia is for all who care about sharing knowledge and pursuing truth. An edit should only be reverted if it is an ERROR. Jimbaba (talk) 14:58, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

English is not my mother language (and, btw, I'm not from Venice), but is my English so "unceceptably poor" as Jimbaba says? However, while I am convinced that "returning" is better than "producing" at least in British English (the verb is frequently used in en.Wiki, for instance at List of MPs elected in the United Kingdom general election, 2015), I'm not writing to defend my position ("returning" or "producing" is not a big deal to me), but just to let Jimbaba know that it was not "Wikipedia" to flag this article for its "sloppy English"... it was me! The article is so badly written and needs a total rewrite, indeed. --Checco (talk) 19:49, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

It is indeed without question "returning an MEP [or other parliamentarian]", not "producing". I have never heard "producing" used in that context before. I also agree that the standard of English in this article is very poor, often so poor that I have struggled to make enough sense of it in order to attempt much copyedits.--Autospark (talk) 11:32, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
I am glad that an English speaker from England agrees with me. I will replace "producing" with "returning", but the real problem is that the article is badly written and, I would add, it includes several redundant infos. The article needs a total rewrite, but is should not be tailored on it.Wiki's article—it.Wiki's articles tend to be badly organised and full of redundant infos, indeed. Anyone willing to turn it upside down? --Checco (talk) 07:48, 24 April 2017 (UTC)