Jump to content

Talk:Brothers of Italy

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



Archives (Index)

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

On neo-fascism, again

[edit]

@Autospark:, @Vacant0:, @Checco:, as no-one posted any disputing scholars, I’ll go ahead and share two:

"Brothers of Italy is not fascist. Looking at FdI's ideological core, we see that the party’s acceptance of democracy, and – especially – electoral legitimacy, is sincere. This means we cannot label the party, or its leader, either fascist or neo-fascist. FdI also supports programmatic proposals that contrast with the historical pillars of fascism. This includes, for example, embracing many cornerstones of neoliberalism. Neither does it seem useful to categorise FdI as post-fascist. Almost 30 years have passed since the birth of AN, and although the process of detachment from fascism presents several grey areas, a large part of FdI leadership has socialised into a party that renounces the fascist legacy. However, elements of nostalgia survive in party elites and sympathisers."

"We can better characterise FdI as a populist radical right-wing actor. Such actors do not frame their political project in the name of the authority of chosen elites. Nor are they concerned with restoring the alleged value of the ultra-nation. In contrast, although they don't want to abolish representative democracy, they are certainly sceptical about political and societal pluralism.”

”And conceptually overstretching the term fascism runs an additional risk. A misleadingly wide understanding would prevent us from identifying the authentic neo-fascist groups operating in the public sphere. In Italy, actors such as CasaPound and Forza Nuova have reclaimed their link with historical fascism. Such actors are also prepared to use violent persecution against discriminated minorities (e.g. migrants) and their political opponents. These groups might see in radical-right parties – and specifically in FdI – an institutional interlocutor. This is precisely why scholars and the media should focus on the relationships and structural ambiguity that radical-right parties maintain with fascist groupuscules.”

"Our plea to resist attaching post- or neo-fascist labels to the radical right is not because we underestimate the threat it poses. Quite the contrary. We suggest that rather than making vague, misplaced accusations of fascism, journalists and social scientists should carefully indicate the threats contemporary radical-right actors pose to the separation of powers, to individual rights, and to minority groups."

Gianluca Piccolino Postdoctoral Fellow, Istituto Politica, Diritto, Sviluppo (Dirpolis), Scuola Superiore Sant’Anna, Pisa. Leonardo Puleo, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, CEVIPOL Institut d'études européennes, Université libre de Bruxelles You can read the whole article in the attached link; [1] BastianMAT (talk) 22:53, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the party is not neo-fascist. In my view, it is not even far-right, but a mainstream conservative party with populist overtones. Of course, the party has post-fascist roots, but its present reality, also thanks to the influx of several Christian democrats, liberals and even former Socialists, has nothing to do with neo-fascism. --Checco (talk) 17:34, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@User:ZlatanSweden10: To answer your question, there is a weak consensus on having "neo-fascism" in the infobox (see above). Clearly, it is something so wrong that needs to be re-discussed and changed at some point. Until then, we need to respect consensus. --Checco (talk) 14:34, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I understand. I only disputed it as I remember so many disputes and edits happening prior, during, and after the 2022 Italian general election. But could someone at least recover the "A" footnote? I feel that is vital in clarifying the party's stance and etc. ZlatanSweden10 (talk) 15:00, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure that the footnote A is part of the current consensus, probably not. --Checco (talk) 15:17, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've recovered it. I noticed the footnote already mentioned neo-fascism so is it really necessary to have it in the infobox when its already mentioned in the footnote? ZlatanSweden10 (talk) 15:39, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As long as "neo-fascism" is mentioned in the infobox, the footnote is redundant. Of course, I am in favour of re-discussing the issue of "neo-fascism" in the infobox, especially after User:BastianMAT's insights. To claim that FdI is neo-fascist is almost a joke and the above RfC closure is weak. --Checco (talk) 15:48, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, once again, in the above RfC there was only a weak consensus on adding "neo-fascism" among the party's ideologies in the infobox. Since then, other voices were raised against that (User:BastianMAT's and User:Holtz941's are just the latter two), as describing the party as neo-fascist seems a joke, give the big-tent nature of it and the countless number of members hailing from centrist parties. Surely, the party's has post-fascist roots, but now only minority factions have links to neo-fascism. This said, clearly neo-fascism is not the main ideology of the party, not even for those who proposed adding it in the RfC. Let's have it as third ideology, after national conservatism and right-wing populism. Hopefully, people will also soon realise that describing the party as neo-fascist is completely wrong, so that the above consensus can be changed for the better. In the meantime, consensus should be respected in full. --Checco (talk) 14:24, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Neo-fascists are the majority of the party. We don't go by editors personal opinions. ShirtNShoesPls (talk) 16:36, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Majority of the party? You are suggesting that at least 20% of the Italian electorate is neo-fascists. JustAPoliticsNerd (talk) 21:11, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This looks like a much better source. Has anyone actually read the current ones? "The Rise of the Far Right in Europe: Populist Shifts and 'Othering'" mentions FdI *once*. only to say that it's similar to Front National (which wikipedia does not consider neo-fascist). "The Routledge Companion to Italian Fascist Architecture: Reception and Legacy" mentions Rampelli to say that he's a member of a neo-fascist party, but does not make any analysis of the party. Likewise, "Mussolini and the Eclipse of Italian Fascism" mentions Fratelli d'Italia in a footnote out of 300 pages. I do not have access to the other 2, but I would suspect a similar thinness of argument. Riffraff (talk) 18:03, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ultimately, the term "fascist" is, for lack of a better word, incredibly vibes-based. Definitions vary for it immensely. Editors have to come to a consensus over whether we will use a "strict" definition of Fascism, including the dictatorships of Italy, Germany, Spain and little else, or a "broad" definition, which would include the populist right with anti-democratic undertones such as AfD, FdI, etc. Maxibonilz (talk) 19:56, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Checco has recently attempted to override the consensus of the RFC and whitewash the patty by emphasizing "national conservatism" and "right-wing populism" in the lead over "neo-fascism." This is despite a widespread consensus of editors that neo-fascism should be emphasized above. (See above.) ShirtNShoesPls (talk) 14:25, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As I just wrote above, it is you who are misinterpreting the (weak) consensus that was reached. --Checco (talk) 14:26, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Probably moved by POV instincts, this new user has been harming the article with successive edits. Not good. --Checco (talk) 13:12, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, he has been harming the article with his edits. (Incidentally, I am now of the option that footnotes should not be used in this Infobox, or any Infobox ideally; the information listed should be in the lede, with reliable references to back it up.)-- Autospark (talk) 13:40, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If they're a neo-fascist organization than of course that takes preference over their other positions. ShirtNShoesPls (talk) 15:56, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is precisely the point. FdI is not a neo-fascist party, but a conservative party with post-fascist roots. Most sources describe it as national-conservative and right-wing populist. Of course, several sources explain that the party has post-fascist or neo-fascist roots. There are almost no sources stating that FdI is primarily neo-fascist, let alone a full-fledged neo-fascist party. This said, the (weak) consensus achieved through the above RfC was to add "neo-fascism" among the ideologies in the infobox, not to describe the party primarily or solely as neo-fascist. While I oppose the current consensus, we should all adhere to it until a new consensus is formed. --Checco (talk) 17:10, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If anything its more post-fascist than neo-fascist, and even then that's a rough label. Truly, they are as "fascist" as the Republican Party, which is to say they aren't fascist, but the left-wing media will say that anyway. YT DomDaBomb20 (talk) 16:05, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We go by what quality citations state. There is a widespread agreement in the academic literature that Brothers of Italy is fascist. It's not up to editor's opinions.
Many historians do describe the Republicans as having fascist-related factions. So if anything that just bolsters my point. ShirtNShoesPls (talk) 16:56, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As User:Riffraff and User:YT DomDaBomb20, as well as other users before, correctly pointed out, there is really no ground to objectively describe FdI as a neo-fascist party. The connection with fascism is that FdI's sixth precursor was the National Fascist Party, but then there was the Republican Fascist Party, the Italian Movement of Social Unity, the Italian Social Movement, National Alliance and even a merger with more centrist parties into The People of Freedom. This said, as far as consensus is not changed (as I hope it will), we have to leave "neo-fascism" in the infobox, but let me also point out that the achieved consensus does not mandate anything else, let alone describing the party as primarily neo-fascist. That is why I am going to fix the article, that was harmed by unilateral edits, not grounded in consensus. --Checco (talk) 07:00, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thumbs up from me. There was no reason to keep labeling Fratelli d'Italia as neo-fascist, it was a truly empty label made up by their opponents. Out of party membership, I can only think of one or two previously actual neo-fascist affiliated members, 99% of the party is more mainstream conservative. YT DomDaBomb20 (talk) 14:42, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
After following this page for several months, reviewing each side with utmost sincerity; taking into account the argument that states the Fratelli d'Italia party as being neo-fascist in relation to some members having 'Fascist-roots' - I can without a doubt say that there is no sufficient evidence to conclude 'neo-fascism' as a core ideology of this party. The claim has been loosely presented with no real source used to substantiate it. That said, unless one was to bring some new revelation to the table, it would be impossible for me not to agree with Checco in his analysis: "FdI is not a neo-fascist party, but a conservative party with post-fascist roots. Most sources describe it as national-conservative and right-wing populist." 2A0E:CB01:27:E400:55DB:9F4A:9AD0:D19D (talk) 20:11, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's no evidence for that statement being the case. Neo-fascist should stay. ShirtNShoesPls (talk) 16:15, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You could articulate better than this. There is no evidence of the opposite, actually. --Checco (talk) 16:38, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Check the citations. High quality sources consistently list the party as neo-fascist. English isn't my general, first language. ShirtNShoesPls (talk) 16:49, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Plus, I see that you have little Wikipedia experience, but you have been already involved in much edit warring. You should stop doing this, respect consensus ("neo-fascism" mentioned in the infobox, not as first, main or only ideology) and avoid adding contentious contents. --Checco (talk) 16:44, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My editing experience has nothing to do about whether it should be mentioned.
The consensus from the RFC was to include neo-fascist. Just because you dislike what quality sources say doesn't mean you can albritary decide to exclude from lead. ShirtNShoesPls (talk) 16:50, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the RfC. It was on whether including "neo-fascism in the infobox (ideology parameter) and remove it from the footnote". That is our current consensus. There is no consensus on having neo-fascism as primary ideology and mentioning in the lead section. --Checco (talk) 19:24, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please also note that the lead section is articulate and includes also "neo-fascist" as one of the several classifications given to the party. As you can see, while I disagree on describing the party as neo-fascist, I am not changing anything that is supported by consensus, namely "neo-fascism" in the infobox and a broad description of the party in the lead section. Quite contrarily, you are totally misinterpreting the RfC's outcome and you are edit warring as usual. --Checco (talk) 19:32, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is absurd, the party is not neo fascist, do you guys even know what that word actually means? Norschweden (talk) 22:52, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I totally agree with User:Norschweden and I hope we can soon achieve a new consensus on the matter. --Checco (talk) 05:30, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
+1 Braganza (talk) 17:10, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I second this. 172.59.201.7 (talk) 00:05, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this. JustAPoliticsNerd (talk) 21:10, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can we not just put
Factions:
Neo-fascism
as can be seen on Republican Party (United States), Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle and Workers' Party (Brazil). Although I don't see any factions under Brothers of Italy#Ideology and factions that can be described as neo-fascst, surely this would be an improvement as they are clearly not aligned with neo-fascist parties in Italy, or, if you're to be very cynical, not as overt. Alexanderkowal (talk) 22:28, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry but there is ZERO EVIDENCE provided that Brothers of Italy is a neo-fascist party. As an authoritarian ideology, they are expected to carry out the policies within that ideology, which they have not. They have instead shown conservative policies, but is it such to label them as neo-fascist? What is concrete evidence behind this claim? VosleCap (talk) 19:02, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@VosleCap I imagine it is multiple news articles outlining fascist sympathisers in FdI and that it could be cited heavily as a side note Alexanderkowal (talk) 19:14, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even if there is that, is the presence of fascist sympathisers enough to label this as neo-fascist? I don't think and I don't recall active fascist activists being elected to senior posts in the party. They are an extremely small minority, and although there are not written rules, they are heavily sanctioned. VosleCap (talk) 19:50, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@VosleCap I agree, however it is worth a mention in the article Alexanderkowal (talk) 19:56, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right however inserting neo-fascism as a main ideology is just incorrect and misleading VosleCap (talk) 19:59, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@VosleCap if you want to contest it, ping the main contributors (go history, page statistics) and debunk the citations to neo-fascism in the third paragraph. My point would be that they don't refer to Meloni's tenure Alexanderkowal (talk) 20:00, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As this discussions (and previous discussions as well) show, there is (no longer) consensus for "neo-fascism" in the infobox. --Checco (talk) 06:31, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Checco I don’t think mine and Vosle’s scepticism is enough to remove it due to it being referenced in the third paragraph Alexanderkowal (talk) 07:17, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If my point about the references not referring to the Meloni era is valid, then perhaps this would be best in the info box.
Historically:
Neo-fascism
Alexanderkowal (talk) 07:19, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not just two, but several users have expressed their opposition to neo-fascism. And the party has never been neo-fascism. It was established in 2012 as a national-conservative party in the mould of its predecessor, national-conservative National Alliance. To be clear, while the article's body includes every possible information and view on the party, "neo-fascism" should not be mentioned any way in the infobox. --Checco (talk) 07:20, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Checco then you need to address the references for neo-fascism Alexanderkowal (talk) 08:35, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Checco I think my edit represented reality quite well and it was well cited. The party is a textbook example of Post-fascism Alexanderkowal (talk) 08:37, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AlexanderkowalAre you referring to post-fascism or Neo-fascism? Different concepts; one more a movement, the description of its roots, the other an ideology. Anyway, I agree with @Checco, while the article body should address the references to the party being described as neofascist by various sources, it’s not the primary ideology of the party and should not be in the Infobox.— Autospark (talk) 10:06, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Autospark please have a look at my edit, I think it was correct Alexanderkowal (talk) 10:13, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Autospark I would describe post-fascism as a movement of ideologies so I do think it belongs in the ideology section if it is applicable. The Italian article has post-fascism in the info box, not neo fascism Alexanderkowal (talk) 10:17, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just letting you know (sorry if this sounds pass-agro) if there's no response within like a week I'll reapply my edit. Obviously take your time to reply, I'm sure everyone's busy Alexanderkowal (talk) 21:13, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, I oppose both "neo-fascism" and "post-fascism" in the infobox. The party is not neo-fascist and most sources do not support that claim: it is fine to have all the possible sources and descriptions in the article's body, particularly in the "ideology" section, but "neo-fascism" is not one of the party's main ideologies. Technically, the party is also not a post-fascist party: the MSI was a post-fascist (and arguably neo-fascist) party, but after that there has been AN and the PdL, while FdI is not the direct successor of a post-fascist (let alone neo-fascist) party. Moreover, "post-fascism" is not an ideology, but a movement or, better, a phase. It is time to adapt our consensus to reality. --Checco (talk) 04:38, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Checco ideology is quite a broad term, I do think post-fascism belongs in that section even if it is more of a movement. I agree neo-fascism shouldn’t be there. Can you please look at the citations I had for post-fascism in my edit. I think since the Italian page on this includes post-fascism on the ideology section, we should be inclined to as well because they are more likely to have much more sources/accurate sources. Alexanderkowal (talk) 07:20, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is OK to mention "post-fascism", as well as "neo-fascism", in the "ideology" section, while I oppose it in the infobox. --Checco (talk) 07:24, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Checco I do disagree as, for people just glancing at the page, I think it gives a very accurate representation of the party today and there are quite a lot of sources that back this up. Would I be allowed to add Italian language sources? Alexanderkowal (talk) 07:36, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Checco I think you’re going to struggle to convince other editors that there shouldn’t be a reference to fascism int he info box, and I think post fascism is a good compromise here. Alexanderkowal (talk) 07:40, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Post-fascism" is not an ideology in itself, but a political movement as such, and it is already in the article lede. No one is denying the party's roots in the MSI-DN/AN.-- Autospark (talk) 14:16, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Autospark everything in the info box is also in the lead.
From Gáspár Miklós Tamás:
’’I have coined the term post-fascism to describe a cluster of policies, practices, routines and ideologies which can be observed everywhere in the contemporary world.’’
I can’t find anything referring to it as a movement, it seems instead to be a cluster of ideologies and is therefore an ideology in itself (same as national conservatism), therefore I do think it belongs in the info box should there be enough citations supporting it.
Please let me know if this satisfies your point.
Alexanderkowal (talk) 15:37, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Checco the reason I edited was because I haven’t had a response and I felt my above post was quite watertight. I can't find any new sources that describe FdI as neo-fascist, especially since they've come into government. Please let me know what you take issue with. Alexanderkowal (talk) 09:35, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The current consensus is to have "neo-fascism" in the infobox. That was the result of a RfC. Personally I oppose that consensus for the reasons explained above and several users have come out against "neo-fascism". That is good and I hope the we can soon settle on removing "neo-fascism" from the infobox. This said, there is no consensus on having "post-fascism", instead. You are the only one proposing that. While I think that "neo-fascism" is not an ideology that should be mentioned in the infobox, at least it is an ideology, while "post-fascism" is not even that. --Checco (talk) 13:29, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Checco my bad I didn’t realise there’d been an RfC. I won’t change it again. Do you have an idea for when there could be another RfC, as post-fascism wasn’t an option? Idk the convention. Would it be possible to do a quick vote, so it’s less time consuming? From looking at the RfC I do think it could’ve served as a good compromise, that maybe people weren’t aware of because it’s a bit more fringe.
Post-fascism is an ideology, my comment above has an extract from the creator of the term in which he explains it is a collection of ideologies and practices, much like national conservatism is. I haven’t found anything referring to it as anything else, it certainly isn’t a movement. https://autonomies.org/2018/11/gaspar-miklos-tamas-post-fascism/ Also the Italian page has it in the info box.

Alexanderkowal (talk) 13:38, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't read the entire discussion, but I would only include National conservatism as ideology in the infobox. FdI is not a neo-fascist party, in my opinion there was no consensus in the second RFC to include it among the ideologies in the infobox and a third RFC would be necessary to clarify the situation.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 20:44, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on neo-fascism in info box 3 (Effectively option 4 from RfC2)

[edit]
No consensus. This RFC was malformed from the start, with an extremely hard to parse original statement. The RFC tag was also removed shortly afterwards, making this just a regular discussion. As such, it can only be closed as no consensus. The section #A Request for Comment regarding the status of Neo-Fascism within the infobox; Fourth Edition attempts to be a continuation of this question, so future discussion should head there. (non-admin closure) Soni (talk) 12:24, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

it attempted to ask "Should the infobox also mention neo-fascism in the infobox". However,


How should FdI's ideology be described in the infobox?

  • Option 1: neither neo-fascism nor post-fascism
  • Option 2: post-fascism
  • Option 3: neo-fascism

Previous RfC was malformed by @Alexanderkowal however the input from editors is being carried over. Alexanderkowal (talk) 11:20, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm starting this post off the back of the RfC2 due to newfound contradicting sources on whether the FdI is neo-fascist in its current form and the weak consensus on this. I'm going to try to make the case for replacing neo-fascism with post-fascism (which was incorrectly disregarded in the previous RfC in my opinion) in the info box and I was thinking we could just have a quick vote (Support/Oppose) on its implementation instead of a full blown discussion so as not to consume too much of people's time (as I'm aware people are tired of this). This is basically Option 4 in RfC2 if I had engaged in that RfC. If people who put Oppose could also put a concise reasoning for their disagreement I'd really appreciate it, but don't feel you have to. I have chosen to only include academic sources, which have not been cherry picked (I searched Fratelli d'Italia and Brothers of Italy in Google Scholar and included all that came up along with those from RfC2). (A quick way to check sources is with ctrl+f)

On neo-fascism, a big mistake made in the previous RfC was to count sources that label FdI as neo-fascist against articles that explicitly reject the neo-fascist label; they should’ve instead been counted against articles that have a description of FdI that doesn't label them neo-fascist in their current form ("neo-fascist roots" or "neo-fascist sympathies" are not enough for the info box). Also some sources given in RfC2 do not explicitly describe FdI as neo-fascist, and one was inadvertently included twice. Personally I don't think we should including sources from over 5 years ago (maybe even only from 2022 when they came into government) and more recently published sources should be given more weight.

Post-fascism is described as "a cluster of policies, practices, routines and ideologies which can be observed everywhere in the contemporary world" by its creator Gáspár Miklós Tamás in [25]. See Post-fascism#Creation. It is an ideology and is certainly not a movement and I can't find anything describing it as such. This is backed up by [26], [27], and [28].

There are a number of articles that have descriptions of FdI which don't describe them as post-fascist (7 recent). Whilst this can be interpreted as an implicit rejection of the labelling, I think it's more likely to be down to the obscurity of the term, recent coinage, and sparse use in academia before 2020s.

Furthermore the Italian page [it] has post-fascist, and not neo-fascist, in the info box, and the Italian editors themselves are much more likely to have a more accurate impression of the party than we are, although admittedly this particular point supports my case weakly.

So Oppose means support the status quo of having neo-fascism in the info box, and Support means support the replacement of neo-fascism with post-fascism in the info box. Thanks, and apologies if this detracted more of your mental energy than you think it was worth. Alexanderkowal (talk) 11:31, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ScottishFinnishRadish, Braxmate, Checco, Vacant0, Autospark, Helper201, Barnards.tar.gz, A Socialist Trans Girl, and BobFromBrockley: Alexanderkowal (talk) 11:35, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your section heading is "Short RfC on neo-fascism in info box 3". No way is this short - it's over 6,000 characters. If you seriously want people to comment instead of applying WP:TLDR, you need to observe WP:RFCBRIEF. Whilst on that matter, it's not exactly neutral either. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:45, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Redrose64 if you look at RfC2, this is option 4. It's very concise no? I don't think it's too much reading. I've been fair in evaluating given sources and searching for others, I just searched Brothers of Italy or Fratelli d'Italia in GoogleScholar rather than with either of the labels. Alexanderkowal (talk) 17:50, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean #RfC: Neo-fascism in infobox 2? The statement there is 413 characters. The statement for this one, as I mentioned earlier, is much bigger - 6,452 to be exact, so you cannot claim that it is "very concise". It is, in fact, too big for Legobot to handle, so nothing useful is shown at WP:RFC/POL. On that page you will see several current RfCs, some of which are concise. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:06, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Redrose64 I suppose it is more of a RfC for the editors that participated in RfC2 Alexanderkowal (talk) 18:09, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By using the {{rfc}} tag, you are broadcasting this to the wider community. Also, your recent edits to the RfC statement have not made it brief - they have lengthened it. Please cut it right back, to no more than one-tenth of its present size. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:20, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Redrose64 I'll take it off RfC then Alexanderkowal (talk) 19:45, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if post-fascist is defined as "a label that identifies political parties and movements that transition from a fascist political ideology to a more moderate and mainline form of conservatism, abandoning the totalitarian traits of fascism and taking part in constitutional politics" (and this is how WP is definining it), then we would need very good sourcing that BoI has in fact become a moderate, mainline conservative faction and abandoned totalitarian traits. Given the conflict in the sources, I think we can safely say that various observers have claimed that BoI is transitioning toward post-fascism, but we can't claim they have achieved this transition, since various sources still classify them as fascist/neo-fascist.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:14, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SMcCandlish is the evidence that there are very few recent sources labelling FdI neo-fascist enough? I can add a bit on sources that talk about the ideological shift, although I would just be repeating some sources I've already given. There are a number of sources given that describe FdI as post-fascist and not neo-fascist, evidencing this transition has been completed in the views of many, even ones that don't include either. There are 4 or 6 out of 15 recent sources (not cherry-picked) that describe them as neo-fascist. Alexanderkowal (talk) 18:17, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When roughly 1/3 of the recent sources consider them still neo-fascist not post-fascist, WP is not in a position to "declare" them post-fascist. In such situations, we have to simply explain to readers that the real-world, independent material about the subject presents conflicting viewpoints on the matter, and what those views are, with WP:DUEWEIGHT.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:41, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SMcCandlish this is regarding the ideology section in the info box. The lede still describes them as neo-fascist Alexanderkowal (talk) 18:55, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds like a conflict. It might ultimately be best to have "neo-fascist or post-fascist" in the i-box, and a more complete statement that their classification is disputed, in the lead, and at least a paragraph or so explicating this in the main article body.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:06, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SMcCandlish that's against convention, but the benefit of going with post-fascist is that it alludes to neo-fascist historically. Also, the FdI is not at all neo-fascist, they don't even have a neo-fascist faction, it's pretty much just grass root members that the party doesn't want to piss off so they remain ambiguous and sympathise. I should've said, the lede includes a range of views on FdI including neo-fascist Alexanderkowal (talk) 20:16, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What "convention" is it "against"? WP's convention across everything is to follow WP:NPOV policy, especially when it comes to potentially controversial or confusing labels about which sources are not in agreement. And even your summary of the situation is basically WP:OR anecdote, and at a minimum highly contentious. Essentially the exact same summary could be provided, by apologists, of the US Republican Party's Trumpist "Red Hat"/"MAGA" faction (which is now in near-total control of the party); but that in no way stops an increasing number of political analysts and other commentators from concluding that MAGA is a neo-fascist movement.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:21, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SMcCandlish I think you’re misunderstanding. This is about the ideology in the info box. The convention is not to put their ideology is this or that. I stated my impression of the party, which I did not use in my argument, really odd to latch onto that. Be wary of americanising other countries politics, the differing contexts and values held mean things don’t translate. For the record I’m firmly against FdI and wouldn’t vote for them if I was Italian. The status quo here is just incorrect, and I think that’s fairly obvious for anyone who closely follows italian politics Alexanderkowal (talk) 23:07, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some editors who work on some political articles having a loose preference for putting a single clear ideological label in the infobox absolutely does not translate into a "convention" that anyone has to obey. No such wikiproject-based vague preferences trump policy. If the sources do not broadly agree on how to classify this subject politically, then they do not, and our material has to accurately reflect that, whether that material is in the infobox, the lead, or the article body. I was pinged to this discussion, and have provided my input into the question. I don't have any more interest in this article than in any other within the same broad category (modern politics). I'm really not interested in going 'round and 'round on this indefinitely. Other commenters will either agree with what I've said or not. The fact is that about 1/3 of sources classify this one as neo-fascist, and about 2/3 as post-fascist (according to your own stats), and that is far too significant a real-world disagreement about the reality of the matter for WP to just paper over it and pretend the dispute isn't real, or bury it completely in some paragraph deep in the article but use prominent labeling at the top to give a false impression of certainty about this group's political position. I'm not likely to responsd further here, unless there's something new to discuss.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:56, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SMcCandlish apologies if I’ve been argumentative, your comment is valuable Alexanderkowal (talk) 07:59, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Coolio.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:10, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, do you support, oppose, or remain unconvinced regarding the replacement of neo-fascism with post-fascism in the infobox? Alexanderkowal (talk) 13:36, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how FdI is more radical than other far-right parties (like AfD, FPÖ, Vox, RN ect.). "Neofascist" is reserved for actual modern fascist parties like Heimat, Republika, ELAM and Spartans.
even more radical parties Independence, Southern Action League and Unitalia are not labelled as such and nobody is complaining Braganza (talk) 13:58, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Braganza that is what motivated me to make this post Alexanderkowal (talk) 14:24, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, do you support or oppose the replacement of neo-fascism with post-fascism in the infobox? Alexanderkowal (talk) 13:34, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i oppose neo-fascism, post-fascism is not really an ideology but if its added to FdI it should be added to the many post-MSI parties too Braganza (talk) 12:09, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I have long argued, FdI is not a neo-fascist party, but a mainstream (national-)conservative one. A majority of sources, including most relevant ones and basically all Italian-language ones, do not consider the party to be neo-fascist. Statistics of selected sources are totally unrelevant and quite deceptive too. "National conservatism" and "right-wing populism" would be a good compromise for the infobox, as those two ideologies cover the majority of the party, which by the way also includes Christian democrats, liberals and former Socialists, comprising centre-right bigwigs like Tremonti and Pera. Additionally, FdI is not technically post-fascist as it is the result of split (2012) of a faction of the liberal-conservative PdL (2009) led by former members of mainstream national-conservative AN (1995), which was an enlargement of the post-fascist MSI (1946): at best, FdI is a post-post-post-post-fascist party, quite ridiculous indeed. --Checco (talk) 05:59, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Checco this is a minority view, a clear majority of recent sources describe them as either post-fascist or neo-fascist . Perhaps in the lede ideology paragraph it could say that some academic sources reject the post/neo-fascist labelling Alexanderkowal (talk) 10:39, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I back Checco’s conclusion. No-one is denying FdI’s roots in the MSI-DN and AN, but it isn’t the same beast as the MSI-DN, and is essentially a refounded AN, albeit with much wider electoral support. Also, “post-fascism”/“post-fascist” isn’t an ideology, it’s a description of a movement from overtly fascist parties changing towards (mostly national) conservatism.— Autospark (talk) 12:46, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Autospark Checco's conclusion is OR and not backed/supported by academic sources. Personally I do actually agree, but academic sources state otherwise and that is what we must rely on. You're interpretation of post-fascism is wrong. I've explained to you twice what post-fascism is, with the words of the creator, and you've chosen to ignore it. I think you've misinterpreted labelling of a political movement with a movement of ideology. Alexanderkowal (talk) 13:25, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I totally agree with User:Autospark. FdI is basically a refounded AN with much wider support and, let me add, a more moderate/big-tent approach (people like Nordio, Fitto, Crosetto, Tremonti, Pera and so on would have never joined the more radical, albeit national-conservative AN), only a minority of sources depict FdI as neo-fascist and "post-fascism" is not an ideology. --Checco (talk) 06:14, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Checco ahaha I’m gonna assume you’re taking the piss now Alexanderkowal (talk) 09:36, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No offence, if you're going to insult other editors (particularly a long-serving one who's unswervingly always operated in good faith), then I have to assume that you are here to cause trouble and not to contribute in good faith. And no, it's not about personal opinions given there's sources for national conservatism and right-wing populism; those aren't spontaneous inventions of some editors. (Also, peaking or myself, I'm not even refuting the party is post-fascist, with roots in the MSI-DN/AN tradition.)-- Autospark (talk) 13:32, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Autospark I'm sorry if that came across as insulting, it's just that I've asked for your opinion on something and you've completely ignored it. Furthermore, you're yet to provide sources for anything you say, so I'm left to assume these are just personal opinions/impressions Alexanderkowal (talk) 14:23, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Checco @Autospark your personal impressions/opinions are of no value on Wikipedia, we’re just to represent reliable sources. Alexanderkowal (talk) 09:38, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This sounds reasonable to me (unlike the denialism/whitewashing): a clear majority of recent sources describe them as either post-fascist or neo-fascist . Perhaps in the lede ideology paragraph it could say that some academic sources reject the post/neo-fascist labelling. It's our "job" here to reflect what the sources are saying, not to engage in our own WP:OR value judgements or arm-chair policy analysis.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:10, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While a good chunk of sources describe the party as "post-fascist" (not an ideology, thus there should be no place for it in the infobox), a majority of sources do not describe the party as "neo-fascist". To state the contrary is simply not true. Finally, it is a fact that FdI has broadened the tent of the former AN and futher moderated AN's ideology—differently from AN, FdI has lots of Christian democrats, liberals and former Socialists, including several former FI bigwigs: all of this is backed by sources (just think that a majority of FdI ministers — Crosetto, Nordio, Fitto, Roccella and, to be precise, also Santanchè — are not post-fascists and come from centrist parties). As a Venetian separatist, I personally dislike a lot FdI, a party whose core tenet is Italian pride, but we should be objective here. --Checco (talk) 06:00, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Checco post-fascism is an ideology, that is irrefutable. Please just read the source I’ve given from the creator of the term. I agree that only a minority of recent sources describe FdI as neo-fascist, that’s why I made this post, but an even smaller minority describe them as just national conservatives. Alexanderkowal (talk) 06:40, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is not "irrefutable". The fact that the inventor of the term considers it an ideology means nothing. To be clear, I oppose having "neo-fascism" in the infobx because it is not accurate, while I oppose having "post-fascism" because it is not an ideology. I would have just "national conservatism" or, possibly, just "conservatism" (as the party is quite mainstream, especially in foreign and economic policy), but I can live with "right-wing populism". --Checco (talk) 12:09, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then you must refute it with reliable sources that contradict the inventor. Alexanderkowal (talk) 12:17, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The "inventor" is by definition not a third-party source, thus it is useless. --Checco (talk) 12:34, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's valid I'll add some third party sources.
  • [39] "the structure of the chapter includes an elaboration of criteria that allow to qualify the current far right as post-fascist, in contradistinction to interwar fascism" 'this ideology, in contradiction to this ideology', they go into further depth comparing fascism with post-fascism.
  • [40] the conclusion is titled "A 'post-fascist' ideology?"
Annoyingly I don't have access to a lot of the articles on post-fascism.
Alexanderkowal (talk) 13:06, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Checco and Autospark: can you both please clarify whether your positions have changed on total opposition to post-fascism in the info box, or preference for it over neo-fascism. If not then this RfC might have to remain inconclusive where we stick with the status quo.
With regard to your current/previous position, see my above comment. A more accurate and conclusive description will likely come from academic sources analysing FdI's term in government once it is finished (personally I can see the post-fascist label being dropped). Alexanderkowal (talk) 13:32, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Checco Simply not describing it as neo-fascist is not enough, there has to be reliable sources saying that it is NOT neofascist, not just not saying it is neofascist. Since, the alternative ideologies, right wing populism and national conservatism, are not mutually exclusive with neo-fascism. A Socialist Trans Girl 04:20, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I confirm my opposition to both "neo-fascism" (not appropriate/accurate) and "post-fascism" (not an ideology, not particularly relevant for a party that is rather mainstream conservative and not a direct heir of a fascist party) in the infobox. Of course, they should be both mentioned in the "ideology" section. --Checco (talk) 13:50, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By ignoring my repeated point that post-fascism is an ideology backed up by multiple sources, and your failure to provide contradicting sources I can only assume you are WP:NOTHERE. Alexanderkowal (talk) 13:58, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By ignoring my repeated arguments, that are more articulate than how you depict them, you are not doing a good service to Wikipedia and civil debate. We are both free to hold our respective views. Regarding "post-fascism", let alone "neo-fascism", my main point is that FdI is a rather mainstream conservative party and not the direct heir of a fascist party. I defend the consensus achieved in late 2021: let's have only "national-conservatism" and "right-wing populism" in the infobox. --Checco (talk) 14:14, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I addressed your argument in the main post which you ignored and continued repeating. Thank you for clarifying, I do think this still comes from a misunderstanding about what post-fascism is. It is not the same as the post-fascist period in which fascist parties were marginalised, it has a different meaning.
When talking about ideology, it is about fascist ideology which has gradually evolved to not oppose democracy and drop authoritarianism, to the point where the word fascist here mostly refers to a fascist tint on mainstream conservatism. You don’t have to come after a fascist party to be post-fascist. Please let me know if that’s not clear Alexanderkowal (talk) 14:26, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand what you are saying, but I disagree with you, completely. While I continue to think that "post-fascism" cannot be considered an ideology, it is not anyway a distinctive character of FdI. For similar reasons, I have long opposed adding "post-comunism" in the infoboxes of the Democratic Party of the Left, the Democrats of the Left and the Democratic Party. Arguably, FdI is much more distant from fascist ideology than the PD is from communism. --Checco (talk) 19:14, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose it can be used as a smear to impose a party's past on itself, the creator was very partisan. It does imply that the party is crypto-fascist or can't be trusted. I think a good example of post-socialism would be New Labour in the UK, or Keir Starmer's Labour Party at the moment, where they are strongly opposed to socialism and their policies firmly neo-liberal, but the party itself still has socialist traditions, and a membership/local candidates who support socialism. I think this is what post-fascist means in the case of FdI, in that the policies and leadership are mainstream conservative (in the current climate) but elements of the party structure are neo-fascist. I do still think post-fascism is the best label here, and we will see academics' analyses of Meloni's constitutional reform. If it places a lot of emphasis on strong leadership, I can see the post-fascist label being hard to shake off. I suppose academics use the term because they don't trust the party. Alexanderkowal (talk) 19:51, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've requested closure for this RfC as I don't think I've handled it well and there's been little discussion or consensus building. Alexanderkowal (talk) 14:31, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the neo-fascist identity as the party is evidently linked to neo-fascist ideologies. Its history must be taken into account - its policies have nothing to do with liberal democratic values. 81.170.22.189 (talk) 17:10, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The ideology parameter in the info box documents their current ideology, their historical positions are talked about in the lede. Furthermore only a minority of recent academic sources label them as neo-fascist. This is one of the benefits of going with post-fascism though in that it alludes to a neo-fascist past. Do you agree that they are distinctly more centrist from other neo-fascist parties in Italy such as Tricolour Flame, New Force, National Social Front, and CasaPound? Alexanderkowal (talk) 17:20, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Who precisely claimed that the scholarly literature omits references to the party as neo-fascist or radical right? This comparison lacks relevance, hence I shall briefly cite several recent publications to support my assertion. I await your substantiation as well, if you are able to provide it. Fascsist, illeberal, authoritarian, radical right. Show me now where the majority is, which is simply untrue. 81.170.22.189 (talk) 18:26, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ahaha please read the RfC Alexanderkowal (talk) 19:08, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Only fascist, neo-fascist, or authoritarian would back up your point, illiberal or radical right do not Alexanderkowal (talk) 19:12, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Academic sources are divided on this issue, hence the need for an RfC. Out of 20ish recent academic sources, a plurality describe them as post-fascist Alexanderkowal (talk) 19:19, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I really like online users who run to defend an openly neo-fascist party on Wiki. What a lifestyle to lead! So much meaning and depth. 81.170.22.189 (talk) 19:27, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're WP:NOTHERE. Alexanderkowal (talk) 19:35, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Checco is right. Post-fascism and post-communism are not ideologies. These terms are sometimes used to refer to the historical roots of parties. For example, the Italian Democratic Party (PD) is post-communist, this does not mean that "post-communism" is the ideology of the PD. "Post" in fact indicates that it is no longer communist. 93.38.68.62 (talk) 12:29, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is not what academic sources say or imply regarding post-fascism. Alexanderkowal (talk) 12:34, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"s. m. [comp. of post- and fascism]. - The historical period in Italy that followed the fall (1943) of fascism. Also, sometimes, synonym. of neo-fascism."
https://www.treccani.it/vocabolario/postfascismo/
Probably because they use – improperly – the term as a synonym for neo-fascism. 93.38.68.62 (talk) 12:49, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are two meanings of the word post-fascism:
One is referring to the post-fascist period.
Another was created by Tamas and is an ideology similar to mainstream conservatism with aspects of watered down fascism. I really don't think academics use terms incorrectly Alexanderkowal (talk) 12:54, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then I would avoid using the term because it's misleading, both because there are multiple definitions of it and also because it's inconsistent with the etymology. 93.38.68.62 (talk) 13:02, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's ridiculous, using it in the ideology parameter of the info box makes it clear which definition is used. It also links to the page talking about it. Alexanderkowal (talk) 13:06, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's ridiculous. It's a possible persuasive definition that in most cases is used to extend the meaning of "fascism" to mean (obviously) more moderate positions. 93.38.68.62 (talk) 13:12, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is correct, but not a reason to dismiss it. See Post-fascism#Creation Alexanderkowal (talk) 13:13, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We're just to represent academic sources, if it is common use in academia then we should use it Alexanderkowal (talk) 13:14, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The term has been used since the 1960s by Amilcare Rossi (see Figlio del mio tempo: Prefascismo, fascismo, postfascismo).
I think it's the first use (Edit: I corrected below, it was attested in the 1950s) and his definition is what you see on the Treccani website (akin to the concept of post-communism). 93.38.68.62 (talk) 13:27, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Alexanderkowal The term was also used in the 1950s by Giuseppe Longo (see Le Carte della Democrazia), Aldo Capitini (see Nuova socialità e riforma religiosa) and Luigi Sturzo (see Opera Omnia). 93.38.68.62 (talk) 13:32, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's interesting. I think we can infer that when an academic talks about ideology and uses post-fascism they're referring to Tamas' definition. I would still argue that post-communism can be an ideology (not an overriding one), separate from the definition on that page, where the party still has communist sympathies and communist traditions, impacting party structure and policy. Alexanderkowal (talk) 13:42, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I quite agree with the IP user (see here), especially on the comparison with the PD. --Checco (talk) 13:05, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Alexanderkowal Just because there are sources that don't describe it as neo-fascist isn't enough to have neo-fascism not be in the infobox. There are plenty of sources that don't describe birds as being dinosaurs, but that doesn't mean they aren't.
Especially since what they do describe it as (primarily national conservatism), isn't mutually exclusive with neo-fascism. There lacks enough sources outright rejecting it being neo-fascist to support the removal. For another RfC, I believe this would have to change (i.e, a large influx of sources outright rejecting the label of neo-fascist.) A Socialist Trans Girl 03:18, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is ridiculous reasoning. The premise for this discussion is not refuting the status quo but assessing scholarly opinion on ideology of FdI. It is not just some, a clear majority of sources discussing FdI’s ideology don’t describe them as neo-fascist in addition to a couple wholly rejecting it. In light of this there’s no case for neo-fascism in the info box Alexanderkowal (talk) 09:26, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On this, I agree with User:Alexanderkowal. A clear majority of sources do not describe the party as neo-fascist, simply becausa it is not. --Checco (talk) 13:18, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For now there appears to be a weak consensus supporting neither post-fascism or neo-fascism, with 3 in favour, one for post-fascism, and one for neo-fascism. Obviously this is still open for discussion and I'll leave this RfC ongoing for now until someone decides to make a new one/new argument. Alexanderkowal (talk) 12:14, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is a good example of why contentious labels do not belong in an infobox. Infoboxes are for basic facts, consumable at-a-glance. If reliable sources are divided, and nuance is required to understand a statement, then the infobox simply doesn’t have room for an adequate explanation. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 20:16, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is purely RSs that should be represented Alexanderkowal (talk) 20:18, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is a scandal that with so many references to describe the party as neo-fascist or post-fascist there is no consensus to add it. I suggest that it be added, post-fascism since it does not have such radical positions as to be a neo-fascist party. Not adding something would be breaking Wikipedia policy. Hidolo (talk) 16:54, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree but there wasn't consensus for post-fascism Alexanderkowal (talk) 17:38, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And, as of now, there is no consensus for "neo-fascism" either. --Checco (talk) 18:09, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've relisted it since it's currently 3-3 regarding whether fascism should be referred to in the infobox. I'm not going to bludgeon discussion and be combative this time Alexanderkowal (talk) 12:20, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
3 for none, 2 for post-fascism, 1 for neo-fascism Alexanderkowal (talk) 18:35, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that, although I believe that an instance for dialogue can almost always be created, this would be the exception. Those who say that neither post-fascism nor neo-fascism should be added should not be taken into account. Literally almost all, if not all, sources describe the party in one of these two ways. To suggest that neither be added is to completely ignore Wikipedia's policies and be untrue. Hidolo (talk) 14:43, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A large minority of academic sources don’t use the terms neo or post fascism when assessing FdI’s ideology. I sort of agree that this should purely be about representing academic sources and we should go with the plurality option but people don’t agree. If you want, you can do a WP:3O Alexanderkowal (talk) 15:16, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree with you, we should do it. But honestly, I'm new to Wikipedia, and I don't know how this particular policy works. If you could help me try to close this discussion once and for all through this mechanism, I would greatly appreciate it. Hidolo (talk) 18:21, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's okay, just follow the instructions at WP:3O, it pings an editor here, I'll provide input as well. It'd be improper for me to seek a third opinion after not getting my desired result from an RfC, however consensus may be weak enough for someone else to do it Alexanderkowal (talk) 18:30, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I made a WP:3O, but the users who are in charge of this told me that it could not be done since there were not only 2 users involved in the discussion. Hidolo (talk) 00:59, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay no worries, we stick with the status quo then Alexanderkowal (talk) 08:30, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, most of the sources state that the party's roots are to be found in post-fascism, but not that the party is neo-fascist. --Checco (talk) 16:44, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is disagreement on what post-fascism means in this context Alexanderkowal (talk) 16:56, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I prefer option 1 to option 3 Alexanderkowal (talk) 16:57, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should add post-fascism, and then continue discussing with people who wants to violate Wikipedia politic. Hidolo (talk) 19:22, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
no, consensus is paramount Alexanderkowal (talk) 19:37, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:Consensus Alexanderkowal (talk) 19:40, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support The evidence seems to support Post-Fascism in more recent sources. Would be okay with restoring Neo-fascism as well (since either of them are more accurate and descriptive than "National Conservatism"), but leaning more towards Post-Fascism due to sources. GlowstoneUnknown (talk) 04:22, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, "national conservatism" is more descriptive because that it specifically the party's ideology. Sadly, the party is neither "neo-fascist" nor (directly) "post-fascist" (it is the heir of the heir of the heir of a fascist party). Indeed, most sources recall the party's neo-fascist or post-fascist roots, not its current neo-fascism, as the party as a whole is not neo-fascist at all. --Checco (talk) 05:39, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is a post-fascist party because most sources say so. Afterwards, whether you think otherwise is a separate matter. Hidolo (talk) 22:27, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No it is the same matter, because consensus is paramount Alexanderkowal (talk) 22:50, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A Request for Comment regarding the status of Neo-Fascism within the infobox; Fourth Edition

[edit]

I believe the previous discussion here was not all that productive (it didn't involve all that much analysis of sources, and there was only I believe 4 or so active editors in the discussion (which is why I've added the RFC template to this discussion)), and that the main argument to remove it was incredibly weak; that argument being, "A majority (or a lot) of sources do not describe the party as neo-fascist." That. does. not. matter. Said sources often describe the party as national conservative and or right-wing populist. These are not mutually exclusive with fascism, infact, right-wing populism is one of the core tenets of fascism. (13, here which links to right-wing populism.) Nor is national conservatism mutually exclusive with fascism, and in fact italian neo-fascist parties (most notably MSI) are listed as also being national conservative here here. Please do not repeat this argument. Sources merely not labelling the party as neo-fascist do not matter, what does matter, however is the sources which outright reject the neo-fascist label. There are plenty of sources that don't describe birds as being dinosaurs, but that doesn't mean they aren't. Additionally, sources highlighting the parties roots in fascism are not neccesarily rejecting that they curron ently are, instead it's merely highlighting the historical aspect.A Socialist Trans Girl 07:20, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Above thing is the RFC statement, this is more stuffs because this all being in the RFC statement was too long.
For people wishing to participate in this discussion who haven't done so in the previous discussion, I recommend reading through previous discussions to understand the context behind this one, and to avoid restating arguments which have been disproven.
Please read all of this before jumping in with your pre-established opinion, and instead consider this with an open mind in good faith. I will also consider oppsing viewpoints with an open mind in good faith.
From WP:CON, "Consensus involves an effort to address editors' legitimate concerns through a process of compromise while following Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.". Therefore, what is to be considered in the consensus is only legitimate concerns, which have not been addressed on the basis of the concern being unwarranted or unsubstantiated or mistaken.
Please only engage in this discussion if you are Here to build an encyclopedia, and are engaging in good faith.
Additionally, for extra context, I recommend reading this paragraph from the 'Ideology and Factions' section of this article:
Although FdI rejects the "neo-fascist" label, it has been applied due to the party's history dating back to the Italian Social Movement (MSI),[1] its far-right ties,[2][3][4] its appeal to neo-fascist themes on social media like Facebook,[5] and some party leaders' nostalgia for Italian fascism,[6][7][8][9] including Roman salutes.[10] Some party members have celebrated Benito Mussolini, with fascist memorabilia in some local offices.[11][12][13] Some members of the Mussolini family have run for FdI, such as Rachele Mussolini, granddaughter of Mussolini, for the City Council of Rome, and Caio Giulio Cesare Mussolini, great-grandson of Mussolini, for the 2019 European Parliament election.[14]
Also, Giorgia Meloni praised Mussolini, saying "Mussolini was a good politician." (source)
Another thing which should be considered is the optical rhetoric shifts the party has engaged in in order to be more politically pallatable, whilst not changing their policy positions (Not part of my argument, but in case someone asks, the reason why they change their rhetoric to be more politically pallatable but not their policy is because not that many voters actually care much about policy, it's mostly rhetoric).
With regards to post-fascism, there is many sources still describing the party as neo-fascist rather than post-fascist, and with there also being questions (in the last RfC) over whether it is even an ideology, therefore, I think post-fascism should not be in the infobox. I believe it distracts from the point at hand; this RfC is over the question of "Should Neo-Fascism be included in the infobox?". If you wish to add post-fascism, this RfC is not the discussion, you may start a new discussion if you would like to discuss the addition of it. Post-fascism is outside the scope of this discussion.
I'll list sources supporting each side. I believe that news articles aren't very good on this matter and are inferior to academic sources, and this is an academic topic, so academic sources shall be the ones counted. If more relevant reliable academic sources are provided in this discussion then I'll try to update this list.
This is an almost total unanimity amonst sources, and warrants adding neo-fascism to the infobox, unless a lot more relevant reliable academic sources which describe it as not being neo-fascist are found. So far, with only one source against it, the idea that it isn't neo-fascist is a massive minority. Additionally, in the second RfC, not even ONE source was provided by those arguing for the exclusion from the infobox. Keep in mind, this is about comparing how many relevant reliable academic sources support it being neo-fascist compared to how many oppose it, not how many editors personally think it is neo-fascist or not, since (excerpt from WP:UNDUE) "The relative prominence of each viewpoint among Wikipedia editors or the general public is irrelevant and should not be considered.". A Socialist Trans Girl 07:20, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@A Socialist Trans Girl: Please shorten the RfC statement. The statement is supposed to be brief and neutral. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 09:25, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Vacant0 Oki, i've reduced the statement to the core paragraph and added the additional things below it A Socialist Trans Girl 22:16, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@A Socialist Trans Girl: Further to what Vacant0 has written, what is your brief and neutral statement? At over 13,000 bytes, the statement above (from the {{rfc}} tag to the next timestamp) is far too long for Legobot (talk · contribs) to handle, and so it is not being shown correctly at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Politics, government, and law. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:02, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Redrose64 Yeah sorry, I'm not really well versed on how to create RfCs, so thanks for telling me.
I've fixed the length thing by reducing the statement to the core paragraph. A Socialist Trans Girl 22:19, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It might be short enough now, we'll know for certain when Legobot next updates Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Politics, government, and law, which should be a minute or two after 23:00 (UTC). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:32, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Redrose64 Oki, thanks for the help! A Socialist Trans Girl 23:52, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. The party is completely fascist (and post-fascist). I don't know why we're still discussing this? Locoporlavida (talk) 22:43, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well we're discussing it because currently it's not in the infobox. I think it should be though, yeah. A Socialist Trans Girl 04:47, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And it should continue to stay out of it. The party is surely not fascist or neo-fascist. It surely has roots in a post-fascist party. However, I do not this that "post-fascism" is useful either as the party is the heir of the heir (AN) of the heir of a post-fascist party (MSI). --Checco (talk) 19:20, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are not in the true. The MSI was a neo-fascist party. Nevertheless, this does not matter. The are several sources, indicating the agrupation as neo-fascist. Locoporlavida (talk) 00:38, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Like it or not, neo-fascist or post-fascist, the MSI was disbanded in 1994–1995 (30 years ago) in favour of the mainstream conservative and anti-fascist AN, which was later merged with liberal-conservative FI into the PdL, from which FdI emerged in 2012. --Checco (talk) 20:06, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Checco Please provide reliable sources to support your claim that it is not neo-fascist, which you have not done so far in the 2nd RfC either. You may personally hold the belief that it is not neo-fascist, however without reliable sources to back this up it means nothing. A Socialist Trans Girl 04:52, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will repeat my comment from the previous RfC: this is a good example of why contentious labels do not belong in an infobox. Infoboxes are for basic facts, consumable at-a-glance. If reliable sources are divided, and nuance is required to understand a statement, then the infobox simply doesn’t have room for an adequate explanation.
How could this possibly be a contentious label when the reliable sources are apparently so aligned in favour of "neo-fascist"? Because the "That. does. not. matter." argument is flawed. Consider the following source: [57]. They choose the label centre-right, and they do so in direct contrast to a group they characterise as neo-fascist. This is not a case of merely using a label that isn't mutually exclusive with neo-fascist, it's a case of deliberately choosing not to label as neo-fascist. Similarly, any source which freely and extensively discusses the available labels and still chooses not to label as neo-fascist is very much a deliberate choice to reject the label. Here's another example of that: [58]. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 15:55, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Barnards.tar.gz Well I wouldn't say that 14-1 is very divided.
Nono, that source isn't what one of the types I'm talking of in that argument, centre-right is mutually exclusive to neo-fascist. It is a case of usage of a label which is mutually exclusive with neo-fascist (i.e, it not being that). It's not just not mentioning neo-fascist. So, I'll add that source to the list.
With the other source, clicking that link returned a 404 page, could you find a working link? Thanks. A Socialist Trans Girl 10:29, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That 404s for me too, now. It seems to only work when clicking through from the search results on Google Scholar. Can you find it with this citation?[15] Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 10:34, 23 July 2024 (UTC) Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 10:34, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Barnards.tar.gz I tried googling it but couldn't find a link. That's weird. A Socialist Trans Girl 10:52, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, most sources do not describe the party as "neo-fascist" (which is not case, indeed), but that the party has "neo/post-fascist" roots (which is accurate). Just to give you another example, also Italy's Democratic Party has "communist" or "post-communist" roots, but it is clearly not a "communist" party. --Checco (talk) 19:47, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Checco Sorry but I already addressed that argument. Please read (or re-read) the opening I wrote. A Socialist Trans Girl 23:31, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can say the say the same. I often addressed the issue and what I have been exposing is not an opinion, but a fact. --Checco (talk) 13:58, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Checco No you cannot say the same. You have not adressed my addressing of that argument.
And it's clearly not empirical fact considering we've needed 4 RfCs on it. The conclusion you draw from that is subjective, as is mine. Please don't speak as if you are empirically correct; your not, nor am I.
most sources do not describe the party as "neo-fascist" You claim the majority do so; please back this up. You're yet to cite any sources in any of the RfCs, I would very much like to see the sources youre basing this on (i dont mean that rudely) (also when you provide the sources please separate the ones saying neo-fascist roots from the ones saying post-fascist roots).
Regardless, saying they have 'neo-fascist roots' or 'post-fascist roots' is not saying that they aren't neo-fascist currently. If a source means that it's not currently neo-fascist, then that'll be pretty clear in the source.
Your analogy is not an accurate, as FdI is not clearly not neo-fascist, there is a plethora of sources saying that it is neo-fascist. A Socialist Trans Girl 11:43, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A minority of sources and basically no Italian-language ones support that. --Checco (talk) 16:17, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Checco I don't mean this in a rude way, but have you read my opening? I cited 14 sources supporting it being neo-fascist, and 2 opposing it.
If it's true that a minority of sources support that, you need to provide over a dozen reliable academic sources opposing it. If you can find reliable academic sources which reject the neo-fascist label, I'll happily add them. But you are yet to provide a single source supporting your arguments in any of the RfCs so far.
Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, and without a basis in reliable sources or Wikipedia policy, an argument is weightless.
Also, you didn't respond to the entirety of my argument just then, specifically the objectivity-subjectivity part. Please clarify, are you conceding that? Or do you have a rebuttal?
And, oncemore, you're claiming a support of a majority of sources. Doing this requires actually citing the sources, not just saying that the sources are there. I have a genuine question: What is the reason you've been so reluctant to cite any sources through the discussions? (I don't mean that passive agressively, I'm genuinely curious. A Socialist Trans Girl 02:18, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have consensus? as consensus It involves an effort to address editors' legitimate concerns through a process of compromise while following Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. are there any legitimate concerns which have not been adressed in opposition to the inclusion in the infobox?A Socialist Trans Girl 06:25, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In my view, consensus is that the party's main ideologies are "national conservatism" and "right-wing populism", thus these two should go to the infobox. Of course, the article explains how the party has post-fascist roots and how some sources describe it as "post-fascist" and "neo-fascist" also today. To be clear, nothing of this is my position, as I think that the party is surely not right-wing populist and more mainstream conservative than national-conservative. However, sources and consensus point to having only "national conservatism" and "right-wing populism" in the infobox. --Checco (talk) 13:40, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No we don’t, the sources you are using are too old. Recent RSs predominantly describe them as post-fascist or neither as the previous survey laid out. This is a malformed RfC. Kowal2701 (talk) 20:14, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Joke of a survey as well, this just looks like WP:POV pushing Kowal2701 (talk) 20:19, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I don't quite understand; how is this a joke of a survey? A Socialist Trans Girl 02:29, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The main issue is WP:Cherrypicking. A survey is supposed to be of all RSs (or a sample of RSs) using an unbiased method. For the previous RfC I searched something like “Brothers of Italy ideology” into Google scholar and tallied up the first few pages. Kowal2701 (talk) 07:29, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kowal2701 The issue with doing it like that is that most of them won't comment on the issue, so I think it's better to search for ones that say it is/isn't neo-fascist, which is why I did it like I did.
I don't understand how it is selecting information without including contradictory or significant qualifying information from the same source and consequently misrepresenting what the source says (i.e, cherrypicking), could you please explain how it is? A Socialist Trans Girl 04:14, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think if a source discusses their ideology without mentioning neo-fascism, then it isn’t clear cut enough for the Infobox to have it contemporarily. For instance you won’t find any source that mentions Golden Dawn without mentioning neo-fascism. Kowal2701 (talk) 07:02, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kowal2701 I'll sort the sources by recent/non-recent. A Socialist Trans Girl 02:28, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kowal2701 I've separated the sources into recent & non-recent sources, and both the sources for and sources against have been reduced by the same amount (half), so it doesn't seem like that changes much at all. A Socialist Trans Girl 02:48, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That’s good but you need to do a proper survey. I think we can do a survey of academic publications discussing FdI’s ideology and count sources that don’t mention neo-fascism/authoritarianism against the neofascist label, since if a source thought FdI was neo-fascist, they would mention it when discussing their ideology.
Personally I think a good compromise here is to have
Historical
Neo-fascism
in the Infobox, like at some other political parties’ pages Kowal2701 (talk) 07:35, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kowal2701 You know what, I think that's quite a good idea, but I think we should do that with having a footnote saying that some RS consider it to be contemporarily neo-fascist. Would you support doing it with the footnote? A Socialist Trans Girl 04:16, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah sounds good, could put the recent sources in the footnote Kowal2701 (talk) 06:04, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kowal2701 oki i did that, glad we achieved consensus.
just to check, are you okay with how i did it? here's a permanent link: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brothers_of_Italy&oldid=1244972788 A Socialist Trans Girl 08:06, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@A Socialist Trans Girl we should wait to see what others think before editing the page, but that looks fine to me Kowal2701 (talk) 09:43, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It’s a good attempt at a compromise, but is it actually supported by sources or is it WP:SYNTH? It implies “used to be neo-fascist but isn’t now”, which seems at odds with the sources that support the label of neo-fascist and with those that do not. I still think this is a clear case of sources being divided, and hence the statement being contested, and hence it not being suitable for an infobox. Infoboxes are for clear at-a-glance facts, not disputed things that require explanation. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 07:37, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I still think the best option is to go with post-fascism since a plurality of sources support that, and it implies historically neo-fascism. Post-fascism is defined as “a cluster of ideologies and practices”, I don’t understand how people are arguing against it being an ideology. Kowal2701 (talk) 08:28, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What are the sources that say post-fascism, just to compare it to the number for neo-fascist[d]? I can make a new thing at the source number count at the start of the article for post-fascist as well, if need be. A Socialist Trans Girl 09:21, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Barnards.tar.gz That's not the intention of it, it's meant to be saying that historically, it definitely was neo-fascist, and right now it is either post-fascist or neo-fascist, disputed by sources.
I three proposals which would fix this ambiguity/misinterpretation;
Here's the first:
Here's the second:
Here's the third:
I also think, certainly in the first 2 and possibly the third, the footnote should be rephrased to say some sources think it's currently neo-fascist and others think it's post-fascist instead.
@Kowal2701 and Barnards, would you support any of these? A Socialist Trans Girl 09:18, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’d support Post-fascism or neo-fascism (disputed) [footnote]. Post-fascism should come first since there are more sources supporting it. In the sources you’ve given, I think you’ve included the fascist architecture one and the post-displacement one both twice. The sources for post-fascism are in RfC3 Kowal2701 (talk) 09:41, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kowal2701 I don't think the order matters really, I just did "neo-fascism or post-fascism" because it sounded better to me.[e] So I don't really care about the order myself. As long as you approve it, sure.
@Barnards.tar.gz do you approve of the version ideology: Post-fascism or Neo-fascism (disputed)[footnote] with post-fascism first? A Socialist Trans Girl 09:52, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:DUE: “Undue weight can be given in several ways, including … prominence of placement” Kowal2701 (talk) 12:26, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kowal2701 Eh sure, I dont mind either way. A Socialist Trans Girl 13:53, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I still think we should be doing the same as it:Fratelli d'Italia and have post-fascism contemporarily but I’m satisfied with this Kowal2701 (talk) 09:59, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kowal2701 I don't think post-fascism should be in the ideology section of the infobox because it's not really an ideology. If you'd like to discuss it I'd be happy to participate in such a discussion, but I think it should be in a new discussion ^-^ A Socialist Trans Girl 04:00, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cherrypicking sources when the majority of the them do not describe the party as "neo-fascist" is not OK with an encyclopedia. By the way, the party was never neo-fascist, thus "historical" makes no sense. There is still no consensus on adding "neo-fascism", however the note can stay. I will edit the infobox accordingly. --Checco (talk) 05:38, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Checco Which of the sources ([43][44][45][46][47][48][49]) do not describe the party as neo-fascist?
To quote yourself, "Indeed, most sources recall the party's neo-fascist or post-fascist roots, not its current neo-fascism".
The VAST majority of sources say that the party is post-fascist (is transitioning away from being neo-fascist), or even that it is currently neo-fascist.
Your WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim that it has never been neo-fascist requires exceptional sourcing, far more than the zero sources you've provided so far. Please provide sources for your claim, as require requires claims to be substantiated by Reliable Sources in articles and in discussions when the suggestion in the discussion influences content of articles on the basis of what sources say.
You say there's no consensus on having Historical: neo-fascism in the infobox, while me and Kowal have formed consensus on that. Consensus "involves an effort to address editors' legitimate concerns through a process of compromise"— could you please inform us of your legitimate concerns with the proposal of adding it? A Socialist Trans Girl 05:58, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly, two users do not form a consensus.
On the issue, the party was never neo-fascist as it was launched in 2012 (2012!) by two former members of National Alliance and one former Christian Democrat. Please note that National Alliance was established in 1995 as the evolution of the Italian Social Movement (MSI), a post-fascist party, and was founded on the complete repudiation of MSI's post-fascism. That is history and there are tons of books and articles on the issue. On FdI, an absolute majority of souces, including the most authoritative newspapers in Italy (like "Corriere della Sera") and Europe (think of "The Economist") have never descibed it as neo-fascist. It is easy to find sources saying the opposite, while neglecting all the other sources which do not. --Checco (talk) 06:15, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Checco Not on it's own, no. I just implied that by saying what consensus is and asking you for the thing from you which would mean that there is no consensus between just me and Kowal.
why are you emphasizing the year 2012? Yeah, that's WP:SYNTH. You're saying that because of the ideology of the party(s) which preceded it that it's not neo-fascist. I could dispute your claims about the ideology of its predecessors, but I'm not going to because it doesn't matter. You need to reliable cite academic/book sources saying that it was never neo-fascist. I asked you to provide such sources already, in the message you just responded to. Why did you not do so?
Stop repeating arguments which I already adressed (I addressed the argument of merely not saying it's neo-fascist in the in the RfC opening).
Also, media/news sources (due to the large amount of bias within them) are superseded by academic/book sources in terms of reliability with this. For this reason, there's no point in me disputing your claims for those news sources not describing it as neo-fascist, as well as for the reason in the paragraph above this.
Again, I'm not neglecting any sources which say the opposite. I have a specific section at the top of the RfC dedicated to keeping track of all relevant reliable sources for and against. You've just failed to cite any sources; that's not cherrypicking; I'm not discarding any sources for saying it's not neo-fascist. A Socialist Trans Girl 09:00, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your reasoning is quite strange. Do we really need to find sources saying that Italy's Democratic Party or, for that matter, the American one was never communist or, for that, matter neo-fascist? No, because most sources describe this first as social-democratic, centre-left and so on and the latter liberal, social-liberal and so on. Same thing for FdI: very few sources describe it as neo-fascist, while most sources describe it as conservative, national-conservative, nationalist, right-wing populist, right-wing, etc. Again, that is not my view, that is what sources say. To be clear, while I am quite ideologically opposed to this party (it promotes Italian pride, while I hold very different views on Italy as a Venetian and a Venetist), I consider it a mainstream conservative party, with nationalist, as well as liberal and centrists tendencies. I would have "conservatism" alone in the infobox. However, I acknowledge that most sources describe it in different way, that is why I do not oppose the current consensus on "national conservatism" and "right-wing populism". --Checco (talk) 11:58, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Checco I've explained this to you several times before. You can be neo-fascist while being conservative, national-conservative, nationalist, right wing populist, etc. You can't be communist while being social democratic. Simple as. I've explained this before. So, again, Please provide the sources to back up your claim.
The party is clearly not mainstream conservative. Mainstream conservative is stuff like CDU in germany, PP in spain, liberals in australia, republicans in france, etc. Not far-right like AfD in germany, FdI in italy, RN in france, etc. Regardless of your potential not accusation, just saying potential and implied personal desire to shift the overton window right, that doesn't matter because the sources say that it's neo-fascist or at the very least post-fascist.
By the way, do you support the compromise proposal to have in the infobox: ideology: Post-fascism or Neo-fascism (disputed)[footnote]? A Socialist Trans Girl 13:48, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your explanation is not entirely correct. In Italy, several historians have argued that the Italian Communist Party and especially leaders like Berlinguer, Amendola and Napolitano were both communist and social-democratic, additionally there are still PD members like Bersani who consider themselves both social democrats and communists. Regarding neo-fascism, it is true that most neo-fascists are conservative or right-wing, but others are socialistic or left-wing: the MSI had also left-wing and "social" factions, as well as moderate-conservative and liberal ones. Reality is more complex than we would like at times. This said, FdI has nothing to do with AfD and it is much closer to the UK Conservative Party and EPP parties, indeed it is full of Christian democrats (including minister and would-be EU commissioner Fitto, minister Crosetto, etc.) and liberals (e.g. minister Nordio). I have to say that FdI reminds Spain's PP a lot: they are both parties with post-fascist roots that have since became mainstream. Of course, FdI is a little bit further to the right than the PP, but they are quite similar. Again, only a minority of sources describe FdI as post-fascist or neo-fascist, however, even though "post-fascism" is not an ideology, it is accurate to say that FdI is post-fascist or, better, post-post-post-post-fascist, as already the MSI was post-fascist and FdI is not its direct successor. Finally, I would like to remind that FdI's indirect predecessor, National Alliance, repudiated fascism at its founding and its leader Fini was considered a liberal by several observers. --Checco (talk) 08:29, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Checco now that's just flatly wrong. Neo-fascism is an inherently far-right conservative ideology, incompatable with leftism and socialism[f]
Your claims that MSI had left-wing and liberal factions are extremely bold and require sources. Which, again You have not provided a single RS source throughout the entirety of this discussion despite several requests for you to do so.
You're at this point just making political arguments of your own views, to make FdI seem less right-wing. I don't care about the claims you make about its post-fascism or neo-fascism as you haven't backed them up by sources.
MSI and National Alliance don't matter for this discussion, because we are discussing FdI, which can have different ideologies to its predescessor. A Socialist Trans Girl 02:30, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure to know Italian fascism well enough? You may find some information on left-wing fascism at Fascism#Position on the political spectrum, it:Fascismo di sinistra and it:Raggruppamento Sociale Repubblicano. Left-wing fascists were particulary radical in the 1960s and the 1970s, so that they ended to be part of the Third Position movement. Finally, MSI and AN matter because, if compared to them, FdI is clearly more moderate and diverse, having a much larger numer of Christian-democrats, liberals, former Socialists and mainstream conservatives in its ranks (Fitto, Crosetto, Nordio, Tremonti, Pera, Roccella, Mieli, etc.) --Checco (talk) 10:51, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Checco Clicking on the first link, it said Scholars place fascism on the far right of the political spectrum. A Socialist Trans Girl 03:20, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure you read the articles in full and that you are really interested in studying the issue thoroughly. Fair enough. Most of the times, realy is more complexed and nuanced than we tend to think. This said, infoboxes are summaries and we need to simplify. --Checco (talk) 19:51, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While I disagree with having either "neo-fascism" or "post-fascism" (the latter is not even an ideology), I could accept as a compromise Ideology: National conservatism, Right-wing populism, Post-fascism (with or without disputed)[footnote]. This is really my best offer for the sake of compromise. --Checco (talk) 12:21, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Checco (also sorry didnt see your comment when i asked at the end when i just replied to you)
To clarify, the proposal doesn't involve removing national conservatism or right-wing populism.
May I ask why not have "post-fascism or neo-fascism (disputed)", as it's undeniable that it's disputed by sources over whether it's neo-fascist, no? A Socialist Trans Girl 13:52, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As above. It is accurate to say that FdI is post-fascist (or, better, post-post-post-post-fascist, as already the MSI was post-fascist and FdI is not its direct successor), meaning that it has post-fascist roots. This is a compromise I can accept. For the sake of compromise, I also agree that FdI includes tiny neo-fascist minorities, but I oppose adding factional ideologies in political party infoboxes, especially when they are so tiny and not relevant. Most parties, espcially large, big-tent ones, have minority factions. For instance, the PD has had and has both communist and Christian-conservative factions, but it would be very strange to add their ideologies in the infobox. Same for FdI, otherwise we should also add Christian democracy and liberalism, that are shared by many more people within the party. It is more a matter of consensus than sources. I have never proposed to remove parts of the "Ideology and factions" section and it could surely be strenghtened with more infos and sources; I have simply long opposed adding items that do not represent the party fully and that are supported by a minority of sources in the infobox. This said, for the sake of compromise and ending this long-discussion, I have offered a compromise version that I hope you and the other users involved could agree on. Are you interested in compromise? --Checco (talk) 08:29, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Checco Are you happy with the footnote mentioning that some sources describe them as neo-fascist? Kowal2701 (talk) 09:36, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As already explained, I am OK with both the current footnote and the current "ideology" section. --Checco (talk) 09:40, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If there needs to be a compromise, I would also accept this, and the inclusion of a footnote. I will support Checco in his view that this party is a right-wing conservative party; I certainly would not place the FdI on the same level of extremity as the German AfD. There is after all space on the spectrum for political parties to exist between mainstream centre-right and the (genuine) far-right, and in my mind the FdI fits in that space.-- Autospark (talk) 18:54, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I fully agree with User:Autospark. --Checco (talk) 10:51, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Checco I'd probably accept your compromise proposal for the sake of ending the discussion.
However, I would like to change the footnote from the current one of "The FdI has been considered by some sources to be neo-fascist, while others consider it to be only historically neo-fascist." to instead be "The FdI has been considered by some sources to be neo-fascist, while others consider it to be post-fascist.. Would you accept this minor change to the footnote (Which basically means the same thing), with your proposal of Ideology: National conservatism, Right-wing populism, Post-fascism (with or without disputed)[footnote]? A Socialist Trans Girl 02:36, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I surely accept this proposal because it makes clear than only some sources have described FdI as neo-fascist. --Checco (talk) 10:51, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Checco oki, it appears we have consensus then. A Socialist Trans Girl 03:21, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good. --Checco (talk) 19:51, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

efn footnotes

[edit]
  1. ^ Recent being defined as from 2020-present.
  2. ^ Recent being defined as from 2020-present.
  3. ^ Note, one of the sources from the last RfC I have not included, as it is an editorial opinion piece.
  4. ^ feel free to just give just the links without any formatting
  5. ^ like how 'black and white' sounds better than 'white and black'
  6. ^ or "socialisticism"

Analysis of sources with regards to the political position of the party

[edit]

hiiiii oki so currently the infobox says "right-wing to far-right", so I'd like to go over the sources to see what they all describe it as. Opinions/editorials wont be counted. Nor will sources that WP:RSPS considers 'no consensus', generally unreliable, or deprecated. Also because 'right-wing' can be used as an umbrella term encompassing centre-right, right-wing, and far-right, only it being used to be specifically the political position between centre-right and far-right is counted. Also, not including any more than one article from the same outlet, as what matters is what the outlet describes it as.

Sources describing it as far-right (31 sources): [59][60][61][62][63][64][65][66][67][68][69][70][71][72][73][74][75][76][77][78][79][80][81][82][83][84][85][86][87][88][89]

Sources describing it as merely right-wing (3 sources): [90][91][92]

Considering how many more sources describe it as far-right, and how much more reliable the sources which do are, I don't see how it's at all WP:DUE to include right-wing in the infobox. A Socialist Trans Girl 03:56, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To consider this party far-right is quite a joke. Not all sources are the same, of course, and relevant sources describe the party as relatively mainstream. This said, if we consider Google, there are 70,800 hits for "Brothers of Italy" and "far-right", 7,600 hits for "Brothers of Italy" and "radical right", 13,300 hits for "Brothers of Italy" and "hard right", 60,800 for "Brothers of Italy" and "right-wing", 18,700 hits for "Brothers of Italy" and "centre-right" and 54,800 hits for "Brothers of Italy" and "moderate". That is trawling fishing, but, surely, the party is not primarily considered far-right by English-language sources. Of course, in Italian language, things are even more evident: 90,800 hits for "Fratelli d'Italia" and "estrema destra" (and a handful more for "estrema destra") and 985,000 hits for "Fratelli d'Italia" and "destra" (including the former istances). Unfortunately, most of the sources you picked are quite left-wing or do not describe the party as a whole as far-right. Usually, the most respected newspapers, from Corriere della Sera in Italy and The Economist in the UK do not describe the party as far-right. Same for books and studies, especially Italian-language ones. --Checco (talk) 19:51, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Checco well since right-wing can be used as an umbrella term including centre-right and far-right, thats perhaps not the best way to do with it. The right-wing can also be used in the page to describe the coalition, or another party, or something else. Thats why I don't like the method of the google sources. Additionally, many of the sources (for both of them) can be unreliable, and google doesnt account for this. It's much better to analyse specific news sources.
How exactly is it a joke when (at LEAST) 31 sources (compared to 3) describe it as far-right? Do you just think it's absurd because of your own opinion/perception of the party? If so, that doesnt matter for wikipedia. For the Economist, if it describes it as right-wing instead of far-right, please link an Economist article describing it as such so I can add it.
You claim most of the sources i listed are left-wing. This is not true. I will will sort them by political ideology.
Far-left:
Left-wing: [93]
Centre-left: [94][95][96][97][98][99][100]
Centre/no political affiliation: [101][102] [103][104][105][106][107][108][109][110][111][112][113][114][115][116][117]
Unsure: [118][119][120]
Centre-right: [121]
Right-wing: [122]
Far-right:
As you can see, most of them are NOT left-wing. A Socialist Trans Girl 00:58, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Who has categorised the position/ideology of those specific sources? Is that a unilateral decision by yourself as an editor?-- Autospark (talk) 15:23, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is indeed nonsense. However, one can find thousands of sources and they should be evaluated. Most sources do not describe the party as far-right, especially over the last years. Surely, the party has roots in neo-fascism, but has travelled a long way from it and it is even more mainstream that its precedessor National Alliance. Take a look to what "The Economist", usually not kind with Italy's centre-right, had recently to say: "Ms Meloni’s party has its roots in neo-fascism, but she has been intelligent enough to moderate its policies to the extent that few could plausibly claim that her government is unacceptable in a liberal state. The lure of power is a strong incentive to evolve." (source) There is a clear difference between FdI and, say, AfD. FdI's ideology and path are much more similar to those of Spain's PP. Additionally, this week FdI was welcomed into the International Democracy Union, the international gathering of mainstream conservative parties. --Checco (talk) 14:34, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 7 November 2024

[edit]

it says post-fascism and is wrong. Ignaciovnz (talk) 02:20, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 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. Shadow311 (talk) 21:29, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ "'Pensate come state messi se vi devo dare io lezioni di democrazia'" [Think how you are doing if I have to give you lessons in democracy]. Il Post (in Italian). 30 April 2020. Retrieved 5 November 2021.
  2. ^ "What's Fueling the Shocking Rise of Italy's Far Right?". Haaretz. 29 July 2021. Retrieved 11 August 2022.
  3. ^ Leo, Carmelo; Faieta, Alfredo (1 October 2021). "L'inchiesta 'Lobby Nera' su Fratelli d'Italia e i presunti finanziamenti illeciti" [The 'Lobby Nera' investigation into Fratelli d'Italia and the alleged illegal financing]. Domani (in Italian). Retrieved 11 August 2022.
  4. ^ "An undercover investigation exposes a group of right-wing extremists influencing Italian politics from the shadows". Fanpage. 10 December 2021. Retrieved 11 August 2022.
  5. ^ "Così Fratelli d'Italia va a caccia di voti su Facebook sfruttando il fascismo" [So Brothers of Italy goes hunting for votes on Facebook by exploiting fascism]. La Stampa (in Italian). 24 April 2019. Retrieved 5 November 2021.
  6. ^ "Il dirigente di Fratelli d'Italia: 'Dobbiamo essere liberi di poterci definire fascisti'" [The manager of Brothers of Italy: 'We must be free to be able to define ourselves as fascists']. Globalist (in Italian). 23 November 2019. Retrieved 5 November 2021.
  7. ^ "Elezioni, quanti nostalgici del Duce nelle liste di Fratelli d'Italia" [Elections, how many nostalgic for the Duce on the Brothers of Italy lists]. L'Espresso (in Italian). 14 July 2020. Retrieved 5 November 2021.
  8. ^ "L'inchiesta di Fanpage su Fratelli d'Italia a Milano" [The Fanpage investigation on the Brothers of Italy in Milan]. Il Post (in Italian). 1 October 2021. Retrieved 11 August 2022.
  9. ^ Bruno, Valerio Alfonso; Downes, James F.; Scopelliti, Alessio (12 November 2021). "Post-Fascism in Italy: 'So Why This Flame Mrs. Giorgia Meloni'". Cultorico. Retrieved 28 September 2022.
  10. ^ "Romano La Russa: 'Il braccio teso? Rituale militare'. Poi le scuse a chi 'si è sentito incomprensibilmente offeso'" [Romano La Russa: 'The outstretched arm? Military ritual '. Then an apology to those who 'felt incomprehensibly offended']. Corriere della Sera (in Italian). 21 September 2022. Retrieved 28 September 2022.
  11. ^ "Matera, spunta un busto del duce nella sede di Fratelli d'Italia" [Matera, a bust of the Duce appears in the headquarters of the Brothers of Italy]. La Repubblica (in Italian). 9 September 2021. Retrieved 28 September 2022.
  12. ^ "L'ostentata nostalgia per il Duce, e non solo, del candidato Fdi al ballottaggio in un municipio di Roma – Il video". Open (in Italian). 12 October 2021. Retrieved 28 September 2022.
  13. ^ "Fratelli d'Italia, dirigenti al ristorante di Milano tra le effigie del Duce". La Repubblica (in Italian). 2 May 2022. Retrieved 28 September 2022.
  14. ^ Mantesso, Sean (26 May 2019). "The ghost of Benito Mussolini lingers as far-right popularity surges in Italy". ABC News. Australian Broadcasting Corporation. Retrieved 26 May 2019.
  15. ^ Piccolino, G. and Henrichsen, T., 2017, September. Liaisons Dangereuses? Ideological Affinities and Divergences between Populist and Neo-Fascist Parties in Germany and Italy and their Different Social Acceptance. In ECPR General Conference, Oslo (pp. 6-9).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Brothers_of_Italy&oldid=1256028483"