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]
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]

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]
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]

On replacing neo-fascism with post-fascism in the ideology section of the info box (both are in the lede). Please skim-read RfC2 and the below post, which is effectively option 4. Discussion is welcome and needed. 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]
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]

RAI News 24[edit]

RAI NEWS 24: INDECENTE PORTAVOCE DELLA MELONI. Mai vista una cosa simile nella storia della RAI. Prima era LOTTIZZATA (cioè a ogni schieramento politico toccava un pezzetto di RAI), oggi è OCCUPATA dai post-fascisti nostalgici. Paolo Petrecca, Direttore di RAI NEWS 24, non è un giornalista ma un propagandista di Fratelli d'Italia. La sua faziosità ipocrita si esprime soprattutto nel NON DARE NOTIZIE SPIACEVOLI PER LA PADRONA DEL VAPORE e nel DARE NOTIZIE POTENZIALMENTE DANNOSE PER GLI AVVERSARI DELLA SORA GIORGIA. Una vergogna per il giornalismo, che dovrebbere essere il cane da guardia del Potere, mentre Petrecca ne è il trombettiere (ma pagato coi nostri soldi: questo dovrebbe ricordarselo, per un minimo di correttezza). Giangaetano Bartolomei — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rai News 24 TV Fratelli d'Italia (talk • contribs) 10:51, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted duplicates and moved the remark to a new section (nothing to do with the RfC above). Possibly, the entire comment could be deleted as it is written in a language different from English and has nothing to do with editing the article (Wikipedia is not a blog). @User:Lynch44: Please check. Thanks, --Checco (talk) 13:26, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Add factions[edit]

Beyond the outcomes of the discussion of the pros and cons of the label "neo-fascism," I would suggest adding "internal factions." 93.38.68.62 (talk) 12:20, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So separating the ideology and factions section in two? I think it’d be better to keep that section but have two subheadings for ideology and then internal factions. Lmk what you think Alexanderkowal (talk) 12:31, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also there's no mention of neo-fsacism in the faction section but there are RS saying there are. [41] [42] Alexanderkowal (talk) 12:37, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The party has a neo-fascist minority faction (no secret), liberal-conservative and social-conservative wings. For the most part, the rest of the members can be identified with national conservatism.
Ex:
National conservatism (majority)
Internal factions:
Ideology 1
Ideology 2
etc. 93.38.68.62 (talk) 12:44, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So are you talking about expanding the faction section to discuss the internal battle between mainstream conservatives and fascist sympathisers? I think this would add a lot to the article Alexanderkowal (talk) 12:47, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Providing it focussed on the factions or internal organisations and not just events/controversies Alexanderkowal (talk) 12:48, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The ideology section certainly needs to talk about recent changes in policy whilst they've been in government, and the shift to the centre Alexanderkowal (talk) 12:50, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"So are you talking about expanding the faction section to discuss the internal battle between mainstream conservatives and fascist sympathisers?"
Yes.
"The ideology section certainly needs to talk about recent changes in policy whilst they've been in government, and the shift to the centre"
The issue of the fascists in Brothers of Italy is an analogue to the (libertarian) socialists in the American Libertarian Party: both have no real influence in these parties. Neo-fascists do not really affect foreign policy choices (e.g., with their anti-NATO and anti-U.S. positions) or in economic matters. 93.38.68.62 (talk) 12:58, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Historically they have had control over the party but seem to have been side lined in recent years. Maybe reverting the edit I made on splitting that section, and instead splitting it into history and then current ideology and policy. In the history section you talk about how the party has shifted, particularly since 2022 Alexanderkowal (talk) 13:05, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wait for responses from other users as well, I'm new in this article. 93.38.68.62 (talk) 13:41, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
agreed, I'll revert, if no-one responds then feel free to push forward with this and maybe structure it differently than I said, I'm all for it Alexanderkowal (talk) 13:44, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it'd add a lot to the article, the ideology section lacks depth Alexanderkowal (talk) 13:47, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I quite agree with having a separate section on factions and, generally speaking, with the IP user (see here). To the IP user: why don't you start your own account in Wikipedia? Your contributions to debate and hopefully to articles, with quality, sourced and consensual content, would be quite useful. --Checco (talk) 13:05, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Brothers_of_Italy&oldid=1223960647"