Talk:Brothers of Italy/Archives/2023/November

Leadership roles

Precisation: Arianna Meloni is not secretary per se but head of the political secretariat, while Edmondo Cirielli is not coordinator per se but coordinator of the national board. The party's number one is Giorgia Meloni, while number two is Giovanni Donzelli. -- Checco (talk) 08:40, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

RfC: Neo-fascism in infobox 2

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is rough consensus to include neo-fascism in the infobox. By the numbers it is clear that there is a strong consensus against leaving it out entirely, which leaves us with a roughly even split between options 1 and 2, with 1 enjoying a slight advantage. Two of those supporting option 2 would also rather see option 1 than no mention in the infobox at all. Moving onto arguments, a bevy of sources supporting full inclusion were provided, with Autospark, who supported option 3, saying I’ve never disputed that various (mostly media) sources describe the party as neofascist. With no sources provided to the contrary, and no rebuttal by way of showing that the sources provided are not the mainstream assessment, that makes the argument for inclusion strong enough to form a weak consensus, especially when taking into consideration the willingness of others to accept the inclusion. There was a mention of a compromise in the discussion below, qualifying neo-fascist as the origin of the party, but that offered compromise didn't gain any traction. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:52, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

---

What is the best option about neo-fascism as an ideology in the infobox?

• Option 1: Include neo-fascism in the infobox (ideology parameter) and remove it from the footnote.
• Option 2: Keep neo-fascism in the footnote (where it currently is).
• Option 3 No reference to neo-fascism in the infobox.

Braxmate (talk) 10:37, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Note: Option 3 added by --Checco (talk) 12:54, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Survey

• Option 1. I select this option because the current condition of the page is not following the rules. The rules say one must always follow the ref links exactly and must not do original research. The page has recent 6 academic books that describe FdI as a "neo-fascist party", it is being "balanced" with one opinion given to media, not any work that has been through peer review to keep it in footnote. The old RfC is described to be poorly attended and having a weak consensus for placing it in footnote. I have done a proper search in academic literature and I have not seen work that has been in peer review that contradict the 6 academic books. I have instead found more book and journal ref that call FdI, a "neo-fascist party". I argue that the position for placing it in footnote was incorrect and flawed and that it was done with original research, personal opinion, misunderstanding and some newspaper opinion. One must discount handful newspaper opinions and comments to media (even if from academic, as that is not even a non peer reviewed work) when against numerous academic literature that has been peer reviewed as they are very far from a comparable level or else any fact or facet of anything can be discarded or misplaced like this. One must also discount any personal opinion or original research. If there is meaningful ground to counter and consider for placing in footnote, then it should come from other academic literature that contradict these and in comparable or greater quantity and quality but that is not seen at all. Braxmate (talk) 10:37, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
• Option 1 My point from the previous RfC still stands the same which is: From my research, I've found out that this is a common descriptor that has been used by academics, "post-fascist" and "conservative" are also commonly used descriptors. For example polsci Đorđe Sredanović used the descriptor "post- or neo-fascist" to describe FdI, New Force, and CasaPound in 2019; FdI distanced from New Force in October 2021 though. I've also pointed out a November 2021 analysis in the discussion before the September 2022 RfC where I mentioned this quote: "Secondly, at the local level, the party has never failed to flaunt its sympathy towards nostalgia of fascism during (online) public assemblies of representative bodies." I also couldn't find any sources that contradict these claims, meaning that reliable sources that explicitly reject that FdI is neo-fascist or post-fascist probably do not exist. Including it in the footnote would give off an unbalanced viewpoint, given that there's either more or less the same amount of coverage that the descriptors in the Infobox received. September 2023: Further research showed that post-2022 and 2023 sources (reliable news and scholarly sources) still describe FdI as neo-fascist and post-fascist, e.g.: Bruno, Downes, 2023; Bond, Pipyrou, 2023, Vampa, 2023. --Vacant0 (talk) 11:46, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
• Option 3 The party has nothing to do with neo-fascism and, arguably, nothing to do with post-fascism. While its main predecessor, National Alliance, was post-fascist, Brothers of Italy is a mainstream conservative party and also a quite diverse one, including conservatives and liberals, Christian democrats and former Socialists. Most of its ministers have not been members of the Italian Social Movement. One may dislike the party (like I do), but it is unfair to describe it differently from what it is. --Checco (talk) 12:54, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
• Option 3, no reference to neofascism in the Infobox, although I still support keeping an explicit mention in the article lede to the party's neofascist (or post-fascist) roots in the MSI/AN.--Autospark (talk) 16:49, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
• Option 2: Strong rejection of option 3 (would support option 1 if it came down to option 1 or 3). I believe there has been a consensus around having this as a footnote before and I don't see anything having changed so far as to justify changing this. Helper201 (talk) 18:16, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
• Option 2. (Summoned by bot). I see "neo-fascist roots" in sources, but the body of the article suggests there is nuance between what the "roots" were and what its current policy positions are. Thus I think the footnote is a reasonable balance that mentions it without claiming it to be a factual description of the current party. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 12:58, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

  That is incorrect, sources don't just say "neo-fascist roots", sources exactly define party as neo-fascist. Sources that are academic literature and peer reviewed.

  • Benveniste, Campani & Lazaridis 2016: "a group of former members of Alleanza Nazionale, who had entered the PDL, created a new neo-fascist party, Fratelli d’Italia (Italy’s Brothers)"
  • Campani & Lazaridis 2016: "another neo-fascist party, Fratelli d’Italia (Italy’s Brothers), which was present in the last national electoral elections"
  • Jones & Pilat 2020: "leader of the neo-fascist party Fratelli d’Italia"
  • Bosworth 2021: "Argentinian-born great-grandson named Caio Giulio Cesare Mussolini is active in the neo-Fascist Fratelli d’Italia party"
  • Macafferi 2022: "the neo-fascist Fratelli d’Italia (FdI)"
  • Bond & Pipyrou 2023: "The popular and political rise of Salvini and the League has transformed Italy into a particularly hostile environment for both new and more established groups of migrants, something currently exacerbated by the politics of the new government led by Giorgia Meloni of the neofascist Brothers of Italy party."

  If the article gives impression that it is only roots then the article must be checked too for incorrections and flaws. It is going round and round in a circle if content in article is based on content already there in article, then an article will be never corrected if there is a mistake, because everything is assumed to be correct from the beginning in this argument.

  I ask everyone giving a comment to please read the ref links in the article already there and also other ref links given by Vacant0, I have quoted some, it is required that articles are based on ref links not personal opinion and impression. Braxmate (talk) 17:33, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

• Option 1 there is RS that it is neo-fascist, so it should be included in the infobox ideology. A Socialist Trans Girl 04:00, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
• Option 2>Option 1>Option 3. While I personally think the party is neo-fascist I think we should avoid wikivoice infobox use of disputed labels, and there are enough sources who disagree for that to apply here. The footnote is a good solution in this case. However, option 1 would be preferable to erasing this per option 3. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:25, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
• Option 1. This is what a critical mass of good (journalistic and scholarly) sources say. Some may not like that, but that's what the RS say. Neutrality^talk 22:56, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

I have left a RfC notice on the WikiProject Politics talk page in order to garner a more broad response from editors. --Vacant0 (talk) 11:50, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

@Checco: Can you present your sources that back up your claim that FdI has nothing to do with neo-fascism and post-fascism because a large number of scholarly sources contradict your claim and say that FdI is indeed neo-fascist/post-fascist. The "mainstream conservative" description is used personally by Meloni and the party itself, so we should refrain from trying to portray the party as "mainstream conservative". We are also talking about the party's ideology, not the past memberships of some of its members, so FdI could be diverse in regards to having members that were previously members of different parties (keep in mind that this is not only relevant to FdI but other parties as well, and that this does not mean that FdI is not neo-fascist/post-fascist just because its membership is diverse). The same goes for its current government ministers. --Vacant0 (talk) 14:38, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

A tiny minority of FdI members may be neo-fascist, but that should not be mentioned in the infobox. Indeed, also fringe elements of the British Labour Party may be communist and a leading member of Italy's Democratic Party like Pier Luigi Bersani describes himself as "communist", but it would make no sense to add "communism" in those parties' infoboxes.

The party may have neo-fascist roots, but it is not neo-fascist at all.

Regarding sources, the majority of sources does not describe FdI as a neo-fascist party. Just take a look to the countless sources cited in the article! While the party is a mainstream conservative party whose leader is the president of the mainstream ECR Party, several sources describe the party as national-conservative, nationalist and right-wing populist, but not neo-fascist. Being the heir of the heir (AN) of the heir (MSI) of the heir (PFR) of the Fascist National Party makes FdI a post-fascist party, but "post-fascism" as well as "post-communism" are not ideologies. Italy's most qualified encyclopedia, Treccani, does not mention "fascism" in any form and reads in its entry on the party: "The movement defends the principles of popular sovereignty, social solidarity, merit and fiscal fairness, drawing inspiration from the values ​​of the national, liberal and popular tradition". --Checco (talk) 13:09, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Checco, we refer to what sources say and sources say that FdI is neo-fascist and post-fascist. I did not ask you anything about the British Labour Party or Bersani, I asked you to present your sources and you have not done that. There are more sources that describe FdI as neo-fascist or post-fascist than national-conservative, so should we remove national-conservatism from the infobox then? Also, let's not use puffery terms such as "mainstream conservative" because this is explicitly used by FdI and Meloni. Third-party reliable sources do not describe FdI as such. Treccani also does not mention anywhere that it rejects FdI being neo-fascist/post-fascist. I've asked you, and I'll do it again, to present sources that explicitly reject that FdI is neo-fascist or post-fascist. Considering that neo-fascism and post-fascism are backed up by numerous scholarly sources, I expect you to find scholarly articles too, considering that scholarly sources have more weight than basic journalist ones. Vacant0 (talk) 10:21, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

@Autospark: Can you elaborate on your position on why you think that neo-fascism should be excluded from the infobox? --Vacant0 (talk) 10:25, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Well, I don’t think it should be listed in the Infobox as a central ideology of the party, even though FdI’s roots are unquestionably in the MSI-DN and its traditions. We should be careful about using such overt descriptions as “neofascist”, and I’m not keen on the increasing trend of adding footnotes to political party Infoboxes. A clear mention of the neofascist (or post-fascist) roots of FdI in the article lede, with elaboration in the main article body, as we have already is enough. (FWIW, I don’t personally agree that FdI is “mainstream conservative” in orientation, as it’s obviously to the right of that in my estimation.)— Autospark (talk) 13:47, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Well, numerous sources describe FdI as neo-fascist, don't they? Seven of them are already in the article and I've also listed some of the newer sources in my vote above. I'd be too against including neo-fascism in the infobox if it was disputed by scholars, but in the case of FdI, it is not. With its inclusion in the ideology parameter, the footnote would also cease to exist considering that neo-fascism would appear in the ideology parameter and the "radical-right" part fails verification. Vacant0 (talk) 09:05, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

I’ve never disputed that various (mostly media) sources describe the party as neofascist.--Autospark (talk) 09:56, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Surely, several media recall FdI's neo-fascist roots, meaning that it is the heir of the heir (AN) of the heir (MSI) of the heir (PFR) of the Fascist National Party, but very few consider it a full-fledged neo-fascist party. Same for academic papers. In Wikipedia we work with sources and consensus, and through consensus we should analyse sources. Describing a party like FdI as neo-fascist or far-right makes those lables pointless for truly neo-fascist or far-right parties (like New Force and Tricolour Flame in Italy). Moreover, in Wikipedia we should be comparative and avoid considering each country as an island: FdI is to the left of some PES members like Slovakia's Direction – Social Democracy and Romania's Social Democratic Party, let alone some EPP members of eastern European countries. Despite ECR membership, FdI's political trajectory and ideology are more similar to that of Spain's People's Party than Vox, not to mention the fact that FdI is home to several centrists, Christian democrats, liberals and even former Socialists. --Checco (talk) 12:23, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

See WP:OTHERSTUFF (in relation to the comparison to parties in other countries, also for those comparisons.)

There has been numerous academic citations provided for it being neo-fascist, yet none which say it is not have been provided.

Describing a party like FdI as neo-fascist or far-right makes those lables pointless for truly neo-fascist or far-right parties (like New Force and Tricolour Flame in Italy). that's a POV. A Socialist Trans Girl 04:17, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

No, it isn't. I agree with Checco that FdI isn't a traditional, unvarnished neofascist party. I don't see it as a centre-right party either, but the political spectrum has plenty of ideological space between mainstream conservative parties and explicitly anti-democratic neofascist parties such as Forza Nuova, CasaPound, et al. It really doesn't do an encyclopaedic project any good to conflate two different range of parties, any more than it would do to claim that democratic socialist and Marxist-Leninist parties are identical to each other when analysing the opposite end of the political spectrum.--Autospark (talk) 21:08, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

You are again basing this on your own personal view of the party and not what third-party scholars state. Vacant0 (talk) 09:18, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree with User:Autospark. FdI is a right-wing, (national-)conservative party. There are plenty of sources in the article describing it as "conservative", "natinal-conservative", "right-wing populist" and so on. Surely some sources describe the party also as "neo-fascist" (more often "post-fascist" or "with neo-fascist roots", like Spain's People's Party, btw), but very few describe it as full-fledged neo-fascist party. Now that Jobbik is described as a conservative, pro-Europeanist and centre-right party in Wikipedia, why should we describe a much more moderate, broad-church and diverse party like FdI as neo-fascist or far-right? --Checco (talk) 12:55, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Ps: The sentence "There has been numerous academic citations provided for it being neo-fascist, yet none which say it is not have been provided" is completely false (there are several sources describing the party in a different way), but also illogical (for most academics, analysts and observers, there is no need to explicit that FdI is not neo-fascist, as no-one needs to explain that the PD is not communist).

@Checco The issue with that is that conservatism, national conservatism, right-wing populism, and neofascism are not at all mutually exclusive. The party can be those things as well as neo-fascist.

Surely, they are not mutually exclusive, but, in FdI's case, neo-fascism is not one of the main ideologies, also per sources. --Checco (talk) 12:48, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Okay, if that's the case, then provide your sources for neo-fascism not being one of the main ideologies. A Socialist Trans Girl 04:54, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Most sources describe the party as primarily something else than neo-fascist. This should be enough. --Checco (talk) 13:04, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

There are more online sources that describe FdI as neo-fascist than national-conservative. Should we remove national-conservatism then? What is your point with this statement? Vacant0 (talk) 21:48, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Uhh, no it's not enough. You need more reliable sources/reliable sources with more due weight directly supporting it not being neo-fascist than those supporting it being neo-fascist, because if you only have some sources saying that it's national-conservative then all that does is allow national conservatism to be added to the ideology of the infobox, not allow the prevention of neo-fascism being added, as they're not WP:CONFLICTINGSOURCES.

More DUE sources describe it as neo-fascist than national conservative. Please provide your comparably DUE or more DUE which are greater than those provided for it being neo-fascist. A Socialist Trans Girl 09:12, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Now that Jobbik is described as a conservative, pro-Europeanist and centre-right party in Wikipedia, why should we describe a much more moderate, broad-church and diverse party like FdI as neo-fascist or far-right? The reason we should is because reliable sources describe it that way. A Socialist Trans Girl 14:36, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Same for FdI, which is not generally described as neo-fascist. --Checco (talk) 12:48, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

As already stated, the party can be national conservative and right wing populist as well as neo-fascist; this is not a WP:THISORTHAT scenario. You keep saying that as if the ideologies are mutually exclusive; they're not. You're entire counter-argument has been that there are sources which that don't even contradict the RS supporting it being neo-fascist. A Socialist Trans Girl 04:53, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Again, that is not what most sources say. --Checco (talk) 13:04, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Uh what? What are your sources for neo-fascism and national conservatism being mutually exclusive? Claiming that they're mutually exclusive is quite absurd, and I doubt there's any DUE RS saying that. How are the two ideologies mutually exclusive?? A Socialist Trans Girl 08:52, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

@Autospark as already stated by Vacant0, You are again basing this on your own personal view of the party and not what third-party scholars state. A Socialist Trans Girl 14:39, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Again, most third-party soucrs do not describe FdI as neo-fascist. --Checco (talk) 12:48, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

I pose this; so what? It's not like they contradict it being neo-fascist. You need RS that actually contradicts it being neo-fascist. A Socialist Trans Girl 04:57, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Again and again, that is not what most sources say. Also, your reasoning seems quite illogical to me. Do you really need a source contradicting that the earth is flat or a source contradicting the fact that UK's Labour Party, Germany's SPD or Italy's PD are communist? So why would need a source contradicting the fact that FdI is neo-fascist? Virtually no-one in Italy thinks that, that is why there are no sources on it. --Checco (talk) 13:04, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Because there are no sources that say that those parties in modern day are communist? For FdI, there are many sources that describe it as neo-fascist, so if a scholar would dispute this, there would be an article about the scholar disputing that the party is neo-fascist, right? The thing is that there are no scholarly sources that actually dispute neo-fascism, so keeping neo-fascism outside of the infobox is entirely based on a user's personal preference on how they see the party (1: there are many sources that describe FdI as neo-fascist so it is not a fringe view but a view held by peer-reviewed scholars, neo-fascism then does not fall under WP:UNDUE; 2: there are no sources that dispute the party's neo-fascism; 3: there are sources that go into detail about neo-fascism and I linked some above, so it is not a label that is used as a pejorative). Vacant0 (talk) 21:59, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

The previous RfC is also flawed because users compared scholarly sources with news sources, despite peer-reviewed scholarly sources holding more weight. Another problem is that news sources use "centre-right", which refers to the centre-right coalition, not FdI. --Vacant0 (talk) 22:06, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Most of the sources that you are referring to say that FdI has neo-fascist roots. That is correct, given that the party is the heir of the heir (AN) of the heir (MSI) of the heir (PFR) of the Fascist National Party. This said, neither AN was nor FdI is neo-fascist by any mean. --Checco (talk) 06:44, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Which sources that are being referred to say that the Fdl is not neo-fascist but has neo-fascist roots. Here are those sources 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10. Point to which ones say that the Fdl is not neo-fascist but has neo-fascist roots. A Socialist Trans Girl 09:35, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Only one source describes FdI as neo-fascist. So what? --Checco (talk) 12:26, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Um what? Literally all of them describe it as neo-fascist. FYI, some of them have paywalls, so the previews which can be viewed may not describe it as such there. A Socialist Trans Girl 15:28, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Checco has failed to provide a single source supporting their argument despite being asked to do so numerous times. Vacant0, WP:CON states that consensus is marked by addressing editors' legitimate concerns, so would you agree that Checco's "concerns" cannot reasonably be considered legitimate due to their concerns and claims having a complete lack of basis in sources or Wikipedia policy? A Socialist Trans Girl 09:42, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Braxmate Vacant0 Do we have consensus for Option 1? I believe that there are no unaddressed legitimate concerns against it. A Socialist Trans Girl 10:14, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

A RfC typically lasts for 30 days, which means that it will expire in 3 days, on 16 October. Last vote was made on 29 September, so once 16 October passess, and if no newer votes are made, I'll ask for someone uninvolved to close the RfC. I, nor anyone else involved in this RfC, determines the final consensus. Vacant0 (talk) 10:21, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

@Vacant0 Well WP:RFC says that An RfC should last until enough comment has been received that consensus is reached and that Legobot assumes an RfC has been forgotten and automatically ends it 30 days after it begins, to avoid a buildup of stale discussions cluttering the lists and wasting commenters' time. But editors should not wait for that. so I think that if consensus has been reached then an uninvolved editor should close it, correct me if that's wrong, though. A Socialist Trans Girl 10:29, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Okay... that's valid. I do see consensus for option 1 but an uninvolved editor should determine that. I'll post the RfC to Wikipedia:Closure requests. Vacant0 (talk) 10:35, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

I've posted the Closure request. Now we wait. Vacant0 (talk) 10:42, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! (◠‿◠✿) A Socialist Trans Girl 10:44, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

@Bobfrombrockley: Can you present the sources that dispute the neo-fascist label, considering that you have said that "there are enough sources who disagree" about this label? We have numerous peer-reviewed scholarly articles that say otherwise. --Vacant0 (talk) 18:14, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

I don’t see sources that actively dispute it, but when RSS like AP, the Guatdian or Britannica use the phrase “has neo-fascist roots” or when France 24 calls it “post-fascist” I think that clearly means they consider no longer such. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:13, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Well, who do you think has more expertise, journalists or scholars and political scientists? Vacant0 (talk) 11:57, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

User:Bobfrombrockley's point is exactly the one I have been trying to make. Most sources correctly state that FdI "has neo-fascist roots" or that it is "post-fascist", but only a minority state that the party is neo-fascist, a description that is so far from reality that seems a joke in 2023. --Checco (talk) 14:10, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Journalist articles never hold more weight than the ones from peer-reviewed scholars and political scientists. It is absolutely incorrect to say that "a minority" uses this description. Vacant0 (talk) 14:22, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Agree, but as far as I can see academic sources are the same. Eg Apuleius & Piccolino 2022 defines them by the tension between their fascist past and rebranded populist present. Sindel-Cadermas 2022 calls them a “conservative-sovereign party”. Baldini et al 2023 say it can be “classified as belonging to the populist radical right family” but behind that is a tension between its “post-fascist” roots and populist branding. These are the dominant positions in the academic lit, which is easy to reflect in the lead but the neutral infobox shoild be more cautious.

a compromise might be to put “neo-fascist (origins)” in the infobox? BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:53, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

The intro is already abundantly clear about the party's post-fascist roots. --Checco (talk) 12:00, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Indeed. It couldn't be stated with any more clarity that the party's history lies in the post-fascist movement.--Autospark (talk) 19:07, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

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.