Talk:Brothers of Italy/Archives/2022/September

RfC: Neo-fascism in the Infobox
What would be the best option to solve the ongoing dispute regarding the ideologies in the infobox?
 * Option 1: Include neo-fascism in the infobox, alongside national conservatism and right-wing populism. (Example)
 * Option 2: Include neo-fascism with a note that states that "FdI has been also described as post-fascist".
 * Option 3: Include post-fascism (a redirect to neo-fascism) in the infobox. (Example)
 * Option 4: Exclude neo-fascism from the "Ideology section" and let it stay in the footnote instead. (Example)
 * Option 5: Exclude neo-fascism from the Infobox completely. --Vacant0 (talk) 15:59, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Survey

 * Option 4: it is the most balanced solution, it covers all points of view, excluding none, but at the same time it does not automatically describe the party as neo-fascist.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 06:56, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Option 1 or Option 1 but within "Factions". Multiple academic sources support "neo-fascist" as an attribute for FdI, in a number that is comparable with the sources given for other ideologies like right-wing populism and conservatism. These sources currently appear in the infobox footnote, and I do not see a reason why neo-fascist should be hidden in a footnote compared to other equally justified ideologies. Regardless of what the single editors think of the party, Wikipedia should report a summary of what reliable sources claim. The reason why I also support the "factions" option is that some news sources (,, , , etc) show that there are specific subgroups inside the party which practice fascist or neo-fascist tradition, symbolism, and propaganda. So this might justify moving "neo-fascist" into "factions". Yakme (talk) 08:15, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Option 1 As of now, there are six academic sources present in the article that describe FdI as neo-fascist. 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, 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 above 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. --Vacant0 (talk) 10:38, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Option 4 is the balanced and source-supported choice. The observation that there are individuals or even groupings, such as local sections, that celebrate the fascist tradition is accurate but cannot be used to describe the whole of the party; a write-up in the Notes section is quite appropriate. Almost all sources cited so far in support of labeling BOI "neofascist" are about efforts of individual neofascists to infiltrate the party and influence its direction. (It's telling that the BOI party itself, as one source cited above reports, routinely distances itself from these activities, when not outright condemning them.) The clamor is mostly about the non-insignificant entrist efforts of a grouping around Roberto Jonghi Lavarini; see e.g. the original report. Sources supporting this position:
 * Italia Oggi: "a center right [party candidate]"
 * La Repubblica: "Giorgia Meloni non ha nulla a che fare col fascismo del Ventennio. Ha abiurato il fascismo" ("[party leader] Giorgia Meloni wants nothing to do with 1920s' fascism". She has renounced fascism.")
 * Vanity Fair: "Un partito di estrema destra per la prima volta alla guida di una grande economia dell’Eurozona sarebbe un evento sismico." ("A far-right party at the helm of a major Eurozone economy for the first time would be a seismic event.")
 * Il Giornale: interview of Massimo Cacciari, philosopher, public intellectual, and former member of the Italian communist party. "Fratelli d'Italia è una destra sociale, un'identità storica della destra che l'Europa ha conosciuto spesso, e che si muove in territori dove la sinistra ha smobilitato completamente: i quartieri popolari, le periferie, i ceti a basso reddito." ("Brothers of Italy is a social right [party], a historical identity of a right that Europe has often known, and which moves in territories where the left has completely demobilized: the common-people neighborhoods, the suburbs, the low-income classes.").
 * Sky TG24: "Elezioni, Meloni: centrodestra reggerà? Già governato senza problemi" ("Elections and [BOI leader] Meloni: will the center-right hold up? They already governed without problems.")
 * Left: "Fratelli d’Italia, come tutta l’estrema destra in Europa, è espressione degli interessi di una minoranza ricca e privilegiata. Attaccare Meloni perché 'fascista' semplicemente non funziona" ("Brothers of Italy, like all the far right in Europe, is an expression of the interests of a rich and privileged minority. Attacking Meloni because [she is a] 'fascist' simply does not work.")
 * and so on.
 * The text is fine as it is. -The Gnome (talk) 11:32, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I do not think that [a]lmost all sources cited so far in support of labeling BOI "neofascist" are about efforts of individual neofascists, in fact the sources cited above are not referring to single individuals but to the whole party, and by the way they are as recent as 2021. On the other hand, bringing up interviews and opinions about the future of Italy under Meloni, or about Meloni herself, does not necessarily make a great point in regards to categorizing the FdI party ideologically based on reliable sources. I am still not convinced that – based on what academic sources claim – the party cannot be defined as neo-fascist as a whole. Yakme (talk) 11:44, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, the fact that the party routinely distances itself from these activities is not 100% true, see for example this instance. Yakme (talk) 12:08, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Could you point out specific positions taken by BOI that would qualify the party as neofascist or even post-fascist? Intolerance towards immigrants or Euroscepticism do not, on their own, a neofascist party make. Otherwise, the Conservative party of Britain, for example, would qualify as such. -The Gnome (talk) 21:51, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I already pointed out instances in which party members have shown to be fascists/neo-fascists, there are plenty in the news. On top of the ones I already cited above, see also more celebrations of the Duce, with memorabilia in their regional headquarters, and even Nazi memorabilia. And I just did a quick research, there are more examples for sure. Yakme (talk) 07:14, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The question posed here is about the ideological position of the party itself; not about its members of even some sections of it. If it was about individual members or local sections I'd have no opposing argument. But almost all the media that we can use, which does not include polemical political media or engagé works, does not go as far as labeling Fratelli d'Italia neofascistic. A few weeks ago I was arguing in support of denoting Movimento Sociale Italiano as neofascist. That was based on solid evidence coming from (a) the party's leading personalities, (b) the party's platform, and (c) the party's actions & activities. They were all proud acolytes of Mussolinian fascism and attempting, if anything, to ameliorate "hard fascism" into something more palatable to the electorate - hence, the term "post-fascist." But practically nothing of the sort exists regarding Fratelli. Some academic sources indeed deploy the term "neo-fascist," yet do not support that use with solid evidence. Once again, I refer interested parties to the relevant, seminal works by Marxist political philosopher Nicos Poulantzas in which, among other things, he has dismissed conclusively the Left's reflexive, wide, and entirely false use of the term "fascist" for regimes such as Portugal's and Greece's dictatorships. They're indispensable for anyone after accurate political terminology. -The Gnome (talk) 10:12, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but what you are claiming to be doing (a reasoning like [...] based on solid evidence coming from (a) the party's leading personalities, (b) the party's platform, and (c) the party's actions & activities) is called original research on Wikipedia: we should not be making our own conclusion and logical reasoning by putting together "evidence" to prove a point. We need reliable sources that explicitly make a statement that we can report on WP. As it happens in this case, we have exactly this! We have six academic sources, scientific publications, that – when mentioning the party FdI – call the party "neo-fascist". In my opinion: (1) We cannot just ignore nor give its due weight to such a considerable number of scientific publications. (2) We cannot consider media sources as higher-value with respect to academic sources. (3) We cannot use direct statements by party leaders or party platforms as proof for anything, really, as these count as primary sources. From WP:PRIMARY: Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so. An additional note for this case: obviously FdI party leaders are always going to deny neo-fascism because it's a label that currently in Western Europe is very much despised and gives a very negative publicity to the party. But in general we should not trust politicians to be accurate about their party's political positions, as most of their statements/interviews are usually made for publicity and campaigning. This is why secondary reliable sources like academic publications are some of the best we can take from. Yakme (talk) 07:56, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Much ado about nothing, Yakme. I am not doing any kind of "original research"! Of course I'm not. I never do. And I loathe the intrusion of the practice into Wikipedia. There has been no synthesis or analysis from my part of what the party's leading personalities, its platform, or its actions & activities signify. I was, as always, strictly invoking reliable sources that report on what the party's leading personalities say and do, on what its platform offers, and on its actions & activities are, and what they signify as to what Movinmento Sociale Italiano was ideologically. (I hope you noticed that my reference was specifically to the MSI, in support of my position that the same path must be followed for the FDI party.) I already presented a small sample of those sources in the RfC about MSI. My position about Brothers of Italy is formulated on exactly the same basis: sources. Of which, I also presented here a small sample. End of story. -The Gnome (talk) 16:07, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Yet another example of Romano La Russa, FdI member in the Lombardy government, and brother of FdI founder Ignazio La Russa, doing the roman salute five days before a national election: link. Yakme (talk) 09:08, 22 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Option 1 per Yakme. Since The Gnome seems to agree on the factions point, perhaps including the descriptor within a factions section would help sidestep the main point of contention. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 13:17, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Such a practice, if adopted, would open the door for all sorts of synthesis and arbitrary assertions for political parties, which would be based on the positions of factions within a party. And it would be a major mistake for an encyclopaedia. We should make every effort to keep out of Wikipedia ideological battles, since the latter are typically economical with the truth. -The Gnome (talk) 10:48, 23 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Option 4. The infobox should be restricted to what is verifiable and uncontested. A footnote saying it "has been also described as neo-fascist by some academics" is verifiable and, I presume, uncontested. The "he said..she said" business can be dealt with in the relevant section of the article (where it's not dealt with particularly well at present, considering the wealth of sources provided here on the talk page). Scolaire (talk) 17:41, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Option 5. The party, as a whole, has nothing to do with fascism, neo-fascism and post-fascism. More specifically, FdI is not a fringe far-right party, but a mainstream conservative one, which is recently wooing several liberals and centrists, notably including Giulio Tremonti, Marcello Pera and Carlo Nordio (the first two former Socialists). Arguably, neo-fascism was no longer a character of the MSI in its latest decades and was surely not party of AN's ideology either. As I wrote above, FdI is, at best, a post-post-post fascist party, similarly to Spain's PP. Recently, I found particularly interesting what Stanley G. Payne, Jaume Vicens Vives and Hilldale Professor Emeritus of History at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, had to say on the issue: "The Movimento Sociale Italiano, a significant minority party, once seemed the best candidate for neofascism, but moderated and mutated continuously in order to win votes. By the 1990s it had morphed into the Alleanza Nazionale, a relatively standard and anodyne center-right parliamentary group. A valid rule of thumb is that the more important an extremist group, the less truly neofascist it is. Conversely, the more genuinely neofascist, the smaller, more ­isolated, and doomed to irrelevance" . --Checco (talk) 20:32, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * An op-ed in a conservative magazine like First Things definitely does not compare to reliable sources like the academic sources that have been presented. Yakme (talk) 07:24, 19 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Option 2–4 would be my favourites. This party is still more moderate than most neo-fascist parties such as FN, CPI or NPD and this should be clearly seen it is still influenced by fascism unlike the Sweden Democrats which began as a neo-nazi group too. Braganza (talk) 12:09, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I would also like to point out that Serbian Radical Party, Svoboda and Our Homeland Movement do not include neo-fascism in their infoboxes Braganza (talk) 12:14, 24 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Option 4 + comment with a source. Per this source - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-62659183 - which I think people here might find useful. It gives the views of Gianluca Passarelli, a professor of political science at Rome's Sapienza University, who says that the party is not fascist, but that "there are wings in the party linked to the neo-fascist movement". Helper201 (talk) 18:44, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Which is more accurate than the fatwa issued by a few other academics, some of whom have been invoked in the article and this discussion, that condemns the BOI party itself as being fascistic. Hence, a note in the infobox is the evidently proper placing of that information of nuance. Take another example: Studies have shown that there are many racists voting or agitating in support of Lega Nord. Would we label that party "racist" as a whole? We shouldn't, because there's no support of that either, in sources. -The Gnome (talk) 08:29, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * How can you claim that several independent academics are together in a fatwa against FdI? Why would they do that? It seems like something a FdI party member would say to attack the "radical leftist academics". Anyway, an editor added another source (although not an academic study) stating: there are wings in the party linked to the neo-fascist movement. In my opinion this is adding support for the "Factions" option, as it clearly states that there are factions of FdI that are neo-fascist. And finally, the example of "racism" within LN is completely inappropriate, as (1) racism is not a political ideology, and (2) we do not determine the "ideology" section based on what party voters do or think, but only based on what WP:RS state about the party itself or party members. If multiple reliable sources stated that LN policies were "racist" then we would definitely have to at least mention it in the text, but not as an infobox ideology of course because it is not an ideology in the first place. Yakme (talk) 06:17, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The remark about some academics bundling FDI among the European neofascist political formations denotes the basic arbitrariness of that categorization; not some kind of collectively planned stance. We know there are individuals (a better word than "elements") within FDI that are neofascist and we know this from many available sources. About "wings"? There are no official factions or groupings within FOI that are neofascist. The term "faction" denotes something specific. (Incidentally, the Wikipedia entry for "political faction" is atrocious.) We simply do not have enough sources denoting FDI as a "neofascist" party - with evidence (and not by simply using epithets). By the way, did I mention how much I care about what an FDI member says? I didn't? Feel free to guess.
 * As to your disputing that racism is a political ideology, of course it is! It was official policy of the NSDAP, and its many imitators at the time; and let's not ignore that pure, unadulterated racism was part of the platform of many parties advocating eugenics, among other things in their platform. Per available evidence, the KKK is today a political organization with an explicitly racist platform. There are more. So, the fact that we are unable to find adequate and enough citations for FDI being racist party, which they aren't (and that is why we are unable to find them), does not mean that there no citations about any organization being racist. -The Gnome (talk) 11:16, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Your examples of Nazi Party and KKK show exactly what I was stating, indeed both articles do not have "Racism" in the list of political ideologies in the infoboxes, even though they are parties with racist platforms. Instead they have actual political ideologies like Antisemitism or White supremacy. Yakme (talk) 12:48, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't see why you feel these examples vindicate your position but enough is enough. If we have sources stating that BOI are antisemitic or white-supremacist or racist, etc, we're perfectly entitled to have such notations in the article. Otherwise, no, we're not - irrespective of how strongly we personally feel about the subject. The Wiki-verifiably description is not that BOI is a neofascist party. The current status is entirely adequate. -The Gnome (talk) 11:04, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * They do not vindicate my position about FdI, but they show that racism is not considered a political ideology – indeed it is not present in their infoboxes and they are history's most racist parties I could think of! The Wiki-verifiably description is not that BOI is a neofascist party: I still do not agree with this in principle, given that the majority of academic sources we have mentioned agree in calling FdI "neofascist". Yakme (talk) 08:41, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * We're not supposed to quote and invoke sources uncritically. Otherwise, we'd quote all sorts of bogus or semi-bogus science tnat has not yet been identified as such. Those academic sources, a large part of which I have personally examined, are mostly performing what on Wikipedia we have determined is "synthesis". (I have already stated, in a previous, similar discussion, about MSI, that I have endeavored quite thoroughly into the modern political history of Italy.) They fail, first of all, to determine what constitutes a "fascist party", which ipso facto makes their chartacterization rather unstable. I re-iterate that labeling Fratelli as a neofascist party would be a serious misstep. The current status of the article is fine.  -The Gnome (talk) 10:02, 8 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Option 4:, as per reasons outlined by both Helper201 and Scia Della Cometa.--Autospark (talk) 15:26, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Option 4 or Option 5, per the vast majority of recent RS media coverage, which broadly cover the party as post-fascist. For example, these two were mentioned: https://www.france24.com/en/europe/20220724-brothers-of-italy-the-far-right-party-on-the-cusp-of-power https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/07/26/italy-meloni-post-fascists/ I would lean towards option 4 based on the reasons given by Helper201 and Scia Della Cometa. MaximLott (talk) 16:59, 20 September 2022 (UTC)