Talk:Five Star Movement

Political position
I would remove "political position" from all political party infoboxes, but, as of now, most of them have that parameter. In this context, we have not been able to find a consensus on M5S yet. I agree with User:Hidolo that the party can be considered left-wing (of the populist kind, let me add), and I am now in favour of adding that position to the infobox. Here are the sources User:Hidolo has proposed: I hope we can have a constructive debate and achieve a consensus that has been difficult to achieve up to this point. --Checco (talk) 06:30, 13 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the refs. I was planning to read and use them to expand the article for some time but never found the time to do so. As for the issue at hand, it depends on whether the infobox is supposed to represent the whole history of a party, or at least a broad and majority part of it, or only its current time (for parties, such as the M5S, which are still active). In light of the party's trasformismo, it would not surprise me if they move to right,*1 and so I prefer that the infobox represents the whole party's history, not just current times. I dislike the "Center-left to left-wing (currently)" usage that was done, as it is ambiguous and unclear (I would rather we put "Centre-left" or "Left-wing", whatever is more prominent, and have a note citing the sources using the other label).
 * I think that the political position should be put when there is a clear consensus among reliable sources and when it is uncontroversial, otherwise I would just put a note summarizing the whole thing as I did here (this was one of the refs I had read and was planning to use but did not find the time). I think "Political positions" means "Far-left, left-wing, centre-left, centre, centre-right, right-wing, far-right". Anything outside of that, I would not put anything (not even "Syncretic", as it is not in itself a political position and is not something that is placed on the spectrum, otherwise it would always be put on the centre since it takes from the left and the right but that is not the case, and it is often original research or synthesis), just the note explaining what the reliable sources say. And if reliable sources indeed support "syncretic", I would use "syncretic" in the note but I would not put it as a political position in itself since in a way it rejects such a political position in the first place.
 * As for the ideologies, I would put either "Populism (to represent the party's whole history)*2 and "Green politics" or "Left-wing populism" and "Green politics". "Direct democracy" is in fact an electoral system, not an ideology, and the party's transparency, or lack thereof, casts doubts about its credentials; besides, I think this would be already covered by either "Populism" or "Left-wing populism". "Soft Euroscepticism" is more of a policy than an ideology; I am fine with having "pro-Europeanism", "Euroscepticism", and the like in the infobox (also on fiscal, social, and foreign views, rather than have "Fiscal: Centre-left. Social: "Right-wing" at "Ideology"...) but it needs to have its own parameter (which I had proposed years ago, alongside other parameters so that we could summarize in the infoboxes the eventual evolution of political parties and their ideologies), it cannot and should not be put at "Ideology", plus there should be no more than three ideologies. "Progressivism" is ambiguous (it is better used for progressive centre-left liberal parties than any left-wing party that is socially progressive) since the label has been adopted by both anti-neoliberal socialists and neoliberal centrists. "Non-interventionism" is more of a foreign policy doctrine, and we usually do not put them. All of these labels can be used in the lead and expanded in the body, the infobox is for key facts.
 * Notes:
 * 1 These last weeks there were articles about the M5S wanting to return to its origins of "neither left nor right". Will now Conte and the M5S refer to themselves as a left-wing party or will they still keep the "neither left nor right" (which 9 out of 10 means it is right-wing) rhetoric? The most they could do was describing themselves as "progressive", a term that has been used by both anti-neoliberal socialists and neoliberals centrists. Of course, this is all WP:CRYSTAL but I do not think it would do us bad being cautious about it and discuss whether the infobox should represent the party's broad history or give more weight to recent developments. I propose we just put my proposed note that anyone can further improve or expand.
 * 2 Even Varriale 2021 says: "Nevertheless, the Five Star Movement cannot be treated as a classic left-wing party and has never been particularly committed to liberal republicanism." And "The mistake most analysts make when discussing the M5S is that they somehow forget the party's left-wing origins" implies that the majority of sources (as of 2021) had another view, thus there was still no clear consensus on its political position. It was from 2021 and I would not be surprised if a significant number, if not a majority of post-2021 reliable sources now use "left-wing", or something to that effect. So I am fine with either "Populism" or "Left-wing populism", even more so if a majority of reliable sources adds the "left-wing" clarifier or Conte and the M5S start describing themselves as being on the left, that would be very helpful to us and facilitate us greatly. Davide King (talk) 17:41, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I propose adding Syncretic, to match the lede. – GlowstoneUnknown   (Talk)  10:55, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I would agree if something referencing left-wing was added in the ideology section. Zlad! (talk) 14:06, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'd also advocate for Left-wing populism or, perhaps less controversially, Progressivism – GlowstoneUnknown   (Talk)  15:11, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I oppose "syncretic" as political position as it is not a position. The lede is correctly written in a problematic way including several infos that should not make it to the infobox. The party is basically populist, which includes left-wing populism, and "progressivism" is quite generic. I would leave no position and "populism" and "green politics" as ideologies, while removing "direct democracy", which is no longer accurate and up-to-date. --Checco (talk) 20:00, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Isn't green politics just policy? Why list it in Ideology section when it's arguably less of an ideology than Europeanism or Euroscepticism. Zlad! (talk) 22:45, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Wrong: Green politics is a recognised, coherent and transmittable political ideology. Again, Checco is right that generic populism should be listed in the Infobox, and the position field blank.—Autospark (talk) 22:03, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Euroscepticism and pro-Europeanism are very much well-recognized academic ideologies as well, but I digress. I think generic populism and position field blank is fine for the time being unless things change. Zlad! (talk) 22:23, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * There is no doubt, indeed, on the fact that "green politics" is a standard ideology and political family in Europe (and most of the world), while Euroscepticism is not. Moreover, I am not even sure that the M5S can ben considered Eurosceptic in 2024 and whether sources support that claim. --Checco (talk) 06:18, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Finally, a real argument against having Euroscepticism in M5S's infobox. There does seem to be indeed a lack of sources mentioning party being Eurosceptic today, so I yield. Zlad! (talk) 11:11, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Infobox: Again, there is no consensus on political position. Personally, I oppose "syncretic" and I would favour "centre-left", but no position, with note, would be the best option. --Checco (talk) 16:28, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * However, I will neither oppose nor rollback "left-wing", that was added today, through a bold edit, as it makes sense to me (though it is not my preference and most Italian-language sources do not describe the party that way). At the same time, I will not restore "direct democracy", that was long part of the "ideology" parameter, while I will continue to preserve the only the other two ideologies that have long been the established version: "populism" (not "left-wing populism" and "green politics", until a new consensus is achieved. --Checco (talk) 22:05, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The party is very broadly left-wing and supports initiatives like green politics, direct democracy, and left of centre economics. I feel that all of those things are perfectly represented under the left-wing populism label and just simply populism. For simplicity sake, I believe left-wing populism should be the label included as not to fall back to the shopping list of ideologies.
 * Soft-Euroscepticism is also appropriate as it summarizes party's foreign policy quite simply and in a way no other label could.
 * As for position, I'm fine with both syncretic and left-wing, although feel like centre-left to left-wing is more appropriate if we are going on the left-right spectrum. Zlad! (talk) 22:51, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Are you sure? Do you know this party? Until little ago, the M5S was full of right-wingers and still contains lots of people who are hardly classifiable as left-wing. Indeed, the affiliation with The Left was questioned by many. M5S's populism is across the board. This said, I accept both "left-wing" and "centre-left" (the second is more appropriate), while I oppose redundant "centre-left to left-wing", as well as confusing "syncretic". And "soft Euroscepticism" is not well sourced and, most important, is not consensual. --Checco (talk) 06:44, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree that the M5S is now a left-wing party, but are there sources for Soft Euroscepticism and right-wing populism in the note?--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 07:36, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Euroscepticism is well-sourced, look on the article, and it is accepted to be included on party's inboxes, so it should be included here as well for consistency.
 * Mind you, we are not arguing about whether the party is Eurosceptic or not, we are arguing about whether Euroscepticism should be included in infoboxes in general, which is a norm that was not changed despite your best efforts. It will stay here as well. Zlad! (talk) 14:18, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * why don’t we have it like this
 * (Syncretic of the left). There are numerous sources backing syncretic. - FellowMellow (talk) 15:48, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Then those sources for syncretic need to be added. Honestly, my preference is for the Infobox "position" field to be left blank for this party, because it's not easily categorisable (and I would not call it a left-wing party myself, even if its platform does include some left-leaning policies ideas). Also, Euroscepticism should not be in the Ideology field, as it isn't an ideology, and using descriptors like "soft" in front of policies (or actual ideologies), I cannot oppose that in general enough.-- Autospark (talk) 17:14, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * This discussion so far shows that there is no consensus on adding "left-wing" (better a blank space, with note), no consensus for "Euroscepticism" and no consensus for "left-wing populism" (let's turn back to "populism"). At least on the infobox there should be a broad agreement before editing. --Checco (talk) 18:42, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * In my opinion a solution could be found via RFC.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 19:11, 7 July 2024 (UTC)