Talk:Five Star Movement/Archive 1

Translation
Shouldn't the proper translation be "Five stars movement"? "Stelle" is plural. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.63.166.124 (talk) 15:19, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree -- Twi light 19:49, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * No, that would not be proper English. Examples? "Five-star hotel", "three-way race", "four-night stay", etc. --Checco (talk) 08:32, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * So, why not Five-Star Movement, with the hyphen? --LNCSRG (talk) 16:15, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Both versions are correct, but I think that, stylistically speaking, it's better not to have the hyphen. --Checco (talk) 10:41, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The better version, with hyphen, was used initially in scholarly work. Because there is no official M5S name in English and it's a bit strange to translate a name this way, it might be worth putting the form "Five-star Movement" in the article at least once. A couple of [links] if you [want]... - phi (talk) 13:18, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Suggestion of a Third alternative, which is proper English: Five star's movement.--Xact (talk) 23:58, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * This doesn't really work: "Five star's movement" literally means "Five movement of the star" or "movement of the five stars". Both are awkward and not really good translations of the original Italian. Checco is right that "Five Star movement" is by far the best English phrasing, and the hyphen is unnecessary.  Furthermore, English news sources like the BBC and the Economist already use "Five Star Movement" nearly exclusively.SnarkyShark (talk) 06:08, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I have rollbacked Xact's move and returned the article to its original and proper title, Five Star Movement. That is the most correct translation and, in fact, as observed by SnarkyShark, most English news sources use it. --Checco (talk) 14:29, 8 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Beware of the original officially registered and legally recognized trademark name, that is "5 stelle", with 5 in cypher NOT letters and plural "stelle".. Could be as well legal infringements to misuse an voluntarily mistake a registerd brand name.. themore other Italian parties "movimento Forza Italia" is translated here in Wikipedia "Forza Italia movement" and "Lega Nord" is here in English Wikipedia "Lega Nord" and not "North League" because of the same motivation as it's a registered and copyrighted name; uniformities and coherences with translations and legal copyright matter call for "5 stelle movement" instead of "five star movement" (nobody's ever translate the copyright brand super car name "Ferrari" in "Blacksmiths"..nor "Lancia" in "Lance" ..nor "Forza Italia" in "Italy Force"..) - k r o n OS - 07:09, 4 November 2014 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kronos (talk • contribs)
 * The party is widely known in English-language media and literature as "Five Star Movement". --Checco (talk) 15:18, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Bias article.
The article is well written but is missing the point - the approach is very much biased and not corresponding to the reality. The events and traits described by the article are real, but the light and negative emphasis on some of its feature are wrong. It is impossible to describe or even analyze this phenomenon with argument of conventional rhetoric - it requires a paradigm shift to be fully understood. Although a well written article must be critical and challenging - it misses the important feature that characterize the movement (not political party), rather it considers relatively important feature in order to give a bad and biased impression of it. It must be revised. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.18.227.95 (talk) 19:23, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I am concerned that the article is suppose to be describing a new political movement - but does not explain the meaning or the reasons for the movemnet as expressed by the stars. I would love for some one who understands this movement to add their sourced perspective.--Eric James Wolf (talk) 19:23, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * From George Friedman's free report from Stratfor (5 March 2013) "Two things are of interest about this movement. First, one of its central pillars is the call for defaulting on a part of Italy's debt as the lesser of evils. The second is that Italy, with 11.2 percent unemployment, is far from the worst case of unemployment in the European Union. Nevertheless, Italy is breeding radical parties deeply opposed to the austerity policies currently in place."Halconen (talk) 23:58, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I think the article needs some reference to Italy's international standing with respect to corruption at the official level. This is, after all, the ground upon which M5S is built: anti-corruption. According to Transparency International, Italy is equal in official corruption to Romania and Bulgaria. Interesting, because Italy is a G8 country and those other two aren't even close. Jimbaba (talk) 20:05, 9 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Not necessarily: this article is about the M5S, not Italy or Corruption in Italy. --Checco (talk) 08:36, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Introduction
In the introduction is stated that M5S is Eurosceptic. But their programme doesn't mention anything versus Euro http://www.beppegrillo.it/iniziative/movimentocinquestelle/Programma-Movimento-5-Stelle.pdf

So the characterization "Eurosceptic" in the introduction isn't justified — Preceding unsigned comment added by For the leg (talk • contribs) 14:48, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Characterization of the movement
Someone is trying to delete the section "Manifesto" and is trying to empathiz e the fact that M5S is euro sceptic. This isn't the real objective of M5S indeed in the programme doesn't mention anything versus Euro — Preceding unsigned comment added by For the leg (talk • contribs) 14:39, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) You will get nothing from deleting/reverting referenced information (just a ban maybe). If you think what's in the article is wrong, challenge the sources, provide sources for your opinion, and/or discuss here without any further reverts. Political movements usually do not put everything about them in their programs; morevover, I think inherently the manifesto is not a neutral source. 2) Please bear in mind that by reverting you destroy not only the sentence you seem to be interested in. 3) Direct links (i.e. to the manifest) are not accceptable in the body of an article 3) WikiHannibal (talk) 23:22, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for your kind reply. The best source for Five Star Movement not being Eurosceptic is the italian Wiki http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/MoVimento_5_Stelle (if you don't know italian please use automatic translation ). Also the Five Star Movement objectives are all stated in their manifesto (programme) where there aren't any actions versus Euro (So you really can't say that Five Star Movement is euroscepticism or at least you can't say this in the first introduction). Moreover the word "populist" is a derogatory adjective given by political opponents of the party, and doesn't deserve to be in this wiki. For the leg (talk) 23:58, 28 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I am going to revert the change to reflect the more accurate italian wiki http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/MoVimento_5_Stelle to remove euroscepticism For the leg (talk) 12:14, 1 March 2013 (UTC)


 * "Populism" is an established term in political science to denote a certain political ideology or style. It is not necessarily derogatory. Several independent sources describe the movement as populist, not only its political adversaries. Wikipedia articles should always be based on reliable sources (principle of verifiability). Other wikis - like the Italian one - are no reliable sources, because they may be edited by anyone and are not fact-checked. The movement's manifesto is not a reliable source either, because it is partisan rather than independent and neutral. We have to follow the description of the movement by independent observers. And they often label it as populist, anti-establishment and eurosceptic, as you can see from the cited sources. --RJFF (talk) 00:29, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * populism is considered derogatory by the movement because adovating e democracy doesn t mean populist. http://m.spiegel.de/international/europe/a-833358.html#spRedirectedFrom=www read this indipendent source for more information about the movement. 93.44.60.19 (talk) 00:43, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, the source you cite does use the term 'populism' as well. Even in the head line. Whether the movement itself likes the term or not is irrelevant, if independent sources think it is appropriate to use it. The article is not meant to please the movement or its supporters or to reflect their point of view, but to inform in a neutral way. And neutral sources say that the movement is populist, not in order to disqualify or disparage it, but simply in order to characterize their political style. --RJFF (talk) 01:12, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Some of these points
It is unclear which (if any) listed points of the manifesto were "copied" by other parties. The provided references do not name any of them, and only some similarities can perhaps be deduced from them - and that is not for editors to do. Other issues might be added if need be, or the sentence in question removed (again). Please provide references to articles about the points that were copied. Here we can also discuss the reliability of the sources and notability of the information that something was copied. For the leg (talk), even though your last edit seems to aim in the right direction, please stop making any disruptive edits, with which the history of this article already abounds. WikiHannibal (talk) 22:16, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi, Should I add more references? A simple google searches lists hundreds of various references. (Google search: https://www.google.it/search?q=partiti+copiano+programma+movimento+5+stelle&hl=it). A point over the others: PDL said that their MP will lower their salary and MP can be elegible only for two mandates. I didn't specify the points neither the parties that copied to don't open a new flame war For the leg (talk) 23:51, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Not more, but more to the point, as mentioned below by AL458. The fact that in this article there are more references to certain sentences is the result of the controversies discussed here, not a common (or needed) thing. I see that your sole concern at the English and Italian wikipedia is this movement. Please have a look at guidelines to editing again. I removed the template, so please do not be tempted to re-insert that sentence without proper references. WikiHannibal (talk) 22:08, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Providing a decent demonstration that one party copied part of the program from another party is a complex operation, requiring an extensive dissertation on the chronology of the ideas and the publication of the programs themselves. Citing a couple of blogs is not enough for a serious encyclopedia. That part cannot be kept in this voice like it is, otherwise it would be mere propaganda. --AL458 (talk) 12:56, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

How to deal with translating the manifesto
The M5S has now produced an English version of its manifesto/programme (at http://www.movimentocinquestelle.eu/documenti/programma-en.pdf). We're now using the English version as our source for the manifesto, but it's a pretty poor translation from the original Italian -- it looks almost exactly like what you get when you run the original through Google Translate. I'm not sure about what to do in this situation; should we use the rather poor official translations or the better ones we already have? For example, we have "Ineligibility of convicted criminals for public office" while the official English version says "Ineligibility to public office for citizens convicted". SnarkyShark (talk) 03:12, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Five Star's Movement is not a party
The article appears to me to be biased precisely because the article expresses so overtly that the Five Star's Movement is a party. Thus the article clearly stands in opposition to what the movement itself say what it is. Thus the text is its truthtentativety in opposition to the Movement's claim. Isn't this the Occupy Movement in Italy occypying representative democracy with 25 % direct democracy? Similar to the the M15 Movement in Spain? At best this article is not much more than an attempt at reducing the Italian phenomenon to something that the habit-longing conditioned mind is able to grasp. --Xact (talk) 00:14, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what word we can use other than party. The Occupy Movement is a poor equivalent; it never took part in American elections, has no leader and lacks a stated agenda.  True, the M5S wants to remake Italian society -- just like Occupy wants to remake American society -- but all Occupy ever did was sit in squares and protest.  On the other hand, the M5S, while it certainly isn't a mature party like the PD or the PDL, just came in third in a general election and has a single leader and a reasonably comprehensive list of demands and goals.  As Wikipedia itself puts it, "A political party is a political organization that typically seeks to influence government policy, usually by nominating candidates with aligned political views and trying to seat them in political office".  This is exactly what the M5S does, and it sets it apart from both Occupy and Spain's 15M. SnarkyShark (talk) 06:01, 8 March 2013 (UTC)


 * The M5S has not a party structure - it is not funded with public money, it has not a political party status and is not hierarchically structured. It is pretty much horizontal rather than a vertical structure like traditional parties. It relies on the web to gather information and intelligence on various topics, and it is based on a territorial organization of citizens through the MeetUp platform. All the Cities (small - medium - large) have a MeetUp that works and applies the strategy of the movement on the territory. Normal citizens with no interest in politics will govern his own territory without interests of traditional political nature, that in Italy like everywhere in the west, are source of corruption and misuse of the state apparatus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.55.91.38 (talk) 21:13, 3 April 2013 (UTC)


 * The distinction many Italians (especially journalists and politicians) do between "party" and "movement" is totally misguided, misleading and unfounded from a political scientist's point of view. A group does not need a party structure to be a party: there are several examples of parliamentary-only parties in history. But this is not the case of the M5S, which has a structure and fields canidated for public office. "A political party is a political organization that typically seeks to influence government policy, usually by nominating candidates with aligned political views and trying to seat them in political office": this definition definitely applies to M5S, a party among parties. Members and supporters of M5S (and those of Lega Nord and the PdL, whose leaders also pretend that theirs are movements) can say what they want, but thier "movement" is emintently and evidently a party. --Checco (talk) 10:01, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Bad English
Be aware, guys, the article is written in shitty English. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.173.162.144 (talk) 12:52, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * There's a tag at the top of the page, indeed. Would you like to contribute? --Checco (talk) 15:09, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm happy to try. Could you explain some of the sentences? In particular, I have no clue what "as well as Italian citizens would disembark in life Italian civil from bad policy" is supposed to mean. Marnanel (talk) 23:55, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I have no idea. That's why I added the tag. My suggestion is that the article needs a complete rewrite and clean-up, consistently with the other articles about Italian parties. It is is also too long and detailed for a party with just five years of activity. --Checco (talk) 09:02, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The noun sbarco ("landing") and the verb sbarcare ("disembark", in English) are the words you would use in Italian to refer to the D-Day (lo Sbarco in Normandia). I think he's trying to say that just like the Allies landed in Normandy (D-Day) and from there they freed Europe, the M5S will metaphorically "land" on the "shores" of Italy's civil society and will then proceed to free the country of bad politicians. Writing this in the entry would represent of course outright POV and original research. 93.150.144.110 (talk) 15:11, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Position of M5S in the political spectrum
Hi. Yesterday M5S activists voted to be part of EFD, which is a political group in the European Parliament to the right of the Conservatives. Consequently I added the word "extreme right-wing" party to the definition of this party based on the results of their vote. If I am member of a group that also sees the participation of UKIP and has seen contributions from Italy's Northern League I am not centre or left, am I? These words have been reverted and I cannot see the rationale of this as "right-wing" is what EFD MEP are. If you do not like it one could drop "extreme", but honestly I do not think they would like being called "centre", let alone "left". 93.150.144.110 (talk) 09:08, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * EP groups are loose coalitions of national parties. Whatever their current or future group affiliation, I strongly disgagree on describing either the M5S or LN as right-wing parties, let alone extreme right-wing ones. --Checco (talk) 13:53, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Colours
What are the M5S's colours? User:Nick.mon and I disagree on that, as one can see from the recent article's history. As far as I know, the party has no official colours, thus the colours that are to be indicated in the infobox are those of the party's logo, flags, etc. In all these, the colours used are black, red and yellow. It is not our business to choose a party's colours, and, if we keep disagreeing, it's better to leave the infobox empty on that. --Checco (talk) 10:16, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes I agree with you. In my view the color which often represents M5S is Yellow, but ad you said in the logo there're also Red and Black. Anyway if any other will express his opinion about that, we could leave the infobox empty on the part about the colors. --Nick.mon (talk) 10:26, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Criticism
Hello, I recently improved the "criticism" section with some information about some conspiracy theories that gained support from important M5S members. This is how it looked like: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Five_Star_Movement&oldid=664344791#Criticism

It was then deleted by user Enok with the excuse "You can't describe the ideology of a political movement based on some tweets". Obviously I wasn't describing its ideology, just some controversies. And yes, assumptions can be based on tweets because they represent the party members' personal point of view. There were many controversies, and it's my duty to include them in the section. Otherwise, it's censorship. :) --SuperSardus (talk) 17:14 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Out-of-chrono comment. --Checco (talk) 09:11, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * You're not too bright, are you.
 * "Conspiracy theories" are not a bad thing. You adhere to one, if you believe that it was the Nazis who torched the Reichstag, or if they faked the pictures of dead Germans before they invaded Poland.
 * More importantly, who gives a rats ass if his opinions have been "ridiculed"? So was Charles Darwin. It doesn't matter.
 * Also, are you denying that vaccines can cause allergies and deaths? Are you trying to say that people should be forced to be injected with potentially dangerous substances?
 * Vermin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.59.156.225 (talk) 19:17, 3 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't know who this idiot who called me "vermin" is, but I do know that he's a coward because he didn't sign with his name. The fact that you defend the nazis says an awful lot about you. "Are you denying that vaccines can cause allergies and deaths?" Vaccines don't cause allergies and deaths, you idiot. Vaccination prevents diseases. And yes, it should be compulsory. Get an education, you knob. --SuperSardus (talk) 23:33 27 July 2015 (UTC)


 * "Vermin" was the IP's signature, indeed! --Checco (talk) 11:40, 10 August 2015 (UTC)


 * The section if for the most part is not written in an encyclopaedic style. Some of the sources are of devious merit, and most of the section is about Grillo as an individual rather than the M5S party.--Autospark (talk) 22:06, 27 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Actually, articles should not have a "criticism" or "controversy" section at all. It is better to include this content in the other sections (history, ideology; maybe start a new section on "(internal) structure" or "organisation" which can include the question of internal democracy). I agree with User:Autospark that much of this section is not presented in a neutral and encyclopedic style. Moreover, it is far too long and too detailed. Many of these incidents were "storms in a teacup" that are not of historical relevance which is required in an encyclopedia. Finally, many of the references do not qualify as reliable sources, e.g. blogs, youtube, websites of rival politicians. --RJFF (talk) 13:26, 28 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Agreeing with Enok, Autospark and RJFF, I think that the "Criticism" section (which was even worsened by SuperSardus's edits) should be deleted altogether, although some the information included could be integrated in other sections of the article. --Checco (talk) 08:48, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

BuzzFeed News
Here is an article on Buzzfeed. I don't think Buzzfeed is always accurate, but still it's interesting to read about fake news, pro-Russian, pro-Trump and anti-migrants. All this sounds like this party/movement have become more and more right wing the last years. Maybe someone can investigate this more and add it to the article.


 * Italy’s Most Popular Political Party Is Leading Europe In Fake News And Kremlin Propaganda

--Jeroen (talk) 13:46, 30 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Agree It is becoming clear that this article ought to mention Russia/Putinism somewhere (it does not currently); new piece in The New York Times:
 * With Italy No Longer in U.S. Focus, Russia Swoops to Fill the Void


 * Cpaaoi (talk) 06:21, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Leader or Guarantor?
No dubt that Grillo is the leader of the Five Star Movement, but I think that the most correct title is "Guarantor" of the M5S, as it's often described by Five Star's members and Italian media. Here are some sources: LaRepubblica FattoQuotidiano RaiNews BlogDelleStelle
 * Didn't he say that he's the "political head" of the M5S? However, we can use that term or (if there is one) a better translation of garante once, but, despite what Grillini usually say, the M5S is a party and has a leader. --Checco (talk) 16:25, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes you are right, he also said that he was the Political Head of the movement. Anyway we can continue to use "Leader" which is more understandable to non-Italian readers :) -- Nick.mon (talk) 16:33, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Generally speaking, M5S scares the hell out of most of the Italian media, especially the newspapers. The reason is simple: the newspapers are entrenched in the current wheeling-dealing nature of Italian politics, and find M5S's prescription of radical democratic modernization to be incomprehensible. Jimbaba (talk) 20:10, 9 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Might be, but this is your personal view, unfortunately not supported by sources. --Checco (talk) 08:36, 11 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Any group that seeks to align itself with Putin's Russia (see above) cannot under any circumstances be described as 'radically democratic'. Cpaaoi (talk) 06:24, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

On vandalism
Regarding this edit by Jimbaba, rollbacking this edit of mine, rollbacking this edit by Jimbaba, a discussion was openend at User talk: Jimbaba:


 * "Future reverts by non-English speakers will be reported as vandalism" is a bit over the top. Good-faith contributions aren't vandalism, and while we expect a decent competency in English, your preferred version involves a subtle interpretation of national varieties of English that would be obscure to most native speakers.  Acroterion   (talk)   14:36, 22 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Look, this guy from Venice whose English is unacceptably poor took the time to REVERT a perfectly good edit of mine, on a page which Wikipedia has FLAGGED for its sloppy English! Now you have to ask yourself: what is his motivation for doing that?  It's simple: he thinks the page belongs to him personally.  I'm just telling him: back off dude, Wikipedia is for all who care about sharing knowledge and pursuing truth.  An edit should only be reverted if it is an ERROR. Jimbaba (talk) 14:58, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

English is not my mother language (and, btw, I'm not from Venice), but is my English so "unceceptably poor" as Jimbaba says? However, while I am convinced that "returning" is better than "producing" at least in British English (the verb is frequently used in en.Wiki, for instance at List of MPs elected in the United Kingdom general election, 2015), I'm not writing to defend my position ("returning" or "producing" is not a big deal to me), but just to let Jimbaba know that it was not "Wikipedia" to flag this article for its "sloppy English"... it was me! The article is so badly written and needs a total rewrite, indeed. --Checco (talk) 19:49, 22 April 2017 (UTC)


 * It is indeed without question "returning an MEP [or other parliamentarian]", not "producing". I have never heard "producing" used in that context before. I also agree that the standard of English in this article is very poor, often so poor that I have struggled to make enough sense of it in order to attempt much copyedits.--Autospark (talk) 11:32, 23 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I am glad that an English speaker from England agrees with me. I will replace "producing" with "returning", but the real problem is that the article is badly written and, I would add, it includes several redundant infos. The article needs a total rewrite, but is should not be tailored on it.Wiki's article—it.Wiki's articles tend to be badly organised and full of redundant infos, indeed. Anyone willing to turn it upside down? --Checco (talk) 07:48, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Proposal to change ideology from "Euroscepticism" to "soft Euroscepticism"
Since the election of Luigi Di Maio as leader of the party, the party seems to have set out a clearer position on its stance regarding the European Union. The party has stated it doesn't want Italy to leave the EU. The party has proposed a referendum on leaving the euro currency, however this would only be if its reform proposals regarding the euro currency are rejected by the EU. As the party doesn't wish for Italy to leave the EU and doesn't outrightly oppose even leaving the euro currency (and even then it would only hold a referendum upon the rejection of reforms) it would seem soft Euroscepticism would now be far more appropriate and applicable to the Five Star Movement than Euroscepticism.

Sources:


 * https://www.thelocal.it/20170925/new-five-star-movement-leader-says-the-party-wants-italy-to-stay-in-eu


 * https://www.ft.com/content/aeadf292-9216-11e7-a9e6-11d2f0ebb7f0


 * https://www.reuters.com/article/us-italy-5star-euro/italys-5-star-relegates-euro-referendum-pledge-to-plan-b-idUSKBN19B24H


 * Well I don't see lot of differences between "Euroscepticism" and "Soft Euroscepticism", anyway the M5S is different from other populist and hard Eurosceptic parties like Lega Nord, so, in my view, we can change the infobox. -- Nick.mon (talk) 20:53, 17 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I also don't see any difference between "Euroscepticism" and "Soft Euroscepticism", but, differently from Nick.mon, I would not modify the infobox. In my view, the M5S is not softly Eurosceptic, while the LN is not hardly Eurosceptic. Hard Eurosceptics propose the exit from the EU or, at least, the Euro: the LN has never favoured the former and no longer supports the latter. --Checco (talk) 13:43, 18 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Can you please explain why you would disagree with changing the label for the Five Star Movement to "Soft Euroscepticism", Checco? There are definitions given on the page Euroscepticism which sets out the differences between hard, normal and soft. I would argue that, as seen from the sources above, M5S now fits more accurately into "Soft Euroscepticism" than either of the other two. Helper201 (talk) 16:22, 18 October 2017 (UTC)


 * None of the three articles you linked to even use the term "soft Euroscepticism" or "soft Eurosceptic". Therefore they should not be used.--Autospark (talk) 16:24, 18 October 2017 (UTC)


 * True, that's why I took the discussion here to form a consensus. The terms "soft Euroscepticism" and "hard Euroscepticism" are, from what I've seen, very rarely used terms in the media. Therefore I think judgement should be made according to reason and according to which definition of Euroscepticism outlined on Wikipedia the party most closely matches according to sources, of which I believe soft seems the most applicable in this case. Helper201 (talk) 17:11, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Proposal to scrap the Eurosceptism label
The new leader of M5S, Luigi Di Maio, expressed their support to the EU and even said they wanted powers transferred from national governments to the European Parliament. He said his party is pro-EU and that they intend to contribute to creating the future of Europe. He also said that a reformed EU can be a solution to many problems.

Source:


 * https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-italy-politics-5star/italys-5-star-sheds-anti-eu-image-calls-for-reform-idUKKBN1E12LZ?utm_campaign=trueAnthem:+Trending+Content&utm_content=5a299ef104d3013a91b5ca42&utm_medium=trueAnthem&utm_source=twitter — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tulipaness (talk • contribs) 23:01, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Five Star Movement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160129103727/http://www.alde.eu/nc/press/press-and-release-news/press-release/article/alde-response-to-the-seven-conditions-of-the-movimento-5-stelle-43004/ to http://www.alde.eu/nc/press/press-and-release-news/press-release/article/alde-response-to-the-seven-conditions-of-the-movimento-5-stelle-43004/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150626211422/http://tv.ilfattoquotidiano.it/2014/06/25/bruxelles-prima-riunione-gruppo-ukip-m5s-farage-e-borrelli-presidenti/285970/ to http://tv.ilfattoquotidiano.it/2014/06/25/bruxelles-prima-riunione-gruppo-ukip-m5s-farage-e-borrelli-presidenti/285970/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:37, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Five Star Movement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140521235609/http://www.france24.com/en/20121211-2012-12-11-2050-wb-en-webnews/ to http://www.france24.com/en/20121211-2012-12-11-2050-wb-en-webnews/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130303203214/http://www.gay.tv/news/attualita/beppe-grillo-e-diritti-gay-un-silenzio-assordante to http://www.gay.tv/news/attualita/beppe-grillo-e-diritti-gay-un-silenzio-assordante/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:23, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Meetups?
I assume this is supposed to be the more standard English "Meetings" and have changed it accordingly81.154.119.211 (talk) 08:53, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * No, the official name is "meet-up", even though it means little. --Checco (talk) 19:37, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Provocative?
What is "provocative" about referring to his movement as "populist"?203.80.61.102 (talk) 03:55, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Nothing. Populism is an approriate description of the party's ideology. --Checco (talk) 09:51, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Read the article on Populism. The word has a technical meaning (appealling to the interests of ordinary people over those of political and social elites), and a perjorative meaning (appealling to the prejudices and ignorance of ordinary people; demagogy). Unlike the words 'conservative', 'liberal', 'socialist', no party ever identifies itself as 'populist'. Like the word 'zionist', the word is dangerous, and should not be used by careful writers. It threatens NPOV. Instead, careful editors should unpack the term, explaining what exactly a party is appealling to, so that smears of demagogy are not implied. MrDemeanour (talk) 10:28, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Comments
Unfortunately, this section of the 5 start movement is constantly plagued with non academic sources and a great deal of the information protrayed is from biased news outlets, one of the most prominent one being "Blog de Beppe Grillo", as found in references 48,50,51,52,54,55,151,152,153,and 155. This is in violation of the terms of Wikipedia as they clearly state that information that is put onto their website should not come from these types of sources as they demonstrate a lack of authenticity and lack of factual evidence as well. Also, many of these articles are in Italian only and do not have a translation function. Furthermore, in the section "2018 election", I believe this part of the article was widely underrepresented and should have more concrete information as this is the most pertinent election and is an indicator of future happenings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrishargrove10 (talk • contribs) 00:27, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Is Five Star not of the Anti-austerity movement?
Should Five Star be considered an anti-austerity party?CountMacula (talk) 03:06, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Recent edit warring
Looking at and  contribution histories, their edits at both this article and European Conservatives and Reformists appear to constitute a clear WP:POINTy behaviour; namely:
 * These edits ( at ECR came as a response to my revert at this article. The same can be said about their edits at Alliance of Conservatives and Reformists in Europe (namely, this one).
 * Here, I should note that I did not mean that factions were not listed anywhere as the user pointed out in their edit, but rather, that this was not commonplace in Wikipedia. Situations of party articles where this happens are very particular and very well sourced (and in many cases, with a previous consensus on it). So this is a clear misinterpretation of my own words in order to justify causing some havoc in another article, which I do not share or support.


 * User then basically copy-pasted 's edit summary at the ECR article in order to justify further edit warring at this article.
 * The user has basically confirmed that they have done such edits because they had been undone in this article.

If the user wishes to discuss the party's ideology, they should bring the issue in this talk page in order for obtain a consensus for it, instead of disruptively editing other pages by simultaneously defending one position and its contrary one in order to try to illustrate a point. And they should become familiar with WP:EW and WP:3RR, as well as with WP:BRD. Impru 20 talk 14:37, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Recent events
Life is getting interesting for the 5SM, so I am wondering why there have not been significant recent edits. A New York Times article is predicting a 'crash and burn' based on a 'flimsy alliance,' which is not apparent from Italy's recent progress. NYT article.

Also interesting is Banon's effect, and how conflict within the 5SM's alliance with far-right League (as the League's leader attempted full takeover) resulted in a left and left-center collation with the left-centrist democrats may result in fully-democratic populism. --John Bessa (talk) 16:57, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

See also this article: https://www.spiked-online.com/2019/10/04/the-revenge-of-the-elites/ Clivemacd (talk) 13:20, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

"New Right" and anti-immigration
Hi everybody, I would like to start a discussion to end the edit war on this article. Civiltalatina repeatedly edited the article, removing well documented informations about the M5S, especially during its first years as a movement. The M5S has clearly been an anti-immigration party, even if it toned down its anti-immigration rhetoric during Conte's second cabinet (more or less). Moreover, the sources linked in the article are quite clear and reliable. -- Nick.mon (talk) 17:55, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * "Anti-immigration" should absolutely stay in the article, as it is well-referenced from reliable sources.--Autospark (talk) 17:22, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi. I don't know where you come from, but I am Italian, I follow the national and local politics on a regular basis, I have a good knowledge of the political orientation of the current main parties in Italy. At the moment, and at least since the beginning of the Conte II government (July 2019), the five star movement has ripositioned itself on the centre-left, and has abandoned pretty much every "rightist" tendency, including anti-immigration stance and anti-Eu sentiment. There has been also a deep sociologic study, commissioned by the m5s itself, and carried out by professor Domenico De Masi (a famous italian sociologist), that has given a portrait of the new orientation and predominant themes of the m5s, based on a number of surveys, questionaries, and panels. This study proves that there is currently zero hostility to immigrations (but rather that m5s supporters see immigrants as a "resource" given the demographic problems of Italy) and that the Eu is now seen more positively, thanks to the approval of the Recovery Plan and anti austerity measures. Here an article (in italian) about this study: https://formiche.net/2020/10/de-masi-m5s-immigrazione-leadership/ For these reasons I believe that the current description of the English Wikipedia page is totally outdated and obsolete. As a comparison, the Italian page, which is more reliable, has no reference to any anti-immigration and anti-eu stance. Also, the depiction of the 5 star movement as a "new right" party makes me laugh. If you read the articles on the "Il Fatto Quotidiano", which is the newspaper supporting the M5s, you will realize how leftist the m5s is (somehow even more than the Democratic Party). According to a recent opinion poll (a week ago), 40% of the voters of M5s claim to belong to the left, while only 10% still claim to belong to the right (and about 30% say the movement is "neither of the left nor on the right"). I can look for it if needed. The fact that the m5s has governed in coalition with the far-right league is not a good reason: there is plenty of coalition government in Europe. In Iceland the green leftist party did the same and formed a government with a populist and rightist party. Given that the Democratic Party refused any participation in the government, this coalition was the only possible to find a majority in the parliament. I am not familiar with wikipedia processes, I just deleted the references from the page several times because I think it is totally misleading. It really needs an update by someone. I am not good at English, some English speaker can do it for me, if deleting the references is not sufficient. I hope to have explained my reasons. --Civitalatina (talk) 21:54, 6 January 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Civiltalatina (talk • contribs)

Giorgio Yakatura
Heads up to people coming from Jreg, and anyone else, Giorgio Yakatura isn't a real person, he's a joke Jreg (Greg Guevera) made up for his Post-Truth video and a recurring joke. DFTBA Blue2#/talk 14:20, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Infobox - ideology; March 2021
An IP editor made a change to the ideology section in the infobox but I reverted it so that we can start a discussion here first. Do we have to make changes to the Ideology section or should we leave it like this? Vacant0 (talk) 18:58, 1 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I would remove Euroscepticism and Anti-globalization not because the M5S is not that way, but because it is not really an ideology (I would do the same for each and every political party). I surely oppose the two ideologies brought forward by the IP that are totally non-sense. --Checco (talk) 19:24, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, "social justice" isn't an ideology at all. Moreover, it seems that the M5S wants to rebrand itself as centre-left pro-EU party (more or less), but we have to wait and see if it'll be true. There're still many factions and different ideologies within the movement, I think that the current version is quite good at the moment. -- Nick.mon (talk) 19:26, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Anti-globalization sure isn't an ideology and should be removed, presumably moved to the lead section. Euroscepticism is debatable since they support Draghi's Pro-EU government but Social justice isn't an ideology at all. I agree with Nick.mon, let's wait until they change something within the party. Vacant0 (talk) 19:34, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, maybe we should remove "anti-globalisation" as we removed "anti-immigration" from Lega's article. -- Nick.mon (talk) 16:19, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed with above. My personal opinion is that in the Infobox for this party, we should just list populism, and either direct democracy or syncretic politics in the Ideology field. Or perhaps all three. But definitely not Euroscepticism or anti-globalization.--Autospark (talk) 18:04, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I would have "populism", "direct democracy" and (probably more important) "environmenalism", however, as long as "Euroscepticism" (which is not an ideology, in my view) is listed in other Italian parties' infoboxes (LN, FdI, etc.), it should stay too. --Checco (talk) 11:06, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree. Populism, direct democracy and environmentalism/green politics are enough for the Ideology section. Vacant0 (talk) 13:33, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

When should we implement these changes? Vacant0 (talk) 23:15, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Go ahead! --Checco (talk) 12:18, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Vaccination
Should the vaccination section be restored?LoneWolf1992 (user talk) 19:25, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 January 2019 and 20 March 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Chrishargrove10. Peer reviewers: Chrishargrove10.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 12:28, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): ThisisnotDavid1154.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 12:28, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Does M5S definitly run alone in the upcoming election?
Or is there any chance left that they run with the center-left coalition on some form of joint list? 62.226.72.189 (talk) 02:40, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Definitely alone. The lists were submitted two weeks ago, 30 days prior the election. --Checco (talk) 06:42, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * thank you. 93.206.58.50 (talk) 20:25, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Infobox
most sources are frpm 2013-2018, i think they should be replaced by newer sources since M5S suffered from many splits from the moderate side (IiC & IpF) and from the radical side (Italexit, CAL, Vita ect.) Braganza (talk) 07:28, 4 September 2022 (UTC)


 * M5S is still described as populist, although I wasn't able to find any newer sources that describe the party as Eurosceptic. Vacant0 (talk) 10:34, 4 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Sure, the M5S is still populist, but no longer big-tent: it is a left-wing or, as its members like to say, a "progressive" party.
 * Sources wanted! --Checco (talk) 16:21, 4 September 2022 (UTC)


 * We should not look for sources confirming our biased personal evaluation. We should be open to any reliable source that is available and summarize what the sources say, regardless of what we think. At the moment, the most relevant sources describe the M5S as big tent, so that is what we report in the infobox. Also, what its members like to say is not important and does not count as reliable. Yakme (talk) 16:49, 4 September 2022 (UTC)


 * The party is clearly left-wing now, regardless the fact that its members reject the label, indeed!
 * Realiable (of course!) sources wanted! --Checco (talk) 16:58, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

I would also propose that we move this to the Ideology section, this shouldn't be the start section. Ideated as a post-ideological movement, within the context of post-modern politics, the M5S has been described as anti-establishment,  environmentalist, and populist. It has promoted left-wing issues, such as a basic income and green-inspired policies, and has been compared to the anti-austerity movement in Spain, Pirate parties, and Occupy Wall Street. From 2014 to 2019, the M5S also supported some right-wing policies, especially on immigration, and has been described as a New Right and right-wing party. Additionally, it has been variously described as anti-globalist,  anti-immigration,  Eurosceptic,   and pro-Russian. Its members stress that the M5S is not a party but a movement, and the five stars in the name and logo are a reference to five key issues for the party, among them the common good, integral ecology, social justice, technological innovation, and a green economy. The M5S has promoted e-democracy, direct democracy, the principle of "zero-cost politics", degrowth, and nonviolence. Grillo himself once provocatively referred to the movement as populist. Braganza (talk) 17:38, 4 September 2022 (UTC)


 * you should join the discussion Braganza (talk) 18:58, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree to move this statement to the section "Ideology". I theoretically also agree that the M5S is now a left-wing party, but I have not found any reliable source about its current political position, only about its origins (the M5S of the origins is described by more sources as a left-wing party, that became later a "big tent" party). Without reliable sources, we cannot modify the current political position.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 06:46, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The fact that M5S party leaders decided to put together a "left-leaning" 2022 election campaign starting 3 weeks ago does not automatically make the party "left-wing". We are talking about a party that has always been considered "big-tent", "centrist", even "right-wing" at times. Did we change the party position during the government with Lega? I don't recall, but surely during that time the M5S had some very right-wing stances too. So let's wait of course for reliable sources, if and when they appear to state unequivocally that the M5S is a left-wing party; and let's not jump to conclusions for something that might well be just temporary. Yakme (talk) 07:56, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * my main point is that we should replace the sources used in the infobox by newer sources
 * Populism uses 2013, 2014 & 2015 sources which are quite old for M5S' history (not that i think that M5S isn't populist anymore but these sources are about a far more populist M5S than they currently are)
 * Environmentalism 2018; M5S is very green so it should be easy to replace them from 2020–2022
 * Euroscepticism: 2013 (see above)
 * Big Tent: 2018 (maybe replace it?), 2021 (new enough) Braganza (talk) 11:31, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * @Yakme Indeed no one has proposed to change the political position in the infobox without sources, I think that here we all agree that before changing a political position in the infobox it is necessary to find authoritative sources that attest to the change. However, according to my point of view, the M5S has not become a left-wing party only now, but for at least two years, but my point of view is worth nothing: reliable sources are needed, otherwise the position in the infobox remains "big tent", of course. @Braganza: if the sources are still valid to describe the current situation, I do not think it is indispensable to replace them. For example, sources now generically continue to describe the M5S as populist exactly as they described it in 2013, although, as you pointed out, in the meantime the populism of the M5S has attenuated.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 22:10, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * i dont say M5S shouldn't be described as populist but rather the sources used are outdated and should be replaced by new sources which label them as populist Braganza (talk) 09:28, 24 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Arguably, M5S's populism, especially its economic populism, is strong as ever. "Big tent" is not exactly a political position, thus I have always been unsure about mentioning it. Moreover, the two sources currently provided for "big tent" are not particularly fitting and/or accurate and/or authoritative: the first does not mention "big tent", the second compares the M5S to Spain's Podemos, a clearly left-wing party. --Checco (talk) 06:18, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Checco, the first source states: "The party that was most active against TTIP and CETA, however, was the catch-all populist Five Star Movement that...", while the second one states: "Moreover, both the 2013 and 2018 elections are examples on how the presence of the “big tent” M5S party" Vacant0 (talk) 09:06, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Indeed. The first source does not mention "big tent". More important, "big tent", let alone "catch-all", are no political positions. Arguably, all large parties are "big tent" and "catch-all". In particular, "big tent" is often used for describing the United States main political parties, which clearly have political positions. --Checco (talk) 16:18, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Green politics v. environmentalism
Infobox ideologies should be proper ideologies, that is why User:Heavy Water correctly replaced "environmentalism" with "gren politics". As he wrote in his edit summary, "green politics is more appropriate for a political party". Indeed, "green politics" is a political ideology, while "environmentalism" is a broad social movement and has less to do with party politics. Unfortunately, there is no Italian expression for "green politics", thus ambientalismo translates both to "environmentalism" and "green politics". Thankfully, we now have a source for "green politics" (see ). This said, I am going to re-add "green politics", while leaving "environmentalism". Of course, my proposal is to remove "environmentalism", which is clearly not a proper political ideology referred to a political party, and leave only "green politics". -- Checco (talk) 10:14, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Reasonable explanation – green politics sounds more like a solid political ideology, unlike the more generalised term "environmentalism". One might argue that M5S is not a 'typical' green political party, but as long as we still explain the M5S's roots as a populist party, it should not be an issue, IMO.--Autospark (talk) 21:24, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for starting this discussion. I premise that I was against replacing Envronmentalism (explicitly supported by various sources) with green politics without any source supporting it. Since Checco has found a source that explicitly mentions it, I have nothing against it in the infobox. If consensus emerges in this thread to remove environmentalism, it can be removed from the infobox (but it should at least be mentioned on the page, IMHO).--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 13:39, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm in favor of removing environmentalism and keeping green politics in the infobox. Vacant0 (talk) 13:41, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I am happy that a consensus is builing up. In my view, we should always adopt internationally recognised ideologies in articles. There is no need of mentioning "environmentalism" at all, as the word is simply an out-of-context translation of ambientalismo. "Environmentalism" is rarely mentioned in the articles on European green parties and the fact that M5S is not a typical green party is not an excusation for mentioning a term which is simply out-of-context. --Checco (talk) 15:34, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, I didn't mean the Italian-language sources that mention the term "Ambientalismo", but the English-language sources that mention "Environmentalism" as one of the M5S' ideologies (including Wolfram Nordsieck).--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 17:42, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I see your point, but "environmentalism" is not a proper ideology, no matter the source. --Checco (talk) 08:14, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Big Tent vs Syncretic
Shouldn't the political position of the party be Syncretic rather than Big tent? I'm unsure of what the differences, but with reading the definitions of each page, it seems like M5S fits Syncretic rather than Big tent.

Syncretic: "Syncretic politics combine elements from across the conventional left–right political spectrum. ... The main idea of syncretic politics is that taking political positions of neutrality by combining elements associated with left-wing politics and right-wing politics can achieve a goal of reconciliation."

Big tent: "A big tent party is a term used in reference to a political party's policy of permitting or encouraging a broad spectrum of views among its members."

I feel like M5S fits syncretic better as M5S seems to reject the left–right political spectrum. Which Syncretic is more of, especially with the inclusion of "taking political positions of neutrality by combining elements associated with left-wing politics and right-wing politics". As M5S has taken both left-wing and right-wing stances on policies/issues (left-wing on basic-income and green policies - and right-wing on immigration policies for example). ZlatanSweden10 (talk) 16:12, 2 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi, do you have an analysis or examples of what reliable sources state about the M5S political position? In the end, this is what matters, regardless of what each editor believes or thinks is mostly right or wrong. At the moment, "big tent" is supported by two academic studies cited in the text. Yakme (talk) 10:24, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * It may well be true in reference to what we say in the body, e.g. support for left-wing policies on economy and welfare and right-wing policies on immigration, but I haven't see reliable sources describe it as syncretic. This interesting analysis, though dated to 2020 but also goes back from 2014 to 2019 using Chapel Hill Expert Survey (for example, it says M5S was less anti-immigrant than all right-wing parties including the centre-right Forza Italia and much less so than the radical-right Lega), also shows its ideological ambiguity or blurring, which is not the same thing as being syncretic, and says "M5S can be seen as a 'big tent' party, with its broad ideological focus." I'm certainly interested to see what reliable sources, in particular academic ones, describe the party going forward. Davide King (talk) 02:19, 4 November 2022 (UTC)


 * I agree with User:ZlatanSweden10 as "big tent" as nothing to do with the left-right axis. By the way, the M5S is now centre-left. --Checco (talk) 11:28, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Personally, I'd use the 'Political position' parameter only for the left–right spectrum and use 'big tent' in the lead. As for 'centre-left', that may well be true but we need reliable sources to say so, and so far none have been provided. Davide King (talk) 15:19, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree on both accounts: 1) "big tent" should never be used as "political position" in the left-right axis; 2) "centre-left", which is clearly the present political position of the party, may be added only whether and when appropriate sources are found. --Checco (talk) 07:09, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Reviewing this issue that User:ZlatanSweden10 brought forward, it is clear to me that big tent, that has a different meaning from what it was used for here, is supported neither by consensus nor sources. I agree with User:Davide King that the "political position" parameter should be used only for the left–right spectrum. I felt bold and I replaced "big tent" with "syncretic", for now. From the articles: "A big tent party, or catch-all party, is a term used in reference to a political party's policy of permitting or encouraging a broad spectrum of views among its members"; "Syncretic politics, or spectral-syncretic politics, combine elements from across the conventional left–right political spectrum". Consequently, "big tent" can apply to any large, broad-church party—in Italy, the Brothers of Italy, the Democratic Party and the League. "Syncretic" has more to do with a party that is difficult to classify on the left–right spectrum. That was what the Five Star Movement was at its inception and has been for a long time (see, for instance, ). Arguably, the party has now found its home in the political left or centre-left, while maintaing its populist streak (see, for instance, and . In a nutshell, "big tent" cannot be considered a political position, but it is matter of debate whether the M5S is syncretic or left-wing/centre-left. --Checco (talk) 14:09, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:47, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Beppe Grillo in piazza san giovanni in laterano 23 maggio 2014 2.JPG

Opening paragraph vs Infobox
I'm curious as to why the infobox doesn't include progressivism and syncretic when it is clearly mentioned and sourced in the last sentence of the opening/first paragraph? Shouldn't that justify its inclusion into the infobox (especially since its so well sourced as well?) ZlatanSweden10 (talk) 15:14, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is based on sources and consensus. As of now, "syncretic" lacks sources and consensus, "progressivism" lacks consensus. I am quite against "syncretic" because it means little and the party is now a full-fledged centre-left party, while, consistently, I have no objections on "progressivism". --Checco (talk) 21:09, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I see. I do agree that the party is basically now a centre-left party (plus, in at least regional elections, it affiliates with the centre-left group). Perhaps a "factions" section could be added. Or a footnote on the political position if a consensus is made to say that the party is basically centre-left? ZlatanSweden10 (talk) 22:36, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with Checco that the party itself has shifted towards the centre-left in positioning more recently. I don’t agree that Factions should listed in the Infobox; if there are reliable sources for identifiable party factions, they should be described in the article body.— Autospark (talk) 23:46, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Is progressivism a faction within the party? The last sentence of the first/opening paragraph doesn't mention of it being a faction, but rather a "proponent" ("The party is a proponent of green politics, progressivism and direct democracy.").
 * By the way, just want to clarify, I'm not pushing for a political position to be added back into the infobox. I'm fine with leaving that blank until further notice (as we agreed upon that the party is moving centre-left. But emphasis on "moving".). I'm mainly curious on the progressivism part I just mentioned now. ZlatanSweden10 (talk) 14:43, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * To be clear, I would not mention "progressivism" as one of the party's ideologies in the infobox ("progressivism" is not an ideology per se and is quite vague if compared with distinct ideologies like "social democracy" or "green politics" that are part of it), but I would have "centre-left" as politcal position. There is a growing number of sources describing the party as centre-left. --Checco (talk) 14:31, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I see. I think something should be added into the infobox as I feel it is missing something. If you feel that adding "centre-left" would do the trick. Great! Or if people think "progressivism" would be a better addition than "centre-left", then that could be discussed and added too if agreed upon. Perhaps maybe even both. ZlatanSweden10 (talk) 20:45, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I support centre-left too Braganza (talk) 13:06, 21 December 2023 (UTC)