Talk:Giorgia Meloni/Archive 1

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Giorgia Meloni. 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/20110303201224/http://www.odg.roma.it/ricerca.php to http://www.odg.roma.it/ricerca.php

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) 17:23, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 November 2019
Giorgia Meloni (born 15 January 1977) is an Italian woman, Christian, mother, leader of Brothers of Italy, a national conservative party in Italy. Meloni served also as Minister of Youth in Silvio Berlusconi's fourth government and president of Young Italy, the youth section of The People of Freedom. 128.194.114.70 (talk) 19:49, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: MOS:FIRST. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 21:19, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Giorgia Meloni
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Giorgia Meloni's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "repubblica.it": From Sardinia:  From The People of Freedom: [http://www.repubblica.it/politica/2013/06/28/news/berlusconi-62047776/ Berlusconi annuncia ritorno di Forza Italia. "Temo che sarò ancora il numero uno"]. Repubblica.it (28 June 2013). Retrieved on 2013-08-24. From Centre-left coalition:  From Centre-right coalition: [http://www.repubblica.it/politica/2013/06/28/news/berlusconi-62047776/ Berlusconi annuncia ritorno di Forza Italia. "Temo che sarò ancora il numero uno"]. Repubblica.it (2013-06-28). Retrieved on 2013-08-24. From Paolo Gentiloni:  

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 17:10, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 September 2022 (2)
change Franche to France Bruno.uy (talk) 16:22, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:26, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Untitled
This page is factually incorrect. Whoever wrote she is a fascist is a liar, and should be sued for false informations. The categorisation (bottom) of "Neo-Fascist" is a blatant lie and political attack. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.183.238.76 (talk) 01:50, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * You can start a discussion here on the talk page by suggesting what you think it should say. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:52, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * is it any surprise, that the leftwing lunatics who have ruined wikipedia have already slandered this subjec? WirmerFlagge (talk) 15:38, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

None of it is even cited, how is it allowed to be on the main page?Clarissacolgate (talk) 00:50, 26 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Yeah Wikipedia is really going crazy with this article. You aren't allowed to make edits but they also don't put the LOCK picture in the top right. So if you didn't know better you'd think this is what people actually believe. Whatever makes the people in power happy, I guess. 2600:4041:5801:400:1C55:F445:403:47C8 (talk) 19:02, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Read WP:LEADCITE. Everything that you see in the introduction is backed up by reliable sources that are located further down the article. The page was locked yesterday due to vandalism (see page history) and will stay protected until September 29. Vacant0 (talk) 19:09, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * "Reliable sources" are just billion dollar corporations that are all centrally controlled by the CIA and pump out propaganda designed to manufacture consent for war profiteering that kills mostly brown people. 2600:4041:5801:400:2407:1F63:BE9D:B6C7 (talk) 19:25, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * What sources do you think are reliable then? Vacant0 (talk) 19:28, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * it's not what alternatives are reliable that is the issue, but that what is deemed reliable can say any nonsense and the wikipedia leftist edit warriors will accept it ... and use editorial hierarchies to block any attempt to qualify or contextualize the characterization of the subject by these corporatist mouthpieces. wikipedia's ethical standards are laughable. WirmerFlagge (talk) 15:48, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * "wikipedia's ethical standards are laughable because they don't precisely align with my political views". i fixed that for you. johnnycat (talk) 06:09, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * typical. lazy, revealing, self-referential. but, typical. somebody get this cat a mirror. fixed it for you WirmerFlagge (talk) 19:49, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Self-described
Meloni described …

Meloni self-described …

In what universe is “self-described” more precise, more clear, or in any other way an improvement on “described”? 143.59.33.8 (talk) 12:01, 25 September 2022 (UTC)


 * "Described" means someone else said it about it. "Self-described" means she said it about herself. —Torchiest talkedits 01:10, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * She said what about herself? 2600:4041:5801:400:1C55:F445:403:47C8 (talk) 18:45, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * at least they've given her that courtesy. most of the subjects the edit mafia on wikipedia hate are just labelled racist, transphobe, etc etc etc ad nauseum, and any attempt to provide the subject's own description of themselves is undone, or targeted, or brigaded to death. WirmerFlagge (talk) 15:41, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Adding or Nominating as Prime Minister
Do not adding or nominating her without official sources from {https://www.governo.it/it/il-presidente} Raden Maksim (talk) 10:15, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 September 2022
This page is full of assumptions and adjectives that go beyond fact. This is propaganda, not knowledge. To repeat whatever criticisms and opinions have been voiced against anyone, in a falsely 'neutral' way, is simply the amplification of a smear campaign.

To say that she "has been described" or "has been accused", is not verified fact against the subject of the description or accusation - it's only fact in respect to the accusers.

The article itself looks more like the minutes for a prosecution. Unacceptable, because Wikipaedia should deal with fact - not opinion - but also not make politics. This is a knowledge base - not a tribune.

As usual, things become more clear if we reverse them: a similar article against any left-wing politician, with political accusations of equivalent nature, would be deemed as "fascist" and intolerable and immediately censored! Antenato (talk) 10:57, 26 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Yakme (talk) 11:03, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * typical. wikipedia is dead. the far left corporate, globalist, groomer edit mafia have won. WirmerFlagge (talk) 15:42, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * "far left" "corporate" ... pick one — seriously though, please read WP:PERSONALATTACKS and WP:RELIABLESOURCES. Davide King (talk) 19:43, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * are you seriously implying a division between far-left politics and the corporate oligarchs? "you'll own nothing and like it"? "climate change is the biggest threat to our world"? "white men are the biggest threat to our country"? "pride"! are you living in a world we've discovered? and, david, a personal attack requires a person ... who was ... wait for it ... attacked. you're welcome, genius. WirmerFlagge (talk) 19:53, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * sorry ... davidE? didn't mean to misgender you. WirmerFlagge (talk) 19:56, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not a transgender, I'm just a *gasp* foreigner to you (Davide is the Italian for David). There's no point further discussing this with you, as you appear to know nothing about political science, confuse the centre-left for the far-left, and don't appear to realize it's the centre-left that moved to the right since the 1970s as the Neoliberal (Counter-)Revolution took hold. "you'll own nothing and like it" Just like our existing society, "private property is already done away for a large of the population; its existence for the few is solely due to its non-existence in the hands of the rest of population" (semi-quote), and if you meant houses, there are still millions who don't have it, but you probably think this ain't "real capitalism". And as for personal attacks, what do you think "edit mafia" referred to? To Wikipedia editors, who may come as a shock to you but they're people too. Going back to the subject of this article, the New York Post, The Sun, and the Washington Examiner have all described Meloni as far right. Are they far left too? Davide King (talk) 12:15, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Citations needed
Citation need for the lines ‘ She has expressed controversial views, such as praising Italian dictator Benito Mussolini in 1996 and Nazi collaborator and co-founder of MSI Giorgio Almirante in 2020.’ Unless this is already cited before the text it needs it to keep up to the neutrality standards Wikipedia says to set. 216.150.112.139 (talk) 23:44, 26 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Citations are not always included in the lede in cases where it summarises information that is included (with citations) later in the article. Check citations 132 and 133. TWM03 (talk) 08:38, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Read MOS:LEADCITE. Vacant0 (talk) 10:47, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Citations?
Are we done with backing up our articles with citations now? Is that a thing of the past? 2600:6C5E:5D7F:F073:D103:3F5F:F549:F7E (talk) 02:53, 27 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Read MOS:LEADCITE. Vacant0 (talk) 10:47, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 September 2022
She has been elected Prime Minister of Italy and yet the page does not provide this information Adams334 (talk) 14:26, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * ❌ – she has not been elected PM. Yakme (talk) 14:29, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * yes she has WirmerFlagge (talk) 15:43, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * "Should Meloni succeed in her quest to form a government, she will likely take the reins of prime minister in October."
 * From https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/foreign/italys-far-right-giorgia-meloni-first-female-pm 51.6.122.18 (talk) 10:36, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 September 2022 (2)
The second paragraph under "Personal Life" is unfounded speculation, and all sentences in the paragraph are cited from a single notoriously biased source with a single author (citation #163). They do not belong on this wiki, please delete that entire paragraph. The clear attempt of the author is slight the subject, which is not in line with wikipedia's objectives of fair and unbiased knowledge gathering, and should serve as grounds for limiting or monitoring that contributor's future attempts at editing articles. Dyno99 (talk) 15:06, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ – I boldly removed that paragraph. Indeed it was sort of useless to point out her literary preferences. Yakme (talk) 16:05, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Extremely politically biased and shameful to Wikipedia
This entire page should be put under review for political bias. Has any actual Italian speaker reviewed this at all? It's insane.

1. As said many times before, there are no sources

2. Take a look at her ITALIAN Wikipedia page. It provides an unbiased and very neutral descripion of her with a much fairer section titled "political ideas" where they discuss her right wing views.

Hopefully this gets taken seriously because from my perspective the current article is fully written by one of her opponents on a bad day.

In the 4 years of my politics degree I never encountered a more biased page about any political figure. The entire page is, even if you don't know who she is, CLEARLY written by someone who hates her and wants to make every single possible fascist association and connection extremely evident. You have to recognise that it is bias. All of this should be condensed inside a "fascism associations/controversy/whatever" section. Even the personal life section is half dedicated to something about a fascist slogan. The political points made at every possible turn (almost literally in every sentence) should be restricted to one section. This page mentions fascism more than Mussolini's page. - I dread to think the misrepresentations I may have learned from pages about other foreign political figures. Wilpy590 (talk) 17:39, 27 September 2022 (UTC)


 * 1. This page has 162 sources.
 * 2. This page mentions "fascism" or "fascist" 10 times, and Benito Mussolini's page mentions "fascism" or "fascist" 155 times.
 * You are more likely to be taken seriously if you make your points specific and do not make wildly false assertions like these, or make personal attacks against editors as you did when you stated that the article was "written by someone who hates her". TWM03 (talk) 18:43, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * This page has been mostly edited by Italians through out the recent period.
 * This page lists 162 references. If you're talking about the introduction, read MOS:LEADCITE. I've already pointed this out to several users above.
 * The Italian page is tagged for neutrality, meaning that it is biased towards certain viewpoints.
 * Vacant0 (talk) 18:46, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * yes it should. i agree. but, it is unlikely. because wikipedia is controlled by, guess what, a political agenda, designed to further the globalist destruction of family, nation, and rights. WirmerFlagge (talk) 20:06, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The Italian article also calls her a fascist, lists her fascist ideas, lists her fascist friends, and talks of her love for conspiracy theories, so if you want to use that as the standard for the English article, I can support it. Cdjp1 (talk) 21:28, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Would it be fair to describe her as a fascist ruler once she gets into power?
It's no secret that Meloni was a member of a full-blown neo-fascist party, and has praised Mussolini, Nazi collaborators, and the most virulent members of the MSI. However, while multiple sources describe her as still being a neo-fascist, would it be appropriate to categorize her as a fascist ruler? She would still preside over a government that is constitutionally liberal democratic, even if her sympathies lay with a more classically fascist system.

Personally, I'm up to adding the category of "Fascist rulers" to her, and I think that her own personal ideology is more important than the type of regime she leads, but I'm open to hearing debate on this. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 17:22, 27 September 2022 (UTC)


 * In my opinion this would only be appropriate if the substantial majority of reliable sources describe her as being a fascist at the time she is (will be) in power. We should leave it up to them to decide whether her own ideology or the type of regime she leads is more important. As of now I see a variety of descriptors used including "far-right", "hard-right", "right-wing populist" to describe her current positions, and not enough consensus to describe her as a fascist ruler. TWM03 (talk) 17:56, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * We should wait. If reliable sources in future tend to acknowledge her as "fascist"/"fascist ruler" etc. then I'd recommend to launch a RfC to reach a consensus for the inclusion of the category in the article. Vacant0 (talk) 18:55, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Sure, so long as her regime is characterised by a dictatorial leader, centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition, belief in a natural social hierarchy, subordination of individual interests for the perceived good of the nation and race, and strong regimentation of society and the economy. :) 78.146.243.73 (talk) 21:55, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Who knows, maybe she will be? Regardless, it's important to note that us editors aren't the judge of such descriptions, reliable sources and scholarly consensus are. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 22:29, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I suggest we immediately describe Meloni as a fascist in this wikipedia article.
 * Firstly, she has expressed her support for the mass murderer Mussolini, who is also known as the father of fascism.
 * Secondly, she is opposed to anarchism, democracy, pluralism, liberalism, socialism, communism, the LGBTA community and marxism, which further supports the fact that she is a fascist... AlbrechtVonWallenstein (talk) 16:11, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 September 2022
Once again, the second paragraph under Personal Life appears, after it was deleted this morning for clear irrelevance and bias. The citations have changed slightly but are still referring to a single author from a single notoriously biased source, whose clear intent is slander. This paragraph should be removed (again), it does not belong on a factually-based knowledge sharing site. It would appear that the author has editing rights, and I would again suggest that those rights be revoked or monitored, otherwise he will keep reintroducing his irrelevant and subjective content about fantasy fiction. Dyno99 (talk) 03:53, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * How exactly it is biased? You guys cry bias for anything, now for her literature preferences, which WP:RS (no matter that you think are unreliable or "biased") linked to her politics. I hope for copy editing and further improvement but it seems relevant to her politics and the New York Times piece has since received secondary coverage. I say we should follow WP:PRESERVE for now and try to improve it rather than remove it outright. Davide King (talk) 08:31, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * It's biased because it's sourced from a single person writing for a single publication, who has cobbled together a debasing allegation that he's assigning to a political realm in order to make it look ridiculous and based in fantasy. Taking a couple disparate alleged quotes and gluing them together with the author's inventions of motive doesn't make it anywhere near credible, quite the opposite, and viewers shouldn't have to read hearsay presented as general knowledge. The secondary coverage is still just referring to the single author, and it is objectively tabloid and politically motivated. I recommend that the wikipedia article just stick closer to common fact, as it does for most Personal Life sections, and ditch the fantasy fiction drivel. Dyno99 (talk) 11:06, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * It no longer is, as it is also mentioned by Agence France-Presse (AFP). Both AFP and The New York Times are considered WP:RELIABLESOURCES. Even the New York Post and The Sun (actual tabloids) have described her as far right — are they biased too for you? Davide King (talk) 11:13, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * It would appear you're focusing on the reference I made to the secondary coverage still just referring to the single author as a basis for the entire allegation about fantasy fiction. You can read it yourself. I'm not commenting on what publications in the world should be labelled tabloid, nor did I mention anything about the label "far right". I'll say it again, the fantasy fiction hearsay and slander does not belong on this wiki. Dyno99 (talk) 11:32, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I will try to give you a better answer and address your issues. I don't know who added this in the first place, I added the AFP ref — I think the person who added and edited it in the first place would give a better answer because I still do not see where the issue is. How is it hearsay and slander? It was published by reliable sources, which linked it to her politics as stated below by TWM03, and I see no WP:VERIFY issues. So what that it was written by a single author?
 * There is no requirement that every article must be written by more than one author, so what it changed if it was written two or more authors? It needs to be published in a reliable source, sometimes the publisher matter more, other times the author matter more but in this case everything is fine — published by a reputable source and written by a journalist who has extensively covered Italy and other Southern European countries, not a politician or an op-ed. Many other articles also includes things about a politician's personal life that are relevant to their politics or career, not someone's favourite stuff, which truly does not belong on this wiki. There must be a link, which in this case I think reliable sources have provided. Davide King (talk) 20:47, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your continued dialog. I am earnestly following up to represent my points, not trying to squabble. It's hearsay because you've got one person alleging quotes from the subject, and then assigning motive to those alleged quotes. Hearsay is "the report of another person's words by a witness", which is further exacerbated by this guy's sheer speculation about intent. It's all him saying I heard her say 'this' and she meant 'this'. Hearsay. That doesn't belong on here, his dislike for the subject is quite clear, he's not interested in a neutral encyclopedia. And it's biased in the same vein, you've got one single person making sweeping allegations, that's inherently biased to that one person. The slander is plain as day... rather ask the question, how is this not slander. Dyno99 (talk) 22:13, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The concept of hearsay does not apply when the person who said the thing is the person the statement is being made about. In order for the statement to be libelous or slanderous it would have to be false. TWM03 (talk) 22:25, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * It is absolutely false that Giorgia Meloni herself would support the statements made in this section, which are absolutely libelous as they undermine and belittle the subject. "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous." What you have is a single person, alleging quotes from the subject that in all likelihood cannot be verified, but regardless, do not in and of themselves make the statements that are written in the personal life section. They have been used out of context in statements created by the author, and only the author. This is in violation of BPL policies, clearly. Dyno99 (talk) 01:15, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I have removed the "sacred text" quote (not sure if this is even what you were talking about) because I cannot find it attributed to Meloni. The other quote about Tolkien knowing what conservatives believe in stays because it is reported in a reliable source and I see no reason to believe she did not really say it. TWM03 (talk) 12:51, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Sounds reasonable. What about removing the fourth and fifth sentences in that paragraph that go into the alleged historical association between fantasy and a political group? They don't have anything to do with Meloni directly, so why is that in her Personal Life. If someone wanted to create a WP article on the connection there, surely they are free to do so, but doesn't seem like that historical theorizing about a political party belongs in someone's, anyone's, Personal Life section. Dyno99 (talk) 14:06, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed that these statements are irrelevant for the section (and I don't think the first one is even stated in the source). I'll remove both for now. TWM03 (talk) 17:50, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * It's not a big deal removing that, my issue was removing it outright, but that part is sourced in the AFP piece and what is dismissed as allegation is in fact from a researcher of fascism and the far right. Just to clarify. Davide King (talk) 18:19, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks to TWM03 for having given you a much more concise answer than I ever could. It appears that the problem is you don't like the author and the piece, which is really not a good reason to remove sourced information. As I said, the author is a qualified and respected journalist who has been covering Italy and the region for many years, was published in a reliable source that has editorial standards and factchecking to verify what was said in the article, and was additionally covered by at least another reliable source. If there was anything that was actually "libelous or slanderous", or false, rest assued they would issue retractions. Davide King (talk) 11:58, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * ❌ as there are multiple reliable sources linking this to her politics, and I see no evidence that the intent of the articles is to slander her. A disagreement over what content should be in an article is not a reason for someone's editing rights to be removed. TWM03 (talk) 08:39, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * you are misunderstanding wikipedia's definition of "reliable source." it simply means whatever furthers the leftist corporate agenda and shows sufficient obeisance to the so-called protected classes the edit mafia represent. WirmerFlagge (talk) 20:03, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Again, "leftist" "corporate" – make up your mind. I think WP:RELIABLESOURCES and WP:NEWSORG is pretty clear — "that a news organization engages in fact-checking and has a reputation for accuracy are the publication of corrections and disclosures of conflicts of interest", which The New York Times, no matter how you may think is biased, qualifies. If you think "mainstream media" is "fake news", I don't know what to tell you and is pointless to discuss this any further. I'm trying to assume good faith, but if you are not here to build an encyclopedia, you should at least stop making personal attacks and slander our community. Davide King (talk) 20:47, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * If you want to only work on an online encyclopedia that only aligns with right-wing ideas while ignoring what is published, Conservapedia exists. Cdjp1 (talk) 21:24, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * A full paragraph on this is clearly WP:UNDUE. Why is this information relevant? And why is it put in "Personal life"? Ovinus (talk) 06:30, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree that it could be trimmed down. I think it is relevant because reliable sources have covered it and linked it to what Meloni is known for (her politics), though over time this may become irrelevant in comparison to other more important things. Where should it be put if not under "personal life"? TWM03 (talk) 10:58, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Dubious claims
I'm out of the loop on this topic, but did some spotchecks. The article currently states, "Meloni opposes abortion, euthanasia, and laws that recognize same-sex marriage or civil unions." It's sourced to this, which says, Known for her strongly nationalist and anti-immigrant views as well as opposition to abortion and same-sex marriage, Brothers of Italy (Fratelli d’Italia, or FdI) leader Giorgia Meloni .... Okay. But NYT says, Asked about the law, Ms. Meloni, who has said her mother nearly aborted her, vowed in an interview that she “wouldn’t change it” as prime minister, and that abortion would remain “accessible and safe and legal.” But she added that she wanted to more fully apply a part of the law “about prevention,” which, she said, had been effectively ignored until now. Thus the unqualified statement that she "opposes abortion" is false. The opposition to civil unions is also apparently untrue. (NYT) describes her opposition to adoption by gay couples, but says: Ms. Meloni has said that civil unions are good enough for gay couples.

It's worrying to see these kinds of factual errors on a BLP; if anyone else would like to check through the references I would appreciate it. Ovinus (talk) 06:26, 30 September 2022 (UTC)


 * I think that was because the the part about her social views was written some time ago and the two sources you've added were published those days. I've since added them. Davide King (talk) 13:10, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Ovinus In the regions led by Meloni's party (Fdl), there have been incessant attempts to obstruct the full application of the law, which guarantees the right of abortion. For example the region of Marche (run by Meloni's party and which Meloni praised as a "model to follow") refused to adopt the guidelines of the Ministry of Health for the use of the RU486 abortion pill. So clearly she doesn't support "abortion" as explained in different articles below. Can she overturn a right voted by the majority of Italians in 1974? She can't (see Referendums in Italy). This doesn't mean she supports abortion, she is against it and she is trying in the regions where her party governs, to undermine this right.
 * Sources:
 * https://www.fanpage.it/politica/meloni-spiega-qual-e-la-posizione-di-fratelli-ditalia-sullaborto-ma-il-caso-marche-la-smentisce/
 * https://www.editorialedomani.it/politica/italia/quali-sono-le-posizioni-di-giorgia-meloni-aborto-natalita-nascite-yg3ezi8x
 * Also she is opposed to gay civil unions, she said it in many interview. She was a fierce critic of the law:
 * https://www.facebook.com/giorgiameloni.paginaufficiale/photos/a.343277597644/10154128020182645/?type=3
 * https://www.radioradicale.it/scheda/463566/intervista-a-giorgia-meloni-sul-disegno-di-legge-cirinna-sulle-unioni-civili
 * The sentence you have mentioned from the NYT (Ms. Meloni has said that civil unions are good enough for gay couples) actually is from an argument during one of her electoral rally, when an LGBT activist challenged Meloni about gay rights and Meloni said that she has a different opinion about it and with a rather patronising tone, she said to the activist "You have already the civil unions" (like it was a concession), which clearly she doesn't approve and in the past she said many times she wanted to have a popular referendum about this topic!
 * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0xFU3ptgCoM
 * Then, her opposition to civil unions is NOT apparently untrue. So, no 'dubious claims' as you write. 79.66.217.217 (talk) 22:01, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

BLPN
FYI, there’s a discussion about this article happening at the Biographies of Living Persons Noticeboard. See Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:07, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * , I changed your wikilink edit because it's not clear from the quote from the NY Times article ("the genre of fantasy in Italy has always been cultivated by the right") whether Croppi is referring to just the far right or the right in general. It's clear that the far right uses these camps to indoctrinate the youth, but the "fantasy" may extend to the entire right spectrum. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:12, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * No problem. Perhaps we may also add the quote from an expert. AFP says: "Meloni's frequent references to The Lord of the Rings are no surprise for Paolo Heywood, an anthropologist at Durham University who has researched Italy's fascist movements. Far-right movements around the world 'have always been fascinated by the images of manly Nordic heroes found in Tolkien's work', he explained. In the case of Italy's far right, the fascination dates back to the early 1970s, following the publication of a first translation of The Lord of the Rings, prefaced by the philosopher and scholar of mysticism Elémire Zolla." Davide King (talk) 22:58, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * There may be some synthesis, but it's clear that Croppi refers to the far-right as just the right. No surprise since he was one of the founders of the camp. I do not object to adding a shortened version of your proposal. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:59, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * "... it's clear that Croppi refers to the far-right as just the right." I'm not sure I understand what you're saying but that's why I used 'far-right' because he is/was far-right and so 'the right', while it could also refer in more broad terms, I understood it to mean 'far-right', that's why I used that link but it's not a big deal. As for the rest, if you have any preferred wording or suggestion for that little addition, I'd be happy to work it out with you. :-) Davide King (talk) 02:07, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I meant that extremists (whether it's fascists or nazis) never see themselves as extremists. It may just be simpler to reinstate your interpretation than add more text. Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:23, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that’s what I thought too. I will work on it. By the way, The New York Times referred to the folk band as “extremist”, AFP as “far-right”, and Le Monde as “neo-fascist”. Davide King (talk) 02:40, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * @Morbidthoughts, thoughts about this? No pun intended. Davide King (talk) 13:11, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure about the "As with the worldwide far-right" portion. The articles focus on what had happened in Italy, and the fantasy aspect is already a surprise to an uninformed reader outside Italy. What quotes support that this is a world-wide phenomenon? Morbidthoughts (talk) 16:31, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * It's from the quote I cited above. "Meloni's frequent references to The Lord of the Rings are no surprise for Paolo Heywood, an anthropologist at Durham University who has researched Italy's fascist movements. Far-right movements around the world 'have always been fascinated by the images of manly Nordic heroes found in Tolkien's work'." It put in a global context and seems relevant to me. Davide King (talk) 17:14, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't read that the same way to conclude the far right in general traditionally associate themselves with fantasy. It is true that the far-right values or appreciates the Nordic archetype but the Italian examples go beyond that. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:47, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * What wording would you suggest? Or maybe we should just return with the previous version, without my latest addition but using 'Italian far-right'? Davide King (talk) 01:05, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The previous version is fine. The focus should be on Meloni rather than some commentary on the worldwide far right. Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:26, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Aspen institute
Is there any proof she is a member of the aspen institute? The sources are dubious and she is not listed as a member on their website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Famaja (talk • contribs) 18:51, 30 September 2022 (UTC)


 * I went ahead and removed it as you can see she is not a listed member https://www.aspeninstitute.org/programs/society-of-fellows/sof-members/ Famaja (talk) 19:11, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * La Repubblica is not a dubious sources, and neither are the other sources just because they're in Italian, and she is listed as socia. Perhaps member is not a goot translation for that (a literally translation is 'partner') but she has associated with them since February 2021. Davide King (talk) 19:54, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * That’s just hearsay though there’s no official confirmation she’s a member, partner etc on any of the institutes official websites, that article claims she listed as a member yet does not provide proof. Famaja (talk) 21:20, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * It’s possible she was invited to join yes, there is no proof she is an official member or partner. Famaja (talk) 21:21, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * What do you think reliable source do? They verify their sources and get their fact straight. La Repubblica is a newspaper of record, and was also reported in other sources, and unless they have since retracted this fact or other reliable sources show it was false, I don't see why it should be removed. It's also relevant as it's made up of people and ideals she abhorred, as noted in the sources, and is thus relevant to her political changes and moderation. Davide King (talk) 21:26, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * It’s not unusual for even mainstream papers to get facts wrong it happens very often,I think if the next prime minister of Italy was a member of the aspen institute it would be all over the internet but the only evidence is a few newspapers not substantiating anything. I wouldn’t be satisfied unless she’s listed as a member/partner on one of their official websites. Maybe you’re right but it’s not confirmed. Famaja (talk) 22:15, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Perhaps she joined in February 2021 but left or she joined as socia but is not a full, official member. Perhaps she's one of those 5 'Anonymous'. Or the Aspen Institute simply doesn't put all its members, after all there's an asterix after 'Current Members'. Either way, I see no reason why this wouldn't be true or why several reliable sources would've got this basic fact wrong. Unless other reliable sources say she's not a member or that those sources got it wrong, I see no reason why it wouldn't be enough it was published by reliable sources. Davide King (talk) 22:47, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I found two more refs, this time in English, one of them being from the Atlantic Council.12 Davide King (talk) 23:30, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Maybe you’re right I just find the lack of official conformation strange. Famaja (talk) 00:41, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

What is a teenager?
She praised Mussolini when she was 19. At that time she was a teenager per dictionaries which say it’s 13 to 19 inclusive. This is confirmed explicitly by this headline. So this edit summary is mistaken. Pinging User talk:79.66.217.217.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:20, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

"Italy and Italians first"
When did she use this slogan? It was Salvini's slogan in previous elections, not Meloni's. The Deutsche Welle's article cited is full of fake news... Thrawn79 (talk) 08:28, 2 October 2022 (UTC)


 * I find quite bizarre your comment. Giorgia Meloni's speeches are full of "Italy and Italian first". Just yesterday the Guardian published an article in which Meloni says "she will put Italy first".
 * https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/oct/01/giorgia-meloni-says-she-will-put-italy-first-in-tackling-high-energy-costs 79.66.217.217 (talk) 13:33, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * It's not her slogan at all so my comment has nothing bizarre, and the deutsche welle article describes her politics as "pure populism", this says a lot on its political neutrality... Thrawn79 (talk) 19:33, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Have you even been following her campaign? And "pure populism" is just a subheader. If you mean the official campaign slogan was Pronti a risollevare l'Italia ("Ready to Revive Italy"), we aren't saying "Italy and Italians first" was her official campaign slogan but that some of ever policies were justified by that, just like the article linked above by the IP where she says she will put Italy first for the energy crisis. Besides, we use the same source to say she campaigned for lower taxes and less bureaucracy, and you don't seem to have a problem with that. Davide King (talk) 19:21, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * She campaigned for lower taxes, less European bureaucracy, and a halt to immigration through a naval blockade, with the slogan "Italy and Italians first!
 * A slogan is a memorable motto or phrase used in a clan, political, commercial, religious, and other context as a repetitive expression of an idea or purpose, with the goal of persuading members of the public or a more defined target group.
 * "Italy and Italians first!" was NEVER a slogan used by Giorgia Meloni or her party, the fact she said "she will put Italy first" in some her speeches doesn't mean that is a slogan, I don't understand why you keep defending an error made by a german journal and don't want to correct it yourself...
 * P.S. You are italian too so you know that actually Prima gli Italiani ("Italians first") was Salvini and Lega's slogan in past elections. Thrawn79 (talk) 15:58, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I corrected this but it seems someone doesn't understand... Thrawn79 (talk) 18:35, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * We follow what reliable sources says and Salvini has no copyright about the slogan. Davide King (talk) 18:15, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * If you follow "reliable" sources like a robot without verifying, and refuse to correct errors, the article isn't reliable anymore. Thrawn79 (talk) 14:54, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Different politicians can use the same campaign slogan, this is not unique to Italy - and this slogan isn't exactly specific (lots of countries have politicians/potential officeholders running on "X first" slogans). This all seems a non-issue. QueenofBithynia (talk) 15:04, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The fact is Meloni didn't use it, just what I'm trying to specify... Thrawn79 (talk) 15:09, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * There was no need to verify because I heard that same quote from the horse's mouth, so the source was correct. Anyway, even though I agree with QueenofBithynia that this is a non-issue, I've changed it to "saying she would put national interests first", happy? Davide King (talk) 15:16, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * A quote isn't a slogan, that's it. Anyways I didn't intend to start a polemic but just to signal that imprecision, I'm happy that it was corrected. Thrawn79 (talk) 17:15, 6 October 2022 (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) 04:08, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Giorgia Meloni Premier (cropped).jpg

Semi-protected edit request on 23 October 2022
"Segre said that her and Almirante are incompatible...."

change "her" to "she" 144REL144 (talk) 16:30, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Looks like this is fixed now. RudolfRed (talk) 23:05, 23 October 2022 (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. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:08, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Giorgia Meloni 1995.jpg

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. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:52, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Giorgia Meloni Official 2022 (cropped).jpg

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. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:06, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Meloni Official Portrait2022 (cropped).jpg

Mussolini in the lead
I am very skeptical about having Mussolini in the lead. But if he is in the lead, we should say that she praised him when she was 19. Saying that she praised him in 1996 is inadequate because it would require people to do some math to figure out she was a teenager. Teenagers say all kinds of crazy things, and most readers will not weight them as heavily as if said by an older person. The *only* reason to say “1996” and not “19” is to obscure the truth: that she was just a teenager. Here is the edit. &#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:55, 30 September 2022 (UTC)


 * So what that she was 19? As recently as two years ago, she praised Almirante, the co-founder of a party including actual Fascists after the fall of the Mussolini regime. Ultimately, what matters are reliable sources and since there is a section about it (per significant coverage by reliable sources), it is lead worthy. Note that we also say she condemned the end of democracy and the anti-Jewish laws. I have not written that part or even the whole lead but I think it is balanced. Davide King (talk) 19:58, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * You may not think her age was significant, but reliable sources do, see Ritchie, Alice and Branchereau, Gael. “Italy’s Giorgia Meloni: From teen activist who praised Mussolini to brink of power” Times of Israel (26 Sep 2022).&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:35, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Ironically, the fact we have so many reliable sources mentioning this after all these years, it means it's certainly due. I've since clarified the year-age stuff, but it's lead worthy. Davide King (talk) 21:11, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * In Italy when people are 19yo, they are not teenagers. Italians gain the right to vote at 18yo and they are considered adults. This information is relevant also because, when she founded her party 'Brothers of Italy'(FdL) in 2012, Meloni decided to add the tricolour flame to the party flag, a symbol associated with MSI, which derived its name and ideals from the RSI as a "violent, socializing, and revolutionary republican" variant of Italian fascism established as a Nazi German puppet state by Mussolini in 1943. Also the tricolour flame represents for the supporters of Fdl Mussolini's remains, where a flame is always burning on his tomb in Predappio. So, Mussolini is relevant in the lead? Yes, it is! 79.66.217.217 (talk) 22:06, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * This is the English Wikipedia, and “teenager” is an English word.  She praised Mussolini when she was 19.  At that time she was a teenager per English dictionaries which say it’s 13 to 19 inclusive.  This is confirmed explicitly by this headline.  So your edit summary is mistaken. Older teenagers have a right to vote in the USA, there’s nothing contradictory about that.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:16, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * This is the English Wikipedia, but you are talking about Italian topics and not American topics, where the age of majority varies from 18 to 21
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_majority
 * Furthermore, you are trying to use a term which is often used to refer to a physical and psychological development of a person, to something related to adulthood as recognised or declared in law. Plus, your main worry was "Mussolini in the lead"!79.66.217.217 (talk) 22:29, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * In English, the word teenager merely means older than 12 and younger than 20. There are no additional legal or psychological aspects to it.  In English, the numbers 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, and 19 all end with “teen” which is different from how these numbers are pronounced and written in Italian.  Teen and teenager simply refers to people over 12 and under 20, and “under 20” is a common term in Italian.  See here.  I strongly oppose having her praise for Mussolini in this lead without saying she was a teenager or under 20, otherwise readers will not bother to do the math.  Our sources do the same.  Do you have a different opinion because you do not want readers to realize she was under 20?&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:04, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Wasn't your main worry 'Mussolini in the lead'? It is not a discussion about the use of the word 'teenager' in the English language. We are talking about Italian topics! I don't understand why you posted the website of the Italian national football. "under 20"? Seriously? This has nothing to do with the the term 'teenager' in Italian! Posting a link to as Israeli website also doesn't support anything! 79.66.217.217 (talk) 23:18, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Mussolini can be in the lead, but only with caution. WP:BLP applies here: “Biographies of living persons (‘BLPs’) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment.”  It is cautious to not assume readers will do the math. There is no term “teenager” in Italian, by the way.  That’s because numbers from 12 to 19 are not pronounced and written with the same four letters at the end, as they are in English.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:28, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * After the war the Italian Social Movement was the main neo-fascist organisation. It gathered veterans of the Italian Social Republic and was unapologetic about its support for Fascism until its rebranding (to "National Alliance") and national-conservative turn in 1994. Despite this, it remained frequent for its members - and members of its successor parties including Brothers of Italy - to come up with controversial remarks or engage in equivocal comments about WWII (e.g., saying that Mussolini had also done good things for the country, that people who collaborated with Germans were also fighting for a honorable cause, that Italy's war was overall 'clean' compared to Germany's, that Axis crimes had been exaggerated, etc.).
 * Giorgia Meloni joined the MSI in 1992, when she was 15. She made the remark in 1996, as the leader of National Alliance's student wing. I disagree with the importance that you place on her age. This wasn't a fluke or an edgy teenager comment, but the average view of members of her political culture at the time (ex-MSI, AN members). A 30- or 50-year old from her party would have said the same thing, it would've been unexpected for them to say otherwise. Stressing the fact that this occurred in a long time ago imo is more important than a mention of the age because it leaves room for development of her opinions over time. Dismissing it as a teenage opinion also seems a little condescending.
 * At this point I would rather see something more generic in the lead, (e.g., something to the effect "Meloni has garnered controversy due to her history with neo-fascism" or "... due to her party's relationship with neo-fascism" or similar), since the Mussolini's statement is already mentioned in the "Relationship with fascism" section. Either way, as it's written now it looks very awkward - more than conservatively it sounds like it's trying to excuse her. Daydreamers (talk) 00:50, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * @Daydreamers — yeah, I can see your point. Personally, I'd prefer using the year because it's more precise (1996 is a long time ago and one can see it was when she was much younger anyway; if she was underage, I'd be more inclined to use age) to avoid excusing it as if it was an edgy teenager statement, as you wrote; however, the refs we use empashize that she was 19, though they don't do that to excuse her comments but merely as a timeline (e.g. they say "the 45-year old", "when she was 15"). Since her comments about Mussolini have been often cited in general articles about her, it means they're due for the lead. In fact, I'd probably add your suggested wording "Meloni has garnered controversy due to [her history with neo-fascism or her and her party's neo-fascist roots] as an intro to summarize the "Relationship with fascism" section and then more or less keep the current wording. Both her comments about Mussolini and Almirante have received sufficient coverage and have been cited in general articles about her that summarizes her political career, which in my view makes it due for the lead. Davide King (talk) 12:42, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Nazi collaborator?
The lead says Almirante was a “Nazi collaborator”. But the sourcing is very weak: an opinion piece in The Independent, plus an editorial in an Italian newspaper that explicitly relies upon a tweet. According to our article Collaboration with the Axis powers, collaborators were typically understood to be people in countries occupied by the axis powers, whereas Italy was itself an Axis power. Almirante was a government official in Italy starting in 1943. I doubt that all members of the Italian government were at that time “collaborators”. If so, then we need better sourcing.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:53, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I think it is probably meant to be more Nazi (wartime) collaborator. The Italian article "Collaborazionism" (link to the English "Wartime collaboration" rather than "Nazi collaboration", which redirects to "Collaboration with the Axis powers"). The RSI technically does fit the former description in this sense, as a part of Italy was no longer part of the Axis Powers in 1943 and the Togliatti amnesty referred to those collaborationists in this sense because they were considered to be doing "cooperation with the enemy against one's country of citizenship in wartime". It should probably be unlinked or redirect to "Wartime collaboration" instead. Davide King (talk) 23:06, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Why not just say he was a member of the Mussolini government? “Wartime collaboration is cooperation with the enemy against one's country of citizenship in wartime.”  Germany was not an enemy of Italy.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:12, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * It was an enemy when Italy changed sides, while Almirante and other Fascists followed Mussolini in the RSI, which in practice a Nazi puppet state. Davide King (talk) 23:29, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * That’s an interesting point, I hadn’t read much about this aspect of WWII. So are you saying that the dictator Mussolini was deposed by his king, and subsequently (after getting out of jail) Mussolini became a nazi collaborator?  Maybe, but I haven’t yet seen Mussolini characterized as such.  More to the point, I haven’t seen Almirante characterized as such, except by the two opinion pieces that we cite as sources.  Also see this article involving a similar question about France.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:01, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * It depends on what is meant by that — he was already an ally of Nazi Germany so my understanding is that those who followed Mussolini and the Nazis in the RSI, rather than the King and Allied Italy, were Nazi collaborators in this sense; they were Italians but cooperated ("against one's country of citizenship in wartime") with Nazi Germany ("cooperation with the enemy") — Almirante joined the RSI. From The Forward, "In 1942, Nazi propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels wrote a frustrated diary entry about Italy's 'extremely lax' treatment of Jews: even though fascist dictator Benito Mussolini (1883–1945) was a Hitler ally who enacted antisemitic laws, everyday Italians resisted deporting their country's Jews to the Nazi killing machine. This changed in 1943, when Mussolini was deposed and Italy surrendered to the Allies. Germany responded by invading the northern half of Italy and making Mussolini head of the Italian Social Republic (RSI), a Nazi puppet state. Over 7,800 Italian Jews trapped in RSI territory were imprisoned, deported and murdered." This piece by Il Post (not an op-ed) refers to him as a collaborazionista dei nazisti (lit. collaborator of the Nazis). Davide King (talk) 00:28, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * No doubt Mussolini's last government was vicious, and no doubt Almirante worked for it. There are hundreds of reliable sources that describe all of that, but only a few that use the "nazi collaborator" description for Almirante (and none that do so for Mussolini whose orders Almirante was following).  If Meloni had said how much she respects and admires the "nazi collaborator" Almirante, and what a great job he did collaborating with the nazis, then I'd have no qualm about it being in the lead, but of course she didn't say anything like that, and there's no indication she was referring to anything other than his postwar career. All in all, I would prefer if, instead of "nazi collaborator", we'd follow in the lead the NYT obit of Almirante which is not fawning in the least, yet omits the "nazi collaborator" label in favor of "minor role in Mussolini's last government".  I'll leave it at that, thanks for the discussion.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:50, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * As I said, I think it depends on what's the term usage, because there's no doubt he—like the Fascists in the RSI—collaborated with the Nazis against Italy's legitimate government since 1943. So perhaps it should be unliked or reworded to say "served as a civil minister in Mussolini's last government" but I'd prefer to just unlink it since Wartime collaboration may be more accurate. During his time, he did sign a manifesto that draft dodgers and deserters would be sentenced to death by shooting and he lost a defamation case in 1978 after a newspaper published the retrieved manifesto and called him a "servant of the Nazis". There's also La Reubblica (2020): "[Almirante says that] In other words, if the Constitution and the laws have not been enforced, it is not my [Almirante's] fault. And the police confinement to which Almirante was sentenced in 1947? A lawyer reminds him of the serious measure undergone for collaboration with the Germans and for post-war activities. But the [MSI] secretary has confused memories. He is only interested in pointing out the total extraneousness to the manifesto published in the newspapers and to the death notice pronounced by Mussolini and Graziani. ... The trial could quickly close, as Occorsio encourages, but the acquittal of the journalists implies that Almirante is guilty." Thanks to you for the discussion. Perhaps @Yakme can clarify this for us and whether I missed anything. Davide King (talk) 12:00, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I am no MSI nor Almirante expert. Since this is the lead section of the article about Giorgia Meloni, I would be fine with not going into large details about Almirante's life. So "co-founder of MSI" is also enough IMO, although I do not see how does this mean "controversy" – unless one knows Italian political history. Also I don't think she praised him for being a Nazi collaborator, but only for being the leader of her mother-party during post-war Italy. I see the main "controversy" here being the fact that she praised Mussolini, rather than Almirante. Yakme (talk) 12:14, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * She did also praise him as "a patriot", when for Italy he was a traitor in 1943–1945, wasn't he? Davide King (talk) 12:54, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Regarding this, it's incorrect to say that she praised him only as the founder of the MSI; she praised him as "a patriot", someone who joined the RSI and collaborated with Nazi Germany? Looks more like a traitor to me and reliable sources. Davide King (talk) 19:57, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * We could add a paragraph to the JFK lead saying he praised Werner von Braun who had been a Nazi advocate of slave labor, and praised his father Joe Kennedy who had been a Hitler fan, and JFK also had an affair during WWII with a Nazi and Hitler buddy named Inga Arvad. I don’t think we should add such a paragraph to the JFK bio’s lead.  We already have her praise of Mussolini in this lead, and that seems like enough to alert readers about this general concern.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:05, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry but this is more of a strawman. Unlike Kennedy, that would be wholly undue, whereas in this case we have plenty of reliable sources that covered this. Perhaps in the future it would become undue but it's relevant. We actually have a section dedicated to her complicated relationship with fascism, whereas the stuff you mentioned don't even make it his article (perhaps in the future, considering Meloni's future whole life and career, those stuff wouldn't make it either but they're relevant and due as of now), so the lead should contain a summary of that. It's also a wholly different situation as, unlike Kennedy, Meloni comes from a party with neo-fascist roots. Again, if the issue is the use of 'Nazi collaborator', I think both of your latest edit and my further copyediting, which removed that term from the lead, it should be fine now. Davide King (talk) 20:30, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I added a bit.&#32;Anythingyouwant Anythingyouwant) 21:01, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Italian historians agree that the Italian Social Republic was a German puppet state, whose members were Nazi collaborators.
 * https://www.laterza.it/scheda-libro/?isbn=9788858149133
 * https://www.jstor.org/stable/43592558
 * https://www.jstor.org/stable/41057588
 * https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/79616608.pdf
 * Giorgio Almirante was widely recognised as a Nazi collaborator. I am struggling to understand what Anythingyouwant is trying to convey, trough a superficial research on Internet and not on history books! 79.66.217.217 (talk) 23:08, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Mussolini’s last government is often referred to using adjectives, and collaborationist is less common than others. I am satisfied with the last paragraph of the lead as it stands now.  I am unaware that Meloni was praising Almirante for collaborating with Hitler, or for anything before the post-war period.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:17, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * We are talking about the Italian Social Republic, not the different phases of the Fascist governments, before 1943! I provided different sources where you can examine in depth and study the topics you have scarse knowledge! Meloni praised Giorgio Almirante, who was a Nazi collaborator and a fascist politician, who was the editor of the racist magazine La Difesa della Razza! 79.66.217.217 (talk) 23:33, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Last paragraph of lead
It currently says:

Meloni has expressed controversial views, such as praising Italian dictator Benito Mussolini in 1996 (when she was 19), and in 2020 praising Giorgio Almirante, a civil minister in Mussolini's Italian Social Republic, a neo-fascist and editor of the racist magazine La Difesa della Razza. Despite her expressed support of fascist leaders, she has condemned both the suppression of democracy and the Italian racial laws during and before World War II.

Per WP:CONTENTIOUS, we should skip the “controversial” label. Likewise, the last sentence would be more concise if we just say “Nevertheless, she has condemned….” instead of implying she likes fascist leaders generally (as opposed to having said some nice things about just two dead ones). Regarding Almirante, this paragraph only mentions stuff from WWII, whereas he had a long political career until 1987, and Meloni may well have had the latter in mind rather than the former. So, I’d write:

Meloni praised Italian dictator Benito Mussolini in 1996 (when she was 19), and in 2020 praised Giorgio Almirante, a civil minister in Mussolini's Italian Social Republic who produced racist propaganda and had a long postwar neo-fascist political career. Nevertheless, she has condemned both the suppression of democracy and the Italian racial laws during and before World War II.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:11, 2 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Given the amount of noise that this paragraph is generating, and given that at the moment it is visibly spelled in order to make the reader think "well, she was only 19, so it's fine I guess?", I would at this point just remove the whole paragraph – this would probably save a lot of controversy and discussion. After all, many Italian politicians have praised Mussolini in a similar way to Meloni, and they were grown-up adults, like Berlusconi, but surely there is no reference to that in the lead of Silvio Berlusconi, or other right-wing Italian politicians who praised Mussolini for something. Yakme (talk) 09:07, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Anythingyouwant We shouldn't skip the “controversial” label, because her statement actually generated controversies in the Italian public debate. The Constitution of Italy is based on antifascist values, written by antifascists (see Constituent Assembly of Italy) and which clearly states in the article XII (in TRANSITIONAL AND FINAL PROVISIONS) "It shall be forbidden to reorganise, under any form whatsoever, the dissolved Fascist party".
 * The fact Giorgia Meloni (president and founder of FdL with roots on neofascist party and the Italian Social Republic) stated that "Mussolini was the best politician in the last 50 years", it is actually 'controversial'.
 * Also, the fact Meloni added in her party logo in 2012 a tricolour flame, which represents for many party's supporters "the flame that burns on Mussolini's tomb", it is controversial.
 * As I reported in other comment, Holocaust survivor Liliana Segre asked Meloni to remove the tricolour flame, because it is considered a neo-fascist symbol. But Meloni ignored Segre's request.
 * https://www.ilfattoquotidiano.it/2022/08/12/liliana-segre-e-pd-chiedono-a-meloni-di-togliere-la-fiamma-tricolore-dal-simbolo-di-fdi-partiamo-dai-fatti-non-dalle-parole/6760622/
 * Yakme Obviously you can't compare the fact that in the lead of Berlusconi, it is not included his sentence on Mussolini ("Mussolini made some good things, but not the racial laws"). There are many 'controversial' statements by Berlusconi and clearly we can't add all of them. however, it is important that in the lead of Berlusconi, it is included he has been a convicted criminal. Furthermore, Berlusconi's party has always declared to be a liberal party, and it is not a party, whose roots are from the fascist Italian Social Republic. 79.66.217.217 (talk) 14:06, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The Wikipedia guideline that I already linked and referred to says, “Rather than describing an individual using the subjective and vague term controversial, instead give readers information about relevant controversies.”&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:41, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * That’s interesting, User:Yakme, I hadn’t realized Berlusconi did that. He said in 2013, “The racial laws were the worst fault of Mussolini as a leader, who in so many other ways did well….”  See “Berlusconi defends Mussolini, draws outrage from political left”.  I support Yakme’s suggestion to remove the last paragraph of the lead, because the paragraph has the problems I already described at the start of this talk page section, and it would be an endless battle to try to put that paragraph into an acceptable condition.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:37, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with the IP. We don't see reliable sources routinely pointing out Berslusconi's statements about fascism, whereas we do for Meloni. It's also a vastly different situation, as Meloni is the head of a party with neo-fascist roots (per RS), which they deny or minimize. We don't have a section about Berlusconi's relationship with fascism because it would be undue for his long career, whereas for Meloni and FdI they're clearly relevant not just for me but per reliable sources too. The lead should summarize the body and her relationship with fascism must be shortly summarized in the lead. I do agree with Yakme's comment that "well, she was only 19, so it's fine I guess?", and I would just put the years (it's very easy to do a math, c'mon) but I'm opposed to full removal and I'd be fine with the current wording, which includes her being 19 even if I think the year would be enough. Disagreement among ourselves isn't a good enough reason to remove content that must be summarized in the lead since we have a section about it, which is clearly due and relevant per RS and includes both uncontroversial facts (that she did say that, that RSI was a Nazi puppet state, etc.), attributed opinions (three historians), examples of FdI's distancing from neo-fascists and others where they minimized it, and Meloni's response about the issue. I think it's neutral and balanced enough and is thus worth being summarized in the lead. Davide King (talk) 16:27, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for putting the “nevertheless” into the lead’s last paragraph. No one has objected to describing Almirante’s postwar career as suggested above, so I’ll do that.  As far as her age, I think that’s more than sufficient, no need to mention the year (1996) as well.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:53, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Like Davide King, I don't support the suggestion to remove the last paragraph of the lead, because Meloni's statement on Mussolini did generate relevant and factual (and not subjective or vague) controversies (information has been provided from relevant French and Italian media). Meloni never expressed a clear and unambiguous declaration of condemnation of Mussolini. Her ambiguity is expressed also in her autobiography and in the numerous interviews she gave over the years.
 * (source: Giorgia Meloni (2021), I am Giorgia, my roots, my ideas. Rizzoli. ISBN 978-8-8171-5468-0) 79.66.217.217 (talk) 16:58, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Obviously the ambiguity of Giorgia Meloni and her party's members towards fascism (and its ideals) has been a constant over the years.
 * Giorgia Meloni calling George Soros as usurer (perpetrating the fascist prejudice of Jews as usurers).
 * https://twitter.com/GiorgiaMeloni/status/1109825289897549824
 * Fdl's members doing the Fascist salute on the International Holocaust Remembrance Day.
 * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_DXpeGtTvQ 79.66.217.217 (talk) 17:27, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Quality sources
We ought to try and stick with quality encyclopedic sources, and if we instead use opinion pieces and editorials then we ought to have in-line attribution. So, these two sources should probably be removed:
 * &#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:43, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Anythingyouwant The first piece is not an editorial, but an article (signed 'Redazione'). Please, don't remove Italian sources if you don't speak the language and you don't know what you are reading. Please, be more respectful of the contribution by people who actual can read the sources in the original language. 79.66.217.217 (talk) 17:56, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Redazione” means “editorial board”. You can confirm this at Google translate.  If you don’t trust Google, please see here.  Even if it is a news article, it would be a very low quality one, as it relies upon a random tweet which it quotes in the headline.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:04, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Anythingyouwant "Redazione" doesn't mean 'editorial board'. In Italian journalism, newspapers use the term 'redazione' (editorial staff=journalists), when the articles are written by journalists, not by the editorials board, director or other commentators. Please, avoid to use google translator or free online translation tool, which offer always a limited version of a complete dictionary. The article is not 'low quality': the Italian online news sites offer often a short version of the article and use multimedia addiction, like Twitter citation. 79.66.217.217 (talk) 18:32, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * My understanding is that the Italian article is written by the editorial staff and isn't an opinion pieace like The Independent. Davide King (talk) 18:46, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Op-eds doesn't mean that they can never be used, just that they may need to be attributed. They, and other refs that are not op-eds, are mostly used for uncontroversial stuff, like that she indeed praised Almirante. Again, do you personally doubt that RSI wasn't a Nazi puppet state, that Almirante wasn't the eidtor-in-chief of an antisemitic and racist magazine, that he wasn't a civil minister in the RSI, etc.? Davide King (talk) 18:06, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I explicitly said in my initial comment in this talk page section that we could use in-line attribution. But why not use a decent source instead?  This is not a question of article content, only what reference we use.  We should use good references, correct?&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:09, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * There already are, it's just that they're put in the first sentence and the others at the end for the aforementioned uncontroversial facts, which do not need attribution, to avoid ref bombing of more than three refs. See also:
 * https://www.repubblica.it/politica/2020/01/21/news/chi_era_giorgio_almirante_e_perche_nascose_la_sua_lotta_ai_partigiani-301067059/
 * https://www.repubblica.it/commenti/2020/05/22/news/le_radici_fasciste_di_almirante-300818136/
 * Davide King (talk) 18:13, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * So what exactly do we need to attribute? To a bunch of newspapers that she indeed praised Almirante as a good politician and patriot? That he was a civil minister in Mussolini's RSI, which collaborated with the Nazis, that he was editor-in-chief of a racist or antisemitic magazine, and had a long-time neo-fascist political career? Unless I'm missing something, those are all uncontroversial facts. Davide King (talk) 18:18, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Besides, both The Independent and Il Riformista are supported by https://www.ilpost.it/2020/01/22/storia-giorgio-almirante/ by Il Post, which is clearly not an op-ed. Davide King (talk) 18:27, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I’m simply trying to follow WP:BLP which says “Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources.” We don’t necessarily have to change article text at all, we don’t even need to swap in better sources, just rely on the existing good sources while deleting the bad ones.  Opinion pieces and random tweets are not good sources.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:31, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it was the fault of one user adding the quote part about one user tweeting that, when the source itself states: "Una figura controversa, passato dalla direzione della rivista 'La difesa della razza', dove sosteneva come necessaria la protezione dell'Italia da 'meticci ed ebrei', al rispetto per gli avversari politici, con la sua presenza ai funerali del leader comunista Enrico Berlinguer." Davide King (talk) 18:42, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Anythingyouwant You should use high-quality dictionaries, if you are trying to translate articles in a languages you don't speak with low-quality online tools. Il Riformista is a high-quality source and not like you write a "very low quality source". The online version of an article is always shorter than the paper version or the online version of the article when you pay a membership. Again, please, don't remove Italian sources if you don't speak the language and you don't know what you are reading, writing inaccurate, inexact and unreliable comments. 79.66.217.217 (talk) 18:43, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Anythingyouwant You should use high-quality dictionaries, if you are trying to translate articles in a languages you don't speak with low-quality online tools. Il Riformista is a high-quality source and not like you write a "very low quality source". The online version of an article is always shorter than the paper version or the online version of the article when you pay a membership. Again, please, don't remove Italian sources if you don't speak the language and you don't know what you are reading, writing inaccurate, inexact and unreliable comments. 79.66.217.217 (talk) 18:43, 2 October 2022 (UTC)


 * No one claims that the piece by Andrea Carlo is a high-quality reliable source, so I plan to remove it, with no change to article text.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:50, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Don't do that, it doesn't mean it can't be used and it's currently used for a Meloni quote about her appearance at Le Iene and that Almirante was the editor-in-chief of an antisemitic and racist magazine. Anyway, I think the major issue was the 'Nazi collaborator' bit, which would need better sourcing (The Independent piece does call him a Nazi collaborator, but we aren't using that wording now), but we've since fixed the wording. Davide King (talk) 18:52, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The Andrea Carlo piece is opinion, therefore a primary source. If you’d like to try and use it correctly with in-line attribution, that’s fine, but it’s currently being misused.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:58, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The problem is that we aren't using it to express the author's opinion, which would be an issue, so what is it to attribute? Currently, we're using it to support a quote Meloni said and that she said Almirante was "a patriot". As many sources are in Italian (nothing wrong with that), it's good to have an English source that is published in a reliable source, even if it's an opinion piece, and use it for uncontroversial facts. Davide King (talk) 19:06, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Davide King Giorgio Almirante was a Nazi collaborator. It is not an opinion of Andrea Carlo, but a fact. Historians agree on this, Almirante wasn't shy about his role in the Repubblica Sociale Italiana and I posted previously historiographic sources about the fact that Almirante was a Nazi collaborator from jstor sources.
 * This is an article and not an opinion piece:
 * https://www.ilpost.it/2020/01/22/storia-giorgio-almirante/ 79.66.217.217 (talk) 19:14, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree, I'm just willing to compromise for the wording. In fact, Anythingyouwant, didn't you say you were fine with using 'Nazi collaborator' in the body but not in the lead? Davide King (talk) 19:16, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Using a reliable Italian-language source is fine, we don’t have to supplement it with an unreliable English-language source. But if we do, in-line attribution is necessary, even if the opinion piece is just repeating stuff from the Italian piece.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:26, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * An op-ed is not, in itself, unreliable and The Independent isn't unreliable; it just means that it must be used with care, which I think we already do by using it for uncontroversial facts rather than the author's personal views, which I agree would need to be attributed. Davide King (talk) 23:56, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Per WP:EXCEPTIONAL, “Exceptional claims require exceptional sources”. You’re using an anti-Meloni opinion piece to support article text saying that she’d rather not have a gay child, and other article text saying Almirante was a wartime collaborator.  That’s unacceptable.  If this opinion piece is not needed to support those statements then there’s no harm in deleting it, and if those statements require this opinion piece for support, then we shouldn’t be making those statements.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:54, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Anythingyouwant Both statements (Meloni saying she’d rather not have a gay child and saying Almirante was a wartime collaborator) have high-quality sources. When I added the information "Meloni saying she’d rather not have a gay child", I added also the actual interview (to the program 'Le iene") published on the website of Il Secolo XIX (high quality and one of the oldest newspapers in Italy).
 * https://video.ilsecoloxix.it/embed/italia/giorgia-meloni-alle-iene-preferirei-non-avere-un-figlio-gay/16784/16784 79.66.217.217 (talk) 09:48, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * As noted by the IP, that's exactly what she said, so it's not exceptional. Davide King (talk) 12:22, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * To be clear, "that's exactly what she said" refers to her saying she'd rather not have a gay child. She, of course, didn't say Almirante was a Nazi wartime collaborator, but this isn't disputed by us or reliable sources. Davide King (talk) 12:32, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * If you got confused thinking that was Andrea Carlo expressing his view that Meloni would rather not have a gay child, you indeed got confused. He just mentioned the interview at Le Iene where she said precisely that. Davide King (talk) 12:34, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * No, I didn’t get confused. Opinion pieces are really lousy sources anywhere at Wikipedia.  Here it was used on a high-profile BLP to support a very controversial statement.  And I swapped it with a perfectly good secondary source just now, even though another source wasn’t really needed. Brezar, Aleksander. “Italy election: In Rome's progressive neighbourhood, Meloni's victory causes anger and concern”, Euronews (28 Sep 2022).&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:00, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Again, that doesn't mean they can never be used. "Here it was used on a high-profile BLP to support a very controversial statement." Which one? That Almirante was a Nazi collaborator? That has already been fixed. Davide King (talk) 17:16, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The Andrea Carlo article is an opinion piece and not an article and you can remove it. 79.66.217.217 (talk) 18:58, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Difference between AN & MSI & FDL
This article says, “In 1996, she became the national leader of Student Action, the student movement of the National Alliance (AN), the national-conservative heir of the MSI, representing this movement in the Student Associations Forum established by the Italian Ministry of Education.” Would it be accurate to say in parentheses after that wikilink “(rather than fascist)”? Seems like there was a difference between AN & MSI, and we ought to be more clear and briefly describe the difference, instead of making readers click on links to figure it out.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:04, 3 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Doesn't "national-conservative" already implies that? AN was also "post-fascist" but Post-fascism redirects to Neo-fascism. "Yet this is not to say that the fascist heritage in the new 'post-fascist' AN faded altogether. At least at the beginning, Fini had a double standard of communication, one for inside the party, stressing continuity with fascism, one for outside the party, stressing change." From Extreme Right Activists in Europe: Through the Magnifying Glass. Davide King (talk) 01:02, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I don’t think “national-conservative” says anything about how fascist it is. Just like “national-socialist” wouldn’t.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:07, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * 'National-conservative' is nothing like 'national-socialist', which is an euphemism for Nazi. I have never seen 'national-conservative' being used as an euphemism for fascism. In fact, it could be correctly said that AN was the national-conservative heir of the MSI, whereas Tricolour Flame was its neo-fascist heir. Davide King (talk) 01:25, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree “national-conservative” is nothing like “national-socialist”, and maybe we should briefly says so for readers who are unfamiliar with this stuff. We could insert the parenthetical that I suggested at my first comment in this talk page section.  Okay?&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:30, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * That's what links are made for. Besides, the source I provided is more cautious, saying AN on one hand stressed continuity with fascism inside the party, to which Meloni belonged at the time, and from the outside was more post-fascist. Davide King (talk) 02:41, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * It would be better to use 'neo-fascist' for the MSI and 'post-fascist' for AN and explain it then moved in a national-conservative direction, without adding the "rather than" parenthesis, since us saying "moved towards a national-conservative direction" already implies that it moderated itself and didn't move in a "fascist direction". Davide King (talk) 02:48, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * At the end of the lead, would it be accurate to add something like “as have her political party (Brothers of Italy) and her previous party (National Alliance)?” This would give readers a better idea of the environment from which she comes.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:37, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Anythingyouwant What do you mean with "we ought to be more clear and describe the difference..." when you show the lack of basic knowledge in Italian political history! The party AN started as heir of MSI, both post-fascist parties. Gianfranco Fini, president of AN, tried to start, with the so-called process Svolta di Fiuggi, abandoning ideological references to fascism in order to qualify AN as a legitimate political force to govern. The climax of this process was the declaration made by Fini during a trip in Israel in 2003 in which he described fascism as the "absolute evil". This declaration caused a revolt and an uproar within the party, which paved the way to the dissolution of the party and the disappearance of Fini from the political scene. Many party members criticised Fini's move, included Giorgia Meloni that rejected completely what Fini did in Israel. So, the difference is that while Gianfranco Fini unambiguously condemned Mussolini, Giorgia Meloni never expressed clearly and unambiguously the condemnation of fascism and Mussolini. It is already clear in the lead that Meloni comes from AN and clearly she wasn't approving "the environment" in which AN was transforming.79.66.217.217 (talk) 13:59, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The Brothers of Italy party has condemned suppression of democracy and the racial laws from WWII and before. Since no one disputes that, I’ve briefly added it at the end of the lead.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:06, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * To be fair, that's what she said and the source attributes it to her. In practice, her and the party have been more ambiguous (she said she didn't distance from Fini when he described fascism as the "absolute evil" but she never said it outright herself), distancing in some cases (Ascoli Piceno and the pro-Hitler candidate who still won in the end) and not in others (Roman salutes and the Fanpage investigation). "Post-Fascism in Italy: 'So Why This Flame Mrs. Giorgia Meloni'" says: "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." So I don't know if that's also for the whole party, and secondary sources may be more sceptical, but she did indeed say her party has condemned suppression of democracy and the racial laws. I think it should be attributed to her like the sources did. Davide King (talk) 19:41, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I think the previous wording was fine but if we want to incorporate 'the party' in the lead, "Meloni has said she and her party ..." would be more precise and closer to what reliable sources have said, since they have attributed it to her and it's worded from a quote of her. Davide King (talk) 19:58, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Done.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:10, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I've removed full names of the parties in that last part since they're already fully-wikilinked in the lede. I've replaced it with its abbreviations. Vacant0 (talk) 11:07, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, they condemn it one day and the day after celebrate and acclaim Mussolini. Like for example, just last month Ignazio Benito La Russa (founder with Meloni of Brothers of Italy) said that "We Italians are all Mussolini's heirs'" or during the Covid pandemic, La Russa invited everyone to perform the Fascist salute! 79.66.217.217 (talk) 20:31, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Did Meloni ever support same-sex unions in Italy?
As I have written in an another comment above Giorgia Meloni has never supported same-sex unions in Italy and she never promised "she would not end it". During an electoral rally, a gay activist contested Meloni's stance on LGBT rights. She said: "you want certain things, I want the right to think differently, it is democracy. You can disagree, you and I disagree and we respect each other by disagreeing. You have civil unions, you can do what you want". She didn't say she would not end it. She never promised it. It is not in her electoral manifesto. In the past, she said she wanted a popular referendum on this topic and on the same-sex union law, which she fiercely opposed. She said regarding the same-sex union law the following words: "As president of Brothers of Italy, I will commit myself to support the abrogative referendum", which means she wanted to propose a popular referendum to abolish the law. Here's the sources: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0xFU3ptgCoM https://www.facebook.com/giorgiameloni.paginaufficiale/photos/a.343277597644/10154128020182645/?type=3 https://roma.repubblica.it/cronaca/2016/05/11/news/unioni_civili_la_meloni_se_diventero_sindaco_di_roma_rispettero_legge_-139592437/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.66.217.217 (talk) 19:43, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Your statement is false; Facebook is not a source, and the other article you linked doesn't deny her recognition of civil unions. Here are the real sources. Now stop reverting sourced edits. Thanks. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 20:15, 7 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Which statement is false exactly? Your reply is misleading and not correct! Meloni clearly said in past interviews that she wanted to propose a popular referendum to abolish the same-sex union law. The source, which I provided says clearly she wanted an 'abrogative referendum' to abolish the same-sex union law. The source is from one of the major newspapers in Italy (La Repubblica) and from the major Italian news-agency (Ansa): https://roma.repubblica.it/cronaca/2016/05/11/news/unioni_civili_la_meloni_se_diventero_sindaco_di_roma_rispettero_legge_-139592437/ https://www.ansa.it/sito/notizie/politica/2016/05/11/unioni-civili-meloni-rispettero-legge_63abd211-c993-4bc6-8500-422abae21d8f.html
 * You are actually denying what it is written in the article: I am appalled. In her party's manifesto, Meloni never promised she would not end it and she never expressed it clearly she will keep the law. After the gay activist contested her stance on LGBT rights, she wrote a post on Facebook writing: "Today there are civil unions and in Italy you can safely 'marry' officially with whoever you want; I would not propose to take away this right". She didn't say "I promise to keep this right", given the fact she wanted to abrogate it and also she uses a conditional tense. The sentence in the lead is false and clearly you want to report something which doesn't reflect the reality. Can you actually point me out from the facebook post, where Meloni has written the term "good enough"? Because actually she didn't write "good enough" (because if you want to report it as citation in the lead, it must be actually written in the post). Again, the statement you have reinstated in the lead is false. What I really find funny is the fact you use an article where it is reported a post from Meloni Facebook page. But for you, it is not ok if I post here on Talk a link to a Meloni's Facebook post. As Italians say: "Ah, la coerenza!"79.66.217.217 (talk) 20:45, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * As you stated, she wrote: "Today there are civil unions and in Italy you can safely 'marry' officially with whoever you want; I would not propose to take away this right". That's all matters. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 23:49, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Again, can you actually point me out where Meloni has written/said the term "good enough" for the same-sex union law, which you reported in the lead? In official interviews, as reported in major newspapers/news-agencies, Meloni said she wanted an 'abrogative referendum' to abolish the same-sex union law. Can you add an official interview where she states her clear position on the same-sex union? Not a Facebook post in reply to someone who contested her in a rally. The sentence "I would not propose" is different from "I will not propose" or "I don't want to propose the abolition of the law", which however it negates everything she said in the past. Again, can you provide any valid sources about that? Why do want to write in the lead a term in quotation marks, which Giorgia Meloni has never said? 79.66.217.217 (talk) 03:00, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The NYT reported, “Ms. Meloni has said that civil unions are good enough for gay couples.” The NYT was probably paraphrasing, given that they did not directly quote Meloni.  LGBTQ Nation confirms this is her position.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:15, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * If you report a sentence in quotation marks, it means you are quoting someone words. You didn't provide an original source in Italian, where Meloni stated these exact words. If you think that "the NYT was probably paraphrasing", but not directly quoting Meloni, it means the source you have provided in this case is not reliable! LGBTQ Nation is just writing what the NYT wrote. Again, do you think is it correct to report in the lead in "quotation marks" something that Giorgia Meloni never said? Can you please provide a source where Meloni clearly expresses her stance on gay civil union and not an article, which reports a post from Meloni's Facebook page, where actually Meloni uses a rather ambiguous 'conditional tense'? 79.66.217.217 (talk) 03:41, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * "Good enough" is likely a rough translator for her accontentatevi, which she did say. Davide King (talk) 03:51, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The IP is right about that being her position in 2016 and I've added it to the body, including her proposed abrogative referendum, but I think reliable sources support that she changed her position, as showed by sources provided by other users. Davide King (talk) 03:21, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Whether she used those exact words or not, either way is consistent with us not using quote marks in the lead, so I removed the quote marks.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:55, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

I still do not get why we need to explicitly state in the lead that she would not do something, or that she is "not against" something. The relevant stuff – especially in a lead section – is what defines her political position, not what does not define it. But most of all, it looks to me that what we are reporting in the lead is only based on a single event where she had to deal with a protester during her campaign (in a moment of semi-chaos because the protester had just trespassed her security and reached her on the stage) – we certainly cannot represent this as an official declaration of intent, and anyway it does not permanently overturn her previous position on the subject, which was that she literally wanted a referendum to repeal the same-sex civil union law – not just the marriage. So I repeat my proposal to remove that sentence about her not being against it from the lead, and change the corresponding sentence in the "Social issues" section to clearly explain that this is based on what she responded to an LGBT protester. Yakme (talk) 08:57, 8 October 2022 (UTC)


 * I agree. We should just revert back to the version before this mess started with Est. 2021, while keeping minor genuine improvements. Please, see also the mess they did at "Immigration and multiculturalism", having many short separated sentences, over 6 refs for a sentence, and other issues. Davide King (talk) 18:15, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Immigration
About the article lead: "Opposed to the reception of non-Christian migrants and multiculturalism" is an unsourced POV, while "Favorable to a naval blockade against illegal immigrants and human traffickers" is sourced later in the article. Keep in mind NPOV. Thanks. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 23:47, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Of course, you removed it from the body! "Meloni is opposed to the reception of non-Christian migrants and multiculturalism. In 2018, she said she would welcome Venezuelans, saying they are Christians and often of Italian origins. "
 * Please, stop whitewashing obvious far-right conspiracy theories like the Great Replacement and the Kalergi Plan as "theories". Davide King (talk) 23:57, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I didn't remove anything, these notes are stil there on my version of the page. The article you linked clearly talks about the naval blockade, nothing about "non-Christian immigrants". Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 23:59, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I've now added a ref in support of the contested statement. Davide King (talk) 00:05, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Added? You just deleted the whole paragraph about the naval blockade again, as well as the conspiracy theories against George Soros - that I linked. STOP. I reported this edit war at Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 00:09, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I haven't! I only removed the video and a quote in the cite from the Lybia Update ref, which was unnecessary; we don't use quotes for any otehr cite. On the other hand, you restored your version despite me adding the ref for the 'non-Christian' bit. Davide King (talk) 00:14, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * In my previous edits, I only removed as it is a YouTube video, and the quote part (bolded) from  Davide King (talk) 00:17, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * You already falsely accused me of deleting references that I instead kept in my version of the page, now you go on deleting whole paragraphs and references with the false excuse of "adding a ref"!? I recommend you to stop, seriously. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs)
 * I no longer see https://www.ilriformista.it/meloni-la-ricetta-sui-migranti-bianchi-e-cristiani-e-lattacco-di-calenda-sfasceranno-i-conti-315909/ in your version here. Davide King (talk) 00:20, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I actually just rewrote the paragraph with this ref of yours. But notice that the article you linked title doesn't match with the article text, since it just talks about Venezuelans, not about non-Christian immigrants (as you falsely claimed). Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 00:25, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * PS. Notice that official channels' YouTube videos can be used as references. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 00:27, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Can you please write your version here? Because it's very hard to understand with all your edits. Davide King (talk) 00:27, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:RSPYT seems more restrictive. Anyway, we already have a secondary source for that (Lybia Update), I kept the one from her own website about her claims on immigration and human trafficking. Davide King (talk) 00:30, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Here's the final paragraph:
 * Favorable to a naval blockade against illegal immigrants and human traffickers, in order to let only the refugees be allowed through, she has been accused of xenophobia   and Islamophobia.  Meloni has criticized Italy's approach towards illegal immigrants, calling for a zero-tolerance policy, and she wants to boost the birth rate of Italian nationals to ease the need for migrant labour.
 * Favorable to a naval blockade against illegal immigrants and human traffickers, in order to let only the refugees be allowed through, she has been accused of xenophobia   and Islamophobia.  Meloni has criticized Italy's approach towards illegal immigrants, calling for a zero-tolerance policy, and she wants to boost the birth rate of Italian nationals to ease the need for migrant labour.


 * In 2018, she said she would welcome Venezuelans, saying they are Christians of Italian origins. Part of the press described her as opposed to the reception of non-Christian migrants and multiculturalism.


 * Amid the 2022 escalation of the Russo-Ukrainian War, Meloni said she supported to give refugee status to asylum seekers coming from a war-shaken country but not to other migrants; she said: "It's time to call things by their name, to give refugee status to those fleeing war, women and children, perhaps doing the opposite with those who aren't refugees."


 * Meloni has blamed neo-colonialism for Africa's underdevelopment and the 2015 European migrant crisis, and said she favours cooperation over what she termed France's neocolonialism.


 * She believes there is a planned mass migration from Africa to Europe for the purpose of replacing Italians and form a reserve army of labour to review downwards workers' rights, also known as 'Kalergi Plan' or 'Great Replacement' conspiracy theory, accusing George Soros of being the mind behind this plan.


 * In August 2022, she reposted a pixelized video on Twitter that shows a woman being raped by an asylum seeker. The victim of the violence decried the publication of the video and said she was recognized by the video posted. After receiving backlash, Meloni defended herself by accusing other politicians of not having condemned the rape itself.
 * Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 00:37, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * There're two issues: first, why have so many short sentences separated rather than two, coherent paragraphs of several sentences? Second, why this obsession with starting about the naval block? We should first tell her views, e.g. that she opposes multiculturalism and then list her policies. "Part of the press", this is not good writing and don't need to attribute when reliable sources agree on this. Davide King (talk) 00:43, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The naval blockade against illegal immigrants and human traffickers is the focal point of her foreign politics, it all begins there. Literally no source among those you linked (and I kept them all) quotes a statement from her; those are just speculations made by the press, not something she ever said. It's all based on the comment about the Venezuelans (as your own sources show), so these two statements must come first, before the press' comments in merit. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 00:56, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * "foreign politics" 🤔 Then why don't you move it in the section about "Foreign policy"? They are "Immigration and multiculturalism", of course, and in fact the part about human traficking is sourced only to her words, while the secondary ref discuss only the naval blockade with no mention of trafficking. What you dismiss as just speculations by the press, they aren't — it's analysis by reliable sources and you cannot dismiss them like that. Again, you haven't addressed my issues about having so many short sentences, which should be avoided. My solution is to revert back to the status quo, which was because you started this mess. @Yakme also reverted your edits in the lead, and I agree with them that we cannot list anything that she opposed; the fact we don't say she opposes same-sex civil unions should be enough that we don't need to add your proposed edit. You should gain consensus. So can we please leave some spaces for other users? Like @Anythingyouwant, @Morbidthoughts, @Vacant0, Yakme, and others. Davide King (talk) 01:09, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * @Davide King@Est. 2021 You both need to stop this edit warring.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 01:11, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The solution is to revert back to the status quo, while we engage to gain consensus, not keep the current favoured version, which would essentially prove that as long as you edit war, you can keep your favourite version by exhausting the other. Davide King (talk) 01:13, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The solution is to stop edit warring.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 01:21, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I did stop but now the article is in their favourite version; further, they added things to the lead that were reverted also by another user (Yakme). It should be reverted back before the edit warring, or else it prove that one can keep their favourite version by exhausting the other to not revert back. If they can gain consensus for their edits, I'd be the first to restore them. Does anyone really believe that this structure is better than this, or this (my attempt at compromise)? Davide King (talk) 01:28, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * That is not how this works.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 03:06, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I think my proposal is in line with WP:STATUSQUO. Davide King (talk) 03:12, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I think my proposal is in line with WP:STATUSQUO. Davide King (talk) 03:12, 8 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Per "her foreign politics" I clearly meant "her immigration politics and policies" since we're talking about immigration. I tried to accommodate you, and I included all your refs in my rollbacks, despite you falsely accused me three times, while you actually kept deleting whole paragraphs and references. Be more mature, thanks. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 01:25, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * You didn't attempt even once at merging into two paragraphs to avoid so many short sentences, or to avoid WP:REFBOMBING, which is a serious issue. As I said, I only deleted a quote inside a ref and a primary reference to YouTube (see here what I actually removed), which is not a generally reliable ref. On the other hand, you've removed all the refs about non-Christian and muticulturalism. See differences here. There no longer are these refs:
 * It's simply impossible to remove -525 just with punctuation, c'mon. The -525 comes from removing these three refs. Davide King (talk) 01:34, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Never mind, I found the three refs here but your version still doesn't address the issues about formatting and ref bombing. In fact, the part about non-Christian migrants and multiculturalism has been in the lead and the body without issues for a while until you changed it without gaining consensus. Davide King (talk) 01:49, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh, great! I'm glad that after falsely accusing me four times you finally found the notes you looked for all along. You could have just read the page before edit warring and making false accuses. I won't go on with you, have a nice life. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 01:55, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry, it was very hard to follow through all your edits and the fact you kept separating short sentences, which made it very hard to follow what you were editing and adding or removing. My 'edit warring' was simply trying to restore the status quo because you've been reverted by other users (Yakme), not just by me, while I've been reverted only by you. So the silence consensus is for the previous version; if you want consensus for your version, we need to discuss it with other users. My proposal was precisely to revert back to the status quo and avoid edits until the dispute was solved here, but you kept reverting and I thought that you were removing stuff because it was hard to follow the edit differences; there's no need to be so passive aggressive about it. I apologized for it. That not even once you tried to merge paragraphs or reduce WP:OVERCITE is true though, so what was your compromise on this? Davide King (talk) 02:04, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Never mind, I found the three refs here but your version still doesn't address the issues about formatting and ref bombing. In fact, the part about non-Christian migrants and multiculturalism has been in the lead and the body without issues for a while until you changed it without gaining consensus. Davide King (talk) 01:49, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh, great! I'm glad that after falsely accusing me four times you finally found the notes you looked for all along. You could have just read the page before edit warring and making false accuses. I won't go on with you, have a nice life. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 01:55, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry, it was very hard to follow through all your edits and the fact you kept separating short sentences, which made it very hard to follow what you were editing and adding or removing. My 'edit warring' was simply trying to restore the status quo because you've been reverted by other users (Yakme), not just by me, while I've been reverted only by you. So the silence consensus is for the previous version; if you want consensus for your version, we need to discuss it with other users. My proposal was precisely to revert back to the status quo and avoid edits until the dispute was solved here, but you kept reverting and I thought that you were removing stuff because it was hard to follow the edit differences; there's no need to be so passive aggressive about it. I apologized for it. That not even once you tried to merge paragraphs or reduce WP:OVERCITE is true though, so what was your compromise on this? Davide King (talk) 02:04, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Differences
For those interested to engage with each other and reach a consensus, here are some proposed versions. Meloni is opposed to the reception of non-Christian migrants, as well as to multiculturalism. In 2018, she said she would welcome Venezuelans, saying they are Christians and often of Italian origins. She supports a naval blockade as a means to halt immigration and only let through what she believes are genuine refugees. Amid the 2022 escalation of the Russo-Ukrainian War, Meloni said she supported to give refugee status to those coming from a war-shaken country but not to asylum seekers. She said: "It's time to call things by their name, to give refugee status to those fleeing war, women and children, perhaps doing the opposite with those who aren't refugees." In August 2022, she reposted a pixelized video on Twitter that shows a woman being raped by an asylum seeker. The victim of the violence decried the publication of the video and said she was recognized by the video posted. After receiving backlash, Meloni defended herself by accusing other politicians of not having condemned the rape itself.
 * Proposal A (based on the long-time version) — it is well formatted and structured, avoids ref bombing, and remove primary sources

Meloni has criticized Italy's approach towards illegal immigrants, calling for a zero-tolerance policy, and she wants to blockade migrants from reaching Italian ports and boost the birth rate of Italian nationals to ease the need for migrant labour. She has endorsed the Great Replacement, a white nationalist conspiracy theory. She has been accused of xenophobia, as well as Islamophobia. She believes there is a planned mass migration from Africa to Europe for the purpose of replacing and eliminating Italians, an antisemitic, white genocide, and far-right conspiracy theory known as the Kalergi Plan. She has blamed neo-colonialism for Africa's underdevelopment and the 2015 European migrant crisis, and said she favours cooperation over what she termed France's neocolonialism.

Meloni supports a naval blockade as a means to halt immigration and only let through what she believes are genuine refugees. She is opposed to the reception of non-Christian migrants, as well as to multiculturalism. In 2018, she said she would welcome Venezuelans, saying they are Christians and often of Italian origins. Amid the 2022 escalation of the Russo-Ukrainian War, Meloni said she supported to give refugee status to those coming from a war-shaken country but not to asylum seekers. She said: "It's time to call things by their name, to give refugee status to those fleeing war, women and children, perhaps doing the opposite with those who aren't refugees." In August 2022, she reposted a pixelized video on Twitter that shows a woman being raped by an asylum seeker. The victim of the violence decried the publication of the video and said she was recognized by the video posted. After receiving backlash, Meloni defended herself by accusing other politicians of not having condemned the rape itself.
 * Proposal B (same as A but put naval blockage first)

Meloni has criticized Italy's approach towards illegal immigrants, calling for a zero-tolerance policy, and she wants to blockade migrants from reaching Italian ports and boost the birth rate of Italian nationals to ease the need for migrant labour. She has endorsed the Great Replacement, a white nationalist conspiracy theory. She has been accused of xenophobia, as well as Islamophobia. She believes there is a planned mass migration from Africa to Europe for the purpose of replacing and eliminating Italians, an antisemitic, white genocide, and far-right conspiracy theory known as the Kalergi Plan. She has blamed neo-colonialism for Africa's underdevelopment and the 2015 European migrant crisis, and said she favours cooperation over what she termed France's neocolonialism.

Meloni has criticized Italy's approach towards illegal immigrants, calling for a zero-tolerance policy, and she wants to blockade migrants from reaching Italian ports, and boost the birth rate of Italian nationals to ease the need for migrant labour. Amid the 2022 escalation of the Russo-Ukrainian War, Meloni said she supported to give refugee status to those coming from a war-shaken country but not to asylum seekers. She said: "It's time to call things by their name, to give refugee status to those fleeing war, women and children, perhaps doing the opposite with those who aren't refugees." In August 2022, she reposted a pixelized video on Twitter that shows a woman being raped by an asylum seeker. The victim of the violence decried the publication of the video and said she was recognized by the video posted. After receiving backlash, Meloni defended herself by accusing other politicians of not having condemned the rape itself.
 * Proposal C (move first sentence of the second paragraph and merge with the previos first sentence of the first paragraph, which was effectively a duplication)

Meloni has blamed neo-colonialism for Africa's underdevelopment and the 2015 European migrant crisis, and said she favours cooperation over what she termed France's neocolonialism. She is opposed to the reception of non-Christian migrants, as well as to multiculturalism,  and she has been accused of xenophobia,   as well as Islamophobia. In 2018, she said she would welcome Venezuelans, saying they are Christians and often of Italian origins. She has endorsed the Great Replacement, a white nationalist conspiracy theory. She believes there is a planned mass migration from Africa to Europe for the purpose of replacing and eliminating Italians, an antisemitic, white genocide, and far-right conspiracy theory known as the Kalergi Plan.

Favorable to a naval blockade against illegal immigrants and human traffickers, in order to let only the refugees be allowed through, she has been accused of xenophobia  and Islamophobia. Meloni has criticized Italy's approach towards illegal immigrants, calling for a zero-tolerance policy, and she wants to boost the birth rate of Italian nationals to ease the need for migrant labour.
 * Proposal D (by Est. 2021) — current version, I haven't reverted it due to edit warring

In 2018, she said she would welcome Venezuelans, saying they are Christians of Italian origins. Part of the press described her as opposed to the reception of non-Christian migrants and multiculturalism.

Amid the 2022 escalation of the Russo-Ukrainian War, Meloni said she supported to give refugee status to asylum seekers coming from a war-shaken country but not to other migrants; she said: "It's time to call things by their name, to give refugee status to those fleeing war, women and children, perhaps doing the opposite with those who aren't refugees."

Meloni has blamed neo-colonialism for Africa's underdevelopment and the 2015 European migrant crisis, and said she favours cooperation over what she termed France's neocolonialism.

She believes there is a planned mass migration from Africa to Europe for the purpose of replacing Italians and form a reserve army of labour to review downwards workers' rights, also known as 'Kalergi Plan' or 'Great Replacement' conspiracy theory, accusing George Soros of being the mind behind this plan.

In August 2022, she reposted a pixelized video on Twitter that shows a woman being raped by an asylum seeker. The victim of the violence decried the publication of the video and said she was recognized by the video posted. After receiving backlash, Meloni defended herself by accusing other politicians of not having condemned the rape itself.

≈===Comments about versions A, B, C, and D=== All but the D version follow some clear and choerent structure, and are well formatted. Either A to C are fine but I think C is the best. Davide King (talk) 02:46, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The first sentence in Proposal A is “Meloni is opposed to the reception of non-Christian migrants.” What’s your best evidence that she doesn’t merely want to prioritize Christian immigrants, and instead wants to block everyone else?  This kind of sentence that I just quoted is rather amazing and really should be accompanied by a clear quotation reproduced in the footnotes.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:53, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * It's sourced, and has been in both the lead and body for a while without any issue. It's amazing you noticed it only now. Davide King (talk) 02:57, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I noticed it and remain skeptical. You really think she wants to screen genuine refugees by religion and send away genuine refugees on that basis? And she proposes to block any person in any EU country from migrating to Italy unless they pass a religious test?&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:59, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * That's what it sounds like... regardless, this is not a place to discuss politics  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 03:08, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter what I think, that's irrelevant; what matters and is relevant is what reliable source says. You'd probably better ask @Vacant0, as they did the work (a good and amazing job at that, I'd say) here to build the lead; I'm sure they can provide further sources. Who said "she proposes to block any person in any EU country from migrating to Italy unless they pass a religious test"? Don't put me things I never said and that our article doesn't say. It'd be clearer if you read academic books about the radical right and right-wing populist parties. "Giorgia Meloni, leader of the Brothers of Italy party, wants the Italian navy to blockade the north African coast so that all migrants can be screened before leaving to ascertain whether they are genuine refugees. Those who can prove their refugee status should be allowed through, Meloni said, while those who cannot should be sent home." She explicitily said that if we must take migrants, they better be Christians and of Italian origins, like Venezuelans. If this doesn't sound kinda racist or alarming, I don't know what to say. Davide King (talk) 03:10, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Suppose you’re a typical reader, you come here, and read “Meloni is opposed to the reception of non-Christian migrants.” The typical reader will understand that to include migrants from other EU countries, from the USA, from anywhere.  Why wouldn’t they understand it that way.  Christians-only means Christians-only.  If that’s not what we mean to say, then that sentence needs to be changed.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:24, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * In fact, I think it previously said 'non-European' and I believe it was then changed to 'non-Christian' due to her comments on Venezuelans migrants. I'd wait for Vacant0, as I believe they first added this to the article, to express their thoughts and clarify this. Davide King (talk) 03:26, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Again regarding Proposal A, we say she’s been accused of various things like xenophobia and Islamophobia. When accusations like that are discussed, we have an obligation to see whether she’s denied those accusations and (if so) to report that, perhaps very briefly (e.g. “which she denies”). The pertinent policy is at WP:DENIALS which I coincidentally edited today, before I realized it might become an issue at this BLP (my edits there were mostly stylistic anyway). It also seems like passive voice is a bit of a copout; if these accusations are serious enough for us to report, then we should say who made them.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:11, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * A further problem with Proposal A is this sentence: “She supports a naval blockade as a means to halt immigration and only let through what she believes are genuine refugees.” This sentence does not distinguish between legal and illegal immigration, and so a typical reader would conclude she is opposed to both, excepting perhaps genuine refugees.  But does she really favor a total ban on all immigration, with perhaps an exception for genuine refugees?  I am very skeptical that Meloni has really endorsed elimination of legal immigration to Italy, even including (for example) citizens of France who (1) would like to permanently move to Italy, (2) are Christian, (3) have Italian relatives, and (4) are highly skilled and employable.  I would wager she has never remotely suggested a ban on such lawful immigration.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:28, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * If she denies that, it should be easy to find sources; I don't think we have to attribute everything when sources agree she has been routinely accused. What you don't seem to get about such radical-right and right-wing populist parties is that they reject asylum seekers and their right to asylum, to push people away from the country.
 * "Italy's incoming far-right government will most likely attempt to usher in reforms to deny people their right to asylum. But some of the ideas put forward by the expected premier-to-be Giorgia Meloni and her Brothers of Italy party are unlikely to see the light of day. Among them is a proposal for a 'European military mission, carried out in agreement with the Libyan authorities,' to stop people from fleeing towards Italy. 'The question of sending military ships is not a possibility I would consider real,' said Luca Masera, a professor at University of Bresvia and a member of Italy's Association for Juridical Studies on Immigration (ASGI). Italy was already in 2012 condemned by the European Court of Human Rights for having intercepted at sea and then returned to Libya a group of 200 people." Government authorities are obliged to abide by international human rights law, even if people are intercepted at high seas." Here right-wing parties supported doing precisely that, e.g. rejecting migrants at sea.
 * We must follow what reliable sources say.
 * Deutsche Welle says "she has called for ... a halt to immigration." If there are sources that draw a line, they should be presented but in general such parties also want to reduce legal immigration, especially from non-European, non-Christian countries. It's for a reason that reliable sources routinely call such parties "anti-immigration". "Meloni has called for a 'naval blockade' at sea to prevent 'illegal departures' to Italy. She opposed 'Ius Scholae,' a bill proposing citizenship rights for students under 12 who immigrate to Italy for their education. Meloni has referred to pro-immigration measures as part of a left-wing conspiracy to 'replace Italians with immigrants.' During a speech in January 2017, she called immigration to Italy 'ethnic substitution.'" You get the point. Davide King (talk) 05:33, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Consider our statement that she's been accused of Islamophobia: "Favourable to a naval blockade against illegal immigrants and human traffickers,[73][139][140] in order to let only the refugees be allowed through,[141][142] she has been accused of xenophobia[143][144][145] and Islamophobia.[146][147]" Both of the references are to editorial opinion pieces in an Italian journal called The Globalist, so we could say the Globalist has accused her of Islamophobia.  Neither of those two opinion pieces mentions a naval blockade, so we would need to give some other explanation.  Of course, the main explanation is crime, as we indicate way down in the footnote ("Meloni uses the London bombing to fuel sovereign Islamophobia").  I don't think the Italian journal The Globalist has any entry at the Italian Wikipedia, it doesn't in the English Wikipedia, so it would probably be better to use a more notable source like Daily Sabah which says: "she has a policy of Islamophobia, saying in a speech: ‘No to the violence of Islam, yes to safer borders. No to mass immigration, yes to work for our people.'"  Again, she specifically refers to violence, not some vague doctrinal disagreement with the religious tenets of Islam.  Crime and violence resulting from immigration is a real concern in many European countries.  See, for example, the WSJ opinion piece "Migrants and the Threat to Women’s Rights in Europe".  Perhaps Meloni is smearing and sliming immigrants from predominately Muslim countries without just cause, and perhaps not, but that's no reason for us to smear and slime her by just slapping a derogatory label on her, without saying where the label comes from or why.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:58, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * They aren't opinion pieces, please be more careful (the IP was right on this and you're the one who cited an opinion piece, the WSJ) and a significant number of Italian sources also don't have an English article, that doesn't mean they must be discarded. I think you guys just want us to whitewash her and her statements; of course, you may think we aren't being neutral but sources aren't required to be unbiased (all sources are), they need to be reliable. They agree that she's against multiculturalism and some of her statements have been xenophobic or Islamophobic, or accused her as such. Ultimately, your own original research, whether "Meloni is smearing and sliming immigrants from predominately Muslim countries without just cause, and perhaps not", it doesn't matter and is irrelevant; even your quote says "she has a policy of Islamophobia", what more do you want? What matters is what reliable source says and if they call her Islamophobic, we aren't going to remove that just because you think it's a smear and is a derogatory label. Davide King (talk) 20:30, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I didn’t suggest removing it.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:01, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I'll look at what is the issue here but please abstain from edit warring. --Vacant0 (talk) 11:20, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I've been pinged several times here. I'm busy. I'll try to look at this by the end of the week and give my opinion. From what I can tell, the lede needs to be shortened and partially re-written; there are also some disputes in the "Political positions" section. --Vacant0 (talk) 20:24, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I've removed Daily Sabah from the article as it is listed as an unreliable source at RSP. Vacant0 (talk) 20:27, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I've replaced it with Reuters.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:43, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I'll comment on this in the lede: "Meloni's discourse includes criticism of global finance and femonationalist rhetoric"
 * We have "no to big international finance", which is probably the global finance part. This quote is not backed up by the sources provided (BBC and PBS).
 * Regarding femonationalism, I see the "Feminism" section, although I've found a source that could be added that states this: "Speaking to openDemocracy, Giorgia Serughetti, a political philosopher and author of ‘The Conservative Wind – The Populist Right's Attack on Democracy’, explained why ‘femonationalism’ is working for Meloni."
 * I think that the "criticism of global finance" should be removed if there are not any reliable sources that mention her criticism of global finance, the femonationalist part can be kept.
 * The lede could be also trimmed down a bit, whilst still being neutral. "In 1992, Meloni joined the Youth Front, the youth wing of the Italian Social Movement (MSI), a neo-fascist political party founded in 1946 by former followers of Italian fascist dictator Benito Mussolini. She later became the national leader of Student Action, the student movement of the National Alliance (AN), a post-fascist party that became the MSI's legal successor in 1995 and moved towards national conservatism"
 * We've recently had a RfC that properly defined MSI as a far-right and not a "right-wing to far-right" party, and I've noticed that there were also recent disputes on MSI's page whether it was neo- or post-fascist (Google Scholar points out 274 results for neo-fascism and 43 for post-fascism, although this could be discussed on MSI's page instead). National Alliance's page also states that it was a right-wing party.
 * These sentences could be kept as they are, although I think that in order to avoid potential disputes we could change "a neo-fascist political party founded in 1946 by former followers of Italian fascist dictator Benito Mussolini" to "a far-right party formed by supporters/followers of Benito Mussolini"–the year and the "Italian fascist dictator", I think, are redundant. Then this: "the student movement of the National Alliance (AN), a post-fascist party that became the MSI's legal successor in 1995 and moved towards national conservatism" to "the student movement of the right-wing National Alliance (AN), the legal successor of MSI."
 * As I've already said, this could be kept as it is. It's only related to trimming the size a bit and lowering the amount of potential disputes on whether the parties were neo-/post-fascist, national-conservative, or whatever else there is.
 * I'd want to hear opinions about the proposals. The lede is now in near-perfect size, and should be trimmed more once she gets and does something in office. I'll check the verifiability of the content in the article now and I'll post comments here if I find any issues. Vacant0 (talk) 13:28, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd rather keep the current description of the parties and trimmer something like this, which could also further trimmered down by linking to the general European Parliament election article. The part about global finance could be reworded to link to globalist as the right-wing epithet per Ben-Ghiat 2022. Davide King (talk) 15:49, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

I stand with Proposal D, for being more complete and logical. Obviously.
 * 1) We should start with her own statements and official positions first (about the naval blockade, illegal immigrants, human trafficking, etc.) and then add the speculations about xenophobia.
 * 2) The 'Kalergi Plan' and the 'Great Replacement' theory should be in the same paragraph.
 * 3) The part about George Soros isn't even mentioned in the other proposals, despite being oversourced. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 19:50, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * B also does that by starting with the naval block and C moves the contested part further down; they're simply better formatted and follow a structure, unlike D.
 * Not 'theory' but 'conspiracy theories', and they aren't the same thing, despite overlap. The wording about it is fine from A to C.
 * You're the one who added the part about George Soros in the first place. Davide King (talk) 20:17, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * 1. There is a structure, that looks like a POV, do you just prefer to talk about supposed xenophobic, antisemitic, white genocide, and far-right views ans as main theme throughout the entire paragraph? (Proposals A to C). In Proposal D I went with the order:
 * a) her direct statements about immigration, illegal immigration, human trafficking, refugees, asylum seekers, etc.
 * b) speculations about xenophobia and Islamophobia, citing both the Venezuelan case and the Ukrainian case, that originated these accusations, confronted with the African case,
 * c) the conspiracy theories, adding the ones about Soros,
 * d) the rape, that's actually quite disconnected from the other parts.
 * 2. So what? I had actually added the word conspiracy theory not once, but twice (1. 'Kalergi Plan' or 'Great Replacement' conspiracy theory, 2. George Soros conspiracy theories) in my version of the page, so I'm totally ok with that.
 * 3. Actually no, I merged the paragraphs about Kalergi Plan and Great Replacement, adding the statement about George Soros, but the sources talking about George Soros are in the other proposals too, those sources were on the page way before I edited it, without stating it in the text tho, unfortunately; and considering it's so well sourced, why not? Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 17:03, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * a/b) It's not me "prefer[ing] to talk about" that, it's reliable sources doing that for us and you can't dismiss them. In fact, they're cited further down, so what is your issue exactly? The section starts with a summary of her views on immigration and the naval blockade; the order can be further improved but can we agree to have two condensed and consistent paragraphs (A–C) rather than a bunch of short sentences and paragraphs (D)? Would you be fine with your favoured order if I were able to put all her views first in a paragraph and then in a second, other paragraph the allegations?
 * (c) But didn't you say none of the refs mention Soros, so why adding him? The wording about this is fine from A to C.
 * (d) It's not disconnected because the first sentence is her supporting refugees but rejecting asylum seekers, and then making a controversy because the rape was committed by an asylum seeker, that's the connection. Either way, I can move that further down, the important thing to me is that we have a series of connected sentences in two paragraphs, as is done from A to C (not necessarily in that precise order; I can move the sentences about her views in the first paragraph and any controversy in the second, would that be okay?).
 * (f) That's why they should be separated. D has ref bombing of six to seven consecutive refs. WP:REFBOMBING is a serious issue in D. Can you help me fix that? Davide King (talk) 18:13, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * a/b) maybe, but you're still wrong, since:
 * c) the refs do mention Soros, why do you keep saying the opposite of what I write? Why can't you just look at the page?
 * d) all refugees are asylum seekers in the beginning; you can't be a refugee without seeking asylum; that's another reason why Proposals A to C are inherently wrong. And a rape is a rape, it has to be blamed irrespective of who commits it, immigrant or not, it's not about the asylum seeker. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 14:39, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Can you please assume good faith? I misunderstood and thought you meant the refs didn't mention George Soros but you meant the other proposals do not mention him when the refs do. I'll try to address the issues you raised and improve the sentences about this. I perfectly agree that it has to be blamed irrespective of who commits, but you should be aware that some such like-minded right-wing politicians only complain about it and make a controversy when an asylum seeker or immigrant commits a crime or rape, when academic literature is more nuanced. Davide King (talk) 15:43, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I can assume good faith (even if you falsely accused me so many times), but your statement ("such like-minded right-wing politicians only complain about it and make a controversy when an asylum seeker or immigrant commits a crime or rape") is a POV speculation, not a proven fact. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 16:18, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I can assume good faith (even if you falsely accused me so many times), but your statement ("such like-minded right-wing politicians only complain about it and make a controversy when an asylum seeker or immigrant commits a crime or rape") is a POV speculation, not a proven fact. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 16:18, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Civil unions
This edit deleted the following from the lead: “she has also stated that existing protection for same-sex unions in Italy is good enough and she would not end it.” The edit summary says: “What stated it is not her official stance on gay civil unions, as discussed on talk”.

Here’s what we say in the article body:

She also stated that the recognition of same-sex unions in Italy is "good enough", and she said it was something she would not change; in 2016, while she said she would respect the law if elected mayor of Rome, she had supported a referendum to abrogate the civil-union law. The first three references are from the past few months, whereas the last two references are from six years ago (2016), so the first three references are more up-to-date and are currently correct. As Davide King said at this talk page, “The IP is right about that being her position in 2016 and I've added it to the body, including her proposed abrogative referendum, but I think reliable sources support that she changed her position, as showed by sources provided by other users.” User:Davide King seems to be correct so I have clarified in the lead that we’re describing her current position: “her current position on civil unions is that existing protection for same-sex unions in Italy is good enough and she would not end it.”&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:11, 8 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Here, Yakme gave a reasonable argument. Same thing about naval blockade, that's mainly from the 2022 campaign and is unlikely to be enacted anyway but Est. 2021 forced its way in the lead through edit warring (I have my fault for that too) and administration reporting when no one else complained about it and the lead was pretty stable until then. Indeed, you and I were able to reach good compromises about the wording (e.g. the final paragraph in the lead and the stuff about Almirante) but neither contained the same-sex unions and naval blockade, both of which fall under Yakme's reasoning. We should just restore our long-term lead, and if you guys really want to add the stuff about civil unions and naval blockade in the lead while removing her criticism of multiculturalism, which is much more relevant and due to being a constant in her political career, then let's have a RfC about it but we should revert back to that version and avoid further edit wars until then. Davide King (talk) 18:32, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * For example, we don't mention in the lead her opposition to surrogacy, for which she has campaigned for as a member of Parliament and is more due than her views on civil unions, which she said were "good enough" not until last month, and we would also have to mention she supported an abrogative referendum. As I said, I think the lead built by Vacant0, plus the adjustation of several other users including us, was very good and we don't need to bloat it any further. Davide King (talk) 18:52, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * If the lead carefully avoids saying that she supports any aspect of gay rights, then that portrays her in a negative light, rather than neutrally. As you yourself acknowledged User:Davide King, "reliable sources support that she changed her position".  That's evident from more than one public incident, including both the incident with the child, and also the separate incident described by the NYT about civil unions being good enough.  The notion that we should report what she opposes and not what she supports is absurd semantics, a position on any political issue involves supporting one side and opposing the other.  Frankly, I am tired of trying to deal with hit pieces at Wikipedia, very tired.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:13, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * But we must follow how reliable sources cover her. They mostly cite her anti-immigration policies and rethoric, opposition to abortion and same-sex marriage, not that she supports civil unions; this only came out due to the single incident mentioned by the IP and Yakme. So while I agree the body can say and reflect her apparent change or views, it's not lead worthy because it's not something that defines her like other policies. If reliable sources routinely mentions in general articles about her summarizing her political views that she supports civil-union (even her wording has been ambiguous, she never said she actually supports them, just that she's going to respect the law and not abrogate them as she said back in 2016), then it'd be lead worthy. In fact, the whole incident was because she responded to LGBT people who demonstrated at one of her rallies that they already have civil unions, so they shouldn't complain about marriage. Davide King (talk) 20:39, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Anythingyouwant Yes, I am also tired to repeat that Giorgia Meloni never said that "the same-sex unions law in Italy is good enough and she would not end it".
 * In September 2022, Federico Mollicone, Brothers of Italy's MP and head of culture of the party (whose Meloni is president) said: "Homosexual couples are not legal in Italy".
 * https://www.fanpage.it/politica/il-responsabile-cultura-di-fratelli-ditalia-dice-che-le-coppie-omosessuali-sono-illegali/ 79.66.217.217 (talk) 21:33, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * This is a BLP about Meloni, not about Mollicone. There is no ambiguity in reliable sources about Meloni’s willingness to accept civil unions.  I have already cited the New York Times and also LGBTQ Nation.  The idea that only Meloni’s anti-gay positions are lead-worthy, and not her pro-gay positions, is utterly preposterous and violates WP:NPOV.  Here’s what another reliable source reports: “Meloni says she has no plans to overturn the civil union law, but has no interest in improving the legal situation for LGBTQ people, either. ‘You already have civil partnerships, what else would you ever want?’ she said during a campaign rally after an activist jumped on stage to plead for more rights.”  Albanese, Chiara.  “Same-Sex Parents in Italy Ask What's Next After Meloni's Win”, Bloomberg News (28 Sep 2022).  It is well worth considering whether Wikipedia would be somewhat fascist to defy reliable sources and deliberately distort Meloni’s views on this subject.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:28, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * It's not lead worthy, as the same source explicitily says "she has no interest in improving the legal situation for LGBTQ people, either", so we must add this point to the lead too, and it's already growing big that it's better to properly discuss it in the body. It confirms what I said above. Davide King (talk) 18:06, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The fact that she is willing to preserve civil unions but not to go any further is 100% leadworthy because right now the lead gives the impression she is completely unwilling to tolerate anything related to gay rights.  You are deliberately distorting and demonizing, and it’s completely antithetical to the pillars of Wikipedia.  I cannot object strongly enough to your efforts to skew this BLP lead.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:15, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * You're acting as if it's only me disagreeing with this but @Yakme agreed, or more precisely it's me agreeing with them, though my reasoning is that it's undue and it's not that we don't have to say anything she doesn't oppose; I don't know what are @Vacant0's thoughts. Either way, you're contradicted by your own source, which says how little she cares about improving LGBT rights, so if we put that she's not opposed to the civil-union law, we must also mention this to avoid going the other way around and act as though she's actually not so right-wing on "anything related to gay rights". If you think I'm "deliberately distorting and demonizing" [sic!], I can think you're deliberately distorting and whitewashing her to make her appear more moderate than she's on LGBT rights, which is contradicted by reliable sources and your own source, which shows how little she cares about all this. Davide King (talk) 18:47, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Additionally, there's the IP who I believe would also disagree with putting that in the lead, though I do agree with you that reliable sources reported her more moderate stance on civil unions and that's discussed the body. We do disagree about whether it's due for the lead or recentism. Anyway, to reduce the tension, can you please write here your proposed sentence about the summary of her social views in the lead? Perhaps the way you word it would convince me to agree with you, or perhaps we may reach a compromise. Either way, let's reduce the tones and work to improve this. Davide King (talk) 18:57, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I do appreciate we're discussing this here rather than edit warring, so thank you for that. :-) And sorry if sounded harsh, but your accusations upset me and I took it way too personal. If we can get consensus to add it, I'd obviously respect it. Davide King (talk) 19:03, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

It's becoming hard for me to follow all the multiple discussions on this talk page. stated: The idea that only Meloni’s anti-gay positions are lead-worthy, and not her pro-gay positions [...] I'm sorry, where is the WP:RS stating that Meloni has "pro-gay" positions? Can anyone honestly claim that having no interest in improving LGBT laws is a "pro-gay" position? Most WP:RS describe Meloni as against gay rights, and that's what we summarize in the lead. Let's be reasonable and not try to force ideological neutrality on a politician that is reportedly not neutral on the issue. She is against improving gay rights, in a country were there are very little of those – that basically amounts to being against most gay rights altogether. Again, this is what comes out of multiple WP:RS covering the issue. I disagree with overturning the description of her stance on LGBT rights based on a single impulsive reaction she had on a campaign stage; I agree with mentioning the very interesting episode and giving it space in the text, but I don't think it makes lead material. Yakme (talk) 13:20, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Willingness to maintain and enforce protection of civil unions is obviously a very significant pro-gay position. Picking out only anti-gay positions and putting them in the lead is slanted and misleading.  It is the opposite of WP:NPOV.  Give readers the facts, and let them decide.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:39, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Again, NPOV doesn't mean false balance or bothsideism but rather "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." As far as I can tell, as cited above by @Yakme*, reliable sources describe Meloni as against LGBT rights and I haven't seen reliable sources that describe her new stance on civil unions as being pro-LGBT. I wouldn't exactly call that a pro-LGBT position as it's basically supporting the status quo, especially when she's mostly anti-LGBT, and it could be considered relatively pro-LGBT only when comparing it to countries that don't even allow civil unions for LGBT people, which says it all, but that's my view—so that also looks like your personal view. Do you have reliable sources that describe her position to keep civil unions as pro-LGBT? *I pinged them since they said it's hard to follow all the new discussions and read through longer-than-usual messages.
 * The sources you provided actually support what Yakme just wrote above. If there's a significant amount of reliable sources that refer to her new stance on civil unions as pro-LGBT or qualifies her general anti-LGBT position by citing her change of views on civil unions, then please provide them and let's work together to improve the wording. Also keep in mind WP:WEIGHT and WP:RECENTISM. If reliable sources continue to cite her new stance on civil unions and don't refer to that single event, we're going to reflect that. As things stand, I think we already respect NPOV by reflecting her general anti-LGBT positions for the lead and report her recent stance on civil unions in the body, which if it continues to receive significant coverage and doesn't refer to that single episode, then it could be added to the lead as well. But first, help us with more reliable sources as you did before. Because if that source is any indication, her considering irrelevant to improve LGBT rights would indeed be an example of false balance. If sources follow the argument that "she has no interest in improving the legal situation for LGBTQ people, either", it's a weight issue to add it because it would contradict the fact sources don't consider her views on civil unions to change her general anti-LGBT position. Davide King (talk) 11:55, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry again, but I don't see any reliable corroboration of Meloni's [w]illingness to maintain and enforce protection of civil unions apart from that little incident on her campaign stage, where she merely stated that "civil unions are enough". This certainly cannot be represented as a political will to protect LGBT individuals and families; this can hardly characterize Meloni has having "pro-gay" positions. I think that presenting a fake neutrality overview of her positions on something like LGBT rights (a point where she has historically been very radical) is exactly the opposite of WP:NPOV – we don't have to twist the representation of facts in order to present politicians as neutral, this is not what NPOV is about. Honestly, at this point I think that this discussion on Meloni's LGBT policies looks very much like a big gaslighting from a couple of editors. Yakme (talk) 08:39, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Should Meloni be marked as a fascist?
I suggest that Meloni be marked as a fascist, because so far she has only been described as a far right politician in this wikipedia article, which is not precise enough. For instance, my sources here say that she is the neo fascist leader of a neo fascist party https://theintercept.com/2022/09/26/giorgia-meloni-italy-fascist/

We can also infer from this source that Meloni is fascist-adjacent and that she praised the fascist mass murderer Mussolini, which further underlines her sympathy for fascism https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/sep/27/the-election-of-italys-fascist-adjacent-giorgia-meloni-is-a-public-reminder-that-women-can-be-just-as-awful-as-men AlbrechtVonWallenstein (talk) 04:11, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The proper way to address this matter is to report the diversity of characterizations in reliable sources. However User:Davide King prefers otherwise, according to this edit.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:35, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Contrary to what your wording implies, I agree, but what does the view of a single journalist add? NPOV doesn't mean false balance or bothsideism; since it was a single journalist and source, it was clearly undue but it can be re-added if improved. I'm fine with our article, which doesn't describe her as fascist but present the overwhelming majority of sources citing her and her party's neo-fascist roots, which doesn't make her fascist by association but are clearly relevant, while including her response and also citing examples where she and the party distanced from that. We can't use those sources as fact because one is labelled opinion (The Guardian) and the other also is better used as one of many opinions (The Intercept). Anyway, I will try to add the other views (e.g. Sky) cited in The Guardian as a secondary ref and find other refs so that we can have a proper sentence that report other views and improve your previous addition. Davide King (talk) 18:04, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The gold standard at Wikipedia is a tertiary source, which is one that examines and summarizes various secondary sources. That’s what CNBC did here.  It didn’t take a position about which characterization is correct, and rather simply summarized the different characterizations.  If you can find a source that contradicts CNBC’s survey of the entire spectrum of media coverage, then by all means cite it along with CNBC.  Don’t just blank the CNBC report because you prefer that we make repeated insinuations of fascism or of being far-right-wing (which may or may not turn out to be correct).&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:10, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * My bad, I'd re-add it add myself but can we work to improve it? My main issue was how it was worded, which implied that was only the journalist position and lacked the tertiary usage of the source we could make. How about this? It is unclear how to characterize the coalition government, headed by Meloni, that was elected in September 2022. [Add those chracterizing it as very right-wing or far-right. If they're cited in the CNBC report, we can use that, or else we add sources that did so. Then add those saying either right-wing or non-fascist, such as Sky and the others mentioned in The Guardian piece]. Steve Sedgwick of CNBC said: "Have we got a center-right coalition, have we got a right coalition, have we got a far-right coalition, or have we got a fascist coalition? I have seen all four printed, depending on who you read." Another possibility is to make it shorter (e.g. avoid the bolded part above) and just paraphrase Sedwick instead, e.g. we say that "[O]bservers have discussed and disagreed about how right-wing a Meloni-led government would look like, and which label and position on the political spectrum is more accurate or realistic", to this effect. Davide King (talk) 18:39, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I’d prefer not to use the bolded part because it’s kind of superfluous, and it invites further editing to beef up one point of view or another.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:30, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think we can just ignore the significant coverage (first far-right led government and leader since 1945, the first in a major eurozone country since then, Italy's most right-wing government since World War II) but we do mention those who disagree through a secondary source, in addition to the primary one, and I've re-added Sedgwick as the tertiary source summary. Again, sorry for having removed it before. Davide King (talk) 12:32, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Discussion at reliable sources noticeboard
Here’s a new discussion about globalist.it which this BLP uses as a source.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:11, 11 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Again, what you are writing, it is untrue. The Globalist is a reliable news source. How can you say the titles "seems pretty shabby/unreliable" if you have zero knowledge in Italian?
 * 'Globalist' (launched in 2012) is one the main Italian syndications of journalists. Amongst its contributors there are famous journalists like Giovanna Botteri, Ennio Remondino, Giuliana Sgrena, etc. This fact can be read in one of the article published by the Italian National Press Federation, the unitary trade union of the Italian journalists.
 * Source: https://www.fnsi.it/il-futuro-e-digitale-ma-il-giornalismo-non-cambiannasce-globalistit-con-notizie-certificate --79.66.217.217 (talk) 16:24, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I've responded to this comment at RSN.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:35, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Portrait
We have a photo which is a portrait of good quality, with the individual looking straight ahead at the camera, face not covered by mic, and recently taken. It's similar to all other photo used for the previous Prime minister in their infobox. Can we please stop replacing it by a photo which doesn't gather all these elements ? Aréat (talk) 22:38, 22 October 2022 (UTC)


 * I agree. That photo they keep re-adding as the infobox photo is perfect for the "Prime Minister of Italy" section but the portrait is of better quality. I'd say to keep it like that until we get a proper portait as Prime Minister that is equal to teh February 2022 photo. Davide King (talk) 23:55, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
 * @Aréat‎ VosleCap, can we please find an agreement? Because I'm getting tired of having to fix the duplicated pic every time the infobox pic is changed. Davide King (talk) 18:18, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * the current one should be kept. VosleCap (talk) 19:02, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree. The photo with her looking straight ahead is more encyclopedic. The Proffesor (talk) 21:17, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

There is an institutional and recent official portrait picture available — the one with the light blue background — that must be used as her main portrait picture on Wikipedia.93.34.90.37 (talk) 16:00, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
 * It's of a way lower quality. Nothing compel us to use it instead of a recent better quality portrait just because it's an official one. Wikipedia doesn't obey the italian governement. Anyways, it's not even free of rights, and thus get eventually deleted everytime it's added.--Aréat (talk) 06:38, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

I'll request further protection for this article if these IPs continue changing the picture. --Vacant0 (talk) 14:58, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Can we add older picture back, this one is bad quality. Also the picture has copyright issues Shadow4dark (talk) 07:00, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

There are no official potraits for Prime Ministers, however if you are able to find an image that can be indicated for 2023 that would be great — Preceding unsigned comment added by VosleCap (talk • contribs) 23:29, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 February 2023
In the foreign policy section: "In January 2023, Meloni visited Algeria, where he met president Abdelmadjid Tebboune..." should be changed to "In January 2023, Meloni visited Algeria, where she met president Abdelmadjid Tebboune..." CaeCalig (talk) 06:26, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ --Vacant0 (talk) 07:09, 4 February 2023 (UTC)