Talk:Lega Nord/Archive 4

Lega Nord Sardinia and Lega Nord Abruzzo
In the table regarding Regional Election you missed Sardinia and Abruzzo, regions where Lega Nord opened seats and where the party have presented several candidates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.12.218.76 (talk) 23:36, 2 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Lega Nord Abruzzo and Lega Nord Sardinia are not official national sections of Lega Nord. However, I don't remember Lega Nord ever participating to regional elections or gaining notable results in those two regions: if I'm wrong, please let me know. What d'you mean with "opened seats"? --Checco (talk) 09:58, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Unreal anti-immigration,extremism, racism and...
I apologize for my English. As an Italian, I can say that it is a very common stereotype, exploited by political opponents, the fact that the Lega Nord is a racist, xenophobic or anti-immigration party. The Party opposes only illegal immigration, to gay adoptions and the construction of mosques. In fact, the Lega Nord also expressed an African-American mayor, Sandy Cane (first black-woman elected as Mayor in Italy), and also had an organization for gay rights called Los Padania ". Moreover, it is not far-right, because in the past it was close to the left-wings and many of its members were Socialists or Communists, with some Christian democrats and Liberals. Clearly now can be a party that stands as the centre-right, with some tendency towards right-wing (as the informal militias).--95.246.247.197 (talk) 18:58, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with you, especially on the fact that LN is not a far-right or right-wing party. As I have explained and argued many times LN is basically a big-tent party, trascending the left-right divide. This said, I do think that the article, with the exception of the infobox, is quite balanced. --Checco (talk) 19:36, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't agree with you...maybe in the past Lega was a Big tent party, which comprehended different ideologies, from the Communist (for example Salvini!!), to the Christian democrats and Conservatives, but now, even if, as I said before, Salvini was a Padanian Communist, the policies of Lega are drastically changed. Saying that Lega Nord is not against the immigration, in my view is fantapolitica; yes of course you can say that Anti-immigration is not properly an ideology, but many times, members of Lega Nord expressed their ideas against the immigration, and you cannot says that these are only gaffes or jokes. Moreover you said that Lega Nord is pro-gay marriage, well look at what Salvini said...12 To sum up, maybe Lega has some tendencies of a Big tent party, but the strongest part of its members have political ideas that in all the parties all around Europe and the World are considered of right-wing if not of far-right; look at the alliance with Marine Le Pen, who is not properly a left-wing politician... -- Nick.mon (talk) 10:04, 6 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I disagree with Nick.mon for many reasons. The first and foremost is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. That means articles must have a historical perspective. For instance, it is far too early to say that under Salvini "the policies of Lega are drastically changed". Lega Nord remains a big tent party and includes all kinds of people, as the most recent congress of the party has shown, and that should be reflected in the infobox. Salvini himself has a complex political personality: aside for his youth's communism, whom he recalls very often, he is quite socially liberal on some issues (including gays, with the exception of marriage), is at times economically liberal and at times a social democrat. Finally, immigration: the party opposes illegal immigration as each and every mainstream party in Europe does (are we going to describe the French Socialists as anti-immigration xenophobes because they repel illegal immigrants coming through Italy? and what about Obama's deportation of immigrants?), but is not anti-immigrant per se. A party including in its ranks people like Souad Sbai and Toni Iwobi can't be considered that way. --Checco (talk) 07:12, 8 August 2014 (UTC) Ps: It's not a good idea to use footnotes in a talk page; better to use external links!
 * Sorry but I disagree with you...you said that this is an encyclopedia, yes of course, but I don't understand why this reason should be against the fact that LN is a right-wing party. Moreover not even La Padania wrote that Lega isn't against immigration, and according to you we should write it in a free encyclopedia? You said that Lega Nord is against illegal immigration, well of course it is not against the immigration of foreign doctors who comes in Italy to study (which are very few), or people from Western Europe who came here to find a job (which are fewer). The Front National is against immigration (illegal, of course) as Lega Nord is, I really don't understand why you continue to represent LN as a moderate party. You quote Sbai and Iwobi, ok they are member of Lega Nord, I don't think that they are some leaders of Lega, aren't they? And anyway they haven't lot of power of decision inside the party. To sum up, I think that after years of debate, we understand that we have ideas, about Lega Nord, which are completely different and we will never reach an agreement, but it is "normal" :) -- Nick.mon (talk) 8:03, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * LN is not a moderate party, it is a big-tent, diverse party. There's nothing bad about being right-wing, but I just think LN is not. Thus I strongly disagree with some of the party's characterizations presented in the infobox. This said, I think we should focus less on infoboxes and more on contents. Sometime I will update the article in order to summarize the most recent party's divides. Notably, I will write on Tosi's disagreements with Salvini (please note how Tosi is still very strong within the party and might be the party's candidate in a possible centre-right coalition's primary). --Checco (talk) 12:36, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Opposition to immigration and in some cases even hostility towards immigrants is one of the—if not the single most well-described feature of Lega Nord in English-language expert literature. Wherever anti-immigrant parties in Western Europe are discussed, Lega Nord is always cited as a major example. To an international, non-expert public, Lega Nord is mainly known for some of its leaders' radically anti-immigrant, if not racist, statements. This is an important, defining feature of Lega Nord's rethoric and outwards appearance and certainly belongs in the infobox.
 * As for the position in the political spectrum, I acknowledge that Lega Nord is often described as right-wing or even far-right, both in mainstream international media and in expert literature. However I do not see consensus among scholars in this question. There are also many reliable sources that say it is difficult to place Lega Nord on the left-right axis or make no statement about its positioning in this traditional political spectrum, as it is not fitting the Lega's multifarious and complex composition that Checco has already cited above. Therefore I think the question where to put the Lega on the left-right-scheme and if it is appropriate to put it there at all, should best be discussed in the prose and not over-simplified in the infobox by chosing just one of the positions that are represented in literature (and media). --RJFF (talk) 18:13, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Opposition to illegal immigration* is not the most distinctive feature of Lega Nord, although the current leader has made it one of the three main themes of his "autumn campaign", along with the introduction of a flat tax and opposition to the euro. Moreover English-language literature misrepresent and fail to understand the nature of Italian parties. This said, I agree with RJFF that the issue should be mentioned in the infobox (even though it is not an ideology) and, contextually, that we should refrain from classifying the party on a left-right axis in the infobox. --Checco (talk) 11:56, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * *The party does not oppose immigrants per se and would be content with a management of illegal immigration similar to those of the United States, France, Spain, Germany or Austria.
 * I refuse to believe that all political scientists who publish books, journal articles or book chapters about Italian parties in English "misrepresent and fail to understand the nature of Italian parties". That's a pretty strong claim. Even if it was true, there is nothing we can do about it. Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth; and original research is not accepted. So if dozens of reliable, high-quality sources classify Lega Nord as an anti-immigration, if not anti-immigrant, party, we have to accept it, whether it matches your personal observations or not. I think it is highly implausible that an author like Andrej Zaslove, who holds a chair for Comparative Politics, has occupied himself with the Lega for years, and has published a book and a number of papers about it, fails to understand and misrepresents its nature. --RJFF (talk) 17:02, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Btw, have you read one/some/all of the cited books or articles? --RJFF (talk) 17:07, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I believe what I said, but I also agree with you that there's nothing we can do about it.
 * I appreciate and agree with your most recent edits. --Checco (talk) 10:18, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * If you think you understand Italian political parties better then most authors who publish in English, perhaps you should publish an article about them in an academic journal (I mean it seriously, not as a rhetoric means, I would love to see an article by you published, and I would be the first to cite it). If the whole English-language academic discourse misunderstood Italian politics, this should surely be corrected. And you won't be able to correct it by just editing Wikipedia articles, as Wikipedia is not a legitimate reference to be cited by scholars. --RJFF (talk) 17:58, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't understand Checco, he often does original researches, sometimes he valorizes articles worthless, but when there are really clear sources, he doesn't want to consider them! Lega Nord is a right-wing party (but not a far-right party), it is very clear --Maremmano (talk) 22:57, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

You, and especially Checco, know my positions about Lega Nord: I completely agree with RJFF, when he said that always Lega is took as an example when some journalists speaks about the opposition to immigration in Europe, and so I think there is no doubt about it (in my view). About the political position there are different ideas, as I said before, in my view, Lega Nord is a right-wing populist party, but I know that there are many and different positions about it. -- Nick.mon (talk) 13:00, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * @RJFF: I published academic papers, I could well publish one on Lega Nord too. I will think about it.
 * I will not answer to Maremmano's personal attacks (business as usual). While I respect Nick.mon's views, I still agree with RJFF: there is no consensus among academic scholars on Lega Nord's classification on the left-right spectrum. I would add that reality is more complicate than what it seems and that we should always stick to historical perspective. I thus think that this edit by Nick.mon should be replaced by a blank space. --Checco (talk) 17:48, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * My comments aren't personal attacks but the truth, I am referring to specific cases. However, it seems to me that in this discussion there is consensus for placement of the party to the right-wing, the Nick.mon's edit is correct --Maremmano (talk) 19:25, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Five users have spoken in this discussion and only two are in favour of "right-wing", for now. --Checco (talk) 19:34, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I have seen quite a number of seemingly reliable sources that deal with the Lega in detail and not just superficially and describe it as right-wing (but not far right), e.g. Zaslove (2011); Chiantera-Stutte (2005), The Italian Lega Nord; Gómez-Reino (2014), Regionalist Parties and the European Question; Tarchi (2007), Recalcitrant Allies. I admit that I have only looked in English-language sources and only in those accessible at google books. could you help to convince me that these sources are not representative of the whole scholarship by naming some sources that explicitly disagree with Lega Nord's placement on the right-wing? (I will gladly welcome sources that are in Italian and/or only exist offline.) In  table 5.2, I have read, to my great surprise, that supposedly 0.0% of LN supporters positioned themselves on the left or centre-left. This survey may not be representative as they only interviewed 41 respondents. But still it surprises me, because it contradicts the depiction in this article that LN supporters come from all sides of the political spectrum. Perhaps you could help reassuring me by citing some high-quality sources for the section about LN's supposed catch-all nature, which at present lacks appropriate sourcing. I am sorry that I cannot do it myself, because I am neither an expert on this subject, nor do I have access to (let alone acquaintance with) the relevant literature. --RJFF (talk) 19:43, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Depending on time (I also do not have access to much literature right now), I will think on how improving the article, following your advices. As already said, I also would like to add some information on the most recent internal ideological divides, especially those between Salvini, Maroni, Tosi and Zaia.
 * For now, let me just share some thoughts (my perspective is that of Venetian, who knows the party closely and, while not being among its fans, tries to be balanced), for the sake of discussion, though I perfectly know that Wikipedia is not a blog. A due premise is that all political categories are to be used on relative terms: I don't recall who said that political ideologies are similar to wines: they make sense only whether accompanied by year and geographical provenience!
 * Lega Nord's early supporters came from all political parties (as one source included in the article confirms), but I'm not surprised that, according to more recent polls, very few supporters describe themselves as left-wingers. This is one of the peculiarities of Italian and, to some extent, European politics, as opposed to American politics for instance: positionments on the left-right spectrum are consequential to partisan loyalties, not the other way around. This causes some problems when comparing parties, however, while there are clearly some issues which define LN as a centre-right or right-wing party, there are others on which it is on the left of the Democratic Party, Forza Italia or the New Centre-Right and, on several issues, LN's members share opposite views (just think of government intervention in the economic sphere, the environment or ethical issues). The same can be said of other Italian parties: sometimes it is quite difficult to order them on the left-right axis. For this reason, articles on parties should explain their complexity or, at least, this is what I learned from readings on broad or catch-all parties, from the Germany's Christian Democratic Union to the Scottish National Party—and Lega Nord is clearly a big, diverse and inter-classist party.
 * SIDE NOTE. Geography is what better defines Lega Nord's voters and, to some extent, those of the Democratic Party and other Italian parties too. Lega Nord's support is concentrated in some areas and the people who vote the party are very diverse. A small entrepreneur or a church-going person from the province of Treviso, Veneto is likely to vote for LN, while a small entrepreneur or a church-going person from the province of Siena, Tuscany is likely to vote for the PD. Lega Nord is particularly strong in the so-called Pedemontana from Friuli to Piedmont, but it is interesting to recall that some sections of the Pedemontana, especially in Friuli, eastern Veneto and western Piedmont, tended to vote for the PSI (or even the PCI) before 1992, while other sections, notably in western Veneto and eastern Lombardy, were strongholds of DC. No matter their former affiliations, the people from the Pedemontana are the most loyal supporters of Lega Nord.
 * --Checco (talk) 12:40, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Why are not the parties called Lega translated into english?
I don't understand why a party called "Lega" has never been translated in enwiki. The Lega Nord is best known as "Northern League" in the english language (also if the correct translation is "North League"), therefore the natural name of the page should be Northern League! --Maremmano (talk) 23:00, 28 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I support the current name mainly for three reasons:
 * the party is often referred to by English media and literature as "Lega Nord";
 * "Northern League" would not be a correct translation as "North League" or "League North" would be more literal translations;
 * the names of other parties would be very awkward (just think of "Northern League Emilia" or "Northern League Friuli-Venezia Giulia").
 * Finally I don't see any need to move an article whose established name is linked in hundreds of articles. --Checco (talk) 08:21, 30 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Your affirmation («the party is often referred to by English media and literature as "Lega Nord"») is absolutely wrong: almost all english sources call the party as "Northern League". It isn't the perfect translation of the italian name, but you know better than me that there are different criteria in enwiki (the most common name). The names of all Italian parties are translated, even those for which there are no sources. In this case almost all sources call the party as Northern League. I would like to know at least the opinion of the users who intervened in the previous discussion (Nick.mon, RJFF...) --Maremmano (talk) 19:36, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks to Maremmano for his interest in my opinion, anyway I have no preferences about that. Well we must said that the majority of the foreign parties are translated in English and only in few cases they manteined their "native name", for example Forza Italia or Podemos, but this because their names are sort of "slogans" I believe, and so it is better to write them in their original name. Lega Nord is not a "slogan" so we could change is name into "Northern League", anyway also what Checco said is true and change the name could create some problems. So, as I said, sorry, this not happens very frequently, but I have no preferences about that. -- Nick.mon (talk) 19:48, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Really I don't see great problems, the current name is linked in many articles (many of them only for the presence of the template of italian parties) but this isn't a problem, I don't even see problems for the translation of the names of the regional/national sections (the names would not be awkward), the litteral translation is North League but enwiki always uses the most common name, and in this case the most common name is certainly Northern League --Maremmano (talk) 21:03, 30 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Have you taken a look at the "further reading" section? Every single of the cited English-language works has "Lega Nord" in its title and not "Northern League". This is quite exemplary for my perception of the use in English-language expert literature. "Lega Nord" is usually retained in its original and not translated into English. (I am aware that many general media do translate the name, but this is not determining, in my opinion. "Northern League" is mentioned in the intro and there is a link to this article on the disambiguation page Northern League, as well as a redirect from Northern League (Italy), so every reader will be able to find it anyway; therefore I do not consider this an important issue.) --RJFF (talk) 15:40, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Lega Nord in its title? What are you saying? I see that most of the sources (not only the media) use the name "Northern League". The italian name of this page is inconsistent with all the other pages of Italian parties, that have a translated name, also if in some case it isn't supported by sources. For me there is no real justification for keeping the Italian name to this page --Maremmano (talk) 21:14, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

All english sources (,, , , , , , etc. etc.) deny your justifications... --Maremmano (talk) 10:26, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * "All" is a little bit of an overstatement. Who on earth would be able to have access to "all" sources? --Checco (talk) 12:48, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * "All" is a little bit of an overstatement, but the vast majority of the sources uses that name --Maremmano (talk) 13:16, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It seems as if you do not even read the references you cite: this one does use "Lega Nord" rather than "Northern League": (it mentions "Northern League" as the translation of 'Lega Nord', but both in the title and in the text it uses "Lega Nord"). This one uses both "Northern League" and "Lega Nord", but it uses "Lega Nord" one more pages, and on several pages it prints "Lega Nord" in bold and "Northern League" not. --RJFF (talk) 15:25, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 25 October 2014

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: consensus not to move the page, per the discussion below. Dekimasu よ! 17:23, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Lega Nord → Northern League (Italy) – There is no reason to maintain the italian name, all english sources call this party with the english name "Northern League", that is certainly the most common name into english language! Following the WP:COMMONNAME principle the best name for this party is "Northern League", the justifications to not move this page were specious. – Maremmano (talk) 10:21, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:48, 25 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose speedy This is discussed on the talk page and should go through a full discussion. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:13, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose speedy (and oppose move altogether): There is no consensus on Maremmano's proposal on talk page. --Checco (talk) 12:46, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

@Timrollpickering: But do you agree or not to move the page? --Maremmano (talk) 18:26, 25 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Support move to have name easy to understand. Katy Gallaghon (talk) 19:10, 25 October 2014 (UTC).
 * Oppose: In English-language specialised literature, the name is usually rendered in the original, not translated. See all works listed in the further reading section of this article. --RJFF (talk) 15:08, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Stronly oppose: "Northern League (Italy)" would be a far worse name than the current one, which is often used by English-language media and in English-language scientific literature. Moreover, "Lega Nord" is a long-time established name for this article and the articles on the federation's regional parties (Lega Nord Piemont, Lega Nord Emilia, etc.) wouldn't have obvious translations, consistent with "Northern League". --Checco (talk) 09:40, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Lega Nord is the default name used by the majority of English-language academic literature and commonly also used by the English-language media, and is the established article title (and for articles on the LN's regional sections).--Autospark (talk) 15:20, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Intro
Intros, especially their first paragraphs, are quite important. There is currently a dispute between User:Maremmano and me, and we should settle it. In his latest edit summary on 1 January 2015, Maremmano writes "No Checco, there isn't consensus for your modification on the consolidated version of the page's intro", but that's clearly not the case, as User:RJFF modified the intro on 19 December and, consequently, having accepted RJFF's changes, I also edited the intro the day after.

The established version of the intro's intro was the following:

Lega Nord ("North League", LN), whose complete name is Lega Nord per l'Indipendenza della Padania ("North League for the Independence of Padania"), is a federalist and regionalist political party in Italy. The party is often referred to as Northern League by English-language media, while in Italy it is referred to simply as Lega or Carroccio, after a four-wheeled war altar drawn by oxen, used by the medieval republics of northern Italy which formed the Lombard League in opposition to the imperialist design of Frederick I Barbarossa.

The shortened version of the intro's intro, after RJFF's and my edits, was the following (the explanation of Carroccio was moved to "Notes"):

Lega Nord (LN; "North League"), whose complete name is Lega Nord per l'Indipendenza della Padania ("North League for the Independence of Padania"), is a federalist and regionalist political party in Italy. The party is often referred to as Northern League by English-language media and literature, while in Italy it is referred to simply as Lega or Carroccio.

The version proposed by Maremmano was the following:

Lega Nord (LN, literally translatable to as North League and often referred to as Northern League by English-language media and literature), whose complete name is Lega Nord per l'Indipendenza della Padania ("North League for the Independence of Padania"), is a federalist and regionalist political party in Italy. The party is often referred in Italy to simply as Lega or Carroccio.

I have just edited the intro this way:

Lega Nord (LN; literal translation: North League), whose complete name is Lega Nord per l'Indipendenza della Padania (North League for the Independence of Padania), is a federalist and regionalist political party in Italy. The party is often referred to as Northern League by English-language media and literature, while in Italy it is also referred to simply as Lega or Carroccio.

I think that this version is quite a good compromise, including most of what RJFF, Maremmano and I have proposed. It is also consistent with the established version's structure. If someone disagrees with this version, please let us know why and we will surely find a better compromise. --Checco (talk) 08:35, 6 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree with the latest compromise version. --RJFF (talk) 10:54, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm in agreement here too.--Autospark (talk) 15:54, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, but at this point "English" is better than "literal translation" --Maremmano (talk) 21:33, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I disagree with this amendment. Both "Northern League" and "North League" are English translations, the difference is that the latter is a more literal one. --RJFF (talk) 11:33, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Political position, again
We long discussed in this talk about the party's political ideology and position. Wikipedia is based on third-party sources and consensus. There are several potential sources for each and every statement—including opposing ones, and they can thus highly differ from each other. An infobox should reflect the article's content and, in this case, the complexity of Lega Nord's ideology and position. To be explicit, the two sources included by Sideshow Bob are not authoritative enough and show only a part of the story. Lega Nord's ideology and position are more complicate that that, and, while the party is currently affiliated with the Italian (mainstream) centre-right as well as the right-wing Europe of Nations and Freedom, it has syncretic and big tent elements. "Right-wing" would be more accurate than "far-right" (differently from most of its European allies, the party is a regional and mainstream government party, involved in mainstream centre-right coalition politics), but "big tent" would be even more accurate (additionaly, as it is explained in the article, the party emerged from the "far-left" of the political spectrum and was long considered "centre-left"). I am going to add "big tent" and sources for it to the infobox, but my argument here is that we could easily get away with just ideologies in the infobox. --Checco (talk) 03:06, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The party is populist, explicitly anti-immigrant, Eurosceptic, and a long time EU-level ally of FN et al. I think merely right wing is simply inaccurate, since this is a typical populist radical right party (PRRP) in Mudde's terminology. I can provide you with numerous academic sources on their ideological profile agreeing on the radical right label. I agree that far-right is a bit far-fetched, maybe "radical right" is the most accurate description. Also, I would remove "big tent" as it would imply a centrist conglomerate of both left- ad right-wing policies, while Lega is clearly on the right side of the political spectrum. Berlusconi can be objectively labeled as right-wing (not centre-right, despite his attempts to promote this image), and LN is significantly further to the right on social and cultural issues. Sideshow Bob 08:05, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with Sideshow Bob; maybe in the past Lega was a big tent party, led by people like Bossi and Maroni, who had been member of small left-wing parties. Moreover many Lega Nord member were moderates and centrist like Flavio Tosi or Manes Bernardini (mayoral candidate in 2011 for Lega Nord in Bologna and now is the candidate of NCD-UdC). But now, with Salvini's leadership, the party move to the right and Lega is a close ally of European far-right parties like National Front, Party for Freedom, Vlaams Belang, so I think that consider Lega Nord a big tent party is anachronistic. -- Nick.mon (talk) 09:01, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I just wanted to concur with the assertion that any reference to "historical" ideological position should not be shown in the infobox which should include only basic and up-to-date information, while the article's purpose is to elaborate, among other things, on the historical development of LN's ideology. However, since the ideology is already quite well defined in the infobox, we can leave out "position" as an act of compromise, although I am leaning towards the above explained solution. Sideshow Bob 10:23, 10 March 2016 (UTC)


 * First of all, let me thank Sideshow Bob for his intellectual honesty. Leaving out position would be a good compromise.
 * I agree that "the infobox which should include only basic and up-to-date information", but I still think we should anyway avoid recentism, that is "writing or editing without a long-term, historical view". The LN's alliance with some of the parties which have been cited is a recent one and, while European alliance are an indication of a party's political ideology or position, they are often misleading (just think of Fianna Fáil or the Lithuanian Labour Party, both affiliated to ALDE but hardly liberal). So what about the Five Star Movement, which sides with the Sweden Democrats and Order and Justice in the EP?
 * The LN is historically and also currently a very different thing whether compared with the so-called "right-wing populist" parties and, as I argued before, the notion of "right-wing populism" is quite controversial and inconsistent per se. According to the related article, "right-wing populism is a political ideology that rejects existing political consensus and often combines laissez-faire liberalism and anti-elitism", not exactly appropriate for the LN.
 * More relevantly, the article reads: "classification of right-wing populism into a single political family has proved difficult, and it is not certain whether a meaningful category exists, or merely a cluster of categories, since the parties differ in ideology, organization, and leadership rhetoric." Moreover, most of the parties which are currently characterised as "right-wing populist" are not far-right: Jobbik and Kotleba are far-right, the French FN or the Austrian FPÖ are simply right-wing and, due to their strong electoral showings, are hardly fringe parties. In fact, the FN is primarily a right-wing party, not a far-right one, also according to Wikipedia.
 * However, differently from the FN, the LN has not a long-time right-wing ideological tradition and background, is not considered a pariah party in its own country and is a mainstream government party and, as a regionalist outfit, a broad big-tent outfit, especially in its heartlands (the highly productive, developed and educated Veneto and Lombardy). Salvini, who by the way comes from the hard left and describes himself as a "true" left-winger, might be a right-wing populist, but the party is a more complex bunch than a single person (should we stop classfying the Democratic Party as a social-democratic party just because Renzi is not a social democrat?). The party has always included right-wing elements as Borghezio, Calderoli and, yes, notably also Tosi and Bernardini (who were not moderats at all and had connections with far-right groups) and more left-leaning elements including Bossi, Maroni, Zaia and, yes, Salvini.
 * European politics is changing. It is definitely drifting rightward and toward populism. It is also possible that new ideologies will emerge (as green politics in the 1980s) and it is likely that political realignments will occur. We should thus be careful with classifications, especially when categories are outdated or out-of-scope. To be clear, not only the LN is not far-right (and not even right-wing, in my view) and has little in common with parties like the FN, but also the latter are no longer far-right or fringe parties as they were ten or twenty years ago: the current FN resembles the Italian National Alliance in the 1990s.
 * As Wikipedia editors, we should cherish sources, but, through consensus, we should also discern them, choose among them, give them the proper place. The present article clearly explains how the LN is currently opposed to illegal immigration, Islamic extremism, enhanced European integration and full-scale globalization, it explains other social-conservative stances taken by the party and also cites those very sources which catalogue it as a "radical right" party, but also balances all the different (ideological and historical) perspectives from which one can see the party. The article is not a totem and can be definitely improved all the time, but putting "far-right" or "radical right" or, even, "right-wing" in the infobox would be an easy as well as incorrect description. --Checco (talk) 10:36, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * As you said, parties like FN or FPÖ, which according to Wikipedia are "right-wing to far-right" movements, weren't similar to Lega Nord in the past and they have different stories and backgrounds; but now they are close ally in Europe (differently from M5S-UKIP, which are only in the same parliamentary group but often voted differently). Moreover Salvini is often chosen as an example of the new European radical right. As you said, we shouldn't change party's ideology and position only because the new leader had different ideas than the ones of his predecessors, but Lega Nord has been anti-immigration, Eurosceptic and sometimes racist, since its begging. Of course there were also some "moderates" or maybe not so rightist (as I said before, Tosi have voted sometimes in favour of Renzi government and Bernardini is the current candidate for NCD-UDC in Bologna), but by now I think that Lega Nord is clearly a right-wing party. You spoke about the Democratic Party, yes Renzi is not properly a social democrat, but he's a so colled Third Wayer, while Salvini and many others Lega Nord members are, in my view, right-wing populists. -- Nick.mon (talk) 07:34, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Lega Nord. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20141016223536/http://www.lapadania.net/Detail_News_Display?ID=3674 to http://www.lapadania.net/Detail_News_Display?ID=3674
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20141016223452/http://lapadania.net/Detail_News_Display?ID=3015 to http://lapadania.net/Detail_News_Display?ID=3015

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 07:58, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Social Issues
The section on the social issues stances of the Lega Nord is too vague. It is mentioned that the Lega Nord is associated with anti-same sex marriage and anti-marijuana stances, but it also mentions that these stances have varied in the past. Please provide a detailed timeline and more information on the social stances of the Lega Nord over time and try not to generalize too much. --Mhammel14 (talk) 08:00, 30 August 2016 (UTC) Mhammel14 (talk) 08:00, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Mafia Connection
Italy's history is rife with the connection to the Mafia; see also the assassinations of Falcone and others. While the "cosa nostra" is supposedly not very active in northern italy, and the Lega Nord is mostly a northern italy party, there are other mafia operatives, in particular the 'Ndrangheta. The article about Lega Nord does not mention much at all about this in general, so I think it would be good if, in the long run, any connection between the Lega Nord and the mafia could be commented and included into the main article, at a sub-paragraph, just as it has been done with other parties years ago. (The information lags a bit behind usually.) 2A02:8388:1641:4700:0:0:0:5 (talk) 10:07, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Table of regional elections
The table is already now kilometric, in other 15 years it will occupy a huge space, it is for this reason that the pages of all other parties don't contain tables like this. The first table with the results is more than sufficient, a page of an almost national party can't include a table like that--Wololoo (talk) 21:06, 29 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't see the problem. Generally speaking, this article is longer than others because the LN is the oldest among main parties.
 * Side note: the more I think about it the more I see that having the current number of regional councillors in tables is problematic because they tables needs to be constantly updated; honestly, I would go back to the previous versions of the tables. --Checco (talk) 10:48, 30 March 2017 (UTC)


 * The table will be kilometric in 15 years, there is no need to be a genius to figure out something so simple. Furthermore, I am beginning to be very tired of your constant mobbing activity against me, this attitude is really tiresome in the long run --Wololoo (talk) 22:42, 2 April 2017 (UTC)


 * It is also tiresome to have someone new like you calling into question every single thing we did or every single aspect we discussed on over the years, but, you know what, I always like to be called into question and, as you have seen, I am always open to debate. --Checco (talk) 06:40, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Current populist policies in lead-section
While the infobox contains plenty of fine academic references to Lega Nord's current right-wing populism, this isn't included at all in the lead section and that makes the article look a bit dated, as if the UKIP article just called it a single-issue anti-EU party and not Britain's leading populist and anti-immigration party. I'd do it myself but I'd probably make it look a bit jagged and unnatural, somebody who is a better writer than me would really aid the project by adding it in. Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 17:43, 23 April 2017 (UTC)


 * (I changed the section name to make it shorter.)
 * You are right: the lead section needs an update and I will do it right away. However, while the party is definitely in alliance with right-wing populist and even nationalist parties, the consensus has been to describe it primarily as regionalist, federalist and populist (not right-wing populist). The party, which has long been a big-tent party including also left-wing tendencies, is a bit complex. The party's federal leader, Salvini, is a strong supporter of anti-Europeanism and populist policies, but the party is quite different at the regional level, both in Veneto and Lombardy, where it is led by Zaia and Maroni, two moderates who have centrist and even left-wing attitudes (Zaia considers the League as a "labour party", while Maroni is a former activist of Proletarian Democracy and the Greens). --Checco (talk) 06:59, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 27 June 2017

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: No consensus — JFG talk 10:43, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Lega Nord → Northern League (Italy) – I know that there has been another request for moving in the past here above, but honestly, the few reasons against the move leave me perplexed, they are rash considerations... Northern League is doubtless the most common name in the english language, we have pages of parties titled with translated names without any source! The name Northern League is widely used by important newspapers like The Guardian, Daily Mail, Financial Times, Newsweek, The Wall Street Journal, New York Times, The Telegraph, political websites like The Huffington Post and The Daily Beast media like BBC , News agencies like Reuters and ANSA , books and academic literature  and I could continue. Sincerely, It takes a great deal of courage to affirm that "Lega Nord" is the most common name in the english language, it is obvious that every party sometimes isn't reported with the translated name! Also the names of the regional parties isn't a problem, at most, just enter the region name in parentheses. For the sake of readers this page should be moved. Wololoo (talk) 20:46, 27 June 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. —  AjaxSmack  04:33, 9 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Support per nom. Lega Nord is certainly used in quite a few English-language sources but, as the nominator demonstrates, Northern League is more common.  It also has the advantage of consisting of English words.  —  AjaxSmack  15:07, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose The nom has simply cherry-picked a few examples of Northern League usage - I could easily do the same for Lega Nord. Having the article here serves as a natural disambiguation from Northern League as well. AusLondonder (talk) 22:28, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose Lega Nord is more commonly used in English language academic texts. The current article name is long established on en.wiki. Keeping the current, established name matches the various article names for the articles about the regional components of the Lega Nord party (e.g. Lega Nord Alto Adige/Südtirol. Lega Nord Toscana, etc).--Autospark (talk) 13:19, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: I just took a demonstration sample, to prove that the most important British and American newspapers (and other media) use the english name. Indeed, can you "easily" prove that the italian name is more used than the english one? Furthermore Northern League doesn't have a unique meaning, the "natural disambiguation" loses any usefulness.
 * I thought the page titles were determined by the "most common name" not by the academic texts, that obviously can use the original name also for the other parties, not only for the LN. However also the academic texts call the party Northern League, so the affirmation about a greater use of the Italian name should be proved. Then, I have already explained that the regional parties are not a problem, a solution can be easily found, e.g. "Northern League (Tuscany)" or "Northern League of Tuscany", both correct.
 * The opinions of others must be certainly respected, but certain statements must also be demonstrated, otherwise the discussion does not make any sense...--Wololoo (talk) 21:23, 3 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Strongly oppose per User:AusLondonder and User:Autospark. I especially oppose "Northern League (Italy)", while I could eventually live with "Northern League" (per main topic), but this would need moving the current "Northern League" to "Northern League (disambiguation)". As User:Autospark correctly observes, the current name matches the names of the "national" (i.e. regional sections of the party, whose translation would be more problematic. All this said, "Lega Nord" is the most appropriate name for this article and I have supported it for years. I really do not see any reason for a change. --Checco (talk) 13:24, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: I'm sorry for the opposition to the proposal with unsupported arguments, the most common english name would be in the sake of readers. The title "Northern League" without disambiguation, of course, would not be possible. Instead the regional parties, as already explained, weren't a problem, they could be easily renamed....--Wololoo (talk) 20:19, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * If you concede a move to Northern League isn't possible then why remove the natural disambiguation? AusLondonder (talk) 21:13, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Because "Northern League" remains certainly the most common name, but in the english language it hasn't only a meaning, I think however that a disambiguation would be advisable (Italy, or political party etc.) --Wololoo (talk) 21:35, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:NCDAB. In the first point there it suggests using natural disambiguation - "When there is another term (such as Apartment instead of Flat) or more complete name (such as English language instead of English) that is unambiguous, commonly used in English (even without being the most common term), and equally clear, that term is typically the best to use." AusLondonder (talk) 23:59, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

CN¥
 * Oppose per . The current title is unambiguous, commonly used in English ... and equally clear. "Northern League" does indeed seem to be rather more often used in reliable sources, but the title proposed here, "Northern League (Italy)", is not used at all. If it isn't broken, there's no need to mend it. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:22, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. The organisation is much more often known as "Northern League". I have heard of that, but "Lega Nord" means nothing to me. Therefore it's likely many readers are also in the same position. In short, the current title violates WP:RECOGNIZE and WP:COMMONNAME. The proposed title is very clear and makes it patently obvious what the thing is. NATURALDIS doesn't apply here, as the current title is not commonly used. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:51, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Support per WP:COMMONNAME – for example, the BBC overwhelmingly use "Northern League" in preference to Lega Nord (based on a quick search, about 576 uses of Northern League and 41 of Lega Nord, with several uses of the latter merely being a translation in parentheses). I would also dispute the largely unsubstantiated claims about Lega Nord being more commonly used in academic literature; a Google Books search for "Lega Nord" Italy threw up 16,200 hits compared to 18,800 for "Northern League" Italy (I included the word Italy in both searches to remove Italian language books); a Google scholar search gave 6,500 for "Northern League" Italy and 5,480 for "Lega Nord" Italy if non-English books are removed. Number   5  7  13:59, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose per . "Lega Nord" is unambiguous and well-know. It is a form of natural disambiguation per WP:NDIS. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:59, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Support – The common name is 'Northern League'. This has been adequately dealt with above. Whilst some might say that the present title is a form of natural disambiguation, I disagree, as it is not in English. Per WP:ENGLISH, article titles should be in English, so as to avoid confusing our readership, as this is the English Wikipedia. In this case, the comprehensibility of 'Northern League (Italy)' is higher than that of 'Lega Norda', which is impossible for an English speaker to pronounce or understand without knowledge that we should not assume he has. For this reason, we cannot consider the present title a form of natural disambiguation. This is one of the few cases where parenthetical disambiguation is preferable. As for whether this Northern League is the primary topic, I haven't seen evidence on the subject, so I shan't comment.  RGloucester  — ☎ 04:25, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 7 March 2018

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: consensus not to move the page at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasu よ! 17:40, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Lega Nord → Lega – Lega is the new title of this Italian political party. Current page Lega will need to be made a disambiguous page Outback the koala (talk) 13:56, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:45, 7 March 2018 (UTC)


 * queried move request Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:46, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Obviously not. And any RM should really be a multi-template placed on Lega to Lega (disambiguation) not on the Italian party's Talk page. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:18, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Is there a better place to post this? I have not done this before. Outback the koala (talk) 14:56, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * By using a multimove template which can be found at WP:RM. But in this case don't think it would make much difference, unless you intended to propose Lega (party) or something. In ictu oculi (talk) 21:11, 7 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose. The party's official name is still "Lega Nord (per l'indipendenza della Padania)". --Checco (talk) 19:15, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose, as per above.--Autospark (talk) 20:12, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose – In my view we should move the article (or better, create a new one) only when the statute will be officially modified by the party's congress. -- Nick.mon (talk) 21:35, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * This might be the best solution, or create Lega (list).Outback the koala (talk) 16:26, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I think that's a pointless split which needlessly separates content that's obviously related to this article – that'd be like splitting Austrian People's Party into Sebastian Kurz List. Mélencron (talk) 16:32, 8 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose, as per above.--Panam2014 (talk) 21:05, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Lega should remain the disambiguation page. There are far more important Legas than just a local Italian party. For example, there are the African Lega people, the Lega language, there is a Lega river in Poland and many more. For the Italian party if need be, I would suggest Lega (party), or if there are other Lega parties as well, then probably Lega (Italian party). What I understand though is that, still, the party is Lega Nord, but for election purposes, they restyled the party's symbol logo to just Lega, to appeal to other Italian regions during the election, but they are still legally the Lega Nord werldwayd (talk) 04:42, 10 March 2018 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Fully protected
Seems to be a dispute on the infobox, please settle it via talk page discussion rather than edit warring. --kelapstick(bainuu) 20:06, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 25 April 2018

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the page as proposed at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasu よ! 19:25, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Lega Nord → Northern League (Italy) – As announced, I propose again the move of this page, for COMMONNAME and Official names. Above all, Northern League is the official english name of this party (see the name used in the website of the european party of LN, the Movement for a Europe of Nations and Freedom, and of the Italian Chamber of Deputies ). Then, "Northern League" is absolutely the most common name of this party in the english language, used by important newspapers like The Guardian, Daily Mail, Financial Times, Newsweek, The Wall Street Journal, New York Times, The Telegraph, political websites like The Huffington Post and The Daily Beast , News agencies like Reuters, ANSA and Bloomberg , books  and academic texts. The last year the move was rejected with 5 favorable opinions and 5 contrary opinions, but the contrary opinions were based on inexact or not proven motivations: Lega Nord isn't more commonly used in English language academic texts (I demonstrated it above) and the names of regional sections of LN can be easily translated (the translated names are already present in the pages). I would correct the links myself in the pages of institutions, elections and important party's members. So, please to allow the move of the page and to remedy this inconsistency with the pages of other parties. I have proposed "Northern League (Italy)", but also "Northern League (political party)" could be fine as an alternative. Wololoo (talk) 12:48, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. See Article titles #1: use a naturally disambiguated title that is also used in English when the undisambiguated common name is ambiguous. Celia Homeford (talk) 14:09, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose as above (citing Article titles). In addition, Lega Nord is commonly used by the English-language media and academic literature; "Lega Nord" is the long-established article title, which also gives symmetry to the article titles for articles about LN's various regional/'national' sections.--Autospark (talk) 15:05, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * @Autospark: You did not even read what I wrote, evidently! "Lega Nord is commonly used by the English-language media and academic literature": Can you prove your affirmation?--Wololoo (talk) 18:31, 25 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose as above, per User:Autospark. I like English names, but the proposed name(s) is/are too long when compared with the current one, which matches all the related articles: "Lega Nord Piemont", "Lega Lombarda", "Liga Veneta", "Liga Veneta Repubblica", "Lega Autonomia Veneta", etc. I also think it is important to keep those names in the original language in order to reflect their similarities and differences (e.g. Lega/Liga). --Checco (talk) 19:48, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * @Checco, also this motivation is very forced: the difference between Liga/Lega? Do you really think that this detail may interest some English readers? And I repeat for the umpteenth time: I want to translate also the regional sections too, what symmetry are you talking about? --Wololoo (talk) 20:12, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Obviously the users Autospark and Checco don't answer me.... I expected it, however it's sad that some users oppose the move with not founded reasons...--Wololoo (talk) 20:08, 26 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment However, if the page will not be moved even this time, the intro of the page will must still be changed (too dispersive, also Italian People's Party isn't the perfect translation of the original name) and the english official name has to be indicated in the infobox, like for the belgian parties --Wololoo (talk) 20:35, 25 April 2018 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Infobox
@Checco and Vif12vf: This edit war is boring me, I have explained that the English name is inserted in the infobox even in the case of the original name as title, for example Diventerà Bellissima and Forza Europa (2017) (and the Francophone belgian parties). Furthermore Checco is used to unofficial or totally invented translation, here instead we are talking about the official de facto translated name of the party (many academic texts, important newspapers and, above all, the website of the european party of the League and the Chamber of Deputies . The last time, the requested move's procedure was closed with 5 favorable opinions and 5 against, so I will soon propose again the move (then some opinions against the move were pretentious enough, considering that many names of italian parties are translated without any source). However, please avoid this useless edit war, the recognized english name in the infobox is totally consistent with other pages, if you can not give a valid reason (and I doubt it) i will restore the english name in the infobox --Wololoo (talk) 20:13, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The consistency argument is very weak and there is no standard. Belgian parties are an exception as their articles are mostly named with native names, differently from most parties. I have tried to correct that inconsistency in the past and I will try again in the future, but it is not my priority. The article on Forza Italia is named "Forza Italia" and its infobox's name is "Forza Italia", thus, if there is a consistency issue, we should take example from that. For me the principle is quite simple: the infobox's name should reflect the article's name. I will thus correct "Forza Europa", I will do the same with "Diventerà Bellissima" (what about moving it to its English translation, by the way?) and I hope User:Wololoo will refrain from imposing his (minority) view here. --Checco (talk) 06:59, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Imposing my minority? Because two users revert my edits? Forza Italia has not an official translation, not even Diventerà Bellissima! This speech has nothing to do with it with Northern League. "Infobox's name should reflect the article's name": the infobox must include the page's name, but also the official translation, regardless of the title of the page.--Wololoo (talk) 07:52, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Also other users thanked me and what you are opposing is a long-established version. By the way, you say that "the infobox must include the page's name, but also the official translation": I offered a compromise version seven days ago and you reverted it. --Checco (talk) 08:20, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, the famous thanks (by the other user that has not answered?)... the "compromise version" was worse than current version. You say that it isn't your priority, but you have continued this edit war deleting the english official name from the infobox. I repeat: also the page's title is not consistent, because there is an official english name, so it cannot be excluded from the infobox too, being also the most common name --Wololoo (talk) 08:41, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I am not mentioning users who have not participated in talk yet. Belgian parties are not my priority. --Checco (talk) 08:54, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The party name in the infobox should be left simply as "Lega Nord", in line with the article title.--Autospark (talk) 14:10, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh please... "in line with the article title": following your reasoning, for the parties with the english name as title, the italian name should not be indicated in the infobox. Really, I cannot to understand you, I don't understand why you try to hide the official english name of this party (and in this same topic you, proposed to pratically invent an english name for another party), also because I didn't remove anything, I only added an information that was continuously removed. You compare this page with Forza Italia, but Forza Italia has not a real translation in the english language! This page has to been compared with the similiar pages, and these pages have both names in the infobox! Belgian parties are not youe priority, and then? Wikipedia however is one, the infoboxes are the same for all parties, all pages must be consistent with each other. I would like to propose again the move of this page, but my real fear is that you will repeat falsehoods, while Northern League is the official english name of this party, it is the most common english name and it is the frequently used by academic texts (and the ones that call this party with its italian name, they use the italian name also for the other parties), it would be more honest and sincere "I don't like the English name for this party because not" (also the problematic translation of regional sections it is not a real motivation, there is any difference between "Northern League Tuscany" and "Lega Nord Toscana"). So, I invite you to have a more constructive attitude, because the denial to move a page with incorrect motivations isn't fair...--Wololoo (talk) 20:52, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * This article settled at the current name ten years ago or more: I would not change it now, after hundreds of articles written and thousands of (direct) links inserted. Broadly speaking, I do think that the articles on "Forza Italia" (2), "Forza Europa" (2), "Lega Nord", "Lega Nord Piemont", "Lega Lombarda", "Liga Veneta", "Liga Veneta Repubblica", "Lega Autonomia Veneta", etc. should keep their names in order to reflect their similarities and differences (e.g. Lega/Liga).
 * This said, as a general rule, I agree that "all pages must be consistent with each other". In fact, I oppose the fact that some articles on Belgian parties are not in English and I would much appreciate your help in supporting the move of those articles to their English names: the users involved told me that it is a reasonable exception, but I continue to disagree; please help me, if you want! --Checco (talk) 06:29, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Also these belgian parties were renamed may years ago, your reasoning is not applicable only to this party. The direct links are not a problem, because they refer directly to a page, and not even for how many years the page has been renamed, because there is not a deadline to use a better title. Forza Italia and Lega Nord are not comparable, Forza Italia is known with its original name everywhere, also because hardly translatable, but Lega Nord is more known with its english name, more than other italian parties that have instead an english title. About the belgian parties, how can I help you, if you don't help me?--Wololoo (talk) 20:34, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

At this point it is clear, Northern League is the recognized english name, the reasons against the move are only technical motivations and not reasons for merit, therefore the principal english name can't be excluded from the infobox. In all cases of parties with the original name as title for "technical reasons", the english name is indicated in the infobox that provides "name" and "native name", NOT PAGE'S TITLE! So the reasons for the removal are unfounded, please avoid further and inconsistent edit wars --Wololoo (talk) 08:25, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

@Checco The name "Northern League" is used by: the website of the Movement for a Europe of Nations and Freedom, by the Chamber of Deputies , by the personal website of the MEP Lorenzo Fontana , by the CV of MEPs in the EP's website : it isn't only a name often used by english sources, but it is the english name used by official sources, they are two very different arguments. I'm not inventing anything, the page was not moved only for technical reasons, but the official English name remains that. --Wololoo (talk) 10:02, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Party's symbol
We've already discussed about this issue, but I think that there're some news. In the regional election in Molise, the party will use the "Lega" symbol with the words "Salvini – Molise" (as you can see here); in Friuli the party will use the "Lega" symbol too, but without the word "Premier" (as you can see here). The 2018 election symbol is still used in party's website, Facebook and Twitter accounts, and for the regional elections, so I think we should consider to use it also in the infobox. -- Nick.mon (talk) 10:21, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 * For me it's ok --Wololoo (talk) 23:36, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Uhm, however, that is not the party's official symbol and, from what User:Nick.mon wrote, I see that the symbol is different in every electoral contest. What about having both the official and the (2018 general) electoral symbols? There is a specific parameter for that. --Checco (talk) 10:48, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I know that it isn’t the party’s official symbol, but sincerely I don’t see the previous logo since Autumn 2017, the “Lega” symbol is used almost everywhere (Facebook, Twitter, website, campaign ads, electoral ballots) and it has become de facto the new party’s logo. -- Nick.mon (talk) 11:58, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * What about the compromise solution I proposed? --Checco (talk) 16:18, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Maybe it is a good compromise until this situation will be clarified and (maybe) Salvini will decide to change officially the party's logo. -- Nick.mon (talk) 17:12, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I support this compromise.--Autospark (talk) 14:45, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Never seen 2 symbols in the same infobox, the party infoboxes have only one symbol. Is it so difficult to respect the standards for the infobox of this party? --Wololoo (talk) 20:48, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * However, there is an infobox parameter for that, so two symbols may be included in an infobox. Three users over one is not quite a consensus, thus, offering an olive branch and looking forward to a larger consenus, I will return to the long-established version.
 * At the same time, it is clear from this talk and the article's chronology that there is no consensus on replacing the article's name with Wololoo's preferred translation (which is very common, but not official), let alone changing idelogies and position. Wikipedia is regulated by sources and consensus. The two go together. Moreover, one of the involved sources does not even mention the party!
 * Let me also say that total rollbacks like this one (which removed articles and added redundant links) are not the proper way to operate in Wikipedia.
 * Finally, there is no consensus also on including the table on "regional governments", as Talk:Democratic Party (Italy) clearly indicates: that table should be removed and that is exactly what I am going to do. --Checco (talk) 07:34, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * @Checco it isn't my preferred translation, it isn't only an usual translation, it is the translation used by the website of the European Party of LN, by the Chamber of Deputies and by the personal website of the MEP Lorenzo Fontana, so it is clear enough that Northern League IS THE OFFICIAL TRANSLATION. The section name of the infobox doesn't concern the page's title, this is shown on many pages. And the page was not moved only for technical reasons (the disambiguation) since it seems to me to have shown that the other motivations were not founded. The political position has already been discussed above and you continue to don't care it. In Wikipedia the official sources, the academic sources are more important than your personal opinion, indeed my edits are based precisely on these sources. About the section Regional government, it was not absolutely decided that it must be deleted, it is another unfounded motivation. If you continue to delete the official english name and the agreed political position (based also on academic sources) I will have to continue to restore the page, because I can't allow the imposition of POV.
 * About the symbol in the infobox, I disagree to enter two logos in the infobox essentially because I have never seen two symbols in the same infobox (LN isn't the only party to adopt an electoral logo different from the official one). Furthermore both symbols are indicated at the bottom of the page, I do not see the reason to repeat them so many times, however for me it is indifferent whether to use the official logo or the one used in the 2018 general election for the infobox--Wololoo (talk) 20:08, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * ps: That link had certainly not been inserted by me, but you have deleted it along with the informations I had entered. Anyway, I deleted it--Wololoo (talk) 21:06, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Fair enough on the two-symbol solution. It was supported by three users (User:Autospark, User:Nick.mon and I) and opposed by you, but I acknowledge that this is not a large consensus, thus the long-established version may stay until we don't reach a real consensus. At the same time, there is no consensus on the changes you are continuosly re-proposing, despite several users opposed you or thanked me for rollbacking you. I will have to do it again. Will you ever realise that some your desiderata are not supported by consensus? --Checco (talk) 09:20, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Regardless of the double logo, you continue to delete informations based on academic or official sources (and agreed above), this behavior is very bad--Wololoo (talk) 09:28, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * And however, I am not reverting the double logo in the infobox, but the continued removal of proven data. If there is consensus, it can obviously be inserted in the infobox, although I honestly do not see the reason (it is already shown on the page...)--Wololoo (talk) 10:07, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * There is no consensus on such proposals, especially the infobox's name. --Checco (talk) 10:19, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The political position has been agreed by most users (and it is indicated in several academic sources); about the english name, I am simply entering the name used by all official sources (see the talk above), being Wikipedia based above all on the sources --Wololoo (talk) 10:29, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * In this discussion, three users supported adding "far-right", other two opposed it; I was recently thanked for reverting your edit by a sixth user. There is clearly no consensus on far-right and also 3–2 would not be consensus. Let's keep the long-established version for now. Ideology and other positions were not even discussed, so the other edits you are imposing are even less consensual. Finally, there is clearly not a consensus on changing the infobox's name. Please STOP. --Checco (talk) 11:07, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * He was the same user for six times (which has not more intervened since I interpellated him), not six users. The political position is supported by the majority of users and established by academic sources. Please you stop!--Wololoo (talk) 11:21, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Political position
@Nick.mon ,@Checco: I saw that Checco has removed far-right as political position despite the numerous sources: now, I consider a few counterproductive to remove informations based on numerous sources, Wikipedia isn't the place for personal opinions but it is based on sources. Personally I don't consider Lega and Fratelli d'Italia as far-right parties, but it is undeniable that outside Italy these two parties are often placed on the far-right. I would restore that information, because I think valid reasons are needed and a personal consideration cannot be sufficient to remove information supported by numerous sources... --Wololoo (talk) 20:10, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * As I said many times, I personally don’t consider LN a far-right party (in my view only neo-Nazi and neo-fascist movements can be considered far-right parties), but many many sources say that and even if Lega is a bit different from other populist parties across the continent like FN, AfD, FPÖ, VB, etc. it’s consider by almost every political commmentator (in Italy and abroad) a part of the rightist populist wave that is shocking Europe and the Western World. All these parties are listed as “right-wing to far-right”, and in my view, we should consider Lega a “right-wing to far-right” party too. So I support “right-wing to far-right” but I can quite easily live with only “right-wing”, in my view the most important thing was to stress the difference with the past. -- Nick.mon (talk) 22:11, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Indeed also in my view the League is more a right-wing party than a far-right party, but if there are many sources that support this position, we can not ignore them. For this reason I prefer to indicate “right-wing to far-right” as political position --Wololoo (talk) 23:04, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

The three of us think that the LN is not a far-right party–in my view, it is not even a right-wing party, despite its current positionment. Wikipedia is made by consensus and sources. I hope there is not a consensus on far-right and that other articles might change too. Anyway, we cannot do a consistency-based reasoning here because we are talking about parties with several differences. Moreover, the sources given are not particularly relevant. --Checco (talk) 09:59, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * But the sources are more relevant than my or your personal view. And at the moment, there is the consensus to restore the previous version--Wololoo (talk) 10:46, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Two against one is not consensus, especially because we are discussing about the change of a long-established version, which did not include "far-right". There is no "previous version" to restore, as that version was not consistent with the long-established consensus. It is also nonsensical what you are doing with the party's name in the infobox: the main name should be consistent with the article's name, thus, in our case, it should be "Lega Nord". "Name" and "native name" are the names of infobox parameters which do not come up: the outcome is what counts, substance over hyper-formalism! --Checco (talk) 10:49, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * But if we remain three users, the opinion of two users prevails on the opinion of the other one, above all if the information is based on many sources, because the consensus in necessary to remove a sourced information, not to insert it
 * For the name: the english name of the party is Northern League, there is no reason to remove it from the infobox--Wololoo (talk) 12:10, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * There is long-established consensus and it cannot be overturned by two users against one.
 * On the name, there is NO official English name and the literal translation would be "North League". Anyway, this is not the point. The article is named "Lega Nord", thus the big name in the infobox should be "Lega Nord", otherwise it would be patently inconsistent. --Checco (talk) 21:41, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * If the title of the page is the italian name, cannot the english name be inserted into the infobox? I don't saw any inconsistency (for example, see the pages of belgian parties, it is a normal practice to indicate both names in the infobox) and I repeat, maybe Northern League isn't the "official" english name, but it is certainly the most common english name (I've already shown it).
 * However, we are talking about the political position: this is an opened talk, therefore if the users that intervened in the past on this topic (Sideshow Bob, Filippo83 and RJFF) want to give their opinion, they are welcome. After which it is necessary to make a decision, considering however that numerous sources can not simply be ignored --Wololoo (talk) 23:24, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your citation Wololoo. Personally, I consider as far-right what has an undeniable link to some hard-nationalist if not nazi-fascist past: by this way, despite having several common points in their programs, there is a significant difference between Fratelli d'Italia, that is a "near-to-far-right" party in my opionion, and Lega Nord. Actually Fratelli d'Italia is e.g. much colder than Lega Nord on the issue of transforming Italy into a federal state, and would prefer a more France-style republic. I must admit that I was leaning, for some time, on the idea that Salvini was tranforming Lega into a real right or far-right party; but now I would not say so. I see Salvini as more a pragmatic and sly tactician, who has just reinforced the traditional strongholds and ideas of Lega, updated them from 1988 to 2018, kept most part of the "old guard" in the local administrations, abandoned Padanian secessionism and little else to expand them southward through the Boot. Indeed Lega is still far much stronger in the North, and still looking for regional autonomy, weaker central (Rome) power, lesser bureaucracy and taxes, tighter immigration control and law&order policies: all of them typical northern Italian issues. Maybe I do not like him or part of his programs, but I have to give him credits. It is anyway increasingly difficult to place a party, today, at the right or the left of the political spectrum; but I would not place Lega Nord to the far-right. Filippo83 (talk) 20:29, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you Filippo83, I take this opportunity to renew the invitation to intervene also to Sideshow Bob and RJFF. Furthermore, I would like to ask another thing: are we sure that "Left-wing to centre-right" as "Historical, now minority" political position is correct? Left-wing can be considered as Historical, but not a current minority, while centre-right can be considered currently a minority, but not as historical position (and for "centre-right" not even a source is indicated). In my view that setting is wrong --Wololoo (talk) 22:52, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I perfectly agree with User:Filippo83. Moreover, it is not news that, since the beginning or the early 1990s, the party included left-wingers (Bossi, Maroni, etc.), centre-left types (Formentini, Petrini, etc.), centrists (Pagliarini, Comino, etc.), centre-right people (Leoni, Calderoli, etc.) an right-wingers (Borghezio, Boso, etc.). There is still a minority of left-wingers, even though they are not prominent today. Among the well-known politicians, Fava can be considered to hold a centre-left position. --Checco (talk) 06:14, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * On the name in the infobox and your latest edit summary, please consider that there is no standard version and what I am doing is just re-uploading the long-established version. If it is a "useless edit war" (surely it is), why did you start it? Why your version should replace the one which has been there for years? I am going to rollback again and I urge you to stop. --Checco (talk) 10:10, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * You're the one who keeps rollback all my edits, I'm starting to tire of this hostile attitude --Wololoo (talk) 12:57, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I also agree with Nick.mon, as "right-wing to far-right" best encompasses LN's political position. The current version is not only false, but also confusing. There is nothing left-wing (or centre-left or whatever) about Lega Nord, despite the original research or individual impressions of certain users. I can provide numerous academic references which classify the party as far-right, especially during the 1980s and 1990s. Just because it has softened its public discourse in recent years in order to attract mainstream voters, it does not mean that it is moving towards the left-wing, as this is the general trend with all the European right-wing populists (e.g. other members of MENL). For anyone acquainted with the concept of political ideologies, it would be enough just to see the list of political doctrines embedded in LN's ideology (anti-immigration, populism, Euroscepticism, nationalism, anti-globalisation, etc.) to automatically place them on the right side of the political spectrum. It could perhaps best be described as a populist radical right-wing party, but regarding the political position it is certainly somewhere between traditional right-wing parties (conservatives, Christian democrats) and the far-right. Sideshow Bob 11:53, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Historically Lega Nord wasn’t so far from being a leftist movement: Bossi and Maroni were two left-wingers and staunch anti-fascist, Lega had always supported northern middle and lower classes, especially workers, and also Massimo D’Alema once said that Lega was a left-wing party. However, Lega’s famous opposition (maybe also racism) through southern Italians wasn’t properly a classic ideology of a leftist party. About “the past”, I always supported the version used in it.Wiki “Trasversalismo”, that is Big tent. Of course also today Lega can be considered a Big tent party like many other populist movements in Europe, but it has a clear right-wing tendence. -- Nick.mon (talk) 12:19, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry Sideshow Bob, how could you ever think that populism, Euroscepticism, nationalism, anti-globalisation, etc. are typical of far-right parties only? There is even some anti-immigration left-wing party around Europe, both national/mainstream and local/sectarian, but on this I agree is more a right-wing issue. Perhaps, did they freeze you 100 years ago, to wake you up now? Do we have to remember you pages such Left-wing populism? Sorry for my sarcasm, but this list is not a good point at all. Also please be explicit in your academic references: we are here to get some discussion, not to accept some kind of ipse dixit. Do not take me wrong: maybe your argument is more solid than it appears to be now; but you have to provide some more evidence - and accept the fact that also the left-wing of the political spectrum is home to populism, Euroscepticism, nationalism, anti-globalisation, etc. Filippo83 (talk) 13:35, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * @Filippo83, I answer you too: populism, euroscepticism and anti-globalisation they are not just distinctive elements of the right, but they concern also the far left parties. However, only these characteristics are not enough to establish the political location of a party. but there are many articles of important newspapers that describe the League also as a far right party. Furthermore, there are academic references that define the League as a far right party: Italy’s Lega Nord: Changing Poses in a Shifting National and European landscape The impact of populist radical right parties on foreign policy: the Northern League as a junior coalition partner in the Berlusconi Governments, The Oxford Handbook of Italian Politics, Luxembourg Income Study Working Paper Series, for example. Some users are used to original researches, but there are sources that must necessarily be considered. The sources describe the League as both a right-wing party and a far right party, so the correct political collocation is "Right-wing to far right".--Wololoo (talk) 19:51, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I do believe that "far-right" is not a proper categorisation for most the so-called "right-wing populist" parties. It is even less appropriate for the LN, whose roots are to the left and that only recently has forged an alliance with some of those parties. I mostly agree with Nick.mon's latest comment, while I disagree from Sideshow Bob. Moreover, "populism", "Euroscepticism", "anti-globalisation" and, in some cases, even "anti-immigration" can be features of left-wing parties too. For instamnce, some left-wing trade unions have been at times anti-immigration. The LN's disdain from the South is not so different from the disdain that some Catalan left-wingers feel about Spain or some Scottish left-wingers about England. However, the LN is a very different party now: it is no longer overtly left-wing and is no longer focused primarily on North v. South. This said, a party which has governed for decades the most developed regions of Italy cannot really be extremist, let alone far-right. Even more important, as I said at the beginning, the overuse of "far-right" is quite deceptive and confusing. --Checco (talk) 14:15, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with Nick.mon and with second part of the reasoning of Sideshow Bob: historically the League could be considered a leftist party, but currently it has nothing of centre-left, so i support as historical political position "Left-wing" and "Big tent". Currently the political position of the League is near to parties like FN, FPO and PVV (even if each of these parties has particular characteristics, for example, LN is a federalist party, FPO is a liberal party, PVV is near to the gay community). The fact that the League has governed developed regions doesn't matters, in my view the adjective "far" must necessarily not be interpreted as negative and it is not written anywhere that a far right/left party cannot govern a region/country (the FPO is part of the Austrian government). So, "Right-wing to Far right" seems the better solution to describe the current political position of the League, considering precisely that the numerous sources describe it as a right-wing party or as a far right party. We wait a few day more, if also RJFF (the other user that intervened on this argument) wants to give his opinion, then we will see what is the solution that will has greater consensus--Wololoo (talk) 12:49, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Ok, I think the discussion is over and the most quoted solution is "Far right to right wing", so I proceed--Wololoo (talk) 23:38, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I do not see this consensus. --Checco (talk) 04:29, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Ps: I am busy these days and I won't be particularly active for ten days, but I will come back. I do not like user talks, but I am always willing to discuss in talk pages.
 * Incidentally, my belated thoughts on the issue: While there are academic sources which refer to LN as being on the far-right – and IMO we should acknowledge that – the truth is more nuanced, and the LN does have a complex history due to its regionalist roots, which are often dissonant from the typical right-wing populist (or far-right) party, despite its current (arguably) populist stance. My position is basically similar to that of Nick.mon, who has IMO summed up the LN quite succinctly.--Autospark (talk) 19:45, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Also my position is the similar to Nick.mon, and however the position "Right-wing to far-right" (that doesn't mean Far-right) was already the most shared solution in this talk. It is useless to continue to deny the evidence (like it is also useless to deny that Northern League is the name used by the official sources and the same members of the party, this edit war makes absolutely no sense to continue)--Wololoo (talk) 20:08, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I also acknowledge that there are academic sources referring to the LN as being far-right, but just that. The article on Far-right politics reads that it is referred to "extreme nationalist, and nativist ideologies, as well as authoritarian tendencies" and that "the term is often associated with Nazism, neo-Nazism, fascism, neo-fascism and other ideologies or organizations that feature extreme nationalist, chauvinist, xenophobic, racist or reactionary views", which "can lead to oppression and violence against groups of people based on their supposed inferiority, or their perceived threat to the native ethnic group, nation, state or ultraconservative traditional social institutions". I do not think that all of this can seriosuly be said of several parties labelled as "far-right" in en.Wiki, let alone the LN.
 * @User:Autospark: Also your comment was a little bit "nuanced" :) and I saw that you lately rollbacked Wololoo. Are you in favour of "right-wing to far-right" or just "right-wing"? And what do you think about the party's name in the infobox? No pressure. --Checco (talk) 17:54, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
 * @User:Checco: I repeat you for the last time, the political position in the infobox has already been discussed and agreed in this talk. I know that you think the opposite, but your word is not the law. Northern League is the official english name of the party, acknowledged by the european party of LN and by the LN's members themselves. If you say the opposite, it is a denial of the facts or, worse, a lie. You are continuing to remove informations based on reliable and official sources, in my view the total and voluntary indifference to the sources and the continuous removal of them is not so far from vandalism, and however it is an unfair and disruptive attitude --Wololoo (talk) 19:01, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
 * ps. "Right-wing to far-right" doesn't mean "Far-right party": all the parties with "Right-wing to far-right" as political position are substantially right-wing parties with more radical tendencies and that are often referred also as far-right parties, indeed the current political position of the League is near to other parties as the (current) french FN or the austrian FPO--Wololoo (talk) 22:01, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
 * There might be a slight majority in favour of "right-wing to far-right", but there is definitely no consensus on "Northern League" as infobox's name, while a majority of users likes the two-symbol solution. It is Wololoo's attidute which is "not so far from vandalism, and however [...] unfair and disruptive": he/she does not understand that, when there is a disagreement, it is better to seek consensus and wait for that before editing (in the meantime, the long established version should be maintained because it is the result of a former and/or lasting, sometime silent, consensus), while he/she continuosly edits, practically starting edit wars. Additionally, he/she does not respect other users' preferences, even when there is a clear majority (e.g. infobox's name).
 * I do not think that the LN's ideology and political position are that similar to those the FN or the FPÖ—and, by the way, in my view, those are not far-right too, but just right-wing. Salvini may be a right-winger (I have doubts on that), but several leading members of the LN (Zaia, Maroni, Giorgetti, etc.) are centrists, even with social-democratic instincts. Virtually nothing of what Far-right politics is about according to the article is appropriate for the LN: "extreme nationalist, and nativist ideologies, as well as authoritarian tendencies", "often associated with Nazism, neo-Nazism, fascism, neo-fascism and other ideologies or organizations that feature extreme nationalist, chauvinist, xenophobic, racist or reactionary views". This said, I am waiting for an answer from User:Autospark: his opinion, whatever will be, will settle the issue, at least for some time. --Checco (talk) 06:22, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * To settle it, in terms of the Infobox, I'd prefer "right-wing" over "right-wing to far-right".--Autospark (talk) 13:26, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The problem is another, the consensus is not necessary to insert informations based on reliable sources, rather is necessary to remove them, since wikipedia is primarily based on sources and not on POV, therefore this opinion doesn't settle the issue. With equal opinions, the prevailing position is that based on reliable sources and not that based on personal opinions, because in Wikipedia the reliable sources are more important than the personal opinions (in the absence of a clear consensus). In this talk three users agreed on "right-wing to far-right" while a contrary user asked if this position was based on academic texts (and I answered him). Furthermore no party referred as "right-wing to far-right" in the infobox is fascist or neo-Nazi, and it is the position used for almost all the parties memebers of the Movement for a Europe of Nations and Freedom (that are not fascist or neo-Nazi). For these reasons I still do not see any condition to remove this data--Wololoo (talk) 14:25, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * To quote him/her, Wololoo's "word is not the law". His/her interpretation of Wikipedia rules is quite disputable.
 * With equal opinions, the established version has to stay. One will find sources on everything (and they can differ a lot), our role of editors is to evaluate them and choose among them. There is clearly no consensus on "right-wing to far-right".
 * Additionally, I would like to point out that:
 * there is no consensus on replacing "Lega Nord" with "Northern League" as the infobox's name (only one user v. three users);
 * there is a slight consensus on having two symbols in the infobox (three users to one);
 * Wololoo, who is fond of total rollbacks, removed also other my edits which were uncontroversial.
 * @Checco: Where is written that the long established version prevails in these cases? Where are the three users contrary to the fact that Northern League is the official english name of this party?? Please... There is not the conensus to remove reliable sources from this page, no one has proved that Northern League isn't the official name, the page has not been moved for reasons relating to the disambiguation, the english name of this party is another thing!--Wololoo (talk) 14:51, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * ps. This your fury towards the name shown by the official sources then is totally incomprehensible. You are trying to contradict the version used by the MENF (official european party of LN) and by the LN's members themselves! --Wololoo (talk) 14:57, 7 May 2018 (UTC)