User talk:Aligib213

Welcome!
Hello, Aligib213, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, your edit to Matteo Salvini does not conform to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (NPOV). Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media.

There's a page about the NPOV policy that has tips on how to effectively write about disparate points of view without compromising the NPOV status of the article as a whole. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Questions page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Below are a few other good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! SharabSalam (talk) 19:41, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

September 2022
Hello, I'm JackWilfred. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to 2022 Italian general election seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. JackWilfred (talk) 13:58, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * How ironic. The whole purpose of the proposed changes was that it was corrected so that it reflected Wipipedia's NPOV. It is evident that the selective use of left-wing publications and quotes with references to various far right responses was intended to mislead. That many hard left publications and socialist leader have made references to a "fascism" this does not make it true of appropriate. It is exceptionally ignorant and xenophobic toward the Italian people.
 * The article certainly did not have a neutral point of view. Meloni is the President of the European Conservatives & Reformists a mainstream moderate Conservative Group in the European Parliament. Unlike Lega, they are and have not been in any hard right grouping. The references to Meloni's membership several decades, is not made in reference to many of the Party Democratico leaders who were previously Communist Party Members. It would only be balanced to reference PD as hard left. Aligib213 (talk) 14:39, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello Aligib213, I assume you were replying to me so I moved your response down to this section. Wikipedia, as you can see from the party's article and descriptions in the election article itself, describe FdI as national conservative and right-wing populist, with post-fascist "roots", which are all well-sourced. Its European affiliation is not the primary measure by which Wikipedia uses to determine a party's political position, neither does Wikipedia take a party's expressed political position at face value. To make a significant change to that or any other party would require consensus.
 * The same is true of PD and its description as centre-left and social democratic, and I would add that describing it as "hard left", which is not really a political science term, was the main WP:NPOV issue I had there.
 * The reactions section is balanced, with the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung somewhat disagreeing with the previous four papers. The discussion of where exactly to place FdI in newspapers is something that would be beneficial to the article, and there was nothing wrong on principle with your addition of The Telegraph, as WP:RSPSOURCES describes it as a reliable source. However, the use of a newspaper columnist rather than the paper's editorial line, and the description of it as centre-left when it is clearly centre-right, was what concerned me and led to my revert of that in particular. JackWilfred (talk) 15:19, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I think the term national conservative is reasonable. The term "right wing populist" should be avoided. Populist is meaningless term just applied to any government which the European elite don't like.
 * I don't think it is appropriate to repeat terms such as "post-fascist, neo-fascist" or in fact any reference to fascism. Brother of Italy and Meloni has made is absolutely clear that she and the party absolutely rejects all suggestions that they support or believe in any way any fascist ideology. This has been stated on the BBC and other reputable media organisations in Italy and abroad. There is absolutely no evidence to suggest otherwise. To provide balance this point needs to be made clearly.
 * Absolutely none of the policies or actions of Brother of Italy suggest support for overthrowing the democratic system and the imposition of a fascist as head of state. In fact, the Italian Constitution specifically prevents such a policy being implemented. Instead "fascist" is an underhand term of abuse by communists and socialists towards anyone holding views which are to the right of them.
 * Wikipedia should not allow terms of abuse to be held against mainstream political parties even if quoted in reputable media outlets. The General Election resulted in more Italian's voting for the Brothers of Italy than any other political party. The suggestion that they voted for a party rooted in fascism is a xenophobic slur and is deeply offensive to Italian's as well as being wrong.
 * Yes, the Daily Telegraph is right of centre, that was my mistake. May I suggest you have 4 references from right wing newspapers, to balance the 4 left wing newspapers. Aligib213 (talk) 16:26, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

October 2023
Hi Aligib213! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor&#32;at Layla Moran that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia—it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Please note that you were lucky to avoid getting warned separately for that highly POV chunk of improperly referenced text which was, correctly, removed by another editor. DanielRigal (talk) 13:09, 8 October 2023 (UTC)