Question regarding post-fascism over neo-fascism
Why are we using post-fascism instead of neo-fascism in the infobox when neo-fascism is much better cited with twice as many sources as post-fascism? I can see there have been multiple very long discussions over this so can someone please give me an answer, as I don't really have time to go through all those discussions. Helper201 (talk) 09:02, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
- Helper201, we don’t assess this sort of thing by counting sources in the article (WP:SOURCECOUNTING, you should know this since it was discussed at an RfC you started at Talk:Reform), see the survey I did at Talk:Brothers of Italy/Archive 3#RfC on neo-fascism in info box 3 (Effectively option 4 from RfC2). Basically recent scholarly sources don’t call them neo-fascist, a plurality call them post-fascist. It was also a compromise between editors wanting neo-fascist, and editors wanting nothing at all. I’m going to change the infobox note to cite 2 sources for each so it doesn’t imply anything about due. Kowal2701 (talk) 22:18, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
- FWIW, post-fascism is cited by four sources in the body. Sources included in an article are practically never exhaustive Kowal2701 (talk) 22:27, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
- Kowal2701 also remember WP:DUE. If something has more weight by being backed by more sources than something else then it does not make sense to give something with less weight more prominence (i.e. WP:UNDUE weight). The rest of your explanation helps to explain the why it’s understandable in this case but alone stating WP:SOURCECOUNTING would not be justifiable reasoning. Helper201 (talk) 19:30, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
- Helper201, that's true, but in future please have a quick look through search engines as DUE is relative to the total amount of sources, and a survey of even the first 5 sources would usually give you an idea of NPOV. FWIW if the RfC at Reform had just listed sources supporting it (making clear which ones were media and which ones were scholarly), my !vote would have been more difficult (but probably would've ended up deferring to the BBC due to their high standards for neutrality and authority re UK politics). Kowal2701 (talk) 19:47, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
- Kowal2701 also remember WP:DUE. If something has more weight by being backed by more sources than something else then it does not make sense to give something with less weight more prominence (i.e. WP:UNDUE weight). The rest of your explanation helps to explain the why it’s understandable in this case but alone stating WP:SOURCECOUNTING would not be justifiable reasoning. Helper201 (talk) 19:30, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
Seats update
@User:Julius Schwarz: The party has now 116 seats in the Chamber. How do I update that figure through Template:Political party data? -- Checco (talk) 19:34, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for your message, @Checco. As indicated in the documentation, the template is updated directly from Wikidata, and the link to the relevant Wikidata page for Brothers of Italy should be added as a comment in the infobox. There, look for "number of seats in assembly" and add a new entry, marking it as preferred (and the current value as normal). Either you do it directly or, if you have a source, I am happy to do it for you! Julius Schwarz (talk) 05:46, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
- FYI I added information in the module/template on how to update data, see Template:EUPP data/doc#Updating the template. Julius Schwarz (talk) 15:00, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
- Hi @Checco, I see that you made the change on Wikidata, thanks! However, I note that you just edited the current value. Is there a reason you did not create a new value with a source for the change? This would be preferable to track the evolution of parties' representation. All I am finding is this and this for a list of changes but it actually shows a decrease of 1 occurring on 14 May. Julius Schwarz (talk) 11:34, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
- I have not understood well how Wikidata works. Could you please fix it? --Checco (talk) 18:54, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
- No problem at all, of course. Do you have a source for the change in seats? Or can you give me more details about what happened? Julius Schwarz (talk) 20:10, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
- This is the main source, but there are others as well. Thanks, --Checco (talk) 20:34, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
- Are we sure the parliamentary group matches the party membership? Because that link is not for the party itself. Julius Schwarz (talk) 21:42, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
- This is the main source, but there are others as well. Thanks, --Checco (talk) 20:34, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
- No problem at all, of course. Do you have a source for the change in seats? Or can you give me more details about what happened? Julius Schwarz (talk) 20:10, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
- I have not understood well how Wikidata works. Could you please fix it? --Checco (talk) 18:54, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
- Hi @Checco, I see that you made the change on Wikidata, thanks! However, I note that you just edited the current value. Is there a reason you did not create a new value with a source for the change? This would be preferable to track the evolution of parties' representation. All I am finding is this and this for a list of changes but it actually shows a decrease of 1 occurring on 14 May. Julius Schwarz (talk) 11:34, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
Shift towards the far-right
As of late, there has been some fuss over the following sentence: "her [Meloni's] time in government is variously described as a shift towards the far-right in Italian politics". User:ToxinDemon wrote in in my talk page that "Tutte le fonti utilizzate dopo la frase che è stata cambiata su Brothers of Italy citano o il neofascismo o l'estrema destra, non 'uno spostamento verso destra', quindi perché andrebbe cambiato? È ciò che è riportato nelle fonti", while an IP user asked me to "please replace "explains" with "claims"? This is the viewpoint of one source (an organization), not all sources (see WP:SOURCE); it's understandable that the far-left user chose a non-neutral term, but Wikipedia policies must be respected when editing on this website". First of all, I do not like when users write in my talk page rather than in article talk pages, let alone in Italian. Secondly, I have to say that, while I have no specific interest in this party that is very far from my political views, a better balancement of sources is quite needed. There are surely several sources describing the party as "far-right", but many others, inclcuding The Economist, have repeatedly explained how Meloni has so far governed as a moderate. It is no surprise indeed that the most relevant figures in her party and government have been hardly right-wingers, but long-time Christian Democrats as Raffaele Fitto and Guido Crosetto or liberals as Carlo Nordio. The sentence that has been challenged by the IP user is surely not very accurate or, at least, backed by only some sources, as opposed to others. -- Checco (talk) 21:15, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
- I wrote in Italian because I thought you were Italian; but in case I apologize for the mistake. My issue isn't the party's political position, which Wikipedia already defines in a way I may or may not agree with, but the sentence itself, which spoke of a shift in Italian politics toward the far right, citing sources that speak of this, not a shift "to the right," which in any case had already occurred first with Forza Italia and then with Lega. ToxinDemon (talk) 21:19, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
- In the meantime, I would recommend removing the source "Femme Fascista", which even accuses Meloni of being a "fascist" (this is perhaps the only openly biased source). — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-43111-8 (talk) 22:22, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
- The accusation that Meloni is a fascist does not make the source unreliable, and you did not specify why this is the case. ToxinDemon (talk) 15:44, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
- By removing this openly biased source, you could have kept that sentence you like so much. Unfortunately for you, other users will most likely give their consensus not only to the removal of this openly biased source, but also of this sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-67870-5 (talk) 15:49, 31 January 2026 (UTC)
- You need to prove that the source is biased, please start providing evidence or stop insisting. ToxinDemon (talk) 17:17, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
- By removing this openly biased source, you could have kept that sentence you like so much. Unfortunately for you, other users will most likely give their consensus not only to the removal of this openly biased source, but also of this sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-67870-5 (talk) 15:49, 31 January 2026 (UTC)
- The accusation that Meloni is a fascist does not make the source unreliable, and you did not specify why this is the case. ToxinDemon (talk) 15:44, 29 January 2026 (UTC)