The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Looking at reliable sources, how should we describe the political position of the Italian Social Movement?

• Option 1: Right-wing
• Option 2: Far-right
• Option 3: Right-wing to far-right

Please choose one of the three options, preferably together with a motivation and reliable sources that explicitly support the party's political position. --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 13:17, 24 July 2022 (UTC)--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 19:20, 28 May 2022 (UTC) --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 21:10, 24 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Survey[edit]

• Per the description of the party in the current lead, Option 4: center-right to far-right. (Failing that, option 1, but I don't think that quite captures the transformation of the party over time.) Option 3 as currently phrased is nonsensical: "right-wing" includes "far-right". Loki (talk) 00:23, 25 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Option 2: The MSI has never been a centre-right party. In some years it has had a more moderate political line (1950s/60s and 1993/94) but it has generally always been described as a neo-fascist party and therefore as a far-right party. The infobox itself describes the MSI as a successor to the Fascist Party (although I'm not fully convinced of that information). All these data are in contrast with a simple "right-wing position". And as stated by the user above, "Right-wing" often includes the concept of "Far-right", so some sources may refer generically to the MSI as a right-wing party, without however excluding that it was actually a far-right party. Ps. Furthermore, two years ago it was decided through Rfc to describe the National Rally as a far-right party, but this party is now certainly more moderate than MSI was. I believe that a certain consistency is needed both with the information inside the page (which describes it as a neo-fascist party) and with the pages of other parties.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 09:41, 25 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Option 1 or only “neo-fascist”: MSI became “centre-right” AN in the 1990s under Fini (per BBC) or as being in the “right-wing” group (per NYTimes), and the MSI under Almirante is described as “right-wing” (per BBC). I would generally avoid sensationalist labels and as an overall summary anything more seems not suitable, particularly when the lead is mentioning it having moderated and that seems the bulk of its existence. (Looking at NY Times articles 1946 to early 1950s versus the late 1950s thru early 1990s.) I also think the better (more common) RS use is actually just “neo-fascist”, in a factual sense and not hyperbolic labelling, so it could just use that and none of the option listed. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 12:19, 25 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Option 1. The party was broadly right-wing. It was post-fascist (neo-fascist would be an exaggeration), but it was not a fringe or extremist party. In my view, "far-right" and "far-left" should be used only for parties on the fringe or opposing democracy. I also think that political positions should be avoided in party infoboxes as they are too deceptive and depends so much on the national context—it is no surprise that political positions are not included in the infoboxes of the United States Republican and Democratic parties. The "xxxx to xxxx" format is also not a good thing, but I could accept "right-wing to far-right" as compromise. --Checco (talk) 03:39, 26 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Option 2, per WP:RS. I have seen no reliable source explicitly stating that MSI is a classical right-wing party as opposed to far-right. Instead there is a plethora of sources describing MSI as far-right or radical right. Also, neo-fascism and post-fascism are far-right ideologies, so if MSI is broadly neo-fascist or post-fascist, then the best descriptor is definitely far-right, rather than right-wing. What happened afterwards with Fini and AN does not change what MSI was: a far-right party. Yakme (talk) 06:47, 26 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Option 2, There are sources (e.g. Williams^[1]) that characterize Italian Social Movement as a radical right-wing party. The characterization even cites the "radical right wing" social movement as a model adopted by other organizations such as the French neo-fascist organization, Ordre Nouveau. Darwin Naz (talk) 12:15, 28 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Option 2 per my analysis of the sources above; the sources that go into depth on its politics describe it as far-right or words to that effect, and a few passing mentions that lump it into broad lists of right-wing parties do not contradict this, especially when even many of those sources describe it in ways that emphasize that it is clearly radical. --Aquillion (talk) 20:26, 30 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Option 3 covers all the bases of different sources and times. --Seggallion (talk) 12:13, 14 May 2022 (UTC) sock puppet of banned userReply[reply]

• Option 2 broadly per others above. Sources seem to favor radical or far-right. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:40, 8 June 2022 (UTC) (Summoned by bot)Reply[reply]

• Option 1 or (to a lesser degree of support) Option 3 as a compromise – if we decide, collectively, on the former, there still should be some direct mention in the article body with sources that the party has been notably described as far-right.--Autospark (talk) 14:42, 29 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Strongly Option 2 : Far right, per the veritable plethora of sources that denote the party as such, or as of an even more radical ideology.
  

Jeffrey M. Bale's seminal The Darkest Side of Politics, Vol.I, Postwar Fascism, Covert Operations, And Terrorism (Routledge, 2018) has the MSI as "neo-fascist" (pp.85, 367); there are journal articles where MSI is defined as of the estrema destra, e.g. Ignazi, Piero (August 1992). "Nuovi a Vecchi Partiti di Estrema Destra in Europa" [New and Old Parties of the Extreme Right in Europe]. Rivista Italiana di Scienza Politica (in Italian). 22 (2): 293–333.; we have newspapaper articles, such as one in the conservative Italian newspaper Il Giornale, which relate that "[MSI's] post-fascists...recognized themselves in the 'fascism-movement', the so-called 'fascism of the origins'." (see Curridori, Francesco (26 December 2016). "C'era una volta il Movimento Sociale Italiano" [There was once upon a time the Italian Social Movement]. Il Giornale (in Italian).); then, there are numerous theses that have it as an "extreme right" party, a "neofascist" party, or a "far right" one, e.g. Conte, Michele (2006). Far-Right Identities in Italy: An analysis of contemporary Italian Far-Right Parties (PhD). Lund University.; numerous studies are placing MSI within the estrema destra, such as Il MSI da Michelini ad Almirante of Pier Paolo Cetera; the paper by Castelli Gattinara et al places MSI in the "post-fascist" category (Castelli Gattinara, Pietro; Froio, Caterina (2014). "Discourse and Practice of Violence in the Italian Extreme Right: Frames, Symbols, and Identity-Building in CasaPound Italia". International Journal of Conflict and Violence. 8 (1): 154–170.); and so on and so forth.

The pool is veritably bottomless. There are no references to MSI as simply of the "right" except for short-hand and only after the party has being denoted in far stronger terms. Same goes for "conservatism": It's a term sometimes used for MSI positions but only in the context of MSI being a party of the extreme right, a party of the far right. -The Gnome (talk) 19:31, 8 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Option 2 Sources for "right-wing" do exist, although the point is that it is dubious whether the "right-wing" denotes its position on the left-to-right spectrum or whether it denotes that the party is not centre-right nor far-right, but just "right-wing". Far-right is more precise considering its policies were radical (sources for radical right also exist) and extreme. The fact that at some point there were "moderate" factions leading the party does not mean that MSI abandoned its far-right ideology. The Gnome had also already comprised a list of reliable sources that describe the party in various ways. --Vacant0 (talk) 10:49, 24 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Option 2. The Gnome's sources are reliable and conclusive on the point. I also think that without qualifying MSI as far right it becomes more difficult to explain what happened when the party became Alleanza nazionale. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 08:31, 25 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Option 2. The MSI was a neo-fascist movement throughout, and in line with the sources shown, describing it as 'far-right' at any point in its history would be correct. However, it did moderate later on in its history, and so I don't think the sources that describe it as 'right-wing' are confused or incorrect. Perhaps some addition to the 'ideology' rather than 'political position' section might better reflect that. JackWilfred (talk) 08:29, 25 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Option 2 Because that captures "neofascist" and "extreme right", the terms used in addition to far right, which are the dominant terms in the overwhelming preponderance of academic literature. Piero Ignazi's (2005) comments are quite informative for the Italian political context and not mistranslating "right" in Italian usage with regards to the MSI.^{[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9]}

Saluti, --Goldsztajn (talk) 12:55, 25 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Threaded Discussion[edit]

• Comment I agree with User:LokiTheLiar that the MSI had also "centre-right" elements, as well as "far-right" ones, that is why I think that "right-wing" is a fitting categorisation. It would be a little bit awkward, but I would accept also "centre-right to far-right", as you proposed. --Checco (talk) 03:29, 28 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• @Checco and LokiTheLiar: You would like to describe the MSI as a centre-right party, but I would like to remind you that these claims should be supported by at least any source, not by personal opinions. On the other hand, I have never known centre-right neo-fascist parties... --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 13:19, 28 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Indeed, my preference goes to "right-wing", which is mentioned in several souces, and that covers the spectrum of a political party, which had a broad centre-right majority and a far-right minority. The MSI, especially from the 1970s, was home to conservatives of all stripes as well as liberals, religious consevatives as well as anti-clericals, monarchists and republicans, and so on. All the parties of the so-called Italian "First Republic" were very heterogenous, so that, after the realignment started in 1992–1994, people from all the old parties joined each and every new party. What is sure is that the MSI was not neo-fascist as some fringe groups (i.e. New Force) are. More correctly, it was a post-fascist party and, starting from the 1970s, it absorbed politicians with different political roots. Anyway, also the neo-/post-fascism = far-right equation is not correct, otherwise what should we say of the Christian democrats who co-operated with the Francoist regime and, its political heirs, mainly the People's Alliance/Party? --Checco (talk) 16:30, 29 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I just read a whole lot of WP:OR and no substance here. By the way, collaborating with a fascist regime is not equivalent to being neo-fascist or post-fascist. OTOH being ideologically neo-fascist means immediately belonging to the far right of the political spectrum. Yakme (talk) 19:28, 29 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• The Christian Democrats in Italy did not "co-operate" with Franco's regime any more than Washington did, Checco. Eisenhower himself, notably, visited Spain in 1953, shook Franco's hand, and participated in bilateral talks, thus signaling the end of Spain's post-war diplomatic isolation. (See Pact of Madrid.) Was Ike a fascist? I'd think not. Recognizing de jure the de facto established regime in Madrid does not signify much in the way of ideology. Even the Soviet Union opened a quasi-consulate in Madrid in 1969. (See Russia–Spain relations.) What you claim about "heterogenous" parties in post-war Italy and especially about MSI being so diverse that it was attracting liberals and republicans is simply false, i.e. entirely unsupported by sources. The Movimento began as a direct descendant of Mussolinian fascism and stayed the course until its very end, which was accompanied by Roman salutes throughout the congress. (See Carter, Elisabeth The extreme Right in Western Europe: Success or failure?, 2005.) As to the "New Force" or Forza Nuova, it was born in 1997, long after MSI's demise. You probably meant Ordine Nero ("Black Order"), the faction that rallied around Pino Rauti. -The Gnome (talk) 10:32, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I was not talking about Italy's Christian Democrats. Francoist governments in Spain included also Christian democrats, from Spain of course! That is what I wrote: "Christian democrats [...] co-operated with the Francoist regime and, its political heirs, mainly the People's Alliance/Party". --Checco (talk) 14:10, 15 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wrong. The "Christian democrats" who participated in Francoist governments were not "democrats"! You are evidently confusing the Christians of Opus Dei with good ol' European Christian democracy. They had little in common. The Church in Spain during Franco's regime never questioned its autocratic, dictatorial nature; in fact, the Church often praised what it saw as the benefits of such a regime, which was not surprising since it stood steadfastly by Franco until the end, if not beyond. And so did all political organizations that were allowed under Franco, such as la Falange Española or Opus Dei. -The Gnome (talk) 14:51, 16 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Checco, trust me on this: The Movimento has always been a proud, self-described party of neo-fascist and then post-fascist ideology. What you inaccurately call "centre-right elements" were nothing else than the so-called "leftists," the ideologues rejecting the "Atlanticism" promoted by Washington through its Italian operatives, including James Angleton, and supporting the resurrection of Mussolini's ostensibly "social programmes." They were mainly inspired by Julius Evola's texts. During the party's Fifth Congress, held in November 1956 in Milan, a stronghold of the MSI "left," the tensions between the tendencies were so strong that actual brawls broke out! In the end, Michelini formally accepted almost all the "social" amendements proposed by Almirante, who, having resigned from the Secretariat during the summer, had resumed the leadership of the "left" faction, joined surprisingly by Borghese. There was never in the history of the MSI anything denoted as "centre-right". I cannot emphasize this strongly enough. The term "leftist factions" is used not in the traditional sense but in reference to the MSI's main tendencies vying for platform supremacy, that of anti-communism and that of nationalism. (Source: Bale, J.M. The Darkest Side of Politics, Vol.I, Postwar Fascism, Covert Operations, And Terrorism, Routledge, 2018.) Anything less than neo-fascist or at least extreme/far right would be in disregard of sources. -The Gnome (talk) 16:29, 12 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• The MSI was definitely post-fascist, but included also Christian-democratic, liberal, monarchist and generically conservative elements and factions, especially in its latest decades—no surprise that its heir National Alliance was a mainstream conservative party and attracted more Christian democrats, liberals and even splinters from the Italian Socialist Party. --Checco (talk) 14:10, 15 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You are now simply repeating your position as to the nature of MSI even after I have repeatedly and exhaustingly refuted it. For, hopefully, the last time then: The fact that the Italian Communist Party or PCI was succeeded by the democratic, non-communist Democratic Party of the Left does not mean that the PCI itself was not communist. The same applies to MSI: The fact that it was succeeded by the far-right Alleanza Nazionale does not make MSI itself any less than post-fascist or neo-fascist. End of story. In your effort to erroneously denote MSI as some kind of inclusive tent, you bundle in it the monarchists! You obvioulsy ignore the fact that the Italian monarchists, loyal to the House of Savoy, had vociferously and explicitly opposed any kind of collaboration with, let alone participation in, the Movimento. (See The Darkest Side, p. 217.) From now on, I will only respond to claims based on sources. This should accelerate things. -The Gnome (talk) 15:06, 16 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• After two months, it seems to me that the consensus for option 2 emerged from this Rfc: 3 preferences for option 1, 5 preferences for option 2 and one preference (annulled) for option 3, it means that an absolute majority of users (5 out of 8/9) have expressed their preference for option 2. Also, no reliable sources have been provided that explicitly support the only right-wing political position of the party, so I think I can proceed accordingly.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 11:31, 28 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Scia Della Cometa: No you cannot. This is not how an RfC works, and by now you should really know given the amount of RfCs that you have been involved with. I will revert your edit. Yakme (talk) 09:59, 29 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Yakme: Maybe it's you that don't know how a Rfc works, you must read Wikipedia:Requests for comment#RFCs ending: so, or you revert yourself, or you ask for a formal closure. The choice at you.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 10:47, 29 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I still think you have not read how RfCs work. An uninvolved editor has to close it. Yakme (talk) 13:03, 29 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Yakme: I still think that you should read the rules of RFCs before commenting: "If the matter under discussion is not contentious and the consensus is obvious to the participants, then formal closure is neither necessary nor advisable. Written closing statements are not required. Editors are expected to be able to evaluate and agree upon the results of most RfCs without outside assistance" and "If the consensus is clear, any editor—even one involved in the discussion—may close the discussion". First of all, until now, the consensus was quite clear (the absolute majority of users had expressed themselves for an option). Autospark expressed his opinion later (out of time): this partly changes the final result, which before today was quite clear. "Anyone who wants an uninvolved editor to write a closing summary of the discussion (ideally with a determination of consensus) can formally request closure by posting at Wikipedia:Closure requests": it's not mandatory. You should read the rules before stating that I do not know them: I have the right to close the Rfc and make its outcome concrete, if you do not agree with it, it is you who can ask for formal closure by an uninvolved user. Ps. Even the last Rfc on the list of Italian parties could have been closed by me, had I not first asked for its formal closure ("The RfC participants can agree to end it at any time, and one of them can remove the rfc template.").--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 22:10, 29 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I see that unfortunately you still have not learned anything from your topic ban on the list of Italian political parties. I expected that, I knew that was useless, but anyway. Of course a vote count is not the way to evaluate consensus on WP, and also 5–3 (actually 5–4 now) does not count as an "obvious" consensus. You do not in fact "have the right to close the RfC" especially if you are the OP. You asked the WP community to evaluate a question you proposed, and you should let the community decide, independently of your judgement. That's what an RfC is for. Anyway, I already asked for closure of this RfC since it has been long time since it started. PS: the sentence "The RfC participants can agree to end it at any time, and one of them can remove the rfc template" obviously does not mean that any participant can close the RfC when they like; it means that there must be an apparent consensus to close it amongst all participants: it's not the case here, as it was not the case for the list of Italian parties. Yakme (talk) 23:06, 29 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Off topic: I learned just one thing from that block: that users who complained that they could not intervene in the discussion due to my and Checco's monopolization, after our block they washed their hands of it (yeah, a practically useless block). And anyway, yes, I could have easily closed the Rfc on Italian parties, the only users who intervened agreed to close it and the OP had pulled out, so it was my prerogative, unfortunately I had already asked for the formal closure and this has complicated everything.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 07:21, 30 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nobody intervened because people are waiting for the closure of that utter mess of an RFC that you guys approved to start, and contributed to make messier and messier by insisting on your petty positions without having a minimum amount of patience. Anyway this is not the place where to discuss about that topic. And I insist still: no, you could not "easily" close an RFC that had multiple editors !voting, and was still ongoing, just by a personal agreement between you and Checco. This is not how RFCs work!!! Yakme (talk) 09:22, 30 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Make that 6, and counting, for Option #2, please. -The Gnome (talk) 16:06, 12 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• A fine solution would be to keep the "right-wing to far-right" wording, as both "right-wing" and "far-right" are supported by sources and consensus. --Checco (talk) 05:35, 30 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think that after yesterday's last preference it takes more time to define the consensus.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 07:24, 30 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Funny that such a "clear consensus" that you thought was there, changed so drastically by just one additional opinion... Probably it was not such a WP:SNOW consensus, was it? Yakme (talk) 09:19, 30 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'll tell you again: you better take it down a peg! Because frankly I'm starting to get quite tired of this opinionated attitude. I am still personally convinced that there is consensus in this rfc, only now it is weaker than before: with a reduced number of users a preference can make a difference, very simple. And in the other rfc, for days Checco and I were the only ones to intervene, your statement about the non-intervention of other users seems to me a process of the intentions of other users. And now enough with this boring discussion of topic, which has nothing to do with this rfc, we have to decide whether to conclude this rfc (and with what outcome) or whether to continue it, accusations and personal complaints have nothing to do here.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 13:10, 30 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You still don't get it. we have to decide whether to conclude this rfc (and with what outcome) or whether to continue it: no, we do not! I requested closure and an uninvolved editor will close it! Now let's stop adding gibberish and non-constructive discussions on this thread. Yakme (talk) 13:28, 30 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The fact that you asked for closure does not at all mean that this Rfc will be necessarily closed by someone, you should know, the previous Rfc docet. If I acted like this, it is because I read the rules and I know I could do it, I did not act randomly as you think. Then everyone can challenge my interpretation of the outcome of the RFC, but this does not change anything about the initiatives that each user can undertake. And now stop with this tedious bickering, please.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 22:13, 30 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• @User:The Gnome: Indeed, a good compromise would be to keep "right-wing to far-right". The MSI featured also moderate-conservative and conservative-liberal factions, thus it is no surprise that it evolved into a mainstream national-conservative party with liberal elements through National Alliance in the 1990s. --Checco (talk) 19:48, 10 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I believe we should be able to pin this down to a single word, even if a composite one. The term "right-wing to far-right" is not encountered in sources; it'd be simply a choice we editors make, which would be unacceptable even if fair. As it happens, I'm familiar, as I said, with most sources pertinent to MSI and its history. Many of my contributions, at the very least, should testify to that. We have significant sources referring to MSI by each of the following terms: neo-fascist; post-fascist; extreme-right; and far right. A proper RfC would focus on those choices, really. MSI was the successor party to Mussonolinian fascism, openly and militanly, until quite late in its lifespan, when it dissolved ("disciolto", "dissolved" and not "evolved into") to give birth to the National Alliance, in whose Wikipedia lemma, by the way, MSI is correctly denoted as "post-fascist." Even my suggestion in the Survey above for "far right" is a sort of compromise but so be it for now. Anything less than extreme- or far-right would simply not be based on sources. -The Gnome (talk) 12:59, 11 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The MSI was surely post-fascist, but also conservative. I think it is fair, per sources, to describe it both as "right-wing" and "far-right". Moreover, a "post-fascist" party is not by definition "far-right". Indeed, the MSI evolved from its original neo-fascism to more nuanced and moderate political positionment. Reality is not black or white, it can also be grey. --Checco (talk) 14:10, 15 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The term "right wing" encompasses a very large part of the political spectrum, from center-right to fascism in its many appelations. The Movimento, and (I cannot stress this enough) always according to sources, has been a neo-fascist or post-fascist party, the latter term invoked by some of its members, e.g. Fini, to denote that they've moved on from Mussolinian good ol' fascismo. Any talk about "nuances" (!) is baseless. The details of the various insignicicant disagreements within MSI about platform and tactics I already covered extensively above. At the end of the day they were all raising their right hand in a Roman salute. The truth here is black; pun intended: MSI was cuori neri. MSI was as neofascist as they come. As to the "compromise" which you seek that is me accepting "far right" instead of pressing on for (the fully supported by sources) "neofascist." -The Gnome (talk) 14:38, 16 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Effectively, all the arguments I have seen here about a "more moderate right" placement are devoid of sources. Such a discussion should be done with unambiguous sources in hand, and not based on personal points of view. Apparently the discussion is not over, so the time has not yet come to conclude the Rfc. For this reason, he will extend it for another month.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 09:59, 24 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Leaving today for a one-week vacation. Upon returning, I shall devote about one man-day to collect and present sources that support the argument that the MSI was a neo-fascist or post-fascist party, one that could not be denoted as anything less than a "far right" party. Arrivederci! -The Gnome (talk) 10:08, 24 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cherrypicking some sources and leaving aside others is not good. Sources and consensus are for "right-wing to far-right". --Checco (talk) 10:14, 24 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• @Checco However you have not been able to find a single valid source for right-wing placement on your own. And even the consensus is yet to be proved...--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 10:22, 24 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• An entirely personal and arbitrary claim (that MSI's ideology was "right-wing to far-right") repeated ad nauseam and without any substantiation does not a legitimate argument make, Checco. I'm not interested as to the reasons you have embarked in this effort to ameliorate historical reality but, at the same time, and as far as I have to strength to do so, I cannnot allow baseless claims to shape this Wikipedia article. Once more, then: Movimento Sociale Italiano was a neo-fascist and post-fascist party. Denoting it as anything less than far right would be an infamy, in terms of sourcing. Next week, when I return, I'll post up here a cumulative compendium of sources that show up the falsehood of your claim. My only problem will be choosing which sources to pick, since they're truly numerous. But I'll manage. . -The Gnome (talk) 17:39, 24 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@User:Vacant0: Would you accept, as compromise, "right-wing to far-right", similarly to what happens in several articles? --Checco (talk) 10:56, 24 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I would not. Vacant0 (talk) 11:01, 24 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Sorry but, again, WP consensus is not based on a "compromise" between editors, especially when the vast majority of high-quality reliable sources is very explicitly pointing to one definition (in this case, far-right). We are not here to make everyone happy, we are here to write down what comes out of reliable sources. Yakme (talk) 11:56, 24 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• The "compromise" you seek, Checco, as I already pointed out to you, is the fact that I'm prepared for the time being, to accept the description of MSI as a far right party, since, it was actually a veritable neo-fascist and post-fascist party. (In an unofficial, personal polling of former missini, I had many a chuckle from their responses when I asked them if their party was "far right" or "fascist". You obviously are in ignorance of how proudly Italian fascists carry their ideological colors!) You have already been offered a compromise. Take it - or a new RfC might begin with the choice between "far right" and "neofascist/postfascist." Choose wisely. -The Gnome (talk) 17:39, 24 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Interestingly enough, as a proud Venetian and European federalist, I consider most of Italian political parties, including the Democratic Party, as Italian nationalist and post-fascist. The reason why I have embarked in this effort is that I am interested in a balanced account of reality and history. You are obviously not well informed about the MSI's ideological positionment and actual policies. Some of the comments I read above are at best biased and affected by recentism. "Far-right" is a description that has become very common over the last few decades, while not even communist parties are usually described as "far-left" (an incredible bias). The fact is that the MSI was basically a right-wing party (there are plenty of sources on that) and over its history it evolved into a democratic, republican, Atlanticist and pro-European party, despite some of its fringe elements, and before and after its transformation into AN it attracted moderate conservatives, Christian democrats and liberals. Any good book on the MSI's history will explain that to you. Of course, editors need to evaluate sources and find a compromise, otherwhise that is cherrypicking among countless sources. --Checco (talk) 06:18, 25 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• We are, without question, Checco, entitled to our personal opinions and viewpoints irrespective of what they are. However, they are no match for third-party, independent, reliable sources. Neither are our personal background or our testimony, as the case might be, on not just MSI but all things written up in Wikipedia. Sources are royalty here, metaphorically speaking. Therefore, all the opinions you have offered so far, including those immediately above, are worth little, if anything, when compared to a whole library of texts, papers, and books testifying to the established historical fact that the Movimento was a neo-fascist or post-fascist party throughout its life. Place emphasis on the term "fascist", please. You can't go on repeating unsupported, baseless assertions without any support, i.e. sourcing, of weird notions (no better term for it) such as that MSI was also a "liberal" (!) and "republican" (!) party. The term "far right" is a rather serious compromise in this RfC. -The Gnome (talk) 08:35, 31 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]