Talk:Brothers of Italy/Archives/2023/September

Changes

I want to have my changes not undone because they are corrections. The information in the article does not completely match the links. For evidence read the links. Braxmate (talk) 10:00, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Okay, let's go through your edits @Braxmate:...

• Ref 4, 5, and 6 were added on 22 July 2022 (Special:Diff/1099824461) by Saxones288. No one objected to these refs until now and there were no discussions about these refs specifically. I did check one available ref now and FdI is not mentioned in it; I do not have access to other sources. It also seems like these refs were copied from National Rally. @Saxones288: could confirm whether FdI is mentioned in the other two sources or whether the editor just copied the content from National Rally's article without checking the refs. I've added a {{failed verification}} tag next to one ref for now and if FdI is not mentioned in other two refs, a {{citation needed}} should be placed instead of those sources.
• Ref 2 and 3 back up the claims that FdI is a party of the radical right, so I am not sure why you moved the refs next to far-right. I added Ref 2 while @Yakme: added Ref 3.
• Although the RfC from September 2022 was poorly-attended, it is still a consensus to keep neo-fascism in the footnote. My opinion on this issue has not changed, but a new consensus will be needed in order to replace the current one. You should read that RfC first before starting a new one, see the reasonings behind why option 4 was actually chosen as the consensus and try to counter the opinions in the new RfC. Until then, the footnote should remain as it is.
• I've reinstated Special:Diff/1171927911 (the edit in the lede) considering that this is mentioned in backed up in the sources listed.

I did not check the edits in depth until now so I conclude that this is not a case of vandalism but rather bold editing. As I've said, if you want to change the already-existing infobox structure in relation to the party's ideology, you should start a RfC, otherwise your edits will most likely be reverted by a different editor. Vacant0 (talk) 16:56, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the respons @Vacant0:

• The sentence should be removed because it is all failed verification. Ref 5 is just using a sentence from the abstract, it makes no mention of Brothers of Italy or Fratelli d'Italia. Ref 6 has no page number, only a google books link to a chapter, but neither chapter nor entire book mention Brothers of Italy or Fratelli d'Italia. It is using a sentence that says "anti liberal but increasingly mainstream and (nominally) democratic far right parties like FPO and RN".

• It was a cosmetic change. I moved it because there was nothing left for the footnote. It also gives impression that FdI is exactly called radical right but that isn't true in academic literature, it's used interchangeably with far right so seemed like no reason to make point like that.

• Okay, I have read the RfC and I will start a new one. Your position is correct in the old RfC, the counter argument is very bad, it is not following rule of no original research and based on misunderstanding. It is confusing "center right coalition" that is the formal name of the coalition to ideology to contradict but it doesn't contract (neo-fascist party can be part of coalition which call itself center, center right, center left, left, etc), or it is showing newspaper opinion ref link that says "attacking Meloni because 'fascist' simply won't work" but that can be true even if the party is neo-fascist, or it is non refs based personal opinion that the party not neo-fascist, etc. They all ignore the academic literature in front of them or use this one or two newspaper opinion or media comment to counter which are not academic literature to say "some academics".

• But editor called Checco has changed it back. It is being done by not following the refs links again, giving a personal reason and also saying it is per the consensus but consensus wasn't about this, it was about the question of putting neo-fascism in infobox, footnote or nowhere. What should be done?

Braxmate (talk) 08:28, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Regarding the sources for radical right, they should be moved down into the body of the article. You can start a RfC if you think one is needed, I’ll promote it to other relevant WikiProjects and discussions in order to garner more responses. For the last point, I’ll revert the edit because it is WP:OR to claim something that it is not backed up in the listed sources. Vacant0 (talk) 09:10, 16 September 2023 (UTC)