Talk:Lega (political party)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Requested move 15 February 2022[edit]

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved to Lega (political party) per the weak consensus below. There's a widespread dislike of the current official name, which is barely used in sources and fails WP:NATURAL provision however, do not use obscure or made-up names. However, there is not so strong consensus about the best target title due to potential confusion with Lega Nord. Most posters indicated at least a weak preference for Lega (political party) so there we go. No such user (talk) 11:44, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lega per Salvini Premier → Lega (Italy) – or Lega (political party) per WP:COMMONNAME. This party is never ever mentioned in the Italian nor English media with its full name, unless the article is specifically about the creation of such party and specifies its official name (also see the results of this search versus this one). Furthermore, 99% of the the times this article is wikilinked in another page on WP, it is always as either [[Lega per Salvini Premier|Lega]] or [[Lega per Salvini Premier|League]], because nobody wants to read its full official name. I prefer Lega (Italy) or Lega (political party) over League (Italy) for disambiguation purposes, since "league" is a very generic word in English (and "Lega" is also more commonly used to refer to this party even in English media). Yakme (talk) 11:25, 15 February 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 16:33, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose "Lega" is/was a common way to refer to the "Lega Nord", before this new "Lega" was created. I know they're related, but I am not convinced this LSP is the primary topic over Lega Nord in the use of the "Lega" term in a political context. Smacks a bit too much of recentism. Walrasiad (talk) 12:46, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is not true. "Lega" is by far the common name of the new party as opposed to "Lega Nord" which is the common name of the former party. There has been an overlapping of the two (also on WP), but "Lega" certainly refers to the national-level party since the start of the Salvini leadership. An alternative could then be "Lega (2017 political party)"? I am not sure though. Yakme (talk) 12:55, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment — I am quite tempted by "Lega (political party)". I will think about it... --Checco (talk) 15:08, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft oppose – much as I agree that the current article title is awkward, it provides natural disambiguation, and does not prevent us referring to the party solely as "Lega" within the article body, so I would prefer to keep it, at least for now.--Autospark (talk) 16:33, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I could agree with "League (Italy)" or "League (political party)", but I definitely don't like a title that mixes English and Italian. The problem is that the proposal to move "Lega Nord" to "Northern League (Italy)" or "Northern League (political party)" was rejected, and the most plausible reason was that concerning the natural disambiguation, so, for the same reason, I would keep the current title for this page. If in the future the Lega Nord's page were moved to "Northern League (Italy or political party)", I would certainly be in favor of moving this page to "League", but not to "Lega" (which still remains a generic term, even in English language).--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 16:41, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This definitely does not count as "natural disambiguation". From WP:Natural disambiguation: Natural disambiguation: Using an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English reliable sources, albeit not as commonly as the preferred-but-ambiguous title and of course "Lega per Salvini Premier" is not one of the names the party is commonly called in English RS, it's actually almost a never-occurring name. The current title is certainly not "natural" and only follows WP:PRECISION, but IMHO if this article is the one referring to the current "Lega" party, then this should be the main one (and therefore it should not have a very long, useless, and uncommon title). Yakme (talk) 16:52, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Lega per Salvini Premier" has been used in English language sources, although the most common name is "League" (and not "Lega").--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 16:58, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it has been used only to say something like "The official name of the new sister party of Lega Nord is Lega per Salvini Premier". This does not mean that it is the common name by which the party is referred to in the media. It's probably the least common name. Yakme (talk) 17:00, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed I have stated that the most common name in English sources of this party is "League" (like the more common name of the old party is Northern League, not Lega Nord). IMHO, if we have to use the Italian name, it is worth keeping the current one without disambiguations. --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 17:09, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I anyway prefer League (political party) over the current title. Yakme (talk) 17:24, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I definitely oppose that, for consistency with Lega Nord. "Northern League (Italy)" or "Northern League (political party)" would be an excessively long name compared to "Lega Nord" and, arguably it would not be a natural disambiguation, while "Lega (political party)" could be better than "Lega per Salvini Premier", which is objectively not the party's most common name. I will think more about it. --Checco (talk) 17:39, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As a summary of the possibilities: Lega per Salvini Premier is the official full name – it is precise but awkward and extremely rarely used in English literature (320 results on Google Books) but also in Italian literature (400 hits) – it would be like calling the Lega Nord article as Lega Nord per l'Indipendenza della Padania; the English translation League for Salvini Premier is even more awkward and rare (7 results). Now with common names: the English League is likely the most common (4,190 results on Google Books – I am filtering the results by adding "Salvini" to the search since this is how one can pick only the relevant instances, but you can play with this and do more experiments), and is slightly above Lega (3,240 hits). So to me it looks like Lega is closer to the "natural disambiguation" (i.e. the alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English reliable sources, albeit not as commonly as the preferred-but-ambiguous title) that some of you are looking for, and it also sort-of follows the criterion for the Lega Nord article title. Too bad that we cannot just call the article "Lega", but we need to specify "(political party)" or something, however I do not see this as a problem compared to the ugliness of the current title. That is why I prefer Lega the most, it has two advantages: it is one of the common names that this party is called, and also close to a natural disambiguation against other possible "League"s from other countries and other topics. However I am not so strongly against League (Italy) or League (political party) or League (Italian political party) (given that League is probably the most WP:COMMONNAME in English): the main point of this move request is to get rid of the current weird title. Yakme (talk) 08:21, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Don't really sympathize with your rationale. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a contemporary political blog.
Casual use of "Lega" term was up until 2018 commonly used to refer to the Lega Nord, not this new party. This gives far too much weight on WP:RECENTISM.
Moreover, there are many leagues in Italian political history (including the original Lombard League, as well as Ghibelline, Guelf and other inter-city leagues - the very reason why the modern Lega adopted the term "Lega' is precisely because it had such historical cachet). So I would definitely oppose its anglicization into "League (Italy)" if it is not an article about historical leagues.
Parties that have weird titles in reality have weird titles here. The French Socialist party was throughout the 20th Century officially the "SFIO" - "French Section of the Workers' International" - the title on its current article, even if the contemporary political press just casually called them the "Socialists".
I see no problem with have this one sit at its current official title, where it already naturally disambiguates from other uses of the term "League" and "Lega" by its official title. You can shorten it to "Lega" while using it inside the article text, but I see no reason to force-shorten the article title and then go into contortions of trying to invent a new article title disambiguation when one already naturally exists. Walrasiad (talk) 09:29, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You are basically saying that you are against the WP:COMMONNAME policy. Also, 2018 is four years ago, so WP:RECENTISM does not really apply. Otherwise we should delete the COVID-19 articles from Wikipedia too. Lega is the common name for the national level party since 2017, so 5 years ago. Yakme (talk) 10:36, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The problem I see is that this article is about the second Italian party by number of MPs and first Italian party by number of MEPs, the party which currently has the most regional presidents in Italy and the higher number of regional councillors over the whole country. So one of the most relevant parties in Italy. And it has this ridiculous unheard-of title. Yakme (talk) 10:54, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We're not the public relations department of the party. If they chose a ridiculous name, that's on them. Just checking - the article on Italian Wikipedia is also Lega per Salvini Premier. I don't see it moving there either. Walrasiad (talk) 11:01, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No we are not the public relations of Lega, but Wikipedia is based on reliable secondary sources. The name that the party has given itself is not necessarily the best option, if it is unrecognizable from the general public. Again, the WP:COMMONNAME policy, IMHO, should be used in such cases. Yakme (talk) 11:08, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Only if you restrict your sources to the last three or so years, and assume everyone is following (or cares) about contemporary Italian politics or is reading the latest Italian political blogs. Walrasiad (talk) 11:12, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your replies look quite dismissive and non-constructive. It's the last five years at least, not three. And of course Wikipedia articles about Italian politics should be up-to-date with contemporary events. See for example 2022 Italian presidential election, or is this also some contemporary political blog? Not one thing that I mentioned in this discussion is coming from "political blogs" but rather from reliable sources like national and international media, or peer-reviewed scientific publications. Yakme (talk) 13:19, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't mean to be dismissive. But no, it's not five, it was founded in Dec 2017. So four at most, and don't know when it began being picked up in the media. Three is a rough guess.
As to being constructive, let's try to reverse engineer this. Is this novel party the primary topic for?
* League - obviously not.
* League (Italy) - no, I'd expect that to be about Medieval inter-city alliances or the Italian football system.
* League (political party) - sounds like an article on generic political pacts, and would have to check the electoral history of India and other countries to make sure of no overlap.
* League (Italian political party) - I'd assume it is referring to the Lega Nord, a party with over thirty years of history and long referred to casually as "Lega" in the political press.
* League (Italian political party, founded 2017) - rather long title, convoluted disambiguation and not less ridiculous than the current one.
I don't consider the 2022 Italian presidential election to be the most important thing to use this term in the last thirty (or thousand) years. It just happens to be recent. Should the party be dissolved tomorrow, you think the proposed title would have longevity? Would this page would remain stable for the next century at the title you're proposing?
The current official title seems to be the most straightforward option, with natural disambiguation, that is likely to stay stable. Walrasiad (talk) 14:54, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It looks funny to me to consider this party to be "novel", while it is basically a re-branding of Lega Nord, a party that exists since 30+ years. LpSP has been officially created for two main reasons: bankruptcy/debts with the Italian state, and to remove secessionism from the statute. This is not a party that is going to be dissolved tomorrow, it is the same old structure of Lega Nord, with all its members and organization. So I do not think that it's wrong to assume that Lega (political party) or League (Italian political party) refer to this article. Yakme (talk) 15:51, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Lega (political party). The current natural disambiguation is unjustified by English sources who just call it Lega. While (Italy) is a valid disambiguator it is not so recognisable as political party in this context. But we should have redirects from both Lega (Italy) (currently a redlink) and the current title Lega per Salvini Premier. Andrewa (talk) 14:09, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Lega (political party) per above.--Ortizesp (talk) 18:01, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am still not convinced. In case, I would consider "Lega (political party)", not "Lega (Italy)". --Checco (talk) 05:20, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Walrasiad. Either proposed name can cause confusion with Lega Nord, which says in its second paragraph:

In the run-up of the 2018 general election, the party was rebranded as Lega (English: League), without changing its official name. The party was nonetheless frequently referred to only as "Lega" even before the rebranding, as well as Carroccio.

. Vpab15 (talk) 18:58, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Lega (political party). WP:AT#Disambiguation says Natural disambiguation: Using an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English reliable sources, albeit not as commonly as the preferred-but-ambiguous title. Do not, however, use obscure or made-up names. "Lega per Salvini Premier" is evidently an obscure name in English reliable sources. feminist (talk) Слава Україні! 03:16, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Controversial contents[edit]

@Checco: Before re-posting potentially controversial content, I invite you to discuss them here. These arguments are Venetian nationalism, regionalism and placement on the centre-right.

  • About Venetian nationalism, besides being an obvious statement ("Veneto, home to venetian nationalism"), it has nothing to do with the LSP, so please don't enter this not inherent "information" again.
  • As for the centre-right position, I invite you to indicate the numerous media that describe the League in this way. An newspaper article based essentially on an interview with Salvini is not enough. I always saw the League referred as a right-wing party by the Italian media.
  • As concerns regionalism, I am not prejudiced about it, but this ideology usually precludes the interests of a single subgroup of a country (therefore in contrastbwith nationalism). O f course the League is still federalist, but I am not so sure about the regionalism. I think we need more recent sources for it, because in 2018 there was still LN...--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 19:35, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I found two source trying to address the issue of the compatibility of regionalism and nationalism within the League ("The People and the Nation: Populism and Ethno-Territorial Politics in Europe" and "Combining regionalism and nationalism: the Lega in Italy and the Lega dei Ticinesi in Switzerland"). However, there is also an article by it:Roberto D'Alimonte which explicitly states that the League has abandoned regionalism ("How the populists won in Italy"). In any case, it seems to me that a regionalist sentiment continues to be rooted only in some northern sections of the party, but certainly not at the national level.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 22:53, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for coming here! However, I have to say that these edits are controversial only for you, as you are the only one editing them, while others editors have been vetting them without raising concerns and some have even thanked me. This said, debate is always useful and, despite we rarely agree, I appreciate your interest in debate.
1) In the latest elections, this party has obtained 50–60% of the vote in Veneto and the regional section of the LSP, Liga Veneta, is above all Venetian nationalist. As Veneto is the ultimate stronghold of the League and the intro mentions "Padanian nationalism", I think that a reference to "Venetian nationalism" (arguably, one of the main ideologies of the party) is due.
2) The Italian mainstream media usually describe the League as a centre-right party. I personally do not agree with that, as the party is structurally centrist, but that how it goes. Describing the League as "right-wing to far-right" in the infobox is almost a joke, but there are sources and I am not going to open a debate at this moment. Sections are useful to better explain concepts and give a more problematic view of the subject. In this respect, the fact that the Finantial Times has asserted that the party describes itself as "centre-right" in Italy (as said, I disagree, as the party is basically centrist), adding that is a "a label most of the national media endorses" should be clear enough and I do not understand why you should remove it.
3) You are misinformed about "regionalism". As I often explained and argued in the past, a party does not need to be "regional" to be "regionalist". I hope you understand the difference. Regionalists seek to increase the political power, influence and/or self-determination of the people of one or more subnational regions. It is no surprise that countrywide parties, like United Regions of Serbia and the Czech Mayors and Independents have been described as "regionalist". The Italian Consitution is based on "regionalism", not "federalism", and parties like the Action Party and the Italian Republican Party played a role in that, despite not being "regional". The League definitely seeks to increase the political power and autonomy of all Italian regions and, above all, northern ones. Moreover, the LSP is a "de facto" regional party as it is very weak ouside its core regions.
At the end of the day, this article, like all articles about political parties, should take into account several sources and perspectives in order to be fine and balanced. Infoboxes should however be just a summary and two/three ideologies should be enough to describe a political party. I do not think that the League is "right-wing populist" or "conservative", let alone "nationalist" (another joke: LSP's main difference with other parties, especially the Brothers of Italy, is that it has a regionalist approach and, arguably, it is less patriotic than Forza Italia and the Democratic Party too). However, a good compromise could be mentioning four ideologies: "right-wing populism" (which incorporates "nationalism" and "Euroscepticism", a policy not an ideolgy), "regionalism" (it is probably the most important feature of the party) and "federalism" (it is the party's core policy and the only one mentioned in the party's statute). In the meantime, I am not going to remove "Nationalism" (I have never done it), but you please do not remove "regionalism" (which is sourced). As everybody knows it is possible to find all kinds of sources, stating one thing and its opposite. It is our job of editors to evaluate sources and decide what needs to be mentioned and in which balance, otherwise infoboxes, as well as the articles themselves, would become a patchwork of concepts, notions, news and sources with no consistent presentation. --Checco (talk) 05:20, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And you are the only one to re-insert them... anyway:
1) Venetian nationalism has absolutely nothing to do with the Lega per Salvini premier, the League indeed pursues the special autonomy of that region, but your statement simply feels propaganda. Autonomism and venetian nationalism are two different things.
2) Again, I invite you to indicate specifically which media, otherwise it remains a statement without real value. If the sources indicate this party as "centrist" or as "center-right", it means that these positions must be reported in the infobox. Otherwise, these are personal opinions.
3) In this case I understood your reasoning about regionalism, but there are authoritative sources that claim that the party has abandoned regionalism as an ideology. Removing nationalism is unthinkable, since it is the most cited ideology of all, I have limited myself to reporting only four as an example. On the contrary, regionalism (but no longer independence or nationalism, as you would like to report on the page) still seems to characterize some northern sections of the League, such as the Liga Veneta and the Lega Lombarda. In my opinion, it should be specified that regionalism concerns only the northern part of the party. And it is necessary an analysis (both here and in it.wikipedia) including both the opinions of those who believe that the party has abandoned regionalism, and of those who believe that it combines nationalism and regionalism.
Ps. Your obstinacy to re-insert information regarding regional governments into a section concerning the political position and ideology of the party frankly makes no sense, I don't understand the reason for that edit.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 09:40, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
1) In Veneto the League, namely Liga Veneta, is virtually 100% Venetian nationalist, thus the party has a lot to do with it. Please remember that Veneto is the party's ultimate stronghold. However, what I am proposing is a soft solution ("Veneto, home to Venetian nationalism" or something else), which does not imply anything.
2) The problem is that the infobox is already overloaded. It is a general problem of several articles on political parties. The infobox is only a general summary, but more in-depth readers can find more infos in the article's sections. What we can do is to a) simplify the infobox (basically fewer ideologies)—I made a proposal above; b) expand the "Ideology and political position" section, in order to better represent the party—I have been looking for sources giving different perspectives (I found some high-profile ones, but we can always do better). In our case, the infobox is already stuffed with redundant ideologies. More distinctive ideologies like "economic liberalism" or "neo-liberalism" (the latter is mentioned in one of the sources you added for "nationalism") could be added, but, first, I would reduce the current ones, that is why I am mainly operating in the section.
3) I know that there are lots of sources misrepresenting the party in many ways. Nationalism is the most striking example, as the party is less nationalist than the other mainstream parties, including the Democratic Party (which is so patriotic that it has been described as the "party of the nation" or the "natural party of government"). Definitely, more sources on regionalism should be found, but it cannot be ignored or deleted from the party's ideologies. Last week Domani newspaper published an article by a political scientist asserting that the League is still secessionist. I do not think so and I would never cite "separatism" among the party's ideologies just because one or more sources mention it, however it is true that the "national" conversion of the League is not authentic, on many respects. On the other side, the League is very weak in central-southern Italy now (the 2018 and 2019 elections were clearly outliers). The majority of the party is nothern and definitely regionalist. Moreover, its preference for regionalist parties is quite evident: it is allied with other regionalist parties in Aosta Valley, South Tyrol, Trentino, Sardinia and Sicily. And, the League itself is a conferederation of regional (and regionalist) parties. No other Italian political party is organised that way and no other party uses the regional flags as the League does. I am sure you have seen Molinari (floor leader in the Chamber) on TV: there is always a Piedmontese flag behind him. That happens in Piedmont, not more identitary regions like Veneto of Sardinia! This said, I totally agree that "it is necessary an analysis (both here and in it.wikipedia) including both the opinions of those who believe that the party has abandoned regionalism, and of those who believe that it combines nationalism and regionalism".
4) Alliances with parties have to do with "Ideology and political position", more than "Regional and local governments". It is so self-evident to me and frankly I do not understand why you see it differently from me. I will try fix also that. --Checco (talk) 17:01, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Liga Veneta is "virtually 100% Venetian nationalist": the source? It seems just a personal opinion. If the problem is Padan nationalism, for me we can remove that too. But if at least that is inherent in the old LN, Venetian nationalism is not inherent with anything. Am I wrong or have you always said that if an edit is contested, the previous version must be reverted? There is no consensus to put the Venetian nationalism on this page, above all in the incipit.
2) Would your solution be the removal of ideology supported by multiple sources? It doesn't seem like a great idea to me. Furthermore, you haven't answered me yet: what are the numerous media that describe the League as a centre-right party?
3) Sources misrepresenting the party? Maybe, but it's not the users' job to make personal judgments on them.
4) Finally, it seems quite obvious to me that the reasoning on the League being in government in 14 regions with the centre-right coalition does not concern its ideology or the political position with which it is described.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 18:41, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
1) This article's content was taken in good part from Lega Nord. "Venetian nationalism" was mentioned in the intro for years and was never contested. Thus, I do not understand why this reference is no longer OK here. Modern "Venetian nationalism" was practically invented by the League, through Liga Veneta. It is almost tautological. Wikipedia articles are a lot about links. My question is: why readers, who greatly benefit from links, should not be given the opportunity to explore "Padanian nationalism" and "Venetian nationalism"? Why should we, in this case you, censure an information and/or a link? I agree that sources on "Venetian nationalism" are not essential to this article. We can have just the link.
2) There are sources on just about everything. I can find sources on the current League being (still) secessionist or centrist or liberal. Would you add them and overload even more the infobox? Editors should evauluate information and sources, otherwise infoboxes, let alone articles, would become unnecessarily long and confusing.
3) Again, when looking for sources, one should not look for what he/she wants to say, but being sincerely interested in giving a broad, balanced and problematic view of the subject. I have to say that, also thanks to your co-operation, the "Ideology and political position" section is now offering a broaad, problematic perspective, as an encyclopedia should do.
4) That is why I separated alliances, that have to do with political position/ment, from regional governments. --Checco (talk) 09:38, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's useless carrying on with these non-consensual edits... If you wanted a photocopy of the LN's page, you might not have expressed yourself in favor of splitting it into two pages. Venetian nationalism is out of place and your insistence seems to conceal a propaganda intention. If an ideology is supported by multiple sources, it must be reported in the infobox and that's it, it is not my or your job to decide to hide an ideology if we do not agree with it. You had already tried to do this with the political position in the Lega Nord page, and this is contrary to the principles of Wikipedia, which requires users to be neutral. Furthermore, I have not created the section about ideology to list the party's current territorial alliances and the composition of the current parliamentary groups, as well as being totally out of place (no other section about ideology, in the pages of other parties, lists parliamentary groups and regional alliances) is a recentism that makes no sense... Please do not reiterate non-consensual edits.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 12:49, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I see that it is not easy to discuss with you (and you can say the same about me), but I will never renounce to do that. This article is a split from Lega Nord, thus the content that was OK there and it is no longer related to that party, but to this one, should have a place here. "Venetian nationalism" can be here just as a link, with no implications, even though it is clearly the core business of the party in its main stronghold. The article is full of irrelevant information, like the phony, brief and unconsequential alliance with CasaPound, while Venetian nationalism could arguably be cited even in the infobox. This said, I maintain my point: it is impossible to cite every information and every source (the article would become unreadable) and editors have the role of deciding, through consensus, what it is relevant for the subject and what it is not. I am not sure you are neutral as you are so keen in misrepresenting this party. Despite this and the fact that some of the ideologies are really misplaced, I think that the article, thanks also to you, is mostly balanced. It does not matter why you created a section. Wikipedia is a co-operative process. In my view, it is important to explicate the party's position/ment also through country-level and regional alliances. It cannot be "recentism" as those infos pre-date the transition from the LN to the LSP. --Checco (talk) 05:31, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
On one thing I agree with you: the page is full of useless information, including the numerous quotes (which you have inserted) concerning mere personal opinions (if not strategies of opponents to divide the party) and even the same Venetian nationalism. Venetian nationalism concerns the past of the Venetian League, it is not a consensual edit and and I will continue to remove information that has nothing to do with a national party, especially in its incipit. I also confirm that regional alliances have nothing to do with Ideology and political position, please to indicate me another section of this type that includes these informations.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 08:22, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And I repeat another thing: LN page is one thing, LSP page is another thing, they are not and must not be mere photocopies. If one information was reported on the LN page, it must not be necessarily reported even on this page.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 08:32, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
One last thing: (unlike you, apparently) I am absolutely neutral on this party and I do not enter my personal considerations but I just report what most of the sources say. Wikipedia works in this way.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 08:39, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I always believe in good faith, but, as the party is not usually classified as right-wing (let alone far-right) in most Italian sources, I do not know what to say about your conduct here. Venetian nationalism is the present ideology of LV, the second-largest and most electorally succesful section of the LSP, thus it could be citied in this article too. This said, I am backing down on this for the sake of compromise. On the other side, I reject you total rollbacks and restore the other edits: most of them are about good English versus bad English, plus there is a paragraph you might not agree with, but it is sourced and can perfectly stay in a section dedicated to the party's ideology and positioning, meaning its position on the left-right axis and, of course, its coalition politics. --Checco (talk) 05:37, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate that you have given up on putting a really controversial statement back on the page. However claims such as "especially abroad" about the political position must be proven, otherwise they are personal considerations. Even the regional alliances of the party have nothing to do with that section, I invited you to point out similar cases but you did not answer me. You are free to enter that information in an appropriate section, but not in the one concerning the ideology.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 09:17, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I offered you an olive branch, but I still think that links are never controversial: they serve readers, who have the opportunity to explore further subjects. On the second issue, there is a source from the Financial Times reading "At home the League describes itself, as 'centre right', a label most of the national media endorses. Abroad Salvini is frequently called 'far right'". You perfectly know that the party is virtually never described as "far-right" in Italy, but that is not the point. Pleas read the source carefully: it states that most of the Italian media classify the party as "centre-right", while abroad it is frequently called "far-right"—and both things are true. I will try again to forge a compromise solution and I will add a "citation needed", as most Italian sources do not describe the party neither as "right-wing" nor "far-right". On sections, there is no specific rule on what sections should contain and I continue to think that alliances have a lot to do with a party's position and positionment. This said, in order to avoid such arguments, it is not a big deal to divide and re-name sections. --Checco (talk) 11:40, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You cited that FT article... but have not still answered my question: which Italian media describe the League as a centre-right party? I've asked you this more times, but you've never answered me. Even the assertion that the League is never described as a far-right party in Italy is not correct: a google scholar search is enough to verify it. Furthermore, that specification (based on a fairly Italocentric vision) was not removed only by me. The "far right" label in Italy is used much more cautiously than in other countries, it is mainly used for the most extremist parties, but it is used, albeit less frequently, in several books and papers about mainstream parties such as the League. Claims based on personal feelings are not suitable on wikipedia, therefore they should be avoided.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 13:20, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Most Italian mainstream media refer to the League as a centre-right party, as the Financial Times correctly pointed out. No Italian mainstream media describe the party as far-right and very few label it as right-wing. I am sure you are intellectually honest and you know that. Indeed, as you have rightly observed, the "far-right" label is used more cautiously in Italy, thus it is perfectly OK to say that, while in Italy the party is never described as far-right and rarely right-wing by mainstream media, it is usually the case abroad: that is a fact and the FT article simply acknowledged it. My personal opinions are quite different (in my view, the League is a radical centrist party, whose policies are social-democratic, populist and social-conservative, like some PES parties of Eastern Europe), but that is not the point. I am not even trying to change the political position in the infobox. I am just saying that a problematic sentence in a section is quite appropriate for a party which is categorised differently in Italy and abroad. --Checco (talk) 09:10, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, I have never heard or read that the League is a centre-right party, indeed not even you have been able to point out a single Italian media that has described the League in that way. It's true that the League is generally not even described as a far-right party (not even Brothers of Italy), but simply because a specific political collocation for this party is not provided by the media (if not that of a member of a broader area of the centre-right, which includes parties from the centre to the right-wing). Sincerely, I find the strategic statements of Franceschini and Bettini decidedly useless entered on this page, I don't see any political analysis nor encyclopedic significance in those statements, which were made with the sole aim of cracking an antagonist party. In my view, long quotes from interviews or strategic statements from opponents should be removed. Anyway, as regards the sentence concerning the position of the party the current version is already more neutral than the previous one and it can be a compromise.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 21:22, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, the League is generally described as centre-right or being part of the centre-right. Sometimes, especially in the past, it is/was also considered as a centrist party. No Italian mainstream media describe the party as far-right and very rarely it is described as right-wing by the very same mainstream media. --Checco (talk) 17:30, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Regionalism and federalism[edit]

Any further debate on the party's ideology is much welcome, especially as the party is currently wrongly described as "right-wing populist" and "nationalist". This said, I respect the current established consensus comprising six features: "right-wing populism", "conservatism", "nationalism", "regionalism", "federalism" and "Euroscepticism". These features (I say features and not ideologies because Euroscepticism is clearly not an ideology, but a policy) are supported by consensus (I may oppose some of them, but a majority of users support them, and the other way around) and sources. Changes are possible, but should be discussed here first. We should not overlook the fact that, while Salvini has tried to give the party a proudly Italian image (which is reflected by "nationalism" in the infobox), the League is still mainly a regionalist party or, even better, a collection of regional parties with strong local, sometimes conflicting, identities, whose ideology is federalism and its main policy goal is the transformation of Italy into a federal state. There are several news accounts from the latest party meeting in Pontida, where there were very few or no Italian flags, but all kinds of regional and even Padanian flags. -- Checco (talk) 06:44, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There has never been a real debate on the sources to be listed and those to be excluded, so there is not even an effective consensus about them. If an ideology is supported by dozens of sources, you can't just remove it, it doesn't work that way. We cannot reasoning by being influenced by sympathies o personal opinions, there are a lot of sources that describe the party this way, it is not possible that everyone of them is wrong. And it is no coincidence that many sources claim that the League has abandoned regionalism as an ideology. Theoretically these sources are right, because regionalism is an ideology characterized by the focus on a single specific area, and this type of ideology no longer characterizes the LSP. It is for this reason that it is necessary to explain that the LSP supports differentiated regionalism, which is different from simple regionalism.
About federalism (ideology comparable to differentiated regionalism) I have looked for authoritative sources, but I have not found any. --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 07:03, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The so-called "differentiated regionalism" is not supported by the League, but the Italian Constitution. The adjectivation and the note you added are a matter of confusion, not clarity. The League is a regionalist party per se, per sources, and it is also federalist. Please seek consensus before editing parts of the article that have been discussed for years and whose established consensus was not easy to find. By the way, while I oppose both "sovereigntism" and "nationalism" in the context of the League's ideology, but I could agree on replacing the latter with the former. This said, there is no new consensus at this point. --Checco (talk) 07:10, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"For years"? But this page was "de facto" created last year! Regionalism is an ideology that concerns only one part of the national territory, indeed the most recent sources affirm that the LSP has abandoned this ideology. Do not think as if this party were still the LN, otherwise a new page would not have been necessary. Moreover, for such an important party and with so many ideologies, SkyTG24 is a decidedly poor source (for federalism). --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 07:38, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Too many ideologies[edit]

Even before User:SDC started adding "sovereigntism", the article's infobox was already congested of ideologies. "Sovereigntism" is not a real ideology and it is used mainly in the French context as a synonym of "nationalism", with Eurosceptic connotations. Interestingly enough, Pasquino uses it within inverted commas, meaning that it is not a proper ideology. Please note also that Pasuqino and Passarelli avoid "right-wing populism" in favour of the more correct "populism". This said, while there is no consensus on adding "sovereigntism" and users should refrain from repeating a bold edit that has been challenged, I would welcome an overhaul of the ideologies included in the infobox. In my view, we could have only three: "right-wing populism" (or, better, "populism"), "conservatism" and "regionalism". Let alone the non-academic "sovereignitism", "nationalism" is already redundant and frankly inappropriate for a regionalist party, "federalism" could be included in "regionalism" (the party is, by the way, both federalist and autonomist), and "Euroscepticism" (not an ideology, but a policy) is already part of "populism". The established consensus can easily changed not by addition, but substraction. -- Checco (talk) 14:44, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot remove an existing ideology, supported by the sources, just because you personally do not agree with it. If any user could do this, I could too remove Regionalism from the infobox, which I surely disagree. I did not remove Regionalism (and I initially challenged it) only because you opposed this removal.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 16:11, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I also point out that Regionalism, as ideology concerning this party, seems contested by more sources than those supporting it. We could remove all the contested ideologies, otherwise, without contrary consensus, they have to be all kept.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 18:11, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I generally oppose the use of "sovereigntism" (or "sovereignism") in Infoboxes – it's essentially a synonym for nationalism, and not a widely-used recognised term. Certainly I don't think that "nationalism" and a direct synonym for it should both be listed in the Infobox for this particular article.--Autospark (talk) 14:35, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sovereigntism is often used as a synonym for nationalism, but they are not identical terms: just see the definition provided in the articles:
Nationalism: It further aims to build and maintain a single national identity, based on shared social characteristics of culture, ethnicity, geographic location, language, politics, religion, traditions and belief in a shared singular history, and to promote national unity or solidarity.
Sovereigntism: Typically used for describing the acquiring or preserving political independence of a nation or a region, a sovereigntist aims to "take back control" from perceived powerful forces, or from external global governance institutions.
Of the two definitions, the one most appropriate to the League seems to me to be decidedly Sovereignism, while Nationalism is more suited to the Brothers of Italy. On the contrary, Regionalism was an ideology characterizing the Northern League, but not the current League: "Regionalism is a political ideology that seeks to increase the political power, influence, and/or self-determination of the people of one or more subnational regions. It focuses on the development of a political or social system based on one or more regions and/or the national, normative or economic interests of a specific region, group of regions or another subnational entity. It is absolutely clear that the League has abandoned this ideology, which only pursues the interests of a part of a country (i.e. the Padania). The party pursues a "differentiated regionalism", which is practically Federalism. On the latter ideology, however, I have not yet been able to find any authoritative sources.
I agree to discuss to reduce the number of ideologies in the infobox, but as I have not removed the ideologies that I do not agree, not even other users can remove ideologies that they in turn do not agree, without previous consent. For this reason I invite you to discuss here before doing any other removal from the infobox. But I will rollback any unjustified removal.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 20:49, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see there is a lot of confusion on federalism and regionalism ("differentiated regionalism" is not "federalism" of course, but "autonomism"). Regarding "sovereigntism", it is not a proper ideology from an international political science perspective (see also User:Autospark above), the sources given are quite weak and, once again, an element is added through a repeated bold edit against Wikipedia:Consensus ("in discussions of proposals to add, modify, or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit). As User:Barlafus argued elswhere, sources can be found on all political positions and ideologies. It is up to us, editors, to evaluate sources and avoid redundant infos, otherwise articles would be neverendingly verbose. This said, while rollbacking a bold edit against consensus is entirely legitimate, I hope this can be an opportunity for an overhaul of the "ideology" camp in the infobox. On this respect, I quite appreciate what User:Davide King did it Brothers of Italy's infobox: just two ideologies and sources moved to the text. I hope we can settle on a few ideologies also here, possibly "regionalism", "right-wing populism" and "conservatism". --Checco (talk) 07:14, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I added information supported by a many reliable and authoritative sources, a user needs a valid reason or a clear consensus to remove this type of information (certainly if that information has been on the page for a long time, but even if it has just been inserted). Anyway, removing both nationalism and sovereigntism would make no sense: for the reasons already specified, between the two ideologies, I would choose the second one. Differentiated regionalism (the "regionalism" supported by the current national League) means the application of different levels of autonomy (it is very similar to federalism). Surely the League is not "regionalist" and stop, since it no longer represents only the interests of the Northern Italy (Padania). Furthermore, many sources claim that the League has abandoned regionalism. For these reasons I am in favor of reducing the number of ideologies, but I disagree with your proposal (you are proposing to maintain an ideology contested by many sources and to remove ideologies supported by the sources practically unanimously).--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 11:39, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have come to see things like Eurosceptism, federalism, and regionalism more as political views and positions than proper ideologies (just because they end in -ism, it doesn't mean they're proper ideology, see Berlusconism and Bushism), and thus better suited to be listed and perhaps briefly explained in the lead and the body rather than the infobox, which should summarize the proper ideology(ies). So we should list 'Right-wing populism' and 'Nationalism' (sovereigntism is a bit more complicated to tell whether it's more of a political position or a proper ideology, but we should list one of the two). 'Conservatism' doesn't seem suitable and I've not seen the League referred to that way. In fact, the two given sources don't even support it; Reuters is about Salvini's social conservatism, while The Local says that Salvini moved the party in a socially conservative direction. Either way, I think the two main ideologies are 'Right-wing populism' and 'Nationalism'. The party's stances regarding federalism, regionalism, et cetera should be summarized in the lead. Same thing for Lega Nord; we should keep the infobox short and briefly explain the stuff about autonomism, federalism, regionalism, and the party's evolution in the lead and use the sources used for the 'Historical position' in a section in the body. Davide King (talk) 12:54, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly, despite me thinking otherwise, the only left-right ideology being supported by sources and consensus is "right-wing populism". "Sovereigntism" is clearly a non-starter for several reasons (first of all, it is not a proper ideology) and there is not much to discuss about it. Also "nationalism" is quite controversial to me, as the party is not centred on Italian identity as the FdI party, which, by the way, is described only as national-conservative. I also think that "conservatism" is suitable, even though we do not have authoritative sources to back it. Definitely, I would not remove "regionalism", that is probably the most distinctive ideology of the League and is backed by several sources. In my view, we could reduce the ideologies even to just two, "right-wing populism" and "regionalism" (like Nordsieck does), but I would also consider "conservatism". --Checco (talk) 04:24, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In reality, regionalism seems to me the least suitable ideology of all and it is contested by various sources. On the contrary, there is an almost unanimous description of the party as nationalist or sovereignitist (there is not a great difference between the two ideologies, but the one that best describes the League is IMHO sovereigntism, for the matter of the national identity that concerns the nationalism).--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 07:22, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly from this debate, "sovereigntism" (backed by weak sources and not a proper ideology or at least not widely recognised as such) is supported by one user alone. Additionally, "regionalism" is widely recognised as being central to the party's ideology. The only way I can think of this party as nationalist is as being a collection of regional nationalist movements.
This said, I still think we can find a way to reduce the number of ideologies in the infobox, in line with most articles about political parties. --Checco (talk) 21:00, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are clearly too many ideologies in the infobox. In my view, we should have two or three of them. According to most sources, the party's most common ideologies are "regionalism", "right-wing populism" and "conservatism". All the other ideologies are at best redundant, at worst inaccurate. Indeed, a separate problem is that, while the League is classified as "right-wing populist" and "far-right", a large chunk of the party, notably including relevant figures as the most senior minister Giorgetti and the regional presidents (Zaia, Fontana, Fedriga, Fugatti and Tesei), is centrist, liberal and, to some extent (Zaia and the majority of the party in Veneto, the League's stronghold), social-liberal (if not social-democratic). This said, for the moment, I would be very happy to reduce the number of ideologies in the infobox to to two or three: "regionalism", "right-wing populism" and, possibly, "conservatism". --Checco (talk) 08:31, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there are too many ideologies in the infobox, but I don't agree with your solution. Regionalism as one of the main ideologies has many issues:
  1. it is denied by as many sources as support it;
  2. in your proposal, it would be included at the expense of ideologies that are supported by sources an unknown number of times more;
  3. there is no evidence that the southern sections of the league (i.e. the newer sections) are regionalist.
Personally, I would only include ideologies that are never openly denied by any source, i.e.: Right-wing populism, Federalism, Autonomism, Sovereigntism (more suitable than Nationalism in the case of the League), Conservatism. All the other ideologies are controversial, regionalism in primis, therefore I would exclude them from the infobox. In any case, if an agreement is not reached in this discussion, we can start an RFC as already done for other parties, it would not be a bad idea. Scia Della Cometa (talk) 20:33, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The League's ideology perfectly suits several of the definition available at Regionalism: it "seeks to increase the political power, influence and self-determination of the people of one or more subnational regions" and, clearly, "the organization of the central state on a regional basis for the delivery of its policies including regional development policies; political decentralization and regional autonomy" are among its main policy goals. A party can be regionalist, even without being regional, not to mention the fact that regionalism is enshrined in the Italian Constitution (Italy is not a federal state, but a regionalist state, according to scholars). Most importantly, regionalism is well sourced as one of the League's main ideologies.
I would avoid ideologies that are controversial or mostly original research (for instance, sovereigntism is not a proper ideology, but more of an expression used by journalists rather than scholars). The only three ideologies that are supported by plenty of sources are regionalism, right-wing populism and conservatism.
This said, the party has never been on the far-right fringe, it is evolving and most of its senior members are centrists. I am sure that sources will soon acknowledge that. Of course, the League is part of a right-wing group in the European Parliament, but there are many examples of groups not being a good indicator of a party's ideology—just think of populist parties like Czechia's ANO and Ireland's FF in liberal Renew Europe! --Checco (talk) 17:35, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the following claim ("regionalism is well sourced as one of the League's main ideologies") would need to be proven. How many sources on nationalism are there for each source that supports regionalism? Sources on the Northern League don't matter. I reiterate my proposal: in cases like this it would be better to start an RFC as already done on other occasions. Scia Della Cometa (talk) 19:28, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are plenty of sources on "regionalism", especially in Italian and English. Moreover, just to let you know, some English-language high-profile sources like The Economist continue to this day to refer to the party as "Lega Nord" or "Northern League", thus it is not easy to discern sources on the two parties, Lega Nord and Lega per Salvini Premier. By the way, the current party's main policy is autonomy for northern regions, thus it is almost self-evident that the party is still regionalist. --Checco (talk) 20:00, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that they currently refer to the party as Lega Nord perfectly illustrates how poorly informed these sources are about the party. And if a source mentions Autonomism, it is valid for autonomism, not for regionalism. Scia Della Cometa (talk) 21:28, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Autonomism" is a stronger form of "regionalism", so what? Anyway, our positions are clear. There is a trend going on in Wikipedia of reducing the number of ideologies in party infoboxes. Let's see whether other users are interested to contribute. --Checco (talk) 06:10, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
However sources can only be used for specific ideologies, a source on autonomism cannot be used to support regionalism. Furthermore, you haven't answered me on one thing: are the southern sections of the League autonomist or regionalist? Or does this ideology concern only the Northern sections? Scia Della Cometa (talk) 08:49, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The League is not particularly strong the South and it is little more than Lega Nord, however the whole party supports "regionalism", as it is described by the Wikipedia article, and the regionalist nature of the Italian republic. I really do not understand why you oppose a weak and generic term like "regionalism", while supporting the more extreme version of regionalism that is "autonomism"! --Checco (talk) 20:18, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The League is not little more than the Northern League: in the south, even in the last general elections, it scored percentages that most parties dream of. Also, just check the Interior Ministry's website: in many southern constituencies, it scored the same percentages (if not even higher) than other important northern constituencies! Regionalism is a clear ideology: it concerns parties that represent "only" a portion of the national territory, and the League, regardless of what you claim, represents all of Italy. Within it there are nostalgic factions of the Northern League, but they are just factions. We both agree to cut the ideologies, but disagree on which ones to cut: the only solution in these cases is to ask other users through an RFC. Scia Della Cometa (talk) 13:40, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Coming back to this issue, definitely "Conservatism" and "Right-wing populism" (or "Populism", if preferred) are essential inclusions, IMO. I'm still against "sovereigntism" as it's essentially a modern synonym for nationalism. We should think over how to describe Lega given its roots as a regionalist (and at one point, arguably separatist) party which has always supported in principle Italy becoming a regionally devolved or federative state.-- Autospark (talk) 15:43, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We agree on Right-wing populism and Conservatism but these two ideologies are not enough to describe the League and there is disagreement about others: Another ideology on which there should be no disagreement is federalism. But the facts, however, speak for themselves: there are a lot of sources describing the League as nationalist (or sovereignist), some sources explicitly stating that the League has abandoned regionalism while some others claim that regionalism and nationalism coexist. Following the sources, Checco's proposal is unfeasible: we cannot exclude an ideology on which all the sources agree and include another which is explicitly denied by some sources. On the other hand, following Checco's reasoning, there would not even have been a need to create this page, but the southern sections are not so insignificant. There is still nostalgia for the Northern League in the current League, but it concerns only a part of the members of the Northern sections. My suggestion to streamline the infobox remains. Scia Della Cometa (talk) 16:45, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Would you find “Federalism” an acceptable inclusion in the Infobox? Please let us know your thoughts on that.— Autospark (talk) 14:01, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the federalism is still a key point in the program of the party. Scia Della Cometa (talk) 20:46, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Autospark and Checco: In my view, if we want to reduce ideologies and avoid an RFC we have to compromise, which means leaving contested or inconsistent ideologies such as regionalism and nationalism out of the infobox. I propose to keep only Right-wing populism, federalism, and conservatism in the infobox. Let me know if you agree, otherwise an Rfc will be needed.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 15:19, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would find that entirely acceptable, although I am ambivalent whether to include right-wing populism or 'general' populism, although the former is currently more well-supported by references. Currently I favour an Infobox listing Conservatism, (right-wing) populism, federalism, in that order.-- Autospark (talk) 15:42, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The populism of the League is surely right-wing (is not generic like the populism of the M5S) a I would indicate it as the main ideology of the party. Scia Della Cometa (talk) 16:22, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How about this as a list:

  • Italian nationalism
  • Federalism
  • Right-wing populism

ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 19:14, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Italian nationalism" would be almost a joke, and btw I always oppose the national versions of ideologies in infoboxes. I am ok with "federalism" and, according to sources, also "populism" (definitely better than "right-wing populism") and "conservatism" could be included. However, the essential feature of the party's ideology is clearly "regionalism", which is broader, more generic and milder than "federalism", "autonomism" and, of course, "separatism". --Checco (talk) 20:30, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
ok, no agreement seems possible, I start an RFC hoping it will help reach a consensus on which ideologies to include. Scia Della Cometa (talk) 08:50, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Checco: Remember though, we're talking about refining them, not including factional ideologies. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 12:20, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rfc: ideologies in the infobox of the League[edit]

Which ideologies should be included in the infobox of the League (and in what order)?

Right-wing populism, Populism, Federalism, Regionalism, Conservatism, Nationalism, Sovereigntism, Euroscepticism, Autonomism.

Please do not respond to other editors in the Survey. You may respond to other editors in the Discussion section. Scia Della Cometa (talk) 09:12, 11 June 2023 (UTC)--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 16:44, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sources[edit]

Survey[edit]

  • Right-wing populism (1), Federalism (2), Nationalism/Sovereigntism (IMHO, better the latter) (3), Conservatism (4). The League is a mainly a Right-wing populist party (not just a generic populist party, indeed the League is neo-nationalist, fiscal conservative, anti-immigrants, nativist and not sympathetic to environmentalism), as stated by several sources. The Federalism is one of the key points of his electoral program, which includes efficiently the Northern autonomist and regionalist factions of the party and satisfies the purpose of rationalizing ideologies. --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 09:37, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conservatism, Federalism, Right-wing populism. Firstly, federalism might be a good catch-all for the regionalist and autonomist core of the party (and its historical roots), although I would have no objection to “regionalism”. Secondly, Right-wing populism as there’s currently a weighting of sources indicating that rather than valence populism. Also, I oppose the inclusion of sovereign(t)ism as firstly it is a journalistic and/or self-descriptive label which essentially is a synonym for nationalism, and secondly (right-wing) populism arguably already covers that element of the party’s ideology and rhetoric.—Autospark (talk) 10:35, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Scia Della Cometa, I appreciate that your prompt is brief and neutral, but as someone who has spent a lot of time on RfCs over the years, I think you'll get a much better level of engagement if you provide a compact summary of the sources currently employed in the article for each ideology. In saying this, I presume there are more in dispute than those cited in-line in the infobox, but it's difficult to quickly unpack the details from the foregoing two threads. I will say, based on my own prior (but somewhat shallow) knowledge of Lega, my initial impulse is that your chosen three labels are a good summary, but I also think that the premise that you and Checco settled upon--that six generalized ideologies listed in the infobox is "too much"--is in my opinion incorrect: I really don't think the average reader's brain is going to implode under the weight of reading six different political philosophies that clearly all apply to this eclectic/synchronistic political party, nor does the infobox look particularly crowded.
In short, if I'm going to support both the implicit conclusion here (that we need just three ideologies listed) and then also choose the three which have the best support by WP:WEIGHT, a little more discussion of the sourcing would be helpful (and maybe essential for other respondents arriving here with no knowledge of this party, or Italian politics generally, who do not have several hours to spare to get enough up to speed to provide an informed opinion). Again, I think you've probably hit the main three if I had no choice but to select them at the moment, but I'd be more comfortable lodging a firmer !vote if I knew more about the sourcing being utilized and/or disputed.
Also, just as a procedural side note: you can't really mandate that respondents not reply to eachother's comments (inline in the survey section or however): threaded discussion is the standard on this project and in-line responses are often necessary, depending on how discussion proceeds. You can gently suggest that debate be mostly reserved for 'discussion' section, but that's typically not how RfCs work, so don't be surprised if people feel the need to make exceptions. SnowRise let's rap 20:00, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The defining ideology of the party is regionalism. I also support federalism, while noticing that there are several sources supporting conservatism and populism (more correct than the too specific "right-wing populism"). I totally oppose "nationalism" and, especially, "sovereigntism", which is not an established ideology but merely journalistic expression. I also oppose "Euroscepticism", which is not an ideology but a policy, and that would be quite redundant anyway. --Checco (talk) 13:54, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. A lot of these labels are quite problematic. Can they be described as conservatives (i.e., defenders of the status quo) if they want to change the status quo with regards to the EU, migrants policy and local autonomy? The populist label is problematic as well (as the lede of the Populism article acknowledges). Right now 4 out of 5 largest parties in the Italian parliament are described as populist (FdI, Lega, M5S and FI) and if everyone is populist what information is the reader getting from this label? Alaexis¿question? 08:35, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

@Snow Rise Thanks for the advice, I start by saying that for me there is no maximum number of ideologies to enter in the infobox, I simply stated that now there are too many. The two previous discussions mainly concern the fact whether the League (no longer Northern League) is still Regionalist: the definition provided by the Cambridge Dictionary is clear: a feeling of loyalty to a particular part of a country and a wish for it to be more politically independent. it is obvious that this definition concerns only the old Northern League, which defended the interests of Northern Italy only, and no longer the new League, spread throughout Italy. Some Northern sections of the League have maintained a regionalist sentiment, but they are only factions of the national party, so, in my view, regionalism cannot be considered a main ideology concerning the whole party. As you suggested, I will also include a section on sources for each ideology. Scia Della Cometa (talk) 08:03, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, to discuss a side issue here first, please stop edit warring to move my comment outside of the place and context where I placed it. Per my edit summary I considered placing my original comments here, but it includes elements of my feedback on the substantive issues as well as relevant information I believe should inform discussion going forward and not be sequestered to the discussion section. It is in essence my !vote until I review / you provide further info on sourcing. More to the point, WP:TPG directs you to not alter other editor's posts (including by moving them) and particularly without consulting them--and when another editor objects to your changes/moving, you are generally expected to respect that and drop the matter, not edit war to your preference. If you wish to move your responses below to abide by your own "I don't want threaded discussion in the survey section" preference, that is your own business, and I've even moved our responses to this section as a courtesy in respect of what I expect you would want. But I wish my initial !vote above to remain in the survey section, thank you.
As to the substantive issues: personally I don't think that there's an excess in descriptors in the infobox. I'm not saying just that I don't think there is a fixed maximum number, I'm also saying that in this particular case, six would not be excessive. I don't necessarily disagree or agree with your assessment that "regionalist" is appropriate in this case: I'm reserving a firm position on that until after I have looked into the sourcing more deeply (and your list of the sources will be very appreciated in that respect so I am sure I am not missing something presently being used in the article--so thank you for taking the time to do that).
That said, I will take the opportunity to emphasize the difference between WP:WEIGHT and WP:TRUTH. Even if I agreed fully with your position that Lega and Lega Nord are such a fundamentally different parties that what can be attributed to one cannot necessarily be attributed to another (and I do at least partially agree with that perspective, though I think it's a a nuanced distinction), you're still going to run into problems with WP:Original research if you push that argument against sourcing. And there do seem to be at least some sources which apply the regionalist label to Lega, since it's emergence as a distinct party, correct? You say that the regionalism is only applied to the present Lega because of sentiments that are held by members of northern "factions" within the part (essentially, a significant portion of the base who were formerly members of Lega Nord). That may well be true (and indeed, it even makes a certain amount of rational sense), but you still need sources that expressly say as much in order to support that distinction. If enough sources continue to describe Lega as whole as "regionalist", without making the distinction between legacy members from Lega Nord and other present day Lega membership, then we simply have to follow suit, per WP:NPOV.
So, again, I'll look forward to further discussion of the sources, because this is going to come down to how many sources are describing Lega in terms aligning with each of those descriptors, relative to the overall body of sources, not our own personal reasoning as to which labels are accurate, no matter how logical and straight forward that reasoning may seem to us. E, nuovamente, molte grazie per aver preparato il sommario delle fonti, il mio amico / la mia amica. (Come ci rivolgiamo a qualcuno in modo neutrale rispetto al genere (se non conosciamo la sua preferenza) in Italiano, ai giorni nostri? So che puoi aggiungere un asterisco al sostantivo, ma ti sembra impacciato quando usi l'articolo diretto e il pronome possessivo anche?) SnowRise let's rap 09:07, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, I premise that I didn't want to start any edit war: I didn't realize that you had voluntarily moved your comment again in the survey, I thought I hadn't moved it yet. For me the comment is more appropriate here, but if you want to keep it there, no problem for me. The sources of regionalism in the current League seem few to me, I will soon publish the section on sources. In ogni caso, puoi rivolgerti a me come "amico mio" (I am a male user). Scia Della Cometa (talk) 12:58, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I also specify one thing: the RFC does not in any way preclude voting for all ideologies and adding others, there is no maximum limit of preferences. The RFC is used to understand if the number can be reduced.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 13:20, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the leg work on compiling those sources, SDC: it will be very useful for me and other respondents, I feel confident in saying I'll reiterate my stance that the best solution here is still probably to keep all six descriptors in the infobox. That said, I'll try to at least provide feedback on which I think are most vital, as that alone may be valuable when it comes time for a closer to find a consensus outcome here. I take it as given that conservatism is largely non-controversial here and likely to be included, so I won't waste time debating the relevance of that particular descriptor. As to right-wing populism and nationalism, those are both likely to be contested to at least some degree, but my interpretation of the sources I have reviewed is that both are probably more than WP:DUE as a matter of weight in the sourcing. Euroscepticism I think is probably also WP:DUE, but also probably less essential than the above three, in terms of emphasis in the sourcing I have seen.
Regarding regionalism and federalism, this is obviously the most nuanced and source-intensive question and I'm going to take a little bit more time yet (since we are early into the RfC anyway) to parse those sources, after which I will amend my !vote above with a rough ranking of the validity/value of including each. It does seem that you have some sourcing expressly supporting your position, though some of it is primary, so there's a decent chance I will put 'regionalsim' towards the bottom of the hierarchy, but we'll see how that shakes out after more review. Not to sound like a broken record, but I appreciate the engagement and help in sorting through the sources. SnowRise let's rap 22:23, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry i wasn't aware of this discussion when i added them having some anti-globalisationist views. but since those are usually more common among the left wing populists, i'd just choose Populism over right wing populism. also National Conservatism could be used instead of nationalism and conservativism. on the opic of regionalism vs federalism, i think federalism is more accurate in Lega's current state, als regionalism is more associated with a secific region, but lega came to be as a merger of multiple regionalist movements, and such is not fighting for one in peticular, but for reginal rights in general, which would fit under what is commonly associated with federalism. Norschweden (talk) 23:29, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In this discussion the ideologies with broader support have been "populism" (not "right-wing populism", as it is now), "federalism" and "conservatism" ("national conservatism" is a variety of it). Also, there there was no consensus on removing "regionalism", which was strongly supported by me and tolearated by other users. User:Norschweden was bold, thus I decided to be bold too. Of course, an official closure of the RfC would be much welcome. --Checco (talk) 19:34, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
there was consensus on regionalism and federalism together are too much, imo federalism reflects current lega way more, but regionalism would be ok too, but both is too much imo. i'd be against removing all kinds of nationalism from the section, but i'd be down for either national conservatism, souvereignism, or just nationalism. also i'dkeep the factional padanian nationalism, since that's still very strong in the northern reginal sections.
But it wouldn't really bother me if we take the current form, and just remove either federalism or regionalism, as they are overlapping pretty strongly. the two forms of nationalism are at least covered partally by the other ideologies, and are explained in the article Norschweden (talk) 22:11, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This time the RFC didn't work very well. Alaexis' observations are right, even if the purpose would be the choice of which ideologies to keep in the infobox (or which ones to add) based on the sources. Above all, there was no consensus to remove "nationalism" from the infobox, which, I repeat, is probably the most supported ideology by the sources. Its removal, contextual to the desire to maintain "regionalism" (with a very little support from both sources and users), seems against the logic of sources and consensus. The RFC could be extended for another month, but there are no prerequisites for closing it with a clear consensus.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 18:48, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Probably, User:Norschweden and I have been too bold as there is no clear consensus. "Nationalism" is very generic and quite confusing. The party could be indeed generically nationalist, but, while it is definitely not Italian nationalist, it is a collection of regional nationalist movements. That is why I agree that "Padanian nationalism" should stay as it is very strong in the large northern sections of the party. And, as I have argued before, the party's ideology in Veneto is basically "Venetian nationalism", thus it could also be cited in the infobox. As of now, I am going to reinstate "Padanian nationalism". Also, the party has a large wing, to some extent it is the party's majority, that is centrist and liberal. It includes most party bigwigs except Salvini and a few others: Giorgetti and most ministers, Zaia and the other regional presidents, etc. --Checco (talk) 05:54, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If it is confusing or not, Nationalism is supported by many sources. on the other and still have eavily overlapping regionalism and federalism in the box, i'd like federalism more, but i don't hae a problem with regionalism either, i have a problem with both being there. We have to find a way to boil it down to 3 or 4 ideologies listed there, making it easy to understand where the party stands, and keeping a differentiation from Fratelli. i'm open to reming the factions with padanian nationalism, even if it's very relevant to it's history, but that's also explained in the text very well. and we have to cut something. Norschweden (talk) 15:28, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Checco, you continue to confuse the old Lega Nord with the new Lega per Salvini Premier, and I have the impression that you do it knowingly. The new Lega is not "a collection of regional nationalist movements"; also, explain to me how the official slogan Italy First (Prima l'Italia) cannot be considered nationalist... otherwise we deny the evidence. However I will restore the RFC for another month.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 16:40, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Surely, several sources misrepresent the party. Despite being larger than LN, Lega is still mostly a northern party, it is a federation of regional parties that were formed in the 1980s and 1990s (and re-established in 2020) separately one from the other and that in some cases are strongly rooted in regional nationalisms (especially Liga Veneta and Venetian nationalism, but also Lega FVG, Lega Trentino, etc.), and the "Italy first" slogan was mostly a cover-up for a party whose main aims are strengthening the regionalist structure of Italy (hence "regionalism"), achieving larger autonomy of northern regions and transforming Italy into a federal state (see, for instance, [1]). I could imagine that in Lazio or southern Italy, the very few leghisti fly Italian flags, but an objective observer clearly knows that in demostrations like that of Pontida the very few Italian flags are overwhelmed by Padanian, Lombard, Venetian and other regional flags and that in each and every party office in Veneto big banners with the Lion of St Mark are on display. In a nutshell, Lega is hardly supportive of (Italian) nationalism and is quite centrist. Currently, the article may give the impression that Lega is to the right of FdI, which is not the case. The FdI article's infobox contains only two ideologies (national conservatism and right-wing populism). We clearly need not only to differentiate Lega from FdI, but also to let users know that the former is more moderate than the latter. --Checco (talk) 19:26, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You say yourself they aim for a more federal Italy, so i don't understand you objection against federalism instead of regionalism, as federalism does naturally include strengthening the regions. as for the rest, it's not up to us to judge if italy first is a cover up, and if they are more moderate then FdI, since most politologistes see both as part of the redical right, and Lega currenly being in the more right wing political family, of cause the impression they might be right of FdI comes up, but it's not up to us to modify their article aganst the scientific research, to balance out their IDP membership. Norschweden (talk) 00:28, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The party is primarily regionalist. European Parliament groups are easy indicators, but there are several exceptions (populist parties within RE, socially conservative parties within S&D, etc.). What is sure is that in Italy, especially in northern regions like in Veneto, the party is not perceived or described as far-right. --Checco (talk) 20:57, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Political science and research says they aren't primarily regionalist anymore, and that's what we should depict, they are still federalist/regionalist but that's no longer their prime ideology. You misunderstodd what i meant with them being in IDP, their IDP membership is what leads some to think they are more right then FdL, but it's not our job to make them look more left then they are to balance that perception out. Norschweden (talk) 01:30, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I got your point also before: Lega's IDP membership leads international observers to think that the party is to the right of FdI, that is not the case. Indeed, most Italian sources do not depict the party as far-right, sometimes not even right-wing. This said, my points are two: 1) the party is still mainly regionalist; 2) being regionalist makes it quite big-tent; the party is broadly centrist (and most of its leading figures are percevied as such), but contains a wide range of positions. While I am proposing to remove "nationalism", I am not proposing to remove "populism" (better than "right-wing populism") or "conservatism", but we should try to better describe the party's complexity. The "ideology" section already gives a broad description of the party, but something should be done also in the infobox. On the other side, I am happy that we have been able to reduce the number of ideologies mentioned in the infobox, but, as I said, we could do more by removing "nationalism". --Checco (talk) 07:21, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ps: interestingly enough, LN was more keen on federal reform and federalism than Lega, which is more focused on regional autonomies and regionalism.
It being centris is aginst pretty much all scientific sources. but we cold switch out federalism with regionalism, eve if i think federalism is better, on of them has to go. nationalism is backed by many sources way more then the other ideologies, as such that one has to stay. we are not here to write down how italians think the party is, but what political science says Norschweden (talk) 17:34, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would keep both "regionalism" and "federalism", and I would replace "right-wing populism" with broader "populism". If "right-wing populism" stays, there is no need of having "nationalism", which is a typical feature of "right-wing populism". There also several sources on FdI being nationalist, but, through consensus, we chose to have only two main ideologies for that party ("national conservatism" and "right-wing populism"). --Checco (talk) 05:30, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, one of those two has to go, they are way to overlapping for the tabl section to keep both. as for nationalism, it's still the most sourced ideology in the survey, thus removing it is not the best move, but since we have to cut something, maybe we should see if we find enough sources alling Leaga Natinal Conservative, so we could merge nationalism and conservativism into one entry. Norschweden (talk) 15:30, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we could agree on Right-wing Populism, Regionalism, Conservativism, Nationalism and deleting the Padanian Nationalism faction, for the moment. and then discuss the possible deletion of nationalism or turning Right-wng populism into just populism with more people, when some more are interested in that topic again. So that we'd at least have a less crowded box for the time being Norschweden (talk) 19:01, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Padanian nationalism" (as well as "Venetian nationalism" and other regional nationalisms) is the only meaningful "nationalism". We could remove it and I would accept that, as long as the final outcome is something like: "regionalism", "populism" and "conservatism". Of course, I would be sorry to remove "federalism", but "regionalism" is surely a more significant feature of the party's ideology and nature. --Checco (talk) 19:21, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On nationalism the sources really say something different. On tht front we should wait for more people giving their opinions. As for Populism, i can definitely live without the Right-Wing part, i even suggested it in my firt or second post, but that's also something where i think that should be decided by more then just us two. Norschweden (talk) 20:02, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And "populism", as well as "right-wing populism", are quite more sourced than "nationalism". --Checco (talk) 19:37, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you revert my edits, didn't you agree on removing them just a few posts up? Norschweden (talk) 01:29, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"I would accept that as long as the final outcome is something like. . ." (cit.). We need a global compromise on ideologies. --Checco (talk) 03:48, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Political communication[edit]

It is really worthless telling readers the reason why Morisi stepped down from the party's political communication team. Moreover, the fact that Morisi is gay and that he was a drug addict are unrelevant infos, especially after the case brought against him was archived. This said, as of today, neither Morisi nor Paganella work for the party's political communication and, possibly, "the Beast" is no longer active. It is thus relevant to know that Morisi resigned and that Paganella is now a senator, but we surely need information on "the Beast" today: is it still active? who is managing it? is Morisi's and Paganella's company still active and/or involved? -- Checco (talk) 14:54, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lega_(political_party)&oldid=1201593359"