Talk:Italian Social Movement

message: Hi! I'm Italian. The page Movimiento Social Italiano has got a wrong title, infact the right spelling is Movimento Sociale italiano with a non-capitalized I in italian, because it is an adjective. Could you correct the title of the article? Thank you -- giandrea
:Thanks for finding that error. In fact, it appears that the correct capitalization is "Movimento sociale italiano", per Encarta. . Cheers, -Willmcw 22:37, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
I'm also italian and i don't agree. In Italian the parties names got all capitals , whatever the element of the name is a substantive or an adjective.
See for example in the italian Wiki
http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partito_Comunista_Italiano 
http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movimento_Sociale_Italiano
http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democrazia_Cristiana
--Neopagan 17:43, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, it is true: it is correct to write Movimento Sociale Italiano. I'll correct the page. --Checco 16:46, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Title

message: This section is part history, part conspiracy. See also this article on Gladio. Intangible2.0 (talk) 00:24, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  strategy of tension 

message: I strongly disagree to indicate the Republican Fascist Party as the predecessor of this party. The Italian Social Movement was founded ex novo, the predecession should be removed --Maremmano (talk) 20:54, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I will re-insert it, explaining that it was not a legal predecessor. More infos are always better, for readers' sake. --Checco (talk) 08:14, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The facts are more important than opinions, MSI was a new party without predecessors, also if it was founded by some RSI's members. This affirmation needs consensus--Maremmano (talk) 20:10, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: As I told you many times, your legalistic approach is disputable. It is very useful for readers to know from the infobox that, before the MSI, most Fascists were active in the PFR. It is not a wrong information, if accompanied by an explanatory note. Once again, let me tell you that you need to seek consensus before re-proposing an edit which is not supported by consensus. You are free to edit whichever article you want, but, when a user challenges one of your edits and re-instates the previous compromise or established version, you need to stop re-proposing your version and discuss. --Checco (talk) 08:58, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

text: I don't understand why my edits need always your "nulla osta", stating that the MSI was the successor of PFR is hasty, wikipedia is however an encyclopedia and these affirmations certainly aren't encyclopedic. It seems that you often confuse the consensus with your permission--Maremmano (talk) 11:51, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Not at all. My opinion counts as yours. However, when only two users are involved in a discussion, the established version must be upheld for it is supported by a former explicit consensus or an implicit consensus.  --Checco (talk) 07:44, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: For me it remains an original research, the rules of wikipedia are different...--Maremmano (talk) 22:51, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: This has to do more with English language than Wikipedia rules: "preceded by" does not mean "formal predecessor". --Checco (talk) 10:25, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

text: The PFR was the successor of the MSI, as Christian Democracy was the successor of the Italian People's Party. It is such an obvious thing (most leading members of the PFR joined the MSI, whose "Social" referred to the PFR's Italian Social Republic), that does not need sources, but of course there are plenty of them, starting from Storia del movimento sociale italiano: dalle origini del movimento sociale ai giorni nostri: 1946-1991 and Fascisti dopo la liberazione: Storia del Fascismo e dei fascisti nel dopoguerra in Italia : Dalla Repubblica Sociale al Movimento Sociale Italiano: 1945-1956. Obviously, in 1946 the MSI could not be the formal successor of the PFR: the Italian Constitution forbade (and forbids) the re-creation of the "Fascist Party" (at least under that name). --Checco (talk) 10:56, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Not an obvious thing at all - and on WP, even "obvious" things need sources. Could you please quote the relevant passages in the sources you mention, and add such sources to the infobox? --cyclopiaspeak! 08:40, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

text: I agree with Checco. It doesn't need to be a formal legal successor to be considered a successor party academically. Legal status is a technicality. The reasons why it wasn't a formal successor party are much more superficial than the ways in which it is. --4idaho (talk) 19:19, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I also agree with 4idaho and Checco, in many cases a successor party can be a de facto successor rather than a legally recognised successor organisation, particularly in a case like this where there was a constitutional element to preventing legal recognition.--Autospark (talk) 11:43, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Predecessor 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Italian Social Movement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131110124209/http://www.cattaneo.org/archivi/adele/iscritti.xls to http://www.cattaneo.org/archivi/adele/iscritti.xls
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:11, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Italian Social Movement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121030031542/http://www.politik.uni-mainz.de/ereps/download/italy_overview.pdf to http://www.politik.uni-mainz.de/ereps/download/italy_overview.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:06, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: @Checco: Could you point me out where the sources you entered indicate precisely the MSI as a just right-wing party? I have read these sources:
*the first source makes a very generic initial reference to the right, and then begins to analyze movements and parties of the radical right; therefore, de facto, it refers to the radical right;
*the second source just makes another generic reference to the right;
*the third source describes the Italian Democratic Party of Monarchical Unity as a right-wing party;
*the fourth source refers to the word missino and it's the only source that actually describes the MSI as a right-wing party (I noticed this later). The source is authoritative, but the specific lemma of the encyclopedia Treccani () describes the MSI a little differently: practically, Treccani describes it as a radical right-wing party.
Furthermore, the neo-fascist ideology (and moreover as the main ideology) automatically makes a party only of the far-right. MSI is currently being put on an equal footing with Brothers of Italy, but that's not quite the case. I think an RFC will be needed as has already happened for the French National Rally.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 07:51, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: There is nothing automatic. I am personally opposed to the "xxxx to xxxx" format and I would remove political positions altogether from party infoboxes because they are ultimately deceptive as those terms vary too much from country to country. However, the "xxxx to xxxx" format is very common in Wikipedia and, for consistency, it can be used also here. I offered four sources and your evaluation is not correct: the first source clearly explains how, differently from radical right parties, the MSI was more mainstream; the second source includes the MSI among "right-wing parties"; the third source describes the MSI as a "right-wing party" ("In the 1972 general elections MSI joined with another right-wing party", thus also the MSI was a right-wing party); the fourth souce describes the MSI as a "right-wing party". If "far-right" and "far-left" are used, only extreme fringe parties should apply: the abuse of "far-right" and "far-left" in Wikipedia is definitely a problem. The MSI was not extreme, especially in later years: for instance, it was keenly Atlanticist. --Checco (talk) 18:06, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The MSI was Atlanticist when its leaders were Augusto De Marsanich and Arturo Michelini: in that period it was a righ-wing party. Treccani itself claims that the party was not moderate after the end of their leadership (). Including a movement or organization generically in the right-wing area does not mean that it is just a "right-wing party". A right-wing terrorist organization remains a far-right organization, without the necessity to specify it, it's pretty elementary. The first three sources do not state what you are claiming, the fourth source (the definition of Missino di Treccani) is better specified in the lemma concerning the same MSI. Furthermore, if you do not approve the xxx to xxx format, this party would be all the more referred to as a far-right party. I advise you to find more adequate sources. Anyway I will start a Rfc, certainly the MSI was no more moderate than the current French National Rally.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 20:06, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

text: Can you pull out a quote or page number from the sources in question that you think supports this?  I am not seeing it at a glance, and the fact that the context of all these sources is books about the far-right makes me skeptical of your interpretation. I definitely don't think that something like  is sufficient, though; after all, that describes what unified the entire coalition, not MSI specifically. The fact that that source describes it further down as having a  seems a lot more significant. A far-right party is, by definition, a type of right-wing party, so if you want to argue against the sources that describe it as far-right you will need sources that use right-wing in a way that clearly has a different meaning and distinguishes it from the far right, rather than ones that vaguely just lump it in with the rest of the right.  Something like "it formed an alliance with another right-wing party" in the context of describing it as a neofascist party whose reputation caused the collapse of the first government it joined doesn't really qualify. Or, in other words - the "X to Y" phrasing is for when we have sources that specifically say that the party covers that sort of wide ground, which I don't think your sources do. --Aquillion (talk) 20:22, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I question the extensive usage of "far-right" and "far-left" for parties which are not fringe or extemist ones, I think that political positions should be avoided because they are too deceptive and I also question the usage of the "xxxx to xxxx" format. However, as of now, political parties have political positions in the infoboxes and the "xxxx to xxxx" format is used for several parties. It can be used also here. I consider the MSI, let alone the French National Rally, just a right-wing party and not a far-right one, but established consensus, sources and Wikipedia customs are for "right-wing to far-right". Heritage is of little importance, otherwise we should describe the Spanish PP as far-right because of its Francoist heritage. The MSI travelled a long way from fascism and was a post-fascist party, not a neo-fascist one (the Italian Constitution forbids the re-foundation of the Fascist Party). Indeed, the issue before us is quite simple: the MSI, depending on sources, can be describe as "right-wing" or "far-right"; per Wikipedia custom, we should continue to have "right-wing to far-right". The sources for "far-right" are not better than those I provided for "right-wing": one uses "Far Right" as synonym for the MSI, exactly as one of my sources uses "Italian right" as synonym for the MSI, while another one is unverifiable. We should go back to the established consensus and the sources on "right-wing" should be included. --Checco (talk) 13:46, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Those sources do not describe the MSI as a classic right-wing party and it has already been explained why. The "xxx to xxx format" is used when a party is indistinctly described with both one position and another (such as League and FdI). This does not seem to be the case with the MSI: there may be sources describing the MSI simply as a right-wing party, but certainly not those sources.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 14:48, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Political position 

message: *Comment I agree with User:LokiTheLiar that the MSI had also "centre-right" elements, as well as "far-right" ones, that is why I think that "right-wing" is a fitting categorisation. It would be a little bit awkward, but I would accept also "centre-right to far-right", as you proposed. --Checco (talk) 03:29, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: * You would like to describe the MSI as a centre-right party, but I would like to remind you that these claims should be supported by at least any source, not by personal opinions. On the other hand, I have never known centre-right neo-fascist parties... --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 13:19, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, my preference goes to "right-wing", which is mentioned in several souces, and that covers the spectrum of a political party, which had a broad centre-right majority and a far-right minority. The MSI, especially from the 1970s, was home to conservatives of all stripes as well as liberals, religious consevatives as well as anti-clericals, monarchists and republicans, and so on. All the parties of the so-called Italian "First Republic" were very heterogenous, so that, after the realignment started in 1992–1994, people from all the old parties joined each and every new party. What is sure is that the MSI was not neo-fascist as some fringe groups (i.e. New Force) are. More correctly, it was a post-fascist party and, starting from the 1970s, it absorbed politicians with different political roots. Anyway, also the neo-/post-fascism = far-right equation is not correct, otherwise what should we say of the Christian democrats who co-operated with the Francoist regime and, its political heirs, mainly the People's Alliance/Party? --Checco (talk) 16:30, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: *I just read a whole lot of WP:OR and no substance here. By the way, collaborating with a fascist regime is not equivalent to being neo-fascist or post-fascist. OTOH being ideologically neo-fascist means immediately belonging to the far right of the political spectrum. Yakme (talk) 19:28, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

text: *The Christian Democrats in Italy did not "co-operate" with Franco's regime any more than Washington did, Checco. Eisenhower himself, notably, visited Spain in 1953, shook Franco's hand, and participated in bilateral talks, thus signaling the end of Spain's post-war diplomatic isolation. (See Pact of Madrid.) Was Ike a fascist? I'd think not. Recognizing de jure the de facto established regime in Madrid does not signify much in the way of ideology. Even the Soviet Union opened a quasi-consulate in Madrid in 1969. (See Russia–Spain relations.) What you claim about "heterogenous" parties in post-war Italy and especially about MSI being so diverse that it was attracting liberals and republicans is simply false, i.e. entirely unsupported by sources. The Movimento began as a direct descendant of Mussolinian fascism and stayed the course until its very end, which was accompanied by Roman salutes throughout the congress. (See Carter, Elisabeth The extreme Right in Western Europe: Success or failure?, 2005.) As to the "New Force" or Forza Nuova, it was born in 1997, long after MSI's demise. You probably meant Ordine Nero ("Black Order"), the faction that rallied around Pino Rauti. -The Gnome (talk) 10:32, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: *I was not talking about Italy's Christian Democrats. Francoist governments in Spain included also Christian democrats, from Spain of course! That is what I wrote: "Christian democrats [...] co-operated with the Francoist regime and, its political heirs, mainly the People's Alliance/Party". --Checco (talk) 14:10, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Wrong. The "Christian democrats" who participated in Francoist governments were not "democrats"! You are evidently confusing the Christians of Opus Dei with good ol' European Christian democracy. They had little in common. The Church in Spain during Franco's regime never questioned its autocratic, dictatorial nature; in fact, the Church often praised what it saw as the benefits of such a regime, which was not surprising since it stood steadfastly by Franco until the end, if not beyond. And so did all political organizations that were allowed under Franco, such as la Falange Española or Opus Dei. -The Gnome (talk) 14:51, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

text: *Checco, trust me on this: The Movimento has always been a proud, self-described party of neo-fascist and then post-fascist ideology. What you inaccurately call "centre-right elements" were nothing else than the so-called "leftists," the ideologues rejecting the "Atlanticism" promoted by Washington through its Italian operatives, including James Angleton, and supporting the resurrection of Mussolini's ostensibly "social programmes." They were mainly inspired by Julius Evola's texts. During the party's Fifth Congress, held in November 1956 in Milan, a stronghold of the MSI "left," the tensions between the tendencies were so strong that actual brawls broke out! In the end, Michelini formally accepted almost all the "social" amendements proposed by Almirante, who, having resigned from the Secretariat during the summer, had resumed the leadership of the "left" faction, joined surprisingly by Borghese. There was never in the history of the MSI anything denoted as "centre-right". I cannot emphasize this strongly enough. The term "leftist factions" is used not in the traditional sense but in reference to the MSI's main tendencies vying for platform supremacy, that of anti-communism and that of nationalism. (Source: Bale, J.M. The Darkest Side of Politics, Vol.I, Postwar Fascism, Covert Operations, And Terrorism, Routledge, 2018.) Anything less than neo-fascist or  at least extreme/far right would be in disregard of sources. -The Gnome (talk) 16:29, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: *The MSI was definitely post-fascist, but included also Christian-democratic, liberal, monarchist and generically conservative elements and factions, especially in its latest decades—no surprise that its heir National Alliance was a mainstream conservative party and attracted more Christian democrats, liberals and even splinters from the Italian Socialist Party. --Checco (talk) 14:10, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: You are now simply repeating your position as to the nature of MSI even after I have repeatedly and exhaustingly refuted it. For, hopefully, the last time then: The fact that the Italian Communist Party or PCI was succeeded by the democratic, non-communist  Democratic Party of the Left does not mean that the PCI itself was not communist. The same applies to MSI: The fact that it was succeeded by the far-right Alleanza Nazionale does not make MSI itself any less than post-fascist or neo-fascist. End of story. In your effort to erroneously denote MSI as some kind of inclusive tent, you bundle in it the monarchists! You obvioulsy ignore the fact that the Italian monarchists, loyal to the House of Savoy, had vociferously and explicitly opposed any kind of collaboration with, let alone participation in, the Movimento. (See The Darkest Side, p. 217.) From now on, I will only respond to claims based on sources. This should accelerate things. -The Gnome (talk) 15:06, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

text:  No you cannot. This is not how an RfC works, and by now you should really know given the amount of RfCs that you have been involved with. I will revert your edit. Yakme (talk) 09:59, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  Maybe it's you that don't know how a Rfc works, you must read Wikipedia:Requests for comment#RFCs ending: so, or you revert yourself, or you ask for a formal closure. The choice at you.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 10:47, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I still think you have not read how RfCs work. An uninvolved editor has to close it. Yakme (talk) 13:03, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  I still think that you should read the rules of RFCs before commenting: "If the matter under discussion is not contentious and the consensus is obvious to the participants, then formal closure is neither necessary nor advisable. Written closing statements are not required. Editors are expected to be able to evaluate and agree upon the results of most RfCs without outside assistance" and "If the consensus is clear, any editor—even one involved in the discussion—may close the discussion". First of all, until now, the consensus was quite clear (the absolute majority of users had expressed themselves for an option). Autospark expressed his opinion later (out of time): this partly changes the final result, which before today was quite clear. "Anyone who wants an uninvolved editor to write a closing summary of the discussion (ideally with a determination of consensus) can formally request closure by posting at Wikipedia:Closure requests": it's not mandatory. You should read the rules before stating that I do not know them: I have the right to close the Rfc and make its outcome concrete, if you do not agree with it, it is you who can ask for formal closure by an uninvolved user. Ps. Even the last Rfc on the list of Italian parties could have been closed by me, had I not first asked for its formal closure ("The RfC participants can agree to end it at any time, and one of them can remove the rfc template.").--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 22:10, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I see that unfortunately you still have not learned anything from your topic ban on the list of Italian political parties. I expected that, I knew that was useless, but anyway. Of course a vote count is not the way to evaluate consensus on WP, and also 5–3 (actually 5–4 now) does not count as an "obvious" consensus. You do not in fact "have the right to close the RfC" especially if you are the OP. You asked the WP community to evaluate a question you proposed, and you should let the community decide, independently of your judgement. That's what an RfC is for. Anyway, I already asked for closure of this RfC since it has been long time since it started. PS: the sentence "The RfC participants can agree to end it at any time, and one of them can remove the rfc template" obviously does not mean that any participant can close the RfC when they like; it means that there must be an apparent consensus to close it amongst all participants: it's not the case here, as it was not the case for the list of Italian parties. Yakme (talk) 23:06, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Off topic: I learned just one thing from that block: that users who complained that they could not intervene in the discussion due to my and Checco's monopolization, after our block they washed their hands of it (yeah, a practically useless block). And anyway, yes, I could have easily closed the Rfc on Italian parties, the only users who intervened agreed to close it and the OP had pulled out, so it was my prerogative, unfortunately I had already asked for the formal closure and this has complicated everything.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 07:21, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Nobody intervened because people are waiting for the closure of that utter mess of an RFC that you guys approved to start, and contributed to make messier and messier by insisting on your petty positions without having a minimum amount of patience. Anyway this is not the place where to discuss about that topic. And I insist still: no, you could not "easily" close an RFC that had multiple editors !voting, and was still ongoing, just by a personal agreement between you and Checco. This is not how RFCs work!!! Yakme (talk) 09:22, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

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

text: I think that after yesterday's last preference it takes more time to define the consensus.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 07:24, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Funny that such a "clear consensus" that you thought was there, changed so drastically by just  one additional opinion... Probably it was not such a WP:SNOW consensus, was it? Yakme (talk) 09:19, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll tell you again: you better take it down a peg! Because frankly I'm starting to get quite tired of this opinionated attitude. I am still personally convinced that there is consensus in this rfc, only now it is weaker than before: with a reduced number of users a preference can make a difference, very simple. And in the other rfc, for days Checco and I were the only ones to intervene, your statement about the non-intervention of other users seems to me a process of the intentions of other users. And now enough with this boring discussion of topic, which has nothing to do with this rfc, we have to decide whether to conclude this rfc (and with what outcome) or whether to continue it, accusations and personal complaints have nothing to do here.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 13:10, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: You still don't get it. : no, we do not! I requested closure and an uninvolved editor will close it! Now let's stop adding gibberish and non-constructive discussions on this thread. Yakme (talk) 13:28, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact that you asked for closure does not at all mean that this Rfc will be necessarily closed by someone, you should know, the previous Rfc docet. If I acted like this, it is because I read the rules and I know I could do it, I did not act randomly as you think. Then everyone can challenge my interpretation of the outcome of the RFC, but this does not change anything about the initiatives that each user can undertake. And now stop with this tedious bickering, please.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 22:13, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

text: I believe we should be able to pin this down to a single word, even if a composite one. The term "right-wing to far-right" is not encountered in sources; it'd be simply a choice we editors make, which would be unacceptable even if fair. As it happens, I'm familiar, as I said, with most sources pertinent to MSI and its history. Many of my contributions, at the very least, should testify to that. We have significant sources referring to MSI by each of the following terms: neo-fascist; post-fascist; extreme-right; and far right. A proper RfC would focus on those choices, really. MSI was the successor party to Mussonolinian fascism, openly and militanly, until quite late in its lifespan, when it dissolved ("disciolto", "dissolved" and not "evolved into") to give birth to the National Alliance, in whose Wikipedia lemma, by the way, MSI is correctly denoted as "post-fascist." Even my suggestion in the Survey above for "far right" is a sort of compromise but so be it for now. Anything less than extreme- or far-right would simply not be based on sources. -The Gnome (talk) 12:59, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The MSI was surely post-fascist, but also conservative. I think it is fair, per sources, to describe it both as "right-wing" and "far-right". Moreover, a "post-fascist" party is not by definition "far-right". Indeed, the MSI evolved from its original neo-fascism to more nuanced and moderate political positionment. Reality is not black or white, it can also be grey. --Checco (talk) 14:10, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The term "right wing" encompasses a very large part of the political spectrum, from center-right to fascism in its many appelations. The Movimento, and (I cannot stress this enough) always according to sources, has been a neo-fascist or post-fascist party, the latter term invoked by some of its members, e.g. Fini, to denote that they've moved on from Mussolinian good ol' fascismo. Any talk about "nuances" (!) is baseless. The details of the various insignicicant disagreements within MSI about platform and tactics I already covered extensively above. At the end of the day they were all raising their right hand in a Roman salute. The truth here is black; pun intended: MSI was cuori neri. MSI was as neofascist as they come. As to the "compromise" which you seek that is me accepting "far right" instead of pressing on for (the fully supported by sources) "neofascist." -The Gnome (talk) 14:38, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

text: Leaving today for a one-week vacation. Upon returning,  I shall devote about one man-day to collect and present sources that support the argument that the MSI was a neo-fascist or post-fascist party, one that could not be denoted as anything less than a "far right" party. Arrivederci! -The Gnome (talk) 10:08, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Cherrypicking some sources and leaving aside others is not good. Sources and consensus are for "right-wing to far-right". --Checco (talk) 10:14, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

text: *@Checco However you have not been able to find a single valid source for right-wing placement on your own. And even the consensus is yet to be proved...--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 10:22, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

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

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

text: *I would not. Vacant0 (talk) 11:01, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

text: *Sorry but, again, WP consensus is not based on a "compromise" between editors, especially when the vast majority of high-quality reliable sources is very explicitly pointing to one definition (in this case, far-right). We are not here to make everyone happy, we are here to write down what comes out of reliable sources. Yakme (talk) 11:56, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

text: *The "compromise" you seek, Checco, as I already pointed out to you, is the fact that I'm prepared for the time being, to accept the description of MSI as a far right party, since, it was actually a veritable neo-fascist and post-fascist party. (In an unofficial, personal polling of former missini, I had many a chuckle from their responses when I asked them if their party was "far right" or "fascist".  You obviously are in ignorance of how proudly Italian fascists carry their ideological colors!) You have already been offered a compromise. Take it - or a new RfC might begin with the choice between "far right" and "neofascist/postfascist." Choose wisely. -The Gnome (talk) 17:39, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: *Interestingly enough, as a proud Venetian and European federalist, I consider most of Italian political parties, including the Democratic Party, as Italian nationalist and post-fascist. The reason why I have embarked in this effort is that I am interested in a balanced account of reality and history. You are obviously not well informed about the MSI's ideological positionment and actual policies. Some of the comments I read above are at best biased and affected by recentism. "Far-right" is a description that has become very common over the last few decades, while not even communist parties are usually described as "far-left" (an incredible bias). The fact is that the MSI was basically a right-wing party (there are plenty of sources on that) and over its history it evolved into a democratic, republican, Atlanticist and pro-European party, despite some of its fringe elements, and before and after its transformation into AN it attracted moderate conservatives, Christian democrats and liberals. Any good book on the MSI's history will explain that to you. Of course, editors need to evaluate sources and find a compromise, otherwhise that is cherrypicking among countless sources. --Checco (talk) 06:18, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: *We are, without question, Checco, entitled to our personal opinions and viewpoints irrespective of what they are. However, they are no match for third-party, independent, reliable sources. Neither are our personal background or our testimony, as the case might be, on not just MSI but all things written up in Wikipedia. Sources are royalty here, metaphorically speaking. Therefore, all the opinions you have offered so far, including those immediately above, are worth little, if anything, when compared to a whole library of texts, papers, and books testifying to the established historical fact that the Movimento was a neo-fascist or post-fascist party throughout its life.  Place emphasis on the term "fascist", please. You can't go on repeating unsupported, baseless assertions without any support, i.e. sourcing, of weird notions (no better term for it) such as that MSI was also a "liberal" (!) and "republican" (!) party. The term "far right" is a rather serious compromise in this RfC. -The Gnome (talk) 08:35, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Threaded Discussion 

message: "and it was consequently excluded from the Constitutional Arch, the circles of parties deemed legitimate to govern, as were Communists after 1947"
First, the Constitutional Arch includes the Communist Party in most definitions I've seen, including the original one by Claudio Pavone. In fact, the concept is that: (a) it's the informal heir to the parties of the National Liberation Committee (where PCI was one of the most prominent members) and the main drafters of the 1948 Constitution, which persisted on certain basic constitutional and policymaking areas even once the pro-Soviet parties were deemed unfit to govern; (b) it's wider than the "circles of parties deemed legitimate to govern", so conflating the arch with the conventio ad excludendum is a mistake; obviously the PSI wouldn't be considered a suitable government party any earlier than when it broke up with PCI in 1956, but I don't think it can be denied that it was a part of the constitutional arch. I edited out the mention of Communists for this reason.
Second, whether the concept was consolidated as early as late 1940s is dubious. Of course it was traced back to the end of WWII. But the idea that all parties minus MSI could still come together in certain cases while the MSI playing any role should be considered taboo was only set in stone after the collapse of the Tambroni Cabinet in 1960. A few cabinets immediately before Tambroni also relied on external support from the MSI; this would later become unacceptable (which was conceptualised as an element of the 'constitutional arch'), but it clearly wasn't the case at the time.
So, that phrase should be reworded. I would also refrain from bringing up the constitutional arch before the 1960s. Daydreamers (talk) 09:56, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Constitutional Arch