Talk:Five Star Movement

Archives (Index)

1

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Political position

I would remove "political position" from all political party infoboxes, but, as of now, most of them have that parameter. In this context, we have not been able to find a consensus on M5S yet. I agree with User:Hidolo that the party can be considered left-wing (of the populist kind, let me add), and I am now in favour of adding that position to the infobox. Here are the sources User:Hidolo has proposed:

• Svitych, Oleksandr (2022-11-21). The Rise of the Capital-state and Neo-Nationalism: A New Polanyian Moment. BRILL. ISBN 978-90-04-51622-9.
• Jakimów, Małgorzata; Boni, Filippo; Turcsányi, Richard. "Does Populism Matter in EU–China Relations? The Cases of Italy and Czechia". JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies. doi:10.1111/jcms.13621. ISSN 0021-9886.
• Buzogány, Aron; Costa, Oriol; Góra, Magdalena (2022-07-04). "Contesting the EU's external democratization agenda: an analytical framework with an application to populist parties". Cambridge Review of International Affairs. 35 (4): 500–522. doi:10.1080/09557571.2021.2002264. ISSN 0955-7571.
• "Italy makes last-ditch effort to form government – DW – 05/07/2018". dw.com. Retrieved 2024-06-13.
• "Institutionalized Populism: The "Strange Case" of the Italian Five Star Movement - ECPS". 2021-06-08. Retrieved 2024-06-13.

I hope we can have a constructive debate and achieve a consensus that has been difficult to achieve up to this point. --Checco (talk) 06:30, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the refs. I was planning to read and use them to expand the article for some time but never found the time to do so. As for the issue at hand, it depends on whether the infobox is supposed to represent the whole history of a party, or at least a broad and majority part of it, or only its current time (for parties, such as the M5S, which are still active). In light of the party's trasformismo, it would not surprise me if they move to right,*1 and so I prefer that the infobox represents the whole party's history, not just current times. I dislike the "Center-left to left-wing (currently)" usage that was done, as it is ambiguous and unclear (I would rather we put "Centre-left" or "Left-wing", whatever is more prominent, and have a note citing the sources using the other label).

I think that the political position should be put when there is a clear consensus among reliable sources and when it is uncontroversial, otherwise I would just put a note summarizing the whole thing as I did here (this was one of the refs I had read and was planning to use but did not find the time). I think "Political positions" means "Far-left, left-wing, centre-left, centre, centre-right, right-wing, far-right". Anything outside of that, I would not put anything (not even "Syncretic", as it is not in itself a political position and is not something that is placed on the spectrum, otherwise it would always be put on the centre since it takes from the left and the right but that is not the case, and it is often original research or synthesis), just the note explaining what the reliable sources say. And if reliable sources indeed support "syncretic", I would use "syncretic" in the note but I would not put it as a political position in itself since in a way it rejects such a political position in the first place.

As for the ideologies, I would put either "Populism (to represent the party's whole history)*2 and "Green politics" or "Left-wing populism" and "Green politics". "Direct democracy" is in fact an electoral system, not an ideology, and the party's transparency, or lack thereof, casts doubts about its credentials; besides, I think this would be already covered by either "Populism" or "Left-wing populism". "Soft Euroscepticism" is more of a policy than an ideology; I am fine with having "pro-Europeanism", "Euroscepticism", and the like in the infobox (also on fiscal, social, and foreign views, rather than have "Fiscal: Centre-left. Social: "Right-wing" at "Ideology"...) but it needs to have its own parameter (which I had proposed years ago, alongside other parameters so that we could summarize in the infoboxes the eventual evolution of political parties and their ideologies), it cannot and should not be put at "Ideology", plus there should be no more than three ideologies. "Progressivism" is ambiguous (it is better used for progressive centre-left liberal parties than any left-wing party that is socially progressive) since the label has been adopted by both anti-neoliberal socialists and neoliberal centrists. "Non-interventionism" is more of a foreign policy doctrine, and we usually do not put them. All of these labels can be used in the lead and expanded in the body, the infobox is for key facts.

Notes:

• 1 These last weeks there were articles about the M5S wanting to return to its origins of "neither left nor right". Will now Conte and the M5S refer to themselves as a left-wing party or will they still keep the "neither left nor right" (which 9 out of 10 means it is right-wing) rhetoric? The most they could do was describing themselves as "progressive", a term that has been used by both anti-neoliberal socialists and neoliberals centrists. Of course, this is all WP:CRYSTAL but I do not think it would do us bad being cautious about it and discuss whether the infobox should represent the party's broad history or give more weight to recent developments. I propose we just put my proposed note that anyone can further improve or expand.
• 2 Even Varriale 2021 says: "Nevertheless, the Five Star Movement cannot be treated as a classic left-wing party and has never been particularly committed to liberal republicanism." And "The mistake most analysts make when discussing the M5S is that they somehow forget the party's left-wing origins" implies that the majority of sources (as of 2021) had another view, thus there was still no clear consensus on its political position. It was from 2021 and I would not be surprised if a significant number, if not a majority of post-2021 reliable sources now use "left-wing", or something to that effect. So I am fine with either "Populism" or "Left-wing populism", even more so if a majority of reliable sources adds the "left-wing" clarifier or Conte and the M5S start describing themselves as being on the left, that would be very helpful to us and facilitate us greatly. Davide King (talk) 17:41, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

I propose adding Syncretic, to match the lede. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 10:55, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

I would agree if something referencing left-wing was added in the ideology section. Zlad! (talk) 14:06, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd also advocate for Left-wing populism or, perhaps less controversially, Progressivism – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 15:11, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

I oppose "syncretic" as political position as it is not a position. The lede is correctly written in a problematic way including several infos that should not make it to the infobox. The party is basically populist, which includes left-wing populism, and "progressivism" is quite generic. I would leave no position and "populism" and "green politics" as ideologies, while removing "direct democracy", which is no longer accurate and up-to-date. --Checco (talk) 20:00, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Isn't green politics just policy? Why list it in Ideology section when it's arguably less of an ideology than Europeanism or Euroscepticism. Zlad! (talk) 22:45, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Wrong: Green politics is a recognised, coherent and transmittable political ideology. Again, Checco is right that generic populism should be listed in the Infobox, and the position field blank.—Autospark (talk) 22:03, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Euroscepticism and pro-Europeanism are very much well-recognized academic ideologies as well, but I digress. I think generic populism and position field blank is fine for the time being unless things change. Zlad! (talk) 22:23, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

There is no doubt, indeed, on the fact that "green politics" is a standard ideology and political family in Europe (and most of the world), while Euroscepticism is not. Moreover, I am not even sure that the M5S can ben considered Eurosceptic in 2024 and whether sources support that claim. --Checco (talk) 06:18, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Finally, a real argument against having Euroscepticism in M5S's infobox. There does seem to be indeed a lack of sources mentioning party being Eurosceptic today, so I yield. Zlad! (talk) 11:11, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

I think it would be best to have a position listed on this page, the infobox looks odd with just the link to the footnote in the position section. If there's to be no position listed, the footnote shouldn't be there in my opinion, and I think that since the party joined GUE/NGL, it has shown it's willing to accept its role as a party on the left in Italian politics. I'd propose any of the following: Syncretic (matching the it.wikipedia page), Left-wing, or Centre-left as my picks (all of these suggestions would include the footnote as well), @Zlad! @Checco @Autospark @Davide King @FellowMellow @Scia Della Cometa thoughts? – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 03:39, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree with the inclusion of position. Logically I see an argument for all 3. I’m very much against leaving it as blank as well - the fact we had to leave it be blank makes the best case for it being syncretic. Zlad! (talk) 08:13, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

No position. This is a difficult party to categorise on several levels, and its example shows why the "Position" field in the Infobox of such article oversimplifies matters. The Ideology section of the article, and part of the lede, already describe the party in a level detail, and both should be expanded upon further (preferably using strong WP:RS). IMO, claiming that the party is exclusively "left wing" is at best a combination of WP:RECENTISM and placing WP:UNDUE on certain sources. And also, the logical fallacy that because Party X is in European Parliament Group Y it therefore has Political Position Z must be opposed: These EP groups are mostly heterogenous in nature and often alliances of convenience. I could not claim that M5S is solely "left wing" due to its recent attachment to GUE/NGL any more than I would claim it is "right wing" because it governed in coalition with Lega.-- Autospark (talk) 21:10, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

This is exactly Syncretic is the best option. Zlad! (talk) 05:56, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Infobox: Again, there is no consensus on political position. Personally, I oppose "syncretic" and I would favour "centre-left", but no position, with note, would be the best option. --Checco (talk) 16:28, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

However, I will neither oppose nor rollback "left-wing", that was added today, through a bold edit, as it makes sense to me (though it is not my preference and most Italian-language sources do not describe the party that way). At the same time, I will not restore "direct democracy", that was long part of the "ideology" parameter, while I will continue to preserve the only the other two ideologies that have long been the established version: "populism" (not "left-wing populism" and "green politics", until a new consensus is achieved. --Checco (talk) 22:05, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

The party is very broadly left-wing and supports initiatives like green politics, direct democracy, and left of centre economics. I feel that all of those things are perfectly represented under the left-wing populism label and just simply populism. For simplicity sake, I believe left-wing populism should be the label included as not to fall back to the shopping list of ideologies.

Soft-Euroscepticism is also appropriate as it summarizes party's foreign policy quite simply and in a way no other label could.

As for position, I'm fine with both syncretic and left-wing, although feel like centre-left to left-wing is more appropriate if we are going on the left-right spectrum. Zlad! (talk) 22:51, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Are you sure? Do you know this party? Until little ago, the M5S was full of right-wingers and still contains lots of people who are hardly classifiable as left-wing. Indeed, the affiliation with The Left was questioned by many. M5S's populism is across the board. This said, I accept both "left-wing" and "centre-left" (the second is more appropriate), while I oppose redundant "centre-left to left-wing", as well as confusing "syncretic". And "soft Euroscepticism" is not well sourced and, most important, is not consensual. --Checco (talk) 06:44, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree that the M5S is now a left-wing party, but are there sources for Soft Euroscepticism and right-wing populism in the note?--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 07:36, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Euroscepticism is well-sourced, look on the article, and it is accepted to be included on party's inboxes, so it should be included here as well for consistency.

Mind you, we are not arguing about whether the party is Eurosceptic or not, we are arguing about whether Euroscepticism should be included in infoboxes in general, which is a norm that was not changed despite your best efforts. It will stay here as well. Zlad! (talk) 14:18, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

why don’t we have it like this

(Syncretic of the left). There are numerous sources backing syncretic. - FellowMellow (talk) 15:48, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Then those sources for syncretic need to be added. Honestly, my preference is for the Infobox "position" field to be left blank for this party, because it's not easily categorisable (and I would not call it a left-wing party myself, even if its platform does include some left-leaning policies ideas). Also, Euroscepticism should not be in the Ideology field, as it isn't an ideology, and using descriptors like "soft" in front of policies (or actual ideologies), I cannot oppose that in general enough.-- Autospark (talk) 17:14, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

This discussion so far shows that there is no consensus on adding "left-wing" (better a blank space, with note), no consensus for "Euroscepticism" and no consensus for "left-wing populism" (let's turn back to "populism"). At least on the infobox there should be a broad agreement before editing. --Checco (talk) 18:42, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

In my opinion a solution could be found via RFC.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 19:11, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

• Support "left-wing" and "left-wing populism" per above discussion and stated reasons in my edits as to that effect This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 04:36, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

  Would you be willing to accept Syncretic? I do have a minor preference to it over "Left-wing", and especially over "Centre-left", but I am willing to Support your proposal if it helps consensus come through – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 05:17, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

  I think in a situation like this Syncretic is the way out. If position can't be adequately explained by the left-right spectrum then it is syncretic. Zlad! (talk) 10:33, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

  I agree, but I'd be willing to settle for Left-wing or even Centre-left if it means the party's no longer got that blank position with the unsightly footnote in the infobox. Syncretic is obviously the most accurate, given it's literally in the lede and is the term it.wiki uses, but anything (apart from centre to far-right) is better than it being blank. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 10:41, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

  Centre to far-right would be hilarious lol. But yeah, I support Left-wing over it being blank as well. Zlad! (talk) 10:47, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

  Absolutely not. They are by no means right-wing anymore, though I would accept something similar to how German BSW is treated This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 23:00, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

This debate shows how it is better not to have a political position for this party. I agree with User:Autospark, even though I would not oppose "centre-left" or "left-wing". --Checco (talk) 20:03, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Does anyone oppose Left-wing, but in the ideology section leaving it as just Populism instead of left-wing populism? Zlad! (talk) 07:02, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

I would. I'd prefer to just delete "populism" entirely. This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 22:01, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Why? The one agreed upon ideology of the party seems to be populism. Zlad! (talk) 09:04, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

I disagree with the other user, while I agree that "populism" should be the main ideology of this party, both in the lead and the infobox. I do not oppose "left-wing" in the infobox, especially if "populism" is not replaced by "left-wing populism" in the infobox. This said, the party is still home to non leftists too. --Checco (talk) 13:57, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

I believe that me, @Zlad!, and @Orbitalbuzzsaw can agree to compromise on Left-wing if it helps achieve consensus, I'd also prefer to retain populism, but can't speak for the others. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 17:21, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Sure. I'm fine with that. This decently represents the syncretic nature of the party while at the same time showing that they are still broadly left wing. Zlad! (talk) 17:28, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Sure, that's fine. Makes sense to have "left-wing populism" then as well This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 22:20, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Would you agree to left-wing if populism remained? It just seems easier to reach consensus if that's the case. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 05:27, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

I will not agree to that, but would support having a note next to "left-wing populism" This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 08:09, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Would you agree to simply populism in the ideology section if the footnote in the infobox was changed to

The party has been historically considered right-wing populist, but more recently described as left-wing populist, as well as occasionally being considered a big tent party. Since the early 2020s the party has been primarily seen and described by its leaders as left-leaning.

And @Zlad! & @Checco, would you provide support for that proposal as well? – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 12:40, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

As long as it's an efn and not a footnote, that's okay with me This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 02:00, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

What's your opposition to a footnote if you don't mind me asking? – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 06:32, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

I just hate the way they look This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 08:45, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

The reason I favour it is because it's the standard for political parties where more info is required in the infobox. Are you certain you can't budge on that? – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 08:47, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Efn is clearer, better aesthetically and easier to understand. I’ve climbed down a lot, but you’re not going to change my mind on this. This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 08:56, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

@Scia Della Cometa @FellowMellow can we get you two in here as well? You both seemed loosely in favour of the label "left-wing", would you be willing to provide support to reach a consensus to restore a label for the party? – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 11:14, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Again, I will agree to this if AND ONLY IF it's an EFN and not a footnote. That being said, I do want to get a label back up This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 21:44, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Seems you're [Checco] the only one who disagrees with everyone else here. Time to drop the stick (and for the record, I hold no position on this dispute). --SHB2000 (talk) 11:17, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

can't we just wait until the M5S "Constituent Assembly" in October where they'll rewrite the party manifesto to be more in line with the recent policy/strategy changes and see what comes out? Leegend99 (talk) 22:34, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

If we need to revisit in October we can do that This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 01:22, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Again, I can agree on "populism" as ideology and "left-wing" as position, even though a blank space would be better. I oppose "left-wing populism". --Checco (talk) 16:15, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

@GlowstoneUnknown I don't agree with the statement "The party has been historically considered right-wing populist, but more recently described as left-wing populist, as well as occasionally being considered a big tent party": the Five Star Movement was not only occasionally considered a big tent party and there are very few sources that considered it a right-wing party. Regarding the position, I'm not opposed to indicating left-wing, although I think some sources to support this position would be helpful.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 20:31, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

That statemen was intended as a compromise for Orbitalbuzzsaw, but I'm realising note now they'll be entirely unyielding. I'd favour keeping the current ideology and footnote, but indicating "Left-wing" in the infobox. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 23:51, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm fine with that as long as it's an efn and not a footnote, per above This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 02:28, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

efn breaks the established convention for political parties, if a party info box needs more information about ideology or position, that extra info needs to be included in the info box. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 02:32, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

You will not get any movement on this from me This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 17:46, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

I hope we can settle on "populism" and "green politics" as the party's two main ideologies that should be mentioned in the infobox. I would also remove "direct democracy" once and for all: it is not an ideology per se, but a policy goal, and, not less important, it is no longer central in the party's platform. --Checco (talk) 13:50, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Should the footnote on "left-wing" visibile in the infobox or not? I concur with User:GlowstoneUnknown and other users that it should be visible like this), but clearly we should understand what is the real consensus on this specific issue. --Checco (talk) 08:04, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree, the footnote should be visible in the infobox – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 09:16, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Agree as per above.— Autospark (talk) 10:01, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

What's the justification? An EFN is clearer and doesn't put a bunch of visual junk in the infobox, which is meant to be a summary This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 03:37, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

It's more visible and has less issues displaying on a mobile device. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 03:39, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

what about the word "summary" is confusing to you This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 04:28, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Yea, it being a summary has nothing to do with making the information it summarises less visible, nor does it have anything to do with making the article less functional on mobile. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 04:34, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Suppose that having any text below the infobox must absolutely be avoided at any and all costs. What arrangement would you suggest? You will not get me to agree to any solution that has text below the infobox. This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 22:22, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

"Supposing that" is the fallacy, I'm not going to entertain the notion that footnotes "must be removed at all costs" for all the reasons I've stated in this discussion and others. Your own personal preference against footnotes is your own, but it's not a reason to start edit wars on well-established articles. If you have a pertinent objection to them that isn't subjective, edit summaries such as DEATH TO FOOTNOTES and We will do this until all footnotes in infobox party are gone forever. aren't helpful. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 07:34, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

How about NBs that appear at the bottom of the article? This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 22:37, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

That solution doesn't work for me, as it has the same issues as other efns have, just with a different label. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 02:39, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Okay. Propose a solution that doesn't put text at the bottom of the infobox and I'll go along with it. This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 08:29, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Why? I precisely like that. The note should stay exactly at the bottom of the infobox. --Checco (talk) 14:14, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

And I will fight you to the death on any solution that retains it. This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 22:42, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Direct democracy

It seems like only one user supports "direct democracy" as one the party's ideologies in the infobox and he has every right to do so, as the item has long been there. However, not only direct democracy is not an ideology per se but a policy proposal at best, but it is no longer a core tenet of the party under Conte. Just to make sure it is still consensus, who does support "direct democracy" to be be listed among the ideologies in the infobox? I do not. I oppose that and I hope to achieve a new consensus on the issue. -- Checco (talk) 21:08, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Agree; “direct democracy” should absolutely not be listed in the Infobox. The article body can describe (with references) how direct democracy and use of referenda was a part of M5S’s original platform.— Autospark (talk) 10:00, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree with its removal Zlad! (talk) 11:33, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

I support its removal, however I would like to suggest adding in its place either Progressivism or Environmentalism to signify the party's turn to the left in terms of ideology. That's a separate point though, and I'm fine to postpone that discussion until this one is closed if necessary. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 10:47, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

"Green poltiics" covers environmentalism well enough I think, though "progressivism" and/or "left-wing populism" would both work. I'm neutral on Direct Democracy, personally support but willing to go along with consensus here This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 12:31, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

I oppose, strongly, any inclusion of “progressivism” in the Infobox – reasons being; one, it is a generally meaningless term, two, because it would be redundant anyway if green politics is maintained, and three, it pretty much misrepresents M5S and exaggerates how much it is solely a left-leaning party.— Autospark (talk) 14:36, 6 November 2024 (UTC)