Talk:Five Star Movement

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



Archives (Index)

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Ideology

I have seen that progressivism has been added several times among the party's ideologies lately and it has always been removed with the justification of lack of consensus. Exactly, when was it consensually decided to exclude progressivism among the ideologies of the M5S? And if there had been a consensus on this, it seems to me that the consensus has changed. Scia Della Cometa (talk) 21:59, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There have been long discussions on the party's ideology and position. They are now archived. I still oppose "progressivism", mainly because it is a vague and rather unminingful term. I think that "populism" and "green politics" still suit the party. However, also "left-wing populism" can be considered. --Checco (talk) 19:26, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In reality, only the political position has been discussed at length, while the discussion on ideologies has only been hinted at. In particular, it was never decided to exclude progressivism from the party's infobox. At this point, I believe an RFC is needed to establish which ideologies should be included. Scia Della Cometa (talk) 09:32, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It was discussed, but I have no problem with a RfC. Please let me also add that, while "progressivism" is a very generic and vague, it can be useful for parties that are not connected with a specific progressive ideology. The fact of the matter is that "green politics" is a progressive ideology, thus "progressivism" would also be redundant. Additionally, it is not easy to find scientific and/or academic sources adopting "progressivism" as an ideology, let alone describing the M5S as "progressive". Finally, I still think that the current compromise ("populism" and "green politics" as ideologies, "left-wing" as position) is rather balanced. --Checco (talk) 19:00, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And when would a compromise be found on the ideologies to be included in the infobox? Only the political position was discussed at length, the discussion on ideologies was barely touched upon here. In any case the M5S is the perfect example of a party not connected with a specific progressive ideology: it is not a traditional social democratic party, and it is not even a traditional green party, which is why Environmentalism would be preferable to Green politics. Scia Della Cometa (talk) 20:11, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rfc: Ideology

Which ideologies should be listed in the Five Star Movement's infobox?

  • "Populism" or "Left-wing populism"
  • "Green politics" or "Environmentalism"
  • "Progressivism"
  • Other ideologies (e.g. "Direct democracy")

Please indicate which ideology to include and in what order to list them. Scia Della Cometa (talk) 21:23, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

I'd favour adding Progressivism and potentially making the switch to Left-wing populism, but I'd be alright with plain old populism, I just think it's a bit strange to have a left-wing party without having explicitly left-wing ideology/ies in the ideology section as well. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 12:33, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Populism, Progressivism and Environmentalism, in this order. M5S is a left-wing populist party, but I think only populism describes the party better. M5S officially defines itself as progressive, and this ideology is also supported by sources, so it should be included in the infobox. Finally, I think that Environmentalism should be preferred to Green politics since it is one of its core values ([1]), furthermore M5S is not a traditional green party and environmentalism is supported by a greater number of sources ([2], [3], [4], [5], [6]).--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 22:30, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm happy with the status quo. Lukewarmbeer (talk) 17:21, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am thankful for the opportunity of this RfC, but I am also happy with the status quo, which is the result of long discussions and bargaining. I prefer "populism" over "left-wing populism" because the party's populism is not necessarily left-wing. Unfortunately, in Italian language there is no distinction between "green politics" and "environmentalism", but, as this is en.Wikipedia and the M5S is a political party, we should prefer "green politics", a specific ideology, over the broader concept of "environmentalism". Additionally, I oppose "progressivism" because it is vague and redundant, given that green politics is a progressive ideology. Finally, I oppose adding "direct democracy", not an ideology per se. --Checco (talk) 06:54, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the facts are complicated enough that you really have to ask, then it is too complicated to be included in the infobox. Omit entirely. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:27, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Proposal: If we only indicated populism as an ideology, could it be a compromise? It is the only ideology supported by multiple sources, in a note it could be specified that the M5S is described as both a right-wing and left-wing populist party, with the relative sources. The other secondary ideologies would instead be made explicit in the body of the page. Furthermore, doing a search of the sources on the political positioning of the M5S, I did not find anything that states that the M5S has positioned itself on the left (despite the group in the European Parliament), instead there are some very recent sources (2022-2023) that describe it as both a far-left and far-right party. So, although I supported "Left-wing" as a political position, my proposal is to go back to indicating "Big tent".--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 21:01, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer "syncretic" to "big tent", in accordance with the it.wiki article (better sources may be needed though). Also, I'm not a fan of using
Die Linke, La France Insoumise, and Sumar as far-left. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 23:18, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply
]
First, I would like to bring back the consensual note: "The party was previously variously considered left- and right-wing populist, as well as being considered a big tent party. Since 2024 the party officially has defined itself as "independent progressive"".
Second, I think it is quite important to keep "green politics", which is core to the party's ideology.
Third, while I accepted "left-wing" as position, I see that it would be better to remove it and omit position altogether. If we need one, I would accept "syncretic", as well as "left-wing" and "centre-left", while I oppose "big tent", which does not sound as a position to me. --Checco (talk) 19:17, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@GlowstoneUnknown and Checco: The problem is that Syncretism, in addition to being a rather unused term in politics, does not even fit the 5 Star Movement, which instead represented the classic catch-all/big-tent party (the M5S in fact does not have a neutral political positioning, which characterizes political syncretism). It is no coincidence that for all the most important catch-all parties the term "big tent" is indicated as a political position: the most important example is surely United Russia, but there are also other important ruling parties whose political position is described as big tent: the Serbian Progressive Party, the Belaya Rus, the ZANU–PF, the Cameroon People's Democratic Movement, the Nation's Future Party; instead, I don't know any major political party that is described as syncretic, I don't think it's a coincidence. Just to be clear, I still think that M5S has now become a left-wing party, but until there are unequivocal sources on this matter it should be described as a big-tent party. @Checco: Secondly, one of the five pillars of the M5S program is environmentalism, not green politics, which characterize the classic green parties.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 16:13, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So what do we do about the ideology and the party position? I was hoping for a wider participation in the Rfc, but there are few and discordant opinions, I think a compromise is needed. Regarding the position, it must be taken into account that no major party reports syncretic as a position in the infobox, but only big tent. Then if there is any exception, let me know.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 17:11, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Again, there is no need to compromise on ideology as most users agree that the status quo is OK. Personally, I think that generic "populism" and "green politics" (not "environmentalism", which is not a political ideology per se) are an adequate description. On position, I welcome any of the following solutions (ordered from my least favourite and my most favourite): keep "left-wing", replace it with "centre-left", replace it with "syncretic" or replace it with no position. On this, there is thus surely room for compromise. --Checco (talk) 05:34, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Checco: It is not true that most users are in favor of the status quo: out of 5 users, only two said they were in favor of the current situation. Two other users (including me) said they were in favor of adding progressivism, one user supported the total removal of ideologies. I was hoping for greater participation, but at the moment the compromise seems to me the most sensible solution. Regarding the position, I reiterate that for me the M5S is a left-wing party, but some source is necessarily needed to support this change of direction. And between big tent and syncretic, I personally do not have a preference, but I note that between the two options one is widely used and one is unused, so it seems logical to lean towards the position that is also widely used elsewhere. Finally, between green politics and environmentalism, it is the latter that is more properly an ideology, not the former which is instead a policy (since you often oppose the inclusion of policies in the infobox).--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 13:46, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Green politics is unquestionably an ideology and it is used for all green parties in Europe (the M5S is the closest thing to a a broad green party like anywhere else in Europe, no surprise that Gren Europe has not gained a big traction). This said, I agree there is a broad room for compromise: as long as ideologies are not changed and "big tent" is not adopted, I am open to all solutions—my favourite is no position, then "syncretic", then "centre-left", then "left-wing". --Checco (talk) 05:44, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The poor success of Green Europe has nothing to do with the M5S, which is not a traditional green party and was also rejected by the European Green Party. If the situation of the Rfc does not change, I will definitely add progressivism to the infobox, since it was never decided to exclude it from the ideologies. As for the position, as far as I know there is no source for center-left, so I don't know how you can support it; as for syncretic, the fact remains that this position is not used by practically any party, so it would be inconsistent with other large parties, you didn't answer me about this problem! Ps. I removed left-wing populism from the text of the page because the statement is wrong, the M5S has not been described like this only recently but for years, as well as right-wing populist, and this is explained in the note in the infobox.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 08:49, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@SDC: This is not supposed to be a discussion between you and me and, if you are genuinely committed to compromise, you can't get everything that you want. At some point, the RfC will be closed and the closer will tell us the outcome. For sure, as of now, most users favour the status quo and adding "progressivism" unilaterally would be against consensus. It is already quite problematic that you started modifying the note, now the notes, in the infobox, but, as always, I preferred not to oppose edits altogether, but to engage. Please do not overreach. I do not need to answer to every comment of yours as my opinion is very clear and more articulate than others. However, once and for all: 1) "populism" and "green politics" are, in my view, the two main ideologies of the party; 2) "green politics" is an universally recognised ideology; 3) "progressivism", "independent" or not, is, as you said, an "empty" concept and would also be redundant as green politics is a progressive ideology; 4) the M5S is a very peculiar party, thus it should be treated peculiarly, that is why I would have no position; 5) "syncretic" might be less common than "big tent", but there are examples of parties with "syncretic" in the infobox (as well as others with no position) and, more importantly, it is surely more correct that "big tent", which has nothing to do with position—and I agree with User:GlowstoneUnknown also on the second part of his second comment; 6) there are sources describing the M5S as centre-left and I do not understand how you can argue that the party is at the same time big-tent, thus syncretic, and left-wing, while opposing centre-left; 7) this said, as long as "big tent is not included, I am open to any other solution; 8) the statement you removed was not wrong because "more recently and consistently" was clear enough for English-speaking readers—nobody, not even you, disagree on the fact that the M5S leans left and "left-wing populism" was there long before this RfC started. --Checco (talk) 13:08, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That most users are against adding progressivism is simply false, only two users here are in favor of the status quo, its exclusion from the infobox has never been decided anywhere and the multiple removals from the infobox were unjustified. I opened this Rfc to put a full stop to the matter, but unfortunately participation was poor and there is still no consensus for either inclusion or exclusion, for this reason if I decided to add it to the infobox I would not be acting against consensus. The main change to the notes was the addition of the far left and far right positions, but even "independent" progressive was not written in the original note.
Answering some of your points:
2) "green politics is an universally recognised ideology": can you point me to reliable specific sources other than the Wikipedia entry itself? Because I have not found them...
3) green politics and progressivism are two different terms, the first does not necessarily include the second;
5) are there some important parties described as syncretic in the infobox? Because if all major parties are described as big-tent, I think the second term is more correct than the first. However, if it were decided that for all catch-all parties the most suitable position is syncretic, I would not oppose it;
6) you should also indicate the sources. However it is true, I checked and there are some sources that also describe it as a centre-left party, but they are still a minority compared to any other position with which the party is described, so I wouldn't give them too much consideration.
However, in any case, if there is any source regarding the M5S's shift from big-tent/syncretic to left-wing under Conte's leadership, it is welcome. Scia Della Cometa (talk) 19:00, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Five_Star_Movement&oldid=1286282202"