Jump to content

Talk:Benito Mussolini/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Hitler

Why are there no hyperlinks to Adolf Hitler

Yes Skv3186 (talk) 16:10, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Historiography

Multiple approaches to Mussolini -- the scholarship is well covered in Mussolini in the First World War by Paul O'Brien -- with the introduction online at Amazon. He comments on the major biographies in Italian & English. Rjensen (talk) 15:19, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Benito Mussolini. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:55, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 April 2016

I found out that the external links section of the article on Benito Mussolini does not have the IMDb name template, even though Wikidata has an IMDb ID for this person. I was just wondering if you can add the following template:

Benito Mussolini/Archive 4 at IMDb

If you can, add it to the external links section. Thank you. 73.182.28.179 (talk) 23:16, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

 Done  Stick to sources! Paine  19:26, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Sought to avoid war until Munich Conference probably, until 1942 is pretty ludicrous to say

"Mussolini sought to delay a major war in Europe until at least 1942" This is nonsense as Mussolini attacked France Malta Egypt and Greece in 1940, Montenegro in 1941, sent troops to Russia in the same year. Such a bold sentence should be either excised or expanded and clarified with plenty of references, as Mussolini's stance towards a war in Europe changed considerably between 1938 and 1940, see Ciano's diaries for ex. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.180.36.177 (talk) 00:03, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

there was a danger of war in 1938 and M at the time thought Munich would postpone it 4 years. It was only postponed one year since Hitler sped up the timetable.Rjensen (talk) 00:09, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

"vindicating" is misused

Sense of the word is inverted in this phrase: 

 vindicating the so-called "mutilated victory"

dictionary

Ecgtheow2 (talk) 17:46, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

When I click the link (in the box situated to the right of the article (in the list of "Children" under the list titled "Personal Details") about Benito Mussolini) in order to find out more about Benito Mussolini's son (born 11-11-1915; died 8-26-1982), the link accidentally goes to Benito Albino Mussoline's mother, Ida Dalser. Please, correct this. Thanks (from a user who just registered five minutes ago). — Preceding unsigned comment added by RachelSinclair (talk • contribs) 16:41, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

That's not really an error. All the information we have on the subject is in that article. The reason for this could be that
  • Benito jr. isn't notable
  • His history is inextricably linked to that of Ida Dalser
  • No one has written an article yet.
Wikipedia is quite exhaustive, but not infinitly so. Hope this helps. Tjuus, Kleuske (talk) 16:48, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
P.S. It's what's called a redirect. Kleuske (talk) 16:50, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Malta

Why did Mussolini not invade Malta in June 1940? Taking Malta would have been far more useful than sending soldiers to France. (FrankFriar (talk) 12:47, 25 September 2016 (UTC))

Misspelling in 2nd paragraph

the word nationalism is misspelled nationaism in the 2nd paragraph of the top section. I'd fix it but I guess my account doesn't have enough edits yet. Orbenn (talk) 02:38, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 October 2016

Please change 'nationaism' to 'nationalism' in this sentence: : 'Mussolini denounced the PSI, his views now centering on nationaism instead of socialism, and later founded the fascist movement.' Sumsha1 (talk) 04:54, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

 Done - well spotted - Arjayay (talk) 08:48, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Benito Mussolini. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:27, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 January 2017

There is a quote in 'rise to power'that is not supported by the listed reference. The listed reference is 59a. Fedupwithinaccuracies (talk) 18:53, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Not done for now: @Fedupwithinaccuracies: This link (which is source 59), as you said, appears to be dysfunctional at the moment (at least for me). Before making another edit request, you may want to find another reliable source to replace it... Aurato (talk) 20:43, 6 January 2017 (UTC)


@Aurato: This is the link I have. I search and I didn't find any other source for this quote. I believe that I have found other people using the quote and siting the same website. The quote is at least not in this biography.Fedupwithinaccuracies (talk)
@Fedupwithinaccuracies: Weird, now the link is working just fine. I think the network that I was using at the time may have blocked it... I'll look into your edit request a bit more... Aurato (talk) 23:59, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
@Fedupwithinaccuracies: So if I'm understanding your request correctly, you want the quote from "rise to power" added into the article, or do you want it removed? Or, do you want the external link/reference to be replaced with something else...? Aurato (talk) 00:04, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
@Aurato: Because the source does not support the quote, I believe it should be removed. Unless an actual citation is found.Fedupwithinaccuracies (talk) 00:16, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Done Aurato (talk) 00:33, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
I have added a citation for the quote. Thanks for noticing this, Fedupwithinaccuracies. — Sam Sailor 00:38, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 January 2017

The year of death of Mussolini is 1943 and NOT 1945 as currently stated in the first paragraph. The year of death is correctly stated in the right-hand side column. Lnicolae08 (talk) 19:27, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Not done: inaccurate. For example, see here. JustBerry (talk) 01:50, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Editing

I would like to make some changes to this page as I fear some information isn't accurate RealTalk12345 (talk) 02:04, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

 Not done This is not the right page to request additional user rights.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 12:48, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Invasion of France

Why did Mussolini invade France in June 1940? Surely it would have been better if he had seized Malta? (MikeyFinn (talk) 17:59, 21 February 2017 (UTC))

Semi-protected edit request on 4 March 2017 :-)

hi i'd like to write something here please. thank you for your service Timblord42069 (talk) 20:27, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

 Not done as you have not requested a change. Please mention the specific changes you'd like to be made in a "change X to Y" format. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 01:27, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Italian Air Corps

Mussolini actually sent his air corps to Belgium in September 1940, although it did not participate in the Blitz until 24 October. (SteveNuttal (talk) 12:49, 18 April 2017 (UTC)) Banned editor HarveyCarter Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:44, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 April 2017

The Italian Air Corps was sent to Belgium in September 1940, not on 24 October which is when it began participating in the Blitz. SteveNuttal (talk) 12:52, 18 April 2017 (UTC) Banned editor HarveyCarter Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:44, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: unsourced ProgrammingGeek talktome 19:49, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

request for an addiction

Hi,

i wanted to add in the popular culture section the fact that mussolini is represented in the clip of the Genesis song "land of confusion" (where he apprars as a puppet), how can i do?

thanks--Fra Casa (talk) 22:28, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. — IVORK Discuss 00:46, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Mussolini was murdered

As he was not tried his death should be called murder rather than an execution. (SteveNuttal (talk) 18:23, 22 April 2017 (UTC)) Banned editor HarveyCarter Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:43, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 June 2017

Remove the statement "Mussolini opposed egalitarianism." No evidence or citation is provided to support this statement, and this statement is too easily interpreted as meaning that Mussolini favoured something the polar opposite of egalitarianism. The weight of evidence provided in the rest of the article shows Mussolini to be heavily influenced by various forms of socialism, which strongly suggests at least a tendency towards some form of equality. It may be that the statement "Mussolini opposed egalitarianism", is meant in the same sense that "Marxism rejected egalitarianism", which is stated in the article on egalitarianism (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egalitarianism), but in that case the statement is contrasted to Marxism's alternative viewpoint, whereas in the case of the bald statement that "Mussolini opposed egalitarianism" no contrasting with his own opinion is provided. I therefore suggest removing the statement "Mussolini opposed egalitarianism." entirely. It is not informative, is instead misleading, and evidence for what Mussolini believed is adequately catered for within the numerous other sources of the article. 77.103.217.210 (talk) 10:20, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Not done. He strongly opposed equalitarianism and believed in the Superman – which was a major reason he abandoned socialism in 1914. see Simonetta Falasca-Zamponi (1997). Fascist Spectacle: The Aesthetics of Power in Mussolini's Italy. U of California Press. p. 45. which cite has now been added. Rjensen (talk) 14:36, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
Cyprian Blamires, PhD, writes about egalitarianism in World Fascism: A Historical Encyclopedia. He notes that Mussolini embraced social hierarchy rather than egalitarianism, even founding the review publication Gerarchia (Hierarchy) with Margherita Sarfatti which was intended as a vehicle for fascist thought. Mussolini also embraced social Darwinism, the survival of the fittest. All of this was in direct opposition to egalitarianism.[1] Binksternet (talk) 15:11, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Mussolini as an Italian soldier, 1917

The picture of Mussolini supposedly showing him as a soldier in 1917 is actually from 1902, when he did his compulsory service in the Italian Army. Source: Instituto Luce: Storia d'italia, Chapter 5 - Il Regime Fascista 1922 1939. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.157.121.250 (talk) 13:59, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

I would like to add a mention of Numero Zero, a book by Umberto Eco, in which one of the characters believes in an elaborate conspiracy concerning Mussolini, who according to this conspiracy, still lives, and it was his lookalike that was executed. I don't see how I can edit the article currently Mikemarsian (talk) 06:35, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Franco's visit to Musso in Italy

Franco's wiki page says: According to Franco's own autobiography, he also met privately with Mussolini in Bordighera, Italy on February 12, 1941 at Hitler's request. Mussolini affected not to be interested in Franco's help due to the defeats his forces had suffered in North Africa and the Balkans, and he even told Franco that he wished he could find any way to leave the war.

There is no mention of this here. Any verdict on the truth or significance of the claim? Valetude (talk) 22:54, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Regarding Carmelite "monks" who educated Mussolini. This is a wrong term, should be Carmelite friars.

Carmelite, like Franciscans, are friars, so please either change "Carmelite monks" in the article to "Carmelite friars" or simply "Carmelites." Your own wikipedia article on the Carmelites says: "In 1287, the original way of life of the order was changed to conform to that of the mendicant orders." And mendicant orders are referred to as Friars (as noted in the Wikipedia article on Friar). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.189.61.37 (talk) 18:28, 17 October 2017‎ (UTC)

"Carmelite monks" is not in the article, just "Salesian monks". Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:48, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Changing the way the date is said for the law passed on Mussolini's formal title from "president of the Council of Ministers" to "head of the government"

The date currently says Christmas eve 1925. Some people who aren't Christian or grew up in countries that don't celebrate Christmas may not know it means December 24th, 1925. So I wish to suggest it be stated as December 24th, 1929. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reveccalp (talk • contribs) 02:37, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

 Done Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:17, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Benito Mussolini. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:17, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Article states "The Allies invaded Sicily on 24 July 1943. That same day, Mussolini was deposed by ..."

WRONG:

The date is July 99.39.101.121 (talk) 12:56, 22 November 2017 (UTC) 9/10, 1943.

July what? Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:43, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
The user is correct. Operation Husky began on the 10th of July. Mussolini famously fell on "25 Luglio", when he (very reasonably) accepted the King's demand for his resignation at the Villa Savoia. -- Director (talk) 13:28, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
Fixed. -- Director (talk) 14:09, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Start over

Since two of the photos up for discussion have been deleted from Commons, I think it's only right to close this RfC as no consensus (since there was a consensus for #3 and it's now deleted) and start over. If no one objects, I will close this RfC out and start a new one with the two images that remain as well as two more images to choose from. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 01:08, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

@Winkelvi: File:Mussolini mezzobusto.jpg is of suspect provenance. I commented about it in a section above, but please see the link where it appears to be a Getty image. Dr. K. 01:16, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
Dr.K.: At both en.wikipedia and it.wikipedia that image is declared to be in the public domain. From what I understand, Getty Images has both commercially available and public domain images in their online portfolio. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 01:34, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
@Winkelvi: Your statement about Getty images may be true, however, the Commons image does not have a source. I am not sure how good the free image claim is because of that. Dr. K. 01:47, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
It's marked as PD and originating at the Italian Wikipedia as same. If it hasn't been marked for deletion yet, and passed scrutiny originally, I doubt it will be deleted or nominated for deletion any time soon. Are you objecting to the above RfC being closed as no consensus and a new RfC started? -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 01:53, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
Definitely not. I just wanted to point out the licence problems of the alternate image. Dr. K. 02:00, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Infobox image RfC

IMAGE #1
Clear consensus for Image #1, disregarding any possible copyright issues, any of which should of course be dealt with by a deletion request. Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:41, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion 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.

Which image should the infobox contain? The previous RfC had to be closed for no consensus as two of the four images were deleted at Commons. Four images are being presented for consideration, two of which were included in the previous RfC. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 03:13, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Choices

#1 (current image)
#2
#3
#4
Images for infobox to choose from

Image #1

  • Support the current image... It has been for the past 6 years, and still remains, the best image showcasing his face. Its proportions are tailor-made for an infobox, and the subject is in the formal garb of his highest office (PM of Italy), which is listed just below. -- Director (talk) 08:50, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support the current image and if consensus is not find for image 1, I am fine with image 2 (which pictures him for what he was: a fascist). I oppose the use of image 3 or 4 because give IMHO undue weight to is function of Prime Marshall of the Empire (and BTW image 4 is also incongruent for the period). --Silvio1973 (talk) 14:50, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The whole purpose of an infobox pic is to tell the reader "article is about this guy". The only one that fails to do that is pic #1. I'm guessing #1 is supposed to give some "neutral" view, but NPOV does not mean no point of view, per WP:BALANCE. If the subject was very notable for a number of different roles, then, sure, use a pic that is devoid of any one role. But this article is about someone very notable because he was the fascist ruler that led Italy into WWII, so we must show him as that. Certainly don't use a pic that portrays him as a lawyer or something; it would be far better to use no picture than a purposely misleading one. We must follow sources, not our editors' opinions, per ILIKEIT. Sources primarily present him in a narrow light; it is SYNTH and UNDUE to attempt to present him otherwise. --A D Monroe III(talk) 18:26, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
Agreed. Also, let's not forget that articles are for readers. If they can't recognize the article subject immediately from the infobox photo, then we, as editors, have failed the purpose of Wikipedia. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 18:46, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
Right. Using a pic that makes readers think they may have the wrong article is a double-fail. That's what I meant by "purposely misleading"; thanks for making that clear. --A D Monroe III(talk) 18:54, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
Wrong all around. That's not the purpose of a lead image. Quick, go to Rod Trongard and check if it's the right image! (That's just the first bio with an image I got by clicking "random article".) The point of the image is to tell the reader: this is what the guy looked like. In this case, image #1 does it well. As an aside, there is no "way a fascist dictator looks" that we have a duty to present. Fascist dictators often wore suits in public. Srnec (talk) 03:47, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. We're talking about Mussolini, only, and following sources, per DUE. Readers are not interested in mere facial features, or we'd crop #1 to exclude any hint of that suit as a distraction. --A D Monroe III(talk) 17:14, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
The purpose of the infobox: "When considering any aspect of infobox design, keep in mind the purpose of an infobox: to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article". Purpose of an Infobox. Purpose of a lead image: "It is common for an article's lead or infobox to carry a representative image‍—‌such as of a person or place, a book or album cover‍—‌to give readers visual confirmation that they've arrived at the right page." Images for the Lead. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 17:45, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Mussolini is in a suit (not a uniform) on the cover of Denis Mack Smith's devastating biography and on the cover of the first printing of R. J. B. Bosworth's equally unsympathetic biography. Srnec (talk) 22:35, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Image #2

  • Second choice for me after #3. Shows who he is as both dictator and military leader, however, this photo is grainier and not of the same quality as #3. Still, much better than #1 and #4 (for reasons mentioned in my comments re: #3). -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 03:23, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
It would be fine, except the quality is, as you say, terrible. Look at his Sam Browne belt.. it "melts" into the uniform... -- Director (talk) 08:57, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
Please don't spin others' comments; "grainier" is far from "terrible". --A D Monroe III(talk) 18:46, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
Well.. I'd say "grainy", but its not really grainy. If you examine it, you'll see its a lower-res image blown-up to a higher resolution (which even so isn't all that high). Its, uh... "square-y" :). -- Director (talk) 06:55, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Image #3

  • Support as my first choice. #4 is fine, but it is a colorized image and appears contrived and unauthentic. #3 is the best of the four images as it portrays the article subject well - as both dictator and military leader. #1 makes him look like a businessman; in it, he is not immediately recognizable as Mussolini. The article subject should be easily, and generally recognized by readers, in the infobox image. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 03:20, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
#3 is just the #4 colorized version - de-colorized (desaturated). Any distortions introduced in the colorization are still present. Its also off-center. #1 "makes him look" like the prime minister - which is by far his most important office. I don't see how the guy is supposed to be less recognizable in an image more focused on his face. -- Director (talk) 08:55, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
Huh? Prime minister is "by far his most important office"?? Not even close! He was the Duce of the Italian Social Republic that led Italy into WWII, which is way different from just being prime minister. That applies only to the likes of his predecessor, Luigi Facta. --A D Monroe III(talk) 18:36, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
Oh no.. The Italian Social Republic was just an impotent German puppet state established in 1943. His most important office by far, with which he led Italy into WWII (and indeed ruled it for a very long time), was that of Prime Minister of the Kingdom of Italy. When he came to power, he came to power as Prime Minister... and that is the office through which he governed the place. -- Director (talk) 07:00, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Are you seriously trying to say that if he became Il Duce, dictator of Italy, and led them into WWII, without being prime minister, historians would have ignored him? What he did in the last years of his life makes all else insignificant by comparison. --A D Monroe III(talk) 14:46, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
What..??... :D No. Look, "Duce (of Fascism)" was his title as head of the National Fascist Party, even since before he came to power. As far as Italian government structures were concerned, his position was prime minister (President of the Council of Ministers). Of course, everyone called him "Duce" - but he came to power, and ruled Italy, as its Presidente del Consiglio dei ministri, Prime Minister. "Duce" was not a state office, like "Fuhrer" in Germany. Unlike Mussolini, Hitler was both head of government as Chancellor - and head of state as "Fuhrer" ("Fuhrer und Reichskanzler"). Mussolini was not head of state as "Duce" - except in the puppet Italian Social Republic. -- Director (talk) 16:37, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
So, he wasn't a dictator? We should correct the article, and all the sources? --A D Monroe III(talk) 17:05, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Mussolini!?? A "dictator"!? Surely not. There's a democratic leader if ever I saw one.
Stop talking nonsense and insulting my intelligence (Mr. "He was Duce of the Italian Social Republic that led Italy into WWII" xD). Of course he was a dictator - by being an unelected perpetual prime minister. Is holding the office of pm somehow mutually-exclusive with being a dictator?? "Dictator" was not an actual government office, you know.
-- Director (talk) 17:46, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Director, regarding this comment: "Stop talking nonsense and insulting my intelligence", please dial it down and abandon both the personal attacks and battleground behavior. You're starting to get into WP:BLUDGEON territory again, just as you did at the previous RfC on images. Let's not let this discussion and RfC devolve; please keep things WP:CIVIL and refrain from insulting other editors. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 18:23, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Yawn. You're WP:BLUDGEONING me with WP:BLUDGEON.
"So Mussolini wasn't a dictator?" is an insulting "question". Either finally report me or don't - but keep your opinions on my conduct off article talkpages. -- Director (talk) 18:36, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
I felt it best to do it this way first - as a way of in-the-open communication - before placing a formal warning on your talk page. Should the behavior continue, that is. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 18:43, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. I don't deserve such consideration... Dude, just go for it. [Don't let your dreams be dreams]. -- Director (talk) 19:24, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Please remove the video per both WP:YOUTUBE, WP:NPA, and WP:TPNO. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 19:29, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Eh... I don't think any of those apply (its me telling you; the thing is free, etc). But sure...
Still, listen to Shia: don't be like me - don't compromise! -- Director (talk) 19:39, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
To me, all three do seem to apply. I'm asking you nicely once again before I get the opinion of others... -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 19:44, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Director: I see now that the video was removed, however, a photo was put in its place. Since the link doesn't take us to WP:COMMONS, I have to wonder now about the possibility of a WP:COPYVIO in regard to the photo. As I'm sure you're aware, Wikipedia takes the possibility of copyright violations - even on talk pages - very seriously. Probably best to remove it as well. Thanks. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 20:17, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Never! In fact - [here]'s another! And [another]! You must learn there is no stopping me: I don't play by your rules. [I make my own]. -- Director (talk) 21:14, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Um... whoa. How did this all happen? Am I responsible? Using sarcasm, I know, is not the highest form of rhetoric, but I really was at a loss in understanding why being PM was somehow more significant than being dictator. Sigh. --A D Monroe III(talk) 03:20, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
No, not you at all. He made his own choices and it looks like he's is going to be away from this talk page for a couple of days as a result. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 03:34, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Support Summoned by a bot. I agree with MarkBernstein's rational above Comatmebro (talk) 23:53, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Image #4

Discussion

Well, that's interesting for sure. From a number of aspects. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 20:05, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
I'll look into #1. Meanwhile #2 is definitely not free. You can see the Getty license here... [2] (Rights-managed, not released). Same for #4 [3] (and by extension its derivative #3). It may well be we have no good portrait of Benito. -- Director (talk) 07:10, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
And get this... -- Director (talk) 07:38, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
#1 is up on Commons... [4]. -- Director (talk) 07:48, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Being on commons is no guarantee of being public domain, as we know from the last RfC. --A D Monroe III(talk) 16:10, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Answer this, Director: Why is it that you are so ready to find copyvios on images that are put up as alternatives to the one you favor but are ignoring the fact that you uploaded the one you favor after it was deleted years ago as a copyvio? Your goal appears to be eliminating what you see as personal competition rather than doing what's best for the article and readers. So be it. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 16:33, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Because I'm a dirty trickster who will do anything to WIN!
See, there are apps which people use to look up whether an image is public domain or nor. Whether its in some collection or archive. I ran a search on #1 a week back and didn't find it explicitly copyrighted. I'm still looking around, trying to find the original source. But as for all the other proposed photos, I'll tell you right now: they're all pretty definitively not PD. They should probably be deleted, but I don't have the heart.
As for #1, I can't determine its ultimate source. I honestly can't. I know being on Commons doesn't mean anything I'm just pointing out its up there. It may well be #1 is also not PD, and we'll end up having to use some horrible low-res crop. Thanks, BMK... -- Director (talk) 16:45, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Not sure. If they belonged to Istituto Luce they are now very likely in PD. --Silvio1973 (talk) 22:41, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
I have not, A D Monroe III. Frankly, I didn't want to be accused of canvassing. If you'd like to do so, and have the time for it, I'd appreciate you going ahead with that. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 16:26, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Per Wikipedia:Canvassing#Appropriate_notification * Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic, it would be appropriate by definition. But, like WV, I don't want this RfC to be tainted by any cries of Canvassing. Any objections to pinging them all? (I'll skip the ones already here.) --A D Monroe III(talk) 16:38, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Well that's not canvassing... -- Director (talk) 16:46, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Well, I've found myself increasingly reluctant to ping a bunch of editors to comment on images that are currently under suspicion of not being valid. It feels like I'm asking them to waste their time. Sigh. If someone else feels okay with this, they can go ahead. --A D Monroe III(talk) 16:36, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
They're WP:NOTVOTEs, so it just depends on your reasoning. If you have strong reasons to specifically prefer one over the others, support it. If you have strong reasons to specifically exclude one over the others, oppose it. I think it would be good to clarify your additional !votes beyond your primary !vote, however (which some haven't done). --A D Monroe III(talk) 16:51, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. :) L3X1 (distænt write) 16:10, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
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.

Infobox picture

Hello. I recently changed the picture in the infobox for the portrait picture further down, as it gives a clearer view of his face, arguably the most important factor in deciding these pictures. This portrait is used in several other Wikis for the infobox. This was reverted, and I can understand disagreement on the issue. However, I argue that the portrait picture would be the best depiction of Mussolini in the infobox, while him in uniform will be apt to have further down. As with most biographies, the infobox picture should be focused on his face, not his body and uniform.--Simen113 (talk) 04:06, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

With Mussolini, the facial features are pretty broad and easily grasped in a non-portrait image. Almost as important in his case is the body posture, since his ability to harangue a crowd was basic to his power. For these reasons, while I would normally agree that a portrait would be the most appropriate for an infobox image, I think the current image serves several purposes well, while the portrait serves only one. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:20, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
I do not disagree, but would say his posture is also in many ways represented in his portrait, with his chin up and determined look. The full body picture can easily be at the top of the article otherwise--Simen113 (talk) 06:32, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

First the absurd little nazi flag at Template:Nazism sidebar, now this... Beyond My Ken, I'm starting to see a pattern where you diminish the quality of the project for the sake of some apparent anti-fascism crusade. While everyone here obviously shares that general position (indeed my own family members perished in the Jasenovac extermination camp - and fought the Italian fascist occupation of my own hometown), this is beyond the pale.

We should obviously continue to use the professional portrait (which is a standard photograph of that sort and in no way especially "hagiographic"). Not a crop-out from a random image. -- Director (talk) 00:16, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, I really dont; give a shit what "patterns" you think you see. We have no business making Mussolini, Hitler, Goering, Goebbels etc. etc look like reasonable men and leaders by using portraits that were carefully crafted to present themselves that way. The image I removed was, and is, hagiographic, and it is not (BTW) "long-standing" because it was added on 13 October, as you can see from the comment at the top of this thread. Please leave the article in the status quo ante while a consensus discussion is held to determine what to do. Or, if you prefer, revert again, and I'll get admins involved. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:53, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
I see you reverted again. Oh well. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:55, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
@"making Mussolini, Hitler, Goering, Goebbels etc. etc look like reasonable men" - Why not just use a caricature? Really display his inner unreasonableness...?
That comment is not only manifestly incorrect (the image is a perfectly plain photographic portrait, exceptionally well-suited for an infobox in numerous respects), but it also reveals a propagandistic attitude on your part towards editing this project. You seek to craft a narrative which fits your own personal perception of the topic, rather than just improving the project's quality of presentation. I'm just amazed you'd come forward so brazenly with that attitude.
As to the image being long-standing - its been there for years now. Its up to you to push for this change through dialogue - rather than edit-warring. Feel free to involve whomever you wish. Good luck with the "he looks too reasonable for my personal taste" argument. -- Director (talk) 01:05, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
The picture you prefer has been carefully crafted to make Mussolini bold, heroic, and resolute. In other words, it's a piece of propaganda, and we should be using neutral images, not propaganda ones. Neither hagiography or caricatures. In any case, I'm opening an RfC, and we'll see what the editors here prefer. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:06, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
Wait, why not use a caricature? Shouldn't we be guided by the person's level of reasonableness in picking a properly representative image?
Utter nonsense. Its just a bog-standard professional portrait for the time, and Mussolini makes the same silly face in every photo. Most photos taken of him show him in the same comical "propagandist" pose and bearing - he's just somewhat older in yours.
Furthermore, your photo is just FAR less suitable for the infobox. Both in terms of proportion, and the exposure showing less of the goon's face.
My advice is to take off your political lenses. Photos are less propagandist than they appear. -- Director (talk) 10:59, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
A summary of the debate may be found at the bottom of the discussion.

RfC: Which image should be used as the lede image

Photo #1
File:Benito Mussolini Duce.jpg
Photo #2
File:Benito Mussolini (cropped).jpg
Photo #3 (new)
Photo #4 (new)
  • Which of these two contending images should be used as the lede image for this article? Or is there another image which is preferable?
  • Note: Both images have been used as the lede image at different times. Photo #1 was the lede image from 22 March 2012 -- when it was added by Director -- [5] until 2 July 2017 (or about 5 1/3 years), and from 13 to 19 October 2017. Photo #2 was the lede image from 2 July 2017 [6] to 13 October 2017 [7] (about 3 months), and from 19 October [8], when it was restored to the lede by me, until today, when it was removed by Director. Before Photo #1, at least 6 other images were used for the lede, some of them now apparently deleted. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:27, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Survey

  • Photo #2 is preferable. Photo #1 is obviously a much better photograph, but it's also a work of hagiographic propaganda, carefully crafted to make M. look heroic, resolute and strong. Wikipedia operates from a neutral point of view, and we have no business using a blatant piece of propaganda as the lede image to one of our articles. Photo #2, on the other hand, while not as good an image qua image, shows Il Duce in a neutral encyclopedic manner. For this reason it is preferable to image #1. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:11, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
Additional: Image #3 is also acceptable to me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:20, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Additional: The image at the bottom of the page, posted by K. e. coffman, which I have labelled as #5, is also acceptable to me. To sum that up, I'm good with 2, 3 or 5, but not with 1 or 4. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:23, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Beyond My Ken seems to be a heroic crusader against fascist propaganda. Anyone who opposes him by pointing out, say, that one image is a proper portrait and the other a random crop, or that one is suitable in proportions for an infobox whereas the other isn't, or even that Mussolini makes the exact same goddamn "heroic" face in every single photo... those may well be cryptofascist Mussolini sympathizers, and should report at once to their local commissar.
    In line with that, I also move we immediately replace the blatantly propagandist, hagiographic portraits at the FDR and Churchill articles. Or Hirohito.. or Bernard Montgomery.. Or indeed the Donald Trump article. Where does this propaganda end!? They were all carefully crafted to make make their subjects look good, and we need a NEUTRAL image. Some crop or other will surely do...
Politicizing a goddamn photo... BMK's (transparent and distasteful) angle notwithstanding - it is just a professional photographic portrait. Like the ones found in the infobox of virtually every single notable figure of the past 150 years.
#1 Lets not diminish the article's quality of presentation, eh? The vast majority of photos taken of any dictator of the period could be classified as "propagandist" in some way - including the image espoused by our vigilant political censor up there... Personally I see no difference in degree of "propaganda" between one and the other. Except that one is overexposed, and doesn't show the man's face as well as can be desired for an infobox image. -- Director (talk) 10:46, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
File:Benito Mussolini (cropped).jpg
#3?
  • #2 is the better image IMHO, except I would prefer cropping it to focus on his face / upper body. It's of a sufficiently high quality (2,000 x 3,000 pixels) to do so without a reduction in clarity. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 13:43, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
  • I've uploaded an example of what a cropped version could look like (see right). Not sure if that should replace #2 in the poll or be added as a separate option (my vote would be for #3 if that were the case). Ivar the Boneful (talk) 13:59, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
  • #1 I am the one who added the portrait back after seeing its prevalence on other language Wikis. I believe it is best to use a portrait like this for an infobox, while the picture of him in uniform fits perfectly in the main text (uncropped) as an example of him in his "costume" and "natural habitat". I would argue that both serves as "propaganda" if one wishes to see it that way, and that of the two, the portrait would be most neutral as it only shows his face, and not some military dress-up in front of a large crowd; the portrait is more neutral as such. I feel it is only natural to see a portrait in the infobox, and a real-life snapshot in the main text. Just compare Vladimir Lenin article. I am sure someone could make the same arguments there, that his haranguing of the crowd would be a better infobox picture than a "portrait carefully created by the man himself". (The Lenin article is rated a feature article.--Simen113 (talk) 13:57, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
  • It's worth noting that while image #1 may be used as a lede image on some other language wikis, it's not the lede image for the article on the Italian Wikipedia, which would seem to be the most germane. That article uses this photograph as its lede image. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:06, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
  • I like #2, the background is better and you see more of his body. The uniform is also more representative of his career and life than just the image of his face.★Trekker (talk) 17:29, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
  • #1 is a markedly higher quality image. User:Director is right: if we have a professional portrait of a leader, it gets used nearly every time, regardless of that leader's status as a hero, villain, or anything in between. See, to take the most obvious, most tiresome example, Adolf Hitler. I know it'd be a WP:POINT violation but I'm willing to be the guinea pig here. I'll go to Hitler's article and replace his portrait with a lower-quality image, using the rationale that a professional portrait of Hitler serves as propaganda for one of history's worst people and anyone who thinks differently either is editorially biased to favor Nazism or doesn't see how the good image causes Wikipedia to appear to outsiders to support Nazism. Do we think the 2,634 people watching that article would agree with that explanation and let my edit stand? WP:NPOV addresses the problem of "editorial bias" and the idea that using this image constitutes editorial bias (or even an appearance of such) carries an implication that its supporters are biased to favor Mussolini and/or his ideas or they wouldn't be concerned if there were an appearance of bias. I don't see anything to indicate anyone feels that way so we should go ahead and assume accordingly.
I'm not comfortable taking sides here because both Director and User:Beyond My Ken have displayed truly poor judgment and behavior, repeatedly taking each other's bait in the grotesque discussions right above and below this section. I don't know if this rises to the level of needed administrative intervention but it's still hurting the encyclopedia. By wasting their time and effort stretching out a totally zero-sum fight where neither has convinced the other of a damn thing, both are depriving the website of their otherwise good contributions. CityOfSilver 18:24, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
Does it matter? anything will do!
#4
  • #4 A color photo is always better. I think both the proposed images are sub-optimal. #2 (in uniform) is highly propaganda based, actually used in a propaganda campaign, so I can see why it is polarizing opinion. #1 is better, as it is a good image, but out of uniform is not the best look for a man known for his war efforts, and he looks really grumpy, so its hardly flattering, even for a fascist, we should make some effort. Dysklyver 23:57, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
  • We should make "some effort" to make a fascist dictator not look grumpy? No, we have an obligation to present an image which accurately portrays what he looked like, and we have a policy requirement to be neutral. Otherwise, we have no obligation towards making M. look good. Your image (#4) is almost as bad as #1 in its propagandistic qualities. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:18, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  • I am starting to think you are kidding. Do you really believe that Mussolini in full costume, with pose and in front of a large audience, is less propagandistic than a normal portrait, or even the photo of him outside of a public event and with less of an authoritarian pose? Even I have to admit that #4 is the most neutral of all, both showing him in his outfit (as he wanted to be shown) and without any propagandistic environment or surrounding.--Simen113 (talk) 00:54, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Acrually, that's a pretty fair assessment. I don't particularly think that Wikipedia should be in the business of making Fascist dictators look "reasonable". That User:Director is not concerned about burnishing the reputation of a fascist dictator such as Mussolini, as long as the lede image of him in the infobox is the one he chose, is disconcerting, at the least, and opens questions about what, exactly Diretcor's purpose is in editing here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:45, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Now that's a proper vigilant attitude right there! What am I here for anyway? Why am I in the business of making fascists reasonable? Suspicious, that.
Its too bad for you Röhm, Trotsky, et al. have already been purged. They could have used raging paranoid ideologues back then. Though I hear North Korea may be on the look out for help in that department... -- Director (talk) 15:03, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  • I should not have to say this; any treatment of a subject should be neutral. We are required to find a good image. It has to be representative. Policy states color images are preferred. The fact Mussolini was a dictator and a fascist is not relevant to the image. We are entitled to use a propaganda photo is it was the most visually representative. We do have an obligation per NPOV to make every subject appear equally 'reasonable' in their lead image, which for images means a high quality image equal to his non-fascist counterparts. In this case the 'best' photo is #4, which is not actually propaganda, although all 3 others are. Anyone looking at the image in terms of who the subject is, is not being neutral and not practicing NPOV. Dysklyver 16:20, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
Re the colour photo, its fine, but its really off-center... -- Director (talk) 16:38, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  • #1. I came here from the Milhist talk page. Agree with Director completely. The coloured photo would be an acceptable compromise if it were centred. Srnec (talk) 23:07, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  • #1 Is most in compliance with the MOS on images and leads. It's a portrait, high quality, not cropped, and is of only the topical figure, standards in which all the other three fail in at least one instance. The fourth image only fails on the quality front, in comparison to the first, although that's subjective and so would be my second choice. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 23:45, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  • #3 probably gives the greatest detail of Mussolini's facial features while at the same time reflecting his military credentials and identity. It would be my choice for lede image. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:13, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Photo #3 is preferable, as it is a cropped close up of the subject of the article. I do not consider it as too "grainy". Second choice would be Photo #2 (with some contrast adjustment). They display the subject in his most well known attire and are not as formal a pose. The photo 1 is obviously a formal studio portrait from his younger years and number 4 is not a good quality photo of the subject, and has a higher propaganda quality to it (since this has been raised). Kierzek (talk) 13:56, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Photo #3 portrays M. as I think he imagined himself: a strong military leader. #1 contradicts that; #2 makes it harder to see his expression w/o the background contributing anything; #4 reminds me of a colorized image.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 15:37, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Ranked from my favorite to least 4 1 2 3. but it's also a work of hagiographic propaganda, carefully crafted to make M. look heroic, resolute and strong. Wikipedia operates from a NPOV, and we have no business using a blatant piece of propaganda as the lede image to one of our articles. What? It's an actual picture (not a painting or propaganda drawing) from a pre photoshop era. It doesn't show him wearing a Putin with huge biceps trodding on capitalists while politically correct Roma babes swoon over him. I totally disagree with the assertion that the use of any of those images violates NPOV. L3X1 (distænt write) 15:48, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
  • So, are you saying that photography can't be propaganda, and that it's not possible to fundamentally craft the look of a photograph using lenses and lighting and normal pre-digital photograph effects (i.e. filters, exposure time, etc.)? And are you also saying that all propaganda is gross in nature (i.e. artificial muscles on Putin), and cannot be subtle (i.e. the heroic, strong, bold and resolute visage of M. in #1)? If so, I think you are very much misinformed about the nature of propaganda. It's not all "Kill the filthy Hun!", it's also "Triumph of the Will", a brilliant film. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:51, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
I believe with the critera you list it is impossible to provide a neutral photography. All portraits and photos such as 1 and 4 would be propaganda, just as all public display photos in front of crowds (2 and 3) would be the same. Judging by your criteria all presidential photos would be propaganda and unsuitable for Wikipedia, and so on.--Simen113 (talk) 18:42, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
This is not propaganda.

Yes, it is. We just call it "PR" today. -- Director (talk) 06:41, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
This is.

Yup, that too. Only cruder. -- Director (talk) 06:41, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
In a certain sense that's true, every photograph is an artificial representation of whatever it's showing, but there are gradations between photographs which attempt to be as accurate and truthful to the subject matter as possible all the way up to those which deliberately distort reality to make a point. But simply because there are many, many factors which go into determining the look of a photograph is no reason to reject the fact that some photographs are as neutral as they can possibly be, and other are in no way neutral, and don't even attempt to be neutral. The best of these are those expressing someone's artistic vision, and the worst are those which are used to sway people's opinions about powerful people who have a dangerous agenda, people such as Mussolini.
As I mentioned elsewhere in this discussion, there's a distinct difference between an official presidential portrait, such as this one of Bill Clinton, which do indeed take pains to make the subject look as good as possible, and a propaganda image such as #1 or #4. If people can't see this difference, which to me is obvious, I guess my attempt to keep the lede image neutral is doomed to failure. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:12, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
No and no. I am quite into historical propaganda, esp. Axis WW2 pieces. The only difference I see between #1 and the rest of them is that #1 is Benito Mussolini in a B&W suit and the other images are Il Duce the military dictator of Italy. Mussolini is most know for being the Duce, but the way I see it, if anything is coming close to non nuetral, it would be an image of him in uniform as the strong, capable, leader of the Italian Nation in its Righteuos Quest against the world. According to Propaganda_of_Fascist_Italy#Personality_cult (I know quoting another Wiki article isn't the brightest thing to do but…): He was generally portrayed in a macho manner, although he could also appear as a Renaissance man, or as military, family, or even common…His overtly belligerent image did not prevent newspapers from declaring he had done more for peace than anyone else, on the principle that Mussolini always did better than everyone else. Uniforms makes just about everyone looks awesome and powerful. I don't consider myself misinformed on the many guises and methods of pictorial propaganda. Even the image of Mussolini shirtless harvesting grain are just pictures. They aren't going to sway a single soul to the fascist cause nor influence people positivly or negatively regarding him and his. The de facto caption to the infobox image is 27th Prime Minister of Italy. Such a caption befits a statesman's image. That's how I see it. Thanks, L3X1 (distænt write) 19:40, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Amended due to the lack of provenance for the color image. L3X1 (distænt write) 02:14, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
Update: Given that a more neutral portrait is included in the section Benito_Mussolini#Path_to_defeat (billed as "official portrait"), I would oppose image #1, as being of unknown provenance and highly propagandistic in nature. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:10, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
That image has no source information, so it is possibly a copyvio. To make matters worse, the same image seems to be a Getty image. Getty images are notorious for their copyright vigilance. Dr. K. 05:22, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
K.e.coffman I cannot verify the authenticity of the color image, I just looked through all the images of M in my Tme-Life WW2 collection, and while I have several color images, #4 is not in those books. FWIW, both the 2015 World Book Encyclopedia and the 2006 Encyclopedia Americana show M. in his "Natural habitat" of a gaudy uniform, and WB has him speaking with his first extended. Thanks, L3X1 (distænt write) 15:11, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
  • 1 is best photo, or 3 as 2nd choice as it includes the uniform (Uniforms, worn by non-soldiers, are not propagandist? Explain that to me!) The quality of the image should be 1st consideration, how it accords with historically perceived public persona 2nd, whether the original intention was 'propagandist' should not matter IMO. Are our readers going to feel compelled to recreate the March on Rome if we choose the wrong image?… … Any portraits of public figures (ie not private candid ones) are consciously crafted to present an appropriate image. That's true from Alexander the Great, through Holbein on to postage stamps with Queen Liz, via Lenin, Jack Kennedy and of course, not forgetting Abraham Lincoln. The extent to which the image presented is monolithic may vary, as may the individual's power to enforce that image and suppress conflicting ones, but they are all 'propagandist' in intent. NPOV, IMO involves ignoring the 'intent'. Plenty of readers are going to think "this is what a narcissistic 'strong-man' looks like, isn't it revolting?" Pincrete (talk) 23:29, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Anything but #1 (including No picture; somewhat favor #3). The whole purpose of an infobox pic is to tell the reader "article is about this guy". The only one that fails to do that is pic #1. I'm guessing #1 is supposed to give some "balanced" view. Why? If the subject was very notable for a number of different roles, then, sure, use a pic that is devoid of any one role. But this article is about someone very notable because he was a fascist leader, so we must show him as that. Certainly don't use a pic that portrays him as a lawyer or something; it would be far better to use no picture than a misleading one. Sources primarily present him in a narrow light; it is SYNTH and UNDUE to attempt to present him otherwise. --A D Monroe III(talk) 16:42, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Image #3 - it's certainly the best of the four. #4 looks artificially colorized (is it? if so, that should disqualify it from consideration); having a color photo - especially from the predominantly black and white era of photography - is not preferable if it's not better than others, anyway. Image #2 is not good for the infobox as infobox photos are always better cropped like a portrait. Image #1 is not a good representation of who Mussolini was: a brutal dictator and murderer, rather, it makes him look like a businessman or someone's uncle. What's more, it's not immediately recognizable as Mussolini, and should be. The other three are immediately recognizable, however, #3 is the best of those and most appropriate image for the infobox. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:44, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
  • #3 Popped in here from Milhist. #3 is a fairly good quality close-up, in uniform (given he is closely associated with fascist militarism), and immediately recognisable as Mussolini, which the one in civvies isn't. The whole hagiographical thing doesn't make any sense to me. Also, #4 looks colourised and seems incongruent with the period. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:16, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, Peacemaker... :) -- Director (talk) 10:29, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Image #1 I have been called to participate to this RfC from the Feedback Request Service. It's impressive that a relatively minor decision could result in so much writing but possibly I do not get the hidden essence of the issue. To the extent of available pictures, the most neutral image should be taken. Obviously, all of the above images are propagandistic. The fact is that if we were to forbid the official picture of a statesman because it's a work of propaganda probably very few pictures (if any) would be acceptable. That's not the point. The idea is to choose the most neutral picture, that does not mean that the chosen picture does not contain any element of propaganda. They all do. Silvio1973 (talk) 09:43, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
@Silvio1973:; NPOV does not mean no point of view. Per WP:BALANCE: Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence. Sources highlight M. as a fascist leader. Highlighting him as "just a plain guy", like pic #1, is far from neutral; in fact, pic #1 the least neutral, because it emphasizes only a small minority view. --A D Monroe III(talk) 19:41, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
@A D Monroe III:, if we follow your logic we should arrive to the conclusion that any dictator should be presented in military outfits? Does it really work this way? If it does, hence the pictures used in the lede of Francisco Franco, Fidel Castro, Reynaldo Bignone, Nicolae Ceaușescu and Kim Il-sung are also POV. Silvio1973 (talk) 19:53, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
Oh, come on, that's a straw man; I said fascist leader, not dictator. And, I was specifically talking about someone well-highlighted by sources as fascist leader. This is just about following the sources. Is it more "neutral" to have the main pic for Albert Einstein being him playing a violin, rather than standing in front of a chalkboard with some math on it? AE in fact did play the violin, but the sources mostly ignore that, so we must as well. Per DUE, we must portray people in same light of the sources, and not editors' senses of being "polite" or whatever the motivations are here, for which I really cannot understand any justification.
The pics are there for the readers, not our editors' personal feelings. The sole purpose of the infobox pic is to assure the readers that they've got the right article. Only pic #1 fails that; readers have to scan ahead thru the article to ensure they know what the subject is, since pic #1 tends to imply that it's not about the fascist leader they expected. Pic #1 isn't "neutral", it's purposely misleading. --A D Monroe III(talk) 20:53, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
I am somehow sympathetic with your argument, but please don't tell me that Kim Il-Sung is not a fascist just because he was a communist dictator. However, I understand that under prevailing British or American understanding, Mussolini is almost invariably portrayed in military outfits but that's just incongruent with the most of images we have of this dictator. I am Italian and I saw hundreds (thousands) of images and footages of Mussolini during my life and in most of them he was not in military outfits. Silvio1973 (talk) 21:40, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
Still not talking about all fascist leaders, just this one. I'm sure M. was a real human being with many facets. All I'm saying is that only one primary facet is heavily promoted by sources, and that must be reflected in the infobox, per DUE, and per the whole point of an infobox: to identify the subject for the reader, who (I agree) is going to be English-speaking on this EN WP. --A D Monroe III(talk) 15:42, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
@A D Monroe III: I do not oppose the idea to have an image of Mussolini in military outfits in the lede because I think that every statesman (dictator or not) should be pictured dressed in civilian clothes. I am saying that in most of public appaerances Mussolini was not wearing official military outfits. He was very often wearing a black shirt - when we was not in a suit - but the images that you seem to prefer (in military outfits wearing a hut with the emblem of First Marshall of the Empire) refer of a very small period of his life (i.e. just before and during WWII). If your concern is to make sure that Mussolini is pictured for what he was (a fascist) it would much more appropriate to present him wearing the black shirt (image #5). The use of images #2#, #3 or #4 give undue weight to the last years of Mussolini's regency. The article is about Mussolini and not WWII. --Silvio1973 (talk) 21:23, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
Exactly! That "very small period of his life" is his legacy. Without it, he'd just be another Luigi Facta (the guy almost no one knows as his predecessor). It's impossible to give "undue weight" to his regency; it outweighs everything else he did combined multiple times. If we ignore his regency, that's UNDUE. Go ahead and show all details of his full range of life in the article body, but the infobox pic must reflect his most notable identity, or be worse than having no pic at all. --A D Monroe III(talk) 02:39, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Mmm... Under which ground do you affirm that his most notable identity can be identified with him dressed as First Marshall of the Empire? And frankly comparing the life of Mussolini until 1939 to that of Luigi Facta... Can't you find any better? --Silvio1973 (talk) 00:32, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Sources! The only "grounds" that matter! All these "I think" comments are irrelevant per ILIKEIT. Sources present him as the fascist ruler that led Italy into WWII. Then they go into his actions as such, then the note he was assassinated. Beyond that, they will mention his more mundane backstory that lead to this, just for context of his primary legacy. Facta gets a bland suit and a article smaller than this thread; M gets portrayed by what he did. (And, BTW, yes, #5 is fine with me, per my !vote Anything but #1.) --A D Monroe III(talk) 21:01, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
  • #3, or my second choice is #2 because they best represent the Mussolini identity without overly glorifying his features. He was a flamboyant and animated man, often portrayed in military garb. I believe #3 and #2, out of the choices available, best capture those qualities. I do not believe image #1 is as magnifying as others think but rather just fails to capture the Mussolini history describes him as.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:41, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

  • Comment Beyond My Ken and Director, can I suggest that you move your above discussion to this section, and keep that section free for just votes? See a big wall of text might put off potential participants. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 13:45, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
    Done.
    Incidentally, while #2 is indeed in higher resolution.. its crop will be of about the same res as the portrait. Esp when placed in the infobox.. the difference will be near imperceptible. And I further disagree its the better image - for our purposes. Mussolini is stranding on a pedestal well above the photographer (who's making a newspaper photo of an event): its a skewed angle. Not to speak of the overexposure and lack of proper background. -- Director (talk) 14:24, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
P.s. I've carried out some basic repairs of the portrait. -- Director (talk) 14:20, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
"#3" looks kind of grainy that up close... -- Director (talk) 14:53, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Do you think it might be possible that you could express an opinion about which photo is the most appropriate to use in the lede without violating the Wikipedia policy against personal attacks, or is that asking too much of you?
    And one has to ask, do you really believe that these official photos of Mussolini, Hitler, et al. are not works of carefully crafted propaganda, intended to present to the public a specific point of view about the Leader? Do you really believe that they are simply ordinary portraits on the order of those used by, say, American presidents or members of the American cabinet? Are you really that naive that you don't understand that these aren't just plain-old photographic portraits, but intrinsically politicized propaganda items which was extremely important to Fascists and Nazis to create the desired impressions to the public? Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:31, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
If you believe I've violated NPA, you know where to report me - otherwise please refrain from WP:WIKILAWYERING and throwing around accusations. Your attempts at politicizing yet another totally apolitical issue is an angle that should be quite clearly exposed.
You are vastly overstating the fascist conspiracy angle. Its paranoid. All portraits in the history of time since the very pharaohs of Egypt up to Donald Trump, whether photographic or not, make an effort to make their subject look rather good. They are also, however, usually images that display the subjects best - merely by virtue of the effort to make the subject's features as distinctive and as clear as possible. That is why we use them almost ubiquitously in infoboxes of all notable people. This is indeed not a sinister piece of premeditated propaganda any more than every other portrait in history. From Abraham Lincoln, Kaiser Wilhelm II, Robert E. Lee, all the way to the extremely "crafted" photos used in politics today (with their kilograms of makeup and whole riggings of lighting).
The portrait has a proper background, a decent focus on the troll's face, and well-focused lighting so that the mug and its features are most clearly visible. It is also well-proportioned for an infobox. In your photo the angle is from below, which is almost always unflattering and poorly represents the face. He is also slightly older in your photo, which may be why it seems to you the portrait is more flattering than you prefer. -- Director (talk) 12:42, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
Rather than report you, I would prefer that you control yourself and comment on the question under consideration rather than lashing out at personalities. I will say about the remainder of your comment that it exhibits an ahistorical naivite that is hard to believe of an editor who is supposedly familiar with this subject matter -- or is it in fact the case that you are not actually cognizant of the reality of how Fascism and Nazism worked? Certainly your "analysis" of the image is extremely superficial, and ignores entirely the purpose of the image. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:56, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
I would prefer that you report me. Or stop garnishing your arguments with ridiculous accusations of policy violation. Esp on an article talkpage where they do not belong.
Every dictatorial regime, totally regardless of ideology, worked to glorify the leader. That is perfectly true. Indeed the Führerprinzip is not a complicated concept to grasp. However, simply taking a professional portrait (that may slightly flatter you but also represent your features in good detail) - is something available to and used by virtually all notable people in history. And this one is in no way especially different. -- Director (talk) 13:11, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
When you write above that I "seem[] to be a heroic crusader against fascist propaganda", I assume you're implying that I'm here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, but that would be inaccurate. There are plenty of places on Wikipedia where Fascist, Nazi and Communist propaganda images would be entirely proper, encyclopedic, and neutral, so I'm not on any kind of crusade - except, of course, my everyday crusade to improve the encyclopedia.
No, it appears to me that you are allowing your appreciation of an admittedly powerful and well-made image to overwhelm your regard for WP:NPOV, one of our core policies. It is not the case that the very best image should be in the lede, it is the case that the very best neutral image should be in the lede - and if there's another image available that fulfills that requirement better than Photo #2, I'm all in favor of using it. What I am not in favor of is promulgating the obvious propaganda purposes of the portrait image that you so robustly prefer.
Yes, of course, all countries have leaders who want to make themselves look good to their citizens, but the Fascists and the Nazis went well beyond that criteria to present their leaders in specific ways, through careful use of the various arts of photography, film, radio and graphics. They not only wanted the people to like what they saw, they wanted them to think a specific way about what they saw. Hitler and Goebbels were masters of this, of course, but this image shows that Mussolini (or whoever was responsible for the image) was no slouch either. No objective viewer of the picture can fail to see the propaganda purpose it served.
Now there is another possibility that I'm prepared to discuss, if you're interested in doing so: if the image is properly captioned as being a propaganda image, I can live with it being the lede image -- although that is, for me, by far my second choice. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:07, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
No, I think you see "carefully crafted propaganda" where I see a common portrait of Mussolini, in his civilian attire as the prime minister (his highest office) - of a type used by every other infobox we have. Like I said, I feel you're viewing this issue from a too political, perhaps too paranoid, point of view.
Moreover I will once again openly express my distaste for your politicizing these sort of issues. We still have that comically-small Nazi flag in the Template:Nazism sidebar, diminishing the quality of the project - all for the sake of assuaging your own personal fears of "propagandism".
Yes, my weak mind was overwhelmed by the sheer power of Benito Mussolini's visage.. the guy singularly responsible for uncountable atrocities in my own country, and the annexation of my own hometown by a Fascist Italian overclass that was to rule over us as servile "barbarians" (to quote him directly).
No. If you knew anything about my history on the project, you would know a lot of it was spent attempting to prevent various extreme-right distortions of history, of Italian origin, from being introduced in the "little-patrolled" reaches of the project. About a dozen accounts were banned or indeffed.
And yet, when I came across this article 75 years ago in the tender years of my youth, and found its infobox in an appalling state for a person of such high notoriety, I undertook to fix it up as best I could. Which included (among adding all his offices and such) finding a professional portrait of the person for the image. That is all. The notion that I am in any way impressed by the dictator's comical mug is insulting (and a clear violation of WP:NPA!! :)).
No. I disagree that photographic portraits of Mussolini, or especially Hitler (who for the most part cultivated a materially humble public image - which brilliantly made him all the more a subject of worship), are particularly more "hagiographic" than equivalent portraits of FDR or Churchill. I mean just look at Churchill sprawled there... You're reading far, far too much into what is a pretty basic photo for the time.
It is not a "propaganda image" to any greater extent than Louis XVI's portrait. Or Victor Emmanuel III's portrait... Or again, any of the ones we see in the articles of most notable figures in history. I can't agree to that. -- Director (talk) 08:46, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
Yeah.. that tends to happen when someone edit-wars to push a change - and then politicizes the banal issue on the talkpage... This isn't the first time with BMK, either. I don't like it.
Re #4, I'd take it but it isn't centered well. BMK won't take it because it doesn't conform with the level of reasonableness Mussolini should be displaying. He needs to make like ducklips and be shot from a low angle, to really bring out the sinister nature... -- Director (talk) 11:00, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
Actually, Director, you really don't have a clue about what my standards are, because they deal with things you obviously don't really understand -- whether through ignorance or disregard, I don't know -- or have any concern about. I'm assuming if there was a classy, professional portrait of Pol Pot, perhaps dressed in a neat tux and airbushed to make him look sophisticated and debonair, Director would insist on it being used in his article.
Clearly, the standards espoused by myself and Director differ drastically, especially when it comes to murderous dictators. Which is to say, I concerned about presenting a good image whic neirher glorifies nor denigrates the person, while just ant sthe best possible image, regardless of whether it unnecessarily glorifies th person or not Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:52, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
I don't think you quite understand what this project is and how it works. And you shouldn't be editing it until such a time as you do. My opinion... You should perhaps seek another outlet for your political opinions and/or frustrations.
Just a stab in the dark... are you American? Is this somehow about Trump? 'Cause its right around that level of ridiculous. He's been compared to Mussolini... makes a similar face... Help me out here? -- Director (talk) 16:23, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
@Director: - I think you should refrain from stabbing Beyond My Ken with the PA dagger. He is very active on articles of this type and saying it is any way connected to our esteemed leader of the free world and real media is in itself unreasonable. Beyond My Ken appears to have good intentions to achieve NPOV, and I have no doubt a perfectly reasonable outcome will be achieved without anyone being dragged through ANI. Dysklyver 16:57, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
My concern is precisely what he considers "NPOV". He's openly here to "make Mussolini look unreasonable", all the while trying to make anyone opposedd to that appear as the biased party (which breaks the irony meter) - and possibly a fascist! (which is just about the worst PA you can think of). That is appalling conduct. And given how plugged-into political ideology he seems to be, I indeed don't doubt he is "very active on articles like this"... I just wonder if its a good thing. -- Director (talk) 08:02, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
P.R. vs. propaganda
  • If, according to the comments Director left above on the two photos I posted, we're not going to draw any kind of distinction of scale and type between "public relations" and "propaganda", then of course every publicly released photograph of a politician or business leader or celebrity portrait is per force "propaganda". But if one understands that there is a distinct difference between the two, one can evaluate the qualities of each photo to determine what category they fall into. Those who see no distinction between the official portrait of George W. Bush and that of Hermann Göring (both posted above) are, in my opinion, failing to see a fundamental difference. When O.J. Simpson's face was featured on the cover of every magazine, but Time magazine darkened his face to make him look more dangerous, that was propaganda, and Time deservedly was taken to task for altering reality for a specific editorial purpose. When we wipe out the difference between P.R. and propaganda, we wipe out the difference between that week's Newsweek cover and the Time cover. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:56, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
I made an effort to explain this to you before.
As I pointed out to you: all portraits, esp. ones commissioned by the subject, make an effort portray their subjects favorably. If the subjects are political figures, the portraits could conceivably be classed as "propaganda" favorable to the subject. Indeed W's portrait was without a shadow of a doubt the focus of far more work (or "crafting" if you prefer) than Goering's.
One could argue Mussolini's Time photo you argue for is another example of propaganda on the part of that magazine, which was overtly hostile to Mussolini's regime (rightly so, and like much of American media).
But hold the phone... Look at this file [9]... Both the author, the source, and the license are wrong. Is this even public domain?? If it was published by Time in the United States - its not. -- Director (talk) 05:00, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
BMK... If you dragged me through this song and dance for a file that shouldn't be on COM anyway... -- Director (talk) 05:13, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
I've said from the beginning (take a look at the top of the RfC) that if there was a better image that didn't glorify M., I would be happy to see it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:41, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
But more to the point, you continue to blur the very real differences between public relations and propaganda. Do you actually believe that there is no difference between them, that all portraits of world leaders are automatically "propaganda", and that the pictures of American presidents I've pointed out are propaganda? Where, if anywhere, do you draw the line between P.R. and propaganda, or is it all the same to you? Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:46, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Totally-not-propagandistic.
"Glorify" is overstating the case to the point of absurdity, but have it your way.
The vast majority of proper portraits (due to usually being done with the consent of the subject) can be said to "glorify" said subject to a certain extent. Be that Trump, Hirohito, FDR, or King Victor Emmanuel. As such, if they portray an active politician, they may be classified as political "propaganda". Unfortunately (also by virtue of being done with the subject's cooperation) - they're also usually the best depiction of the subject. If you're going to go on a crusade to remove all portraits of political figures from Wikipedia (Napoleon, Jefferson Davis, Kaiser Wilhelm, Lenin etc. etc.), due to their being "hagiographic", you're welcome to open that subject in a broader venue. As things stand now, you. have. no. case.
As to PR and propaganda, the terms are blurred and overlapping by their very nature. Its very hard to draw a line, simply because historically one term acquired negative associations and was replaced with the other... Is W's photo there with his makeup, perfect lighting, and the US flag background not "hagiographic" or "propagandistic" to a certain extent? You'd have to be deluded to think otherwise... -- Director (talk) 06:45, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
The terms public relations and propaganda do not "overlap", there's a spectrum that moves from one to the other, so for images in the middle ground between them, there can be differences of opinion as to what is what, but that's not the case with images at the ends of the spectrum -- and that includes presidential portraits, which are firmly in the p.r. end, and Nazi/fascist images, which are firmly at the propaganda end. It's one thing to say that Richard Nixon's portrait, for instance, did not accurately portray the negative personality attributes which ultimately brought him down, but that's a far cry from na image which is a propagandistic attempt to make him look like the Second Coming of Christ. My evaluation of image #1 is that the purpose of the image is not to accurately portray what M. looked like, but to present him to the Italian public as a savior, a hard, resolute man who is looking into the Italy's future and will do whatever he can to make that future better. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:08, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
If there's a "spectrum" - then they "overlap"!
The ideology of the subject doesn't make his photo any more or less hagiographic.
You can exaggerate all you want with "Jesus" and "glorify" and whatnot... its a common portrait. Not even especially flattering (look at Goring, Churchill, or Victor Emmanuel).
I don't really care what you think the photographer had in mind, and speculating as to his goals is absurd. Every portrait tries to depict the subject both accurately, and in a positive light. Sure as hell looks like Mussolini to me.
I already said everything fifty times over. ALL PORTRAITS MAKE AN EFFORT. That doesn't disqualify them as "propaganda". IF THAT WERE THE CASE, WE WOULD NEED TO SCRUB HALF THE BIO ARTICLES. I've dealt with far too much ideological zealotry on this project to go any further with this... -- Director (talk) 22:04, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
There's no "ideological zealotry" at work here, simply an attempt to make the article follow WP:NPOV, a central precept of the project. One one point I do agree, since we're clearly talking past each other, there's little purpose in continuing this discussion with you. We'll just have to let the consensus of editors as determined by the closer of the RfC make the decision as to which image is most appropriate. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:48, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Ok, feel free to propose a project-wide measure regarding portraits. None of them are really "neutral". Certainly the ideology of the subject does not, in and of itself, make a portrait more or less biased. -- Director (talk) 08:29, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
What is surely offensive about the public images of dictatorships is not that they consciously promote an image, it is a number of factors, including that ONLY that image is allowed to be portrayed. Usually their images are also monolithic in character, the 'strong leader', the 'father of the nation' and so on. Propaganda/PR/portraiture is a continuum rather than a clear on/off switch. Propaganda done brilliantly (Alexander the Great, Holbein, Eisenstein, Riefenstahl) even achieves the level of high art and become TRULY dangerous, but usually it is crude and brutish.
But should it matter anyway? Figures like Lenin - or Henry VIII - are only known to us through crafted images, those images ARE the only visual record, and are part of the story. Pincrete (talk) 23:58, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
In which case, NPOV would have us label the propaganda for what it is, as I suggested above. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:56, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
IF it is widely acknowledged that images of a leader were part of a crafted iconography (Stalin, Lenin, Mao statuary?), or that only 'official' images were permitted in the regime, then yes, that should be said - either in caption or text. What I don't understand is why a 'studio lit' image of Benito, done in the style of a 'heavy-weight' '30s actor, is inherently 'propaganda' and should be verboten, whereas a picture taken in a uniform (which he did nothing to deserve), but which was also part of a conscious image of 'strong leader' is somehow OK.
Famous pictures of Benito, arms folded on balcony, face fixed in a defiant expression, are probably the most iconic images of him. Were they intended as 'public image', certainly, so is that a good reason to not use them? No IMO. I don't think it is self-evident that certain images were 'propaganda' and other images were ... what exactly? Neutral character studies? Or simply less overt/technically competent/different propaganda. Negative connotations of the word 'propaganda' are relatively recent, and fairly subjective. We tend to use the word mainly for crude, simplistic images and messages which are imposed in crude and brutal ways and in regimes in which sending out alternative messages is punished.
I think we should trust the reader to realise that the archetypal image of Stalin, smiling, friendly avuncular leader of the nation, does not exactly square with what he got up to 'off camera', and yes, if the crafting of his image is a subject of study (as perhaps with 'Uncle Jo', though not AFAIK with 'il Duce'), cover that as a topic. NPOV does not mean we cannot use images which were intended to show somebody in a good light unless we include some kind of 'health warning' - "Warning, this image may positively affect your image of a dictator - parental caution is advised". Pincrete (talk) 10:38, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
It seems to me that there are two basic points of view being expressed here. Director's view is "It's all propaganda, so let's at least use the best looking image" and mine is "Some of it's strongly propagandistic and some of it is less so, so let's use the least propagandistic image that's appropriate for the infobox." It's not a matter of "trusting the reader" any more than we put biased information in an article and "trust the reader" to recognize that it's biased. If we do include that material, we make it clear who's POV it represents, so that the reader can evaluate it. With an image, there's no context, just the picture, unless we provide the context, something that says "This great-looking portrait was deliberately crafted to produce a specific image of Mussolini's character to convey that viewpoint to the viewer," or, in other words "Mussolini, in a propaganda image". This satisfies the policy requirement that all content by WP:NPOV, which is not optional. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:23, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Regardless of whether you have a citation for such i.r.o. that/those particular image(s)? Simply because the regime was dictatorial? That's called OR or SYNTH. It's also using a sledgehammer to crack a nut IMO.

btw, The British library, and other UK sources, happily acknowledge that what free countries put out during the two world wars was 'propaganda', not PR or 'public information' or any such euphemism. This is posters etc of course, rather than portraiture, but the principal applies. Nor do we see anything sinister about our doing that. Was our propaganda less crude, more homourous, less 'imposed' than that of other more authoritarian regimes? Certainly, all of which are aspects of freer societies, and 'our propaganda' worked of course - we won.

A bottle of Coke, a company logo are both consciously crafted to make the viewer like them, so let's ban these images in case readers are influenced by seeing them? Text is different, more nuanced, more complete. It is inherently impossible to decide that a single picture presents a 'balanced' or 'neutral' picture of any subject, whether Angelina Jolie or Vlad the Impaler, we try to not be hagiographic or damning, but 'neutral' is always going to be ultimately subjective. I have read the whole thread, but cannot see why 'il Duce the Hollywood star' is propaganda, but 'il Duce the Great General' is neutral. I think we are done here though, we have both given our opinions and are clearly not going to agree. Pincrete (talk) 11:47, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

In my opinion, it's not useful to deliberately blur the distinctions between p.r., advertising, and propaganda. To say "It's all propaganda, it's all just p.r., it's all the same as Coke selling its products", is to throw up one's hands and ignore all the specific aspects that distinguish these things from each other, and which make it possible to study the techniques of each. But I've made the argument here numerous times, in one way or another, and some folks are apparently just not going to accept it. Personally, I find the counter-argument simplistic, cynical, and, frankly, rather absurd. It's somehwat like saying that because the electro-magnetic spectrum is a continuum, we can't make a distinction between x-rays, visible light and radio waves. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:17, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
BTW, no one here has mentioned "banning" anything. The question is not whether any of these images can be in the article, but which one of them is the most appropriate for the lede image. Right now, both #1 and #2 are in the article, one as the lede, and one in the body, and it's been the other way as well. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:25, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
PR and propaganda (as often used to refer mainly to dictatorial regimes), certainly are different in one important respect. You're much less likely to end up dying in a gulag for laughing at, or disagreeing with FDR than you would do for doing the same with Uncle Jo, that is no small matter. We don't seem to be bothered so much about the word 'propaganda' in the UK, possibly in Europe. In wartime the UK govt needed to craft the message going out and minimise negative coverage - it's propaganda, no problem. That does not mean that we are foolish enough to think that 'our propaganda' was somehow morally equivalent to 'their propaganda'. People were not sent to their deaths for laughing at 'our propaganda'. 'Our propaganda' looked forward to a time when wearing uniforms would not be an objective in itself- not our very raison d'etre as a nation.
You may not have spoken of banning, but implicit is that us using an image originally commissioned for 'propagandist purposes' is inherently NPOV, or should come with a 'health warning' attached.
We are discusing the general principle 'down here', but 'up there', I cannot for the life of me see why the film star/statesman in his suit is NPOV, but the military-man with his self-awarded rank and medals is neutral. Making the issue a B/W one, rather than a continuum, makes it even harder for me to understand that.
An editor whom I greatly respect, prefers one particular image which we use for Adolf H. He does so for the wholly subjective reason that whilst some others think that the image is too 'heroic', he thinks it shows a ridiculous, preening narcissist. Images are like that, it is difficult to be wholly neutral about them or the effect they have. Pincrete (talk) 13:40, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
Yes another image
Just spotted this one:
Shall we call this image #5?

Mussolini is in military uniform but without the headgear. The copyright seems fine on it. Feedback? K.e.coffman (talk) 04:07, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

The problem would be the quality IMO.--Simen113 (talk) 04:39, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
What?!? Ok... are you just trolling here? Come on? -- Director (talk) 06:02, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
(ec) Is there any possible way that you could manage to squeeze out just a little, tiny bit of AGF, instead of just insulting me at every opportunity? I'd explain to you why I'd accept this image, but you've ignored all my other explanations so far in this discussion, preferring instead to oppose what you imagine I'm saying instead of engaging with what I'm actually arguing, so I don't think it's worth my expending the energy necessary to put you right. Let's just say that my viewpoint is much more nuanced then you think it is, and we'll leave it at that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:24, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
You don't want a "hagiographic" image but this one's fine with you??? Is it just that you want him to be in a uniform of some sort...?? Is that it? You're breaking my brain here... If that's the case, you should realize that his highest office was prime minister. A civilian suit being the proper attire for that specific role, he (usually) dressed in a suit when appearing in that function.
Look bottom line, if anyone wants this image they really oughta bring a higher-res version. I've done what I can to fix it up, but ultimately the quality is just appalling. -- Director (talk) 06:19, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
Right, "appalling", sure... whatever. I guess it's just a tremendous coincidence that only the image that you put in the infobox meets your own personal requirements for photographic quality. Many other editors in the survey above will accept a number of different images, but not you -- the only image that you find acceptable at all is the one that you choose. I'd suggest that you take a quick look at WP:OWN, and try to grok its core meaning. In point of fact, this image (#5) is perfectly acceptable at the size it will be presented at in the infobox, which is what we're talking about here. It's not going to be blown up into a room-sized poster, after all. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:31, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
"AGF"? Firstly, how am I supposed to AGF when you openly state from the outset you want an unreasonable-looking portrait or else its not "neutral" for you. That's not "good faith", its POV-pushing. Secondly, it is precisely posts like the one above that make it hard for me to assume any good faith on your part. The above is if anything MORE hagiographic than the current photo! I don't know what you're after now. And if you disagree - well that just perfectly shows how totally pointless it is to field an argument based on subjective perceptions of "reasonableness" in a portrait!
No, the image is really poor quality. Open it up look at it more closely. It was clearly blown up already from an even smaller resolution.. you can see the little "squares" overlapping everywhere. Like I said, I tried to fix it up a bit, but its really, really bad. -- Director (talk) 06:35, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
Your problems with misinterpreting and misunderstanding my arguments are no longer my problems, nor is your inability to follow Wikipedia principles such as AGF. I suggest you look inward for the answer to those questions. Me? I'm no longer concerned with your opinions. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:44, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
You're breaking up with me?
But no... I didn't misrepresent you. I said "you want an unreasonable-looking portrait or else its not 'neutral' for you". You said, in your first response to my restoring the current portrait (quote):
"We have no business making Mussolini look like a reasonable man and leader by using portraits that were carefully crafted to present him that way. The image I removed is hagiographic."
I pointed out your personal opinions on "reasonableness" are irrelevant, that our goal here is to use the image that best shows the dictator's face. Which is a portrait. In a decent resolution.
I also expressed my bemusement at how you yourself demonstrated the pointlessness of going by personal impressions - by apparently not viewing "#5" as "hagiographic". Whereas I see it as much more so than the current basic shot of his face in #1.
That said, I don't really care (since like I said all portraits go down that road), and if we had #5 in a better resolution, it'd be a fair contender as far as I'm concerned... -- Director (talk) 08:23, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
Is picture 5, Benito doing his Rod Steiger impersonation? Pincrete (talk) 22:48, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
Yeah. Its where he looks cross like he didn't find an X-Box under the christmas tree. -- Director (talk) 08:04, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
My perfect image

To be clear to everyone, if I had my druthers, if such an image was available, my preference would be for a close-up picture of M. giving a speech to a massive crowd. I think this is the ur-Mussolini, the most typical way he was viewed by his subjects, and by the newsreel audiences of the world. I don't care if he's in uniform or in civvies, but I would prefer that he not be making one of the funny faces that he was prone to fall back on. I'd love for such an image to have a sense of the intensity and energy of the way he physically projected himself to public audience, and the demagoguery of his performance. Such an image would be my idea of the best possible lede image, but I've not seen one. Or, rather, I've seen them, but they're in the AP or Getty image banks, and therefore not available to us. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:41, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

"Mussolini from the balcony", eh? Too much Seinfeld reruns..
Yeah, see... that's your problem. You have some kind of weird "vision" as to how Mussolini should look. Whereas I'm concerned with the quality of the article's presentation - and want to show off his mug as best we can. So people know what he looked like, you know?
Let me paraphrase your own post just above: nobody should be concerned with your opinions. We should not be concerned with how you picture Mussolini in your own head - but with how he actually looked like! -- Director (talk) 08:30, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
And your problem is that you insist on telling other editors what their "problems" are, instead of engaging about the issue at hand. You have probably the least amount of AGF of any editor I've interacted with in my 12 years on Wikipedia, which makes me wonder how you've avoided being banned up until now.
Ah well, there's always hope for the future, which, if you continue on as your are, will not be too far away. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:34, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
The "problem" refers to your problem in approaching this issue. That ought to be obvious from the context: its your insistence on following some idea of yours as to which pose Mussolini should have. As to AGF, I already explained my lack of AGF with refard to yourself: you openly stated from the outset that your priority is Mussolini's "reasonableness" in your own eyes, not the objective quality of presentation. Like I said, that's not editing in "good faith", that's textbook POV-pushing. As in pushing your own personal point of view rather than pursuing objective quality.
And P.s: save your "Wikipedia creds" routine for the newbies, I've been around here since 2006 (your first edit seems to have been in 2009, dunno). And if I've been semi-retired for a while now, its because I'm a hard-working medical professional, who usually doesn't have to deal with people's emotional perceptions without being paid for it. -- Director (talk) 07:40, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Comment to the closer from the initiator of this RfC

  • In my opinion, the clearest idea of what the consensus is here is going to be found in the "Survey" section above. Although there are a few nuggets of information to be gleaned in the sections below the survey, the vast majority of the verbiage there is pretty useless for determining consensus (although it might be useful for anyone interested in doing a sociological study on the dynamics of bad Wikipedian discussions). Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:40, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
"In my opinion you should just count the WP:VOTE and push my edit into the article"...
Well that's easy enough, let me help you with that:
  • 9 "votes" for #1
  • 5 for #3
  • 4 for #2
But I'm sure you have some additional heartfelt advice as to the interpretation of the vote, "initiator to closer"? -- Director (talk) 08:00, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

(Just a note that the counts in this subsection are misleading (out-of-date and/or incorrect). And, of course, these are all WP:NOTVOTEs, and subject to interpretation. --A D Monroe III(talk) 18:40, 30 November 2017 (UTC))

Response to the initiator's comment

Please note that the editor of the comment above ("Director"), although they are not "the initiator of this RfC", insists on posting their response to my comment in the above section, and not in this "Response" section. Also notd that the "quote" which begins their comment is not an actual quote of anything I wrote, and misrepresents my statement, apparently deliberately. Finally, the editor shows themselves to be ignorant of a proper methodology for counting !votes in a rather complicated series of comments in which some editors presented 1st, 2nd etc. choices, some presented only one choice, and other presented multiple choices without assigning them relative values. (In any event, the closer will not simply be considering the number of !votes (NOT votes), but will also evaluate the arguments used to support those opinions.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:10, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm sure you'll have your way...
Wow... -- Director (talk) 14:13, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Look at the licenses

Image #1 is not necessarily in the public domain in the US. Image #2 has been nominated for deletion as the intellectual property of Time, Inc. Image #3 is a clear derivative of #2. That leaves #4, which has no apparent issues. User:HopsonRoad 17:26, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Image #2 was nominated for deletion by Director - huge coincidence that he would nominate the image he was opposing for deletion, but ignore the one that he was championing, don;t you think? - and the claimed possible owner of the IP is not Time by the AP, please read more closely. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:44, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
The fact remains that image #2 is attributed to AP in this article, which would suggest that its license is in doubt. User:HopsonRoad 21:37, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I know. Did you actually read the deletion discussion? Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:28, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
@Beyond My Ken: I told you. I warned you the thing might be under copyright [10]. I told you the license and source don't add-up. And yes - its fucking copyrighted!! You dragged me through this whole song and dance for the sake of a photo you didn't even bother to look at! Is that actionable? 'Cause it sure as hell ought to be actionable!
As for #1, BMK: read the license. Its PD "if it entered the public domain in Italy prior to 1996" - by Italian copyright law it was PD in 1976! That's just enWiki's standard 'PD-Italy' template! -- Director (talk) 13:16, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
Actually, that's precisely the same license #2 was uploaded under, and for image #2, aside from your own putative "analysis", there's nothing so far to contradict it -- at least, nothing that's been accepted by Commons admins.
I'm sure that you would prefer to "win" this discussion by the subterfuge of nominating the competing image for deletion (a typical tactic for you), instead of by a consensus of the editors' opinions here (because too many editors might actually think for themselves -- horrors! -- and disagree with you), but I'm willing to let the chips fall where they may, and I haven't tried to help the odds by nominating the image I don't prefer to deletion, as you did.
It's tactics such as that -- underhanded and completely fueled by your own bias -- that make me ponder why you're still allowed to edit here, when you seem (to me at least) be be an obvious WP:NPOV-violating, WP:CONSENSUS-allergic, WP:TENDENTIOUS, WP:Disruptive and WP:NPA-violating editor, the evidence for which is available in any thread you're involv4ed in. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:16, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
@Beyond My Ken: To answer your question about my reading the discussion, the answer is that I scanned an angry feud between two editors to whom I suggest taking time off to cool down. The issue seems to be more about winning an argument than identifying a suitable photograph of a tyrant among several available and among which few casual readers of the article would find one remarkably superior. Apart from the issue of a secure license, a four-sided coin could decide the matter and we could all go off to engage in something more important. User:HopsonRoad 16:09, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
I didn't start the RfC, I just restored the file of the last 6 years. I'm not the one talking about "tactics" and "winning" - I'm the guy PISSED OFF he has spent all this time debating the merits of an image that should not be on Commons anyway. Just a cursory look at the mutually-unrelated source and license should be enough to raise an eyebrow - which the proponent of the image (an experienced editor!) could not be bothered to do.
Now, this is nobody else's concern, but I am a very busy person. I'm semi-retired from the project. To have this [censored] start this whole mess, waste the time of everyone here, over a file that WILL be deleted, and would be under any kind of scrutiny (as it is explicitly copyrighted!), AND to pepper this s***-sandwich with his customary insinuations of Fascism dispensed condescendingly from on high... I'm liable to murder an intern. -- Director (talk) 18:04, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
There's no final consensus at the AfD, you don't know if it will be deleted, no one has proven it's a copyvio, and I think you really should calm down and step back from this discussion for a while. You've seriously moved into WP:BLUDGEON territory. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 18:13, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
"No one has proven it's a copyvio". -- Director (talk) 19:04, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you think the link you provided is supposed to prove. If anything, it proves the Granger collection also has a copy of a public domain photo. Note that the photo you linked to is a derivation of this public domain photo as is the derivation crop we also have here. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 19:17, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
May I remind to some of you that the RfC was raised to choose the preferred image for the lede and that a majority of users has so far affirmed to favor image 1? Concerning the actual eligibility of Image 2 To Wikipedia Commons I am not 100% sure that the image is not in Public Domain. However, in situations like this, the prudence concept must prevail and the image should be removed from the Commons. @Director, I share 99% of what you have said in this RfC (apart the wording which is really too confrontational, at least for for such a minor issue), but I do not understand why you keep writing us that you are a very busy person. Being busy (and we all might be) does not make you right. And being not busy, does not make you wrong. Silvio1973 (talk) 19:15, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
@Silvio, that you're not concerned about burnishing the reputation of a Fascist dictator such as Mussolini - is disconcerting at the least, and opens questions about what exactly your purpose is in editing here.
(Please don't be confrontational in your response. [11]) -- Director (talk) 19:29, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
@Busy Director, I have been called to give my advice in this RfC from the Feedback Request Service (check on my Talk page if you are not convinced). And no, I am not concerned at all about burnishing Mussolini's reputation. Indeed, I do not have to burnish anything. The history of this man speaks for itself. And, although not busy as you pretend to be, I won't be confrontational. I have better to do. Silvio1973 (talk) 19:42, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
See the link, Silvio...
P.s. "burnishing" is a good thing (lustrare)... -- Director (talk) 20:41, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I know what burnish means (in Italian is brunire). And I am not concerned about burnishing him, because there's nothing to burnish. Silvio1973 (talk) 21:35, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
I'm sure you noticed I just copy-pasted BMK's comment to me from earlier? :) To illustrate a point re conftrontationalism here? BMK immediately politicized the issue by calling the current photo "pro-Fascist"...
But.. could it be true..? Silvio.. could I be a cryptofascist? Please help me, you know me better than anyone else! I MUST know! -- Director (talk) 22:31, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
@Director, I know very well you are not and I do not see in your posts anything suggesting you could have any sympathy for Mussolini's ideology, but trust me there is no reason to be confrontational in an RfC where the most of users stand already on your side. Silvio1973 (talk) 07:07, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
@-- ψλ. Oh, sure. "©Granger, NYC - All Rights Reserved", what does that even mean, really? They probably stole the image from Wikimedia, cropped it out - now they're selling it. Sneaky bastards... -- Director (talk) 19:29, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
Director, did you notice that the cropped version the Granger collection has is a derivation of the original? Did you also notice that the cropped version they have is cropped differently than the Wikimedia version? You're not helping your case, here. At this point, it would be wise for you to drop the stick. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 19:35, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
My goodness, you're right. Its a completely different image. I'm such an idiot. Sorry, everybody. -- Director (talk) 19:40, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
So, let's all drop the matter, until a license issue arises with the current image. I'm out of here, having been invited to comment at the History page. Sincerely, User:HopsonRoad 19:27, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Closing

This RfC is being closed for no consensus due to two of the four images deleted from Commons, one of which was the image that achieved consensus. A new RfC with two new images plus the current remaining two will be started. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 02:47, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

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.

Attribution

Text and references copied from Benito Mussolini to Dictator. See former article's history for a list of contributors. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:14, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Benito_Mussolini/Archive_4&oldid=1143699367"