Talk:Benito Mussolini/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

World War One and British intelligence

"In 1917 Mussolini got his start in politics with the help of a £100 weekly wage (the equivalent of £6000 as of 2009) from the British security service MI5, to keep anti-war protestors at home and to publish pro-war propaganda. This help was authorized by Sir Samuel Hoare."

Obviously, I'd be of a view that we need to keep an eye out for baneful hand of Anglo-Saxonry in world politics, but I think we have to be careful here. In Italy at the time there was a significant group of intellectuals on the left who supported Italy joining WWI. These included not only Mussolini and proto-Fascists, but their eventual opponents in the Arditi del Popolo (including Alberto Acquacalda, as well as other anarchists and syndicalists). I would find it hard to believe that this was all MI5s work. There would rather appear to be a circumstantial alignment of interests. Just as when the Germans assisted Lenin and the Bolsheviks and the republicans in Ireland (the enemy of my enemy). Claíomh Solais (talk) 00:20, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 June 2018

There are some glaring formatting errors in the first sentence due to incorrect use of the phonetic pronunciation tool. This has yet to be changed because the page is closed to public edits, but someone should fix this immediately. JPacchiana (talk) 15:17, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

It's not the article, it seems to be an issue with the IPA pronunciation template itself. I'm not sure what's going on here. I've raised this issue at WP:VPT#Broken IPA templates so that someone with more expertise can see what happened. I'm resolving this as an edit request and will keep an eye on the VPT discussion to see where we go from here. Thanks for pointing it out! ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 16:08, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Firing squad?

Why does the lead say that Mussolini was executed by firing squad? This article and Death of Benito Mussolini say that he was summarily executed by one man. hbdragon88 (talk) 00:06, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Contradicting religious views.

What was written in the religious views section is contradicting. Why would he be an atheist, then call out to God to kill him? Why would he be superstitious? An atheist does not believe in a God being. It also said about science proving there is no God, which would also prove no superstitious beings. He is an atheist yet he believes in pharaoh's curses? Seems like the writer unknowingly put all things negative that were contradicting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.149.184.122 (talk) 20:43, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Is this from a reliable source?

The following is from the second paragraph in the article: "Mussolini denounced the PSI, his views now centering on nationalism instead of socialism and later founded the fascist movement which came to oppose egalitarianism[6] and class conflict". The cite appears to be from a book, authored by Simonetta Falasca-Zamponi. Wikipedia claims to want cites to be from "reliable sources". Books, as they can be written by a single author, can be famously biased. First, is this author actually a "reliable source"? And, does this book's text actually support the claims in the article as it is written? Hal9009az (talk) 08:22, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 March 2019

Reference number 7 which makes quite a sweeping claim leads to a broken link and references a book without providing the ISBN, the author, the full title, etc. Namelessdeplorable (talk) 01:31, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 17:49, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

@Alucard 16: Namelessdeplorable is correct in pointing out that many of the ref links are broken. (The full ref for #7 is Anthony James Gregor (1979). Young Mussolini and the Intellectual Origins of Fascism. University of California Press. ISBN 978-0520037991.) The problem is with the harv-style references, but I can't figure out how to fix them. Cheers, gnu57 18:30, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

@Genericusername57: Ah okay I think I figured out the problem reference #7 is actually reference #5 (which has the full title and ISBN #) References #7, #19-20, #47, #52-59 are using Template:Sfn which "creates a short author–date citation in a footnote" according to the template. The issue is when clicking on the link "Gregor 1979" it doesn't highlight the full reference which is #5. While reference #8 appears to be formatted like reference #7 it doesn't use Template:Sfn instead its formatted as <ref name=Haugen_p9_71>[[#Haugen|Haugen]], pp. 9, 71</ref>. If you click on "Haugen" in reference #8 it highlights the full reference in the "further reading" section "Haugen, Brenda (2007). Benito Mussolini: Fascist Italian Dictator. Minneapolis, MN: Compass Point Books. ISBN 978-0-7565-1988-9".

I don't know how to fix this either. In the further reading section the full reference for #7 is there as well its just missing the ISBN #. I switched this request back to unanswered so someone who has more knowledge with book references can take a look at this. Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 18:45, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

I've fixed it. The cite in the further reading section needs to be in a template (cite book, cite journal, etc) with the paramater "ref=harv". NiciVampireHeart 02:35, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Juarez

Juarez was in a “leftist” party if you speak American English (Liberal Party) but he spoke Mexican Spanish, not US English. I don't know if you call Churchill a leftist too, but he spent some time in the UK's Liberal Party. --JFCochin (talk) 17:01, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Messy references in section

I am not an expert of this topic, however while reading this article I discovered that the state of the references throughout some sections is really poor and worrying (even about the NPOV quality of the article). I'm referring especially to the Section on antisemitism. There for example the whole first paragraph repeats the same reference at each period (very ugly) and the page of the book it refers to does not even contain any of the information cited (I checked page 62 of Zimmermann and there's no mention of any of the stuff written in that paragraph). I'm worried about the POV in cases of sentences like: "Mussolini's antisemitic remarks in the late 1910s and early 1920s were more suited to the moment rather than a sincere belief in them.", that sounds a bit partial. --Ritchie92 (talk) 23:42, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 May 2019

Benito Mussolini's first name is in fact Benito Amilcare Andrea Anastasia Mussolini Platyfish (talk) 15:28, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. NiciVampireHeart 21:06, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Removal of Tag

I took the liberty to remove a decade year old tag pertaining to the merge between Mussolini's Religious Beliefs and this article, for it's now 10 years old and I doubt anyone has tried to find that particular standalone article in several years. Feel free to revert my edits if you believe it was wrong. TheTeaDrinker (talk) 16:08, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Dictator and founder of fascism

Hi. I would like to raise a topic of discussion about the lead section of this article. To me, the current description fails to give the WP:DUE weight to Mussolini's role in history, since it does not mention that he was the founder of fascism and a dictator (or the head of a totalitarian regime), which I think are his main features.

Until 24 hours ago, indeed the lead sentence contained the phrase: "As dictator of Italy and founder of fascism, Mussolini inspired several totalitarian rulers such as Adolf Hitler" which was removed in this edit by Roger 8 Roger. I reverted it here because I thought that the final version was neglecting some crucial information (with attached sources) about Mussolini, but the author of the first edit reverted it again. I guess that the controversial information was that "Mussolini inspired several totalitarian rulers such as Adolf Hitler", so I introduced the other two pieces of information (founder of fascism, and dictator) in a different way in the lead (here, also providing an additional source). However my edit was reverted as vandalism by Alessandro57 in this edit (when using Twinkle without an edit message and with the edit tagged as minor, it means it was reverted as vandalism), and I even got a "disruptive editing" warning on my talk page. Leaving aside that I consider this reaction excessive, I think (or at least I thought) that it was quite established that Mussolini was the (main) founder of fascism, and that he is known for being a dictator of Italy, not simply a Prime Minister of the Kingdom (so that the former should be stressed in the lead sentence). I might be wrong of course, but that's why I am opening this thread. Alessandro57, on my talk page, writes: After your edit the article says that Mussolini became dictator of Italy after 28 October 1922, and this is plainly wrong, to which I agree, but then instead of reverting my edit as vandalism, they could have just added to my version ("... Mussolini was a Prime Minister and dictator of Italy") the word "later", so to have "... Mussolini was a Prime Minister and later dictator of Italy".

Does anyone else have an idea about how to tackle this issue, if it's an issue to be tackled? --Ritchie92 (talk) 23:10, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

I made the initial revert because I could not find anywhere in the three sources that M inspired H. The sources are not ideal anyway, such as a Readers' Digest style picture book for armchair historians, so I dragged out the whole sentence instead of just the H phrase. I thought that was better than removing the references at that point. Doubtless there are plenty of quality academic sources to back those claims, that would then allow us to change the citations and put back the removed sentence, possibly with some rewording. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 00:17, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

@Roger 8 Roger: For the purpose you described, the best way would have been to just move the sources to the previous sentence, and add a "Citation needed" maintenance tag at the end of the unsourced sentence. This way other editors that have that source could add it, or just reword the statement. Removing the sentence altogether just makes it disappear, and in my opinion makes it far less likely to achieve your goal (since you think there are plenty of sources backing those claim). Also, what about the other information that was removed? --Ritchie92 (talk) 06:09, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

I think there is no real disagreement here: it just needs someone to amend that section. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 18:02, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree more or less with the last edit; Mussolini was not a dictator, he became a dictator, but he was (and remained during his whole life) an excellent journalist, building his political career as chief redactor of Avanti, and of course was also a first class politician, socialist first, and fascist later. All this facts have to be mentioned in the lead. Alex2006 (talk) 17:30, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Ambiguous double negative sentence

"Both he and King Victor Emmanuel III were reluctant to avoid the appearance of a repeat of Italy's decision to change sides from the Triple Alliance to the Entente before World War I."

Taken literally, this sentence means that they wanted the appearance of a repeat of Italy's decision to change sides.

I am doubtful that is what is meant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.119.204.117 (talk) 16:55, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

I have access to A History of Fascism, 1914-1945, by Stanley G. Payne. Does anyone know which part of the book is being cited? I don't want to have to skim through the whole thing. I am guessing that it is in Part I: History. Talib1101 (talk) 23:04, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

I made the edit based on the context and what I've skimmed from the book. To be honest, I'm not sure the book explicitly supports the view that the Entente figured into decisions made in the 1940s; it seems to mostly be mentioned pp. 81-86. It is possible that the sentence should just be removed as unsourced, but it might be worth at least 15 minutes of effort to verify it with the book first. I'm personally not up to that task right now. Talib1101 (talk) 23:14, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

I have put a citation needed template after the sentence. I have searched in the cited book, "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich", but not found something. sorry, wrong cite. Also need pages or chapter of the above Payne book. --Robertiki (talk) 08:25, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Foreign policy – spelling correction

There should be corrected "rapprochment" to "rapprochement" ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vladyka (talk • contribs) 23:25, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Fixed – Thjarkur (talk) 20:45, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Mussolini truppe Etiopia.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:37, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 April 2020

I am interested in posting an external link. It will link to a 1922 magazine article that explained to American readers what the Mussolini government was:

http://www.oldmagazinearticles.com/article-summary/king_victor_emanuel_appointed_mussolini_to_power-1922#.XpSkbIhKiLk

Please let me know what you think.

Matt Jacobsen 172.116.188.73 (talk) 17:43, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

It's an interesting link, but this article's Further Reading and External Links sections are probably already too long. – Thjarkur (talk) 20:38, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 May 2020

This should be added to the section on M's WWI service. The reference to being injured by a grenade should be removed as that is not what happened.

When World War I started, Mussolini, like many Italian nationalists, volunteered to fight. He was turned down because of his radical Socialism and told to wait for his reserve call up. He was called up on 31 August and reported for duty with his old corps, the Bersaglieri. After a two-week refresher course he was sent to Isonzo front where he took part in the Second Battle of the Isonzo, September 1915. His unit also took part in the Third Battle of the Isonzo, October 1915.

In February 1917, Mussolini was made a commander of trench mortar section. On 23 February during a barrage of the Austro-Hungarian lines he was ordered to load a mortar with one round too many. Despite protesting the action, the mortar was overloaded which resulted in a misfire and explosion of the rounds in the tube. Five soldiers were killed and Mussolini was severely injured. He was evacuated to and underwent several surgeries to removal shrapnel and repair his wounds. Blackshowhorse (talk) 18:40, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Partly done: The statement in the article is sourced to another, seemingly reliable source. In a case where two reliable sources disagree, I think it would be necessary for there to be a discussion on the subject to determine which one takes precedence (or if we mention both). A review of the book available on JSTOR does not seem at a first glance to be the most flattering, but I am not sure if that is relevant to this particular bit of information. Since you appear to have access to the book, maybe you could have a look at what are the sources cited by the author; or quote the exact statements which support this? (if a preview is available on google books, this could be of help, too) RandomCanadian (talk | contribs) 22:29, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

The other review I could find on the book says that some material appears to be based upon archives but the author does not provide adequate citations for that, since the only notes are "explanatory or content notes rather than citations of sources". This is, of course, irritating for a scholarly audience but for us it matters relatively little unless one is so zealous as to intend to comb the internet for digitized versions of military unit diaries and the like... I'll go ahead and change to statement to read that he was wounded without specifying how exactly. RandomCanadian (talk | contribs) 22:45, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 20 June 2020

Category:Italian revolutionaries should be added, Mussolini was definitely a political revolutionary, so it would be appropriate to add him to the category. -- 177.19.126.86 (talk) 00:33, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

 Done Makes sense and supported by article text. Darren-M talk 22:21, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Being compared to Mahatma Gandhi

Churchill compared Mussolini with Gandhi, by saying Gandhi was a 'Hindu Mussolini', meaning he thought Gandhi was a dictator. Gooseberrycheesecake (talk) 01:29, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Lead

The lead is very long and seems to detract from the main body. MOS:LEAD: "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article." Perhaps somebody who knows more about the topic can move text from the lead into sections below? --Hazhk (talk) 12:45, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Edit request: typo in the third paragraph

In the third paragraph: "Despite initial success, the subsequent Axis collapse on multiple fronts and eventual Allied invasion of Sicily made Mussolini lost [read: 'lose'] the support of the population and members of the Fascist Party." 198.48.202.231 (talk) 13:48, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

 Done in this edit. Thanks for pointing this out. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 17:47, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 March 2021

Original:

On 25 December 1915, in Treviglio, he contracted a marriage with his fellow countrywoman Rachele Guidi, who had already borne him a daughter, Edda, at Forlì in 1910.

EDIT: Change "fellow countrywoman" to "step-sister".

JUSTIFICATION: Incontrovertible fact, and also so noted in her wiki page. 37.14.108.58 (talk) 08:33, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

 Not done Please bring reliable sources to support your claim. Also, changing wikipedia article A with an unsourced information to use it as a source for article B is not allowed. Alex2006 (talk) 10:20, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

It is a fact that Rachele Mussolini (nee Guidi) was Mussolini's step-sister. This is a widely accepted fact as established in academic biographies of Mussolini. See, for example, Bosworth, Richard JB. Mussolini. Bloomsbury Publishing, 2014. That is, for a scholar of Mussolini, it was considered a "constructive" addition to the biography. Kindly note that it was evidently considered "constructive" to mention on the Benito Mussolini wiki page that he married "fellow countrywoman". That is a detail of very low (and obvious for any reader) value; the fact that he married his step-sister is of considerably higher value. Where scholarly usage insufficient, kindly note, also, that the wiki page of one Adolf Hitler, mentions that he was rumored to have romantic relationsh with his neice. I assume, therefore that it is your personal opinion of what constitutes "constructive". Apparently, what you consider "constructive" is not supported by authroitative scholarship or other wiki pages. Kind regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.14.108.58 (talk) 12:48, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

No, it is not "a fact". Rachele Guidi could have been the step-sister of Mussolini. Her mother Anna Lombardi, before marrying the farmer of a large estate, Agostino Guidi, was in fact engaged to Alessandro Mussolini, a friend of Andrea Costa and known as a 'subversive', who preferred to her the schoolteacher Rosa Maltoni. Rachele was the last of five children. This is what is known today. Unfortunately I don't have Bosworth's biography, but I have read de Felice's biography, which is the definitive work on Mussolini, and there is no such thing written. If Bosworth has discovered new facts (facts, not gossip) on this we can include it, but you should quote the passage where he states this, and the relevant pages. Alex2006 (talk) 14:19, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

P.S. Here you can find Donna Rachele's biography on the DBI of the Enciclopedia Italiana (published in 2004). There is no trace of what you affirm. Alex2006 (talk) 14:36, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

No, it is not "a fact". Rachele Guidi could have been the step-sister of Mussolini. Her mother Anna Lombardi, before marrying the farmer of a large estate, Agostino Guidi, was in fact engaged to Alessandro Mussolini, a friend of Andrea Costa and known as a 'subversive', who preferred to her the schoolteacher Rosa Maltoni. This is what is known today. Unfortunately I don't have Bosworth's biography, but I have read de Felice's biography, which is the definitive work on Mussolini, and there is no such thing written. If Bosworth has new facts (facts, not gossip) on this we can include it, but you should quote the passage where he states this, and the relevant pages. Alex2006 (talk) 14:19, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Caro Alessandro, thank you for the prompt and courteous reply. Having read your reply, I suspect that perhaps there is a subtle but important misunderstanding between "step-sister" and "half-sister". (To my understanding, in Italian, the term "sorellastra" is used for both, no?) In Enlgish, "half-sister" means that there is one blood-relative parent in common. A "step-sister" does not share a biological parent. A "step" relationship is created when a parent of each enter into a romantic relationship or one based on cohabitation. I hope that is the cause of the confusion (as I suspect from your response, which addresses a situation of possible half-sibling status based on rumor). I am not suggesting that she was Benito's "half-sister". I am stating the commonly known fact that they were "step-siblings" as is construed and accepted in the Enlgish language. Otherwise, the facts remain as presented: Rachele moved in with the Mussolini family in 1910 (after the death of her father in 1902 and the death of Benito's mother in 1905). Her mother was Alessandro's cohabitating lover (or common law wife) at this point. As such, when she became Benito's wife, she was already his step-sister. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.14.108.58 (talk) 19:11, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Of course, I would be more than happy to draft different language for the edit, to take into account the fine nuances that have been highlighted by this exchange. Warm regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.14.108.58 (talk) 00:52, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Here is the Reference, for your consideration: R.J.B. Bosworth, Mussolini (Oxford UP, 2002). [available as an ebook online as well] :

"Benito and Rachele began cohabiting in early 1910; she must have fallen pregnant at much the same time. Some months before, Mussolini had made her his 'intended', writing properly that he was worried about her moral status while she resided with his father and her mother at the Bersagliere inn." (p 74-75) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.14.108.58 (talk) 19:52, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Oh-oh... now I understand, sorry! The problem is that step-sister is translated as sorellastra, but that's wrong! In Italian, a "sorellastra" has a biological parent in common with the person in question, and this was not the case. The problem remains though: in fact Benito's father and Rachele's mother were lovers, not married. And according to the Merrian-Webster a step-sister is "a daughter of one's stepparent by a former partner", where a stepparent is "the wife or husband of one's parent when distinct from one's natural or legal mother or father". What you affirm would have been true if the two had been married, but they were not. Or am I wrong again with my Italo-English? ;-) Alex2006 (talk) 16:09, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Alessandro, before continuing, please let me underscore my sincere appreciation to your dedication to the issue, and the wiki framework for dispute resolution. If you were at all slighted by a previous comment or tone of my intial comment, please accept my apologies. I am glad we have identified the confusion over "sorellastra". Now, for "marriage". Merriam-Webster does inlcude in its definition of step-siblings the concept of "marriage", as you noted. However, the same source notes in the definition for "marriage" that the definition is not a matter for dictionaries to define (see definition 1.a.). This is particularly important in light of same-sex/ same-gendered marriage. While I recognize that this is not the case here, it is important to keep in mind in terms of wiki precedence. More importantly (I hope you will agree), is the due consideration of the practice of "common law" or "de facto" marriage based on mutual recognition or cohabitation. MWD defines "common law marriage" as: "2: the cohabitation of a couple even when it does not constitute a legal marriage". [In some US jurisdictions, the establishment of marriage-based legal rights may even be applied by the courts to common law relationships without the consent of the parties!] This certainly describes the relationship of their parents as a form of marriage. (While I am aware that wiki is not a viable source, the wiktionary definition of step-sibling is superior as it encompasses the definitions in a more clear manner and is better suited for modern usages accross cultural barriers, IMHO.) As such, they were step-siblings through (common-law) marriage as defined in the English language as represented in your source. I look forward to the resolution of this matter so that we may move on to more interesting wiki talks about Roman history, and the like. Perhaps move from a rather Byzantine conversation to a Turkish delight? ;D — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.14.108.58 (talk) 00:49, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

I messed up an edit (entering text in the wrong place in our conversation. I just wanted to add that I would be more than happy to propose new language for the edit here, so that we can collaborate on an edit that incorporates the nuances identified in this conversation, and in light of the definitions provided. Warm regads, and thank you for the unbiased, intellectual exercise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.14.108.58 (talk) 01:04, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words. However, as I am not a native English speaker, and I don't know the common law, I think the best thing to do is to reopen the request and ask for the opinion of Wikipedian friends whose mother language is English. However, there is one thing that puzzles me: Mussolini's father and Guidi's mother did not really live more uxorio as you state above. Mussolini met Rachele when he was substituting his mother at the primary schools as a teacher, then he didn't see her anymore for nine years, while she was working as a service woman (like his mother) in Forli', and he casually met her again in the trattoria where she worked and where, in a room upstairs, Mussolini's father had just moved in with her mother (Rachele was lodged with the other helpers downstairs). There was really no family relationship between them, so to call her (step-)sister seems inappropriate. Unfortunately, the Anglo-Saxon sources, for obvious reasons, do not reach the almost maniacal degree of precision of the Italian ones with regard to Mussolini's life (consider that the first volume of de Felice's "Il rivoluzionario", which covers Mussolini's life from his birth to 1920, is longer than Bosworth's entire work), so it is easy to make mistakes. Cheers, Alex2006 (talk) 11:42, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Having been pinged by Alex2006, I've taken a look at the situation. If the question is whether Alessandro and the mother of Rachele were common-law spouses, I think there needs to be evidence that they both considered themselves to be spouses of the other. Many couples live together without considering themselves to be married: there would need to be reliable sourcing that they had declared themselves to be married. Did they? Did they act as if they were married? (Living together isn't sufficient.) Without clear evidence that they did, their children cannot be considered step-siblings. I suppose text could be added to point out that Benito's father and Rachele's mother had cohabited in 1910, the same year the article says Rachele became Benito's mistress, but it strikes me as more likely that her mother was his father's mistress rather than they were spouses. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:55, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Closing edit request until consensus is reached. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:26, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Question on wording

"from about 1911 until 1938, Mussolini had various affairs with the Jewish author and academic Margherita Sarfatti," What are "various affairs"? Maybe she was an occasional mistress or maybe they had a long-running, though intermittent, affair?

2600:6C4A:37F:F746:745E:DAD4:DB59:E2ED (talk) 09:22, 2 April 2021 (UTC)Mary Been

Wording under antisemitism and race

The end of a sentence seems to be missing here: "Mussolini's anti-Semitic remarks in the late 1910s and early 1920s were often inconsistent and more suited to the moment and do not reflect a sincere belief in the,. Mussolini blamed the..." In addition to the dropped ending, the tenor of this and the surrounding sentences seems rather off. His "anti-Semitic remarks... do not reflect a sincere belief..."? Maybe just "are part of an inconsistent pattern of statements about..."? 2600:6C4A:37F:F746:745E:DAD4:DB59:E2ED (talk) 09:42, 2 April 2021 (UTC)Mary

March on Rome

He was actually invited to become Prime Minister before the March on Rome had taken place. (Westerhaley (talk) 14:37, 3 May 2021 (UTC))

No, in the evening of 27 October there was an attempt to make a government with prime minister Salandra and 4 fascist ministers, but Mussolini refused. He got the nomination at 12:00 of 29 October, by telegram, in Milan, after Salandra had given up. Alex2006 (talk) 16:17, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Atheism: additional references

Can someone add more references from the corresponding Wikiquote page to the Atheism section, including the following:

• Religion is a species of mental disease. It has always had a pathological reaction on mankind.
  • As quoted by Mussolini in 2000 Years of Disbelief: Famous People with the Courage to Doubt by James A. Haught (1966) p. 256. From a speech he made in Lausanne, July 1904.

• Science is now in the process of destroying religious dogma. The dogma of the divine creation is recognized as absurd.
  • As quoted by Mussolini in 2000 Years of Disbelief: Famous People with the Courage to Doubt by James A. Haught (1966) p. 256. Originally came from Mussolini’s essay l'Homme et la Divinité, 1904.

• Benito Mussolini, God Does Not Exist. Published in 1904; Lausanne, Switzerland. Translated by George Seldes, 1935.

• God does not exist—religion in science is an absurdity, in practice an immorality and in men a disease.
  • “Religion: Benito a Christian?” Time magazine (August 25, 1924)

His Excellency Duce

Why are these above his name in the infox box?Slatersteven (talk) 17:21, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

I reacted to this as well. The lede says "He was Prime Minister of Italy [...] and "Duce" of Italian Fascism". That seems like a neutral description. Can we do without infobox Mussolini honorifics? St.nerol (talk) 21:17, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

The infobox template says that the honorifics field is for "honorifics of serious significance that are attached to the name in formal address, such as knighthoods and titles of nobility". (The Biography MoS says that "in general, honorific prefixes ... in Wikipedia's own voice should not be included, but may be discussed in the article.) St.nerol (talk) 21:27, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 July 2021

Why was "Prime Minister of Italy changed to "Head of Government?" This isn't accurate and needs to be changed. 24.89.4.63 (talk) 18:26, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

The official title at that time (since 1925) was "Capo del governo primo ministro segretario di Stato". "Head of government" is a partial translation. Alex2006 (talk) 18:42, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: See Alex2006's explanation. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:48, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 August 2021

CHANGE: "That afternoon, at 17:00, he was summoned to the royal palace by Victor Emmanuel, who had already decided to oust Mussolini However, the Duce did not know of the monarch's intentions, who had placed an escort on him and had the government building surrounded by 200 carabinieri." TO: "That afternoon, at 17:00, he was summoned to the royal palace by Victor Emmanuel, who had already decided to oust Mussolini. However, the Duce did not know of the monarch's intentions, who had placed an escort on him and had the government building surrounded by 200 carabinieri." 2603:7080:B341:F000:7D97:3E96:A6D9:259E (talk) 03:21, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

 Done —Sirdog (talk) 03:34, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Mussolini’s Death

Mussolini was never killed by a firing squad. He was in stabbed with a Sabre. My grandfather was present at the time and took the photograph. He held onto that photograph secretly for 67 years and ber showed anybody hit release it to me on my 21st birthday and said I’d know what to do with it. The photograph had been privately evaluated and is authentic. I have the only know true photograph of his body and my grandfather and my family’s name deserves credit for it and the whole should see the truth about his this man died to rectify the mistake in history books. I’m making this a declaration before I make a prominent show of proof in case this message is removed. Gmayfield1983 (talk) 05:47, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Mussolini died from a fatal stab to the torso from a cutlass. The body was photographed by Leonard Mayfield of Shelton Lock, Derby and he kept the photograph hidden for 67 years until he relinquished it to his grandson on his 21st birthday proclaiming he would know what to do with it. His grandson, actor and filmmaker, Guy Mayfield, is now in sole ownership of the photograph which has since been authenticated as legitimate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gmayfield1983 (talk • contribs) 05:57, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Spin off page proposal for foreign policy?

I feel there might be some value in spinning off the foreign policy section which is getting rather long into its own page. This would also tie other pages such as the Ialian imperialism under fascism page together etc. Does anyone have any strong objections to this? Wearisometurtle (talk) 08:27, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 January 2022

Change the height to 5 foot 6 rather than 5 foot 7. Many other sources say 5 foot 6 and it makes way more sense considering he was a dictator and likely lied about it to make him seem more powerful. BigDevax (talk) 02:33, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. "He was probably a liar" is not a citation of a reliable source. General Ization ^Talk 04:36, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 September 2021

Remove the word "devout" used to describe Rosa Maltoni. She wasn't serious about her religion, else she'd have married another Catholic. Unlike his wife, Alessandro Mussolini did not believe in God and hated the Roman Catholic Church. Maltoni's father also looked down upon her decision to marry Alessandro Mussolini and did not approve of the marriage. (Source: Haugen, Brenda. Benito Mussolini: Fascist Italian Dictator. Minneapolis, Minnesota, US: Compass Point Books, 2007. Pp. 16.) 2402:3A80:CA8:E40C:846E:9D21:39C4:E620 (talk) 05:00, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

 Done I removed "devout Catholic", as the source simply says Mussolini was born in Predappio, near Forli, in Romagna, on July 29, 1883. His father, Alessandro, was a blacksmith, and his mother, Rosa, was a schoolteacher. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:57, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done Rosa Maltoni was a deeply devout catholic, who forced Alessandro Mussolini, who was an atheist, to get married in the church, and convinced him to baptize his son. I added a reliable source, the article about Mussolini at the DBI. The author is Emilio Gentile. Alex2006 (talk) 16:57, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

@Alessandro57: I disagree, that narrative just makes Rosa Maltoni a nominal Catholic for social reasons (White Wedding ceremony, etc.). Her son was baptized Catholic for social reasons, he became a militant atheist while he was still a child because of the influence of her anti-Catholic atheist husband. Italy was over 90% Catholic during this time period and a patriarchal society, but Rosa Maltoni disobeyed her own Catholic Italian father Giuseppe Maltoni (an educated veterinary surgeon) to marry an atheist when she had literally millions of Catholic Italian bachelors as an option for marriage.

First wife

Were they divorced, or was the marriage annulled? Or neither (i.e., his second marriage was a bigamous one)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.30.18.68 (talk) 21:45, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Neither divorced nor annulled, Mussolini concealed his first marriage (to Ida Dalser) from everyone, including his birth family. His second marriage (to Rachele Guidi) was therefore bigamous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2402:3A80:C9B:FFDC:DF80:169F:8714:118A (talk) 17:52, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 March 2022

move to top Newzap123 (talk) 16:18, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

If you were just requesting the sections you copy/pasted from the article be moved to the top,  Not done. The current ordering of the article is typical of Wikipedia articles. If there were specific changes you wished made in the block of text you copied, please point them out specifically. Cannolis (talk) 20:39, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

The information from the 2nd 'Further reading' tab should be merged with the information in the 1st 'Further reading' tab and the 2nd 'Further reading' tab should be removed

In my opinion, the information in the 2nd 'Further reading' tab should be merged with the information in the 1st 'Further reading' tab.

In addition once this has been done, the 2nd 'Further reading' tab should be removed as in my opinion it is pointless having 2 'Further reading' tabs within the article. Xboxsponge15 (talk) 13:41, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Suggestion for an additional citation under the Public Image section

Here's an interesting early angle from NYT back in 1922: https://www.nytimes.com/1922/11/05/archives/mussolini-hope-of-youth-italys-man-of-tomorrow-hard-work-his-creed.html?url=http%3A%2F%2Ftimesmachine.nytimes.com%2Ftimesmachine%2F1922%2F11%2F05%2F107079731.html%3FpageNumber%3D109

"MUSSOLINI, HOPE OF YOUTH, ITALY'S 'MAN OF TOMORROW' - HARD WORK HIS CREED - Scholar and Editor, Self Taught, Is Premier at Thirty-Eight ONCE A SOCIALIST LEADER Spectre of a Bolshevik Government Led Him to Organize Fascisti and Upset Cabinet.

By Alice Rohe

November 5, 1922

EVERYTHING is possible in Italy. The speaker was Benite [sic] Mussolini, the new Italian Premier; the place was Rome; the time— just the other day. Since then his words have become reality. He has been swept into the seats of the mighty on that overpowering wave of Fascismo. Just as Fascismo is a political phenomenon without parallel in history, so is Mussolini a leader without precedent. He is the political phenomenon of modern Italy, risen like a flame from the ashes of her cumbersome, confusing, parasite-covered bureaucratic régime.

To interview Benito Mussolini is not only to interview Italy’s “Man of the Hour,” but Italy’s “Man of Tomorrow.” He is that person, to the lack of whom Italy has long attributed her political misfortune—a strong man.

Mussolini has brought into the Italian situation that which it has lacked, and his achievements are proof of which discipline and organization, guided by an indomitable will, personal fearlessness, profound learning, straight thinking, [and] direct action can do."

2600:4040:780C:6F00:DDC:974F:58F:D61C (talk) 13:00, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

While it's a contemporaneous piece, is there anything it adds that we don't have coverage of in secondary sources that cover Mussolini's public image? Alternatively, are there any such sources that discuss that particular article? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 05:00, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 December 2022

I suggest substituting le line "by communist partisans" in the Death paragraph with " 52ª Brigata Garibaldi "Luigi Clerici"", as while the BGaribaldi Brigades were formally affiliated with the Communist Party, not all militants were communists. Silvia Elisa Costa (talk) 09:12, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Lemonaka (talk) 12:43, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Photograph in infobox

• 
  Image 1
• 
  Image 2
• 
  Image 3

Along the right side of the page are a few photos that users (including myself) seem to think would fit well in the infobox. I can't find a past RfC in the archives on this, so I figure I may as well open a discussion regarding which image might be best for the infobox. — Mhawk10 (talk) 20:56, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

• For disclosure: my personal preference would be Image 3, Image 1, and Image 2 in that order. I don't like the way that image 2 is taken from the side of Mussolini's face; the better images will tend to be straight-on. This leaves 1 and 3. Image 3, taken eight years into his regime, seems to capture his essence as a militaristic leader the best while also maintaining good image quality. Option 1 also portrays Mussolini in military apparel, but the shadow on the left side of his face carries over a bit too far; it starts to obscure his eye. Mussolini is not looking at the camera in Image 2 and we really don't see all that much of his face; the near side of his face is largely shadow while the far side of his face is obscured because of the camera angle. — Mhawk10 (talk) 21:04, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

  Image 3 looks like a piece of propaganda meant to glorify him, picture 1 and 2 are a lot more neutral. Seeing imagine 3 on his page is jarring. 73.66.22.10 (talk) 21:31, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Images 1 or 2, as it also shows the uniform + insignia of the era, instead of the suit. Ant888nsmb2 (talk) 03:07, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Absent input from anybody else, it looks like Image 1 should work, then. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 05:08, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

I also agree that Image 1 is the most encyclopedic. I'll go ahead and make the change since it looks like that's the rough consensus here. Generalrelative (talk) 22:54, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

I prefer image 2 as it looks more formal and neutral in my opinion GodzillamanRor (talk) 12:44, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Seconded, per MOS:PORTRAIT. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 03:19, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 January 2023

Delete "In 1921, Mussolini won election to the Chamber of Deputies for the first time.", as it is false. His party was third (out of 3) in the 1921 elections. Source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1921_Italian_general_election 37.163.31.82 (talk) 12:01, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: "Mussolini won election" means that he, personally, won a seat in the Chamber, not that his party won the election. Favonian (talk) 12:35, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Grammatical point

"had costed"? 4th or 5th paragraph blooper, had cost! 82.81.45.103 (talk) 04:25, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Agree. "Costed" is not a word in English. The past tense of "cost" is "cost". Armadillo Ocean (talk) 11:41, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Anarchy it is used in the wrong sense

Anarchy it is used in the wrong sense in this article 213.233.108.28 (talk) 04:13, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Suspicious information about the Acerbo law

Currently, the "Acerbo Law" subsection claims that this law "granted a two-thirds majority of the seats in Parliament to the party or group of parties that received at least 25% of the votes". This is suspicious: what if there are at least 2 alliances gaining, each, 25% of the votes? Does each of them receive a 2/3 majority of the seats? This would clearly be mathematically impossible.

Furthermore, this subsection cites the document "Italy and the Antitrust Law: an Efficient Delay?" by Federico Boffa, but I have not been able to find any mention therein of the provision of the law in the terms described above.

In light of the above, I suggest to completely delete the sentence "It also granted a two-thirds majority of the seats in Parliament to the party or group of parties that received at least 25% of the votes", since it seems to be factually wrong. 109.98.44.53 (talk) 12:40, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 July 2023

In the "Foreign policy" subsection, it is currently written: "[...] ordering every Italian woman to double the number of children that they were willing to bear".

Given that the sentence is about women (in the singular), please change "they" into "she"'.

Alternatively, keep the "they" pronoun, but then please change the singular "woman" into the plural "women".

Either change is correct, but the current formulation is not. 109.98.44.53 (talk) 14:32, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

 Done, thanks! Alex2006 (talk) 17:27, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Infobox

Shouldn't the image in this article's infobox be dated, as is the case with almost every other biography on Wikipedia? 147.147.205.222 (talk) 23:18, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

The date is not known. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 19:15, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 October 2023

Please decapitalize "Prime Minister" for not following MOS:JOBTITLE. 112.204.199.9 (talk) 11:11, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: It is used correctly, e.g., Theresa May became Prime Minister of the United Kingdom in 2016. Hyphenation Expert (talk) 13:22, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Lead image again

There's been some back and forth over the lead image again, so I figured it couldn't hurt to open up a new discussion thread. This was last discussed a couple years ago (here) but no clear consensus was achieved.

For reference, here are the two images that have recently been used:

• 
  Image 1
• 
  Image 2

I'm not crazy about either of them, frankly, and have no strong opinion as to which is better. But I see that others do have opinions on the matter, so it would be good to try to establish a consensus if possible. Generalrelative (talk) 01:14, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

In my opinion, 1 looks more neutral, 2 looks like a piece of propaganda. ალექსანდროს (talk) 06:07, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Image 1 has an annoying background, which ruins the image; that’s the simple reason I reverted it. Articles on high-profile individuals are never allowed to have images with bad backgrounds. Trakking (talk) 08:18, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

There is nothing propagandistic about the second image, which looks like any old black-and-white photo. It would have been ”propaganda” if he was wearing a crown, standing under a banner reading «our noble Caesar». If anything, the first image is more propagandistic since it portrays him as some kind of high-ranking military commander. In reality, both Mussolini and Hitler were only corporals—one of the lowest military ranks. Their primary talent was oratorical demagoguery. Trakking (talk) 10:35, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree. Propaganda can be subtle, and Image 2 is clearly less neutral than Image 1. Jtbwikiman (talk) 00:28, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

I vote for Image 1. The second image has his profile partly shrouded by shadow.Emiya1980 (talk) 22:56, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

@Nick.mon, M. Armando, Barjimoa, and Rjensen:Emiya1980 (talk) 23:05, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

voting for image 2 as it looks better as portrait. Shadow4dark (talk) 10:38, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

@Alessandro57, Yakme, Anteosaurus magnificus, HangingCurve, Rrburke, Anthony22, and A.S. Brown: Any thoughts on this issue?Emiya1980 (talk) 08:45, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

The second is a classic photo of Mussolini as he wanted to be seen (grim look, jaw out: this pose has been the subject of countless satirical drawings abroad), while the first shows him as he actually was. Since Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral, I say number one (although there are better photos around). Alex2006 (talk) 12:47, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Infobox Picture

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 of the following images should serve as the infobox picture for Benito Mussolini?

• 
  A (Current Image)
• 
  B
• 
  B2
• 
  C
• 
  D
• 
  E
• 
  F

Emiya1980 (talk) 02:15, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

@DrKay, Lightiggy, Spf121188, Gennarous, R-41, Shanes, John, Kinneyboy90, Mkpumphrey, Kurt Leyman, Conte di Cavour, Nick Graves, LahmacunKebab, Attilios, and Mvaldemar:Emiya1980 (talk) 06:05, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

The current image is fine; B is alright as well. C and D have bad backgrounds. E is taken from an awkward angle. Trakking (talk) 02:57, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

• Prefer D since it's in color, is sensibly illustrative, and not contrived or weird like E. After that, probably A, C, B, E in decreasing order. PS: A background that doesn't happen to be completely blank is not "bad". There is no image policy or guidelines basis for such a mis-assessment. Thousands and thousands of our bio articles have photos that are "natural" shots with real-life background elements in them instead of being artificially posed ones with blank or "haloing" background screens. Not only is this not faulty, an argument can be made that the natural ones are preferable.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:03, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
• NOTA Are these really the best free images of Mussolini that exist?? To be frank all of these are terrible. A and D have tiny resolutions, B and C are quite grainy, and E is a side-profile. With D, I'd also like to know if it is colorized/re-colorized; a reverse image search shows many different variations, which is concerning. Curbon7 (talk) 04:22, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

  Curbon7 You're free to provide an alternative.Emiya1980 (talk) 06:32, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

  The Library of Congress has a large collection of negatives of Mussolini here. I'm sure other such repositories have similar. Curbon7 (talk) 06:51, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

  Upload some to Wikimedia Commons then.Emiya1980 (talk) 20:51, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

  You're the RfC starter, you should have been better prepared for such a response when all the presented options are so lacking. Curbon7 (talk) 20:58, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

  That's your opinion.Emiya1980 (talk) 21:01, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

  One that I share. Taking this kind of hostile posture toward RfC respondents is unproductive, and you should know better. No one is obligated to satisfy you, especially since you are the one who claims that the current image isn't good enough. You've been told how to find potentially better ones, and the onus is not on someone else to go do that for you.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:19, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

  If one has a problem with the more than 5 choices I originally provided (one of which you were originally in favor of I might add), they are welcome to add their own alternative. There is nothing overtly hostile about pointing that out. As a matter of fact, Curbon7 did set forth his own alternative and I allowed for its inclusion in the list of options without any argument. Perhaps you should have checked that out before offering your unsolicited opinion on the matter. Emiya1980 (talk) 22:27, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

  If D is a recolor (which it almost certainly is, the original seems to have been printed on Agfacolor by Henri Roger-Viollet in 1940 (possible original)), the question becomes if it is a sufficiently neutral recolor, which is a frequent issue with colorizations of Axis figures of this era. Curbon7 (talk) 21:35, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

  It's not uncommon for old color photos to be color-graded for use at WP or other projects via Commons. I'm not sure what kind of "neutrality" question could come up about this one.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:28, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

  It is important to question the accuracy of colorizations of the photos of Nazi and fascist figures, as some of these colorizations can be completely ludicrous and overly symbological (some examples on K.e. coffman's userpage). Curbon7 (talk) 21:01, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

  Note I have found a better quality and higher resolution version of B (c:File:Benito Mussolini 1930 (alt).jpg). I think it is quite an improvement and am leaning towards it. Curbon7 (talk) 05:42, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

• I prefer either B or D.Emiya1980 (talk) 21:06, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

  @Alessandro57, Yakme, Anteosaurus magnificus, HangingCurve, Rrburke, Anthony22, and A.S. Brown: Which image do you think should serve as the infobox picture for the Mussolini article?Emiya1980 (talk) 21:04, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

  @Generalrelative, Shadow4dark, Alex2006, and ალექსანდროს:Emiya1980 (talk) 04:35, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

  @Neveselbert, Rjensen, and Favonian:Emiya1980 (talk) 04:59, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

  @Barjimoa,M.Armondo, and Nick.mon Which image should serve as the infobox picture for Benito Mussolini?

• A since the alternatives are not a real improvement to the status quo. Nemov (talk) 01:55, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
• A, per reasons stated above and no good reason to change. Traumnovelle (talk) 03:19, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
• A since the alternatives are not a real improvement, all are flawed in one way or another.Pincrete (talk) 03:41, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

  Agree with @PincretePincrete, maybe the color version would be a slight upgrade, but why not just go with what Italian wiki uses. MaximusEditor (talk) 17:42, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

  MaximusEditor The Italian wikipedia uses F.Emiya1980 (talk) 07:51, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you for the clarifying comment, I will cast a vote towards F. I think consistency across the board has its advantages. MaximusEditor (talk) 22:19, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Note the Italian Wikipedia using this one https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mussolini_mezzobusto.jpg Shadow4dark (talk) 04:46, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Shadow4dark Image added.Emiya1980 (talk) 05:02, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

voting for F as the others are no improvement for the current image. Changing my vote to A Shadow4dark (talk) 05:04, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Adding even more options just makes this a bigger mess for the closer. Nemov (talk) 13:12, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

D is best for an idea of what Italians were forced to see every day . Rjensen (talk) 05:45, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

@Barjimoa,M.Armondo, Nick.mon, ალექსანდროს & Generalrelative Which of the images listed above should serve as the infobox picture for Benito Mussolini?Emiya1980 (talk) 05:26, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

M. Armando See above question.Emiya1980 (talk) 05:53, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

• C - for the key reason that, even though it was taken with Hitler in an official capacity, it is arguably among these photos the least controlled and manipulated one, i.e. the one that does not fully succeed in projecting a propaganda message. A simple visual reproduction of propaganda would contravene NPOV and none of the images manage to avoid this as they are sourced from either Fascist or Nazi official sources. Ideally a non-propagandistic photo should be found but that seems unlikely. If not C, then I would favour F (the pose corresponds to a school photo of 14-year-old Mussolini who was not a fascist yet). A and D are the worst offenders, both project an image of a visionary statesman and D is from the Nazi press targeting occupied Europe. The "jawsplaying" and the effect of emerging from a dark background in A is standard Mussolini visual self-promotion. VampaVampa (talk) 23:36, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
• B2 As the highest quality and resolution version available. Curbon7 (talk) 23:52, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

  I think the status quo is also acceptable. It's fine enough for now. Curbon7 (talk) 21:06, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

References

• B or D: Both seems to be offical portraits, with one adding colour a part of history we only see in black and white. Cossde (talk) 15:28, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Here's my tally of the vote so far.

A-Pincrete, Nemov, Shadow4dark, Traumnovelle, Trakking

B/D-Cossde, SMcCandlish, Rjensen, Emiya1980

B2-Curbon7

C : VampaVampa, Alex2006, ალექსანდროს

F : MaximusEditor

Emiya1980 (talk) 21:06, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Consensus is not determined by counting votes per WP:CON. Nemov (talk) 21:12, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

To second what Nemov said, it would be more useful to have a shortlist of arguments advanced in favour or against each. VampaVampa (talk) 23:34, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

If you look above,arguments have already been advanced for each position. Emiya1980 (talk) 23:57, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps they ought to be addressed each in its turn for a consensus to be reached. That is why I suggested bringing them together for easier reference. VampaVampa (talk) 05:24, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

C or F, concurring with VampaVampa that they are the least 'propagandised' images from an NPOV perspective. AlexandraAVX (talk) 20:05, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

As previously indicated by Szmenderowiecki, Choices (E) and (F) have failed to gain much traction since this Rfc was opened over 3 weeks ago. For this reason, I have removed them from the range of choices available in order to help bring this debate to a conclusion. With that being said, please set forth which image option you prefer below.

• 
  A (Current Image)
• 
  B
• 
  B2
• 
  C
• 
  D

Emiya1980 (talk) 16:51, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Since, my original vote "F" was removed, I suppose I would just say to stick with the current pic, any picture would honestly due. MaximusEditor (talk) 00:47, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

@Pincrete, VampaVampa, AlexandraAVX, Curbon7, MaximusEditor, Cossde, SMcCandlish, Rjensen, Nemov, Shadow4dark, Traumnovelle, Alessandro57, Generalrelative, ალექსანდროს, Nick.mon, Yakme, Anteosaurus magnificus, HangingCurve, Rrburke, Anthony22, A.S. Brown, Barjimoa, M. Armando, Beyond My Ken, DrKay, Lightiggy, Spf121188, Gennarous, R-41, Shanes, John, Kinneyboy90, Mkpumphrey, Kurt Leyman, Conte di Cavour, Nick Graves, LahmacunKebab, Attilios, and Mvaldemar: See above.Emiya1980 (talk) 17:03, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Please stop pinging me. There's sufficient support for the status quo to close this RFC and save everyone the time. Nemov (talk) 17:11, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, on both counts. As I stated above, I don't have any strong opinions on the matter, but A is fine. It looks like all the available images are less than ideal in one way or another, and we're not approaching an alternative consensus here. I say close as "no consensus" and keep the status quo for the time being. Generalrelative (talk) 18:53, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Generalrelative You have the right to vote for the status quo. However, in light of the number of editors who have voice opinions in opposition to it, closing the Rfc would be premature. Emiya1980 (talk) 18:58, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Nemov Your opinion has already been noted. Now do me a favor and shut up. Emiya1980 (talk) 18:58, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

My last two comments were after you pinged me. It would be wise of you to strike this comment. Nemov (talk) 19:02, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

You first, Nemov.Emiya1980 (talk) 19:28, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Um, no, you were irrationally and grossly uncivil to Nemov, for no reason. Nemov has nothing to strike or apologize for, having simply asked you to stop pinging, which is a reasonable request.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:04, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

I had wanted to avoid discussing this issue any further on this page. However, seeing as how yet another editor has seen fit to pile on, I see I have little choice but to address the issue directly. The comment I made to which you are referring (while admittedly rude) did not arise in a vacuum. On at least two prior instances, Nemov has openly accused me in the middle of an Rfc thread of wasting other editors’ time while trying to solicit opinions toward a consensus (see the ongoing Rfc on Frederick the Great’s talk page for more evidence). Based on my reading of the essay on civility, such comments are not in accord with its guidelines on politeness and courtesy either. While I admit to the uncivil nature of my prior comment on this page, Nemov (and any other editor taking his side for that matter) should take his comments into consideration before leaping to judgment against me as the only one deserving of correction. Emiya1980 (talk) 23:43, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

To all other viewers of the thread, I apologize for the argument between myself and Nemov above. Since it only serves to disrupt the Rfc, I have already attempted to strike it but have been prohibited from doing so. Feel free to post your opinions and any objections you may have to the Rfc on this thread. However, please avoid personal attacks or other examples of incivility. For purposes of this Rfc, I think it would be constructive for everyone to take this into account. Thank you.Emiya1980 (talk) 21:32, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

You are free to strike your own comments, Emiya1980. Generalrelative (talk) 21:26, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

I have nothing more to say regarding this matter, Generalrelative. Please confine all future comments on this thread to those relevant to the Rfc. Thank you. Emiya1980 (talk) 21:37, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

For the record, I am not opposed to the status quo picture, it being among one of my acceptable versions, even if I somewhat prefer another.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:04, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

SMcCandlish So you prefer A over the other options presented?Emiya1980 (talk) 01:39, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Try actually reading what I wrote, maybe? How was I somewhat prefer another unclear? Repeat: Prefer D since it's in color, is sensibly illustrative, and not contrived or weird like E. After that, probably A, C, B, E in decreasing order. It's not necessary for you in particular to understand personally which version someone else prefers and to keep trying to enumerate them. That kind of activity at an RfC is not helpful or constructive. It is the role of the closer to assess the consensus level of the available options (though it's rather obvious this will be "no consensus" at this point and thus default to the status quo.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:25, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

I did read what you wrote. Your post was ambiguous. It sounded like you were voting for the status quo notwithstanding your prior preferences to the contrary. Any objective editor looking to close would find such clarification helpful in that regard. Emiya1980 (talk) 22:02, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

• A or C, but I see no strong rationale for changing the status quo. I specifically reject B and B2 as inferior in quality. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:41, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
• @Stephen Burnett, Lacatosias, RedRabbit1983, Onorem, Tri Ardiansyah, YellowMonkey, Improv, Ian Spackman, and Brothernight: Please indicate which of the images listed above you would prefer as the infobox picture for Benito Mussolini. Your contribution towards any of the aforementioned choices would be appreciated. Thank you.Emiya1980 (talk) 18:05, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

@Rich Farmbrough, Utcatdad, Scolaire, DancingPhilosopher, Ittahad-Man, Sein und Zeit, and Cmguy777: See above.Emiya1980 (talk) 18:17, 15 June 2024 (UTC)M

@Director, MauroVan, Xianxxx, Carl.bunderson, Pistolpierre, and Kelisi:Emiya1980 (talk) 19:40, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

@Enok, Cberlet, Lucifero4, Jpgordon, and Dahn:Emiya1980 (talk) 19:54, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Whichever you dislike; this mass pinging is distasteful. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 20:58, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

I do not know why I have been pinged. But the best image, imo, is the current image A. It's a close-up, and not wearing a hat. You see his whole face. Mussolini looks intimidating. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:15, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Nor do I, and A will do fine.Kelisi (talk) 19:55, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

There is a serious reason to change the status quo image, which is that it contravenes the policy on the neutral point of view - or are images exempt from it? As explained above with reference to a reliable source, options A and D speak the visual language of the Mussolini regime. Each of them asserts - either explicitly (original caption for D) or implicitly (scholarly interpretation of A) - that Mussolini was a visionary statesman. Such a notion obviously does not prevail in current scholarship. The status quo image, if it is to have a place in the article, needs a caption informing of its propaganda message. VampaVampa (talk) 09:50, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

VampaVampa makes a good point. There has already been a good deal of discussion among editors about avoiding the use of propagandistic or otherwise flattering portraits as lede images for Nazis. If we're going to apply such a standard to leaders of the Third Reich, it makes little sense to use a flattering portrait in the lede for the likes of Mussolini, a mass-murdering dictator and a Nazi collaborator. In my opinion, A and both versions of B are the worst offenders in this regard. Both (to varying degrees) depict Mussolini as he wanted to be seen: an overlord and messiah worthy of fear and/or adoration by the masses. Conversely, while there was undoubtedly a propagandistic purpose behind its creation, D's nature as a tool designed to glorify its subject matter is significantly less pronounced thereby making the image more open to interpretation by an objective viewer. While one could argue it depicts Mussolini as a mighty general ready to take on the world, one could likewise argue it merely depicts him as a megalomaniacal despot trying to look tough in military garb. With that being said, C is probably the most objective of the portrayals listed above.Emiya1980 (talk) 18:53, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

D merely depicts him as a megalomaniacal despot trying to look tough in military garb - I think you hit the nail on its head with regard to D here, and helped me realise the limitation of my argument. In assessing appropriateness one needs to take today's perceptions into account. Photo D, while designed to be a piece of blatant propaganda, has not aged well - to the point of looking cartoonish. That could be a argument in favour of D - it is at once official and unflattering by today's standards. By contrast, A still has a positive appeal to the contemporary viewer and should be opposed all the more. I can't figure out B, but while grim it is likely to exert uncritical fascination. VampaVampa (talk) 20:20, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

I certainly understand your point and agree with it to an extent, but I think you're leaning on it a bit too hard. We should strive to use the best quality image that is most representative of the subject, while also keeping due weight in mind. We do often use images for figures which are rooted in propaganda, like c:File:Che Guevara - Guerrillero Heroico by Alberto Korda.jpg and c:File:Mao Zedong in 1959 (cropped).jpg; in the opposite vein, we avoid c:File:Kim Il Sung Portrait-3.jpg because even though it is a famous image it is wildly inaccurate to how he actually looked. Curbon7 (talk) 22:24, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

@Curbon7: Even applying the standard of "best quality image", the status quo image falls short though. Almost half of Mussolini's head is shrouded in shadow, obscuring his profile. Both C and D are better-quality images.Emiya1980 (talk) 19:42, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Well yes I was just speaking in general about the neutrality point. Curbon7 (talk) 20:49, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Well, if Che Guevara and Mao Zedong articles use propaganda images, I think that is an argument to change them. I appreciate that you found those examples, I am baffled that Che Guevara would be depicted in the most cliched way possible on Wikipedia - that is not an informative image for an encyclopedia to use, unless the subject is propaganda or perceptions of the subject. There is a much better realistic image of Guevara in another section of that article.

In general I think it would be counterproductive for the participants in this RfC to spend time reflecting on the possible options in this discussion only to default to a usage based on popularity. VampaVampa (talk) 15:17, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

@VampaVampa: I don't think it's necessary to make an argument in favor of changing the lede images for Che Guevara and Mao Zedong on top of Mussolini. While it is true the images used for said articles were originally created for propaganda purposes, they are nonetheless good-quality images and do not significantly alter how the figures appeared in real life for the sake of enhancing their standing. Conversely, the present image of Benito Mussolini fails on both counts. Not only is it an image of inferior quality to the other choices presented, it partly obscures Mussolini's profile for the sake of lending him an otherworldly, messianic mystique. The combination of such factors make this one of the worst possible image choices for the lede.Emiya1980 (talk) 21:47, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

• D > B2 > B1 > A > C > E > F. The photo should be front-facing, well-exposed and ideally less contrived-feeling where possible (per SMcCandlish). I prefer the uniform to not. This is all ultimately just weighted preferences, because none of them is perfect on all fronts, but the coloured photo achieves best on most factors. — HTGS (talk) 22:25, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
• A Still looks best as formal portrait, he does not wear uniform and the picture it not heavy cutted. Shadow4dark (talk) 11:25, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
• A is fine for the same reasons it was introduced years and years ago by us Olds ;). It's the official portrait as Prime Minister (i.e. the highest actual office), it's good quality, the mug is well displayed, etc etc. The current suggestions do not depict more of said mug, but less. I will also add that piling on 16 alternatives alongside the "incumbent" is perhaps a bit WP:GAMEY: should have proposed a change (itc an alternative portrait) and let contributors weight it up against the status quo, but ok.. Director (talk) 03:23, 22 June 2024 (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.