Jump to content

Talk:Death of Benito Mussolini/Archive 1

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

Contested deletion

This article should not be speedy deleted as being recently created, having no relevant page history and duplicating an existing English Wikipedia topic, because the circumstances of Mussolini's death is a subject of controversy with its own historiography (citations for that in the article). Rather like Death of Adolf Hitler (which is a GA) there is too much material (which would become UNDUE) to include in the main article Benito Mussolini. For instance, there are disputes over by what authority and who gave the order for summary execution and there are at least 12 candidates as to who did the shooting. I created the article less than 10 hours ago - and am still working on expanding the post-war section to go into detail on the historiography of the dispute as well as filling out the different conflicting accounts of the shooting and the different proposed killers. But already the material in this article is too detailed on the issue of how the shooting happened and who ordered it to go into the main article. There the current two paragraphs on the death is an appropriate length to give the outline facts: anymore would be UNDUE in the conext of that article. --DeCausa (talk) 09:21, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

For info, this is I post a made to the proposer's Talk page: "I'm quite surprised that you've nominated the above for speedy deletion less than half an hour after I created it. I've posted my response contesting it on the talk page. I really don't see how the myriad of disputes over who gave the order and who carried ot the shooting plus coverage of the post-war histriography, with its polical controversy, can be covered in the Benito Mussolini article without it becoming WP:UNDUE. Anyway, I've put the article up with the basic information on it and will be expanding over the next few days." DeCausa (talk) 09:31, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

  • I agree, this article should be retained. Mussolini's death was a pretty significant event for the people of Italy — sort of like the coup de grâce of Italian Fascism. The circumstances surrounding it have always been, and remain, controversial. Kurtis (talk) 09:44, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
I thought about that long and hard and decided to put it in because it's illustrative of the intense disrepect his body was publicly subject to. In this instance the mockingly macabre act of placing him arm in arm with Petacci. This disrespect, as noted in the article, had a political element because of the use of his body in fascist propaganda during his rule. Also, that particular image has been discussed in the sources and is notable - it's referenced in the article text with one of those sources cited. I think all of that outweighs the "icky" aspect. But if consensus posted here suggests the general view is that it is gratuitous and/or sensationalist (for instance) then of course I would respect the decision to take it out. DeCausa (talk) 11:30, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Requested move

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: consensus to move the page, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 06:41, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Mussolini's death → Death of Benito Mussolini – On BLP's where the subject has a separate article about their death, the given title is always "Death of ".Qxukhgiels (talk) 21:17, 7 November 2014 (UTC) Qxukhgiels (talk) 21:17, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Oppose per WP:CONCISE this title is appropriate and there is no risk of ambiguity. DeCausa (talk) 23:18, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
@Qxukhgiels: whilst I'm not that bothered about the title (which to me is rather a trivial issue which doesn't much matter - I'm much more interested in creating the article, which I've been focused on for the last week) I'm not letting you get away with that nonsense. Blaming the title for your incompetent nomination for deletion is ridiculous. You nominated it 20 minutes after I created it. Although I still had much work to do on it it was already at that point a substantial article with clearly a large amount material not in the main article. Are you saying that you nominated it without reading it? That can be the only explanation. And then you say the title misled you into doing it. Huh?!! How does "Death of Benito Mussolini" show a different scope to "Mussolini's death"? And what was that crack about an "inexperienced user". You obviously haven't checked out my contibs/edit count. I see you are only at 3k edits. Ironic. A quick check would have told you that I'm a rdgular with much more experience than you - it would have been courteous to engage with me on both the deletion or the article name before lurching into your preremptory actions. Very big AGF failure on your part. DeCausa (talk) 20:12, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
No I read the article, and at the time it didn't seem a noteworthy split. But you've since expanded it. You obviously are experienced but I find it strange that you would choose not to comply with these norms- usually a sign of an inexperienced user. Not an issue now. Also, the above statement might be a bit borderline.Qxukhgiels (talk) 20:25, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
I think you've been extremely '"borderline" frankly. I hadn't expanded it when only a few hours later an admin took off your speedy tag. It was already at 11kb in size. It was clearly nothing like the few lines on the subject in the main article. DeCausa (talk) 20:42, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Speedy deletion is only for pages that unambiguously fall into one of the categories listed at CSD. While I may not necessarily agree with DeCausa's tone either, he is right on the merits of his defense. Nominating a new article which looks like this for speedy deletion is both counterproductive and insensitive to those who work hard at contributing new content. If I were in his position, I'd be offended too. Also, A10 does not apply to articles that expand upon information covered elsewhere. Kurtis (talk) 01:24, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
I guess I should apologise for my tone. My irritation was excacerbated by Qxukhgiels moving the article title the following day without any discussion when I was right in the middle of expanding it. Normally, at that stage one would expect to discuss it beforehand with the creator, just as a matter of courtesy. I reverted it and asked him to to discuss it first. Then instead of discussing it with me, he immediately went to this move request! DeCausa (talk) 07:44, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Eh, don't worry about it. I could tell you were very frustrated with the situation (I would be too), so it's different than if you were being approached diplomatically about a minor disagreement. Kurtis (talk) 07:27, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

GA Review

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.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Death of Benito Mussolini/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Calvin999 (talk · contribs) 11:02, 18 March 2015 (UTC)


Lead
  • but met with military failure. → who/why/what was he met by?
Could you clarify? I'm not sure I understand the query. "Met with failure" is a common idiom meaning "failed". Is there an WP:ENGVAR issue perhaps? DeCausa (talk) 16:38, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
i mean why was he met with military failure. Did he just turn up and fail? It's just not very clearly.  — ₳aron 18:19, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
  • On 25 April he fled Milan, where he had been based, → Should it be "fled back to" or "returned to" as he used to be based there?
No, he left Milan - he wasn't returning to it. DeCausa (talk) 16:38, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Ah sorry I was mistreating the sentence. I thought you mean he was fleeing back to where he was already based, which obviously doesn't make sense, but he is fleeing from Milan where he was based to Switzerland. My bad!  — ₳aron 18:19, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
  • two days before Hitler's suicide. → As this is the first mention of Hitler, it should be Adolf Hitler
Done. DeCausa (talk) 16:38, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
  • At least twelve different individuals have, at different times, → repetition of 'different'
Changed second "different" to various. DeCausa (talk) 16:38, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Preceding events - Background
  • World War II should be linked
Done. DeCausa (talk)
  • on Lake Garda. → at Lake Garda (on implies physically on the lake)
Changed "on" to "near". DeCausa (talk) 16:38, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Rome should be linked as it's the first mention
Done. DeCausa (talk) 16:38, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
  • CLNAI → This can be written in full and linked here, with the abbreviation in brackets after. The note can stay there, too.
Done. DeCausa (talk) 16:38, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Having read the bit about Milan in this section, it doesn't quite match up to the fleeing bit in the lead.
Not sure I understand. It matches as far as I can see. As explained above he didn't flee "back" to Milan.
I think it just links to what I just said above about it. Don't worry about it.  — ₳aron 18:19, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Is there a reason for the fourth paragraph having a break mid sentence and continuing two lines down?
Yes, the two lines are a quote. Originally, I had quotation marks around the two lines to make it clear it was a quote but a user recently took them out, citing MOS:QUOTE. Indeed, having checked MOS:QUOTE, that does seem to be the MOS requirement - although I personally would prefer to have the quote marks. DeCausa (talk) 16:38, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
But:

On the same day as Mussolini left Milan, the CNLAI issued a degree declaring the death penalty for

the members of the fascist government and those fascist leaders who are guilty of having suppressed constitutional guarantees, destroyed the people's freedoms, created the fascist regime, compromised and betrayed the country, bringing it to the current catastrophe.[10]

doesn't look right. That's not a quote is it? See what I mean? Should it be:

On the same day as Mussolini left Milan, the CNLAI issued a degree declaring the death penalty for the members of the fascist government and those fascist leaders who are guilty of having suppressed constitutional guarantees, destroyed the people's freedoms, created the fascist regime, compromised and betrayed the country, bringing it to the current catastrophe.[10]

? This doesn't work as a block quote because of the picture on the left hand side, it doesn't look indented because of the picture. That's why it looks like a broken up sentence. Either the picture has to be removed or go somewhere on the left, of the block quote can just be quoted in a normal sentence and not a block quote. To be honest, I wouldn't use a block quote unless it was several sentences long, that is what it is for. It's not for one line or one sentence.  — ₳aron 18:19, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

But it is actually a quote - it's the wording of the decree verbatim. On my screen I don't have a pic on the left effecting the indent. I thought two and half lines was enough for a block quote but if it simplifies things I'll take it into the paragraph and put quotes around it. DeCausa (talk) 20:22, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Ah okay. It must be my screen width, because the picture is interring with the block quote, so it doesn't look indented because the quote is next to the picture. It might be worth putting it into a quote box perhaps? because others will have my problem.  — ₳aron 20:31, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Done DeCausa (talk) 09:32, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Background - Capture and arrest
  • Again, "Lazzaro later said that" just ends and it carries on two lines down
It's a quote - see above response about MOS:QUOTE DeCausa (talk) 16:38, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
This instance, it should have a : after "said that", and the quote of the quote could be capitalised.  — ₳aron 18:19, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Done DeCausa (talk) 09:40, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  • would be summarily shot → What do you mean by summarily?
"Summarily" means immediately, without formalities. See this DeCausa (talk) 16:38, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Then perhaps used "immediately".  — ₳aron 18:19, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
That wouldn't really cover it. It also means without due process. Would it help if I pipe linked it to our article on Summary execution? DeCausa (talk) 20:22, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Yeah that's a good idea.  — ₳aron 20:31, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Done DeCausa (talk) 09:35, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Background - Order to execute
  • claimed that prior to Mussolini's capture he had given the order, by a radio message on 26 April 1945, with the words: → I think the comma is misplaced here, when you read it out loud, it sounds like it should be after 'capture'
I think grammatically it needs both commas, and actually a third one. The problem is there's too much in the sentence with two many sub-clauses. I've split it up and replaced it with "Palmiro Togliatti, the Secretary-General of the Communist Party, claimed that he had ordered Mussolini's execution prior to his capture. Togliatti said he had done so by a radio message on 26 April 1945 with the words:..." I think that's simpler and clearer. DeCausa (talk) 17:02, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
  • he said that he had done so in his capacity as deputy prime minister of the Bonomi government in Rome and as leader of the Communist Party. Ivanoe Bonomi, the prime minister, → Slightly repetitive. SHouldn't his full name be used first, then surname second instance?
Changed to "He also claimed that he had given the order as deputy prime minister of the government in Rome and as leader of the Communist Party. Ivanoe Bonomi, the prime minister, ..." DeCausa (talk) 17:13, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Execution
  • There should be citations at the end of each sentence, not just grouped together at the end. Also proposes concern of WP:OVERCITE
Done DeCausa (talk) 12:59, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Urbano Lazzaro later denied that such a tribunal had been convened and said → why does this just end?
Again, it's a quote. See above comments on MOS:QUOTE. DeCausa (talk) 17:15, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Put a : after "said"  — ₳aron 18:19, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Done DeCausa (talk) 09:38, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Subsequent events - Piazzale Loreto
  • Comma needed after 28 April
Done DeCausa (talk) 17:25, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
  • The bodies of Mussolini, Petacci and the others → Their bodies
Done DeCausa (talk) 17:25, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
  • 9:00 am → 9am or 09:00
Done DeCausa (talk) 17:25, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
  • After a while, the bodies of Mussolini, Petacci and others were → After a while, the bodies
Done DeCausa (talk) 17:25, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Subsequent events - Morgue and autopsy
  • 2:00 pm → 2pm or 14:00
Done DeCausa (talk) 17:25, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Post-war controversy - Reception of Audisio's version
  • Audisio himself did not speak publicly about it, until he published → I don't think a comma is needed here
Removed. DeCausa (talk) 09:43, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Although his account most probably is built around the facts, it was certainly embellished. → An example of why citations need to be at the end of each sentence.
Done DeCausa (talk) 12:59, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  • it was certainly embellished. The discrepancies and obvious embellishments → Repetition of 'embellish'
Changed "embellishments" to "exaggerations". DeCausa (talk) 10:42, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Post-war controversy - The "English hypothesis"
  • Shouldn't it be "the British hypothesis"? As you refer to Britain in this section, not England.
Changed to "British" DeCausa (talk) 10:42, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  • and even that it was ordered → and that it may have even been ordered
Done DeCausa (talk) 10:42, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Link Churchill in his picture
Done DeCausa (talk) 10:42, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Outcome

Interesting article to read. I'm going to Switzerland in a few weeks and after reading this I'd like to visit the assassination place. On hold for 7 days. I have more than 2,300 articles in my watch list so ping me or leave a message on my talk in case I don't see responses here.  — ₳aron 18:39, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Passing.  — ₳aron 10:52, 24 March 2015 (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.

Official vs "Official"

Labeling the official narrative of his death with quotation marks around "official" implies that that is not actually the official version, i.e. that the majority of reliable sources also view it as dubious. This is not the case. Even within the article it says numerous times that the "official" story is widely accepted and uncontested. Thus, the view that the official story should be doubted is by definition a fringe belief, and as per WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE we must represent the accepted majority view, which would be to NOT add the implication of doubt by use of quotations. UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 13:16, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

It's not the "official" version because there isn't one! The issue is that the sources themselves use the word in quotes even though they don't doubt that that is the correct narrative. That's because it isn't actually "official" in the sense of the result of a government investigation or official position: that has never happened and the Italian state has not pronounced on it "officially". What it does mean is it has been accepted by the Italian establishment and mainstream media i.e it's quasi-official. Because the English-language sources are using official in quotes to mean "generally accepted", we must do the same absent a genuinely official i.e. governmental pronouncement. It's not about doubting the credibility of the narrative. DeCausa (talk) 14:40, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
If that is the case then I think that the word ("official") should be changed to the phrase (generally accepted), without quotes, because there is a generally accepted consensus. The policy at Wikipedia is to represent the broad consensus on a topic, and if as you pointed out the term ("official") only occurs in one source then we should not be using that single source's terminology because that would give undue weight to the interpretation of a single author over the broad consensus amongst historians. Does that make sense? That is why, for instance, on the Lee Harvey Oswald page, it says he "was the sniper who assassinated John F Kennedy" rather than saying he was "allegedly the sniper who..." or something along those lines. While you could easily find sources that would support the implication that his role is merely alleged, the accepted consensus is that he was the lone gunman and thus Wikipedia presents this as fact in its voice, and when discussing conspiracy theories it always is careful to ensure that due weight is not given to fringe perspectives, i.e. if 80% of historians say something is not a hoax, then 80% of the information should be devoted to indicating that it is indeed not a hoax, and only 20% devoted to the perspective that it is. So, if in fact there is only one source referring to an "official" version, and most historians refer to it as simply the generally accepted account, then we must refer to it as the generally accepted account and not the "official" one. If the problem is that this is the only English language source being used, this is easily correctable as there is a plethora of reliable, English language sources for this topic that would present the consensus account in much less controversial terms. I hope that makes sense. UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 23:24, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
It's not just one source. It's quite common, as far as I remember from when I wrote the article, to call it "official" with quotes. I would say it's pretty much the standard way to refer to it in English - I think it's a reflection of its cultural status in Italy where there is often an ambiguity between what's oficial and what's not. I think the RS in English are conscioysly refldcting this. The article has gone through DYK and GA reviews and I think it should remain as this, simply because it reflects usage among the RS. I don't think it casts doubt on the version. DeCausa (talk) 06:46, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Respectfully, it seems you are now contradicting yourself. On the edit page you said "it's also the main source to say it's "official". I'm not aware of another source using that descriptor". As far as I can tell, you are correct, and other sources do not use that descriptor. As a matter of fact, even in the source you quoted, Moseley's book, the term "official" within quotation marks only occurs twice, and seems to be self referential. For example, the sentence in which it first occurs is "Outside Italy, most historians have accepted the 'official' story that a Communist agent named Walter Audicio killed them. Inside the country, it has been a different story..." (p.275). It is clear that the quotation marks are being added to imply doubt, but in this case it is also clear that they are being added to emphasize that WITHIN ITALY there is doubt. When he calls it the "official" story, he is presenting the doubt that is present within Italy, when he says that the view is generally accepted by historians outside of Italy he is saying just that. To take that sentence, and use the term "Official"(With quotes) instead of "Widely/generally accepted" (Without quotes) is a choice that, in my opinion, violates WP:NPOV because it is clearly indicated in the source that this viewpoint is widely accepted, NOT that the implied doubt is widely accepted. I strongly feel that it should be re-worded, as I disagree 100% with your assertion that the current wording does not cast doubt on the account. Using quotations around the word official is just as much am implication of doubt as prefacing it with "allegedly" or other such descriptor. I feel that the phrase "Widely/generally accepted account"(Minus quotations) would be most appropriate, as it allows the reader to understand that while there may be doubt (i.e. in Italy as covered later in the article), the widely accepted account is NOT widely doubted. Again, it is our job to present the consensus viewpoint, not just the assertions and terminology of one author. UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 12:38, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
I think you are making a mountain out of a molehill. "Official" in quotes is a useful shorthand, supported explicitly by RS, "for the most widely accepted version albeit not confirmed by a governmental investigation". The alternatives are to take away the quotes, but that would then be misleading because the version hasn't in fact been approved by any official investigation. Converting it to the longer phrase you sugest is just unnecesarily clunky. The article presents the consensus viewpoint quite clearly - no one's left in any doubt that the other theories are fringe and that is explicit in the text - and having the word "official" doesn't alter that. I repeat, this article has gone through DYK and GA reviews and no one else has taken it the way you have. DeCausa (talk) 18:07, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Here is the problem then, as it currently stands. Wikipedia policy is, and I quote,

"Editors should generally summarize source material in their own words, adding inline citations as required by the sourcing policy. Limited close paraphrasing is appropriate within reason, as is quoting (with or without quotation marks), so long as the material is clearly attributed in the text – for example, by adding "John Smith wrote ...," together with a footnote containing the citation at the end of the clause, sentence or paragraph."(emphasis added)

The "Clunky" phrase I suggested IS a summation of the text in my own words. Your use of "Official" is NOT a summation in your own words, it is a direct quote from one single source, so if it is going to stay the way it is then it should be cited inline properly to reflect that fact. UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 21:38, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Fine. It's already cited (opening of the Execution section - inline citation at end of first paragraph) but I'll add the citation to the lead as well if it makes you happy. DeCausa (talk) 21:51, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Done. DeCausa (talk) 21:58, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Location

There is nothing in the article that suggests the *location* is disputed - merely the manner of execution. In fact, the article states the opposite: "The entrance to the Villa Belmonte. A black cross in the wall marks the site of execution." The location in pertinent because it shows a number of important points: 1) it shows that the execution happened down a small street (thus giving a sense of the manner and possible witnesses to such an event) 2) the location is a small village rather than a strategic center. It should also be noted that the Italian Wikipedia page has the location. Macgroover (talk) 02:22, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

The other alleged location, as stated in the article is the De Maria farmhouse. How is that to be represented? DeCausa (talk) 08:20, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 18 September 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved.

The proposal sets out no real policy rationale for the move, save to say that other similar requests have been made. I note that one of these has now closed with consensus to move, although the closer's note indicates there was no consensus between "Killing", "Shooting" and "Murder". One editor in addition to the proposer supports the move, but without providing any reason, so I give little weight to that support.

3 editors oppose the move per WP:CONSISTENT and WP:NATURAL, one of whom has contributed substantially to this article. It was also argued that given the uncertainty as to the circumstances of Mussolini's death, the current title is more neutral per WP:NPOVTITLE.

It would have been helpful if editors had more clearly directed their arguments to WP:COMMONNAME, as the article subject is of considerable historical interest and it should be possible to establish the usage of the RSs. Neverthless, based on the !votes and policy arguments made in the discussion, I find there is a consensus not to move. (non-admin closure) Havelock Jones (talk) 08:37, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Death of Benito Mussolini → Killing of Benito Mussolini – The form "Death of..." is most intuitively applied to the main title headers of articles detailing circumstances surrounding non-violent demise — Death of Ludwig van Beethoven, Death of Edgar Allan Poe, Death of Vladimir Lenin, Death of Marilyn Monroe, Death of Elvis Presley, Death of Michael Jackson, Death of Prince, etc. However, the still-active nomination Death of Marvin Gaye → Killing of Marvin Gaye at Death of Marvin Gaye#Requested move 11 September 2021 is an example of the view that articles focusing upon violent deaths should indicate it within their headers. Another header concurrently selected for such obvious renaming is Death of Muammar Gaddafi → Killing of Muammar Gaddafi at Death of Muammar Gaddafi#Requested move 18 September 2021. Although the form "Assassination of..." may be suggested for both of these cases, it would seem that "Assassination of..." is more applicable to cases such as Assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand or Assassination of Anwar Sadat, rather than to the circumstances of Mussolini or Gaddafi. As for the form "Execution of...", it is applicable within the header of the article Execution of Saddam Hussein, but is not applicable to the circumstances of these two cases. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 19:18, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Oppose Nothing has changed since article title determined by last RfC. “Death of…” is the WP norm per consistency element of WP:CRITERIA whether or not the death was violent (with possible exception of “Assassination of… “ which is not relevant to this article.) Examples include sister-article Death of Adolf Hitler. There are multiple other en.wp examples: Death of Meredith Hunter, Death of James Cook, Death of Robert Stevens and literally hundreds of others. The proposal is a novel and bogus distinction which has never previously been made on en.wp. It seems to be part of an idiosyncratic and unnecessary campaign by the proposer to change long-standing en.wp practice. Also, in the English language, “Killing of…” is an awkward, crude, clumsy and unencyclopedic term compared to “Death of…” DeCausa (talk) 21:58, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
It should be noted that the sole previous Talk:Death of Benito Mussolini#Requested move closed nearly seven years ago, on November 13, 2014. That 2014 nomination posited the choice of Mussolini's death → Death of Benito Mussolini, with no other alternative being offered or discussed. Since the form "Mussolini's death" is non-standard under any circumstances, the 2014 RM is thus immaterial to this discussion.
As for the main title header Death of Adolf Hitler, it is not a sister-article since its only other possible header would be Suicide of Adolf Hitler. The above-mentioned violent deaths, such as Death of Meredith Hunter, who was stabbed and beaten to death, should be certainly moved to "Killing of..." There are also numerous successful RMs requesting move to "Killing of..., such as Shooting of Breonna Taylor → Killing of Breonna Taylor, Shooting of Tamir Rice → Killing of Tamir Rice or Muhammad al-Durrah incident → Killing of Muhammad al-Durrah.
Finally, the notion that this RM "is a novel and bogus distinction which has never previously been made on en.wp" is immediately contradicted by such recent successful RMs as Death of Osama bin Laden → Killing of Osama bin Laden or Death of Eric Garner → Killing of Eric Garner, both of which had heavy participation by users. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 00:05, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
The examples I gave are examples amongst many, possibly hundreds of articles. Fundamentally, this sort of move is just pointless disruption with no real benefit. “Death” includes violent death and doesn’t imply non-violence, it’s all encompassing. And there’s nothing wrong with that. DeCausa (talk) 12:29, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
If consensus existed that the manner of death was immaterial and whether one died in one's own apartment in one's own bed as in Death of Ludwig van Beethoven or met a violent end at the hands of others, as in Death of Benito Mussolini, they were equally dead, then there would be indeed no need for this RM and all related main title headers, such as "Execution of...", "Stoning of...", "Assassination of...", "Suicide of...", "Murder of..." or other forms of death listed under Category:Violent deaths by country could be bundled under the all-encompassing main header "Death of..."
However, a perusal of or even a glance at the numerous "Shooting of..." → "Killing of..." RMs will demonstrate that there is no such consensus and very few users contend that such "pointless" discussions could be eliminated if we would simply title all articles focusing on an individual's demise using the all-inclusive header "Death of..." The demand for specificity in titling is especially evident in the articles delineating the violent deaths of public figures, democracy activists or victims of police brutality. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 14:38, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
@Roman Spinner: I’ve been thinking more on this and there’s an additional point I’d like your comment on. “Killing” implies an extra judicial ending of life. Certainly the articles that have been changed fall into that category. For executions where “Death” is not used, then “Execution” is - as in Execution of Saddam Hussein. While the “killing” may not necessarily be considered unlawful there is an implication of a lack of due process. To call an article “killing” where the subject has been executed by court sentence certainly presents a POV on the validity/justification/morality of that sentence. This is a complex and unresolved question in the case of Mussolini. Audisio, the “executioner”, and others claimed that he was following the judicial procedure set out in the CLNAI’s War Courts Decree - that a war tribunal was held, and he executed the tribunal’s order - it was therefore judicially ordered. Other partisans present dispute this. In fact, the legal authority for the killing is a hotly disputed issue. Another argument is that there was an execution by order of the government in Rome - albeit not judicial, the government, it is argued, had lawful authority to order the execution. The truth is there is no clear answer to any of that. However, choosing “Killing” over “execution” presents a view to the reader of which it is. I think that’s an WP:NPOV issue - and that doesn’t come up with “Death of.” And by the way the article mentions that there is at least one theory that Mussolini committed suicide. (I note that Killing of Benito Mussolini remains a red link. No one has previously thought it relevant enough to even create a redirect).DeCausa (talk) 10:12, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
@DeCausa: The implication that "“Killing” implies an extra judicial ending of life" needs to be balanced against the fact that while Wikipedia "Killing of..."/"Shooting of..." articles are created about cases that have received publicity, the majority are about deadly force used by authorized law enforcement officials against civilians and only a minority focuses on civilians killing civilians.
Article titles such as Trial of Saddam Hussein and Execution of Saddam Hussein or Trial and execution of Nicolae and Elena Ceaușescu are examples of historically documented trials and executions that preserved a historical record and at least gave the accused an opportunity to present a defense. On the other hand, article header Execution of Nguyễn Văn Lém denotes a documented summary execution by a uniformed army general of a combatant in civilian clothes during martial law. That summary execution was subsequently described by the Immigration and Naturalization Service as a war crime.
The nomination Death of Benito Mussolini → Killing of Benito Mussolini has been paired with Death of Muammar Gaddafi → Killing of Muammar Gaddafi to demonstrate that neither event meets the standard of either "Trial of..." or "Execution of..." A third nomination — Execution of the Romanov family → Killing of the Romanov family — was also considered, but postponed for later due to the divergent specificity of terms.
Ultimately, however, since Wikipedia is consensus-based, it is up to the voters. All RMs leave a historical record for future users who may indeed wonder why no one has converted the current redlink Killing of Benito Mussolini into a redirect since the article's creation in November 2014. All decisions need to be based upon WP:RELIABLE SOURCES as to the manner of Mussolini's death and even the lead paragraph of the article itself uses wording, "summarily executed by an Italian partisan" "and the identity of his killer", rather than "the identity of his executioner". —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 01:04, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
yeah, I wrote the lead (and pretty much the entirety of the article) and am familiar with what the sources say. You haven’t quite understood what I was saying. The issue isn’t that Mussolini was subject to “deadly force used by authorized law enforcement officials” but whether he was “executed”, including by a court. The title implies it wasn’t the latter - but that’s a point of disagreement or an unknown in the sources. DeCausa (talk) 07:06, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
Your authorship of this article is duly noted while also noting that the nomination does not take issue with the content of the article, merely with its main title header. If inline cites to reliable sources support "Execution of Mussolini" or "Suicide of Mussolini", then an argument would need to be made for the move of the current header to either of those headers.
However, since some users argue for the continued use of the current all-inclusive header "Death of...", while other users contend that the more-specific "Killing of..." header is the more-intuitive one, this nomination provides the opportunity for those who care sufficiently about the matter to place their views on the historical record so that, in the event of a "no consensus to move" outcome, a different set of future users may review this first discussion regarding the issue and decide whether another go-round is warranted.
It may be noted in passing that the mentioned-in-the-nomination Death of Marvin Gaye → Killing of Marvin Gaye has just closed as "move to Killing of Marvin Gaye". —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 04:23, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
Well, to conclude this, there is no consensus among the reliable sources as to whether it was an “execution” or a “lawful killing” or simply a killing without lawful justification. Suicide is a fringe view. DeCausa (talk) 06:17, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
Taking that into account then, all circumstances other than the fringe "Suicide of..." would be compatible with and covered by "Killing of..." —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 01:09, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
No, of course not. Calling a judicial execution a “killing” is clearly impugning it as a judicial execution. And the flow chart in WP:DEATHS makes it clear that “killing” only applies when it is not capital punishment. Hence the title would be taking sides in that debate. “death” is the only NPOV option. DeCausa (talk) 05:50, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
If "Killing of..." by its very form had been judged to be POV, English Wikipedia would not contain scores of such main title headers — no sooner had Killing of Marvin Gaye closed, another RM, Death of Gabby Petito → Killing of Gabby Petito, opened.
If an unlikely argument can be posited that Mussolini was executed by a judicially authorized executioner in the same manner as Trial of Saddam Hussein and Execution of Saddam Hussein or Trial and execution of Nicolae and Elena Ceaușescu or that he was summarily executed by a top military commander in the manner of spies, saboteurs or terrorists captured in civilian clothes during martial law (Execution of Nguyễn Văn Lém) or that he was assassinated in the manner of Assassination of Anwar Sadat, then let us submit such arguments to RM and request one of such renamings.
Otherwise, there is no other option than "Killing of..." in the manner of Killing of Osama bin Laden or Killing of Muammar Gaddafi since, given the undeniable violence of Mussolini's demise, users may rightfully wonder why so many main headers carry the form "Killing of", but this article's header uses the nondescript "Death of..." —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 19:33, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
I don’t know how many times I can explain it to you: there’s plenty of sources that call it “execution”[1] but there are plenty of sources that don’t. Here’s a source that calls it both “authorised killing” and “execution” and points out Churchill called it murder:[2]. The reason is there is no consensus in the sources because there are claims it was execution by a war tribunal order, or a result of a specific CLNAI decree or an legitimate order of the liberation government or a conspiracy by the Italian Communist Party or the decision of an individual partisan. The point is there is a disagreement and the only way to handle the disagreement is to use the neutral and all-encompassing term “death”. If this article becomes “killing…” we will have chosen an option that disparages the sources that consider an execution by a tribunal. DeCausa (talk) 20:50, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
Wholly agree. A very good point well made. It's been called all sorts of things, for all sorts of reasons. Why should there have to be one agreed or majority view? That's not how history "works". Martinevans123 (talk) 21:09, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
No matter how many times an attempt at an explanation is made, it does not change the fact that the circumstances of Mussolini's violent demise indicate a killing in the same manner as the violent demise of Osama bin Laden or Muammar Gaddafi. As you point out, some have called Mussolini's end a "summary execution" or even "murder", per Churchill's description.
However, this nomination only proposes the neutral form "Killing of..." which may be also used for accidental gun discharges, vehicular manslaughter, friendly fire and numerous other instances which do not imply premeditation.
As for denigration of sources that describe what happened to Mussolini as an "authorized killing" or "execution", even the one-hour kangaroo trial and execution of Nicolae and Elena Ceaușescu was recorded for posterity and gave the Ceaușescus a brief opportunity to defend themselves, which did not occur in the case of Mussolini or Gaddafi.
Nevertheless, those Wikipedians who accept that the terms "authorized killing" or "execution" are indeed applicable to the events leading to Mussolini's demise will of course cast a vote commensurate with their position. It may be also noted that the use of those terms was also raised in the successful move discussion Death of Osama bin Laden → Killing of Osama bin Laden, despite the votes for the proposed change to Execution of Osama bin Laden or the votes preferring to keep it at the original "Death of..." which was posited as the neutral form.
Finally, unlike the redlinks for Killing of Mussolini or Churchill's description of the event as Murder of Mussolini, a redirect was in fact created for Murder of Osama bin Laden. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 23:02, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
Neutral - Does it really matter which title is used? The end result would be the same, Mussolini didn't survive. GoodDay (talk) 04:24, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
Neutral - I perhaps wish there was a blanket use of "Death of" for all such articles. It would save hours of debate like this. It would avoid the months of debate about when to change "Death" to "Killing" and then sometimes to "Murder" for cases where there is (eventually) a murder conviction, and where naming inconsistency remains, e.g. Killing of Rachel Nickell, Murder of Sarah Everard. If this one did change, I'd fully expect there to be a counter proposal, to change it back, in a few years. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:16, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
Yep. WP:BROKE. Why “killing”? Once that can of worms is opened, as well as move back, there’s the potential for later RM’s asking why not “execution”, “shooting” or even “assassination” … or even from some unsavoury POV, “murder”? Fool’s errand. DeCausa (talk) 17:52, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
Oppose. The current title is not really a problem, as it accurately describes the subject without bias or suggesting conclusions or judgments. As described in the article, there have been various theories about the death of Mussolini, including suicide. There is no need to use a more judgmental title. I am not at all a fan of the recent push by some Wikipedia editors to use "Killing of" titles. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 21:40, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
Support. 143.239.9.5 (talk) 12:36, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment. While it is indisputable that Mussolini was killed rather than dying of other causes, there could be further debate about the nature of his killing; "execution" would likely be the primary alternative option, but others as described by DeCausa could be used. Further, "killing" does come with some negative insinuations that might violate the requirement that we prefer neutral and non-judgemental titles. In general, to me this suggests leaving it at death, but I recognize that both of these reasons could apply to other articles that were moved, and so I feel that they are not conclusive against moving.
I would like to mention that I too would support general guidance on this; an RFC to altering the MOS. Specifically, I believe it should ask whether we should prefer "death" unless and until there is a commonname using a different term; such a change would save a great deal of editors time and would prevent the need for some level of OR to determine what exact classification a death comes under, while still allowing us to keep article names such as Assassination of Julius Caesar and Assassination of John F. Kennedy. BilledMammal (talk) 03:19, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose I personally think that Death of Benito Mussolini is a perfectly fitting title for this one, not only because it is unnecessary, but because this article may lose its good article status if it gets moved to a new article. There really should be more good articles on Wikipedia, and losing one is not good for me. And now for the second reason: "Killing of Benito Mussolini" focuses more on how he died, and may exclude his funeral and other important details. So, this is why I oppose. Cheers. TootsieRollsAddict (talk) 14:31, 30 September 2021 (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.

Recent edits

@EnzoGorlomi90: Your recent edits are almost all unsourced - relying on WP:SELFPUB sources or malformed citations or adding text unsupported by existing citation but making it look as though it is. Also, there is some repetition and adding tangential detail. It’s apparent that some of the text is copied from elsewhere without attribution. Could you discuss what you are trying to here before attempting to reintroduce it so we can work out how these edits can be brought into the article. Thanks. DeCausa (talk) 08:34, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

I put the respective sources. If you don't read completely that is your problem. I say it to you for the good way; Instead of arbitrarily reversing, fix it. So easy.--EnzoGorlomi90 (talk) 16:00, 25 April 2021 (UTC) Blocked sock per this. DeCausa (talk) 08:47, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
Much of the additional text is inserted in front of existing citations. But checking the citations they don’t support your text. Then sometimes you do add citations e.g. this website, but it’s not reliable source for English Wikipedia because it’s self-published. Then also you’ve obviously cut and pasted text from somewhere else - but without attribution (which isn’t allowed) and with incomplete citations. How can we even fix it if we don’t know what the citation should say? And finally some of the text you’ve added is either repetition (like the “mangy dog” comment) because it’s already in the article or strays into off topic details (the ‘News for Hitler’ and some of the background text. If you want to proceed with these edits, let’s discuss them section by section. By the way it doesn’t help that you make sweeping edits without any edit summary on what you are doing. DeCausa (talk) 16:28, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

"Impact" on Hitler

The article says: "On the afternoon of 29 April, Adolf Hitler learned of Mussolini’s execution, although it is unknown how much of the detail was communicated to him. On the same day, Hitler recorded in his Last Will and Testament that he intended to choose death rather than "fall into the hands of enemies" and the masses, and becoming "a spectacle arranged by Jews".

While technically correct, this implies that the testament contains Hitler's reaction to news of Mussolini's death. However, as the testament was dictated and typed in the early morning hours of April 29, before he learned of Mussolini's death, this is not the case.2A02:AA1:1007:DC14:5CC3:A149:CD05:44E1 (talk) 20:44, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, you’re right. Timing confirmed by p.950, Kershaw (2008). I’ve amended the article accordingly. DeCausa (talk) 22:05, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Death_of_Benito_Mussolini/Archive_1&oldid=1222765981"