Talk:National Fascist Party

Untitled

I strongly object to the move from National Fascist Party to Fascist National Party - not only is the latter in dubious English, but there is absolutely no reference to it under this name (while there are a gazillion references to National Fascist Party). I hereby request it to be moved back. Dahn 00:37, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

But the translation you propose is a wrong one... in English we translate Partito Socialista Democratico Italiano into "Italian Democratic Socialist Party" and, of course, Partito Nazionale Fascista into "National Fascist Party". The opposite would be ungrammatical, indeed the first adjective after the substantive in Italian is always the last one in English. I hope that you understand: there are grammatical rules and we are supposed to follow them. --Checco 18:53, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I actually understand Italian and my native language has quite similar grammar. In this context, the PDSI is actually a quirk, not the PNF. But that is an aside, as, even if the translation would be wrong, wikipedia doesn't invent language, it simply records it; that is to say, if the name is commonly translated as such into English, it stays as such on English wikipedia. I had a similar debate with Romanians over the use of "Greater Romania Party" (which in Romanian is actually closer to "Great Romania Party", but the English-language sources almost never mention it under the latter name) and the "Everything for the Fatherland Party" (which, in the Romanian original, is closer to "Everything for the Country"). As I have indicated, the translation in use for the PNF (which is also the right one), is "National Fascist Party". Dahn 18:59, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

If I got it right, google shows 899 results for Fascist National Party, with the search limited to this exact succession of words and excluding wikipedia.org (the result includes several references to the "fascist National Party"). A similar search for "National Fascist party" yields 12,200 results (presumably, with some instances of some other "national+fascist party", but less likely). Dahn 19:08, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I understand. Even I, when studing at the International Baccalureate, I studied women in the college of USA speaking about the "National Fascist Party", but that translation is wrong and I think that en.Wiki must stick to grammatical correctness. That translation is simply wrong and I think that we need to start using the correct one. Also books will follow someday. --Checco 06:33, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if the "books will follow someday". We go with what the scholarly consensus is now. -Stlemur 06:50, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I can't understand how it is possible to accept a wrong translation, but anyway... it's not a fundamental problem for me. --Checco 10:26, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Program?

Did this party have any official program similar to National Socialist Program? — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 23:58, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Roots, futurism

The article should cover the roots of Fascism in Futurism, links with Marinetti, etc. And also the Fascist Manifesto and how its ideals were rejected in Fascist politics.

Also, relate to Gabriele D'Annunzio. 213.149.62.165 (talk) 14:13, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Logo size

An editor wishes the logo to be a very large size, to the point where it seems to be actively advertising a Fascist organization. My feeling is that the logo should be large enough to be clearly seen, and no large (that goes for all logos, but especially for the logos of Nazis, neo-Nazis, Fascist, neo-Fascists, etc.) I attempted to compromise and put the logo at a size directly in between our choices, but the editor rejected that.

Here are the choices:

My choice (75px)

The compromise I offered and Nick.mon rejected (100px)

Nick.mon's choice (120px)

The size Nick.mon attempted to make in on 26 November 2020 (160px)

Thoughts? Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:14, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Please note that I posted the above image comparison, and it was subsequently edited by Nick.mon. It is part of my comment, and should not be changed by any other editor. I have restored it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:34, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for starting a discussion, but I can't let you say "to the point it seems to be actively advertising a Fascist organization". This is ridiculous and offensive (WP:OFFENSIVE). Anyway, the logo is a fundamental part for a party, it should be quite visibile, not too large of course, but a size of 120px is not too large at all; it's simply the best size. Moreover, YOU proposed it months ago, after a brief confrontation. It was a compromise, and I supported your choice, but now, after a few months, you reduce it once again, using a tiny 75px size, which is frankly invisible, and you’re trying to find a new (more favorable) compromise. No, Beyond My Ken, I totally contempt your behavior, moreover accusing me of "advertising a fascist party" is absolutely offensive. Anyway, I'll ping editors usually involved in Italian politics (and in the 20th century history) to share their opinions with us (Checco, Autospark, Ritchie92, Scia Della Cometa, Vaze50, Braganza, Skjoldbro, Sundostund). -- Nick.mon (talk) 07:33, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

the compromise is ok Braganza (talk) 07:36, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Braganza for your opinion, but which compromise? The new one, ore the one reached months ago? I can live with a 100px size too, but I can bet that after a few months Beyond My Ken will return on this page and reduce it once again... -- Nick.mon (talk) 07:38, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

100px Braganza (talk) 08:11, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Ok, thank you! Anyway, to be honest, 120px was already a compromise, a few months ago, I proposed 150px. Labeling the first compromise as “editor’s choice” is quite misleading. -- Nick.mon (talk) 08:11, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

I'd like to add one more thing. Even if I totally disdain fascist parties (as everybody here, dear Beyond My Ken), your behavior can be considered WP:CENSOR. No one here wants to advertise fascist parties, this is simply childish, we just want to give our readers good and readable articles. So if you'd say "I prefer 75px because it fits better to the article", I'd accept it, but I cannot accept that your only reason is "not to advertise fascist parties". -- Nick.mon (talk) 11:59, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Anything between 100px and 150px is OK with me. I would have it bigger, anyway. I agree with User:Nick.mon. --Checco (talk) 17:09, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

100 and 120px looks fine to me, 160px looks too big and 75px looks too small so, my choice in the end will be 120px. Vacant0 (talk) 12:35, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Just to be clear. I'm sorry that BMK wants to change the facts at his purposes. I've never, ever, tried to make the logo larger, I just tried to restore a previous version (160px) which was used for years before his edit (as you can see here: September 2020, or even December 2018) -- Nick.mon (talk)

The diff speaks for itself. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:43, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken, sincerly, I don't know if you don't understand or if you don't want to, but how many times do I have to tell you that, in the November 2020's edit you posted, I was just restoring a previous version used for years (for example, here's a previous version of May 2017, where a size of 160px was already used). -- Nick.mon (talk) 07:11, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

---

Beyond My Ken, I sincerly don't understand why you've decided once again to change the logo's size, asserting that there's a "talk page consensus". Sorry, but I fear there's no consensus regarding a change. Checco (I would have it bigger, anyway. I agree with Nick.mon), Vacant0 (my choice in the end will be 120px) and I supported the current version, you and Braganza (100px) supported the size of 100px, so I think it's quite clear that there's no consensus regarding a change of the size. -- Nick.mon (talk) 07:53, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

You don't understand, OK:

• Beyond My Ken - likes 75, will accept 100
• Nick.mon - likes 160 or 150, will acccept 120
• Braganza - 100 is OK
• Checco - Anywhere between 100 and 150
• Vacant0 - 100 and 120 look fine.

That's the voting. So 100 is acceptable to 4 out of the 5 people (BMK, Braganza, Checco, and Vacant0), that is, everyone except you. 120, on the other hand, is acceptable to 3 out of 5 people (Nick.mon, Checco and Vacant0). More people accept 100 than accept 120. That's why I changed it to 100, which is the current consensus, although that can change if more editors chime in. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:07, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Dear Beyond My Ken, Checco and Vacant0 clearly expressed their support for the larger size (if I'm wrong, I'd ask them to clarify their opinions) you are trying to change facts at your porpuses, as you always do. Anyway, I requested an editor assistance to solve this dispute. -- Nick.mon (talk) 09:24, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Nope. The facts are as I presented them, just not as you wish them to be. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:26, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

I clearly said that "my choice in the end will be 120px". Vacant0 (talk) 19:08, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Vacant0. If Checco wants to clarify his opinion (which was already quite clear according to me), maybe Beyond My Ken will recognize that there's no consensus (at the moment). -- Nick.mon (talk) 20:18, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

My opinion is simple: between 100px and 150px, the larger the better. I would choose 150px, then. --Checco (talk) 17:53, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Ok, I think it's quite clear that there isn't a consensus on a smaller size. -- Nick.mon (talk) 18:42, 4 May 2021 (UTC)