Talk:Benito Mussolini

Someone add this colored image

File:MussoliniColored

Colored

SOMEONE ADD THIS — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheGreatDSW (talk • contribs) 12:08, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 July 2024

Please remove flags per MOS:INFOBOXFLAG, same as per previous edit. 49.150.14.10 (talk) 22:15, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

 Done Jamedeus (talk) 08:11, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Political influence father and/or mother

Dear all, the recent book bu Phillips P. O'Brien on, among others, Mussolini (The strategists) mentions the double and diverging influence of his father (more of an anarchist/revolutionary socialist) and his mother (more of a Roman Catholic and Italian nationalist).

The current Wiki page mentions only the father as an influence for both ideologies, and therefor seems to miss out on the conflict implied by the mother and the father's competing worldviews.

To be adapted? 193.190.218.1 (talk) 09:54, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Alternatives to Current Image

As suggested by Tom B in his closing opinion on the Rfc provided above, I am starting a thread to narrow down alternatives to the current lede image for future discussion. If you feel so inclined, please share your opinion on which option you prefer.

• 
  A
• 
  B
• 
  C
• 
  D

Emiya1980 (talk) 23:13, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

@ალექსანდროს, Jtbwikiman, Curbon7, SMcCandlish, VampaVampa, HTGS, MaximusEditor, AlexandraAVX, Rjensen, Cossde, and Alessandro57: In light of your previously expressed opinions in favor a new lede image for Benito Mussolini, you are invited to participate in the aforementioned discussion regarding the best alternative. If you feel so inclined, please share your opinions here. Thank you. Emiya1980 (talk) 01:41, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

@Shadow4dark: Emiya1980 (talk) 21:48, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Does this mean we will go next discussion with the status quo? Shadow4dark (talk) 22:53, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Sometime in the future, yes. Emiya1980 (talk) 23:17, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

• C, B, status quo, A, most to least preferred, for reasons given in previous rounds. Reject D outright as too grainy and washed-out. However, if a much better-quality version of that image can be found, it would actually be my 2nd or 3rd choice.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:02, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
• A/C, not B/D/status quo. When i closed I hadn't intended to participate, but i just got pinged. I generally prefer colour so have put C. A looks the highest quality. D is the lowest quality, and B is lower quality. I like the status quo the least, as that side profile only shows half his face, Tom B (talk) 08:51, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
• B, C, D, A. The only picture in which Mussolini is himself is B, all the others are official pictures meant to show him as an authoritarian man. Alex2006 (talk) 14:21, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

• C. It is a clear image that displays his signature look. Most people wouldn’t even be able to tell that D is Mussolini. Trakking (talk) 15:51, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

• B - Thanks for pinging me, I have preference towards B, but fine with the other 3. MaximusEditor (talk) 16:32, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
• C, then A. And I have no problem with the man being represented in a propagandistic way; it is a part of the cultural image we have of him. (Next time it would be nice if you kept the same numbering/lettering, so we can just re-vote easily, rather than having to reanalyse or re-code our last answer.) — HTGS (talk) 22:58, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
• C this one looks as a formal portrait if people not want propaganda picture they should vote for D as this one is most neutral but lacks quality. Shadow4dark (talk) 19:57, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

• Status quo, per others and MOS:PORTRAIT: It is often preferable to place a portrait (image or representation of a person) so that they "look" toward the text. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 20:20, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

  This poll is to determine the best of the alternative images. Once decided, the top choice will be measured against the status quo. Also “It is often preferable” is meaningless to us. We can clearly choose any image, even one that doesn’t face the text. — HTGS (talk) 04:06, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

  The current image is just fine though. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 13:57, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

  I don’t disagree. — HTGS (talk) 04:42, 9 September 2024 (UTC)d

• Comment: Based on my review of the tally, it appears that most people are in favor of C. Does anyone have any other ideas on what would be the best alternative image? Emiya1980 (talk) 05:26, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Minor corrections in Early Life

Hi!

in the "Early Life" section the text says: Mussolini was sent to a boarding school in Faenza run by Salesian monks. However Salesians are not monks, but 'religiouses'. Suggested change: Mussolini was sent to a boarding school in Faenza run by Salesians. SiGe91 (talk) 19:32, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

@SiGe91:  Done: [1]. JacktheBrown (talk) 04:17, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Inclusion of "MI5 Agent" detail

@VampaVampa per BRD. I think the inclusion of this section (given below) is pretty problematic. My issues with it are as follows:

• Explicitly calling Mussolini an "MI5 agent" is pretty extraordinary. Given the extensiveness of scholarship on Mussolini, I'd like to see a proper scholarly source supporting this specific claim in context, rather than relying on a modern newspaper report that already gets things wrong (e.g. saying he "got his start in politics" in 1917 is ludicrous for the man who was made chief editor of Avanti! in 1912). Similarly, drawing a through line from British payments to his support of the breaking up of strikes would require a stronger source—especially when books suggest his position didn't actually change as a result of this external funding (e.g. ) Neither nor suggest this conversion to supporting strikebreaking either.
• It's excessive detail for this top-level biography. We don't need to know the details of his pay or his handler in an article that's already some 14,000 words long (see WP:SIZERULE and WP:ONUS). It would be much more natural to include this in the wiki pages for Il Popolo and Hoare. Besides, we have no context for how important this pay was—if we had stats on the contributions from France, from Italian industry, or the general finances of the paper, it would fit more naturally. At the moment it's just a cash figure devoid of any context that might allow the reader to understand its significance (or lack thereof).
• A quick survey of Mussolini biographies: while they typically do make explicit mention of Il Popolo's funding, they don't go into this sort of granular detail—Britain gets at the very most a passing mention. For example:

• no mention of the paper's funding
• mentions the paper's funding from various sources (Fiat, agrarian interests, Britain and France) but does not go into any numerical specifics
• discusses the sources of funding but again without any specifics, stresses the variety of places from which funding came
• similar to Neville: mentions both domestic and foreign, private and governmental funding, but no specifics.
• mentions French and British subsidies, and actually mentions Hoare's funding of £100 a week—but as an incidental detail in the citation rather than the body, more interesting because of Hoare's later position than because of the actual funding.

Likewise none of these biographies make any mention of breaking strikes with veterans in 1917.

As such inclusion seems very WP:UNDUE to me: if numerous biographies with more luxurious space allowances give only passing mentions, then we shouldn't include such detail. If you have stronger sources, though, I'd love to see them.

Passage in question
In the autumn of 1917, he was recruited as a MI5 agent with a £100 weekly wage by Sir Samuel Hoare, the agency's representative in Rome, in return for which he promised not only to keep up pro-war propaganda in Il Popolo but also to send army veterans in to break up any pro-peace strikes in Milan factories

Meluiel (talk) 23:48, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Due to a lack of a response, I have removed and rewritten the sections in question. Meluiel (talk) 21:35, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

There is no consensus to remove the sourced information, so please self-revert. I will present the additional sources for retaining the information before too long. I have been detained by activity elsewhere, but as I have learned the hard way before, no deadlines apply to responding on Wikipedia. VampaVampa (talk) 08:45, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply. I waited eight days between posting this initial request for discussion and making the edit—eight days in which you were actively editing on other pages of the Wiki. As such I assumed that you had divested of this discussion and so I opted to make the edit; in lieu of any reply from you to state your position and your delay, I hope you can understand why I made this assumption. Are you able to give any estimate of when you will have your sources ready? Thanks. Meluiel (talk) 13:34, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

That is a fair assumption. I will aim to summarise the sources within the next three days. For now let me note the general background difficulty present, which is that the period of Mussolini's activity during the later phase of WW1 is poorly covered by the article and needs to be properly made sense of using the available reliable sources before a good judgment can be passed on what is due and what is not. At the moment, the section on WW1 devotes disproportionate if not exclusive attention to the years 1914 and 1915, with the sole exception of combat activity under 1917. Similarly, the evolution of Mussolini's views, which comes into play directly with the problem of potential influence of external funding, lacks clear chronological attribution in the article (note e.g. the paragraph starting "Mussolini rejected egalitarianism..."). Looking forward to discussing the sources within the next few days. VampaVampa (talk) 14:27, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree a lot of this article is in pretty rough shape. I currently have another project on the go but if you wanted to look at a proper re-write I'd be more than happy to participate. Meluiel (talk) 14:32, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

That sounds good - I'd be interested in revising the 1914-1922 part, although this may take a while with other commitments. The evolution of views too, if sources permit. I'll welcome your help. But let me address your concerns first. VampaVampa (talk) 15:27, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Awesome, agreed. Sources should be fine as long as we don't have to rely on A. James Gregor too much—it's Mussolini after all, hardly an obscure figure. The previously posted books by De Grand and Sternhall will certainly be useful. I look forward to reading your response to my concerns :) Meluiel (talk) 15:34, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Tema falso,Musolinni republicano y no facista

Nunca fue facista,era republicano,hace poco venia la historia verdadera,ustedes estan dejando que en wikipedia se cambie todo....y pasa con todos,eliminen ese candado...o aviso a Italia gravemente 79.116.112.142 (talk) 12:12, 29 November 2024 (UTC)