Talk:Fascio

Why is this a separate article?

Why is this a seperate article? 64.229.170.72 02:31, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC) There is no reference to the original meaning of Fascio that dates back to the roman empire. There have been a lot of positive symbols that have been denatured by the totalitarian regimes of the 20th century. I think they should be explained and not banished. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.206.125.123 (talk) 15:26, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Why "Italian history of the word fascist" why not just "history of the word fascist" or "etymology of fascism"? This title is incredibly cumbersome. Also don't see need for seperate article. have copied and pasted (with credit) to Fascism article where one would think it belongs. 12:50, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

So... if this has been merged into Fascism, is there any reason not to turn this article into a redirect? Or just delete (after fixing any incoming links), since no one is liable to search for this unlikely title? -- Jmabel 17:10, Jul 4, 2004 (UTC)

The Fascist article is already too long. This is about the transformation of the name "Fascio". This describes the history and use of the name. This article is about the name.WHEELER 14:37, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I changed the name of the article to fascio (with a redirect from fasci) as the previous title was too long and unwieldy and as "fascio" (or fasci) seemed to be what the article was actually about. AndyL 13:57, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Italian wiki

Interestingly, the Italian wiki has a corresponding entry for the term "fascio," but it is disambiguated into four separate entries: fascio littorale (the Roman bundle of rods), fascio politico (the story of the use of the term in politics since Unification), fascio matematico (???), and fascio as related to category theory.

In any case, if anyone is interested in gaining some input from this side of the ocean (in terms of links or translations, Italian books and resources, etc..) please let me know. I'm glad to help out. My Italian is quality 4, if not 5. And I'm fascinated with the topic recently.--Lacatosias 21:28, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Here's the link to the Italian version Fascio Italian version--Lacatosias 21:33, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Any contributions you can make would be appreciated, I don't read italian, so theres not much I can do... Sam Spade 07:55, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

---

For the above reason, this article appears to have been written with inexcusable ignorance of the subject matter. The fasci did not just spring up in Italy in the 19th Century, but has a history reaching back into Roman antiquity. The author of the entry clearly doesn't understand that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.204.143.38 (talk) 13:52, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Garibaldi masons

I honestly threw that out there not as vandalism, but as a sort of experiment to see what would happen: would it might provoke some further research, would it be left alone as is (as is the case on the Italian wikipedia where I found it and with which I am extremely dissapointed---no citations anywhere!!), or whatever. In any case, I have posted a comment/question/criticism on several parts of the Italian wikipedia asking for the citation for this and many other assertions. Just learning the ropes.--Lacatosias 12:14, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I wasn't accusing you of vandalism: I knew it was reasonably well-intentioned, especially if you were just pulling information from another Wikipedia. But, as I say, any time someone mentions the Freemasons and has no citation, I'm skeptical, because, in addition to a reasonably significant role in history, they figure even more prominently in pseudo-history. -- Jmabel | Talk 09:39, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

You don't need to tell me about it. I have a masonic cousin who WRITES absolute nonsense about the

Masons which resembles the caricature of the three students that Umberto Eco created in Foucault's Pendulum. --Lacatosias 17:29, 4 January 2006 (UTC).

Odd deletion

After "as their leaders met in Milan and formed a national organization…" the phrase was dropped, "…after naming themselves Fasci d'Azione revoluzionaria (bands for revolutionary action)". It had a citation, and I believe it was correct. Any reason for the deletion? - Jmabel | Talk 16:32, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I recall that someone (I'll have to look in the history to find out who) made some rather significant changes to this article a few days back. Since most of it seemed to be for the better (formatting and so on), I didn't bother to look into it carefully. It might have been deleted then. Other than that, this article doesn't seen to be touched too often (according to ny watchlist).--Lacatosias 16:56, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm..here's the diff:

his was the Milan fascio, of which he was the leader. January 24, 1915 was the turning point in the history of the fasci as their leaders met in Milan and formed a national organization, after naming themselves Fasci d'Azione revoluzionaria (bands for revolutionary action).<ref>By permission of author, Fascism, Noël O'Sullivan, J. M. Dent & Sons, London, 1983. pg 207.</ref>

This new group was also referred to as the Milan fascio, of which Mussolini was the leader. January 24, 1915 was the turning point in the history of the fasci as their leaders met in Milan and formed a national organization.<ref>By permission of author, Fascism, Noël O'Sullivan, J. M. Dent & Sons, London, 1983. pg 207.</ref>

by User:Nikodemos. He seems to have removed terms like revolutionary and so on in several places. Much as I sympathize with the POV in question, this may be POV pushing.--Lacatosias 17:06, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

• I've made the "refs" visible in the preceding. I hope that is viewed as friendly; if not, Lacatosias, feel free to revert me. - Jmabel | Talk 20:12, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I think I'm going to restore that, then. As anyone who has been following this topic broadly (either in Wikipedia or elsewhere) knows, there has been much controversy over the degree to which there are left roots of fascism. This smacks of (unintentional or intentional) hiding of evidence. I am firmly of the belief that fascism, in practice and in power, can be firmly placed on the right, but I think that the roots of some of it in the left are of legitimate historical interest. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:01, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, wait, it's more complicated than that: the paragraph preceding that states, "On December 11, 1914, Mussolini started a political group, Fasci d'azione rivoluzionaria, which was a fusion of two other movements: the above group, Fasci d'azione rivoluzionaria internazionalista and a previous group he started called the Fasci autonomi d'azione rivoluzionaria.<ref>The Birth of Fascist Ideology, Zeev Sternhell, pg 303.</ref>" So Mussolini's group had already on December 11, 1914 been named Fasci d'azione rivoluzionaria? Sounds like maybe our two sources contradict each other. Could someone with access to both sources possibly read carefully through the relevant passages and work out whether they disagree (in which case we should say so in a footnote) or whether one or another Wikipedia contributor has misunderstood (in which case it would be nice to have clarification here on the talk page, even if the current text is now correct). - Jmabel | Talk 20:12, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

United States Congress

It might be important to note the presence of the fasci symbol (a bundle of rods with a hatchet head) on either side of the speaker's podium in the United State House of Representatives. Why are these symbols featured there? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ericlaine (talk • contribs) 9 September 2006.

I presume you are referring to the bundle of 13 arrows that are part of the Great Seal of the United States. - Jmabel | Talk 06:54, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

No, there are two fasci symbols in the United States House of Representatives. Here's a photo http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:HouseofRepresentatives.jpg Petermhorn (talk) 23:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

In the House Chamber, here is what there is to see: http://www.jfklibrary.org/NR/rdonlyres/4824ECB7-C7E9-47EB-A577-549C4BB6FF33/24456/4824ECB7C7E947EBA577549C4BB6FF33.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.230.220.236 (talk) 09:18, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

The Apotheosis of Washington

There is also a Fascio in the fresco The Apotheosis of Washington, painted by Italian artist Constantino Brumidi , which is very prominently visible (held by the woman left to George Washington) in the dome in the rotunda of the United States Capitol Building. Brumidi painted this in 1865, which means that the symbolic use of the Fascio is older then 1870.

Pacific Leanings?

I just changed 'pacific' to 'specific'. It makes sense (more easily), and 'pacific' doesn't seem relevant here. If this is wrong, can someone please clarify what is meant by 'pacific leanings'? 206.202.64.46 00:06, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Fasci Etimologically

Use of the word Fasci, goes back to The Roman Empire. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.107.239.96 (talk) 22:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC).

Not all fascio were fascist - the fascists took over the term fasci, there were non-fascist fascio

This article is slanted in appearance to presenting the fascio as being the precursors to fascism. That's like saying that trade unions were a precursor to Soviet communism because the Soviet Union had official trade unions. The fasci was like a guild, there were many fascio for different interests.--R-41 (talk) 23:25, 16 April 2012 (UTC)