Jump to content

Talk:Fascist Italy

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Elli (talk | contribs) at 11:20, 20 May 2021 (Closing requested move; not moved using rmCloser). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Requested move 6 February 2019

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 section.

The result of the move request was: Moved per WP:COMMONNAME. (non-admin closure). Xain36 {talk} 13:38, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]



Kingdom of Italy under Fascism (1922–1943)Fascist Italy (1922–1943)Fascist Italy (1922–1943) – "Fascist Italy" is the common name for this regime and is even used to refer to it in the introduction of this article. 2601:CE:C180:6B45:DD1F:F08E:924F:F191 (talk) 23:17, 6 February 2019 (UTC)--Relisted. –Ammarpad (talk) 07:16, 14 February 2019 (UTC)--Relisting. B dash (talk) 09:08, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]


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.

Requested move 3 March 2020

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: No consensus to move buidhe 05:00, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]



Fascist Italy (1922–1943)Kingdom of Italy under FascismKingdom of Italy under Fascism – This article is a sub-article of Kingdom of Italy. It is a period in the history of the kingdom. The terms Nazi Germany and Weimar Republic are mutually exclusive in English, but Fascist Italy and Kingdom of Italy are overlapping (like a Venn diagram). The proposed title better reflects that. Srnec (talk) 23:47, 3 March 2020 (UTC) Relisted. – Ammarpad (talk) 05:42, 11 March 2020 (UTC) Relisting. Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:58, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose per COMMONNAME and previous RM. I don't really follow the relevance of the nom's argument. So what that this was a period technically part of the Kingdom of Italy? It was a very different style of government during this time that merits a separate article, and that specific government is usually referred to as just "Fascist Italy". SnowFire (talk) 01:24, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note, however, that Fascist Italy is a disambiguation page, and this period already does have a separate article from the one about the Italian Social Republic. This RM is not proposing to change any of that, but rather to just use WP:NATURAL disambiguation. The previous RM had only one mention of the possibility of removing "(1922–1943)" from the title, and it had very limited participation and a non-admin closure. Two out of the three people commenting on the proposed move were not really expressing support for it, so I don't understand the declaration of a consensus for that move. —BarrelProof (talk) 01:54, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree that the previous RM counts as only a weak reason to keep for stability, but to be clear, I don't think this should be moved on the merits either, hence leading with COMMONNAME and mentioning the previous RM afterward. I'm a huge fan of natural disambiguation and removing needless parentheses, but not at the cost of using the "wrong" name. Technically it was the Kingdom of Italy in this period, sure, but it's usually called Mussolini's Italy or Fascist Italy or the like in sources. SnowFire (talk) 02:25, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Conservative elites

Hello, thanks for the extensive article. I wonder about the role of pre-Fascist elites and their role in Fascist Italy. E.g., except the Church, conservative circles, nobility, monarchists. In my understanding, these elites still had a significant role after 1922/1925, while in NS Germany they have been sidelined in a very early phase. I would love someone to expand the article about this topic. Ziko (talk) 11:46, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 6 May 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. (closed by non-admin page mover) Elli (talk | contribs) 11:20, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]



Fascist Italy (1922–1943)Kingdom of Italy under FascismKingdom of Italy under Fascism – "Fascist Italy" is not a distinct period in the constitutional history of Italy. That is why Fascist Italy is a disambiguation page. This article is about a distinct period in the political history of the Kingdom of Italy and is a sub-article of that page. The proposed title is better per WP:NATURALDIS, since it requires no parenthetical dates. Srnec (talk) 00:21, 6 May 2021 (UTC) Relisting. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 04:40, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strongly oppose - The Italian state and nation under Fascist rule was distinctly different from that which existed before Mussolini. For all intents and purposes, it was a de facto new polity and deserves that the title of the article about it indicate that distinctiveness, not to subsume Fascist Italy within the Kingdom of Italy. When Mussollini took over, it wasn't as if a leader of the other party in a two-party system took over and most everything remained the same. The Fascists' goal was for the total immersion of the country into fascism, which would permeate into every aspect of life. According to Il Duce:

    The Fascist conception of the State is all-embracing; outside of it no human or spiritual values can exist, much less have value. Thus understood, Fascism is totalitarian, and the Fascist State—a synthesis and a unit inclusive of all values—interprets, develops, and potentiates the whole life of a people.

    While they never quite achieved this level of domination, they certainly tried very hard to reach it, and the result was significantly different from the society which existed before it.
    As for the disambiguating dates, they don't need to be there at all, since there was only ever one "Fascist Italy". Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:30, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would also point out that this move was rejected in March 2020 when it was proposed by the same editor. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:33, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Rejected" means had one participant who opposed (SnowFire) and one who did not !vote but agreed that the page should not have been moved in the first place (BarrelProof). The RM of February 2019 was proposed by an IP and had three participants, one of whom !voted in favour (Rreagan007) and another clearly against (Dekimasu). It was closed as "move" by a now indef'd non-admin. Frankly, I should not have accepted the 2019 result, which was so clearly a supervote. I should have gone to MR.
Now, why do you say that the Italian Social Republic was not fascist? Srnec (talk) 11:51, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per previous RM comments, although thanks for the ping. I agree with the factuality of Srnec's comments, but don't agree to their relevance to the article name. We shouldn't let the official structure, name, flag, etc. override what the reliable sources say. Yes, it was still the Kingdom of Italy, yes it had the same constitution and flag, but it might as well have been a different polity - the shape of Italian politics in this period is vastly different from 1861-1922. As the lede of Statuto Albertino says, "However, de facto, it [the constitution] was mostly voided after 1925, when prime minister Benito Mussolini began acting as dictator." And a cursory glance at the sources shows this period being referred to as "Fascist Italy", both in modern works and in contemporary ones. Any confusion on the topic can be cleared up in the lede, but "Fascist Italy" is a more recognizable title (with year disambiguator, due to the Nazi puppet state muddying the waters). SnowFire (talk) 16:48, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@SnowFire: Of course I agree that "the shape of Italian politics in this period is vastly different". That's why it should remain a separate article. My problem is that unlike, e.g., German Empire, Weimar Republic and Nazi Germany, which are non-overlapping in usage, this article is clearly a sub-page of Kingdom of Italy, which existed both before Fascism and after Fascism. The monarchical constitution played a key role both in the rise of Fascism and its downfall, so I do not think this is a technicality. I think it would be less of an issue to me if the page title were Fascist era. After all, I do not think Gilded Age ought to be moved to United States during the Gilded Age. But neither should it be moved to Gilded United States. —Srnec (talk) 16:42, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
An extremely inapt analogy. "Fascist Italy" is a commonplace, I've never read or heard a single human being ever refer to "Gilded United States". Italy under Fascism was Italy when the Fascist Party was in power, and it was referred to as such at the time. There was no "Gilded Party", no change in the polity during the Gilded Age, and the description was adopted after the fact by historians based on social and cultural trends. There was no fundamental change in the American polity during the Gilded Age, as there was in Italy under Fascism. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:13, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You still haven't answered why you think that the Italian Social Republic was not fascist. Or perhaps you erred when you said "there was only ever one 'Fascist Italy'". Fascist Italy remains a disambiguation page and this article has a disambiguated title.
In any case, you've misunderstood the analogy. The point was that a distinct period in the history of a polity should be treated as a period. The first line of this article awkwardly defines "Fascist Italy" as "the era of National Fascist Party government" in the Kingdom of Italy. Note that that is not how the Nazi Germany article opens. Srnec (talk) 00:49, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The question has been answered by both of the responders here, you have simply ignored their responses: under Fascist rule, the polity that was the Kingdom of Italy changed substantially, enough so that it should be considered a de facto separate entity, something pretty much everyone accepts but you. (The Italian Social Republic was a puppet state which controlled only a small portion of Italy. No historian refers to it as "Fascist Italy", it's referred to as the "Italian Social Republic", the "Republic of Salo" or "Salo".)
There are 43 watchers to this talk page. You have made this request twice. Of the 43 watchers, two editors have turned up to oppose your move requests, and none have turned up to support it. You need to take that in: you are the only person interested in this subject who doesn't accept "Fascist Italy" as the legitimate title for this article. Please stop your WP:IDNHT behavior, WP:DROPTHESTICK and move on. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:04, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Fascist Italy" is not the title of this article. Srnec (talk) 01:37, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't be pedantic. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:50, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You obviously think very strongly about the issue, but it's not clear how Italy changing significantly under Fascism should somehow have any bearing on which specific way this significant change is conveyed in the article's title. Yes, you're correct when you say that the result was significantly different from the society which existed before it – that's why there's a specific article for it, and now we're just deciding what its name should be. Pasting the definition of Fascism here was a pointless gesture. Avilich (talk) 23:33, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. WP:NDAB is inherently preferable, and the old title makes it clear from the outset that the Kingdom of Italy is the subject of the article, in a way that a simple date qualifier (1922–1943) does not. Yes, Fascist Italy is the more common term, but it's ambiguous. The nominator should've opened a move review of the first discussion rather than try his luck on new ones. Avilich (talk) 23:16, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Both are different political entities entirely and most recognize this period of Italian history as "Fascist Italy" instead of a more superfluous title that just needlessly confusing, as per @Avilich:'s comment on how its a ambiguous title, name me one other notable example of Italy being a fascist state, not to mention this doesn't really comply with WP:TITLE SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 18:49, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, my feeling is that the parenthetical disambiguation is totally unnecessary, but that would be the subject for a different RM discussion. As for this one, I think a consensus is forming in opposition. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:57, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • At least 2 out of 3 opponents do not address the main point, that there are two Fascist Italies, and so you don't have a good basis for a consensus. Your long digression about how Fascist Italy was different from the constitutional monarchy contributes nothing to the central point here. If you wish there to be a single article called Fascist Italy, you should take it to your own proposed RM, not clutter an existing one which has nothing to do with that. Avilich (talk) 01:42, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • You continue to carry on the charade that Mussolini's Italy was just the Kingdom of Italy carrying on as usual. It was not, as any reputable historian will aver. It was, instead, a sea change, a complete and utter paradigm shift. Your unwillingness to acknowledge this is profoundly ahistorical, and rather disturbing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:30, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both of you deny that the changes which Fascism brought to Italy were so far-reaching and significant that the country was, de facto, a new polity, a revolution inside the legal container of the Kingdom. That's absolutely the equivalent of my formulation above. Don't blame me for holding the two of you accountable for what your position entails - you wrote what you wrote, you either stand by it, and the meaning and consequences of it, or you don't. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:04, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • States in transition are messy, stop trying to make everything clearcut. The Fascist Grand Council essentially created a reverse coup d'etat in which they voluntarily gave up their power. The de facto Fascist polity was then beheaded, and, with no strong leader, power was restored to the King to appoint a new government. Pedantic legalities are one thing and reality on the ground is another thing altogether. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:23, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Srnec: Mussolini's Italy is different compared to the regular monarchy as newer, significant regulations were imposed that it's a good reason why many historians label the Fascist era as a different, pedantic entity from the regular monarchy. Not to mention that both entities fought against each other during the Italian Civil War which is a key reason on why both aren't the same despite what others might say. SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 12:57, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In 1922–43 the entity known as the Kingdom of Italy was under fascism, while Fascist Italy in 1943–5 was the Italian Social Republic. It makes inherent sense that the article names should reflect this. Your own focus on pedantic legalities is misleading. There is already a page called Fascist Italy; what sets the two articles in there apart from each other should ideally be indicated in their titles already. Avilich (talk) 15:50, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The subject of this article could not have been at war with the Kingdom of Italy in any Italian civil war. This is the sort of easy confusion that I think a title change helps prevent. Srnec (talk) 00:08, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Baloney. There's no "easy confusion" here. You had to bend over backwards to attempt to create "confusion" which supports your PoV. No one is confused, not me, and not you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:08, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
SuperSkaterDude45 said Mussolini's Italy is different compared to the regular monarchy ... both entities fought against each other during the Italian Civil War, which is clearly a confusion of this Fascist Italy with the other one. The subject of this article had nothing to do with the Italian civil war. Srnec (talk) 00:53, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose While I may agree with some of the statements formulated in favour of the change, I think those arguments are largely non-relevant to the title renaming. My impression (indiciarily supported by google searches) is that Fascist Italy is simply the most identifiable and common name for the 1922–1943 Fascist period in Italy (which is the topic of the article, not a new country in particular, not the continuity of a monarchy in particular either)... by far. "Fascist Italy, 1922–1943" is simply ubiquitous in academia. "It makes inherent sense that the article names should reflect this" I don't think so. There is no reason whatsoever to force a monarchy/republic distinction over other considerations such as usage. PD: I personally feel there is an undue general urge in Wikipedia to fit articles as "polities" (so there is always a sucession of polities, which are often understood as the sole container of historical content for the history of a given country). While there can be a degree of that, there are less rigid frames and the fixation (particularly vis-à-vis the infoboxes) to shoehorn the notion of "former country" is problematic and prone to become a trap of unvoluntary orientalism.--Asqueladd (talk) 02:07, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Do you support removing the infobox from this article? As I see it, this article is about a period in Italian history and not about a former country. I think the proposed name better reflects that. Srnec (talk) 00:08, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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.