Talk:Fasci Italiani di Combattimento

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Fasci Italiani di Combattimento article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on March 23, 2022 and March 23, 2023.

Italy Low‑importance

	Italy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Italy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Italy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ItalyWikipedia:WikiProject ItalyTemplate:WikiProject ItalyItaly articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

On 30 September 2021, it was proposed that this article be moved from Italian Fasces of Combat to Fasci Italiani di Combattimento. The result of the discussion was moved.

untitled

A correction to reference 1. The reference is to footnote 89 for chapter 5, and is (as stated) on page 303 in Sternhell's book. However, the information in the article is incorrect. Here is the relevant part of the footnote: "[Mussolini] set up a political movement (on 11 December 1914), the Fasci d'azione rivoluzionara, which was a fusion of two other movements: the Fasci autonomi d'azione rivoluzionaria (which he had created) and the Fasci d'azione rivoluzionara internazionalista."

So, when the Fasci di Combattimento was created in march 1919 it might have been a continuation (of sorts) of the Fasci d'azione rivoluzionaria. (Sternhell does not say anything about the relation of these two organizations.) But it was not a fusion of two organizations. The fusion took place in 1914.

--Jankarlst (talk) 14:46, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Worth including mention to fusion with Futurist Political Party/Partito Politico Futurista?

The linked page (which is nearly orphaned) claims to have merged with this one in 1919. Is this worth inclusion and linking?

Thanks, Elfabet (talk) 13:57, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 30 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: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Vpab15 (talk) 10:29, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Italian Fasces of Combat → Fasci Italiani di Combattimento – "Italian Fasces of Combat" is the literal translation of the Italian name, but it does not give the idea of its true meaning, which would be "Italian fighting bands" or "Italian fighting leagues" (Britannica, History.com etc.), so I think that the Italian name is the best solution for this page. Scia Della Cometa (talk) 22:05, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose — In my view, an English name is always better than the original-language one. Particularly in this case, I do not think that the current translation is bad enough to be supplanted by the original Italian name. --Checco (talk) 13:42, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support. On the contrary, a bad translation is worse than no translation, and this one approaches "horrible". The proposed title seems to be well-attested in English historical literature [1][2][3][4]. We might also consider the shorter form fasci di combattimento. No such user (talk) 12:00, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. What about Fasces of Revolutionary Action? I'd support Fascio d'Azione Rivoluzionaria as well, but it's uncomfortably similar to the post-war Fasci di Azione Rivoluzionaria. No such user (talk) 12:02, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd move that page too. For the problem of the similar name, it is sufficient to put the Template: Distinguish on the top of the page.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 19:31, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – best to use an English language title. The existing name is admittedly an inelegant translation, but does have precedent in existing literature, e.g. example 1, example 2, example 3, example 4, example 5 (with a slightly altered spelling, "Italian Fasci of Combat"), or example 6 ("Italian Combat Fasces"). If this is considered unacceptable, then there is an alternative English language name "Italian Combat Leagues" (example 1, example 2) which could suffice.--Autospark (talk) 15:50, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Exactly, it is a decidedly inelegant translation, even if it is the literal translation of the Italian name. "Italian Combat Leagues" or "Italian Combat Bands" are substantially correct translations, but there are two very relevant problems: they are not the literal translation of the original name and above all neither of the two names is the one mainly used in the English language. In cases like this, when there are doubts about how to translate the Italian name and when this name is used in the English language sources, the original name should certainly be preferred to any translation.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 19:41, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support. There are only 7 hits on Google Scholar for "Italian Fasces of Combat" vs 215 for "Fasci Italiani di Combattimento" restricted to English language sources. This seems to be an odd recurring issue with Italian articles. We don't make our own assessment of the accuracy or elegance of a translation. We follow the usage of English language sources per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:UE. Havelock Jones (talk) 20:38, 7 October 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.