Talk:Death of Benito Mussolini

Other executed fascist leaders

The following discussion 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.

---

I recently edited the passage:

Aside from Mussolini and Petacci, sixteen of the most prominent of them would be summarily shot in Dongo the following day and a further ten would be killed over two successive nights.

As:

Aside from Mussolini and Petacci, sixteen of the most prominent of them (Alessandro Pavolini, Fernando Mezzasoma, Ruggero Romano, Augusto Liverani, Paolo Zerbino, Paolo Porta, Francesco Maria Barracu, Nicola Bombacci, Luigi Gatti, Idreno Utimperghe, Vito Casalinuovo, Ernesto Daquanno, and Goffredo Coppola, as well as Mario Nudi, the commander of Mussolini's personal guard, Pietro Calistri, an officer of the Aeronautica Nazionale Repubblicana who was mistaken for Mussolini's personal pilot, and Marcello Petacci, Claretta's brother) would be summarily shot in Dongo the following day and a further ten would be killed over two successive nights.

This was reverted by another editor (DeCausa) who claims that this is a "unnecessary list". I strongly disagree, as this is not a list - it's a three-line addition - and in a page that deals specifically with the last days and death of Mussolini, mentioning the other fascist leaders who were arrested with him and their fate seems rather appropriate. Many of them were key figures of the Italian Social Republic or important associates of Mussolini, such as Pavolini, one of the most important figures of both the pre-armistice fascist regime and (especially) the RSI, Bombacci, Barracu, Marcello Petacci, and ministers Zerbino, Romano, Mezzasoma and Liverani; if anything, omitting their names represents a serious omission for this page. I would like to hear other opinions on the matter. --Jannizzero1 (talk) 19:47, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

16 names is too long list - it’s not clear what the point of such a long list is. Not all of them were that important. Some of the names don’t even have articles. A further 10 were shot the next day but are not named. It really doesn’t add anything to an article about M.’s death. In fact, inserting them is WP:UNDUE. For this article the only thing worth mentioning is that other fascist leaders were shot. This is not an article about the demise of the fascist leadership as a whole = although that would be an article worth creating. DeCausa (talk) 20:08, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, no details are provided about their death: they are simply mentioned by name. Those shot on the next day are not named because unlike the first group, they were not important figures - indeed, most sources that detail the death of Mussolini name those executed in Dongo on 28 April 1945, but not those shot on the following days. --Jannizzero1 (talk) 21:13, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Strongly agree with DeCausa. Might be relevant/ more DUE if some or all were executed physically alongside Mussolini? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:19, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

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.

Use of "official" with quotes?

Current version at the start of the 4th paragraph of the lede says:

In the post-war years, the "official" version of Mussolini's death has been questioned...

With an attached Note that says

In fact, there has never been a determination by any governmental or judicial authority of a particular version of events. This generally accepted version is often termed the "official version", nevertheless. However, to reflect this lack of governmental or judicial authority, sources on the subject have used the term with quotation marks. See harvnb
— User:Moseley

I don't like this, and would support a rewrite, but User:DeCausa doesn't agree.

I don't like the use of "official" with the quotes. IMO use of quotes is usually reserved to indicate an actual quote. Otherwise it looks like a scare quote, seeming that what we are trying to say is "In the post-war years, the (so-called) 'official' version has been questioned..." which kinds of gives the vibe that we are scoffing at it.

What we are wanting to say is more like "In the post-war years, what is sometimes (incorrectly) called the 'official' version has been questioned..." This would be better but would still not tell the reader if there is a generally accepted version, and if it is the same as the 'official' version or not.

(If the situation is "There is a a version which, while not necessarily generally accepted, is often mistaken as having being adjudicated by an official body" or whatever (which would be kind of odd), we should make that clear. It may be that many people think there is an official version but its a coverup or something.)

Apparently some sources use "official" (with or without scare quotes I don't know) but we are not bound to sources for our terminology and typography, only for facts. I think what we really want to say is generally accepted or most common or accepted by most historians or a legend believe by some uninformed people or whatever or something (I don't know which of these is true, if any). We should say that and not kind of imply it. We don't imply, generally.

And then the note could be edited to say something like

This generally accepted version is termed the "official version" in some sources. But here has never been a determination by any governmental or judicial authority of a particular version of events. To reflect this lack of governmental or judicial authority, sources on the subject have used the term with quotation marks. See harvnb
— User:Moseley

I also don't care much for what our Manual of Style says, since it says use common sense and exceptions may apply. I just don't think this is one of those exceptions. Herostratus (talk) 22:30, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

But "generally accepted" was not the case when it was also described as "official" (in quotes). You're oversimplifying what "official" means in this case. Before Lampredi's 1972 version was published in 1996 it was very questionable whether it was "generally accepted". I don't think it was and certainly heavy hitters like de Felice didn't accept it. It was definitely a wide open question. But it was still "official" (according to sources, in quotes) despite that even though there was no governmental underwriting of it. So what was "official" about it? "Official" in this context is a curious and specifically post-war Italian nuanced mix of approbation by key elements of the Italian post war establishment such as the Communist Party and PSI but also support from, arguably, the most "sensible" elements of Italian media and academia but not all. (But characterizing it in this way may be an NPOV issue). Trying to capture all of that as some variant of "generally accepted" is just wrong. From 1996 and the publication of Lampredi's account, the situation morphs - "generally accepted" becomes much stronger. But the issue is it was called "official" in quotes before and after 1996. It's in quotes in the sources in an attempt to capture all of this. Trying to cram this into the narrow recommendation of the MoS is a mistake and ties us in knots looking for a replacement phrase that doesn't exist. MoS recognises that common sense should be applied rather than slavishly following a narrow recommendation. I think the current wording is the best solution. DeCausa (talk) 23:24, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

OK. Herostratus (talk) 08:04, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 6 May 2024

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. Participants were divided on whether the proposed move would be an improvement. Supporters of the move largely pointed to the framework in WP:DEATHS, but opponents noted that WP:DEATHS is an explanatory essay rather than a guideline in its own right, and thus that it should not be assumed to be universally appropriate. Arguments against the move also included the fact that there is scholarly debate over whether Mussolini's death should be considered an execution or an assassination; conversely, supporters of the move argued that using "Death of..." might falsely imply that Mussolini died of natural causes. Even after three relists, I don't see this discussion as having reached a consensus either for or against a move. (closed by non-admin page mover) ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 19:32, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

---

Death of Benito Mussolini → Killing of Benito Mussolini – "Death of" is usually reserved for cases where either the cause of death is unknown/disputed or the person died of natural causes (WP:DEATHS). Surely "killing" is more appropriate. TRCRF22 (talk) 18:52, 6 May 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. SilverLocust 💬 00:13, 15 May 2024 (UTC)— Relisting. >>> Extorc.talk 09:09, 22 May 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Polyamorph (talk) 08:46, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Fair point. Although the first sentence suggests it should actually be "Execution of Benito Mussolini"? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:59, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

I do not think that "killing" is appropriate. "killing" implies that he was killed during the war or as result of murder, which is not true. He was executed, thus "Execution of Benito Mussolini" is more appropriate and in line with the context. A b r v a g l ^(PingMe) 20:04, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Oppose See previous failed move request here. This is part of a symmetrical pairing with Death of Adolf Hitler. Also, the basis of his death is disputed. Was it judicial execution, summary execution in the field, assassination, there's even one allegation of suicide? it's in the article. Finally, in my opinion, "Killing of..." is crude and unencyclopedic. It can work for some deaths but there is an undertow of something "unlawful". That's a value judgment that's out of place for Mussolini. It's too complex to pointlessly mess around with the perfectly acceptable and "broad church" scope of "Death of...". DeCausa (talk) 20:01, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I was Neutral in that one, three years ago. And I don't see that anything much has changed. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:07, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Weak oppose: I'll point out that WP:DEATHS is neither a policy nor a guideline. It advocates overuse of "Killing" and reaches way beyond the policy it purports to explain. There's nothing wrong with "Death of X". —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 15:20, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

• Support per nomination. Mussolini met a violent end and the main title header of an article detailing it should specify that violence. English Wikipedia articles about non-violent deaths of well-known individuals, such as Death of Ludwig van Beethoven, Death of Edgar Allan Poe or Death of Michael Jackson do indeed use the form "Death of..." However, Mussolini was killed without a trial and his body was mutilated — various historical write-ups use "killed" or "murdered" to describe his end. "Execution of..." would likewise be ill-fitting as illustrated by the move of Execution of the Romanov family to Murder of the Romanov family at Talk:Murder of the Romanov family#Requested move 1 January 2023. Thus, unlike Death of Ludwig van Beethoven, Mussoloni's end was an extremely brutal event, akin to the Killing of Muammar Gaddafi, rather than the Trial and execution of Nicolae and Elena Ceaușescu or Execution of Saddam Hussein, and the article's header should reflect that fact. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 22:48, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

  That's a very POV and contentious interpretation of his death which wouldn't reflect WP:DUE. So you would discount Audisio's contention that it was carried out pursuant to a War Tribunal order or Togliatti's claim that it was the result of a Cabinet decision or the 1967 court ruling on Petacci's death? Certainly an arguable position but a long long way from being conclusive. DeCausa (talk) 06:25, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

  Actually it was pretty comparable in a lot of regards to what happened to Ceaușescu. (t · c) buidhe 05:36, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

The above interpretation of Mussolini's death is indeed disturbingly sympathetic. We're talking about a brutal fascist dictator who illegally seized power, oppressed his fellow Italians and brought immense devastation and destruction to Italy by entering the war on Hitler's side. AusLondonder (talk) 13:58, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

It may be of interest to glance at arguments presented in Talk:Killing of Osama bin Laden/Archive 5#Requested move 6 September 2020 which resulted in the move of Death of Osama bin Laden → Killing of Osama bin Laden or at Talk:Killing of Muammar Gaddafi#Requested move 18 September 2021 which resulted in the move of Death of Muammar Gaddafi → Killing of Muammar Gaddafi. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 11:35, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

• Leaning support per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (violence and deaths), which provides a structure for evaluating titles by circumstance of death. BD2412 T 00:39, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose This has been discussed before and I don't see what has changed. There has been no attempt by the nom to provide analysis of usage of "death" or "killing" by reliable sources. Execution seems to be used in several reliable sources. The article deals with Mussolini's death, it is appropriately titled. AusLondonder (talk) 14:05, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
• Support per nom and BD2412. The comparison above to Hitler is inapt because Hitler (famously) killed himself while Mussolini did not. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 03:08, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
• Move to Murder of Benito Mussolini I guess per WP:DEATHS is more appropriate name regarding the situation of that time. Although then, i also supporting move to Execution of Benito Mussolini if anyone disagree with proposed move. 2404:8000:1037:178:3192:D202:E3F:11E1 (talk) 10:17, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

  There was never any murder conviction. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:23, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose - per above, not much has changed since the previous move request to indicate anything new. Also, WP:DEATHS, which seems to be the primary basis of the argument, is an explanatory essay and not a policy. Bandit Heeler (talk) 02:08, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

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.

Treasure

I was surprised to not see the Dongo Treasure mentioned nevertheless discussed in this GA. It's a major aspect of the legacy of his capture and death. czar 00:04, 1 December 2024 (UTC)