Talk:Fascist Italy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

More information This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:, Associated task forces: ...
Close

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)


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)

  • On the other hand, it is a daughter article of Kingdom of Italy. Since Fascist Italy is a disambiguation page, I don't see much benefit to the proposed change. Dekimasuよ! 21:32, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:COMMONNAME. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:40, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Dekimasu. An article at Fascist Italy might make sense, but that isn't being proposed. We could remove the dates from the current title, however. Srnec (talk) 23:21, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
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)


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)

  • 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)
    • 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)
      • 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)
        • I do not see what is technical about its being the Kingdom of Italy! I doubt Mussolini thought it a technicality on 25 July 1943. —Srnec (talk) 02:41, 5 March 2020 (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.

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)

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)


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)

  • 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)
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)
"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)
  • 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)
@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)
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)
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)
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)
"Fascist Italy" is not the title of this article. Srnec (talk) 01:37, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
Please don't be pedantic. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:50, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • how its a ambiguous title It has a parenthetical qualifier, indicating its ambiguity. Did you even look properly? Avilich (talk) 21:09, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • What are different political entities entirely? The proposed title is less confusing because it does not leave the reader to assume that this is something that comes after the Kingdom of Italy. Srnec (talk) 00:30, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • At no point did he ever say that. You're completely making stuff up. Avilich (talk) 01:44, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • And your position would seem to entail that the Italy the Allies signed an armistice with was a different polity from the one that declared war. Srnec (talk) 03:08, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
  • 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)
@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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
  • 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)
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)
  • Oppose per above arguments. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:38, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Per reasons given. I will add that requesting to change the name of this page to Kingdom of Italy under Fascism would be the equivalent of having to name Francoist Spain to “Spain under Franco”. It’s generally accepted that when referring to this time period in Italy, it was called “Fascist Italy”, while it was still called “Kingdom of Italy” during Mussolini’s time as prime minister. It’s simple, and a common name. If we’re gonna go by the logic per the agrees, might as well rename all articles as well. For instance, you’re going to have to rename the Republic of China (1912-1949) to Republic of China (1912-1949) under Capitalism. JayzBox (talk) 05:15, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose as per WP:COMMONNAME, unless you find any substantial source that calls it "Kingdom of Italy under Fascism" more frequently than "Fascist Italy". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Osunpokeh (talk • contribs) 15:40, 18 May 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.

"Soft Underbelly of Europe" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Soft Underbelly of Europe. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 June 19#Soft Underbelly of Europe until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. signed, Rosguill talk 18:02, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

First sentence of the lead

There is no problem in reverting the first sentence of the introduction, but at the moment it is meaningless, because a state cannot be an "age". At the very least we should change the verb. Alex2006 (talk) 17:35, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

(1) Where is the word "age" used? I see "era". (2) Why can't a state be co-extensive with an age or an era? Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:06, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
Opps, you are right! I translated back from Italian ("era fascista"). :-) But the problem does not change: co-extension does not mean identity, the verb is wrong. Actually, if this article is supposed to describe Italy from 1922 until 1943, one could write something like "The Kingdom of Italy in the fascist era was marked by the rule of the Fascist Party...", or "Italy in the fascist era..." as for example it is done for the Kingdom of France in the middle ages and in the early modern. It is apparent that here there is a problem: 3 requests of move in two years are a lot, and I think that this happened because many users found a contradiction between the title and the beginning of the lead. Instead of changing the title (which is ok), we could change the first sentence, specifying better the subject of the article. Alex2006 (talk) 06:36, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
Easiest solution: "The Kingdom of Italy was governed by the National Fascist Party from 1922 to 1943 with Benito Mussolini as prime minister." Srnec (talk) 22:54, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
It is OK for me! Alex2006 (talk) 16:29, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Hatnote

@Beyond My Ken: Why does this article with a completely unambiguous title and no ambiguous redirects need a hatnote? Srnec (talk) 20:17, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

  • Because both were Fascist Italian polities, and most readers will only be familiar with one of them. Our job is to serve the reader, and the reader is better informed by letting them know that there was another Fascist Italy. Eyes on the prize. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:21, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Correction on infobox

My new correction on infobox is a simple information regarding Italian king who was political sponsor of DUCE Mussolini: king and duce together controlled political power. Sure king was not under fascist party's power because in 25 July 1945 Italian king and other fascist chiefs ordered capture of Mussolini who was imprisoned. Forza bruta (talk) 18:19, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

I agree that "under" makes no sense in light of the events of 25 July 1943, but "allied with" seems no better to me. The king was not Mussolini's "sponsor". They were no more allied than any monarch is to his or her prime minister in a parliamentary monarchy. Of course, both benefited from their arrangement. Srnec (talk) 20:38, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
If you agree, we can remove term "under" and put term "with": I wait your opinion. Other situation: Italian king had official title IMPERATORE during fascist era and imperator is under only the sky.Forza bruta (talk) 22:11, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
"With" seems awkward. Nonetheless, I have implemented it. Srnec (talk) 03:09, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 16 November 2023

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. (closed by non-admin page mover) -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 15:36, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

– The name "Fascist Italy" is only used in two pages, this and the disambiguation page. Except the disambiguation page only has two (three if you count Italian Fascism at the bottom) links, and the second one doesn't even have "Fascist Italy" in the name. Since "Fascist Italy" is a much simpler title, I request that, potentially under WP:COMMONNAME, this page be moved to "Fascist Italy", and the disambiguation page be moved to "Fascist Italy (disambiguation)" or even deleted altogether, as it seems pretty redundant since the links "Italian Social Republic" and "Italian Fascism" can simply be placed at the top of the page like: "This article is about the Italian state from 1922 to 1943. For the puppet state of Nazi Germany, see Italian Social Republic. For Italian fascism in general, see Italian Fascism." This move is different from the two moves before requesting to move this page back to "Kingdom of Italy under Fascism", so the reasons for opposing those requests should probably not be used here, since this move is to a different name. Altendo 13:30, 16 November 2023 (UTC)— Relisting. wbm1058 (talk) 21:50, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

  • This looks like it started with this anonymous edit in 2011. In retrospect, the phrase "fascist Italy" generally has a fairly clear primary topic and the distinction between the two polities is probably largely immaterial for the average English reader. Indeed, we use it as such in the title of the article Fall of the Fascist regime in Italy. We should probably try to analyze whether there's an actual use case for links to something happening in e.g. '44 under the guise of "Fascist Italy" to be disambiguated. --Joy (talk) 14:14, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Comment. I wouldn't put much weight on the argument that the article Italian Social Republic "doesn't even have Fascist Italy in the name." The 1943-45 puppet state is certainly called "Fascist Italy" in sources, and something like Fascist Italy (1943–1945) wouldn't be an unreasonable title for the article on it, for all that a translation of the formal name of the state is fine too. That said, I can see a WP:TWODABS argument to just use a hatnote here. SnowFire (talk) 16:43, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose and restore the article to Kingdom 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. Srnec (talk) 03:28, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
Oppose and move to Kingdom of Italy under Fascism. I'm convinced by Srnec that this would be the best way to title it, since it's about a particular historical period of the Kingdom of Italy. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 22:23, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Comment / Strong oppose alternative suggestion. Well this is side-tracked but see earlier RMs. This article was only at Srnec's preferred title for a comparatively short amount of time (so "restore" is a bit of a leading verb here), and a lot of consensus was against it. Names aren't that important, and the Kingdom of Italy was only the same country as it was before in name only. The Statuto Albertino was voided in 1925. Fascist Italy was a very different country that did not have much in common with the previous period, and more importantly, it's treated differently and named differently in the sources. Note that our article on Nazi Germany starts in 1933, when the Nazis took power, not in 1938, when they formally renamed the state. Which is accurate, the name wasn't the big deal, the Italian fascists / Nazis being in charge was the big deal. SnowFire (talk) 06:26, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
    We have no article on the German state 1918–1945. We do, however, have an article on the Italian state 1861–1946. The king still having constitutional authority over Mussolini was actually a pretty big deal on 25 July 1943. If "Fascist Italy" just means "Italy but with Fascists in charge", then I think my preferred title gets that across quite clearly. Srnec (talk) 21:04, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Relisting comment. When I see complicated discussions like this struggling to come to consensus, I look to see how the topic is covered in its native language for guidance on how the impasse might be resolved. Starting with where there is agreement, I see it:Repubblica Sociale Italiana is the Italian equivalent to Italian Social Republic; that's good. Italian fascism links to it:Storia del fascismo italiano (History of Italian fascism), because in Italy, it:fascismo italiano (Italian fascism) simply redirects to Fascism (it:Fascismo). it:Italia fascista (Fascist Italy) redirects to the History of Italian fascism article. "Fascist Italy" is not an ambiguous topic; it is a WP:Broad concept looking for an article. Would be helpful if someone could write it. Most of the scope of Fascist Italy (1922–1943) seems to be covered in the Italian History of Italian fascism article, including a WP:Summary style overview of the Italian Social Republic, which is covered in more detail in a subtopic article. – wbm1058 (talk) 21:50, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
    It is certainly interesting that this article has no counterpart on the Italian Wiki! Srnec (talk) 00:28, 25 November 2023 (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.

Requested move 21 February 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: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 01:53, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Fascist Italy (1922–1943) → Fascist Italy – Primary topic. "Fascist Italy" predominantly refers to the 1922–1943 period in historical discourse. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 20:17, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

  • Support per nom. Clear primary topic. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:49, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose and restore the article to Kingdom 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. Note that the Italian WP has no article corresponding to this one. Srnec (talk) 21:25, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
    There's nothing that prevents this article being a subarticle and titled Fascist Italy, which is by far the common name for this period, nor anything wrong with it overlapping Kingdom of Italy. Indeed, both Nazi Germany and Weimar Republic overlap German Reich as periods in the history of the Reich. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 03:29, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
    As long as the article ends in 1943 (and it should), then it should have a descriptive title that conveys its scope clearly. That is my position. If we are going to structure our coverage in this way—and the Italian WP shows that it isn't strictly necessary—then we should do readers the service of showing them what we're doing. Srnec (talk) 03:28, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
    Surely a hatnote should suffice for that? The hatnote for French Fifth Republic seems to serve that purpose. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 19:20, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
Support - “Fascist Italy” almost exclusively refers to this subject, and the only disambiguation article, Italian Social Republic has a distinct title, so the dates are not necessary. “Kingdom of Italy under Fascism” is not the WP:CommonName, and is unnecessarily academic when a common, already well-known name is available. - 2601:154:C380:1140:A1BE:560C:A06F:8090 (talk) 02:06, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
  • Support - As others have stated, it's the primary topic. Academically, the Italian Social Republic is generally an afterthought; the current hatnote will do the trick. Meluiel (talk) 18:16, 27 February 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.

Usage of Fascist Italy on Infobox military conflict

Disregard

TheManwhoNeverWasEverBefore is Sockmaster Jheeeeeeteegh Historyhiker 00:58, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi. Since my edits at the categories across the battles of World War II involving Italy being reverted, and needed to be discussed by consensus. My proposition is to change the redirecting link from Fascist Italy to the Kingdom of Italy in Template:Infobox military conflict on battles where Italy is involved in during World War II like the (Battle of Gazala or the Second Battle of El Alamein). For example, where Romania is involved in during WWII, we used the Kingdom of Romania as the redirecting link in infoboxes instead of it's sub-article like the Kingdom of Romania under Fascism during its period, which it should be applied in infoboxes for Italy also. Please feel free to provide suggestions, Thanks.TheManwhoNeverWasEverBefore (talk) 21:07, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Fascist Italy's infobox

Disregard

RatMan7108 is Sockmaster Jheeeeeeteegh Historyhiker 00:58, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello. I believe this article should use the infobox historical era since there were two Fascist Italy: first is the Kingdom of Italy from 1922 to 1943, and the second one is the Italian Social Republic from 1943 to 1945. I wanna know what others think about this. Thanks. RatMan7108 (talk) 14:44, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

From the perspective of just the topic name: Yes, 1943-45 was also "Fascist Italy." But sometimes Wikipedia has to break down large topics and separate them into separate pages, like chapters of a book. If 22-43 and 43-45 were equally "interesting" I can see either a broad concept article with short overviews and separate articles for all (3 total articles), but I'm not sure that's the best presentation or accurate - the 43-45 Fascist Italy was a rump state on German life support. So I think the current layout is fine. It helps keep each article focused, and there's a hatnote for getting readers to the correct spot quickly. SnowFire (talk) 05:18, 23 November 2025 (UTC)
It's also interesting and kinda funny that in Italian Wikipedia and other related published books I saw about Fascist Italy mostly refers to the Kingdom of Italy from 1922 and 1943 but not the Italian Social Republic. RatMan7108 (talk) 05:54, 23 November 2025 (UTC)
I have another alternative proposal: We can use the historical era layout, but the period's duration would still be the same (1922-1943), since Fascist Italy is a period and not a country, and the article's main point was the Kingdom of Italy under Fascism. I already did this move but I got reverted because it lacks concensus. Thanks. RatMan7108 (talk) 10:43, 23 November 2025 (UTC)
I think the current scope (ending in 1943) is fine, but I do think an historical era infobox makes more sense. Srnec (talk) 03:38, 24 November 2025 (UTC)
I agree considering this was a period of the Kingdom, a period within the state. RatMan7108 (talk) 08:34, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

RfC about the article's infobox

Disregard

RatMan7108 is Sockmaster Jheeeeeeteegh Historyhiker 00:58, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello, regarding to this article. Should we use the infobox historical era layout instead of this infobox country one? Since Fascist Italy can be a broad concept, it can be referred to as the Kingdom of Italy from 1922 to 1943 (this article) and the Italian Social Republic from 1943 to 1945, something like a disambiguation. Although the article's main point was about the Kingdom of Italy under Fascism, it was a historical period within the state. Note that our article on Vargas era previously used the infobox country template, but now they changed it to the infobox historical era one. I think this article should follow suit. RatMan7108 (talk) 15:42, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

This question is entirely dependent on the topic of the article. This is not determined by the topic name, which like the infobox should flow from the topic rather than the other way around. CMD (talk) 06:27, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
Well yes, the topic was about the Fascist period in the Kingdom of Italy as the hatnote already indicated. My only problem is that Fascist Italy is a period and not a state in practice, that's why in my opinion, we should use the historical era layout. RatMan7108 (talk) 01:17, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
The problem with the article is its structure: it is structured poorly and says little to nothing about the history of the country itself. TheodoresTomfooleries (talk) 00:22, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
Well, sorry for late response cause I was busy. But I never noticed that the structure of the article is poorly constructed as well.... RatMan7108 (talk) 01:09, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
Another factor that this article is rarely edited or watched by other editors. RatMan7108 (talk) 01:10, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
Template:Infobox historical era is used on articles such as Victorian era. It looks like both have been tried, so the options are this "historical era" infobox or this "country" infobox. I think I prefer the shorter "historical era" one. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:21, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
I agree. @Historyhiker: this change is supported by non-blocked users; what context did you want to present for this edit? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:20, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
Thank you, I will open a sub-topic here myself, please feel free to opine in that section. Historyhiker 00:24, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Recent InfoBox Discussions

Note: Recent discussions here were initiated by a confirmed and influential vandal. I wanted to present this topic to established accounts, as the sockmaster also used IP addresses to derail threads. At this time, we believe we have identified all of the bad-faith accounts, but some IP addresses may still be used, so please be cautious with new or anonymous accounts. Interestingly, there is broader interest in the suggestions that were made, so I think they are worth discussing again here without their influence.

@Nikkimaria, Srnec, SnowFire, Chipmunkdavis, TheodoresTomfooleries, and WhatamIdoing:

As stated in the threads, Fascist Italy is a historical period of the Kingdom of Italy and I do not take issue with this point. My reservations about changing the infobox come from the following considerations (I will keep it short):

  • As stated above there seem to be two thoughts, and using analogy, they go as follows:
  • On other pages, how do we distinguish between Mussolini’s fascist regime and the pre-dictatorship Kingdom of Italy?
    • For example the axis expansionist policy is distinctly Italy under Mussolini's rule, which the country map in this page should show (e.g., Albania, Greece, etc...).
  • If we decide that this page should indeed be an era infobox, then we must also decide what to make of the successor and predecessor eras. I suggest and request the following:

I defer to more experienced editors on this topic but would like the last technical point addressed if possible before applying the changes. I will make amendments to other pages based on the outcome of this discussion. Thanks! Historyhiker 01:24, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

As above, I believe historical era is the most appropriate outcome. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:26, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
My position is that this page should be restored to its longstanding title, Kingdom of Italy under Fascism, and (probably) have no infobox at all. I have argued this across five RMs, so I won't rehash it here. Srnec (talk) 02:07, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
I just want to comment that I noticed this and, to me, this makes more sense than adding an historical era infobox if it came down to it. Historyhiker 02:32, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
@Srnec one last question about the eras, what would be the before and after eras of this page if it were changed into an era? I don't think there are pages for that yet right? So we would also have to make new era pages up to the modern era (i.e., this would be the first Italian era page?) Historyhiker 03:01, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping, but I don't really have a strong opinion here. Use whatever infobox makes sense and has consensus. The one thing I will quibble with... regardless of what infobox this article picks, it shouldn't affect other articles. It's okay for articles to not be consistent because concepts often aren't fully consistent. I would argue that the Italian Social Republic was much more clearly a "state", if a rump state, and even if you disagree, that's a discussion for another page. Basically history is a big messy soup and it's okay to have some apparent inconsistency between articles if that inconsistency just reflects the sources. SnowFire (talk) 02:36, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
I agree.
I think we should probably not worry too much about which infobox is used. Eventually, I think all Wikipedia articles will have infoboxes; therefore, we should pick one, make it short, and stop worrying about it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:02, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
Those who want a short infobox should probably worry about which one is used, Infobox country is a big bloat attractor. (See, the current infobox.) CMD (talk) 03:06, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
My view is that the infobox should match the article topic. If the infobox is focused on describing a state, then the state infobox may work. (Things get fuzzy, so I don't want to be 100% confident.) However, if the article is meant to be a periodisation of history then it should not have a state infobox. CMD (talk) 02:41, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
Thank you! This is an interesting point, I am interested to see what you think @CMD, given the current state of the page, which do you think should be the infobox? I am more concerned about the context of WWII than I am about Italian history in making my judgements, but I may be wrong. Do you think this page is about the state or the era of the same state given the text of the article? Historyhiker 02:46, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
The current page is a bit confused. The body has sections that you would expect from a state page, like Culture and Economy, but oddly it is lacking anything on the government (the core of the state). Meanwhile the lead is a straight up chronological history. CMD (talk) 02:50, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
I stumbled upon this article while on a wiki rabbit hole and give my two cents on this discussion, since it is similar to a change I am proposing on the Republic of China (1912–1949) page. Please note that I have not done extensive research into the subject.
I think that because Mussolini remained Prime Minister of Italy and continued the existing government of the Kingdom of Italy, it should not be considered as seperate state. He did not use his fascist party to control the state and left many institutions intact and independent. On the other hand, I would consider the Weimar Republic and Nazi Germany differently because Hitler changed the head of state office from President to Führer, as well as completely replacing almost all institutions to be controlled directly by the Nazi party and its associates.
Thus, it is better to use a historical era infobox, rather than a country infobox. Wasting-time-is-my-passion (talk) 22:50, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
The problems with the infobox only began when people removed the history section from this article. The article is poorly organized. It is not a matter of the infobox. It is a matter of the structure of the article itself. TheodoresTomfooleries (talk) 02:55, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
This is probably the vandal, they have been using many accounts to edit these pages removing or amending these pages. If the history section were put back (I can work on this), what would the proper info box be? Historyhiker 14:26, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
  • I don't think that we need to change the infobox from the present, though I would trim down some of the detail displayed presently. The name of the infobox template used is irrelevant. What is relevant is the information summarised therein. If it allows appropriate key inmformation to be summarised, then it is fit-for-purpose. Unnecessary or irrelevant information can always be omitted - as it should be. Cinderella157 (talk) 08:34, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
    I have just identified that there is a similar issue at Beiyang government and the use of infobox country v infobox government. While the essence of my argument is unchanged (the relevant information displayed is more important than the actual template used), using infobox government appears to be more compatible with the required information. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:35, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
It makes far more sense to keep the original country infobox. The article focuses primarily on the state and society of Fascist Italy itself, rather than simply on Italy during a fascist period. Moreover, the proposed historical era infobox links to the era of Liberal Italy on one end, which does not have its own infobox, as well as to the Italian Social Republic and the Kingdom of the South on the other, both of which use the standard country infobox. This is bound to create confusion. The original country infobox used here also differs in several respects from the one on the Kingdom of Italy article. While the distinctions are not as pronounced as those between the Nazi Germany and Weimar Republic infoboxes, they are still significant and should not be overlooked. I have restored the WP:STABLE version until a clear community consensus is formed. Given the current reverts, it is clear that no such consensus currently exists. — EarthDude (Talk) 12:33, 4 March 2026 (UTC)
"Fascist Italy itself" is nothing more than "Italy during a fascist period". That's the point. Srnec (talk) 00:10, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
Agreed. And while I appreciate EarthDude may have a strong personal preference for country, it appears that they are alone in that - pretty much everyone who has stated a preference has favoured era (or government) over country. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:15, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
Other editors have also expressed support for including a country infobox. In any case, I'm fine with not having one. My main concern is the inconsistency. The Liberal Italy era doesn't include an infobox, and the two subsequent entries, the Italian Social Republic and the Kingdom of the South, aren't treated as eras. Maybe we could create an article on the late-fascist Italy, from 1943 to 1945? — EarthDude (Talk) 05:51, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
I think omitting is a good solution for the moment. But regarding consistency, see SnowFire's comment from 12 Feb. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:49, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
Not really. If it were only about Italy during a fascist period, then the article would be fully chronological, and sections such as "Culture and society" wouldn't exist, or atleast would be rewritten. Although the lead and other parts of the article are chronological, which is probably where the confusion begins. It would have also included Italy from 1943 to 1945. — EarthDude (Talk) 05:40, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
I would say that there should be a country infobox for Fascist Italy because:
  1. It was a distinct era of a country
  2. An infobox should summarise information about a certain topic, so not having one for something like an entire country would be a bad move to do in my opinion
Wasting-time-is-my-passion directly mentioned that the Weimar Republic and Nazi Germany were distinct countries but they did state that they support a historical era infobox rather then a country infobox, so I would say in response that Italy does deserve a country infobox for itself. I mean both Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy:
  1. Had a supreme far-right dictator whom people heavily idolised (and still do!)
  2. Had a centralised unitary dictatorship
  3. Changed their country from a liberal democracy to a one-party state
  4. Opposition was heavily suppressed through intimidation
  5. ... and a bunch of other overlapping similarities with each other
So I don't see on why Fascist Italy shouldn't have a country infobox while Nazi Germany gets to get one, despite being VERY similar? GuesanLoyalist (talk) 08:36, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
Because "deserving" a particular template selection isn't a real thing, and what other articles do doesn't matter. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:10, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
Re-explanation: Fascist Italy became another country under Mussolini as it was transformed into a one-party authoritarian dictatorship, drifting off the original liberal democratic regime so it should therefore have it's own country infobox. GuesanLoyalist (talk) 00:26, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
But that precisely where the comparison with Nazi Germany breaks down. There was the kingdom of Italy before, under and after Mussolini. It did not become and unbecome another country—a Fascist dictatorship—by royal decrees. The constitutional continuity in Italy is much more fundamental than in the case of Germany. We have an article on the kingdom of Italy but no article on the German state under the Weimar constitution because the 1933 changes are considered quasi-constitutional in nature. Srnec (talk) 14:09, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Compromise plan?

@Nikkimaria, Srnec, SnowFire, Chipmunkdavis, TheodoresTomfooleries, WhatamIdoing, Historyhiker, Cinderella157, EarthDude, and Wasting-time-is-my-passion: If we are unable to get a common agreement among each other then I would propose this

Have Fascist Italy utilise both country and era infoboxes equally, with the era infobox being below the country infobox.

That way, both sides are able to have their ideas equally utilised and be baked into as consensus. For me personally, I would say that it's a support for the compromise as nobody is losing what they want to see in the article.

GuesanLoyalist (talk) 08:42, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

An article doesn't need two infoboxes. Cinderella157 (talk) 08:48, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
I don't see on why not? It's not like the article will get clunked up if we felt like adding it. GuesanLoyalist (talk) 11:42, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
Doubling would definitely clunk up the article. I agree that this isn't a viable solution. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:10, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
Compared to not having an entire infobox in general? I disagree with that one, and plus, Template:Infobox historical era is a small template even if all parameters are used, so having it along with Template:Infobox country or Template:Infobox former country wouldn't clutter the article up. GuesanLoyalist (talk) 00:18, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
I prefer Template:Infobox historical era precisely because it is a small template even if all parameters are used. I specifically want a small infobox on this article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:54, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
Any plan or consensus reached here is likely to be challenged as it is a secondary question to what this article is about, which seems to be a matter of disagreement. CMD (talk) 07:41, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
Compromise is still good though, seems like the best option for this discussion to reach a consensus is to stop being hardliners and be ready to make some concessions. (in that case, have the other side get their infobox of desire)
Otherwise, we would all be wasting time with each other arguing over something so trivial. GuesanLoyalist (talk) 08:51, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Related Articles

Wikiwand AI