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.

"Impact" on Hitler

The article says: "On the afternoon of 29 April, Adolf Hitler learned of Mussolini’s execution, although it is unknown how much of the detail was communicated to him. On the same day, Hitler recorded in his Last Will and Testament that he intended to choose death rather than "fall into the hands of enemies" and the masses, and becoming "a spectacle arranged by Jews".

While technically correct, this implies that the testament contains Hitler's reaction to news of Mussolini's death. However, as the testament was dictated and typed in the early morning hours of April 29, before he learned of Mussolini's death, this is not the case.2A02:AA1:1007:DC14:5CC3:A149:CD05:44E1 (talk) 20:44, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, you’re right. Timing confirmed by p.950, Kershaw (2008). I’ve amended the article accordingly. DeCausa (talk) 22:05, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

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)