Talk:Kingdom of Italy/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Migration

There should be a section of Migration from Italy with statistics.

Requested move

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it to be moved. --Stemonitis 08:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.


Kingdom of Italy (Savoy) → Kingdom of Italy — The Kingdom of Italy page was formerly a disambiguation page, which is now located at Kingdom of Italy (disambiguation). The Kingdom of Italy existed 1861 to 1946 and other entities sometimes referred to by the same or similar name already have separately named articles. —Domino theory 09:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC) copied from WP:RM Bobblehead 02:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Add  # '''Support'''  or  # '''Oppose'''  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~. Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.

Survey - in support of the move

  1. Support This was the correct name of the Kingdom. --Checco 13:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
    What was the correct name of the Napoleonic kingdom? That’s a genuine question, to which I don’t know the answer;) —Ian Spackman 16:45, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Survey - in opposition to the move

  1. Oppose. Seems a bit disingenuous for the person that moved the disambiguation page without discussion to suggest that the other articles related to a Kingdom of Italy being located at names in order to disambiguate themselves from each other is justification to move this article to Kingdom of Italy. Not only do I oppose the move of this article to Kingdom of Italy. I support the move of Kingdom of Italy (disambiguation) back to Kingdom of Italy. --Bobblehead 02:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  2. Oppose and agree with Bobblehead; title changes affecting multiple articles should be discussed first. Olessi 18:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  3. Mildly oppose: see comments below under Discussion. —Ian Spackman 16:38, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments:

I don’t like the current name at all: it requires readers to know too much. (Many readers will have heard of the place Savoy, without knowing about the family.) The Italian equivalent it:Regno d'Italia (1861-1946) is better. But I think that it doesn’t make sense to do anything to this page—or to the disambiguation page—in isolation. A naming scheme needs to be worked out at the same time as deciding what to do with the King of Italy article. They should really cover the same field. Where there were kings there were kingdoms. (Mostly. Maybe always: I’m no expert!) And I don’t quite see how you can write a King of Italy article which starts with unification. What about that iron crown thingie? And if that’s right, I don’t think I can support the proposed move. —Ian Spackman 16:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Could someone help me out on writing this page?

I'm new on Wikipedia and I started this page. It is currently rated at "Stub" level, could others help improve the quality of the document. I started it because there was no direct article on the Kingdom of Italy of the House of Savoy which was a major European power in the early to mid twentieth century. I have been trying as best as I can with available information on Wikipedia to improve the quality of this article, and I thank those who have contributed to this page. But I think this document should be improved by others who believe it is not done well.

Also it doesn't really matter whether the title of the whole document is renamed "Kingdom of Italy" from what it is now "Kingdom of Italy (Savoy)". The Savoy Kingdom is the most well known and most legitimate to claim the title Kingdom of Italy as an article because the other major Italian kingdoms were the Lombard Kingdom, which only comprised northern Italy and the Napoleon-run state which also only was composed of the north. (See Kingdom of Italy (Napoleonic)). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by R-41 (talk • contribs) 16:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC).

I don’t agree with everything you wrote—specifically, I am not quite happy about Garibaldi being described as left-wing in the context of the risorgimento: if indeed it was you that wrote that caption. (By that I don’t mean to denigrate him. A hero and an attractive figure. But I think I understand why various Mazzinians insisted on leaving the thousand in Tuscany rather than having to fight under a royal flag.) But since noone has said it so far, I will: Great work! Thanks! —Ian Spackman 17:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Well again, I'm new to Wikipedia and I actually am pretty fresh at this topic so I'm bound to make mistakes. I'm writing this article because of my interest in how fascism came to power in Italy and the fact that one of my grandfathers and his relatives came from Susa, Italy to Canada around 1910. Upon looking up Kingdom of Italy I found no clear site that mentioned the Savoy Kingdom, which was extremely dissappointing, so I started one. So far I have been reading a recent book published in 1997 about the Kingdom of Italy, its description of Garibaldi as compared to other Italian politicians like Cavour and King Emmanuel. I appreciate you correcting me on that and I will remove the term "left-wing revolutionary" to describe Garibaldi and change it to simply "revolutionary. Judging by the knowledge you have and that you are the first people to comment to my address for help, I assume that you might be the one who is adding more details also, that is good, but I am finding it increasing difficult to read some long titles that are not relevant to the article, such as having the long, official form of the name of the British Empire, which has been changed in the article to say the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland". I don't think that this is necessary, if you are trying to put a link to the British Empire that existed before the breakaway of Ireland, you can still have the link, but put the in short-form "British Empire" into the link so that the sentences don't become too long with information not directly related to the topic. If it's not you who is doing that I just hope the person who did extend some of the titles reads the information above. Otherwise I am glad that you are helping me get my facts straight and I would really like it if you and other people could add more information especially on the long "Liberal Period" section which would working alone take me a long time to get done. I really hope this article get get up from being a stub to being recognized as being a good article, anyone who can help do this deserves my deepest gratidude. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.95.131.26 (talk) 04:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC).

I forgot to sign in when putting the above comment in. I've been having trouble with finding out how to link my user name to the discussion board.

Relax! You are doing well. Cheers —Ian Spackman 14:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Could someone add some information about Prime Minister Giovanni Giolotti. I've put a lot of information down already but I'm busy trying to shorten what's already in the there and make it concise, if someone could fill in the gap about Giolotti that would be a real help.

Orlando Signing Treaty

The History section claims that Vittorio Orlando signed the Treaty of Versailles, but his own article says otherwise-- that he prided himself on refusing to sign the treaty. What's going on with this?

WPFC Assessment

I have no problem in re-assessing this article from Stub to B class, and nominating the article for possible GA-class. I have also made a few changes to the infobox in keeping with WPFC guidelines. The only recommendation that I can make is that you look for some extra references. - 52 Pickup 20:55, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Reference comment

Looking very promising so far. But the reference section needs to be splitting into "Notes" and "References/Sources". Notes (what we usually call "inline citations" or, more confusingly, just "references") are supposed to be written in shorthand (Smith (1958) p. 45). Writing out the full name, title, year of publishing, publisher and where it was printed for every single note is just overdoing it and makes them that much harder to read. Leave the full info for the list of sources instead.

Peter Isotalo 14:03, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

That was closer to standards, but still retaining a few oddities. One only uses "pp." for notes covering more than one page, otherwise it's just "p.". Parenthesis shouldn't be used for notes unless to differentiate two works by the same author with the year of publishing; forexample "Doe (1967)" and "Doe (1978)". And you don't need to include any information about sources (author's name, ISBN, etc) in the notes if you already have them in the separate list of sources. Not even once.
Peter Isotalo 08:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

GA

I have reviewed this article in accordance with the Good Article (GA) criteria. There are seven main criteria that the article must comply with to pass:

  1. Well-written: Pass
  2. Factually accurate: Pass
  3. Broad: Pass
  4. Neutrally written: Pass
  5. Stable: Pass
  6. Well-referenced: Pass
  7. Images: Pass

I have concluded that, in my opinion, the article has passed all categories and I therefore award it GA status. --Eurocopter tigre 16:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Good Article Review

Although the editor above means well, I don't think this article qualifies and have asked for a review accordingly. One Night In Hackney303 14:31, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

By a vote of 7-1, the GA status of this article has been delisted for failure to meet GA criteria. The full review discussion can be seen here. Once the issues have been addressed and the article is brought up to standards, it can be renominated. Thank you for your work so far, and good luck with future edits.

Regards, LaraLoveT/C 05:55, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Copyedit

I have copedited the article to improve readability, and to fix various grammatical, spelling and formatting errors. This is an excellent article, but needed a thorough review to improve readability. There were many long, confusing run-on sentences, while some other sentences lacked principal verbs. The language was at times more complicated than necessary, and at other times, less formal than is appropriate for an encyclopaedia. In some places points were made so emphatically as to appear to violate WP:NPOV. I have also fixed the headings to conform to WP:MSH. I hope that the various authors of this article accept these changes in the spirit in which they are intended: to help improve Wikipedia, and not as a criticism of anyone's previous efforts. Ground Zero | t 19:34, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Pho 203x275 propaganda5.gif

Image:Pho 203x275 propaganda5.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


Norge N1

This was not an Italian aircraft, this was an private zeppliner built in Italy for [[Roald Amundsen], the Italian Pilot and an American explorer. This should be made perfectly clear in the articel. --62.89.115.59 (talk) 18:08, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Referendum Italy.png

Image:Referendum Italy.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.


— Save_Us_229 18:37, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Southern-europe-1940.JPG

Image:Southern-europe-1940.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:ItaloFlight.jpg

The image Image:ItaloFlight.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --05:14, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Map

In the map there are some mistakes: some islands (Cres, Lošinj) were part of the Kingdom. And where is the Republic of San Marino?--Pascar (talk) 17:16, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Split

I think this article should be split between Kingdom of Italy (1861-1922), Fascist Italy, and Provisional Government of the Kingdom of Italy because the first is a constitutional monarchy, the second other is a de facto fascist dictatorship, and the third was a chaotic quasi-puppet state backed by the Allies. Plumber (talk) 17:13, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with giving Fascist Italy its own article, but for a different reason. Fascist Italy has too much information on it not to be a separate article. There is an enormous amount of this information in the article, enough to form a decent-sized article. Plus, that segment on Italian history is just too different from the rest of the Kingdom of Italy's history. We also have to remember that the only two things readers of English Wikipedia think of when they hear "Italy" are food and fascism. Also, precedent. The governments of West Germany and Germany of today are technically the same government, which is known as the Federal Republic of Germany. We have two articles on two governments with the same name, so it wouldn't be without precedent to do it here. The reasons for doing it would be about the same too. Commissarusa (talk) 22:27, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I concur. The 1861-1922 and Fascist periods of the Kingdom of Italy are widely and commonly regarded as seperate historiographical eras. It is for the same reason that we also don't just lump the seperate articles on the German Empire, Weimar Germany and Nazi Germany together just because the official state name of Germany in those times was German Reich for instance. Unless somebody thinks that this warrants further debate, I'm going to split this section off soon enough.--Morgan Hauser (talk) 19:07, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

We should certainly have a separate article on Fascist Italy. I do think we should also have an article which provides an overview of the history of the kingdom as a whole. In particular, it's problematic to say there was any particular break in continuity in 1922. All that happened in 1922 is that the king appointed Mussolini prime minister; it took some years before Mussolini was able to establish a dictatorship. Note also that we have an article called German Reich about the state as a whole, even though the German Reich had considerably less constitutional continuity than the Kingdom of Italy did. So I'd say we ought to have an article Kingdom of Italy (1861-1946) which gives a brief overview of the history of the kingdom, with a focus on issues of constitutional history and historical geography. Then we should have separate articles which deal in more detail with the history of Italy in this era; we could have History of Italy (1861-1922) and Fascist Italy, perhaps, with another article on the the whole transitional period from 1943-1948. john k (talk) 21:05, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Obsession

This article seems to be written by a man obsessed by Italian nationalists. Nationalists are put everywhere in the text: even Garibaldi became a nationalist, even if everyone knows he was a leftish man! All the history of the first 60 years of the kingdom, seems to be a Biblic prophecy of the rise of fascism in the Twenties.
In reality, the first 60 years of the K are everywhere know as the Liberal Era, with a very very large liberal majority excluding from power both Socialists on the left and Nationalists on the right (while Catholic organizations were banned from political roles by the non expedit of the Popes). --Cusio (talk) 15:15, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Garibaldi was not a nationalist? That's a new one. Nationalism was "leftish" until it was co-opted by the right at the end of the nineteenth century. john k (talk) 21:06, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Dictatorship??

[from User talk:Rjensen] Hello. I have amended the edit again but this time chose "leader". That should suffice. The word "dictator" is not acceptable on this site and neither are the words régime or evil among others. They are ubiquitous but a user is free to sweep the editorial broom and change/remove these terms. "Dictator" is 100% POV - unless you can find an example of a leader who has titled himself dictator, been referred to as such by his loyalists, and has declared his state a dictatorship. With that, the only sources to use the term are those unfavourable to the pronominal person and therefore unreliable (not well-placed to comment). Furthermore, the word is not mentioned on Mussolini's article: there is only a mild adjective reference, "Mussolini obtained from the legislature dictatorial powers for one year...", and it is unequivocal that should an editor grace the pages of known totalitarian figures with the word "dictator" then it would be removed immediately. The other problem with words like "dictator" is that they constitute original research. It is good enough to have a link on a person's name without the need to produce details of what the individual was on irrelevant pages, but where there is need you can refer to an authortiatian system. By claiming one man is a dictator when he did not use this term for himself also implies that he had every reign of power within the system. This is impossible as there are invariably several people who exercise real power within any administration, even "dictators" need some people to hold the ladder for them: those people (army chiefs? corporate tycoons? clergy? his deputies?) clearly have some influence or their services would not be required. So in real terms, there is a number of dictators. It's a complex business and we cannot scour the site to amend titles or offices for "dictator" simply because you or I dislike them. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 19:12, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

What would you think if I changed the slot to "Mussolini's authoritarian leadership"? As you believe something to that effect needs mentioning, this does clarify that he was firmly rooted to power against the nation's will. I personally thought however that the term per se "Fascist Italy" surmises that this was a non-democratic entity. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 19:26, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

The way wikipedia works is that we follow the Reliable sources, and they tell us Mussolini a dictator. Personal POV is not allowed here Rjensen (talk) 20:30, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

That's much better, thanks. You won't believe this but I was in the process of editing the section myself after reading your reply - but you beat me to it. Mine actually said "autocratic leadership" but as I clicked Save, the edit conflict page informed me of an update since my attempted modification. I am happy enough with how it stands now. And I wasn't denying that he was a dictator, it's just sometimes there is more to a presentation than simply citing Wikipedia's approved publications. Some of these are newspapers refer to Saddam Hussein as Butcher of Baghdad but I'm not about to add that to the Iraq page on the 1968-2003 part!!! Regards. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 20:48, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

thanks. we're not talking about using newspapers we're using the best scholarship--such as Payne and Bosworth. See Mussolini's Italy: Life Under the Fascist Dictatorship, 1915-1945 by R. J. B. Bosworth (2007) for probably the best coverage by a top scholar. Rjensen (talk) 21:18, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Council of Four Versailles.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Council of Four Versailles.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests January 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 05:42, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

WP:PRIMARYTOPIC

Has anyone ever researched the possibility that this might be the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for "Kingdom of Italy"? Imo this is where "Kingdom of Italy" should take the reader, while the other two kingdoms are the only ones that need disambiguation to differentiate from this one. -- Director (talk) 07:10, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. FactStraight (talk) 01:39, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Ok, its been ten days. I'll request a move if noone opposes this today either. -- Director (talk) 12:06, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Move?

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move. Cúchullain t/c 16:58, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Kingdom of Italy (1861–1946) → Kingdom of Italy –


Well, as far as I can tell this is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for "Kingdom of Italy" (as one really might exepect). In other words it is "the" Kingdom of Italy.

In addition to this, the current title "Kingdom of Italy (1861–1946)" is somewhat clumsy. A reader looking for this article, and it is by far the most sought, will most likely have to go through the Kingdom of Italy disambiguation page - unless he remembers exactly when the state was founded and abolished. What I think would make sense, given the facts, is that the Kingdom of Italy disambiguation article be moved to "Kingdom of Italy (disambiguation)" and that the {{About}} template be used here (e.g. "This article is about the 1861–1946 Kingdom, for other uses, see Kingdom of Italy (disambiguation)"). -- Director (talk) 09:29, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

  • Support Clear primary topic, the others are all rather obscure. PatGallacher (talk) 10:29, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support, but the other topics are not obscure. I suggest the hatnote ought to link directly to the medieval/Lombard and Napoleonic kingdoms at least (as it does now, awkwardly). The phrase "other uses" suggests there might be a pop song or a novel titled "The Kingdom of Italy". It would be best to make it clear that there were other kingdoms called Italy. Srnec (talk) 01:04, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
    • For my part, agreed. -- Director (talk) 07:00, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
      • There are some dangers of an over-cluttered hatnote, I'm not too keen on linking directly to other meanings, and more than links in the hatnote is definitley unwieldy. I'm not against saying something like "For other kingdoms known as the Kingdom of Italy see Kingdom of Italy (disambiguation)." PatGallacher (talk) 15:36, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Clearly the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Peacemaker67 (talk) 07:10, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. Googling "Kingdom of Italy" -wikipedia suggests that Kingdom of Italy (1861-1946) (77,000 page views in the last 90 days) and Kingdom of Italy (Napoleonic) (14,000) are the likely desired topics. In contrast, Kingdom of Italy (medieval) got only 3,200 views. Since two topics are responsible for the bulk of the relevant traffic, this is effectively a WP:TWODABS situation. The modern kingdom should be made primary with a hatnote to the Napoleonic kingdom. Then the overwhelming majority of readers would be able to get to where they want to go without going through the DAB page. This page is poorly written and gives the modern kingdom as fourth choice. Kauffner (talk) 03:38, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Support per Kauffner. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 23:45, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Support original nomination, including retention of the article currently at Kingdom of Italy. Question: what to do with that article? In its present state, it's not a disambiguation page as defined by MOS:DAB, and it is in fact tagged as a set index. Either we shave it down to a dab page, or we find a name for it that doesn't contain "(disambiguation)". Favonian (talk) 18:11, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Map

Correct me if I'm wrong but the map seems anachronistic. To be more precise it seems to show all territories that were ever held at any one time by the Kingdom of Italy. I didn't double check, but I don't think Italy had control of Tunis, Corsica and such extensive French territories in 1941. Further, I don't think Rommel had quite gotten to El Alamein (which is what the map shows) that year. The map might be accurate for a brief period in late 1942, but I doubt it. Case Anton came after Second Alamein, that I know for certain.

Also the countries on the map are way off. These aren't modern-day borders, and I'm pretty sure they aren't historical borders for any period. Why doesn't the map use pre-WWII borders, or the 1946 ones? This is just weird. I don't think there was ever a time when there was no Soviet Union and Yugoslavia remained entirely intact, and Yugoslavia is the only country in its pre-WWII borders (note that its missing Istria [1]). And Czechoslovakia is intact too.. Weird. -- Director (talk) 08:04, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you should ask the folks at Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Map workshop about it. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 23:48, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Life for Italians under German occupation was hard especially in Rome

How is possible state "Life for Italians under German occupation was hard especially in Rome" Life was hard for all Italians; in the south the war ended early, in the north ended in April 1945 as in the rest of the Europe. Just not to mention the devastating bombing raids on north Italian cities, the German occupation and so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.21.87.223 (talk) 08:44, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Fascist era summarized in the lede

Using the ideas of a leading scholar (Payne) makes it possible to summarized the Fascist era in 90 words in the lede: "The Fascist regime passed through several relatively distinct phases," says Payne (1996). The first phase 1923-25 was nominally a continuation of the parliamentary system, albeit with a "legally organized executive dictatorship." Then came the second phase, "the construction of the Fascist dictatorship proper from 1925 to 1929." The third phase, with less activism, was 1929-34. The fourth phase, 1935–40, was characterized by an aggressive foreign policy, warfare in Ethiopia, confrontations with the League of Nations sanctions, growing economic autarchy, and semi-Nazification. The war itself (1940–43) was the fifth phase, and the rump Salo regime the final stage (1943–45). This is an a excellent way to summarize the era in the lede, with the details given in the main text. It makes sense out of what happened and will be useful to students. The coverage is proportionate to the importance of the era in the historiography of Italy. Rjensen (talk) 04:24, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Split

I think we should split this article into Kingdom of Italy, Fascist Italy, and Italian Provisional Government in the same way that the German Empire, Weimar Republic, and Nazi Germany articles are not one article just because the official name of the state was German Reich (Deutsches Reich) throughout all three of those eras. --76.105.96.92 (talk) 02:11, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Map

The map in the infobox needs to be updated to include the Italian concession of Tientsin. Capt Jim (talk) 14:32, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

We really should split this article

We should split this into Kingdom of Italy and Fascist Italy, the former was a parliamentary constitutional monarchy and the latter was a Fascist single-party totalitarian dictatorship. It's like how we don't have the Weimar Republic and Nazi Germany articles in one articles just because there was a lot left over from the Weimar government in the Nazi era. --71.59.58.63 (talk) 16:03, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

You have a point. -- Director (talk) 16:21, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
yes but it was still the same king. Let's not overemphasize Mussolini's importance here--this article should be covering social, cultural & economic long-term trends. Rjensen (talk) 17:21, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
"It was still the same king" Paul von Hindenburg remained president for the first two years of the Nazi era, but do we say that Weimar ended and the Nazi era began in 1934 instead of 1933? --76.105.96.92 (talk) 01:19, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Can one overemphasize the social, cultural & economic effect of a totalitarian regime? -- Director (talk) 18:47, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
In the long run (50+ years) the Mussolini regime left little impact and did not change the direction or main social structures of Italy. Rjensen (talk) 19:12, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
What does that mean? How do you overestimate the effects of WWII alone and Mussolini's aggressive foreign policy? Who can speculate as to where Italy would have been during WWII had Mussolini not, for example, invaded Ethiopia? Again, I find it hard to believe that a totalitarian regime does not affect social structures. That either implies fascism isn't totalitarian, or that Italian society is inherently totalitarian and fascist? -- Director (talk) 19:34, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Mussolini's foreign policy re WWII was just like the previous regime in WWI. They both entered wars very foolishly--It's hard to see much difference between them. Was Italian fascism "totalitarian" well yes, briefly, but the article does not claim there were any long term effects. Historians do not see much permanent change. Italian society was highly individualistic, as many commentators have pointed out, such that it was not easy to change. Note that Mussolini never had the intense police state that characterized Hitler, Stalin etc and in those other countries really did affect most people. In Italy most people could ignore the Italian government before & after 1922. As for invading Ethiopia, well the previous government did exactly that too. Rjensen (talk) 20:07, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Which wars did pre-Fascist Italy enter foolishly? Seems to me they managed to win every one, in spite of military inferiority. Yes, pre-Fascist Italy did attack Ethiopia previously, but the point is that with the second war Mussolini brought himself in the anti-Allied camp. Its a shift in foreign policy. An aggressive stance which, at that particular time, constituted a different direction than Italy was previously heading. A dissatisfied glance from Britain, into whose area of influence they were biting, would likely have stopped a non-Fascist government from going forward with the second invasion...
But this is all highly speculative, ofc. Do we have sources that emphasize the continuity? -- Director (talk) 22:19, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Foolish wars???: try Ethiopia in 1895-96, WWI in 1915. They were both humiliating disasters for Italy, much like WW2. Continuity is a major theme re Italy. See for example Fogu, Claudio (2003). The Historic Imaginary: Politics of History in Fascist Italy. U of Toronto Press. p. 104. Bosworth in Italy and the Wider World: 1860-1960 p 29 says that the Mack Smith histories are the most widely used in Italian history, and that while he followed others in emphasizing continuity he "meshed the Italian past and present... by enunciating a thesis of continuity in which fascism was the child of Liberal Italy." Rjensen (talk) 01:40, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
re "with the second [Ethiopia] war Mussolini brought himself in the anti-Allied camp." .., the Liberal regime was also allied with Germany, so it's the same pattern of continuity (and proclivity to switch sides). Mussolinik was much like Crispi in the 1890s. Bosworth says Crispi: "pursued policies whose openly aggressive character would not be equaled until the days of the Fascist regime. Crispi increased military expenditure, talked cheerfully of a European conflagration, and alarmed his German or British friends with this suggestions of preventative attacks on his enemies. His policies were ruinous, both for Italy's trade with France, and, more humiliatingly, for colonial ambitions in East Africa. Crispi's lust for territory there was thwarted when on 1 March 1896, the armies of Ethiopian Emperor Menelik routed Italian forces at Adowa, ... In what has been defined as an unparalleled disaster for a modern army." That's what continuity in foreign policy sounds like Rjensen (talk) 06:54, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
You must view the change in the context of the Interbellum. Italy was opposed to Germany until second Ethiopia because of Austria, but then ofc Mussolini essentially broke with the WWI Allies due to his aggressive policies there. This is a direction, it can easily be argued, that Italy would not have taken had Mussolini not been at the helm. Its his intention of "reviving the Roman Empire", i.e. the fascist arrival to power in fact, that took Italy from essentially a backer of the status quo, to a member of the anti-status quo bloc. The Fascist arrival to power constitutes a victory of anti-Versailles sentiment in Italy.
But I'm not going to push this further. We'd need an RfC, and frankly I don't feel like a long complex debate... :) -- Director (talk) 04:40, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree with everything Rjensen had said. I just don't get why another article would change that. It's like Kingdom of Prussia and German Empire, both are just contemporaneous. This articles could even stay the same covering the same 1861–1946 period. Bertdrunk (talk) 05:46, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

History section and successors states

1st - the history section should be split, it's terrible to read on a mobile device

2nd - It's absurd to imply as successors states every single country Italy troops put their boots on.

3rd - The monarcs section is not necessary as there's the infobox already. Bertdrunk (talk) 05:50, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

a defunct country? Not according to the RS

No Reliable Source says there are two different countries, the Kingdom of Italy, and the Republic of Italy. All the histories, reference books, and textbooks combine the two And call it one nation, Italy. Italy did get rid of its King in 1946, but he was not a powerful figure, and there were no great changes otherwise. The main national governmental structures in 1946 did not change at all....The same Parliament, the same political parties, the same judicial system, the same executive agencies continued as before. For example there were no princes, dukes, and counts who ruled the principalities in 1946 and had to be removed, as happened in Germany in 1918. Because of the length of detail, it is convenient to use two articles, but that obviously misled some editors into thinking they were to two different countries. Rjensen (talk) 06:37, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Kingdom of Italy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:51, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kingdom of Italy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:23, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Administrative regions/divisions

The administrative divisions/regions of Kingdom of Italy were same to today's Italy's regions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regions_of_Italy or different (like German Empire)? If it was different from today, please add its information. --Propatriamori (talk) 23:56, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Kingdom of Italy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:34, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jan/10/rome-rubbish-crisis-italy-eu-sanctions

https://www.wm.com/enterprise/federal/index.jsp

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_disobedience

86.155.129.197 (talk) 17:00, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Possible error in section about World War I and civil disturbances of 1917

In the section citing Seton-Watson (footnotes 89 and 90), riots are mentioned as taking place in May 1917, in Milan, however several sources including Italian https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moti_di_Torino_(1917), and a number of http://www.atlanteditorino.it/monografie/rivolta1917.html,

and also this major article, published in La Stampa in 2017, one of Italy's major newspapers, commemorating the centenary of the events:

https://www.lastampa.it/2017/08/20/cultura/agosto-i-cinque-giorni-che-sconvolsero-torino-PklU6d913Yl92QOs8PWomJ/pagina.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guerre1859 (talk • contribs) 05:25, 2 February 2019 (UTC) 

indicate that serious civil unrest actually took place in Turin (Torino), and not in May, but in August 1917.

That Milan be a misattribution of the location of the civil unrest is all the more likely because Italian language sources on the history of Milan make no mention of them, while the sites covering the history of Turin do.

I don't know if the book cited (Seton-Watson) made the mistake, or somebody else.

Please somebody check this and let me know your thoughts.

Professor Patrick Marder — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guerre1859 (talk • contribs) 05:19, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Category

Why is this article in the Category:Fascist states and Category:Totalitarian states? the Kingdom of Italy was not in all of its history fascist, these categories are already in the article Fascist Italy. (The Sr Guy (talk) 17:14, 13 March 2020 (UTC))

Adding a category may also complies for partial matters.(KIENGIR (talk) 16:54, 14 March 2020 (UTC))
there is no need for those categories, this article talks about the history of the Kingdom of Italy as a whole, not only its fascist era. (The Sr Guy (talk) 01:17, 15 March 2020 (UTC))
@KIENGIR: @The Sr Guy: I had proposed this earlier but please reach a consensus before making further edits on this subject. FlalfTalk 03:47, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
The Sr Guy, I fully understand your point, but in WP categories may be added if even partially it is true for an article (= not covers a full timeline), it is a common practise and it does not imply Kingdom of Italy would be fascist during all of it's existence, etc.(KIENGIR (talk) 11:41, 17 March 2020 (UTC))

King Umberto II pic

Hi everybody, an IP user edited multiple times this article and the article "Flag of Italy", adding this pic (File:King Umberto II behind of the Flag of Kingdom of Italy.jpg) using a huge size and inserting it in a "wrong" section of the articles. I fear that the user is only a sympathizer of the Kingdom, that's why he/she's editing the articles adding that pic. Anyway, what do you think? I've already tried to ask for a protection for these pages, but it was denied. -- Nick.mon (talk) 10:35, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

If the image is useful to the reader, I would reduce the size to something reasonable and move it to the correction section. If it's not, then there's no reason to have it in the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:11, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
Maybe we should insert in it in the section about the last days of the kingdom, but we already have a pic of King Umberto and a map about the referendum. -- Nick.mon (talk) 11:06, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
So, if it's duplicative, there's no need for it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:03, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

National and state flags

Yesterday, I had changed the page by replacing the state flag with the crown with the national flag without, the change was then removed claiming that both flags were national, this is not true, if you read the article of law with the indications for the flag:

Regio decreto n. 2072 del 24 settembre 1923

Norme per l'uso della bandiera nazionale

La bandiera nazionale, è formata da un drappo di forma rettangolare interzato in palo, di verde, di bianco e di rosso, col bianco coronato dallo stemma Reale bordato d'azzurro. Il drappo deve essere alto due terzi della sua lunghezza, e i tre colori vanno distribuiti nell'ordine anzidetto e in parti eguali, in guisa che il verde sia aderente all'inferitura. La bandiera di Stato, da usarsi nelle residenze dei Sovrani e della Reale Famiglia, nelle sedi del Parlamento, delle rappresentanze diplomatiche e consolari all'estero e degli uffici governativi, ha lo stemma sormontato dalla corona Reale.

The national flag is made up of a rectangular drape interspersed with a pole, in green, white and red, with the white crowned by the Royal Coat of Arms bordered in blue. The drape must be two thirds of its length high, and the three colours must be distributed in the aforementioned order and in equal parts, so that the green adheres to the luff. The State flag, to be used in the residences of Sovereigns and the Royal Family, in the seats of Parliament, diplomatic and consular representations abroad and government offices, has the coat of arms surmounted by the Royal crown. Betelgeuse2003 (talk) 07:07, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Just asking, what was the deal that Vienna offered to the Italians for neutrality?

I remember it, but I want to cite it with actual proof, as on some parts I might be wrong Senor0001 (talk) 01:01, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Length

At over 18k words of readable prose, this article is too long to read comfortably. It would be beneficial to condense and/or migrate content to subarticles to make this one more readable. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:36, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

In my opinion the article is not too long. The topic is really very complex and multifaceted, and a detailed article is needed to have a complete treatment. --LukeWiller (talk) 17:21, 28 June 2023 (UTC).
I appreciate that that might be your opinion, but that doesn't outweigh WP:TOOBIG. Complex and multifaceted topics are meant to be – and in many cases are – covered by summary style articles with more detailed child articles expanding on subtopics. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:24, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kingdom_of_Italy/Archive_1&oldid=1177412853"